Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-01-2020, 01:03 AM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,568

Superdelegates - again?


Politico article: DNC members discuss rules change to stop Sanders at convention

Quote:
A small group of Democratic National Committee members has privately begun gauging support for a plan to potentially weaken Bernie Sandersí presidential campaign and head off a brokered convention.

... about a half-dozen members have discussed the possibility of a policy reversal to ensure that so-called superdelegates can vote on the first ballot at the partyís national convention. Such a move would increase the influence of DNC members, members of Congress and other top party officials, who now must wait until the second ballot to have their say if the convention is contested.
Can this make sense? My (probably naive) view is that this was a very questionable idea in 2016, and would be met with anger and outrage if used in 2020.
  #2  
Old 02-01-2020, 04:09 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,465
Yeah Bernie Bros would be even angrier this 2nd time around. That being said, it's likely Bernie will never catch up to Biden "naturally." The DNC ought to just let it play out. Even Bloomberg might overtake Bernie.
  #3  
Old 02-01-2020, 05:30 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 680
I’m starting to think that if the DNC take this measure, and if Bernie’s candidacy suffers in any way as a result, and as either a direct or indirect consequence, Bernie doesn’t get the nomination, the Bernie Bros should just disengage. If the DNC is going to use dirty tricks to disenfranchise Bernie before the nomination, then they’ve no right to expect engagement from his supporters after the nomination. Maybe four more years of Trump fucking the country up with scandals, unaffordable tax cuts, and a shoot first, ask questions later foreign policy will teach them not to impose their ideas about electability on the rest of us.
  #4  
Old 02-01-2020, 05:58 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,833
"Small group"... I think this is nothing more than random chatter. There are hundreds of DNC members, and this seems to be talking about six.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #5  
Old 02-01-2020, 07:34 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Iím starting to think that if the DNC take this measure, and if Bernieís candidacy suffers in any way as a result, and as either a direct or indirect consequence, Bernie doesnít get the nomination, the Bernie Bros should just disengage. If the DNC is going to use dirty tricks to disenfranchise Bernie before the nomination, then theyíve no right to expect engagement from his supporters after the nomination. Maybe four more years of Trump fucking the country up with scandals, unaffordable tax cuts, and a shoot first, ask questions later foreign policy will teach them not to impose their ideas about electability on the rest of us.
This is exactly why Bernie has a ceiling to his appeal.

ETA: not to mention, your threat of more Trump policies is probably what will happen if Bernie IS the nominee, so it ainít much of a threat, is it?

Last edited by Ravenman; 02-01-2020 at 07:39 AM.
  #6  
Old 02-01-2020, 08:55 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
This is exactly why Bernie has a ceiling to his appeal.
Care to elaborate? Iím simply advocating that Bernie be treated fairly. If the DNC are determined not to do that, they shouldnít expect anything at all from Bernieís supporters, least of all their votes.
  #7  
Old 02-01-2020, 09:15 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,869
6 members is what, 2% of the DNC? There are probably more antivaxxers there.
  #8  
Old 02-01-2020, 09:15 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
ETA: not to mention, your threat of more Trump policies is probably what will happen if Bernie IS the nominee, so it ainít much of a threat, is it?
If the DNC handicap Bernie, and Bernieís supporters (quite reasonably) decide that, since their opinions clearly arenít welcome, theyíre gonna sit 2020 out, then Trump is 100% guaranteed to win. No question. It wouldnít even be close. If the Bernie Bros go on strike and stay at home en masse, then Biden or Warren or whoever will be royally fucked.

Since no Democrat can hope to win without the Bernie Bros, itís in everyoneís interest to treat Bernie fairly. No-oneís saying you have to gift him the nomination. Just donít obviously rig the system against him.
  #9  
Old 02-01-2020, 09:17 AM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,834
I'm a Bernie supporter and I'd vote for whoever the dens put up, even if they do dirty tricks like this. I don't see how four more years of trump and four more years of appointing republican judges will be superior to Biden as president. All the dem candidates are vastly superior to trump.

Having said that, it's going to take a long time to make the democratic party open to more progressive agenda items. Sanders is just one step in the process of remaking the democratic party into something stronger and more willing to fight for the public.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 02-01-2020 at 09:19 AM.
  #10  
Old 02-01-2020, 09:26 AM
DigitalC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 11,346
I fully expect the DNC to try their best to have actual Democrats as the nominee, and this should surprise no one. You want the support of the party then join it. I'll vote for whoever is running against Trump.
  #11  
Old 02-01-2020, 09:31 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I'm a Bernie supporter and I'd vote for whoever the dens put up, even if they do dirty tricks like this. I don't see how four more years of trump and four more years of appointing republican judges will be superior to Biden as president. All the dem candidates are vastly superior to trump.

Having said that, it's going to take a long time to make the democratic party open to more progressive agenda items. Sanders is just one step in the process of remaking the democratic party into something stronger and more willing to fight for the public.
Is he? If Biden becomes President heíll bring in some milquetoasty reforms which wonít change anything much and which the Republicans will undo the instant theyíre back in power again. Meanwhile, the momentum for the kind of substantive change which could actually permanently fix the problems faced by the American working and middle class will have evaporated. Once people have seen one genuine Change candidate - a candidate who, incidentally, polls well against Trump - get screwed over by the DNC, good luck getting them excited for another one.

Biden may be better than Trump, but thatís one hell of a low bar, and from a progressive point of view heís still pretty fucking terrible. So if the DNC go out of their way to sabotage Bernie, I can easily understand why his supporters might just not bother voting. What, from their perspective, would be the point?

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 02-01-2020 at 09:34 AM.
  #12  
Old 02-01-2020, 09:49 AM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Is he? If Biden becomes President heíll bring in some milquetoasty reforms which wonít change anything much and which the Republicans will undo the instant theyíre back in power again. Meanwhile, the momentum for the kind of substantive change which could actually permanently fix the problems faced by the American working and middle class will have evaporated. Once people have seen one genuine Change candidate - a candidate who, incidentally, polls well against Trump - get screwed over by the DNC, good luck getting them excited for another one.

Biden may be better than Trump, but thatís one hell of a low bar, and from a progressive point of view heís still pretty fucking terrible. So if the DNC go out of their way to sabotage Bernie, I can easily understand why his supporters might just not bother voting. What, from their perspective, would be the point?
Yeah but it's a process, a multi decade process.

How would letting trump appoint hundreds of more judges who can overturn progressive legislation decades from now help the progressive movement?

Bernie is just part of the progressive movement. It will continue after 2020 and will keep growing.

Grassroots donations, grassroots volunteers, demographic changes, ideological changes etc will keep building the progressive movement irrelevant of what happens in 2020.

Even if Bernie wins, he won't pass anything even with a democratic congress. The democratic congress won't pass anything but the most mild of reforms even if democrats win the senate. It's going to take decades to build a true progressive movement.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #13  
Old 02-01-2020, 09:56 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Since no Democrat can hope to win without the Bernie Bros, itís in everyoneís interest to treat Bernie fairly. No-oneís saying you have to gift him the nomination. Just donít obviously rig the system against him.
I think thereís quite a few Bernie Bros who see anything as evidence of a system rigged against them. Six superdelegates not liking Bernie, for example. Six.

What we are seeing in politics is as things get more divisive, people buy into conspiracy theories like Bernie got cheated (even though Clinton got way more votes) or that illegal aliens made Clinton win the popular vote (even though thatís a lie). The idea of these out-of-touch extremists coming up with a reasonable definition of ďfairĒ is not realistic.
  #14  
Old 02-01-2020, 10:30 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Since no Democrat can hope to win without the Bernie Bros, itís in everyoneís interest to treat Bernie fairly.
He was treated fairly in 2016 and that wasn't enough.
  #15  
Old 02-01-2020, 11:08 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
He was treated fairly in 2016 and that wasn't enough.
Debatable, and not the topic of this thread
  #16  
Old 02-01-2020, 12:45 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,457
Politico gotta politico. Won’t even look at their clickbait. Every 4 years it’s the same contested convention nonsense. Superdelegates have never mattered. The race will come down to somebody vs Bernie and the somebody will have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #17  
Old 02-01-2020, 12:54 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I think thereís quite a few Bernie Bros who see anything as evidence of a system rigged against them. Six superdelegates not liking Bernie, for example. Six.

What we are seeing in politics is as things get more divisive, people buy into conspiracy theories like Bernie got cheated (even though Clinton got way more votes) or that illegal aliens made Clinton win the popular vote (even though thatís a lie). The idea of these out-of-touch extremists coming up with a reasonable definition of ďfairĒ is not realistic.
And social media. Itís truly amazing the bizarre world some of the Bernie people live in. Iím not referring to supporters getting nasty, itís the alternative reality they live in where everything is a conspiracy against Bernie and every poll is rigged that doesnít show Bernie in the lead and the media never covers Bernie.

I donít travel much in Trump circles but I do see the Facebook memes occasionally showing Ďthe caravaní and posting bullshit about how the Democrats (or Soros)are paying them to flood the USA and vote illegally. Thereís no response when I question why we send them all to California when we need their votes in the Midwest!
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #18  
Old 02-01-2020, 01:06 PM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Is he? If Biden becomes President heíll bring in some milquetoasty reforms which wonít change anything much and which the Republicans will undo the instant theyíre back in power again. Meanwhile, the momentum for the kind of substantive change which could actually permanently fix the problems faced by the American working and middle class will have evaporated. Once people have seen one genuine Change candidate - a candidate who, incidentally, polls well against Trump - get screwed over by the DNC, good luck getting them excited for another one.

Biden may be better than Trump, but thatís one hell of a low bar, and from a progressive point of view heís still pretty fucking terrible. So if the DNC go out of their way to sabotage Bernie, I can easily understand why his supporters might just not bother voting. What, from their perspective, would be the point?
You're basically being intentionally (and easily) manipulated by a political writer class that just likes to stir up shit among Democrats because it generates pageviews. Did you even read the article? It mentioned tons of actual power brokers in the DNC, Donna Brazile, Tom Perez, and even multiple people who opposed pushing superdelegates back to second ballot vote only, all saying the same thing: we agreed to these rules for 2020 and we're not going to change them.

Politico has chosen to report on the fringe opinion of people that are out of power in the DNC, do not represent the DNC, and are such a small portion of its membership that they are functionally irrelevant.

In response you're foaming at the mouth thinking about how you can justify not voting for Biden in 2020. You're being played like a fiddle.
  #19  
Old 02-01-2020, 01:29 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
You're basically being intentionally (and easily) manipulated by a political writer class that just likes to stir up shit among Democrats because it generates pageviews. Did you even read the article? It mentioned tons of actual power brokers in the DNC, Donna Brazile, Tom Perez, and even multiple people who opposed pushing superdelegates back to second ballot vote only, all saying the same thing: we agreed to these rules for 2020 and we're not going to change them.

Politico has chosen to report on the fringe opinion of people that are out of power in the DNC, do not represent the DNC, and are such a small portion of its membership that they are functionally irrelevant.

In response you're foaming at the mouth thinking about how you can justify not voting for Biden in 2020. You're being played like a fiddle.
All Iím saying is Iíll understand if Bernie Bros donít vote in the general if the DNC donít treat Bernie fairly. If they do treat him fairly, then thereís no problem.
  #20  
Old 02-01-2020, 01:48 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
All Iím saying is Iíll understand if Bernie Bros donít vote in the general if the DNC donít treat Bernie fairly. If they do treat him fairly, then thereís no problem.
And for Bernie Bros the only acceptable treatment is to make him the nominee. Theyíll accept nothing else.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #21  
Old 02-01-2020, 02:00 PM
racepug is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: the State of Columbia
Posts: 1,491
And this is the very kind of thing that I was referring to when I posted a comment about "Democrat dipsh*ttery" in another thread.
  #22  
Old 02-01-2020, 02:11 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,532
Superdelegates were created after 1972 for the very purpose of preventing a fringe nominee like McGovern. How is it a “dirty trick” for a party to take measures to control its nominations?
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #23  
Old 02-01-2020, 02:38 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Superdelegates were created after 1972 for the very purpose of preventing a fringe nominee like McGovern. How is it a ďdirty trickĒ for a party to take measures to control its nominations?
The period from JFK to Carter was the evolution of the primary system being used to select the nominee as opposed to the smoke filled rooms.

The 1972 Democratic convention was such a mess that there were endless squabbles over delegates and was such a mess that McGovern couldnít even give his acceptance speech in prime time.

The current system with primaries or caucuses in every state has made the idea of a contested convention almost impossible. Even 2008 didnít result in one and that was as close to a tie as possible. There arenít regional wings of the Democratic Party these days so three viable candidates isnít likely to happen. Itís almost always going to come down to A vs B.

In 1988 and 2016 all the talk of superdelegates was ridiculous. Dukakis had amassed an insurmountable lead over Jackson and so did Hillary over Sanders. Primaries arenít football games where a team can score 3 unanswered touchdowns. Itís ridiculous to think that in a large delegate state, one candidate will take all the delegates.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #24  
Old 02-01-2020, 02:43 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Politico gotta politico. Wonít even look at their clickbait. Every 4 years itís the same contested convention nonsense. Superdelegates have never mattered. The race will come down to somebody vs Bernie and the somebody will have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot.
And the author is a known sanders supporters and his sources is one unidentified Delegate. Who could of course be making it all up. Or a handful of guys could be kicking ideas around.

I have grave doubts there is anything serious afoot.
  #25  
Old 02-01-2020, 02:49 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And the author is a known sanders supporters and his sources is one unidentified Delegate. Who could of course be making it all up. Or a handful of guys could be kicking ideas around.

I have grave doubts there is anything serious afoot.
Ah ok, as I said, I didnít even click the article. Politico used to be a slightly right of center but decent news source. Itís even still in print in the D.C. area but is a shred of its former self.

Now, theyíll print almost anything for clicks. Another Democrats in disarrayí article.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #26  
Old 02-01-2020, 03:45 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Superdelegates were created after 1972 for the very purpose of preventing a fringe nominee like McGovern. How is it a ďdirty trickĒ for a party to take measures to control its nominations?
I bet most Republicans would have loved to have superdelegates in 2016.
  #27  
Old 02-01-2020, 05:24 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
All Iím saying is Iíll understand if Bernie Bros donít vote in the general if the DNC donít treat Bernie fairly. If they do treat him fairly, then thereís no problem.
Again. Recent history shows us that this isn't true. Bernie was treated fairly in 2016 and there was a problem.
  #28  
Old 02-01-2020, 07:13 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
6 members is what, 2% of the DNC? There are probably more antivaxxers there.
Pretty much this. I don't have a negative opinion about Politico in general but this is clickbait, and dumb clickbait at that.

If Sanders can win on the first ballot with pledged delegates he would deserve to win and would be the nominee. Acting on an idea like Sanders pushed at the end of last cycle, for the supers to undo the pledged delegate result, would not fly.
  #29  
Old 02-01-2020, 08:13 PM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalC View Post
I fully expect the DNC to try their best to have actual Democrats as the nominee, and this should surprise no one. You want the support of the party then join it. I'll vote for whoever is running against Trump.
If the DNC doesn't want to nominate "outsiders" then it should change its rules about who's allowed to run, not let them run and then rig the game against them.
  #30  
Old 02-01-2020, 08:14 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
The current system with primaries or caucuses in every state has made the idea of a contested convention almost impossible. Even 2008 didn’t result in one and that was as close to a tie as possible. There aren’t regional wings of the Democratic Party these days so three viable candidates isn’t likely to happen. It’s almost always going to come down to A vs B.
The problem being that the schedule has changed quite a bit and early/absentee is becoming more common. 538's primary model shows something well outside the norm as of 23 Jan.
Quote:
A brokered convention is not a likely occurrence, exactly. But it’s not unlikely, either. It’s roughly as likely as the Tennessee Titans beating the Baltimore Ravens earlier this month, or Donald Trump winning the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote. According to the FiveThirtyEight primary model, there’s a 15 percent chance that no Democrat wins a majority of pledged delegates
Part of the issue is how many delegates have been pushed forward in the process due to schedule changes. In 2016 25.22% of total pledged delegates had already been decided by the end of Super Tuesday. This year we'll be at 38.0% after Super Tuesday. By the time Iowans come together to caucus on Monday seven early states will already be voting. That is the same day CA mails their absentee ballots opening their voting. There simply isn't the same amount time for that normal winnowing to produce an A vs B race in that schedule.

The relatively high 15% threshold the DNC uses for every state helps. It can produce less than proportional results in big fields. That might be enough to keep too many delegates being shunted away from A or B before it is a head to head race. The majority of delegates are awarded by congressional district though. It is possible for candidates to break threshold and cherry pick delegates away from the leaders even without winning any of the statewide delegates. Threshold helps but it is not a panacea.

The DNC has also been pretty smart about using debate inclusion rules to force early winnowing. Without it the scenario could be even uglier. Waiting for winnowing to happen naturally in IA and NH would risk splitting the delegates in the early voting states even further than the might already. Coming out of Super Tuesday with a mathematically possible but unrealistic chance of the front runner winning a majority of delegates would be a trainwreck.

Again, 538 is giving the trainwreck an almost 1 out of 6 chance based on their prediction model. The odds are low but not as low as past experience might make us think. At least a few members of the DNC should probably be thinking about whether it is uglier to let party leaders weigh in early or let the contested convention play out.

Remember, the ending of the boy who cried wolf story involved an actual wolf showing up.

Last edited by DinoR; 02-01-2020 at 08:15 PM.
  #31  
Old 02-01-2020, 08:15 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
If the DNC doesn't want to nominate "outsiders" then it should change its rules about who's allowed to run, not let them run and then rig the game against them.
The Democratic party doesnít control who can enter elections. State governments do.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #32  
Old 02-01-2020, 08:24 PM
Yookeroo's Avatar
Yookeroo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Clemente, California
Posts: 5,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Is he? If Biden becomes President heíll bring in some milquetoasty reforms which wonít change anything much and which the Republicans will undo the instant theyíre back in power again.
This is more than Bernie can accomplish. You need the 50th most liberal senator to vote for your policies in order to get anything passed. And this assumes the Dems control the Senate and kill the filibuster. You will only get "milquetoasty" reforms no matter who wins. The 50th most liberal senator will be "milquetoasty". We live in a pretty conservative country. Reform will be slow no matter who wins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
All Iím saying is Iíll understand if Bernie Bros donít vote in the general if the DNC donít treat Bernie fairly. If they do treat him fairly, then thereís no problem.
I won't.
  #33  
Old 02-01-2020, 08:29 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
If the DNC doesn't want to nominate "outsiders" then it should change its rules about who's allowed to run, not let them run and then rig the game against them.
But... not allowing Bernie to run as a Democrat would also be ďunfairĒ and rigging the game against him.
  #34  
Old 02-01-2020, 08:46 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoR View Post
The problem being that the schedule has changed quite a bit and early/absentee is becoming more common. 538's primary model shows something well outside the norm as of 23 Jan.


Part of the issue is how many delegates have been pushed forward in the process due to schedule changes. In 2016 25.22% of total pledged delegates had already been decided by the end of Super Tuesday. This year we'll be at 38.0% after Super Tuesday. By the time Iowans come together to caucus on Monday seven early states will already be voting. That is the same day CA mails their absentee ballots opening their voting. There simply isn't the same amount time for that normal winnowing to produce an A vs B race in that schedule.

The relatively high 15% threshold the DNC uses for every state helps. It can produce less than proportional results in big fields. That might be enough to keep too many delegates being shunted away from A or B before it is a head to head race. The majority of delegates are awarded by congressional district though. It is possible for candidates to break threshold and cherry pick delegates away from the leaders even without winning any of the statewide delegates. Threshold helps but it is not a panacea.

The DNC has also been pretty smart about using debate inclusion rules to force early winnowing. Without it the scenario could be even uglier. Waiting for winnowing to happen naturally in IA and NH would risk splitting the delegates in the early voting states even further than the might already. Coming out of Super Tuesday with a mathematically possible but unrealistic chance of the front runner winning a majority of delegates would be a trainwreck.

Again, 538 is giving the trainwreck an almost 1 out of 6 chance based on their prediction model. The odds are low but not as low as past experience might make us think. At least a few members of the DNC should probably be thinking about whether it is uglier to let party leaders weigh in early or let the contested convention play out.

Remember, the ending of the boy who cried wolf story involved an actual wolf showing up.
True. Earlier voting will be a factor, how large it will be is unknown. Iíve already locked up a Pete vote in MN from a friend.

But, another new factor will be the almost complete elimination of caucuses. Bernie winning small state caucuses helped him continue the myth that he still had a chance, even caucuses held on the Saturday of Easter weekend.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #35  
Old 02-01-2020, 09:17 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
If the DNC doesn't want to nominate "outsiders" then it should change its rules about who's allowed to run, not let them run and then rig the game against them.
How about the DNC makes it own rules and people who don't like them can seek the nomination of a party with rules more to their liking?
  #36  
Old 02-02-2020, 04:37 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Again. Recent history shows us that this isn't true. Bernie was treated fairly in 2016 and there was a problem.
Recent history shows that, at the highest levels, the DNC was strongly opposed to Sanders running for President in 2016. Wikileaks showed undeniable evidence of pro-Clinton favouritism. The Sanders campaign was unable to prove deliberate malfeasance and, unfortunately, people like you have clouded things by equivocating the two. This is transparently absurd. Just because Sanders couldnít prove the DNC rigged the vote doesnít mean there was no evidence of favouritism. Because there was. Your huffy protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the Bernie Bros has good reason to be, at the very least, healthily suspicious of how Bernie was treated in 2016.
  #37  
Old 02-02-2020, 05:11 AM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
How about the DNC makes it own rules and people who don't like them can seek the nomination of a party with rules more to their liking?
Isn't that what I said?
  #38  
Old 02-02-2020, 09:44 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Recent history shows that, at the highest levels, the DNC was strongly opposed to Sanders running for President in 2016. Wikileaks showed undeniable evidence of pro-Clinton favouritism. The Sanders campaign was unable to prove deliberate malfeasance and, unfortunately, people like you have clouded things by equivocating the two. This is transparently absurd. Just because Sanders couldnít prove the DNC rigged the vote doesnít mean there was no evidence of favouritism. Because there was. Your huffy protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the Bernie Bros has good reason to be, at the very least, healthily suspicious of how Bernie was treated in 2016.
Nope.
  #39  
Old 02-02-2020, 09:54 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,964
I seriously wonder if leadership at DNC has in any election not had personal opinions and favorite choices or least favorite choices.
  #40  
Old 02-02-2020, 11:43 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Nope.
yep ur wrong

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 02-02-2020 at 11:45 AM.
  #41  
Old 02-02-2020, 11:55 AM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
If the DNC doesn't want to nominate "outsiders" then it should change its rules about who's allowed to run, not let them run and then rig the game against them.
Doesn't it take a 2/3 vote to change rules on the floor of the convention?

Meanwhile, I saw things in 2016 that helped Sanders, as well as things as helped Clinton, and I am not sure just how much the DNC played in either one.

In Sanders's case, at least one state changed its primary rules to allow 17-year-olds to vote if they would be 18 by general election day in November.

In Clinton's case, a number of states that announced primary/caucus results announced both the vote percentage and the delegate counts, but included the Superdelegates in the counts so that, while Sanders won the vote, it looked as if Clinton won the primary. Whether this was by the DNC, the state Democratic Party, or the media, I do not know.
I do know that, this year, CNN has already made it clear that it will declare as "the winner of the Iowa Caucus" the candidate with the most State Delegate Equivalents, regardless of the raw vote (which will also be released by Iowa's Democratic Party) or delegate counts (and if the SDEs are close, the delegate counts may have a different leader depending on how they break down in the Congressional districts).
  #42  
Old 02-02-2020, 01:09 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Recent history shows that, at the highest levels, the DNC was strongly opposed to Sanders running for President in 2016. Wikileaks showed undeniable evidence of pro-Clinton favouritism.
Sounds remarkably like Trumpís complaint that the FBI is biased against him.
  #43  
Old 02-02-2020, 01:41 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Recent history shows that, at the highest levels, the DNC was strongly opposed to Sanders running for President in 2016. Wikileaks showed undeniable evidence of pro-Clinton favouritism. The Sanders campaign was unable to prove deliberate malfeasance and, unfortunately, people like you have clouded things by equivocating the two. This is transparently absurd. Just because Sanders couldnít prove the DNC rigged the vote doesnít mean there was no evidence of favouritism. Because there was. Your huffy protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the Bernie Bros has good reason to be, at the very least, healthily suspicious of how Bernie was treated in 2016.
Since it seems you're putting forth the argument that the DNC actively changed votes at the state level, you're going to need to provide some pretty extraordinary proof.

Or any proof.

Or anything other than conspiracy theory.
  #44  
Old 02-02-2020, 02:12 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Since it seems you're putting forth the argument that the DNC actively changed votes at the state level, you're going to need to provide some pretty extraordinary proof.

Or any proof.

Or anything other than conspiracy theory.
Not what Iím actually saying at all.
  #45  
Old 02-02-2020, 03:32 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: At home, hunkered.
Posts: 31,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
The Democratic party doesnít control who can enter elections. State governments do.
Can you unpack this for the furriner, please?
__________________
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.
  #46  
Old 02-02-2020, 03:37 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: At home, hunkered.
Posts: 31,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
The Democratic party doesnít control who can enter elections. State governments do.
Can you unpack this for the furriner, please?
__________________
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.
  #47  
Old 02-02-2020, 03:51 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Can you unpack this for the furriner, please?
Basically anyone that wants to call themselves a Democrat can be one. States do have standards to get on the ballot, however. Itís usually from gathering enough signatures from registered voters. Sometimes the signatures have to be from people who are registered with that political party if that states tracks it. Sometimes you need signatures from all parts of a state. And some states just want you to pay a fee.

I know, clear as mud! But, since we donít have candidate selection committees for local parties, itís the best weíve got.

The intent of states to limit ballot access is a way to keep the ballot a reasonable size and not look like a 1970s NYC phone book with hundreds of people Ďrunningí for President.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #48  
Old 02-02-2020, 05:04 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Recent history shows that, at the highest levels, the DNC was strongly opposed to Sanders running for President in 2016. Wikileaks showed undeniable evidence of pro-Clinton favouritism. ..
Wikileaks was working for the Russians and heavily edited and took out of context stuff they hacked.

Yes, many of the DNC staff were pro Hillary and anti sanders. So? So were most democrats.

I think the worst thing that actually happened is that they leaked some of the questions to Hillary before one debate.

Sanders did pretty badly in actual- you know- elections. He did good in the caucuses, which are pretty un-democratic.

At no time could have have won. He knew that too.
  #49  
Old 02-04-2020, 07:50 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Wikileaks was working for the Russians and heavily edited and took out of context stuff they hacked.

Yes, many of the DNC staff were pro Hillary and anti sanders. So? So were most democrats.

I think the worst thing that actually happened is that they leaked some of the questions to Hillary before one debate.
The DNC had their thumb on the scale big time for Clinton. This is not Russians saying it, it is a fact. One the DNC itself admits to.

- Inside Hillary Clintonís Secret Takeover of the DNC
- Elizabeth Warren and Donna Brazile both now agree the 2016 Democratic primary was rigged
- DNC apologizes to Bernie Sanders amid convention chaos in wake of email leak
__________________
"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
  #50  
Old 02-05-2020, 02:47 AM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,285
And if not for those things would Sanders have magically broken through the ceiling of 15-20% support among African American voters in the South? Due to how the Democrats delegate allocation works, margin of victory is all important. While Sanders came close to Hillary in several large states like California, and eked out a win over her in Michigan, a small win is almost a draw in delegates. Meanwhile throughout the entire Southeast Hillary sometimes beat Bernie by margins as high as 60%.

That's basic math and is why Bernie lost. Is it your theory that anything the DNC did would have changed the way black voters in the Southeast viewed Bernie in 2016?
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 06:57 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