View Poll Results: Bernie or a contested convention - how do you vote?
Bernie 48 46.60%
A moderate (and likely a contested convention) 55 53.40%
Voters: 103. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-10-2020, 09:45 PM
squidfood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 495

Bernie or a contested convention - how do you vote?


(Inspired from the "Why don't you support Bernie" thread, and a look at today's FiveThirtyEight projections).

Ok. Super Tuesday has passed. Your state's primary is coming up. The votes are lined up so Bernie has a plurality but not a majority - but your state could put him to an outright majority. Unfortunately (for moderates), the moderate vote is split between Biden, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg, and split enough that none of them have a really clear lead. If all the moderates got together and agreed on one candidate, they would have a majority. But it's too late for the voters to do that job.

If your state goes mostly Bernie, he gets the nomination. If not - contested convention - maybe a moderate would come out on top, but it would be messy.

How do you vote?

(Anyone who says "but this is why ranked voting..." loses 2 debate points).

Last edited by squidfood; 02-10-2020 at 09:48 PM. Reason: grammar
  #2  
Old 02-10-2020, 09:55 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,202
I voted, but if it were "Biden or a contested convention," I would've voted the other way.
  #3  
Old 02-10-2020, 10:34 PM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,888
The only semi-prominent Democrats I'd prefer a contested convention over would be Tulsi Gabbard and Tom Steyer. Not that I'm registered as a Democrat or anything.
  #4  
Old 02-10-2020, 11:33 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,853
I think this poll would be more meaningful if you restricted it to self-identified moderates. As it is you can’t know how many of the “Bernie” votes are from actual Bernie supporters.
__________________
Please...we prefer the term "Bernard Brother".
  #5  
Old 02-10-2020, 11:48 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,981
And after the tenth ballot, a chant begins in the California delegation....................."Schiff....Schiff..........Schiff".
  #6  
Old 02-11-2020, 12:01 AM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 25,979
My feeling would not change regardless of the year or the race. In the primary I would always vote for my choice without regard for election strategy or whatever. My choice will be one of the moderates. In the general election I decide on the lesser of two evils.

My state will go democrat regardless of who is the nominee so in th general it wonít matter at all.
  #7  
Old 02-11-2020, 12:23 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,289
I don't see a messy contested convention as a horrible thing, so long as immediately afterwards there is a big and sincere show of unity. It's enough time to circle the wagons. Meanwhile it dominates the news cycle, not Trump's tweets.

If the circumstance was a Sanders plurality but a clear moderate majority, then I strongly expect the decision to be made by the third vote at the latest, with most moderate pledged delegates moving to the moderate delegate leader and the supers following their lead.
  #8  
Old 02-11-2020, 12:33 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I don't see a messy contested convention as a horrible thing, so long as immediately afterwards there is a big and sincere show of unity.
Nothing could possibi go wrong.

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-11-2020 at 12:35 AM.
  #9  
Old 02-11-2020, 12:38 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I don't see a messy contested convention as a horrible thing, so long as immediately afterwards there is a big and sincere show of unity.
If this Bernie voter is in any way representative of a majority or even substantial minority of Bernie voters, the D's will be in trouble in November (assuming Bernie is in the lead but gets replaced by another nominee).

Last edited by Velocity; 02-11-2020 at 12:39 AM.
  #10  
Old 02-11-2020, 01:13 AM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If this Bernie voter is in any way representative of a majority or even substantial minority of Bernie voters, the D's will be in trouble in November (assuming Bernie is in the lead but gets replaced by another nominee).
Bernie got 13 million votes in the 2016 primary. He will get less votes in the 2020 primary because there are more than 2 viable candidates, so maybe he will get 8-10 million votes (probably less).

Of those 8-10 million votes, a small % will be hardcore Bernie supporters, but probably only a million or so. A million hardcore voters sitting out could swing an election, but hopefully they are located mostly in urban areas in blue states.

All of the democrats are proposing fairly leftward legislation on issues like health care and taxes by historical standards. They're all vastly better than Trump.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #11  
Old 02-11-2020, 01:34 AM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If this Bernie voter is in any way representative of a majority or even substantial minority of Bernie voters, the D's will be in trouble in November (assuming Bernie is in the lead but gets replaced by another nominee).
The Bernie subreddit is the most toxic and fanatical place on this planet.

Not quite sure where the OP is going. IF and only IF, we end up with such a situation, Superdelegates, who vote in the second round will decide the nomination, then theyíll start openly endorsing the strongest candidate.

As Iíve said, weíll be down to Sanders vs Not-Sanders in a month or so
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #12  
Old 02-11-2020, 03:03 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,746
[From the history desk:]
At the 1912 Democratic convention, Woodrow Wilson became the nominee on the 46th ballot. Speaker Champ Clark led on the first 29 ballots, even attaining a majority when New York switched from Harmon on the 9th ballot. But simple majority was not enough; William Jennings Bryan asked to speak and stirred delegates when he accused Clark of being Wall Street's tool. Wilson took over the lead on the 30th ballot, had a simple majority by the 43rd ballot, and the required 2/3 majority on the 46th ballot. (A "47th ballot" was held choosing Wilson unanimously.)

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was chosen on the 4th ballot in 1932. (He'd gotten a simple majority on each of the first three ballots.) This was the last time the Democrats required a 2/3 majority to nominate, and the last time a nominee who failed to win on the first ballot went on to become President. (Wilkie, Dewey and Stevenson came after 1932 and required multiple ballots to win their party's nomination, but each was defeated in November.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I didn't know how to vote in the poll. Perception is key — we don't want D voters turned off by bad perceptions. But at this point voters are assaulted on all sides by lies and fake news. Does true news even matter anymore?

Last edited by septimus; 02-11-2020 at 03:04 AM.
  #13  
Old 02-11-2020, 03:41 AM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 25,979
Hell maybe thatís what is needed to get people interested and engaged. A contested convention will be interesting at least. The conventions are usually snoozefests.
  #14  
Old 02-11-2020, 09:12 AM
Bayaker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: A town on Galveston Bay
Posts: 4,791
As a spectator, a brokered convention would be the ideal outcome. There hasn't been one in my lifetime. I want to stock up on popcorn and watch something to rival the 1924 convention - a record 103 ballots.
  #15  
Old 02-11-2020, 10:26 AM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,529
It won't matter who gets chosen, even if they win, unless the senate also switches. And even then, unless they abolish the filibuster. The senate Republicans will have only one objective--to destroy their presidency.
  #16  
Old 02-11-2020, 10:54 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,514
I didn't see a Warren option there (ETA: so I didn't vote in the poll), but ISTM that if Bernie doesn't have a majority but is close, then Warren would be the natural compromise candidate.

And since she's my preferred candidate, then the more delegates she has, going into whatever negotiations go on, the better.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 02-11-2020 at 10:55 AM.
  #17  
Old 02-11-2020, 11:12 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,674
Maybe a contested convention would push this country towards a better system of nominating candidates. So, that.
  #18  
Old 02-11-2020, 11:20 AM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Not quite sure where the OP is going. IF and only IF, we end up with such a situation, Superdelegates, who vote in the second round will decide the nomination, then theyíll start openly endorsing the strongest candidate.
According to the Call for the Convention, there are 3768 "pledged" delegates (although it is possible that some may be uncommitted), and currently 767 (or 768) superdelegates:
440 members of the Democratic National Committee
235 members of the House of Representatives
45 Senators (or 46, if Sanders, who signed an "I am a Democrat" pledge as part of the requirements to be considered a candidate, is included)
(note that the Call lists only 278 members of Congress, and does not include Sanders among them)
23 state governors
The mayor of Washington, DC (other mayors are not superdelegates, but DC is treated as a state, so its mayor is treated as a state governor)
Former Presidents Obama, Clinton, and Carter
Former VPs Biden, Gore, and Mondale
17 "others," consisting of former DNC chairs and former Democratic House/Senate leaders who are not still in Congress

If it does come down to a second ballot, and Sanders and Warren have a majority (including the superdelegates) between them, I see one of them withdrawing under the assumption their delegates will vote for the other progressive. In fact, if they have a majority of the pledged delegates between them, I can see Warren (presumably with fewer delegates) withdrawing, and releasing her delegates, before the first ballot - assuming that's allowed.
The only rule I can find about who a delegate "has to" vote for is, "All delegates to the National Convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them"; presumably, this means, "If you were pledged to a progressive who withdraws, then you should vote for another progressive; similarly, if you were pledged to a moderate who withdraws, then you should vote for another moderate."
  #19  
Old 02-11-2020, 11:26 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,277
I don't think you can presume that. There isn't two categories you can simply split all candidates into meaningfully. Mostly political junkies do that , not voters. The polling on second choices does not reflect all the Warren people want Bernie as a backup. All the Biden people don't have Buttigieg as their second choice.
  #20  
Old 02-11-2020, 11:35 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 22,035
Whatever keeps Bernie off the ballot. He would be a giant pinata for Republicans to pummel with hammers and sickles. Fuck the Bernie Bros, we need someone who can win.
  #21  
Old 02-11-2020, 11:36 AM
squidfood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I didn't see a Warren option there (ETA: so I didn't vote in the poll), but ISTM that if Bernie doesn't have a majority but is close, then Warren would be the natural compromise candidate.

And since she's my preferred candidate, then the more delegates she has, going into whatever negotiations go on, the better.
I was interested in the choice between "decide on Bernie by March" (because he's the current leader) versus "contested convention in general". I would put Warren in the "contested convention" category since she doesn't look close to any majority at the moment.

I focused on moderates because, if the current pattern holds through March, it's choosing between "months of uncertainty who knows what outcome[1]" versus "a majority candidate that doesn't appeal to moderates, but who can concentrate on winning the general." (Warren supporters - like myself initially - are making less of a policy compromise switching to Bernie).

I personally think the uncertainty is far worse - coming off of Iowa, the disorganization it would display would play into a harmful narrative for the Democrats.

[1] Though with the uncertainty comes plenty of popcorn, and excellent posts on delegate math and complex gamesmanship analysis, so there's that.
  #22  
Old 02-11-2020, 11:36 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayaker View Post
As a spectator, a brokered convention would be the ideal outcome. There hasn't been one in my lifetime. I want to stock up on popcorn and watch something to rival the 1924 convention - a record 103 ballots.
I concur. It would be something to see. I had been curious to see one 4 years ago but the Republicans didn't do it.

Last edited by Velocity; 02-11-2020 at 11:37 AM.
  #23  
Old 02-11-2020, 12:27 PM
pjacks is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 279
A contested convention that results in a nominee that didn't win a plurality of delegates would destroy the party. Even the GOP didn't pull that shit in 2016, and Trump is objectively worse than Sanders in every way. You are crazy if you think Sanders voters would just get over it, and a lot of other voters would find it just as disturbing.

I'm a Yang supporter. In a straight contest between Bernie & Pete, I would vote for Pete. But votes matter. 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. This whole thing is so fucked up. 3 years of Clinton sycophants crowing about how she won the popular vote (also by plurality) and how that is all that matters, and those same people are now nonchalantly considering depriving the primary winner of his own win. What a surefire way to confirm every conspiracy theory about a rigged system. The democrats deserve the ruin they have coming to them if they do this.

And it's your own fault, mushy moderates. While you were fighting over imaginary healthcare bills that all equally have no chance of being passed, and arguing about who was the most woke about busing in the 70s, the Not-Bernie vote remained divided. 2 dozen Not-Bernies and not a single one is acceptable? Well then you dug your own graves and need to live with the consequences.

Last edited by pjacks; 02-11-2020 at 12:29 PM.
  #24  
Old 02-11-2020, 01:18 PM
Oredigger77 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Back at 5,280
Posts: 5,288
I don't want Warren or Sanders so anything I can do with my vote to keep them from being the candidate. That said I'm not certain if I get a vote in the dem primary this year, we'll see if and when they mail me a ballot.
  #25  
Old 02-11-2020, 01:38 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,853
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. Even the GOP didn't pull that shit in 2016, and Trump is objectively worse than Sanders in every way. You are crazy if you think Sanders voters would just get over it, and a lot of other voters would find it just as disturbing.

I'm a Yang supporter. In a straight contest between Bernie & Pete, I would vote for Pete. But votes matter. 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. This whole thing is so fucked up. 3 years of Clinton sycophants crowing about how she won the popular vote (also by plurality) and how that is all that matters, and those same people are now nonchalantly considering depriving the primary winner of his own win. What a surefire way to confirm every conspiracy theory about a rigged system. The democrats deserve the ruin they have coming to them if they do this.

And it's your own fault, mushy moderates. While you were fighting over imaginary healthcare bills that all equally have no chance of being passed, and arguing about who was the most woke about busing in the 70s, the Not-Bernie vote remained divided. 2 dozen Not-Bernies and not a single one is acceptable? Well then you dug your own graves and need to live with the consequences.
Calm down, dude. There are a wide variety of scenarios here. 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.
  #26  
Old 02-11-2020, 02:35 PM
ShadowFacts is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post

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.
You're absolutely right about that, but that won't stop a large and vocal minority of Bernie supporters from flinging shit all around the room.
  #27  
Old 02-11-2020, 03:12 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I voted, but if it were "Biden or a contested convention," I would've voted the other way.
Same here (voted for Bernie).
  #28  
Old 02-11-2020, 03:19 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
The Bernie subreddit is the most toxic and fanatical place on this planet.
Wow. Hyperbole much?
__________________
"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
  #29  
Old 02-11-2020, 03:27 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If this Bernie voter is in any way representative of a majority or even substantial minority of Bernie voters, the D's will be in trouble in November (assuming Bernie is in the lead but gets replaced by another nominee).
I don't see the problem there. If it goes down as described in your link why wouldn't you expect huge swaths of disaffected voters?

There are already indications that the DNC wants to change the rules:

- DNC members discuss rules change to stop Sanders at convention

And they did change the debate rules to benefit Bloomberg:

- DNC overhauls debate requirements, opening door for Bloomberg

And again for the debate on February 19 in Nevada:

- 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
  #30  
Old 02-11-2020, 03:33 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 22,035
If the DNC wants to stop him, they should adopt a rule that in order to be nominated for president, you shall have served in public office as a Democrat and shall never have served as a Republican or independent.
  #31  
Old 02-11-2020, 03:36 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,853
Yes, that would certainly stop Bloomberg, but would his supporters stand for it?
  #32  
Old 02-11-2020, 03:36 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
If it does come down to a second ballot, and Sanders and Warren have a majority (including the superdelegates) between them, I see one of them withdrawing under the assumption their delegates will vote for the other progressive. In fact, if they have a majority of the pledged delegates between them, I can see Warren (presumably with fewer delegates) withdrawing, and releasing her delegates, before the first ballot - assuming that's allowed.
In a strong whiff of 2016 the ballots are almost all already cast by the superdelegates (yes, they can change):

(Currently)
- Joe Biden: 257
- Elizabeth Warren: 87
- Michael Bloomberg: 68
- Bernie Sanders: 55
- Amy Klobuchar: 53
- Pete Buttigieg: 42
- Michael Bennet: 18
- Tom Steyer: 1
__________________
"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
  #33  
Old 02-11-2020, 03:40 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
If the DNC wants to stop him, they should adopt a rule that in order to be nominated for president, you shall have served in public office as a Democrat and shall never have served as a Republican or independent.
They are way ahead of you (kinda):

Quote:
The new DNC rules state that a candidate must "be a bona fide Democrat whose record of public service, accomplishment, public writings, and/or public statements affirmatively demonstrates that the candidate is faithful to the interests, welfare, and success of the Democratic Party of the United States who subscribes to the substance, intent, and principles of the Charter and the Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States, and who will participate in the Convention in good faith."

And candidates must affirm in writing to the DNC chairman that they "are a Democrat... are a member of the Democratic Party; will accept the Democratic nomination; and will run and serve as a member of the Democratic Party."

SOURCE: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/04/70012...an-independent
__________________
"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
  #34  
Old 02-11-2020, 03:44 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,276
Nominating Bernie or Warren guarantees four more years of Trump, so I voted for the contested convention. I'm almost certainly voting third party anyway, but a fight on the floor would make for entertaining TV.
  #35  
Old 02-11-2020, 03:49 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Nominating Bernie or Warren guarantees four more years of Trump, so I voted for the contested convention. I'm almost certainly voting third party anyway, but a fight on the floor would make for entertaining TV.


- General Election: Trump vs. Sanders
- February 10, 2020 - Sanders Takes Top Spot In Dem Primary As Biden Falls, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Bloomberg Rises In Primary, Runs Strong Against Trump
- Sanders Crushes Trump by 18 Points Among Independent Voters in New National General Election Poll
- Bernie Sanders Leads Donald Trump by Widest Margin of All 2020 Candidates: Election Poll
- Poll finds Sanders faring best against Trump in Texas
__________________
"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
  #36  
Old 02-11-2020, 03:52 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidfood View Post
I was interested in the choice between "decide on Bernie by March" (because he's the current leader) versus "contested convention in general". I would put Warren in the "contested convention" category since she doesn't look close to any majority at the moment.

I focused on moderates because, if the current pattern holds through March, it's choosing between "months of uncertainty who knows what outcome[1]" versus "a majority candidate that doesn't appeal to moderates, but who can concentrate on winning the general." (Warren supporters - like myself initially - are making less of a policy compromise switching to Bernie).

I personally think the uncertainty is far worse - coming off of Iowa, the disorganization it would display would play into a harmful narrative for the Democrats.

[1] Though with the uncertainty comes plenty of popcorn, and excellent posts on delegate math and complex gamesmanship analysis, so there's that.
It's not a sentiment you hear much among the nerds on this board, but I think that attitude is very widespread among ordinary voters. Democrats care about winning, winning and winning, in that order, and they perceive that a drawn out, divisive primary campaign hurts that goal.

I have actually had several people--committed Democrats but not political junkies--tell me that they are deliberately not paying attention to the primary, because they don't want to end up supporting a loser and then having feelings of resentment toward the winner.

I think if Bernie comes out with a big lead after Super Tuesday, a great many voters now supporting "moderate" candidates will move to him rather than signing up for some #NeverBern scorched earth crusade. (And the same is true if anyone else comes out with such a lead, of course)
  #37  
Old 02-11-2020, 03:53 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,502
The more Democrats warn in public that "Bernie is un-electable," the more un-electable Bernie will be if he is their nominee. They're planting that seed of thought in the minds of voters by doing so. Even people who wouldn't have thought of Bernie as extreme or unelectable are going to think, "Oh, is he? maybe he is..." after they hear centrist D's hammering that point over and over again.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Last edited by Velocity; 02-11-2020 at 03:54 PM.
  #38  
Old 02-11-2020, 03:57 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The more Democrats warn in public that "Bernie is un-electable," the more un-electable Bernie will be if he is their nominee. They're planting that seed of thought in the minds of voters by doing so. Even people who wouldn't have thought of Bernie as extreme or unelectable are going to think, "Oh, is he? maybe he is..." after they hear centrist D's hammering that point over and over again.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I thought this might be true with Trump in '16, but it turned out I was wrong. I don't think this stuff is predictable, especially not this early. We just don't know. Stuff like this is just a wild guess.
  #39  
Old 02-11-2020, 04:43 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,853
I think Velocity has an excellent point here. I wish people would stick to arguing that their candidate offers the best matchup against Trump, instead of "O NOES WE ARE DOOMED DOOMED DOOMED IF THE OTHER GUY WINS!!11"

I could be wrong but I don't remember other Republicans hitting Trump particularly hard on electability in 2016. Experience, character, basic competence, party loyalty, sure, but not electability specifically.
  #40  
Old 02-11-2020, 06:30 PM
John Bredin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: BuffaloGrove IL (Chicago)
Posts: 2,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Whatever keeps Bernie off the ballot. He would be a giant pinata for Republicans to pummel with hammers and sickles. Fuck the Bernie Bros, we need someone who can win.
Bernie ain't my primary choice, but don't kid yourself: every. damn. Democratic. candidate. would be pummeled as a socialist extremist by the GOP and Trumpists. "Demonrats" ARE socialists in their world-view and they wouldn't hesitate to call Bloomberg a socialist.
  #41  
Old 02-11-2020, 06:39 PM
Translucent Daydream is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Grand Valley
Posts: 1,903
I voted Bernie, but I think I misunderstood what the premise was. I voted Bernie because I thought he won. 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.
__________________
I promise itís not as bad or as good as you think it is.
  #42  
Old 02-11-2020, 07:30 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I don't see the problem there. If it goes down as described in your link why wouldn't you expect huge swaths of disaffected voters?

There are already indications that the DNC wants to change the rules:

- DNC members discuss rules change to stop Sanders at convention

And they did change the debate rules to benefit Bloomberg:

- DNC overhauls debate requirements, opening door for Bloomberg

And again for the debate on February 19 in Nevada:

- D.N.C. Rules Change for Nevada Debate Could Open Door for Bloomberg
Always the Bernie conspiracies.

Since there were no Nevada debate qualifications, they didnít change anything. I think Bernie should be glad that the debate field will finally be rid of Yang and Steyer. And we may as well add Bloomberg since heís polling well enough as of today.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #43  
Old 02-11-2020, 08:54 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Always the Bernie conspiracies.
Says the guy with no citations and thinks the Sanders subreddit is the most toxic place on the internet.

I gave you proof of the DNC considering rule changes after the primaries have begun and you hand wave them away as conspiracy theories.

You know who else does that? Trump supporters. Exact same thing. If the news doesn't fit your narrative then ignore the news and claim the other side is nuts.

Quote:
Since there were no Nevada debate qualifications, they didn’t change anything.
Seriously? It's like you didn't even read the links (shocker).

Anyway, of course there are debate qualifications unless you think you are free to walk on stage with them. I know you will not take my word for it though so maybe, just maybe, you will believe the Democratic National Committee itself:

- DNC Announces Qualification Criteria For Nevada Democratic Presidential Primary Debate
__________________
"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 08:57 PM.
  #44  
Old 02-11-2020, 09:23 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Says the guy with no citations and thinks the Sanders subreddit is the most toxic place on the internet.

I gave you proof of the DNC considering rule changes after the primaries have begun and you hand wave them away as conspiracy theories.

You know who else does that? Trump supporters. Exact same thing. If the news doesn't fit your narrative then ignore the news and claim the other side is nuts.



Seriously? It's like you didn't even read the links (shocker).

Anyway, of course there are debate qualifications unless you think you are free to walk on stage with them. I know you will not take my word for it though so maybe, just maybe, you will believe the Democratic National Committee itself:

- DNC Announces Qualification Criteria For Nevada Democratic Presidential Primary Debate
????

These are the rules that exist now announced 1/31/20 that Bloomberg qualifies under.

The claims was that rules were not changed by this announcement, and a charge of changing existing rules is what you claimed.
__________________
Oy.
  #45  
Old 02-11-2020, 09:25 PM
squidfood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
I have actually had several people--committed Democrats but not political junkies--tell me that they are deliberately not paying attention to the primary, because they don't want to end up supporting a loser and then having feelings of resentment toward the winner.
"Don't fall in love with a candidate before March" was a lesson taught to me by a Dr. Howard Dean.
  #46  
Old 02-11-2020, 09:45 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
????

These are the rules that exist now announced 1/31/20 that Bloomberg qualifies under.

The claims was that rules were not changed by this announcement, and a charge of changing existing rules is what you claimed.
Exactly. They announced the qualifications and they havenít changed. And it is time to get Bloomberg up there. I donít like it, but heís polling well and flooding Super Tuesday states with money.

Yang dropped out today and there was an incorrect report of Steyer dropping out, but I have to believe that there was some smoke there.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #47  
Old 02-11-2020, 09:52 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
????

These are the rules that exist now announced 1/31/20 that Bloomberg qualifies under.

The claims was that rules were not changed by this announcement, and a charge of changing existing rules is what you claimed.
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:

Quote:
The Democratic National Committee has opened the door to allowing former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York to participate in the presidential debate it will sponsor in Nevada next month, a change from its practice that demanded candidates demonstrate grass-roots fund-raising support.

The D.N.C. announced Friday that in order to participate in the debate, set for Feb. 19 in Las Vegas, a candidate must win at least a single delegate in either the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary or meet polling requirements.

It has eliminated the requirement that candidates must have received donations from hundreds of thousands of individuals. Mr. Bloomberg, a multibillionaire, is running a self-funded campaign and is not soliciting donations.

The changes, which represent the most significant tightening of debate requirements this cycle, set off a fresh and pointed round of criticism at a critical moment in the race, as several campaigns braced for the reality check that the Iowa caucuses will provide. And the edict from party officials, which some saw as a concession to Mr. Bloomberg, quickly reignited concerns among those who believe the D.N.C.’s shifting rules for the debates privilege some candidates and campaigns over others.

SOURCE: D.N.C. Rules Change for Nevada Debate Could Open Door for Bloomberg - The New York Times
__________________
"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 09:53 PM.
  #48  
Old 02-11-2020, 09:53 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,289
He’s “bought” himself a chance to be looked at, a chance to sell himself. Whether not voters buy what he is selling is to be seen.
  #49  
Old 02-11-2020, 09:57 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,659
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:
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.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #50  
Old 02-11-2020, 10:00 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,289
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. 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 heís the wrong person for the job the debate stage can show it. Or not.
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 03:13 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