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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
:dubious: 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 :rolleyes: and they wouldn’t hesitate to call Bloomberg a socialist.