Strongly concur with both of these posts.
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’:
(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.
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?
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.
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.
The Sanders supporters are talking about themselves, not abstractly opining about what other people will do. :rolleyes: If the people in your second question are in the groups mentioned (older, moderate), it’s also implicit extortion. 
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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)
[quote=“septimus, post:62, topic:847760”]
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.
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.
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?)
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.