If it’s a plurality but the separation is small, I don’t see any way to get out of the convention without a weakened candidate. But considering how many Bernie supporters are potential non voters, if Bernie has the lead I think the smartest play for the party would be to nominate him. Sucks that so many Bernie supporters appear to be willing to stay home if he’s not the nominee, but if he has the most delegates going in, I think nominating anyone else would be a massive strategic blunder, probably dooming us to another loss. It wouldn’t be that he earned it, it’d be that he’d be the least weak candidate coming out of the convention.
It is confusing, which is why I don’t understand this article:
The jist is that moderates must rally around one candidate or else Bernie will build such a big lead after Super Tuesday that nobody will be able to catch him. But why?
No Dem primary is winner take all. So doesn’t it follow that so long as the candidates stay in the race and keep Bernie from winning majorities, then the proportional allocation of delegates will force a contested convention?
Of course, there is the 15% threshold, so maybe if someone like Amy or Warren cannot reach that threshold, they should drop out, but if Pete, Bloomberg, and Biden are all pulling at least 15%, then that’s good that they all stay in that way their votes are not siphoned off to Bernie…right?
I mean, the article would make sense if it was a winner take all primary. Let’s not have Bernie win all of the delegates because the moderates are fighting each other. But that’s not what we have.
Except if the crowded field allows the leader to get over the threshold in each race, but different ones of the others don’t quite make the threshold in different races. The result is that the pledged delegate advantage over the field is much larger than the popular vote is. Maybe even enough to get to a majority when by popular vote totals they’d have had only a small plurality
Imagine that today ends with only Biden and Sanders getting over the threshold? Should the others all drop out on that basis alone? Should Biden have dropped out exclusively on the basis of not hitting 15% in New Hampshire?
One third of the delegates are awarded on Super Tuesday. Current polling is good chances that several will not hit the 15% threshold in California and maybe a different several not hit the threshold in Texas. If in each of those it is Sanders with 30% and two others, but a not necessarily the same set of two others, with 15 to 20%, then Sanders ends up with nearly 50% of those two states delegates and an exaggerated delegate lead over the next two or three closest as each of them may have had a state that they got none (okay not none because there are some per congressional district, but you get the point). Hell the most recent California poll has it Sanders 24% to Biden 17% and no one else over 15% even though several may be close (but no cigar). For state wide delegates anyway that would give Sanders 65% of California’s delegates with 24% of the vote!
A crowded field facilitates the leader pulling away.
The middle of the race is not the time to start changing rules. Start drawing up plans for what you want done, but wait until after the current session is done to sit down and see what can be done.
Things to remember.
Just because it’s always been done that way doesn’t mean that’s the best way.
If you change the rules so you would have won this time, you may be screwing yourself over the next time when the players/conditions are different.
It’s a long game. You’re not going to be victorious in every engagement. Instant gratification is not your friend.
Change is inevitable. Just make sure it’s the best change you can make.
Given that Thing Fish, if the delegate plurality was 45% with a large lead over the next closest who were bunched up near each other, but the popular vote numbers were in fact very close, would you feel that the plurality leader should automatically get other delegates moving to them?
I wanted to be sure I remembered my history, so I read up on what history textbooks are calling The Great Superdelegate Clusterfuck of 2016.
AIUI from rereading that history:
- Sanders trounced Clinton in New Hampshire’s primary vote.
- Back then, superdelegates pledged support whenever they wanted.
- Headlines after NH reported Sanders tied with Clinton, because so many superdelegates went with her.
- He was pissed, as were a lot of his supporters, at what looked like an overturning of the popular vote.
- He spent awhile trying to persuade superdelegates to pledge to support the popular vote winner. That shit failed.
5a) This is the part I’m not clear on: Sanders’s campaign suggested that the superdelegates pledge blunted his “momentum,” that it muddied the storyline of his being the clear front-runner in those earlier races, and hurt him in later races. - When Clinton eventually edged ahead with the popular vote, his campaign was like, fuck it, if the rules are that the superdelegates can do whatever they want, let’s try to win them over ourselves. Play by the rules as clearly established.
- In 2018, the superdelegates rules changed, so they only kick in after the first round of voting at the convention.
- Sanders wants them, again, to support the candidate who won the most popular votes.
Step 6 in that process is hinky, but only a little; it’s about as bad as Warren accepting PAC support after she’s realized her principles are resulting in her getting trounced in the funding game. You can play the game by rules that you think should change, because you want them changed for everyone, not just you.
Sanders’s position regarding the superdelegates has been, step 6 possibly aside, consistent. They should support the candidate who’s won the most votes.
Your history is missing a bit, LHOD.
He was ahead in the popular vote ONLY after New Hampshire, the very first primary. Nevada she won but caucus so popular vote not recorded that I can easily find (but it put her in the pledged delegate lead that she never lost), and she then won South Carolina by 178K, putting her well in the popular vote lead, which she never lost.
She proceeded to win huge popular vote margins on Super Tuesday and stayed well in the lead for both popular vote and pledged delegates ever after. There really was no “eventually” involved. There was no him in the lead for “earlier racess”: it was one singular primary race that he was in the lead after. Her lead was in fact comfortable ever after.
His team was selling a storyline at the time that the superdelegates were why Clinton was in the lead but other than that media reporting both delegate totals, pledged and pledged plus superdelegates, gave an impression of an even bigger delegate lead than pledged delegate totals would have, it was a false narrative. It was throughout a “if I catch up” the system could theoretically have Clinton still be the nominee because superdelegates could overrule the popular vote. Then when it was 100% clear even to him that he could not catch up even in pledged delegates (much later than it was clear even to him that his popular vote deficit was insurmountable, as he was farther behind there) it became a “the superdelegates SHOULD overrule the popular vote and pledged delegate count majority.”
The 2016 D primary was in fact after Nevada never close and most other opposition candidates would have dropped out much earlier when the outcome was clearly written and sealed.
He has been 100% consistent: whichever would possibly result in the best case for him he is in favor of.
What **DSeid **said.
My error is in saying “early races,” I agree. The rest of what I said appears accurate.
“When Clinton eventually edged ahead” doesn’t seem an accurate way to describe anything that happened.
Fair–I suppose I was including “eventually” under “races” as an error. Yes, Sanders was AFAICT only ahead after NH, and that’s when the superdelegates rule reared its head. Later events should have made them seem irrelevant, but didn’t. (FWIW, I’m definitely in the he-wasn’t-robbed camp, and lost some friends over that at the time).
I’m still far from convinced his position has changed much. He can think, as I do, that superdelegates shouldn’t have a place in a democratic election, and also that if they’re there, he may as well play that part of the game, too.
A truly democratic process wouldn’t have closed primaries either. What democratic defense is there for people only getting to vote in one party’s elections? Are you down for that?
The democratic defense of closed primaries is that those who belong to a party should be selecting who is their nominee, and then the general public chooses between those that the parties put up. I don’t think that the democratic process would be served by having staunch and loyal Republicans be a major part of choosing the Democratic nominee for their guy to run against, or visa versa.
But caucuses??
The mantra from the moment a network reported that he was, counting the superdelegates, not in the delegate count lead after New Hampshire, was that he and the popular will was being robbed by the superdelegates. Until it became that he was being robbed by the superdelegtes not wanting to over-rule the pledged delegate and popular vote victories.
FWIW Clinton had a sizable superdelegte lead against Obama at first too. Funny that I do not remember Sanders, who was a superdelegate at that point, objecting to them. The superdelegates tend to jump on board the train of the candidate who seems most likely to win, and off the one who looks likely to lose. They jumped on Obama’s because he got ahead. They never got on his because he fell behind (in both pledged delegates and even more the popular vote) immediately and never had any real chance to catch up.
For anyone with the interest here is someone explaining the rationale (agree or disagree) for the amount of finger on the scale superdelegates can potentially have. So far they have never gone against the pledged delegate or popular votes.
That’s not really a democratic defense - though it’s the one I know to be common. Democratically speaking, I should get a say in who’s going to compete in the election from both sides. If I don’t want a Sanders v Trump election, there’s no democracy based reason why I can’t vote against both of them in the primaries. Your defense is based around the private nature of parties. “Why should the other party members help decide our leadership?”
The entrenched two party system creates this tension. There’s no way to be elected democratically to power but through the private parties. So when people complain that super delegates aren’t democratic, they’re right. But they don’t want real democracy, they just don’t want certain people having a say in party decisions.
What are you proposing then? What would stop the Republicans from voting in the Dem primary for Rod Blagojevich to be the Dem nominee?
I know that’s not what you want, but then you must be advocating for something completely different than a primary.
I’m not proposing anything. I’m saying the argument “super delegates aren’t democratic” is hollow. The US parties have pretty darn democratic practices for their leadership compared to most western democracies. None of the party leaderships in Canada are done in a government run electorate wide vote, for instance. In Canada and the UK, party leadership can veto someone’s party membership. Super delegates aren’t that bad. And, we don’t want primaries purely democratic for the exact reason you and DSeid mention.
In Norway, one of the countries Bernie loves to tout as a model, it’s a single person in each party–the party’s leader–who chooses *all *parliamentary candidates, district by district, throughout the country.
We kinda crossed that bridge when the re-wrote the rules so that Bloomberg could be part of the race despite not qualifying.
So, they let Bloomberg buy his way in against the rules, and then Bernie becomes the clear favorite in the race and gets the most votes, by far, but then they say “oh, we managed to let Bloomberg buy our way to a convention, so sorry Bernie, now money and the party elite get to decide who is going to be our nominee”, that would be a more just following of the rules, right?
The irony is that they let Bloomberg buy his way in against their rules specifically so that they could then later thwart the will of the electorate by using their rules against Bernie.
So if he wants the person with the most votes to win, he’s operating against democratic principles.
But if he agrees to the democratic party rules which are designed to let the party elite override the will of the voters, then he’s upholding democratic principles.
If we play the “sure, Bernie is the clear leader, but Bloomberg bought enough support to get us to the convention, and now the billionaires and party elite will decide who is president” game, the democrat loses in November 100%.
Saying you need to get more votes for you than against you is not a violation of a democratic principle. It’s how all political conventions have always worked, and it’s also how statewide elections in Louisiana, Maine, and the country of France work. Makes sense to me.
Never happened.