What really happened at the Nevada Democratic convention
Jon Ralston

“…the facts reveal that the Sanders folks disregarded rules, then when shown the truth, attacked organizers and party officials as tools of a conspiracy to defraud the senator of what was never rightfully his in the first place.”

This piece did not address:

— That the pre-convention temporary rule changes by the Executive Board effectively gave the Chair and the Committee unilateral decision-making power (which is against the Party’s own rules to do, without a quorum), which Bilbray and the Sanders camp was trying to rectify (to go back to the normal, democratic rules of order, aka Robert’s Rules). This is the petition that was signed before the convention: https://www.change.org/p/nevada-state-democratic-party-tell-nvdems-to-not-steal-our-democracy-at-the-state-convention

— The temporary rules forbade any change/amendment to the Party Platform

— That a petition to revote on those rules was ignored, as were many many motions (though most motions were raised improperly, some were not and still ignored).

— Voice votes, when they are close, must be counted by separation (raising of hands and counting), according to the NORMAL rules, because actually counting people’s vote matters, NORMALLY.

— The count of Sanders v Clinton was not ratified by vote, which is also required by the NORMAL rules.

But you can see Bilbray’s version at the convention here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kss5f9EbHc or Nina Turner’s version of events here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxvGqaok7nE

But the most important thing comes at the end, late at night, when a vote to ratify the Platform failed. The section that included language to continue the use of Superdelegates was overwhelmingly voted “nay” on, but left a gaping hole in the Platform without any chance for discussion or amendment afterwards (maybe because the temp rules forbade it?)

So what I got from your piece is a lot of excuses for the Democratic Party to be run top-down, authoritarian-style, and that there’s no room for dissent or grassroots movement in the Democratic Party, and that if people don’t like it, then the Democrats don’t want their participation.

Is it any wonder then, that 43% of the population considers themselves Independent, when the GOP is filled with Tea-Party racist lunatics and the Democrats are corporate-owned neoliberal authoritarians?

I’m pretty disappointed with the tone of your article, as well — it takes the same condescending, judgemental tone that we’ve come to expect from Hillary surrogates that has been turning so many people off and eliciting boos.

In other words, if the aim of your article was to paint Sanders and his supporters as hooligans and thugs and the Establishment as some sort of heroic crusade against “secret Republicans” invading their camp, then you’ve failed and alienated more people than you’ve won over.

Like what you read? Give Teddie Goldenberg a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.