View Poll Results: Bernie or a contested convention - how do you vote?
Bernie 50 45.05%
A moderate (and likely a contested convention) 61 54.95%
Voters: 111. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-11-2020, 10:04 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Ok, I read my other post, it should have said there were no NEW Nevada debate requirements.

In other words, the Nevada debate requirements were established and have not changed since they were announced. Yes, they are different from the New Hampshire debate qualifications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I read the link. They did NOT change the rules for Nevada. The article is spinning that the rules made for Nevada are a change from what the other debate rules were as something done to benefit Bloomberg.
Huh, well this is odd then...

- DNC Loosens Rules for Nevada’s Democratic Debate, Potentially Including Bloomberg
- DNC scraps donor threshold for Nevada debate, opening door for Bloomberg to qualify
- Campaigns slam new debate rules, as DNC changes make way for Bloomberg to be on stage
- Democrats drop donor threshold for Nevada debate, opening door to Bloomberg
- National briefs: DNC rules change for Nevada debate may enable Bloomberg to participate
- D.N.C. Rules Change for Nevada Debate Could Open Door for Bloomberg
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-11-2020 at 10:06 PM.
  #52  
Old 02-11-2020, 10:17 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Or, you know, you could read the original linked article.

The second link I provided was to show that dalej42's claim that there were no qualification needed for Nevada was completely wrong.

Since you will not read my original link I'll put it here for you:
Why is it always a conspiracy with Bernie Bros?
Let me say it again: the debate qualifications are different for Nevada than they were for New Hampshire.

Since they’ve announced the Nevada qualifications, they have not changed the Nevada qualifications.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #53  
Old 02-11-2020, 10:19 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,311
Yes? The fact that Nevada debate qualification rules were NOT changed. Your original source material proves that. Yes one could get the impression from media reports, buying the Sanders camp spin, that they DID change the rules. Having read that NYT article I had that impression... before your cite reduced my ignorance. It is a different rule than other debates but was not changed. Was it created different specifically to deal with the reality of Bloomberg polling well self-funded? Likely so.

And again there not having him, polling that well, on the stage would be dumb and counterproductive for those who want him taken down.
__________________
Oy.
  #54  
Old 02-11-2020, 10:23 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Why is it always a conspiracy with Bernie Bros?
Are you suggesting all those publications I cited are run by Bernie Bros? All the authors are Bernie Bros too?
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #55  
Old 02-11-2020, 10:27 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Yes? The fact that Nevada debate qualification rules were NOT changed. Your original source material proves that. Yes one could get the impression from media reports, buying the Sanders camp spin, that they DID change the rules. Having read that NYT article I had that impression... before your cite reduced my ignorance. It is a different rule than other debates but was not changed. Was it created different specifically to deal with the reality of Bloomberg polling well self-funded? Likely so.

And again there not having him, polling that well, on the stage would be dumb and counterproductive for those who want him taken down.
So, the DNC had different rules prior to the Nevada rules then, when it came time to setup rules for Nevada they backed off previous rules and loosened it up for Bloomberg.

So they did not "change" the rules for Nevada but put in place rules that were less stringent than previous rules to get Bloomberg on the stage.

That is some masterclass level of rationalization you have going on there. Generally the rules become more stringent as the process continues. Not less and certainly not to let one guy on the stage because...reasons.

If you could write a $100 million check to your own campaign should they let you on the stage too?
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-11-2020 at 10:29 PM.
  #56  
Old 02-11-2020, 10:46 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Are you suggesting all those publications I cited are run by Bernie Bros? All the authors are Bernie Bros too?
I don't even use the phrase "Bernie Bros". It is a dumb phrase.

Nah media spins to make stories that get interest. Simple as that.

The rules were tightened in terms of polling threshold, and got rid of the donor threshold. Past results matter though. Having won a delegate is an in. If you think that someone polling 10% or higher should not be on the debate stage while those polling much less are would be good for the process, well I'd disagree. Per one of your links
Quote:
The DNC is eliminating the donor threshold – a much-criticized standard because it had candidates spending several dollars to acquire a single dollar donation to meet the requirement for number of individual donors. But it is doubling the polling threshold, demanding that candidate get at least 10% support in four polls released from Jan. 15 to Feb. 18, or 12% in two polls conducted in Nevada or South Carolina.
  #57  
Old 02-11-2020, 11:11 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I don't even use the phrase "Bernie Bros". It is a dumb phrase.
Ok. Cool.

I was asking dalej42 who I was responding to but good to know anyway.

As for the donor threshold I think it makes eminent sense. The point being to demonstrate you have support among a wide swath of voters and are not being funded by a few deep pockets (or your own deep pockets).

The DNC tossed that to allow someone to (potentially) buy an election.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-11-2020 at 11:13 PM.
  #58  
Old 02-12-2020, 12:12 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,311
Polling demonstrates "support among a wide swath of voters". Votes do too. Advertising for donations (spending more to get them than you take in, to meet the debate threshold) does not.
  #59  
Old 02-13-2020, 05:10 AM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Ok. Cool.

I was asking dalej42 who I was responding to but good to know anyway.

As for the donor threshold I think it makes eminent sense. The point being to demonstrate you have support among a wide swath of voters and are not being funded by a few deep pockets (or your own deep pockets).

The DNC tossed that to allow someone to (potentially) buy an election.
The donor threshold didn’t work. Far too easy for Republicans to rat fuck it with $1 donations.

Yang needed to go. Thankfully, he took care of it himself. He was only there to sell books anyway.

Steyer bought his way on stage but there’s no way he could meet a more stringent donor requirement and he certainly isn’t polling well. He’s had enough time.

Bloomberg is horrible and also is buying his way on stage. Regrettably, he is polling decently enough so he needs to be on stage because people might vote for him. I can only hope that Bloomberg destroys Bernie in the next debate.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #60  
Old 02-13-2020, 09:38 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
So, the DNC had different rules prior to the Nevada rules then, when it came time to setup rules for Nevada they backed off previous rules and loosened it up for Bloomberg.

So they did not "change" the rules for Nevada but put in place rules that were less stringent than previous rules to get Bloomberg on the stage.

That is some masterclass level of rationalization you have going on there. Generally the rules become more stringent as the process continues. Not less and certainly not to let one guy on the stage because...reasons.

If you could write a $100 million check to your own campaign should they let you on the stage too?
So, its your preference that the person currently in the number three spot in the 538 polling average NOT be allowed in the debate? Because it's no fair he's spending his own money.
  #61  
Old 02-13-2020, 10:27 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Pragmatically it would be insane to not allow someone polling well to be on the debate stage. Moreover anyone who wants him to fail should want him there. Excluding him makes attacking him less effective. If he’s the wrong person for the job the debate stage can show it. Or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Polling demonstrates "support among a wide swath of voters". Votes do too. Advertising for donations (spending more to get them than you take in, to meet the debate threshold) does not.
Strongly concur with both of these posts.
  #62  
Old 02-13-2020, 11:22 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,777
A question related to OP's question is:
If the candidate with most delegates, say Klobuchar for example, doesn't get a majority, should delegates — even delegates that don't like her — switch to her more-or-less automatically on the second ballot?

I see three Dopers who seem to answer 'Yes':
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
A contested convention that results in a nominee that didn't win a plurality of delegates would destroy the party.... If some LOSER is crowned the nominee by a a bunch of DNC dinosaurs who choose to ignore the will of their party members, I would never again vote for anyone with a D by their names.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Translucent Daydream View Post
I don't care how close it is, the guy with the most votes should get it for better or worse. It seems like the least amount of drama. I'm not emotional about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
... If Bernie gets like 45% of the delegates and nobody else has more than 20%, then, yeah, if he isn't nominated it's time to tear up the cobblestones and man the barricades.

But if he's leading Buttigieg 34-33 and the conventions ends up choosing Buttigieg, there's not really any valid cause for complaint there.
(Your examples are easy extremes. What about 40% to 30%?)

As a matter of principle I strongly feel that the whole purpose of the Convention is to negotiate a consensus candidate. I even have sympathy for the old rules where 51% wasn't enough: it took 67%. I'd feel this way whether Klobuchar is the front-runner, or Biden, or Sanders, or whoever.

But unfortunately, given the huge Democrat vs Democrat anger we're seeing this cycle it may be best to sacrifice principle, and to acquiesce to what almost seems like implicit extortion by Sanders' supporters. Oh well; just add this to the long list of ways in which American democracy is becoming increasingly dysfunctional.
  #63  
Old 02-13-2020, 12:51 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
But unfortunately, given the huge Democrat vs Democrat anger we're seeing this cycle it may be best to sacrifice principle, and to acquiesce to what almost seems like implicit extortion by Sanders' supporters. Oh well; just add this to the long list of ways in which American democracy is becoming increasingly dysfunctional.
So, when Sanders supporters suggests that certain groups (youth, progressives) may not turn out to vote if Sanders isn't the nominee, it's "implicit extortion"?

What do you call it when supporters of other candidates suggest that certain groups (older people, moderates) may not turn out to vote if Sanders IS the nominee?
  #64  
Old 02-13-2020, 01:04 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,295
Ugh,

At that point I honestly think I just stay home. I think that a coronation of Bernie is better for the Democrats chances than a contested election, but I don't think that I could bring myself to vote for him in the primary. So it's probably best to leave the decision in the hands of those Democrats who aren't as conflicted as I am, and taking solace in the fact that my vote is very unlikely to change the outcome.

Of course come November I will wholeheartedly support whomever they pick.
  #65  
Old 02-13-2020, 01:10 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
So, when Sanders supporters suggests that certain groups (youth, progressives) may not turn out to vote if Sanders isn't the nominee, it's "implicit extortion"?

What do you call it when supporters of other candidates suggest that certain groups (older people, moderates) may not turn out to vote if Sanders IS the nominee?
Because we’ve already seen this movie in 2016 and the sequel won’t be any different. There will be a significant number of Bernie Bros sitting home or voting 3rd party.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #66  
Old 02-13-2020, 01:13 PM
John Bredin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: BuffaloGrove IL (Chicago)
Posts: 2,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
So, when Sanders supporters suggests that certain groups (youth, progressives) may not turn out to vote if Sanders isn't the nominee, it's "implicit extortion"?

What do you call it when supporters of other candidates suggest that certain groups (older people, moderates) may not turn out to vote if Sanders IS the nominee?
The Sanders supporters are talking about themselves, not abstractly opining about what other people will do. If the people in your second question are in the groups mentioned (older, moderate), it's also implicit extortion.
  #67  
Old 02-13-2020, 01:16 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
So, when Sanders supporters suggests that certain groups (youth, progressives) may not turn out to vote if Sanders isn't the nominee, it's "implicit extortion"?

What do you call it when supporters of other candidates suggest that certain groups (older people, moderates) may not turn out to vote if Sanders IS the nominee?
The difference is the following: Sanders supporters who refuse to vote for say Biden because he is not Sanders are generally not doing so because they think that Trump is probably better for the country than Biden is. They are doing so out of spite, or to make a statement, or to force the Democratic party to accede to their demands.

On the other hand there do exist independents and moderate Republicans (yes they do exist) who may not like Donald Trump and may be willing to support a moderate Democrat, but are afraid that Sanders policies might actually be worse than Trump's. People who when presented with Sanders might view Trump as the lesser to two evils. I don't think there are any moderate Democrats who would think that Sanders would make a better president than Trump but won't vote for him just out of spite or because they think a Trump victory against Sanders will force the Democrats to take the moderates seriously.
  #68  
Old 02-13-2020, 03:30 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Because we’ve already seen this movie in 2016 and the sequel won’t be any different. There will be a significant number of Bernie Bros sitting home or voting 3rd party.
Funny though. The reality is that the number was significant but not as much as USUALLY happens. It was not significantly different than other elections.
  #69  
Old 02-13-2020, 03:41 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Bredin View Post
The Sanders supporters are talking about themselves, not abstractly opining about what other people will do. If the people in your second question are in the groups mentioned (older, moderate), it's also implicit extortion.
Where are the Sanders supporters who are saying that? I believe there is exactly one poster on this board who has expressed that view. I know a lot of Sanders supporters personally, and none of them are saying taht. I have heard there are a lot of Bernie supporters saying this on Twitter or what not; I wouldn't know. All that proves is that people on Twitter are not representative of the general population.
  #70  
Old 02-13-2020, 03:48 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
The difference is the following: Sanders supporters who refuse to vote for say Biden because he is not Sanders are generally not doing so because they think that Trump is probably better for the country than Biden is. They are doing so out of spite, or to make a statement, or to force the Democratic party to accede to their demands.

On the other hand there do exist independents and moderate Republicans (yes they do exist) who may not like Donald Trump and may be willing to support a moderate Democrat, but are afraid that Sanders policies might actually be worse than Trump's. People who when presented with Sanders might view Trump as the lesser to two evils. I don't think there are any moderate Democrats who would think that Sanders would make a better president than Trump but won't vote for him just out of spite or because they think a Trump victory against Sanders will force the Democrats to take the moderates seriously.
The issue isn't really "refusing" to vote, though. It's hard for people like us to understand, but for most people voting isn't automatic. So Marty Millennial maybe plans to hold his nose and vote for Bloomberg....but then on election day he has a cold, or his babysitter has a cold, or some crisis comes up at work and he just doesn't make it happen. Whereas for Bernie he would have crawled across broken glass to vote. That's what we're talking about when we say some group of voters won't turn out for a candidate, not the handful of ideologues who will actually make a conscious decision to not vote.
  #71  
Old 02-13-2020, 03:52 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
A question related to OP's question is:
[I][INDENT]If the candidate with most delegates, say Klobuchar for example, doesn't get a majority, should delegates — even delegates that don't like her — switch to her more-or-less automatically on the second ballot? ...
Delegates are representatives who should try to vote as they think those who elected them would want them to do.

If they think those who voted for them would want them supporting the candidate with the plurality even if that person was of a different “lane” then they should do that. Odds are though that they’d believe the voters who put them there would want someone else of their “lane” supported and if so they should do that.

Supers should vote based on how the pledged delegates signal, who they think will give the best election result, and who would make the best president.
__________________
Oy.
  #72  
Old 02-13-2020, 04:08 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,854
(continuing my previous post)

And then there's Susie Suburbanite who would have cleared her entire calendar that day to make sure she could vote for Klobuchar. She would have voted for Bernie over Trump, but then the PTA meeting went overtime and...you get the idea.

Is it better to have a candidate who will whip up enthusiasm with Marty and hope Susie comes along for the ride, or vice versa? That's an important and valid discussion to have, and it doesn't have anything to do with "extortion". (As far as I can see, the data doesn't clearly support one side of the argument or the other)
  #73  
Old 02-13-2020, 04:11 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,854
[QUOTE=septimus;22136663]A question related to OP's question is:
If the candidate with most delegates, say Klobuchar for example, doesn't get a majority, should delegates — even delegates that don't like her — switch to her more-or-less automatically on the second ballot?


It depends. You said the answers I gave above were "easy extremes", which was the point; there are "contested convention" situations where one candidate is clearly favored over all others and deserves the nomination, and there are situations where that isn't the case. There are also situations where reasonable people might disagree. It serves no purpose to try to sort through the thousands of possible scenarios in advance and issue a ruling on each one.
  #74  
Old 02-15-2020, 06:02 AM
Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 550

The good old days


Anything could happen, and probably will, but at the moment it looks like the USA is heading for a gerontocracy. Biden, Sanders and Trump are ... not young. A bunch of seventy-somethings who could be over eighty by the time they vacate the Oval Office, if they get there. Politicians do have a sell-by date, and somebody should tell Hillary. And frankly that applies to the above three. Does the USA really need a POTUS who might well keel over in office and open the way for an unelected vice-prez?

More Trump? Definitely possible, or so it seems from here. But what he clearly develops signs of dementia, something that some claim has already happened? OK, we had that with Ronnie, but it was kept quiet at the time.
  #75  
Old 02-15-2020, 07:05 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Delegates are representatives who should try to vote as they think those who elected them would want them to do.

If they think those who voted for them would want them supporting the candidate with the plurality even if that person was of a different “lane” then they should do that. Odds are though that they’d believe the voters who put them there would want someone else of their “lane” supported and if so they should do that.

Supers should vote based on how the pledged delegates signal, who they think will give the best election result, and who would make the best president.
This certainly agrees with what I would have thought, but in #62 I quote two Dopers who seem adamant that delegates must bow down to whoever gets the most pledged delegates.

(Or would their adamancy do a complete about-face if the candidate they currently think will have most delegates finishes in 2nd place instead?)
  #76  
Old 02-15-2020, 07:10 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
So, when Sanders supporters suggests that certain groups (youth, progressives) may not turn out to vote if Sanders isn't the nominee, it's "implicit extortion"?

What do you call it when supporters of other candidates suggest that certain groups (older people, moderates) may not turn out to vote if Sanders IS the nominee?
I use the online thesaurus to look for a less vehement synonym of 'implicit extortion'?

All kidding aside: Candidates and Democrats need to spend more time emphasizing the need to vote D no matter who, and less time attacking each other. Let both the leftists and the moderates get this message!
  #77  
Old 02-15-2020, 06:16 PM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,580
I would vote for my candidate. (Though I'm not sure who it is yet.)

While I would like to avoid a contested convention, I would also like to avoid Bernie Sanders as the nominee. I think a contested convention could be a disaster, but I think a Sanders candidacy would be a disaster. I do not believe Sanders can win the presidency, I do not see the Democrats winning back the Senate if he's the nominee, and I am deeply afraid that they will lose the House with him at the top of the ticket. I'd take my chances with a second round of balloting.

For the record, I would absolutely vote for Sanders if he were the nominee.

Last edited by Ulf the Unwashed; 02-15-2020 at 06:17 PM.
  #78  
Old 02-15-2020, 11:39 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,777
I do admire Bernie. I admire and envy the enthusiasm of his supporters. He gets my full support IF he's the nominee.

But would he be likely to defeat Donald Trump? The Lie Machine hasn't turned against Sanders yet: Putin, Moscow Mitch and the Koch Brothers probably think he'll be easy to defeat, are rooting for him now, and will turn on the Lie Machine only after he becomes the nominee. Once he's the nominee, millions of Americans will "learn" that he's a Soviet sleeper-agent who doesn't know the USSR collapsed; that he embraces Fidel Castro, Karl Marx, Pol Pot ; and that he's due for a massive heart attack on Inauguration Day. On the stankier Yahoo blogs, his religion will be a big deal — Sanders killed Jesus personally. And he'll need to sell your daughters to Red China to pay for his quadrillion-dollar welfare program. If you think I exaggerate, wake up and smell the coffee.

Even if elected and no matter how much many of us like him and his ideas personally, there are several reasons why he will not make an effective President.

And — this is very important — even if he's elected, many poorly informed voters who do vote for him, will vote Republican in down-ticket races to "balance" against his leftism. Sanders as nominee means that Moscow Mitch will control the Senate for at least two more years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulf the Unwashed View Post
... I do not see the Democrats winning back the Senate if he's the nominee, and I am deeply afraid that they will lose the House with him at the top of the ticket. I'd take my chances with a second round of balloting.

For the record, I would absolutely vote for Sanders if he were the nominee.
Of course I will also happily support Sanders if he's the nominee, if he gets 51% of the vote on one of the Convention's ballots. The idea that we should feel obligated/extorted to make him the nominee if he gets just 40% makes me want to puke.
  #79  
Old Yesterday, 11:51 AM
Elendil's Heir is online now
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 221B Baker St.
Posts: 88,099
I like just about any of the Dems still in the field a lot more than I like Bernie, so gimme that contested convention and pass the popcorn, baby!
  #80  
Old Yesterday, 11:57 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,121
I'm not the biggest Sanders fan, but I believe a contested convention is a worse outcome than him becoming the nominee. I'm actually even considering voting for him. Bloomberg is awful, Buttigieg is gay and has low support even among those who are pro-gay, and Biden is done. Sanders, on the other hand, has some appeal. Not among those who normally vote R, but he has an appeal to the younger white working class.

I'm also assuming that everyone agrees we vote for Sanders over Trump, no matter what. So that means the only people to worry about are those who might sit out if it's just another moderate. People already say they see little difference in Bloomberg vs. Trump. Add in the lack of enthusiasm from any side on Bloomberg, and I think his winning tanks everything.

I also just think contested conventions are bad, as they create animosity and project weakness, making it harder to bring people in. They're not unrecoverable, but I'd rather do everything to stop Trump that we can, and not get caught up on ideological battles.

There are things I don't like about Sanders, but he's better on the issues than not only Trump pretty much anyone on the R side. Bloomberg isn't.

Last edited by BigT; Yesterday at 11:58 PM. Reason: ue
  #81  
Old Today, 01:05 AM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 2,520
What's so terrible about a brokered convention? It used to be the norm. The convention that's all balloon drops and PR for the nominee only came into existence in the Forties.

I like a lot of Sanders' ideas but don't think he's electable and so hope the upcoming primaries change his status. I don't care whether or not he's the best candidate. What I want is a candidate who can get those undecided voters. I don't think Sanders is that guy.
  #82  
Old Today, 05:10 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
What's so terrible about a brokered convention? It used to be the norm. The convention that's all balloon drops and PR for the nominee only came into existence in the Forties.

I like a lot of Sanders' ideas but don't think he's electable and so hope the upcoming primaries change his status. I don't care whether or not he's the best candidate. What I want is a candidate who can get those undecided voters. I don't think Sanders is that guy.
Back then, we didn't have people arguing that it's okay to not vote for the Democratic nominee, AFAIK. With things so contentious and fractured, I think you need a clear winner, and as much time as possible to get everyone together.

I also think Trump could capitalize on a perceived lack of decisiveness in the Democratic Party. "Why would you vote for this guy when even most Democrats didn't support them?"

Last edited by BigT; Today at 05:11 AM.
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 11:03 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