Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 03-02-2020, 04:47 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Keep saying this over and over "we wuz robbed".

The "democratic party" does not choose the candidate- the voters do. In 2016 the voters make it very, very clear they preferred Clinton.

The voters will again make the choice this time around.

The DNC has almost no control over who gets the Nomination. It's the voters.
So, then, if Bernie wins 49.99% of the vote this year, and Biden wins 20%, are you going to be talking about the will of the voters? Or are you going to say "contested convention! It's the rules!!!!! THE RULES!!!"

I look forward to all of you talking about the importance of democracy and the voters, and then saying "the guy who won the most votes doesn't get to be the nominee, that'd be undemocratic. So instead, it's this guy that the party elite picked who got way fewer votes who gets to be the nominee."
  #102  
Old 03-02-2020, 04:52 PM
Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post



I mean, what should they do? Imagine you're supporting a candidate in an election. You're getting the most votes. But despite this, there are almost certainly party machinations that will result in your candidate not winning the nomination. In effect, it does not matter that your movement had the most votes, the people running the election say "nah... this isn't really a democratic process, it's just the illusion of one"

How do you respond to that? With contentment? Happiness? Enthusiasm?


Having the "most votes" doesn't matter unless you have enough votes to secure the nomination. If you don't, there are things that can happen, per the rules, at the convention that would give the nomination to someone else. IIRC, that's how Lincoln got the nomination in 1860.

A plurality means more people wanted someone else than wanted you.

Quote:
It is illicit. If it's a secret, coordinated plan to bring about a result that's outside the rules or norms, it's a conspiracy.

What would it take to reach the level of conspiracy in your mind? Let's say, hypothetically, that there were some leaked DNC e-mails that said "we changed the debate rules so that Bloomberg could participate. If we allow Bloomberg to participate, it increases the chances of a brokered convention, so that we can install a non-Bernie candidate regardless of the votes. Also, he gave us 250m" - would that be a conspiracy in your mind?
No. Assuming that the people who "changed the debate rules" had the authority to do so, then that's their job. They're trying to maximize the chances that a Democrat wins the White House in November.
  #103  
Old 03-02-2020, 04:53 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Okay, so which part do you think is wrong?

1) The party apparatus of the democratic party, including those who set party policy, do not want Bernie to run the nomination
2) They would exert influence, where possible, to make it less likely that Bernie will win the nomination
3) That exertion of influence would take some form of collaboration - even if it's simply talking to each other about their concerns and intent

Which of those things do you disagree with? What's so outrageous about any of those? Those are obviously true, and those constitute a conspiracy. Conspiracies happen ALL THE FUCKING TIME. They're routine. This is not alleging a grand conspiracy, like that the entire world medical community is using vaccines as some sort of secret plot even though they know how harmful they are. This is just a simple, routine, and expected conspiracy.

So, when a bunch of candidates drop out before super Tuesday, is it not reasonable to wonder whether this is part of a strategic effort to consolidate their support and votes behind their non-Bernie candidate? Treating this as a WILD CONSPIRACY THEORY JUST LIKE CHEMTRAILS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is absurd. This is the sort of routine conspiracy the world sees every day.

What's even weirder than that, is that most of you want them to be doing exactly this. But then when we simply say it exists, then suddenly it's OMG CONSPIRACY THEORY BERNIE BROS I HATE BERNIE EVEN MORE!!!!

Btw, given that Bernie hasn't made comments to this effect as far as I know, and I'm just some dude on the internet that's posting something that's not implausible whatsoever, your reaction of "I truly despise that vile bag of shit more and more every day" is completely irrational.
Or, how about this? You notice fundraising has been sliding recently and is now in absolute free fall. Political campaigns donít have rainy day funds, theyíre all in to win. Thereís just not enough money to keep going even one more day, especially if you want to be decent and pay your staff and give them some severance. Paying the staff, office rent, travel, rallies, ads, swag all cost $$$$ and when whatís coming in canít do it, itís time to get out now. Notice how both Beto and Kamala also got out around the first of a month
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #104  
Old 03-02-2020, 04:56 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,462
Do you have some evidence that these campaigns couldn't bear to go two more days until Super Tuesday, when, if they did well, a new round of funding would come in?

Just so I understand you - by offering this alternate explanation - are you saying that all of these candidates dropping out right before Super Tuesday is a complete coincidence and not the result of some sort of concerted effort to consolidate the anti-Bernie vote? That all 3 of their campaigns could not last 1-2 days longer to make it to the most significant day in all of the nomination process?

Furthermore, are you saying that I disagree and say that this looks like a concerted effort, then I am guilty of perpetuating a grand conspiracy theory and am despicable and make you hate Bernie and his supporters with a burning passion?

Last edited by SenorBeef; 03-02-2020 at 05:00 PM.
  #105  
Old 03-02-2020, 05:01 PM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
To what end? Winning Minnesota does jackshit for her and losing it incredibly embarrassing. People seem to think scoring a couple extra delegates will get these candidates some big bargaining power for the veep slot or some other position. I see no reason to believe that for the most part.
It has been mentioned that she was in a good position to win Minnesota and Sanders is running second. Even with the endorsement Biden may not do all that great in Minnesota and denying Sanders extra delegates would be better for Biden.

Also there is somewhat of an internatl pressure to see a campaign through to at least your home state's primary mostly for the campaign staff - who tend to be mostly based on your home state.
  #106  
Old 03-02-2020, 05:08 PM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
all of these candidates dropping out right before Super Tuesday
You realize there was this massive primary on Saturday right? Where both Buttigieg and Klobuchar did very poorly. As did Steyer, who dropped out on Saturday night. Could it not be possible that each of the candidates realized after South Carolina, and the shellackings they got, that they had no path to victory and suspended the campaign as a result.
  #107  
Old 03-02-2020, 05:12 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Do you have some evidence that these campaigns couldn't bear to go two more days until Super Tuesday, when, if they did well, a new round of funding would come in?

Just so I understand you - by offering this alternate explanation - are you saying that all of these candidates dropping out right before Super Tuesday is a complete coincidence and not the result of some sort of concerted effort to consolidate the anti-Bernie vote? That all 3 of their campaigns could not last 1-2 days longer to make it to the most significant day in all of the nomination process?

Furthermore, are you saying that I disagree and say that this looks like a concerted effort, then I am guilty of perpetuating a grand conspiracy theory and am despicable and make you hate Bernie and his supporters with a burning passion?
Itís not a coincidence they dropped out now, but it isnít really unfair either. Think of it this way. Letís say 5 people are voting on what to have for dinner. 3 want burgers and 2 want hot dogs. Letís say itís one for McDonaldís, one for Burger King, one for Wendyís, and 2 for hot dogs at the local hot dog place. If the two people who want Wendyís and Burger King change their minds to McDonaldís, why is that unfair to the people that wanted hot dogs?
  #108  
Old 03-02-2020, 05:21 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,462
I actually didn't say that was unfair. I speculated that this is what was actually happening, that it was a coordinated effort, that it may have been done with an exchange of some future consideration (like preferential treatment by the party or a VP/cabinet position), and was accused by several of peddling a grand conspiracy theory for simply stating what almost everyone in this thread sees as true and obvious. If it's an organic agreement between the candidates, or they view it as working in the interest of their policies, then I don't think there's anything wrong. If it's facilitated at the request of the party, who are nominally the arbiter of a fair election process, including inducements in the form of promising a future payoff, then that's not quite so wholesome, and would serve as evidence that the arbiters of the nomination process are attempting to alter the result in what pretends to be a fair and democratic process.

Last edited by SenorBeef; 03-02-2020 at 05:23 PM.
  #109  
Old 03-02-2020, 05:49 PM
RickG is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Boulder CO USA
Posts: 834
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Do you have some evidence that these campaigns couldn't bear to go two more days until Super Tuesday, when, if they did well, a new round of funding would come in?
I think a more likely explanation is that they honestly think that Sanders' approach is not the optimal one to do the 3 most important things this cycle: defeat Trump, take the Senate, and keep the House. All three of those things are necessary for even the most limited progressive agenda to be enacted, and for at least some of the destruction left in Trump's wake to be rectified before it's too late.

If they don't see a way to win themselves, they should throw as much weight as possible into nominating the person they think has the best path. And doing so before Super Tuesday may potentially short circuit the argument that Sanders should be nominated with a plurality of delegates, even if the "moderate" candidates have more delegates combined. Obviously, if Sanders gets an outright majority of pledged delegates, he'll win the nomination on the first ballot, and we're done. But first-past-the-post is *not* democracy, even if that's how we do it in most jurisdictions in the general election. California has some non-partisan primaries with the top two vote-getters running in the general, and Louisiana (and some other states, I think), have runoffs if no one gets an outright majority in the general. Why is it wrong to try to consolidate the not-Bernie vote so that, if he does have only a plurality, it's not so big that a runoff in which he doesn't win isn't quite so politically toxic (since, it seems, a lot of people assume first-past-the-post is always the right thing to do)?

Also, saying that people cooperating to achieve an outcome they think is beneficial, as long as what they're doing is legal, moral, and ethical, is only a "conspiracy" if you want it to sound bad. Otherwise, it's civilization.
  #110  
Old 03-02-2020, 06:19 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
So, then, if Bernie wins 49.99% of the vote this year, and Biden wins 20%, are you going to be talking about the will of the voters? Or are you going to say "contested convention! It's the rules!!!!! THE RULES!!!"
..."
If bernie gets 49.99% of the voters, he will be the candidate. OTOH, if Bernie gets 40.1% and Biden gets 40%, the convention may go either way. A tiny plurality does not mean you get it handed to you, you have to get a majority.

In 2016 Clinton got 55.2% of the votes and Sanders a mere 43.1%, but I notice that clear choice of the voters has not stopped you Bernie bros from whining "we wuz robbed".


Clinton got a solid majority.

Remember, It is the DEMOCRATIC party nominee- and Sanders has made it very clear he does not want to be a member of the party.
  #111  
Old 03-02-2020, 06:28 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,967
So, lets say Warren drops out and supports Bernie- can I claim conspiracy?
  #112  
Old 03-02-2020, 07:00 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
If bernie gets 49.99% of the voters, he will be the candidate.
What evidence do you have that this will be true?

Quote:
OTOH, if Bernie gets 40.1% and Biden gets 40%, the convention may go either way.
No, a convention could not go either way. There is zero chance that a convention would go against the wishes of the party elite.

But what's the crossover point? If Bernie gets 45, Biden gets 30, is Bernie the nom? 44/33? If you're convinced Bernie wins at 49, and doesn't win when close, what's the needed margin for Bernie to actually win, and how did you arrive at that number?

Quote:
A tiny plurality does not mean you get it handed to you, you have to get a majority.
Only if you're Bernie, though. If you're Biden, a tiny purality gets it handed to you. The party would throw a fucking parade for a 0.1% Biden win. And you know it. That's the point.

The Democratic party is not trying to run a fair and unbiased election to determine the will of its electorate. It's playing defense against Bernie Sanders (and by extension, anyone who isn't beholden to the billionaires and corporations who actually run both of our political parties), trying to pretend to allow him to run just enough not to alienate his base, while at the same time knowing that there's no circumstance in which he'd actually be allowed to win.

That's the problem with all your "Bernie doesn't only has a plurality! It would be undemocratic to give him the nomination!" logic. Because step 2 is "but this guy, who has a lot fewer votes, deserves to have it handed to him. That's democratic"

Quote:
In 2016 Clinton got 55.2% of the votes and Sanders a mere 43.1%, but I notice that clear choice of the voters has not stopped you Bernie bros from whining "we wuz robbed".
I'm not going to rehash 2016, but this is not an accurate or complete description of the issue, and you saying in a mocking, shitty tone "we wuz robbed" actually makes me not want to engage with you at all. In fact, this will be the last post that I do so.

Quote:
Remember, It is the DEMOCRATIC party nominee- and Sanders has made it very clear he does not want to be a member of the party.
What's the point of this statement?

Okay, it's the democratic party nominee, and Bernie is not a democrat. Therefore, let's not let him into the primary process. No, can't be that one, because you already let him in. Okay, so Bernie isn't a democrat, so let's kick him out now? Is that your point? Oh, Bernie isn't a democrat, so if he wins a plurality, but not a majority, let's hand the nomination to someone else. Or, okay, Bernie is not a democrat, so while we let him pretend to be one for several months to try to appease his supporters, we're now going to say he's not the nominee no matter what happens.

You're not making a logical or relevant point by saying this. He's part of the democratic party nomination process. They've agreed to let him run for their nomination. Pointing out that he typically runs as an independent (even though he votes with democrats about 100x more often than he votes with Republicans, if he ever votes Republicans) is irrelevant. It's either an illogical attempt to poison the well, or later justification for unfairly removing him from the nomination process, or something. What it isn't is a meaningful part of this discussion.

Last edited by SenorBeef; 03-02-2020 at 07:02 PM.
  #113  
Old 03-02-2020, 07:53 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
What evidence do you have that this will be true?
...we won't know anything until after the process is over. Its pointless to speculate, its even more pointless asking for evidence for something that literally hasn't happened yet. I think its very likely if Bernie gets 49.99% of the voters he will be the candidate. I'm open to the possibility though that that might not be the case. But I can't get worked up about a theoretical that has almost zero statistical probability of happening.
  #114  
Old 03-02-2020, 08:05 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
What evidence do you have that this will be true?



No, a convention could not go either way. There is zero chance that a convention would go against the wishes of the party elite.

But what's the crossover point? If Bernie gets 45, Biden gets 30, is Bernie the nom? 44/33? If you're convinced Bernie wins at 49, and doesn't win when close, what's the needed margin for Bernie to actually win, and how did you arrive at that number?



Only if you're Bernie, though. If you're Biden, a tiny purality gets it handed to you. The party would throw a fucking parade for a 0.1% Biden win. And you know it. That's the point.

The Democratic party is not trying to run a fair and unbiased election to determine the will of its electorate. It's playing defense against Bernie Sanders (and by extension, anyone who isn't beholden to the billionaires and corporations who actually run both of our political parties), trying to pretend to allow him to run just enough not to alienate his base, while at the same time knowing that there's no circumstance in which he'd actually be allowed to win.

That's the problem with all your "Bernie doesn't only has a plurality! It would be undemocratic to give him the nomination!" logic. Because step 2 is "but this guy, who has a lot fewer votes, deserves to have it handed to him. That's democratic"



I'm not going to rehash 2016, but this is not an accurate or complete description of the issue, and you saying in a mocking, shitty tone "we wuz robbed" actually makes me not want to engage with you at all. In fact, this will be the last post that I do so.



What's the point of this statement?

Okay, it's the democratic party nominee, and Bernie is not a democrat. Therefore, let's not let him into the primary process. No, can't be that one, because you already let him in. Okay, so Bernie isn't a democrat, so let's kick him out now? Is that your point? Oh, Bernie isn't a democrat, so if he wins a plurality, but not a majority, let's hand the nomination to someone else. Or, okay, Bernie is not a democrat, so while we let him pretend to be one for several months to try to appease his supporters, we're now going to say he's not the nominee no matter what happens.

You're not making a logical or relevant point by saying this. He's part of the democratic party nomination process. They've agreed to let him run for their nomination. Pointing out that he typically runs as an independent (even though he votes with democrats about 100x more often than he votes with Republicans, if he ever votes Republicans) is irrelevant. It's either an illogical attempt to poison the well, or later justification for unfairly removing him from the nomination process, or something. What it isn't is a meaningful part of this discussion.
Ever notice why no one likes Bernie Bros? We get it, if Bernie doesnít get the nomination, itís rigged.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #115  
Old 03-02-2020, 08:25 PM
RickG is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Boulder CO USA
Posts: 834
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
The Democratic party is not trying to run a fair and unbiased election to determine the will of its electorate. It's playing defense against Bernie Sanders (and by extension, anyone who isn't beholden to the billionaires and corporations who actually run both of our political parties), trying to pretend to allow him to run just enough not to alienate his base, while at the same time knowing that there's no circumstance in which he'd actually be allowed to win.
You are making the assumption that the job of a party is to be unbiased. The job of the party is to WIN THE DAMN ELECTION. Politics is about negotiating the trade-offs necessary to get some portion of your agenda passed. To do that, you need to actually be in power. The "party elites" (why is elite a term of admiration when we're talking about athletes, but not when we're talking about politics?) aren't necessarily afraid of Sanders' policies (though there are not-entirely-unreasonable arguments on both sides on a pure policy basis), as afraid that his style, history, and *some* of his policies will cause him to LOSE. His theory that he can bring out enough new voters to make up for the centrists he will scare away is untested, at best--I just heard (sorry, no cite) that first-time voters in NH broke about evenly between Sanders and Buttigieg--and he lost SC in nearly every demographic.

I can very easily see Sanders beating Trump in the popular vote by even more than Clinton did, yet still losing in the Electoral College. It does no good at all to run up the Democratic majority in California and Illinois and New York, if you can't win some combination of states that are likely to be much closer. So what if the first-past-the-post winner of the primaries (if they don't win an outright majority) doesn't get the nomination? I personally think a less extreme (though still center left) candidate will have a better shot in battlegrounds that could be decisive (AZ and GA are in reach, but not if Sanders is the nominee, IMHO). Maybe my theory of the case is wrong and Sanders' is right. But I don't think either side in this intra-party fight is acting in bad faith, or supports an overall policy *direction* I disagree with (I think the differences are more in speed than direction). If Biden gets the nomination, and picks a progressive, but pragmatic, running mate (Stacey Abrams, anyone?), I think he could attract a pretty broad coalition. I'm not sure if Bernie can get enough non-voters off the couch to make up for the ones he'll lose.
__________________
Rick

Last edited by RickG; 03-02-2020 at 08:27 PM.
  #116  
Old 03-02-2020, 08:33 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
... Let's say, hypothetically, that there were some leaked DNC e-mails that said "we changed the debate rules so that Bloomberg could participate. If we allow Bloomberg to participate, it increases the chances of a brokered convention, so that we can install a non-Bernie candidate regardless of the votes. Also, he gave us 250m" - would that be a conspiracy in your mind?
You DO realize that Bloomberg participating in the debates is what stalled his rise, and breathed some life back into Warren's campaign?

I said it before the debate - those who dislike Bloomberg should have been WANTING him on the stage so that he could be attacked and be cut down. His best chance was having his paid onslaught, donations record, and stated positions, as the only version of him potential voters got to see.
  #117  
Old 03-02-2020, 08:49 PM
Commeatus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 3
People keep saying that the dnc can't choose the candidate; only voters can, but that's explicitly not true:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...ss%3f_amp=true

The dnc won the case on that argument.
  #118  
Old 03-02-2020, 08:59 PM
Kimera757 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
A better case to dump caucuses.
That too. Didn't this happen in 2016, or maybe 2012? Once again, we couldn't figure out who won Iowa until much later?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...036_story.html

Pretty shocking he did it now and didn't wait until Super Tuesday.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
There's nothing shocking about it. He ran as a moderate, and doesn't want to split the moderate vote. Also, he was running out of money (and winning Super Tuesday is expensive). In a "normal" year, the smaller campaigns would be crushed by Super Tuesday, or drop out before they get to that point.
  #119  
Old 03-02-2020, 09:30 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
...


No, a convention could not go either way. There is zero chance that a convention would go against the wishes of the party elite.
....
The Democratic party is not trying to run a fair and unbiased election to determine the will of its electorate......


I'm not going to rehash 2016, but this is not an accurate or complete description of the issue, and you saying in a mocking, shitty tone "we wuz robbed" actually makes me not want to engage with you at all. In fact, this will be the last post that I do so.



What's the point of this statement?

....
The "party elite" only have their one vote, just as everyone does.

There is absolutely no evidence of that. Now in 2016 some DNC people were biased, they even fed Clinton some questions in advance of one debate- which didnt change a thing. The voters decide not the party. How many times do you have to read that?

what is inaccurate about "In 2016 Clinton got 55.2% of the votes and Sanders a mere 43.1%,..." because those are the results.

I mean you're screaming "conspiracy" because Pete- who had no chance of winning- decides to support Biden, not sanders. Now look at Petes platform- moderate all the way, just like Biden- why on earth would Pete go for sanders? That's politics. You endorse the guy who is more like you on the scale, whose politics and platform is closest to yours. Warren will likely endorse Sanders. Is that a conspiracy?

Nope, this Krap come straight from the Kremlin- they really want the bernie bros to say "we wuz robbed" again, like in 2016, and stay home or vote 3rd party- exactly what worked in 2016. And you're falling for it. Even before bernie loses.
  #120  
Old 03-02-2020, 09:37 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commeatus View Post
People keep saying that the dnc can't choose the candidate; only voters can, but that's explicitly not true:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...ss%3f_amp=true

The dnc won the case on that argument.
That cite doesnt say what you think it says:


The Democratic National Committee is currently defending itself in court against a lawsuit brought by Bernie Sanders supporters over the Democratic presidential primary process. .....
......

This lawsuit's merits are dubious, it should be noted from the outset. The courts would set an unfortunate precedent if they started dictating how the political parties are governed and how they choose their candidates ó it veers dangerously close to the political question doctrine.


Now it's true that :
In this case, DNC lawyers argue that they don't owe anyone a fair process, and that the rules in their charter are basically not binding in court. In fact, if they wanted, DNC attorney Bruce Spiva argued, they could choose their nominee in a smoke-filled back room and it still wouldn't be legally actionable.

And yes, that is correct. The DNC, like the RNC sets the rules. Technically, it could do that, they could change the rules to do that. But that's not the rules. There is exactly zero chance that the DNC would over-rule a majority of delegate- because those delegates set the rules.
  #121  
Old 03-02-2020, 10:21 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
They've agreed to let him run for their nomination.
I don't think that's right. The Dems have no choice in the matter.


I thought that the parties have no say in who can run for their nomination? That it's all governed by state law, and anyone who meets the state's ballot access law can run for the nomination.
  #122  
Old 03-02-2020, 10:57 PM
Sterling Archer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,269
How about a Biden/Pete ticket? Everyone assumes Biden/Abrams or Biden/Harris makes the most sense but Biden already has the African-American vote. If he wants to expand his voting base, I think a Pete or even Warren makes more sense. Biden is strong with working class and African-Americans, he is weaker with the college educated, Pete’s and Liz’s strength.
  #123  
Old 03-02-2020, 11:05 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,659
I think he needs a woman on the ticket. I've been thinking a nice unity (moderate/progressive) ticket would be Biden-Warren.

Or if he wants to do a hat-tip to the AA community for bringing his campaign back from the dead, he could do a lot worse than Abrams.

I don't think Pete would bring enough to the ticket, demographically, geographically, or "lane-wise."

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 03-02-2020 at 11:06 PM.
  #124  
Old 03-02-2020, 11:22 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sterling Archer View Post
How about a Biden/Pete ticket? Everyone assumes Biden/Abrams or Biden/Harris makes the most sense but Biden already has the African-American vote. If he wants to expand his voting base, I think a Pete or even Warren makes more sense. Biden is strong with working class and African-Americans, he is weaker with the college educated, Peteís and Lizís strength.
I dont think another candidate will be chosen, that's not common.

My Dream team is Biden and Michelle Obama, a sure winner.

But Pete would make a nice young energetic veep fersure.
  #125  
Old 03-02-2020, 11:24 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,101
I support Biden/Pete, definitely bridges the age gap and Pete and Chasten on the campaign trail non stop would be great. And, Pete’s Midwestern.

But the biggest reason is the endorsement press conference. Biden was choking up when he compared Pete to his son Beau.

Look, I know I’m biased as hell because of my Pete support. But, I’ve been around politics a while and it isn’t usual for a former VP to compare someone to his deceased son which was the reason Biden didn’t run in 2016.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #126  
Old 03-02-2020, 11:31 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Ever notice why no one likes Bernie Bros? We get it, if Bernie doesnít get the nomination, itís rigged.
This is a complete misrepresentation of what he said. And, as a one liner, it suggests you don't have a counterargument. One liners do not contribute to any debate. It is very unlikely they can refute a long argument. It's one of the more annoying things on this board that people think they do.

"No one likes Bernie Bros" is a true statement, but only because "Bernie Bro" is defined as "bad people who support Bernie Sanders for president." The Bro part is meant to evoke the idea of bro-culture, despite it not applying to the majority of his supporters.

The reality is that people don't have much of a problem with Bernie supporters, as evidenced by the fact that so many people support him. You can't have a problem with over a quarter of the electorate. They can't just be one type of person.

I'm not a Bernie fan. I'm also, however, not a Biden fan, as I think his gropey shit could be just as damaging as Bernie's socialist shit. I think there are more people who can't see the difference between Biden and Trump than there are people who can't tell the difference between Bernie and Trump. I notice that, somehow, Bernie actually has conservative people who like him, suggesting that the conventional wisdom about needing to stay in the center may not be true.

And I do see how all the people going after Bernie and his supporters makes it seem like the elections aren't being held fairly, when even the media itself is freaking out about the possibility of a Sanders nomination. It's not about people thinking it must be rigged, as it is about how prominent Democrats are reacting to the possibility of a Sanders win.

If you don't want them to think this way, then you need to stop going after them. The way you make things seem fair is that you do the fair handshake and say "may the best candidate win," not attacking people who support the candidate you don't like.
  #127  
Old 03-03-2020, 07:28 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
"No one likes Bernie Bros" is a true statement, but only because "Bernie Bro" is defined as "bad people who support Bernie Sanders for president." The Bro part is meant to evoke the idea of bro-culture, despite it not applying to the majority of his supporters.
What is bro-culture?

As far as I can tell, a Bernie Bro is just any male who is an outspoken supporter of Sanders and outspoken critic of the other candidates. (And why the need for a gendered term of abuse against Sanders supporters?) It's a stupid buzzword.
  #128  
Old 03-03-2020, 08:17 AM
rocking chair is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: on the porch
Posts: 7,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
I support Biden/Pete, definitely bridges the age gap and Pete and Chasten on the campaign trail non stop would be great. And, Peteís Midwestern.

But the biggest reason is the endorsement press conference. Biden was choking up when he compared Pete to his son Beau.

Look, I know Iím biased as hell because of my Pete support. But, Iíve been around politics a while and it isnít usual for a former VP to compare someone to his deceased son which was the reason Biden didnít run in 2016.
I wasn't sure who was endorsing whom!

as far as vp for biden klobuchar would be a good pick or Duckworth. pull in the Midwest.
  #129  
Old 03-03-2020, 09:19 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
What is bro-culture?

As far as I can tell, a Bernie Bro is just any male who is an outspoken supporter of Sanders and outspoken critic of the other candidates. (And why the need for a gendered term of abuse against Sanders supporters?) It's a stupid buzzword.
I sometimes use it as shorthand for ďsomeone who wonít vote for the Dem nominee in November unless itís Sanders (or maybe Warren),Ē but youíre right, itís not an ideal term for that. ďBernie or Bust voterĒ is more apt.

But what about those who, in addition, will actively try to convince others that the non-Sanders dem nominee isnít worth voting for in November? Thatís more than just ďBernie or bust.Ē Thatís more what some use the ďbroĒ term to convey. Still problematic, I agree (in part for the gendered issue).

Last edited by JKellyMap; 03-03-2020 at 09:20 AM.
  #130  
Old 03-03-2020, 11:50 AM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
This is a complete misrepresentation of what he said. And, as a one liner, it suggests you don't have a counterargument. ..
Alleging a vast conspiracy means that is precisely what he said. Not a misrepresentation at all.
  #131  
Old 03-03-2020, 12:16 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 87,431
Quote:
Quoth RickG:

You are making the assumption that the job of a party is to be unbiased. The job of the party is to WIN THE DAMN ELECTION.
Amen to that. I'm a Sanders supporter, and I think that the party leadership absolutely put their thumbs on the scale in favor of Clinton in 2016, and I think that doing so was a tactical blunder... but I don't think there was anything improper or unethical about it. Of course they're biased; they're a political party. Bias is what a political party is all about. And if they have by-laws that say they're not supposed to be biased, then those are stupid by-laws that should be discarded.
  #132  
Old 03-03-2020, 12:32 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
So, then, if Bernie wins 49.99% of the vote this year, and Biden wins 20%, are you going to be talking about the will of the voters?
I'm thinking that would mean the median Dem voter would be for Warren.
  #133  
Old 03-03-2020, 12:39 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Amen to that. I'm a Sanders supporter, and I think that the party leadership absolutely put their thumbs on the scale in favor of Clinton in 2016, and I think that doing so was a tactical blunder... but I don't think there was anything improper or unethical about it. Of course they're biased; they're a political party. Bias is what a political party is all about. And if they have by-laws that say they're not supposed to be biased, then those are stupid by-laws that should be discarded.
Unbelievable. "If" they have those bylaws? Yes, as you've been told a thousand times, they do have those bylaws. And if Democrats wanted to get rid of them, they'd vote to change them. They wouldn't just follow the whim of an amnesiac internet poster.
  #134  
Old 03-03-2020, 01:07 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 87,431
Yes, I know they have those bylaws. "If" does not necessarily imply ignorance.
  #135  
Old 03-03-2020, 01:14 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
You have displayed that precise ignorance many times.

The fact is, there doesn't seem much of a push to remove the neutrality of the DNC between candidates. Probably because that would look really horrible. So you should stop making arguments based on pretending that rule doesn't exist.
  #136  
Old 03-03-2020, 02:22 PM
Commeatus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 3
As established in the bernie-supporters vs dnc lawsuits, the dnc is extremely aware that there is no one holding them to any standard but themselves. The by-laws are unenforceable at best and the legitimacy of the parties is on the honor system. If, say, Hillary went to the head of the dnc and told him to step down and let one of her creatures in and in exchange he'd be the vp pick, then that creature "mishandled" the role, there wouldn't be anything illegal or rule-breaking about it. Ethical=/=legal and vice versa
  #137  
Old 03-03-2020, 02:53 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,101
Getting back to the thread topic, it’s quite clear how Pete won IA and tied in NH. The Biden campaign doesn’t seem to have any of the digital or grassroots outreach that helped Pete. Most of us former Pete people are chomping at the bit to get started text banking, phone banking, canvassing and spreading the Biden message on social media, that seems to be a severely limited strategy so far with Biden.

Just wait until Joe sees what #TeamPete can do to help , there’s a reason an unknown candidate won the Iowa caucuses!
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #138  
Old 03-03-2020, 04:26 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Amen to that. I'm a Sanders supporter, and I think that the party leadership absolutely put their thumbs on the scale in favor of Clinton in 2016, and I think that doing so was a tactical blunder... but I don't think there was anything improper or unethical about it. ....
Yes, they fed Clinton the questions for one debate.

I doubt if that made a difference.
  #139  
Old 03-03-2020, 04:29 PM
Socsback is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Getting back to the thread topic, itís quite clear how Pete won IA and tied in NH. The Biden campaign doesnít seem to have any of the digital or grassroots outreach that helped Pete. Most of us former Pete people are chomping at the bit to get started text banking, phone banking, canvassing and spreading the Biden message on social media, that seems to be a severely limited strategy so far with Biden.

Just wait until Joe sees what #TeamPete can do to help , thereís a reason an unknown candidate won the Iowa caucuses!
++

Right there with ya'!
  #140  
Old 03-03-2020, 06:38 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,967
Note that this time, Bernie has a good number of Super-delegates behind him.

However, his crusade against them could hurt him:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...es-ncna1147901
  #141  
Old 03-03-2020, 06:56 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,101
Looks like Biden’s fundraising has been on fire, he did a quick social media pitch with Pete. I’d maxed out to Pete but I’ve got a fresh chunk of change to donate to Biden.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His

Last edited by dalej42; 03-03-2020 at 06:56 PM.
  #142  
Old 03-04-2020, 01:03 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I dont think another candidate will be chosen, that's not common.
Well, thereís been Kennedy-Johnson, and Reagan-Bush, and Obama and some old white guy ... what was his name again?
__________________
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.
  #143  
Old 03-04-2020, 01:18 AM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Well, thereís been Kennedy-Johnson, and Reagan-Bush, and Obama and some old white guy ... what was his name again?
Kerry/Edwards as another recent one
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #144  
Old 03-04-2020, 07:21 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 8,309
Why did the democrats think the average American was going to vote for a gay man? I mean we are ok with gay coworkers, relatives, neighbors and friends but a "first husband" is just...weird.

In my somewhat conservative area of Kansas we elected Sharice Davids a lesbian to congress but she really tone downed that part of her life. Never even mentioning it in her ads and its not mentioned on her website.


Buttigieg though always had his husband right beside him with lots of rainbow flags.
  #145  
Old 03-04-2020, 07:33 AM
Chingon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 960
OMG the nerve of him!

Do you consider yourself an average American? Did being homosexual matter to you?
  #146  
Old 03-04-2020, 08:01 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Why did the democrats think the average American was going to vote for a gay man? I mean we are ok with gay coworkers, relatives, neighbors and friends but a "first husband" is just...weird.

In my somewhat conservative area of Kansas we elected Sharice Davids a lesbian to congress but she really tone downed that part of her life. Never even mentioning it in her ads and its not mentioned on her website.


Buttigieg though always had his husband right beside him with lots of rainbow flags.
I remember 4 years ago when everyone thought that having a goldigging whore as First Lady would be weird (especially among the Christian crowd), but they apparently got over it.
  #147  
Old 03-04-2020, 11:43 AM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Why did the democrats think the average American was going to vote for a gay man? I mean we are ok with gay coworkers, relatives, neighbors and friends but a "first husband" is just...weird.

....
I think that acceptance of this is getting more common, old racists will die and Pete can run in 2028.
  #148  
Old 03-04-2020, 12:03 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 27,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Why did the democrats think the average American was going to vote for a gay man?
The "average American" voted for Donald Trump, so I guess Democrats thought a candidate's sex life was a non-issue.

And in my little bubble of stuffy, aging Boomers, it is.
  #149  
Old 03-04-2020, 03:20 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Kerry/Edwards as another recent one
In Trump's America, who cares about losers?
  #150  
Old 03-04-2020, 05:37 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 8,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I think that acceptance of this is getting more common, old racists will die and Pete can run in 2028.
What does homosexuality have to do with race?
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 07:08 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