View Poll Results: Should a Democratic candidate with a non-majority plurality of support be guaranteed the nomination?
Yes. "First past the post" should prevail, just like in most congressional and gubernatorial elections (outside of Maine and Louisiana). 2 2.94%
Only if the plurality is fairly close to a majority (say, above 40 or 45 percent) and/or the candidate has a large lead over the second place contender. 15 22.06%
No. Let the process play out according to the DNC rules all candidates agreed to when entering the race. 51 75.00%
Voters: 68. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-23-2020, 01:28 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
"When Clinton eventually edged ahead" doesn't seem an accurate way to describe anything that happened.
Fair--I suppose I was including "eventually" under "races" as an error. Yes, Sanders was AFAICT only ahead after NH, and that's when the superdelegates rule reared its head. Later events should have made them seem irrelevant, but didn't. (FWIW, I'm definitely in the he-wasn't-robbed camp, and lost some friends over that at the time).

I'm still far from convinced his position has changed much. He can think, as I do, that superdelegates shouldn't have a place in a democratic election, and also that if they're there, he may as well play that part of the game, too.
  #52  
Old 02-23-2020, 01:36 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,663
A truly democratic process wouldn't have closed primaries either. What democratic defense is there for people only getting to vote in one party's elections? Are you down for that?
  #53  
Old 02-23-2020, 02:21 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,562
The democratic defense of closed primaries is that those who belong to a party should be selecting who is their nominee, and then the general public chooses between those that the parties put up. I don't think that the democratic process would be served by having staunch and loyal Republicans be a major part of choosing the Democratic nominee for their guy to run against, or visa versa.

But caucuses??

The mantra from the moment a network reported that he was, counting the superdelegates, not in the delegate count lead after New Hampshire, was that he and the popular will was being robbed by the superdelegates. Until it became that he was being robbed by the superdelegtes not wanting to over-rule the pledged delegate and popular vote victories.

FWIW Clinton had a sizable superdelegte lead against Obama at first too. Funny that I do not remember Sanders, who was a superdelegate at that point, objecting to them. The superdelegates tend to jump on board the train of the candidate who seems most likely to win, and off the one who looks likely to lose. They jumped on Obama's because he got ahead. They never got on his because he fell behind (in both pledged delegates and even more the popular vote) immediately and never had any real chance to catch up.

For anyone with the interest here is someone explaining the rationale (agree or disagree) for the amount of finger on the scale superdelegates can potentially have. So far they have never gone against the pledged delegate or popular votes.
Quote:
When the Hunt Commission met, one of the concerns was that particularly in times when you might have real big issues at the convention, you needed the leadership of the party to be part of it.

That was the case for the governors and Congress. For the DNC members, it was slightly different. In all states, the DNC—the party chair and vice chair, especially—run the process. These people work like a dog, but it was not a good idea for them declare a presidential preference [in advance]. So they were included, and that’s how we got the modern superdelegates. ...

... In the end, it was the Kennedy people who organized the opposition to the superdelegates and, in fact, gave them the name “superdelegates” and argued that they were undemocratic.

Yet in 1980, part of the acrimony of the nomination fight was that Kennedy wanted all delegates to be unbound and vote their conscience.

Believe me, people change their mind on these rules questions all the time depending on what their politics are. He was basically arguing in the 1980 convention that all delegates should be superdelegates and that the primaries shouldn’t matter. But that was because they thought they could break loose Carter delegates if they were unbound. It didn’t happen, but that was the strategy. There’s no ideological consistency there. It’s all about power politics. ...
  #54  
Old 02-23-2020, 03:12 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,663
That's not really a democratic defense - though it's the one I know to be common. Democratically speaking, I should get a say in who's going to compete in the election from both sides. If I don't want a Sanders v Trump election, there's no democracy based reason why I can't vote against both of them in the primaries. Your defense is based around the private nature of parties. "Why should the other party members help decide our leadership?"

The entrenched two party system creates this tension. There's no way to be elected democratically to power but through the private parties. So when people complain that super delegates aren't democratic, they're right. But they don't want real democracy, they just don't want certain people having a say in party decisions.

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-23-2020 at 03:16 PM.
  #55  
Old 02-23-2020, 03:46 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
That's not really a democratic defense - though it's the one I know to be common. Democratically speaking, I should get a say in who's going to compete in the election from both sides. If I don't want a Sanders v Trump election, there's no democracy based reason why I can't vote against both of them in the primaries. Your defense is based around the private nature of parties. "Why should the other party members help decide our leadership?"

The entrenched two party system creates this tension. There's no way to be elected democratically to power but through the private parties. So when people complain that super delegates aren't democratic, they're right. But they don't want real democracy, they just don't want certain people having a say in party decisions.
What are you proposing then? What would stop the Republicans from voting in the Dem primary for Rod Blagojevich to be the Dem nominee?

I know that's not what you want, but then you must be advocating for something completely different than a primary.
  #56  
Old 02-23-2020, 04:11 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,663
I'm not proposing anything. I'm saying the argument "super delegates aren't democratic" is hollow. The US parties have pretty darn democratic practices for their leadership compared to most western democracies. None of the party leaderships in Canada are done in a government run electorate wide vote, for instance. In Canada and the UK, party leadership can veto someone's party membership. Super delegates aren't that bad. And, we don't want primaries purely democratic for the exact reason you and DSeid mention.

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-23-2020 at 04:15 PM.
  #57  
Old 02-24-2020, 08:45 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
In Norway, one of the countries Bernie loves to tout as a model, it's a single person in each party--the party's leader--who chooses all parliamentary candidates, district by district, throughout the country.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #58  
Old 02-25-2020, 02:37 AM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
No changing the rules after the game has started.
We kinda crossed that bridge when the re-wrote the rules so that Bloomberg could be part of the race despite not qualifying.

So, they let Bloomberg buy his way in against the rules, and then Bernie becomes the clear favorite in the race and gets the most votes, by far, but then they say "oh, we managed to let Bloomberg buy our way to a convention, so sorry Bernie, now money and the party elite get to decide who is going to be our nominee", that would be a more just following of the rules, right?

The irony is that they let Bloomberg buy his way in against their rules specifically so that they could then later thwart the will of the electorate by using their rules against Bernie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Yes, Bernie's deeply held democratic principles seem to shift awfully conveniently based on what's the most advantageous for him personally.
So if he wants the person with the most votes to win, he's operating against democratic principles.

But if he agrees to the democratic party rules which are designed to let the party elite override the will of the voters, then he's upholding democratic principles.

If we play the "sure, Bernie is the clear leader, but Bloomberg bought enough support to get us to the convention, and now the billionaires and party elite will decide who is president" game, the democrat loses in November 100%.
  #59  
Old 02-25-2020, 05:12 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
Saying you need to get more votes for you than against you is not a violation of a democratic principle. It’s how all political conventions have always worked, and it’s also how statewide elections in Louisiana, Maine, and the country of France work. Makes sense to me.
  #60  
Old 02-25-2020, 05:22 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
We kinda crossed that bridge when the re-wrote the rules so that Bloomberg could be part of the race despite not qualifying.
Never happened.
  #61  
Old 02-25-2020, 05:55 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
In Norway, one of the countries Bernie loves to tout as a model, it's a single person in each party--the party's leader--who chooses all parliamentary candidates, district by district, throughout the country.
AND they speak Norwegian. Do you have ANY IDEA how difficult it would be to change all government documents to Norwegian? AND it's really cold there! Why does Bernie want us to be cold all the time, huh?

Or maybe Bernie isn't advocating for every single part of the Norwegian experience, I guess that's a possibility too.
  #62  
Old 02-25-2020, 06:35 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
AND they speak Norwegian. Do you have ANY IDEA how difficult it would be to change all government documents to Norwegian? AND it's really cold there! Why does Bernie want us to be cold all the time, huh?
Besides, Norway's more like Snoreway.
  #63  
Old 02-25-2020, 08:02 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
I’m just saying, this grassroots ideal that so many here seem to have about choosing a party’s nominees, especially people from his wing, is not common around the world and does not seem to correspond with the kind of progressive outcomes he is fond of.
  #64  
Old 02-25-2020, 08:22 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
We kinda crossed that bridge when the re-wrote the rules so that Bloomberg could be part of the race despite not qualifying.

So, they let Bloomberg buy his way in against the rules, and then Bernie becomes the clear favorite in the race and gets the most votes, by far, but then they say "oh, we managed to let Bloomberg buy our way to a convention, so sorry Bernie, now money and the party elite get to decide who is going to be our nominee", that would be a more just following of the rules, right?

The irony is that they let Bloomberg buy his way in against their rules specifically so that they could then later thwart the will of the electorate by using their rules against Bernie.
Holy smokes, can you at least get your own stupid conspiracy story right? They "changed the rules" on qualifying for a debate not entering the race. And the fact that the Bernie camp is outraged that a guy polling at 15% was allowed into the debates says it all. Bernie is a goddamn fraud on democratic principles. He's still the revolutionary socialist at heart, not a democratic socialist.
  #65  
Old 02-25-2020, 09:19 AM
Oredigger77 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Back at 5,280
Posts: 5,386
As long as the moderates can unite and have more delegates then the progressives they should be able to unite and choose their candidate. If Warren + Sanders have the majority of delegates than they should be able to select the candidate. Superdelegates should vote for who they think has the best chance and I've got no problem if they push canidates that are behind a head of the canidates that are ahead if nothing else they will be voting with more information than the people in Iowa.

In reality Bloomberg, Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar need to unite and select a candidate for their wing so that when the superdelegates split between liberal and moderate they can edge out Steyer, Warren, and Sanders. I'd be shocked if more than 60% of the superdelegates went moderate so the moderates need to be within 5% of the liberals.
  #66  
Old 02-25-2020, 09:24 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,663
It can be useful to talk about lanes and wings of the party for positioning strategies but don't mke the mistake that it can be applied to actual voters. If Biden drops out, his voters don't automatically go to someone else in his "lane". Similarly, Sanders doesn't own Warren's supporters if she drops out.
  #67  
Old 02-25-2020, 10:00 AM
Jimmy Chitwood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Near Philadelphia
Posts: 6,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Holy smokes, can you at least get your own stupid conspiracy story right? They "changed the rules" on qualifying for a debate not entering the race. And the fact that the Bernie camp is outraged that a guy polling at 15% was allowed into the debates says it all. Bernie is a goddamn fraud on democratic principles. He's still the revolutionary socialist at heart, not a democratic socialist.
Are all of the other candidates who were "outraged" and attacked Bloomberg for buying his way in also revolutionary socialists?
  #68  
Old 02-25-2020, 10:03 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,663
I didn't notice this outrage. Are you saying the other candidates didn't want Bloomberg at the debate? News to me.
  #69  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:00 AM
Sterling Archer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It can be useful to talk about lanes and wings of the party for positioning strategies but don't mke the mistake that it can be applied to actual voters. If Biden drops out, his voters don't automatically go to someone else in his "lane". Similarly, Sanders doesn't own Warren's supporters if she drops out.


Right, Warren is my first choice, but Bernie is near the bottom of my list. If I had to fill out a ranked choice ballot it would go:

1. Warren
2. Pete
3. Klobuchar
4. Bernie
5. Biden

So let’s be careful about those moderate vs progressive lane analyses.
  #70  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:04 AM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Saying you need to get more votes for you than against you is not a violation of a democratic principle. It’s how all political conventions have always worked, and it’s also how statewide elections in Louisiana, Maine, and the country of France work. Makes sense to me.
"The guy with 49.9% of the vote can't win, that's not democratic. Instead, we should let the party bigwigs and billionaires decide that it's teh guy with 22% of the vote who should win. That's the way democracy is supposed to work"

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Holy smokes, can you at least get your own stupid conspiracy story right? They "changed the rules" on qualifying for a debate not entering the race. And the fact that the Bernie camp is outraged that a guy polling at 15% was allowed into the debates says it all. Bernie is a goddamn fraud on democratic principles. He's still the revolutionary socialist at heart, not a democratic socialist.
I should've said enter the debate rather than the race - but those are pretty close in effect, as someone who could not qualify for the debates would be crippled in running in the race overall.

Being allowed into the debates against the rules is absolutely significant and absolutely unfair. Do you know how hard some candidates like Yang worked to get the organic support needed to meet their requirements for the debate? Then Bloomberg comes in, throws around some money, and the democratic party says "yes, sir, billionaire, sir" and somehow everyone here is fine with this. I'm not sure if it's because they love the fucking inner circle of the democratic party that much, love billionaires that much, or just hate Bernie so much that they're willing to compromise on their principles and applaud corruption.

But, let me paraphrase your position, if I may:

If Bernie wants the fact that the most voters voted for him to mean he's the nominee, he's clearly standing against the principles of democracy because it's the rules that are truly important, not the will of the people! The rules!!!

Bernie is angry that the democratic party changed the rules to accommodate a billionaire. He should know that the rules aren't that important, that it's the will of the people that matters! That guy is a dangerous socialist authoritarian!
  #71  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:13 AM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I didn't notice this outrage. Are you saying the other candidates didn't want Bloomberg at the debate? News to me.
You could watch the debate or read about it. People were pretty unhappy about Bloomberg buying his way in and took him to task over it.

With all of you who've decided that the nomination process is not about individual candidates, but instead it's a team sport of everyone vs Bernie, so that even if Bernie wins 49.9% of the vote, and the next highest total is 10%, "team everyone else" still wins, goodbye Bernie:

Could you make a case using facts and data to show that this is the case? You assume that everyone who isn't voting for Bernie now is a never-Bernie and he'd be their last choice, so that you could create this Bernie vs Everyone narrative. And just saying "he's the most extreme, so any vote not for him is a complete rejection of his platform" is not good enough because the actual numbers don't support this.

Because the data says that Bernie is a popular second choice for voters of every other candidate. Much moreso than his competition. Your narrative that it's Bernie vs team not Bernie is completely destroyed by the actual real world data that suggests that even among people not voting for Bernie, he's usually their second choice.

So not only is your narrative of turning a 6 way race into a 1 vs 5 race an illogical, unfair one, it's one that also goes against the truth and data.
  #72  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:21 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,663
So you are taking a stand that a guy polling at 15%+ should have not been allowed in the debate. That would have been better for democracy. Yes or no, please.
  #73  
Old 02-25-2020, 12:38 PM
Jimmy Chitwood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Near Philadelphia
Posts: 6,617
That's the stand Sanders, Warren, Yang, Booker and I don't know who else took. Klob and Pete were fine with it, but as far as I know they're the only ones who said so.
  #74  
Old 02-25-2020, 02:18 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,663
Nobody cares what Booker or Yang thought. Do you have a cite for Warren's outrage over Bloomberg's inclusion? She sure seemed damn happy he was there at the time.
  #75  
Old 02-25-2020, 02:26 PM
Jimmy Chitwood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Near Philadelphia
Posts: 6,617
https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1223389175468249088
  #76  
Old 02-25-2020, 03:49 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
So you are taking a stand that a guy polling at 15%+ should have not been allowed in the debate. That would have been better for democracy. Yes or no, please.
I was actually taking a stand that saying the Bernie hates democracy and puppies because he thinks the person with the most votes should win, because the rules are sacred, but then turning around and saying Bernie hates democracy and puppies because he wants the rules to apply to Bloomberg too is not an argument in good faith and does not make any sense. People are just looking to smear Bernie.

And even that is not actually what Bernie said - he didn't ask for a change in the rules, just that the superdelegates should respect the will of the people and cast their votes for the person who won the most votes in the primary.

As to your specific question, yes. I don't think Bloomberg should be allowed in the debates. A lot of candidates had to work hard to qualify, Bloomberg just bought his way in. That very thing - that the rich work by a different set of rules and buy whatever political power they want - is exactly the problem most harming our democracy right now. So yes, Bloomberg being able to buy his way into the debates hurts democracy. Bloomberg being able to throw around enough money to get enough people to vote for him to bring about a contested convention, so that he can then throw around enough money to be a kingmaker to pick who actually becomes the candidate, who he can then order around as he pleases since that person owes them the nomination, is exactly the sort of thing that is antithetical to real democracy. What Bloomberg and the DNC are doing right now is exactly the sort of shit that disenfranchises people into being apathetic about politics, because they correctly sense that they're in a managed democracy, not a real one.
  #77  
Old 02-25-2020, 04:34 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
I'm sympathetic to the argument that they shouldn't have changed the rules midway through the process. But the rule was stupid to begin with. Steyer gamed the system by spending more on small-dollar fundraising than the donations actually brought in. Bloomberg could have done the same, but that's kind of a farce, isn't it? And it would have detracted from the pitch he is trying to make, that he's unbought and unbuyable, because he doesn't need or accept anyone else's money. (Trump leveraged this notion himself in 2015 and early 2016, but in his case it turned out to be another of his thousands of lies.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It can be useful to talk about lanes and wings of the party for positioning strategies but don't mke the mistake that it can be applied to actual voters. If Biden drops out, his voters don't automatically go to someone else in his "lane". Similarly, Sanders doesn't own Warren's supporters if she drops out.

But that's only because voters are dumb. On Pod Save America, they cited polling that a majority of Americans, and even 40 percent of Democrats, still don't know Bernie is a socialist--which helps explain how socialism can poll so poorly but Bernie can poll well. I wouldn't count on that ignorance holding up through November, but it looks like it will hold up long enough so it's too late to nominate someone else.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
With all of you who've decided that the nomination process is not about individual candidates, but instead it's a team sport of everyone vs Bernie, so that even if Bernie wins 49.9% of the vote, and the next highest total is 10%, "team everyone else" still wins, goodbye Bernie:

Could you make a case using facts and data to show that this is the case?

No, because this is a strawman. There's no chance that this could ever possibly happen. What could happen is that Bernie gets 35%, but the candidate who gets 31% wins the nomination because s/he is able to get to over 50% by attracting enough support from other candidates' delegates on the second ballot, just as the rules call for. And that's perfectly legitimate. You realize this is similar to how Bernie has won a higher percentage of delegates so far than he has gotten in votes?
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #78  
Old 02-28-2020, 04:55 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
Mike Pesca laid out some very interesting numbers on Slate's The Gist podcast. Bernie (who represents only 10,000 African American constituents in Vermont) has only received about 3,000 black votes thus far. A very plausible scenario is the following:

Bernie gets to Milwaukee with about 40% of pledged delegates, after having won only 15% of the black vote in the primaries. Biden has 35% of the delegates, but 55% of the black vote. Bloomberg has 20% of the delegates, and 25% of the black vote.

If under these circumstances Biden and Bloomberg unite to form a ticket, they will represent 55% of the delegates overall, and fully 80% of African American primary voters. Under those circumstances, it could be a really bad look for Bernie to throw a fit and insist that he is the rightful nominee. This might be the key to defusing an otherwise potentially explosive scenario (at least, as much as it can be defused).
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #79  
Old 02-28-2020, 01:35 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,455
We definitely need Bloomberg to save black people from Bernie. The nonsense of that completely cracks me up.
  #80  
Old 02-28-2020, 05:17 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
We definitely need Bloomberg to save black people from Bernie. The nonsense of that completely cracks me up.

Good thing that's not remotely what I said.

In the scenario I described, the nominated ticket would be one representing the vast majority of black voters. They would be saving us from Bernie, not the other way 'round.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #81  
Old 02-28-2020, 06:08 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Or maybe Bernie isn't advocating for every single part of the Norwegian experience, I guess that's a possibility too.
I think it a certainty.

He's is advocating for whatever will probably get him the nomination.

I picked #2 in the survey knowing that if one candidate is far ahead of all others coming into the convention, he or she can't be denied.

As for more borderline situations, there are a lot of factors. If Bernie is hospitalized* in May, and does poorly in the final primaries, and Democrats who voted for him seem to have buyers remorse, that should be considered. But if he ends the primary season strongly, and then is in the hospital during the convention, it might be churlish to deny him the nomination.

As for democracy, it depends how you define it. I believe in rotation in office, limited government, and respect for minority rights. Following the will of pluralities, or even bare majorities -- not so much.

___________________
* I read somewhere that he has maybe a 1/3 chance of being hospitalized before November 3, given his age and heart attack timing. This is a legitimate electability issue. If elected, his health won't worry me -- government of laws and not men and all that.
  #82  
Old 02-28-2020, 07:10 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Good thing that's not remotely what I said.

In the scenario I described, the nominated ticket would be one representing the vast majority of black voters. They would be saving us from Bernie, not the other way 'round.
Your actual position was even more absurd than that.

Okay, so now we get to start adding two people together and combine their vote count as if they weren't candidate? Well, of course Bernie doesn't get the same privilege, only people running against Bernie get that exercise in their favor.

A) That's obviously not how it fucking works and it never has, it has nothing to do with the nomination process
B) That would mean that someone can only choose their VP from among the other candidates, otherwise they wouldn't be taking strategic advantage of this combined votes mechanic that you just invented out of thin air
C) Neither Biden nor Bloomberg seem like they'd be interested in being each other's VP
D) Even if they were, what a fucking shitty ticket that would be. You try to pick your VP based on shoring up your strengths. You'd actually be doubling down on old white men who are viewed as corrupt, out of touch, and generally hated by anyone under the age of 40. Fucking Biden-Bloomberg is your ticket to get out the vote? Holy shit, that's clueless
E) You assume that Biden-Bloomberg would cleanly pick up all those votes, but what about people who like one without the other? You cannot assume that people who liked Biden would be happy with a Bloomberg as president ticket just because Biden is on it, and vice versa.
F) You've given one racial group primacy to decide the election as if they were all that matters. Why even let other people vote? Let's see who black people vote for and nominate them, because they apparently are the only ones who matter if you want the democratic nomination
G) Which is not even a valid strategic consideration, because black people are among the most reliable democratic constituencies, which means, strategically, if they'll vote for whoever has a D next to their name, you should nominate someone to appeal to voters other than them. It's not like they're going to defect to Republicans, but even if your concern is that they will stay home and not be enthusiastic about the candidate, you think fucking Biden-Bloomberg is what's going to get them to the polls?

You propose an idea that would a strategic blunder, nonsensical, bad for democracy, and baseless in terms of being an actual viable plan in your desperate attempt to concoct any possible scenario to undemocratically deny Bernie the nomination.

Don't worry, the DNC is on your side. They're going to do something as monumentally stupid as you suggest, screw Bernie out, disenfranchise millions of young and formerly apathetic voters to make sure that none of them want anything to do with the democratic party again. They'll stay home in 2020 and never become part of the democratic party because of the way you want to spit on them and screw over the only candidate they've ever felt passionate about. Forget losing 2016, you're losing a whole fucking generation.

But hey, the payoff is worth it. We might get fucking Biden-Bloomberg. Holy shit.

Last edited by SenorBeef; 02-28-2020 at 07:14 PM.
  #83  
Old 02-28-2020, 08:15 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,562
Actually if there is no majority it definitely is one of the ways the nomination COULD fucking work, if the delegates voting conclude that such is what those who voted for them would want them to do, or otherwise in good conscious decide that such is the right decision to make.

A specific odd hypothetical has been presented in which one candidate does not have a majority, is pretty much rejected by Black voters and in which the candidates selling a less revolutionary approach together have more delegates. Delegates would, ideally, listen to the arguments in such a case, including possibly the tempo of the race, the performance in specific states, contemporaneous polling and match-ups, and decide then how to vote in good conscience in a second and possibly further rounds.

Facts on the ground at the time would inform, but if a coalition of Biden and Bloomberg delegates stayed with their candidates when released and gave a pledged delegate majority, and the supers then jumped on board to make it conclusive, Sanders one hopes would accept he lost and immediately and strongly commit to the unity ticket.
  #84  
Old 02-28-2020, 08:26 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
They'll stay home in 2020 and never become part of the democratic party because of the way you want to spit on them and screw over the only candidate they've ever felt passionate about.
I agree with you that who stays home determines elections. But I disagree about who is the most likely to be deciding whether or not to stay home. It is the soft Trump supporters who would stay home when the alternative to Trump is non-threatening Biden, while they would stand in long polling-place lines to stop a socialist. This is consistent with political science findings about why moderates tend to win -- the other sides voters stay home.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
We might get fucking Biden-Bloomberg. Holy shit.
I agree that would be a weak ticket, but there is low risk of that. If the nominee is elderly, they will be sure to have a much younger veep partner. And knowing how much African-American turnout declined from 2012 to 2016, they are highly likely to ask a black man or woman to join them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Forget losing 2016, you're losing a whole fucking generation.
My priorities are then quite different from yours. I think that Trump has genuinely authoritarian inclinations, and that his second term would be uniquely bad for civil liberties. I'm not sure he will voluntarily leave the White House if defeated this year, and think it perhaps less likely that he would voluntarily turn it over to a Democrat in 2024. So I think getting Trump out of there is much more important than speculative Democratic weakness ten or twenty years from how.

Then, I was a Republican until early 2016 who left my party because even it's moderates had become tea party types. So getting to some situation where the Democratic Party, after losing this November, is dominated by leftists who win every time doesn't excite me. It could even, if the Trump wing is clearly beaten, send me back to my old political home.

Last edited by PhillyGuy; 02-28-2020 at 08:27 PM.
  #85  
Old 02-28-2020, 09:41 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Okay, so now we get to start adding two people together and combine their vote count as if they weren't candidate? Well, of course Bernie doesn't get the same privilege, only people running against Bernie get that exercise in their favor.

It’s clear that the several decades since the last contested convention has erased cultural memory of how these things work. Anyone can do this kind of coalition building. Bernie could go and get Bloomberg to marshal his delegates to have the two of them run together instead. I just think Bernie would have more trouble finding takers.

The other thing I think you are missing due to this gap in cultural memory is that the usual process of picking a vice president goes out the window at a contested convention. Normally what you are used to seeing is someone going to a convention with the majority of delegates and then choosing the running mate they think is strategically best to join them.

But when no one has a majority, that goes out the window and you have to horse trade and combine the personal ambitions of multiple candidates who together can get to a majority. In this case that will mean, most likely, two elderly white guys. Unfortunate but it is what it is. Our best chance to avoid that, actually, would be for Bloomberg in this scenario to tell Joe he will ask his delegates to support a ticket of Biden and some other running mate who would balance the ticket better. But I wouldn’t hold my breath for that.


Quote:
Don't worry, the DNC is on your side.

I hope so!
  #86  
Old 02-29-2020, 01:49 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post

I hope so!
Don't worry (that's real), the DNC and our corporate media are well on their way to concocting the sort of outcome you want. Just do us a favor and stop claiming to be an advocate for democracy when you work with them to eliminate something outside the acceptable bounds of our managed democracy.
  #87  
Old 02-29-2020, 04:14 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
Do tell, how is it contrary to democracy to urge democratically elected leaders like Obama to publicly endorse a candidate? This is precisely what AOC did! Is it only democratic if they endorse Bernie?
  #88  
Old 02-29-2020, 04:25 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,455
Could you make that make sense before I answer it? What does that have to do with anything I said?

Last edited by SenorBeef; 02-29-2020 at 04:26 PM.
  #89  
Old 02-29-2020, 04:28 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
Your comprehension problem is not my problem. You are the one not explaining how there is anything undemocratic about politicians endorsing other politicians, something Bernie is happy for others to do if it benefits him.
  #90  
Old 02-29-2020, 04:53 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,455
I have no idea what you're talking about. Who talked about politicians endorsing politicians being undemocratic? Use the quote function.
  #91  
Old 03-01-2020, 06:58 PM
RioRico is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 2,359
Change rules before play, not during. Those disliking the rules can play elsewhere. Meanwhile, vote early and often.
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 07:40 AM.

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