Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #351  
Old 03-04-2020, 07:08 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,684
Quote:
....The gaffes do exist, but they're less of a problem than this overall verbal incoherence.
We will surround him with sane and reasonable advisors. He will lead the discussions and negotiations and an intelligent and humane policy will be hammered out by compromise.

Then Jolted Joe will say something dumb, everybody will have a good sneer, then! the sane and sensible policy will move forward.

Most likely be OK with that. It'll do till the really good shit gets here.

Last edited by elucidator; 03-04-2020 at 07:13 PM. Reason: D'oh! A dear, a female dear...
  #352  
Old 03-04-2020, 07:38 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
Anyone who says they will sit out if at the end of the voting process their candidate has failed to become the nominee needs to be asked one question - do you want Trump to pick the replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
According to this, party crossover in the 2016 primary (Sanders voters who supported Trump) wasn't much different than party crossover in other primaries.

Not only that, but the voters who supported Sanders in the primary and then Trump in the general were to a large degree already republicans, they just liked Sanders.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/54581...p-survey-finds
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #353  
Old 03-04-2020, 07:41 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
According to this, party crossover in the 2016 primary (Sanders voters who supported Trump) wasn't much different than party crossover in other primaries.

Not only that, but the voters who supported Sanders in the primary and then Trump in the general were to a large degree already republicans, they just liked Sanders.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/54581...p-survey-finds
What about the Sanders 2016 primary voters who either stayed home, voted 3rd party, or did a silly write in?
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #354  
Old 03-04-2020, 08:30 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Hillary lost in 2016 because of 30 years' worth of demonization by Republicans and significant Russian interference in our elections -- which, incidentally, included active support for Sanders. I notice this point is never raised by Sanders supporters.
Hillary lost because her campaign made a critical error to skip Wisconsin and Michigan, and also because she and other Democrats focused on cities and abandoned the suburbs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
By the way, do you wonder why Sanders has such massive monetary support from his young, broke base and lots of endless Twitter pundits, but after all the money and noise, they didn't turn out to vote for him when it mattered? I find it curious. Just sayin'.
Last night was proof that Bernie is a lot more likely to lose a general election than Biden. Of course Biden has weaknesses and he could lose anyway, but Biden absolutely out-performed Bernie with the exception of California, which any Democrat is almost certain to win anyway.
  #355  
Old 03-04-2020, 09:39 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,989
Practical horse race stuff - Bloomberg apparently won't make viability in either Texas or California.

The Biden popular vote and pledged delegate lead from Super Tuesday is one thing. It is also telling that he won in the states that are more likely to be competitive in November.

California and Utah? Not hanging in the balance. Colorado okay, point to Sanders.

But Virginia, Minnesota, and North Carolina? Maine? These are hang in the balance states. Texas is a reach but more in play than California or Utah? Alabama maybe not in play but small chance of keeping a Senate seat is in the wind.

And, as Biden is found of putting it, "here's the thing" - with Bloomberg's willingness to spend big to bring down Trump spreading the map money-wise is doable. There is enough to spend on Texas without ignoring Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Enough to campaign in Alabama to support Doug Jones and have a positive impact. And yeah Bullock running in Montana now is HUGE. The Senate is not such a long shot after all.
  #356  
Old 03-04-2020, 10:09 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 697
Does nobody else think Sanders' 60 Minutes appearance may have had an effect on voters?
  #357  
Old 03-04-2020, 10:15 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
And what Sanders knows that Obama didn't is that you compromise isn't something that you can do singlehandedly. After compromising so far that he turned Obamacare into Gingrichcare, how many Republican votes did Obama pick up? Zero. So why did he turn it into Gingrichcare, again?
Your assertion that Obama compromised something he could do "singlehandedly" is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened and what was actually possible.

The bill initially passed the Senate on December 24, 2009, with all 59 Democratic senators and 2 independents. But oh, that was just the beginning.

Let's remember it was Obama’s first term, he was trying to save the world from a global economic collapse and he didn't realize the extremely limited period of time during which he'd hold his super majority in the Senate.

Remember that?

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009, with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken’s election in Minnesota and Franken didn’t get seated for seven months.

Then in April, Pennsylvania’s Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave President Obama 59 votes. Still a vote shy of the super majority.

Then one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and out of commission.

So while the President’s number on paper was 59 Senators, he was really working with just 58 Senators.

In July, Senator Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama his 60 member super majority. But only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy’s seat in September.

Hopes of a super majority ended on February 4, 2010, when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held. Obama never again held the super majority needed to pass the ACA through the Senate except the very first time in December 2009.

Let's also recall that not all Democratic/independent senators were onboard with the ACA initially. Compromises had to be made with them as well before there was any hope of its passage.

The final bill was passed at last by reconciliation in the House on March 21, 2010, after adopting all the modifications made by the Senate specifically so they could avoid having to send it back to the Senate for another vote, because Obama knew it would never again pass.

What's the first thing Republicans did in response? Started screaming about the "imperial presidency."

So did Obama really give up too much? Easy to judge with 20/20 hindsight, when memories of what actually happened become fuzzy. Under the rules that were in force at the time, Obama couldn't do anything but compromise.

In that moment no one knew the extent to which Republicans were so corrupt or would pursue a policy of absolute obstructionism against Obama. Stupidly, we thought we still had a normal-functioning government. Instead, McConnell hid his sharpened teeth behind his knobbly hand and had himself a giggle.

So why are we fighting each other instead of them?
  #358  
Old 03-04-2020, 10:18 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,489
I cosign everything Aspenglow has posted about the despicable way Bernie poisons the well. He isn't attracting new people to the party, he's poisoning a whole generation against it! Talk about a fifth column.

Several people are passing along this talking point that Biden got his wife confused with his sister. That's not what happened. Have you actually seen the video? They switched sides (in terms of who was standing on which side) and he reached his hand out to take the hand to his right, without looking (he remained facing the crowd), and saying it was his sister (but it was his wife). Then a couple seconds later, he looked over, startled, and remarked "oh, you switched sides on me!"


Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I've been following politics since the 1960s and this has been the most remarkable 3 days that I can ever remember. Everybody was ready to embalm Biden and put him in the ground. Now I dare say he is the prohibitive leader and odds on favorite for the nomination. All without spending much money and winning three states with a total of one field office between them. A lot of it was Clyburn's endorsement, a lot of it was the well timed exits of Klobuchar and Buttigieg. But I think most of it was the Democratic electorate suddenly coming to the realization that they were in serious danger of nominating a self-described socialist. We may agree with a lot of what Sanders wants to do, but I'll be damned if I want to saddle every downballot Democrat with a socialist at the head of the ticket.

I don't care if Biden makes verbal missteps. I do care that he comes across as an authentic caring person. I like some of what Sanders proposes, but he comes across as an angry old coot who can't work with anyone. Last night he seemed bitter and frustrated. Time for him to pack it in. He will not be president this time, he will never be president.

One bit of schadenfreude: Cenk Uygur won't make the cut in his run for a House seat. If you ever watch The Young Turks, they're become unwatchable shills for Sanders. Nice to see them cry in their beers today.

I very enthusiastically cosign all of this, except I'd have to substitute "since the 1980s" for "since the 1960s".


Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoR View Post
What security detail?

VPs receive Secret Service protection for 6 months after leaving office. It can be extended if there is a specific reason. There wasn't and it wasn't. Major presidential candidates do receive protection 120 days before the general election unless the turn it down. We are not there yet.

Protection can be extended to presidential candidates before that. Biden would seem to fit the usual factors considered. Campaigns have to request protection though. Some request it. Some don't, for a reason. Having a heavily armed, highly trained, professional paranoid with a wire growing out of their ear hovering nearby can make retail level politics difficult.

Biden does not currently have a government provided security detail.

I chose the words "security detail" rather than "Secret Service" for a reason. I know all the information you laid out in that post. But people who hold big public events need a security detail--the vast majority of which are not in the employ of any government agency. You find an agency that comes recommended, and you pay them to have big burly guys keep anyone who needs to be kept in check, in check.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
Well put, ThelmaLou.

Omar Little, true enough. One recalls the African American housekeeper’s line in the 1969 film Being There, when she sees her former colleague Chance the Gardener on TV, now as a close advisor to the President of the US.

Agreed about ThelmaLou's post.

I liked that movie and remember the housekeeper kind of rolling her eyes at Chance. But what was the exact line you refer to?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycat View Post
Well the Dems have done it again. Doing what they do best. There was a flock of intriguing candidates, many promising young minds to choose from. They should have gone into a smoke-filled room and picked the best one. Instead they bow to the influence of money and end up with two old white men.

I agree that they started with a lot of really promising candidates and let them all slide by the wayside (Booker, Beto, Harris, Bullock, or Inslee would have been great choices that might have emerged from that smoke-filled room). But although Bernie has raised or spent tons of money, Biden is on top despite having done fairly little of either. And Bloomberg and Steyer are out despite a massive spend, and Warren--who has also raised and spent tons of cash--is also on the verge of being out of the race. So...huh?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
Biden/Sanders 2020... otherwise a lot of Bernie's supporters will stay at home on November 3rd.

That's just not going to happen. 0.000% chance.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I mean, look at the "Bernie Bros". Putin pays a bunch of trolls to say really obnoxious things, and to say that they support Sanders. The result of this is a lot of people look at those trolls, and say "Well, I would like Sanders, but his supporters are all so obnoxious, so I don't want to support him". And this was an entirely predictable reaction. Putin's no idiot; he knew that the result of his trolls would be people deciding against Sanders.

Yes, there are a few genuine Sanders supporters who are obnoxious, too. That's inevitable. Every politician will have a few obnoxious folks among their supporters. But it's only because of Putin's trolls that the obnoxious ones have come to be especially associated with Sanders.

I dunno. I am sure there are a decent number of such trolls out there. But at the same time, I know quite a few Bernie fans personally, well enough that I know they aren't Russians unless they pulled off some kind of "Americans" level infiltration years ago. About half of them are sweet, kind people who could never be called "obnoxious". But the other half are, when we start talking about politics, really insufferable. And I'm not just saying this because I am against nominating Bernie. I have also been staunchly against nominating Warren, and I know even more people who love her (literally dozens). Not a single one of those Warren fans is obnoxious in the way fully half the Bernie fans are.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I loved Rachel Maddow's praising of Jill Biden's "wax on wax off" Karate Kid technique for handling one of them.

I didn't see that, but I loved that fierce photo. One thing I wonder: if you're planning to go rush the stage and be featured on national TV/"print" media, wouldn't you dress better for the occasion? She looked like she just rolled out of bed and threw on whatever.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #359  
Old 03-04-2020, 10:24 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
I am positive that he would not, for one good reason.
Ok, I'll bite. Please fight my ignorance. What's the one good reason?
  #360  
Old 03-04-2020, 10:49 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I've repeatedly heard about backroom chatter from current members of Congress in both the House and the Senate who strongly indicated they did not wish to run their campaigns with Sanders at the top of the ticket. They feel the lift is simply too heavy.

That's not a conspiracy. It's just the considered opinions of a bunch of party insiders who know what they're going to be up against.

Right, it's funny (not haha) how Sandersnistas love to rail against mainstream Democrats, and they have no problem with endorsements from AOC et al...but if mainstream Democrats don't meekly line up and place their heads on the chopping block, it's a "conspiracy" and somehow deeply unfair. They were supposed to stay divided and unfocused, so Bernie had a clear path to the nomination, dammit!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
And what Sanders knows that Obama didn't is that you compromise isn't something that you can do singlehandedly. After compromising so far that he turned Obamacare into Gingrichcare, how many Republican votes did Obama pick up? Zero. So why did he turn it into Gingrichcare, again?

I guess you've forgotten: he needed a crucial 60th vote from Ben Nelson, a conservative Democrat from the deep red state of Nebraska.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
Warren sucked at talking. Every time she spoke, she sounded pleading, bleating, beseeching, with a very humorless manner. I'm sorry to sound like I'm kicking her while she's down, since her campaign is effectively over. I think she's an intelligent person with good intentions and have nothing whatsoever against her personally, but she was NOT a strong presidential candidate. She didn't have the right demeanor. I knew this from the very beginning.

Biden also sucks at talking. I see the phrase "gaffe machine" all the time and I don't use that phrase because it implies that specific gaffes are his problem. They aren't. His general lack of speaking skill is the problem. He speaks in sentence fragments, either too hurriedly or too hesitantly, he frequently slurs his words, and he often comes across as thin-skinned and defensive. The gaffes do exist, but they're less of a problem than this overall verbal incoherence.

You are right on both counts. But the big difference is that Joe's "talking problem" is affable incoherence, while Warren's is "screechy-preachy" as someone here memorably put it a few months ago. If you can't communicate effectively, be likeable. (And this is not about gender: Bernie's bellowing is hard for a lot of people--including me--to take, and Kamala Harris is a pleasure to listen to.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
Does nobody else think Sanders' 60 Minutes appearance may have had an effect on voters?

I don't know why you said "nobody"--I said so on this or another thread within the past day or two. He could have probably sailed to the nomination if he had pretended to be more moderate for a week or two. Then he could have eased back into being more radical and it would have been too late. But he just didn't have the discipline or somehow didn't realize what a crucial inflection point it was for his campaign.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 03-04-2020 at 10:50 PM.
  #361  
Old 03-04-2020, 10:54 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
... a lot of Bernie's supporters will stay at home on November 3rd.
Like they did yesterday!

I seriously don't argue that a fair number of Sanders' supporters will stay home on election day; I see no evidence that Sanders being at the top of the ticket would change that. They are non-voters and they proved they are share the trait of consistency with Sanders.

OTOH there are a good many voters who would not vote D if Sanders IS on the ticket and who did prove that they will come out and vote Biden ...
  #362  
Old 03-04-2020, 11:25 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
...I don't know why you said "nobody"--I said so on this or another thread within the past day or two. He could have probably sailed to the nomination if he had pretended to be more moderate for a week or two. Then he could have eased back into being more radical and it would have been too late. But he just didn't have the discipline or somehow didn't realize what a crucial inflection point it was for his campaign.
I meant in this thread. This thread with the SOCIALIST SOCIALIST post being condemned as nonsense.

I think yesterday showed many Democrats are not comfortable with Sanders defending Castro.
  #363  
Old 03-05-2020, 12:19 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: At home, hunkered.
Posts: 31,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap
Omar Little, true enough. One recalls the African American housekeeper’s line in the 1969 film Being There, when she sees her former colleague Chance the Gardener on TV, now as a close advisor to the President of the US.
I liked that movie and remember the housekeeper kind of rolling her eyes at Chance. But what was the exact line you refer to?
I think JKellyMap is thinking of this one, toward the end of the movie:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Being There
Louise: It's for sure a white man's world in America. Look here: I raised that boy since he was the size of a piss-ant. And I'll say right now, he never learned to read and write. No, sir. Had no brains at all. Was stuffed with rice pudding between th' ears. Shortchanged by the Lord, and dumb as a jackass. Look at him now! Yes, sir, all you've gotta be is white in America, to get whatever you want. Gobbledy-gook!
__________________
My great-grandparents came through emigrating to a new country.
My grandparents came through the Great War and the Great Depression.
My parents came through the Great Depression and World War II.
We will come through this pandemic. Hang on tight to the ones you love.
  #364  
Old 03-05-2020, 01:56 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,489
Ah, right. Thanks! I guess I had forgotten that he was raised in the house since childhood, although I knew he had lived a sheltered life there for many years. That's a curious situation for one of the domestic help that isn't really explained AFAICR.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #365  
Old 03-05-2020, 06:44 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,460
Thanks, Northern Piper — that’s the one.
  #366  
Old 03-05-2020, 08:05 AM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Ok, I'll bite. Please fight my ignorance. What's the one good reason?
Because the President has precisely two things to do with the Constitutional amendment process: 1)jack and 2)shit.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.

Last edited by Steve MB; 03-05-2020 at 08:06 AM.
  #367  
Old 03-05-2020, 09:22 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
Because the President has precisely two things to do with the Constitutional amendment process: 1)jack and 2)shit.
That Lincoln movie was all about how this isn’t entirely true. Point taken, though — especially as there are no Lincolns among the candidates, of either party.
  #368  
Old 03-05-2020, 09:29 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Practical horse race stuff - Bloomberg apparently won't make viability in either Texas or California.
You probably know this, but let me clarify that that only applies to the statewide delegates.

Overall, about 36% of the Super Tuesday delegates are allocated at the state level, and candidates have to meet the 15% statewide threshold to earn a share of those. (I don't know if the ~36% is the same for every state or whether it varies.) The other ~64% are allocated at the Congressional district level, and a candidate will earn a share of those if s/he clears the 15% threshold in a given district, regardless of their percentage of the statewide vote.
  #369  
Old 03-05-2020, 10:24 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,989
Yes he will get some delegates in districts that he hit 15% in. As I remember the map his support was pretty concentrated. Looking it up 272 are district level.
  #370  
Old 03-05-2020, 10:33 AM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 14,041
After Super Tuesday and the dropouts is it wrong to look at Bernie & Biden delegates and should we instead look at the Progressive vs Moderate delegate count?
  #371  
Old 03-05-2020, 10:49 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 1,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Is it too much to ask that the two horses left in this race -- and their supporters -- call a truce on attacking each other?
Responding to myself: the answer, apparently, is "yes." It is too much to ask that the candidates stop bashing each other. This morning I received an email from the Sanders camp full of scathing criticism of Biden.

Knock it the fuck off already.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #372  
Old 03-05-2020, 11:24 AM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
Because the President has precisely two things to do with the Constitutional amendment process: 1)jack and 2)shit.
Of course. Makes all the sense.

I guess watching Trump sign all his Executive Menus made an impression on me and I ASSumed that even a Constitutional amendment would require a presidential signature. I'm glad it doesn't.

I'll rephrase: Biden will do whatever he can to help get a Constitutional amendment passed through the Congress that reverses or limits the miseries of Citizens United.

And I'm slightly pleased you actually read that lengthy post so far down. I've always admired your signature. Thank you for fighting my ignorance.
  #373  
Old 03-05-2020, 11:31 AM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 32,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I'll rephrase: Biden will do whatever he can to help get a Constitutional amendment passed through the Congress that reverses or limits the miseries of Citizens United.
Which is also zero since that requires a two-thirds majority in each house.
  #374  
Old 03-05-2020, 11:47 AM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Which is also zero since that requires a two-thirds majority in each house.
<sigh...> That I knew. But we've got to start somewhere. Getting big money out of politics must become a priority.
  #375  
Old 03-05-2020, 11:58 AM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
You probably know this, but let me clarify that that only applies to the statewide delegates.

Overall, about 36% of the Super Tuesday delegates are allocated at the state level, and candidates have to meet the 15% statewide threshold to earn a share of those. (I don't know if the ~36% is the same for every state or whether it varies.) The other ~64% are allocated at the Congressional district level, and a candidate will earn a share of those if s/he clears the 15% threshold in a given district, regardless of their percentage of the statewide vote.
The "quick version" of statewide versus district delegates:

In primaries held before April 1, the fraction of delegates that are statewide is 8/23.
In primaries in April, it is 17/50, except in the "regional primary" (RI, DE, NY, PA, MD, DE), where it is 37/112.
In primaries in May and June, it is 1/3.

"Huh?"
There are three types of pledged delegates - base, bonus, and PLEO (Party Leaders & Elected Officials - note these are not the superdelegtates)
There are 3200 base delegates, divided among the states; of these, 1/4 are stetewide, and 3/4 are district.
States can earn bonus delegates as follows:
10% x the base if the primary is in April
20% x the base if the primary is in May or June
15% x the base for being in a "regional primary" (a group of three or more connected states holding primaries on the same day, if it is on/after March 24)
These are also 1/4 statewide and 3/4 disttict
Finally, each state gets an extra 15% of its base (not including any bonus delegates) as PLEOs; all of the PLEOs are statewide.

Let's say a state has 100 base delegates and a March primary. This means it gets 15 PLEOs.
It has 1/4 x 100 + 15 = 40 statewide delegates; 40/115 = 8/23.
If it has a May primary, it has 1/4 x (100 + 20) + 15 = 45 statewide delegates out of (100 + 20) + 15 = 135 total delegates; 45/135 = 1/3.
  #376  
Old 03-05-2020, 12:10 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,988
Sorry for the double post - missed the edit window

Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Overall, about 36% of the Super Tuesday delegates are allocated at the state level, and candidates have to meet the 15% statewide threshold to earn a share of those. (I don't know if the ~36% is the same for every state or whether it varies.) The other ~64% are allocated at the Congressional district level
Nitpick: they don't have to be Congressional districts. Texas, for example, uses state senate districts. (And yes, if a state has only one member of the House of Representatives, it can choose to have all of its delegates chosen statewide; Vermont does this.)
  #377  
Old 03-05-2020, 01:40 PM
MeanJoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 2,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I dunno. I am sure there are a decent number of such trolls out there. But at the same time, I know quite a few Bernie fans personally, well enough that I know they aren't Russians unless they pulled off some kind of "Americans" level infiltration years ago. About half of them are sweet, kind people who could never be called "obnoxious". But the other half are, when we start talking about politics, really insufferable. And I'm not just saying this because I am against nominating Bernie. I have also been staunchly against nominating Warren, and I know even more people who love her (literally dozens). Not a single one of those Warren fans is obnoxious in the way fully half the Bernie fans are.
This is exactly my experience. The many Bernie supporters I know in real life are clearly NOT Russian agents/trolls but they are absolutely the embodiment of the Bernie Bro reputation; men and women. They are insufferable. They shout down, insult, and condescend to every friend who raises even the lightest support for another Dem candidate or raise any criticism of St. Bernie. This recent trend of messaging that the negative impression of Sanders and his supporters are simply caused Russian trolls seems to be a very convenient excuse to try and avoid any culpability.
__________________
Father to sassy girls. Husband to a mad wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.
  #378  
Old 03-05-2020, 01:46 PM
orcenio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NCR
Posts: 2,465
In all honesty, the flow of hate has been in the exact opposite direction on this board. There are an uncountable number of posts hating on Bernie and his supporters but I have yet to see a Bernie bro appear.

Last edited by orcenio; 03-05-2020 at 01:48 PM.
  #379  
Old 03-05-2020, 02:14 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcenio View Post
In all honesty, the flow of hate has been in the exact opposite direction on this board. There are an uncountable number of posts hating on Bernie and his supporters but I have yet to see a Bernie bro appear.
We non-Bernie-Bros are impervious to “hatred,” so it wouldn’t matter if a Bro expresses hatred (I concede your point that no posts come to mind).

What dismays us deeply is when a Bro says they won’t vote for the Dem nominee in November unless it’s Bernie (or maybe Liz). That’s when we’ve lashed out in anger. Not hate, anger.
  #380  
Old 03-05-2020, 02:29 PM
MeanJoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 2,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I dunno. I am sure there are a decent number of such trolls out there. But at the same time, I know quite a few Bernie fans personally, well enough that I know they aren't Russians unless they pulled off some kind of "Americans" level infiltration years ago. About half of them are sweet, kind people who could never be called "obnoxious". But the other half are, when we start talking about politics, really insufferable. And I'm not just saying this because I am against nominating Bernie. I have also been staunchly against nominating Warren, and I know even more people who love her (literally dozens). Not a single one of those Warren fans is obnoxious in the way fully half the Bernie fans are.
This is exactly my experience. The many Bernie supporters I know in real life are clearly NOT Russian agents/trolls but they are absolutely the embodiment of the Bernie Bro reputation; men and women. They are insufferable. They shout down, insult, and condescend to every friend who raises even the lightest support for another Dem candidate or raise any criticism of St. Bernie. This recent trend of messaging that the negative impression of Sanders and his supporters are simply caused Russian trolls seems to be a very convenient excuse to try and avoid any culpability.
__________________
Father to sassy girls. Husband to a mad wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.
  #381  
Old 03-05-2020, 02:42 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcenio View Post
In all honesty, the flow of hate has been in the exact opposite direction on this board. There are an uncountable number of posts hating on Bernie and his supporters but I have yet to see a Bernie bro appear.
I don't hate Bernie. In fact, I have immense admiration for his agenda and agree with much of it. I just don't think it's realistic. And I became deeply dismayed when he began in 2016 to employ Trumpian tactics to advance his nomination at the lasting expense of the Democratic party. I think I'm entitled to call him on that.

As for Bernie Bros on this forum, you might want to review this thread. There's some real unnecessary rudeness there.
  #382  
Old 03-05-2020, 02:45 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,139
Same here. I just decided to start ignoring my oldest friend's text for the rest of the day. Non stop conspiracies and challenges to in depth policy discussions. We're both fucking Canadians asshole! His policies won't change our non-existent vote!!!
  #383  
Old 03-05-2020, 03:49 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 1,057
The email I received this morning (From RootsAction, whatever that is) includes a chart that compares Sanders, Biden and Trump and makes Biden seem identical to Trump. I get that they're trying to save Sanders' chance to win the nomination, but they're also sending a pretty clear message that if Biden gets the nomination you may as well not vote.

It's time to stop that shit.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #384  
Old 03-05-2020, 04:14 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
The email I received this morning (From RootsAction, whatever that is) includes a chart that compares Sanders, Biden and Trump and makes Biden seem identical to Trump. I get that they're trying to save Sanders' chance to win the nomination, but they're also sending a pretty clear message that if Biden gets the nomination you may as well not vote.

It's time to stop that shit.
Or, it's sending the message that Biden and Trump aren't identical, at least in one "important" respect; if Trump wins, the door is open for a Progressive to get the Democratic nomination in 2024.
  #385  
Old 03-05-2020, 04:31 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 1,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
Or, it's sending the message that Biden and Trump aren't identical, at least in one "important" respect; if Trump wins, the door is open for a Progressive to get the Democratic nomination in 2024.
So, sit out this election and hope Trump wins, all so their ideal type of candidate has a better shot at being nominated in four years? That reasoning is despicable.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #386  
Old 03-05-2020, 04:32 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,684
No matter who wins, real "progress" is likely to be impractical. We have to clean up what he broke before we can rebuild. How long will that take? We might pass and implement a butt-load of "green" policy, but they'll look the next day and tell us it didn't work yet, so we gotta give up.
  #387  
Old 03-05-2020, 04:38 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 1,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
Or, it's sending the message that Biden and Trump aren't identical, at least in one "important" respect; if Trump wins, the door is open for a Progressive to get the Democratic nomination in 2024.
duplicate post
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.

Last edited by Akaj; 03-05-2020 at 04:38 PM.
  #388  
Old 03-05-2020, 05:04 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
So, sit out this election and hope Trump wins, all so their ideal type of candidate has a better shot at being nominated in four years? That reasoning is despicable.

Bigtime!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I've always admired your signature.

+1
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #389  
Old 03-05-2020, 06:04 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
Or, it's sending the message that Biden and Trump aren't identical, at least in one "important" respect; if Trump wins, the door is open for a Progressive to get the Democratic nomination in 2024.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
So, sit out this election and hope Trump wins, all so their ideal type of candidate has a better shot at being nominated in four years? That reasoning is despicable.
This idea will become a major message from the Bernie side if Biden gets the nomination. It will be touted as 'what the smart people are doing.'

And of course it is based on a highly precarious assumption: that it will be business as usual in the USA in 2024, with Trump meekly leaving office despite the fact that he will be facing criminal investigation and likely indictment (in New York state if nowhere else).

To make this assumption requires a level of willful blindness to reality matched only by the early 1930s Germans who assumed they could "control" Hitler.



(And I don't invoke Hitler lightly or carelessly.)
  #390  
Old 03-05-2020, 06:15 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
Or, it's sending the message that Biden and Trump aren't identical, at least in one "important" respect; if Trump wins, the door is open for a Progressive to get the Democratic nomination in 2024.
Yeah, that makes sense. The electorate would be saying that that Biden wasn't far left enough, so they chose Trump instead?

That logic abides as well as LET DAIRY DIE!
  #391  
Old 03-05-2020, 06:52 PM
krondys's Avatar
krondys is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gillette, Wyoming
Posts: 1,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
Yeah, that makes sense. The electorate would be saying that that Biden wasn't far left enough, so they chose Trump instead?

That logic abides as well as LET DAIRY DIE!
Or, you know... Didn't vote at all. Because as much as you or anybody else might not understand it, many folks would rather sit out than vote for somebody they don't think will carry forward with anything remotely resembling what they would like to see.
  #392  
Old 03-05-2020, 07:12 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 28,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by krondys View Post
Or, you know... Didn't vote at all. Because as much as you or anybody else might not understand it, many folks would rather sit out than vote for somebody they don't think will carry forward with anything remotely resembling what they would like to see.
No, wanting a democratic socialist and settling for a Democrat is "remotely resembling what they'd like to see." Not doing anything and getting four more years of Trump is settling for everything they're opposed to.
  #393  
Old 03-05-2020, 09:05 PM
krondys's Avatar
krondys is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gillette, Wyoming
Posts: 1,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
No, wanting a democratic socialist and settling for a Democrat is "remotely resembling what they'd like to see." Not doing anything and getting four more years of Trump is settling for everything they're opposed to.
Sure, rationally. But in the face of perceived futility, many (if not most) people don't necessarily behave rationally.

Hell, when it comes to politics, I myself don't behave rationally. Because I vote, period, in a state where my vote literally doesn't count, because I'm a social and economic liberal in frickin' Wyoming.
  #394  
Old 03-06-2020, 12:58 AM
Guest-starring: Id!'s Avatar
Guest-starring: Id! is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,862
Um, what the fuck is Gabbard doing?
  #395  
Old 03-06-2020, 02:18 AM
Johanna's Avatar
Johanna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 13,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I didn't see that, but I loved that fierce photo. One thing I wonder: if you're planning to go rush the stage and be featured on national TV/"print" media, wouldn't you dress better for the occasion? She looked like she just rolled out of bed and threw on whatever.
I believe you're mistaken about that. She wore a lovely white A-line dress, a pretty scarf, and a smart green blazer. She looked better than fine.
  #396  
Old 03-06-2020, 02:24 AM
Johanna's Avatar
Johanna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 13,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest-starring: Id! View Post
Um, what the fuck is Gabbard doing?
Representing Vladimir Putin in this election. It's telling that the only Americans who like her are right-wing republicans.
  #397  
Old 03-06-2020, 02:54 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna View Post
I believe you're mistaken about that. She wore a lovely white A-line dress, a pretty scarf, and a smart green blazer. She looked better than fine.

For those who didn't see the photo, this is (presumably) snark, referencing what Jill Biden was wearing instead of the sweatpants worn by the protester.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #398  
Old 03-06-2020, 03:48 AM
Johanna's Avatar
Johanna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 13,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
For those who didn't see the photo, this is (presumably) snark, referencing what Jill Biden was wearing instead of the sweatpants worn by the protester.
I missed your phrase "rush the stage" and thought the subject was Jill. The protester managed to look like a dog's breakfast.
  #399  
Old 03-06-2020, 05:12 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,489
Ahhh...ok, lol. Agreed.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #400  
Old 03-06-2020, 10:22 PM
Guest-starring: Id!'s Avatar
Guest-starring: Id! is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,862
Not sure wherelse to post this since it doesn't really pertain to OP - guess I have this Gabbard thing in my craw, and after seeing the DNC saying don't bother with Phoenix on March 15, I get some (hopefully paranoid and competely unfounded) spidey feelings that Gabbard will take this rebuke as a major effrontery - AN OUTRAGE! - to justify trying to......aaaa I don't want to go any further down any wierd road, there...
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017