This is a story of one Democratic Colorado Caucus location held at Palmer High School in Colorado Springs, CO on the night of March 1, 2016 where six precincts held their caucuses. This location was for six downtown and its bordering neighborhoods south and east of then venerable Colorado College. An area is considered to be one of the most stable democratic voting regions in Colorado Springs historically ranging from 58-64%. It is considered a major portion of the local and active Democratic Party’s base. The area is home to a combination of middle class professionals, mostly Boomers approaching retirement, plus middle aged X Gener's and now experiencing an influx of Millennials primarily young professionals, recent college graduate living in homes that range from over 100 years old to before World War II in rental or starter homes. On its eastern edge is the US Olympic Training Center and original Memorial Hospital campus, to its south are neighborhoods that mostly working class where racial and ethnic minorities are now the majority living in small post World War II single family dwellings. To its west the area is bordered by Interstate 25 which bisects the older parts of this sprawling suburban like city of just about 450,000. I was the Democratic Party’s appointed Location Manager, being a long standing Precinct Committee-person, a former County and State Party official of minor standings. (I once described these honor’s as being someone who begins volunteering and then says ‘what the hell did I get myself into’!)
What happened in our precinct caucuses I believe represents a microcosm to what happened across El Paso County, (home of 90,000 registered Dems, the fifth largest base of Dem voters in a front range county in CO despite being deep in the belly of the now splintering Republican Party (more on that later) or in other words described as the evil dragon masquerading as a political party—hey I am an open unabashed party regular and I have to say these kind of absolute descriptions to be considered real). But more importantly, I think this caucus location exposed and represented what happened across the Centennial State, to the chagrin and fear of our Party's leadership what I believe could and probably will happen across the majority of the remaining 35 state contests in this year’s nomination where a Bernie comeback and surprising nomination could be historic!
I am now developing some exponential math models and quadratic calculations (I now teach HS Math), which at their early stage seems to suggest that by Tax Day, Bernie and Hillary will be neck and neck in the closing delegate count. As it stands Hillary only possesses 25% of the necessary delegates to secure the nomination and Bernie possesses 17%. If projections are correct following this weekend's caucuses the percentages look like they will move closer by 1%-2%. If this trend then continues in an exponential function Bernie could catch Hillary between 12-15 contests. Comparably speaking after Super Tuesday in 2008 Obama had a slight lead where he had secured about 45% of the delegates with Hillary just behind, that meant from March to May they fought for the remaining 55% needed to win. Right now Hillary and Bernie are campaigning or 75-80% of the necessary delegates to win.
BACKGROUND
Now some more local background so you can gain a deeper understanding. Most of you have not experienced or understand the caucus process or what it reveals it is far more complex and therefore revealing of voter sentiment than merely ballot box elections. Colorado became a caucus state back in 2004 as part of the now disparaged and despised fiscal government slashing of services brought on by the radical Doug Bruce movement known as TABOR. Caucuses are operated and financed by the political party’s without any aid or administration by government---think privatization. After two highly contentious national caucus contests on Super Tuesday, 2008 and now in 2016, there are many Colorado political voices screaming for a return to the primary system as expressed here in the Colorado Independent (Caucuses were chaos. Should Colorado have a primary instead?, note I am quoted in the article)
There seems to be a new call by public leaders advocating for more voter enfranchisement, but the real reason is that it is so hard and costly for the political parties to conduct these caucuses. Actually, my experience is caucuses result in far more long standing citizen participation in democracy and this political system as a whole that has caused problems in both major political parties. The CO Republican Party has felt the influx of the Tea Party movement and other Right-wing radicals who were able to nominate their own radical candidates making their slate of state wide candidates far less electable in general elections. Concurrently, in the Democratic Party, the caucus too has resulted in participation of nonprofessional liberal activists (like me) working into the party’s leadership as well, a direct threat to progressive professional political insiders. Simply stated neither party takes conducting caucuses seriously and when the voter rises up in unexpected numbers things like Tuesday this is a result: (Unexpected turnout throws Boulder caucus into chaos)
A shockingly high turnout caused hundreds of registered Democrats to leave a North Boulder caucus Tuesday night without casting their votes.
Disorganization and overcrowding left many voters, including those who did get to vote, calling for a return to the primary system.
By 7:30 p.m., a line of thousands still stretched around Centennial Middle School. When organizers told voters further back in line they would have to go home, they responded with complaints and angry shouts.
The volunteers soon came back with an update, telling voters instead that nobody would be turned away — but the caucus was starting without them.
Reactions weren’t much better.
Remember, as we have heard over and over again elections have consequences, and the reality is whichever constituency, and therefore, which regime gets elected, that regime gains political power, defined in the reality, as determining what social and economic resources, and therefore, its benefits, are distributed to whom the regime favors. My great-grandfather, grandfather and father were all local politicians in the Chicago area, ironically they were Republicans because of the majority local voting constituency was predominately Republican. My grandfather was considered a local county boss as was my great-grandfather, his mentor, was considered one of Joliet's early political bosses in the early 1900s to the mid-1920s. Ironically his oldest son and business partner was a Democrat in Joliet. Depending on the outcome of this nomination in the Democratic Party either the Clinton regime will dole out resources and benefits to their “whom’s” or if Sander’s is nominated, his regime will favor his “whom’s”. Look at Hillary’s PACs as to who are her “whom’s” and look at Bernie’s small contributors as to his “whom’s”. The point, my grandfather and father always maintained that in politics, it is the extreme exception when a politician is actually altruistic, even though publicly every candidate self describes themselves as holier than thou. where in my elder's minds, only FDR met that criteria—and why FDR was considered great—and why Republicans loathed him for the ages especially by Big Wall Street Bankers, (the actual ruling constituency of the Republican Party), where the Republicans last altruistic leader just happened to be FDR’s older 2nd cousin, TR—who was also despised by the Big Wall Street bankers. That is my historic backdrop to this year’s presidential election.
THE CAUCUS
More review, well over 98% of even Coloradoan's don't know or understand caucuses. A caucus is described by many, actually as a neighborhood political meeting, comprised of registered voters who are declared voters to one of the two major parties. In a time when the largest class of registered voters is now Unaffiliated, this poses a systemic problem to the larger electorate when the state election laws hold that the political system is closed party system. In a caucus all business that is conducted is therefore closed only to party members like a stock holders or church meeting and particularly in Colorado, a caucus participate must be registered 60 days prior to the caucus date and also be a resident of their particular precinct. These are all factors as to who participates.
The major business is electing delegates declared or pledged to a candidate where the delegate then represents the voting interest of their precinct up to the next level, in our case the County Convention. Overall precincts lead to County, from the County it leads to the State and also the Congressional District, and finally the State and CD leads to National Convention. Therefore, in a caucus state, all elected national delegates must start out at their neighborhood precinct—therefore regular or ordinary voters work their way through the process to the National. In 2008 and 2012 I personally knew all our county’s and CD national delegates and in 2008, I got within a few votes of going to the National.
MARCH 1, 2016
On Tuesday, March 1st, after finishing my work day at my high school I made my way to Palmer High School, located in the downtown area of Colorado Springs. I don’t work in that school or in its district but am familiar with it for many reason including the fact that it was my daughter’s graduating high school. My initial chore was to put up signs, set up the room(s) and begin organizing volunteers to administer the six individual caucuses. (When I say Party's don't take seriously the administration of conducting caucuses I was personally responsible for making all signage and setting up the rooms, the party only provided me the forms for each precinct, conducting seriously substandard training for its precinct committee-persons or those designated by them to hold a caucus and other resources like a disc of flawed data of registered voters.) But actually my first chore was to stop by and place signs up at Palmer’s main gym, located one block from the main school campus. This was precipitated when I found out during my call outs into my precinct where I invited and informed registered Democratic voters to the caucus and was told by five households that had been called by someone already purporting to be from the Democratic Party that the caucus was at the gym. (I was the only Democratic Party official who should be calling voters and my experience is tht there is always dirty crap like this in every contested election, and only those with particular local knowledge of Palmer HS and the fact when I looked at the database, those who were told the wrong location fit tightly to the Bernie demographic.)
The time was now already 4:45 PM as I finally got into the building and met the security and building maintenance. They had left only four banquet tables (I asked for seven) but we got chairs so I began setting up the registration tables. Fortunately my wife and daughter soon showed up and we able to get the room prepared just in time. At 5:10 the first caucus goers arrived. As one of the caucus trainers to the Bernie campaign I had told them to have volunteers to arrive early and be prepared to man the registration tables so we could sign in registered voters hopefully in appropriate lines. This was not a party function to organize and left up to location managers or precinct committee persons. My original estimate was that we were going have around 300 attendees (6 x 50), so we brought 400 name tags, we would short by over 50 name tags and had to start cutting them in half. Actually three precincts almost approached 50, the three others approached or topped 100.
I wanted name tags to designate all registered caucus goers by precinct so we could keep some kind of control. If the Party was serious in effectively managing caucuses and understanding that turnout could greatly challenge the actual important purpose of managing the meeting they would have credentials printed out like all conventions where they would be worn around the necks of all persons entering their caucus room—our party left that organization up to me and every other organization matter up to the location manager or precinct committee-person without guidance or training and then you were responsible for trying to hold to the integrity of the voting universe and paperwork----BULLSHIT!
I was now finally at my troubleshooting station by 5:15 PM, this was a table was set aside from the registration lines so voters who were not on the precinct lists could be accessed their voter file with the Secretary of State through Dem’s Vote Builder. Here is a picture taken by a fellow Location Manager at another Colorado Springs HS, Coronado of a volunteer at a troubleshooting table, see below.
My database was segregated at January 2, 2016 from final voter’s roles 60 days prior to the caucus. Most voters are unaware of this caucus law (60 days out) since in Colorado you can register up to the day of the election for general elections. Furthermore those who moved within the 60 days still would have to travel back to the original precinct that they were registered in even if they updated their file—plus remember they also had to be registered Democrats, and not Unaffiliated’s, Republicans, Green, Libertarians or Constitutionalists. Most of locations in El Paso County were using a copy of just registered Democratic voters placed on a disc drive in an Excel spreadsheet. It had a horrible search feature and it did not tell if the person was registered as voter but not Democrat, causing people to sign affidavits believing they were registered Democrats when in fact most probably were Unaffiliated or not at all but in minds felt they were always a Democrat. I probably told forty to fifty people they were ineligible to participate because of their party affiliation or not registered in the county or state. Many thought I was part of the government and not merely a party official.
At 7:00 PM I looked up and every precinct line still had at least 40 voters deep except one and they had but a few.
By caucus rule you had to be in the registration line and caucuses couldn't begin until registration was completed. I made an announcement to both rooms that no precinct caucuses would begin until all persons had completed registration who were in line. Some moaned others were happy, many just fatigued. The recently resigned Lt. Governor Joe Garcia, now a resident of Colorado Springs was at our caucus location, a voter where he wanted to address the body and was unhappy that it was in a large room so chaotic. I told him this is what the party contracted and we will have to make do.
Soon his Precinct #169’s Committee-person with its 47 caucus goers signed in just couldn’t wait even though they were as within a few feet the remaining five registration lines that were still snaking through his area. Dave Justice that precinct committee-person, an old acquaintance refused my pleas to hold off and began his caucus. Later a fellow teacher whom I work with and caucus goer, a Millennial described his attitude and manner caused the caucus to rebel, comprised mostly by Millennials, who some trained in the caucus voted in another presiding Caucus Chair and therefore voting him out. That many were unhappy that he started before all registration was completed potentially disenfranchising late comers where parking now was up to three or four blocks away on dark city streets. That precinct went 28 raw votes for Bernie, to 18 for Hillary with 1 uncommitted, electing 4 delegates for Sanders and 2 for Clinton. He was truly taken back afterward which I said the caucus once convened rules itself. (Unfortunately the 74-year old long time committeeman got an up close in your face full of education what the party leadership is also beginning to get, that the Millennials are not taking this election sitting down and willing and practical enough to start taking the reigns.)
By 7:25 PM the last line was now down to just a half dozen and all the troubleshooting was now done so I closed them all the lines placing my wife at the end of the lines. Walking into the great commons now filled with over 330 caucus goers housing 4 precincts I realized that different agendas and meeting process had to be done so I sought out the former county and state rules committee chair person, an attorney, Jane Ard Smith who was in Precinct 177. I said it would better that she read the rules to the entire body, she agreed. She had to do it without a microphone and get 330 Democratic adults quiet, no small feat. Half way through she gave the reading over to State Senator Michael Merrifield, who completed them in a more political flair.I then started the Pledge of Allegiance and all five precincts, one in the ante room were set to begin just after 7:30PM.
We then convened an ad hoc meeting comprised of Jane, Michael and myself and decided that only one person should guide all he caucuses as it would be far too noisy and chaotic to hold them any other way. That we should do it in a rolling manner one precinct after another. My daughter pictured here, even though at the age of 27 was an experienced and trained Caucus and Precinct co committee-person, was drafted to be the room's caucus guide as Jane, Michael and myself where not stable standing on a cafeteria table.
My daughter then led in the elections of all caucus chair persons and their caucus secretary’s for each caucus in successive order around the room. As the agenda flowed for each caucus then we then conducted their business getting into the straw poll portion. I went from precinct area from precinct area making certain the followed the process. Precinct 178 in the corner started and they split 92 attendees into 65 for Bernie, 21 for Hillary and five uncommitted (holy shit!). The quick math showed that uncommitted wouldn't meet the threshold to elect a delegate and that if things remained the same Hillary was on the cusp of either securing 1 or 2 delegates. Persuasion was going to be important in that corner.
Precinct 177 went next and they split again roughly, 77 to 33, again there were a few uncommitted, shocking many Hillary supporters. Precinct 177 was packed tightly as they sat across from my Precinct 179. Precinct 177 had 115 caucus attendees, the most in our school location, and at the straw poll Hillary was hanging on again by a 4.9 to 2.1 margin or .10 to keeping 2 out of 6 delegates.
We then rolled the process to Precinct 179 and the original straw poll had 35 for Hillary and 62 for Sanders with 5 undecided, they too were real close to losing another delegate as it was 3.94 to 2.05.
The final precinct was in the other corner led by precinct committee-person, Anne Bowen, a long time African American classy party member. She was in Precinct 182 where she was on a roll knowing what to do when her caucus concluded, the predominately African American precinct concluded that night, 15 raw votes for Sanders, 10, for Hillary and a 3 to 2 margin win for Sanders.
Back in Precinct 179 we began the discussion phase where it was decided by the body that four speakers from each group could speak for 1 minute. Hillary team went first in an alternating fashion.
As each got up on the cafeteria table I noticed something striking, only two attendees appeared to be under 35 years old and women outnumbered men 2 to 1. The age was most striking confirming what an article titled: Which Women Support Hillary (and Which Women Can’t Afford to); A story of two voting blocs in the Nation Magazine where this quote characterized what I saw in person:
“The most vocal support for Hillary Clinton comes from women in the commentariat, very much like myself, who have had to fight sexism to succeed in public-facing, white-collar professions and relate to Hillary’s struggle to do the same. Many of these women have also engaged in other struggles that are the opposite of Hillary’s—women like Sady Doyle, Amanda Marcotte, and my own colleague Katha Pollitt are foes of Wall Street and imperial misadventure, while Hillary has often been a friend to the wealthy, and a hawk. A quote from Lena Dunham, stumping for Hillary in Iowa, captures the sentiment well: “As a newly grown-up woman who has experienced my fair share of backlash, public shaming and of puritanical judgements, that [Hillary’s resistance to sexist attacks] really moves me.” And it’s not just true for someone thrust into fame as quickly as Dunham. Every well-known feminist is subjected to the same language on Twitter that is directed toward Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail: bitch, harpy, dumb, ugly, and so on. As Doyle writes, “Her story moves me…simply as an example of a woman who got every misogynist trick in the world thrown at her, and who didn’t let it slow her down. On that level, she’s actually become a bit of a personal role model.” To quote another Clinton, we feel her pain. [...] In other words, Hillary Clinton’s professional success represents one step closer to a meritocracy, where every little girl (and boy) knows that a woman can be president, and that this might trickle down to all of our workplaces, allowing each professional young woman to be taken a bit more seriously. To quote Kanye West’s timeless words, her presence itself is a gift—what she does is of secondary importance.
Looking at the picture above of the Hillary Team most of the women in the Hillary persuasion circle appeared to be of the professional class. Their ages appeared to range either from the mid 40s to approaching their senior years. Knowing many of the local Hillary Team vocal volunteers this demographic aligned tightly with the aforementioned quote. A similar demographic predominates our local party leadership as well, where partisan support was evident as we led up to administering the caucus. Their persuasion speeches bordered on pandering to Bernie;s side; saying that they all liked Bernie's ideas but Hillary is going to win and they were fearful of Trump where again Hillary is going to win anyway so get on board. Often they brought out negative characterizations like Bernie was an admitted socialist who would be rejected by the general election electorate or that he was not a true member of the Democratic Party, all labels but no one seemed to really go to the heart as to why they supported her campaign. (I think admitting gender bias from their constituency inherently challenges their moral standing and persuasion capability.) Talking with Hillary Team members afterward it became apparent when I pressed that indeed much of her support is deeply and emotionally tied to their personal experiences of gender bias through the years in professional and social arena’s, but it was not something to publicly speak about. (My wife says that I fit the Bernie Bro profile which for women that is an unspoken antagonist who represent the world they have felt disadvantaged, even though in the reality I not even close to being a misogynist, but since I am such a competitive campaigner now twice going against Hillary this is what they believe I am—I just think she is a political tool to Wall Street's Establishment and therefore a flawed Democratic candidate---PERIOD. Remember my elder's definition of altruism.)
When I looked over the Bernie crowd now to my left, I saw a much different and striking demographic, quite diverse, what represented the party at the 2008 National Convention in Denver and who elected Barack Obama and Democratic majority in the Congress.
Half seemed to be younger than 40, many were in their 20s, more casually dressed, but I personally knew many who are professional class. It was more mixed in racial and ethnicity. The woman in the front with her head turned away is Jennifer Trujillo-Sanchez, the 2008 Colorado National Delegate to the Electoral College, and a Latino corporate professional, she was one of the Bernie speakers. Others who spoke was the young stripped shirted man in the far right foreground, the woman in between Jennifer and the stripped shirted Millennial and then me. I was the last to speak and directly confronted the idea of Bernie being an admitted socialist, therefore his electability and even the idea of one-person one vote, tying it to all the money in politics. My speech time was cut short by the time keeper who was in the Hillary camp. My daughter told me later they cut it by 5 seconds—again personal slight that partisans often engage in---but no matter both camps were entrenched. (But I now realize what is inherently a small moral obstacle for Bernie, corporate professionals inherently are opposed to socialism because they subscribe to the current corporate meritocracy social system, regardless to its inherent moral falsehoods, and don't feel it because they are not so adversely affected by its inherent class system, so yes in their minds the socialist label is a threat.)
Overall the Bernie group was almost a perfect 50/50 male to female mix. Personally I knew many, from the teacher who lives across our street, to my neighbor down the alley and the two partnered women whose dog and ours share liked smells on our daily walks, all pictured. Bernie persuasion speeches took a more direct tact but did not mention negatives of Hillary but the positives of Bernie. When the final votes were taken Hillary picked up 4 uncommitted voters, two were conflicted Millennials, but they were very lukewarm in support where one finally said that he wanted to make certain Hillary got at least 2 delegates so down the line it could be sorted out. State Senator Michael Merrifield stood with Bernie, Precinct 179 final count was 62-39 and one uncommitted. Further from the aforementioned article:
”So, to support Hillary Clinton is to support a genuinely good example for white-collar women’s behavior when trying to beat sexism at work at the expense of policies that might help the majority of women. Or is that a false dichotomy? […] Some believe that the presence of Bernie Sanders in the race has offered an alternative—his policies redistribute more, and he is a self-professed feminist, but…he is a man. No inspiring grit-in-the-face-of-sexism to be had in this old white dude. He is, however, a socialist and, if you haven’t figured it out already, I think socialism is woman’s best hope because it accounts for the policies that will get them the stuff they need. His policies are better for more women because they’re more redistributive. […] “When we heard Bernie Sanders talking about everything we’ve been talking about it was a no brainer,” says Karen Higgins one of three co-presidents of the National Nurses Union and a nurse for the last 40 years. She’s spent the last 37 working in intensive care and at 62 still works full-time at Boston Medical Center. [...] The argument that a Clinton presidency would increase respect for women, while a Sanders presidency would do nothing to create greater gender equity is belied by the experience of nurses and the people they serve. Hillary might face sexism at work, and so might white-collar women, but so do the nurses—they do care work largely assigned to women that has enjoyed little support from the government in terms of funding, wages, and reasonable structures of care. The problems that afflict the majority of women can only be resolved in the realm of organizing, policy-making, and other large-scale efforts. The proper question for a presidential election is who will forward these big programs. It is absolutely possible to fight sexism at work, come home, and abuse the help. One could argue that Hillary has done this on a national scale. “I hate to say this to women,” says Higgins, “but that has to be the real priority, whether it’s a man or a woman—what it’ll take to get people back on their feet in this country and take care of them.”
When it was all said and done the six precincts voted overwhelmingly for Bernie, 293 to 132 and 4 uncommitted, or 68% out of 429 registered voters. The delegate's who were elected amounted to a 24-10 split, (80%). My lost precinct, which moved out into the hallway from the smaller ante room went 41 for Bernie and 7 for Clinton, one uncommitted, 5 to Zero on the delegate election for Bernie as Clinton didn’t meet the 15% threshold. That occurrence is as unusual as coin flips going six-to-Nothing in a competitive Democratic Caucus.
Colorado as many now know, went 58.9% for Sanders and projected 38 to 28 national delegates but that is all conjecture if you really know the delegate system. At the upcoming County Convention, State/CD Conventions and Assembly often the losing side shows up in less numbers than their elected delegates where winning side then picks up their seats from attending alternates. Of course this dynamic means Bernie has to remain viable by winning more than fifty percent of the upcoming contests. Ultimately, the math is simple: For Bernie to catch Hillary in elected delegates he will have to win three out of five delegates here on out where still there are 58% of delegates still on the table. Politics is often like a basketball game, momentum swings which can be hard to stop when BIG MO is on one side and often there are runs that can go 4/2, 5/2 or even 6/2.
I personally just don’t see Hillary sustaining her current winning margin any longer. Her base of support is too narrow, comprised mostly of woman and men over 45 with a professional pedigrees and then African Americans who are over thirty-five years old. The rest of the contests now come into a better political demographic for Sanders where Hillary had her shot to make an early kill on Sanders, but her big cannon of southern states didn't materialize in a victory as CO, MN and Vermont pushed back Hillary's team with stunning percentages. Looking back at 2008 state contest often showed wide swings in percentages and so today the caucuses in KS, NE, KY and LA might make for a new national MSM narrative The thing for Bernie is he has to gain momentum winning those caucus states leading up to March 15th and then win some big contests creating real uncertainty in the voter's minds and by April 15th basically catch Hillary in elected delegates. Then things can become real interesting when and if momentum builds from there.
What is more fascinating is for the second Presidential cycle our party leadership is being led and overrun but its electorate. Just look at this photo comparison sent to me by the local reporter covering the election in Denver and Colorado Springs. The photo below on the right were all big shots, including Governor Hickenlooper and others endorsing Hillary where only a few staffers were in audience on the steps of the Capitol building.
While in the photo on the right were three minor State Legislators who were endorsing Bernie, look at the assemblage of supporters waving signs and placards. The photo was not lost on the press as the article he wrote demonstrates. In Colorado top to bottom the party leadership at the state and in the counties was almost universally Hillary. In politics this is called a paper lion. Quote from the article
DENVER — When it comes to how the Bernie-Hillary showdown looks on the ground in Colorado, two recent photographs might say a lot.
Above are photos from two news conferences held this week by the Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton campaigns as they rolled out their legislative and community leader endorsements in Denver.
In a way, the two events crystalize how the campaigns are playing out on the ground in Colorado, a bellwether state that holds its Super Tuesday caucuses on March 1.
On Monday, the Sanders camp rolled out endorsements of three Democratic members of the Colorado House. Behind them was a diverse crowd, a throng of sign-wavers chanting in English and Spanish about their candidate. Milling around were scattered supporters watching from the sidelines. Afterwards, a Sanders spokeswoman said the lawmakers would stick around for questions from reporters.
On Thursday, the Clinton camp held an event that couldn’t have been more different. At Civic Center Park near the Capitol, the campaign rolled out star-power endorsements from Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper (a superdelegate), ex-Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Denver Mayor Michael Hancock, former Mayor Wellington Webb, Senate Minority Leader Lucia Guzman, and others. Only a handful of sign-carriers stood behind them, and some passersby and dog-walkers stopped to check it out.
So all this actually doesn't matter, as the nomination will be determined not by the party leadership or characterizations in the media, but by the voters themselves. This is what occurred in 2008 when the party leadership was overwhelmed and rejected by their voting base. Human nature as it is, refuses to admit when those who are in leadership are wrong, are in error and when then attempt to circumvent the will of the masses, doing all sorts of rationalizations to becoming immoral and using insider mechanisms to reduce the margins to their gain. Fortunately the Democratic Caucus system possesses a Credentials Committee Process System where all matters are resolved with observers from all sides then a report on the each person seated or removed is provided for review. These Credentials Committee are mostly comprised by neutral members of the party who are well versed in the rules and independent of the party leadership to ensure the voter's will and not the leader's will is respected. The old adage that it is not who votes but which votes are counted carries itself in all political venues including Democratic Caucus delegations.
In the end, if indeed Hillary does secure the nomination through voted delegates it will have a serious electability problem with Millennials and other demographics as they will try to fold them in in the general election coalition. Indeed, the fear of Trump or Cruz of a radical presidency will be a powerful coercive force, as it is now demonstrated in the Republican Party. But Millennials refused to show up in 2010 and 2014, not because they were lazy, they didn't show up because they rejected the Democratic slate and policies being put forward by the Democratic leadership. If they were lazy they wouldn't be overwhelming the system now they are now the predominate Democratic demographic.
If Sanders prevails the same problem will exist in gathering professional woman and men over the age of 50 who have seen or felt discriminated against over a lifetime during these culture wars. My final thought is that the nomination will come down to if Sanders can begin breaking the African American Hillary constituency over the age of 35, breaking into the Black vote to something over 40% he will break the back of the Hillary base. He will have to make a historical reach out and possibly almost exclusively campaign in those venues to begin cutting into that world breaking the old labels and perspectives.
My final thought is that I now see how the Wall Street Banking Establishment has lined up. They know that Trump, Cruz, Rubio or any other Republican manifestation is doomed and why there is so much STOP TRUMP from within the Republican establishment. Who they really fear however is Sanders, because if he gains the nomination, he will be president and then the nation will undoubtedly return to New Deal policies towards challenging the Wall Street Banking Establishment. It is the consequence that the famous memo and here at the Kos, Michael Moore exposed about the plutocracy some seven years ago.
RISKS -- WHAT COULD GO WRONG?
Our whole plutonomy thesis is based on the idea that the rich will keep getting richer. This thesis is not without its risks. For example, a policy error leading to asset deflation, would likely damage plutonomy. Furthermore, the rising wealth gap between the rich and poor will probably at some point lead to a political backlash. Whilst the rich are getting a greater share of the wealth, and the poor a lesser share, political enfrachisement remains as was -- one person, one vote (in the plutonomies). At some point it is likely that labor will fight back against the rising profit share of the rich and there will be a political backlash against the rising wealth of the rich. This could be felt through higher taxation on the rich (or indirectly though highercorporate taxes/regulation) or through trying to protect indigenous[home-grown] laborers, in a push-back on globalization -- either anti-mmigration, or protectionism. We don’t see this happening yet, though there are signs of rising political tensions. However we are keeping a close eye on developments.
So when Tax Day comes and suddenly MSM notices that Bernie is pulling close to a tie in delegate count watch how huge money, influence and narratives go against Bernie. It will be historic and an exposure within the party and outside world. If Bernie starts to gain a small advantage in May the Establishment will get desperate and seek to veto the voters will with Super Delegates and all the mechanisms available. The math has a path and not a Hail Mary one at all and that math was exposed in my precinct location.