Pete Buttigieg drops out of the Democratic primary race

Politics & Elections
101

So, then, if Bernie wins 49.99% of the vote this year, and Biden wins 20%, are you going to be talking about the will of the voters? Or are you going to say “contested convention! It’s the rules!!! THE RULES!!!”

I look forward to all of you talking about the importance of democracy and the voters, and then saying “the guy who won the most votes doesn’t get to be the nominee, that’d be undemocratic. So instead, it’s this guy that the party elite picked who got way fewer votes who gets to be the nominee.”

102

No. Assuming that the people who “changed the debate rules” had the authority to do so, then that’s their job. They’re trying to maximize the chances that a Democrat wins the White House in November.

103

Or, how about this? You notice fundraising has been sliding recently and is now in absolute free fall. Political campaigns don’t have rainy day funds, they’re all in to win. There’s just not enough money to keep going even one more day, especially if you want to be decent and pay your staff and give them some severance. Paying the staff, office rent, travel, rallies, ads, swag all cost $$$$ and when what’s coming in can’t do it, it’s time to get out now. Notice how both Beto and Kamala also got out around the first of a month

104

Do you have some evidence that these campaigns couldn’t bear to go two more days until Super Tuesday, when, if they did well, a new round of funding would come in?

Just so I understand you - by offering this alternate explanation - are you saying that all of these candidates dropping out right before Super Tuesday is a complete coincidence and not the result of some sort of concerted effort to consolidate the anti-Bernie vote? That all 3 of their campaigns could not last 1-2 days longer to make it to the most significant day in all of the nomination process?

Furthermore, are you saying that I disagree and say that this looks like a concerted effort, then I am guilty of perpetuating a grand conspiracy theory and am despicable and make you hate Bernie and his supporters with a burning passion?

105

It has been mentioned that she was in a good position to win Minnesota and Sanders is running second. Even with the endorsement Biden may not do all that great in Minnesota and denying Sanders extra delegates would be better for Biden.

Also there is somewhat of an internatl pressure to see a campaign through to at least your home state’s primary mostly for the campaign staff - who tend to be mostly based on your home state.

106

You realize there was this massive primary on Saturday right? Where both Buttigieg and Klobuchar did very poorly. As did Steyer, who dropped out on Saturday night. Could it not be possible that each of the candidates realized after South Carolina, and the shellackings they got, that they had no path to victory and suspended the campaign as a result.

107

It’s not a coincidence they dropped out now, but it isn’t really unfair either. Think of it this way. Let’s say 5 people are voting on what to have for dinner. 3 want burgers and 2 want hot dogs. Let’s say it’s one for McDonald’s, one for Burger King, one for Wendy’s, and 2 for hot dogs at the local hot dog place. If the two people who want Wendy’s and Burger King change their minds to McDonald’s, why is that unfair to the people that wanted hot dogs?

108

I actually didn’t say that was unfair. I speculated that this is what was actually happening, that it was a coordinated effort, that it may have been done with an exchange of some future consideration (like preferential treatment by the party or a VP/cabinet position), and was accused by several of peddling a grand conspiracy theory for simply stating what almost everyone in this thread sees as true and obvious. If it’s an organic agreement between the candidates, or they view it as working in the interest of their policies, then I don’t think there’s anything wrong. If it’s facilitated at the request of the party, who are nominally the arbiter of a fair election process, including inducements in the form of promising a future payoff, then that’s not quite so wholesome, and would serve as evidence that the arbiters of the nomination process are attempting to alter the result in what pretends to be a fair and democratic process.

109

I think a more likely explanation is that they honestly think that Sanders’ approach is not the optimal one to do the 3 most important things this cycle: defeat Trump, take the Senate, and keep the House. All three of those things are necessary for even the most limited progressive agenda to be enacted, and for at least some of the destruction left in Trump’s wake to be rectified before it’s too late.

If they don’t see a way to win themselves, they should throw as much weight as possible into nominating the person they think has the best path. And doing so before Super Tuesday may potentially short circuit the argument that Sanders should be nominated with a plurality of delegates, even if the “moderate” candidates have more delegates combined. Obviously, if Sanders gets an outright majority of pledged delegates, he’ll win the nomination on the first ballot, and we’re done. But first-past-the-post is not democracy, even if that’s how we do it in most jurisdictions in the general election. California has some non-partisan primaries with the top two vote-getters running in the general, and Louisiana (and some other states, I think), have runoffs if no one gets an outright majority in the general. Why is it wrong to try to consolidate the not-Bernie vote so that, if he does have only a plurality, it’s not so big that a runoff in which he doesn’t win isn’t quite so politically toxic (since, it seems, a lot of people assume first-past-the-post is always the right thing to do)?

Also, saying that people cooperating to achieve an outcome they think is beneficial, as long as what they’re doing is legal, moral, and ethical, is only a “conspiracy” if you want it to sound bad. Otherwise, it’s civilization.

110

If bernie gets 49.99% of the voters, he will be the candidate. OTOH, if Bernie gets 40.1% and Biden gets 40%, the convention may go either way. A tiny plurality does not mean you get it handed to you, you have to get a majority.

In 2016 Clinton got 55.2% of the votes and Sanders a mere 43.1%, but I notice that clear choice of the voters has not stopped you Bernie bros from whining *“we wuz robbed”.
*

**Clinton got a solid majority. **

Remember, It is the DEMOCRATIC party nominee- and Sanders has made it very clear he does not want to be a member of the party.

111

So, lets say Warren drops out and supports Bernie- can I claim conspiracy?

112

What evidence do you have that this will be true?

No, a convention could not go either way. There is zero chance that a convention would go against the wishes of the party elite.

But what’s the crossover point? If Bernie gets 45, Biden gets 30, is Bernie the nom? 44/33? If you’re convinced Bernie wins at 49, and doesn’t win when close, what’s the needed margin for Bernie to actually win, and how did you arrive at that number?

Only if you’re Bernie, though. If you’re Biden, a tiny purality gets it handed to you. The party would throw a fucking parade for a 0.1% Biden win. And you know it. That’s the point.

The Democratic party is not trying to run a fair and unbiased election to determine the will of its electorate. It’s playing defense against Bernie Sanders (and by extension, anyone who isn’t beholden to the billionaires and corporations who actually run both of our political parties), trying to pretend to allow him to run just enough not to alienate his base, while at the same time knowing that there’s no circumstance in which he’d actually be allowed to win.

That’s the problem with all your “Bernie doesn’t only has a plurality! It would be undemocratic to give him the nomination!” logic. Because step 2 is “but this guy, who has a lot fewer votes, deserves to have it handed to him. That’s democratic”

I’m not going to rehash 2016, but this is not an accurate or complete description of the issue, and you saying in a mocking, shitty tone “we wuz robbed” actually makes me not want to engage with you at all. In fact, this will be the last post that I do so.

What’s the point of this statement?

Okay, it’s the democratic party nominee, and Bernie is not a democrat. Therefore, let’s not let him into the primary process. No, can’t be that one, because you already let him in. Okay, so Bernie isn’t a democrat, so let’s kick him out now? Is that your point? Oh, Bernie isn’t a democrat, so if he wins a plurality, but not a majority, let’s hand the nomination to someone else. Or, okay, Bernie is not a democrat, so while we let him pretend to be one for several months to try to appease his supporters, we’re now going to say he’s not the nominee no matter what happens.

You’re not making a logical or relevant point by saying this. He’s part of the democratic party nomination process. They’ve agreed to let him run for their nomination. Pointing out that he typically runs as an independent (even though he votes with democrats about 100x more often than he votes with Republicans, if he ever votes Republicans) is irrelevant. It’s either an illogical attempt to poison the well, or later justification for unfairly removing him from the nomination process, or something. What it isn’t is a meaningful part of this discussion.

113

…we won’t know **anything **until after the process is over. Its pointless to speculate, its even more pointless asking for evidence for something that literally hasn’t happened yet. I think its very likely if Bernie gets 49.99% of the voters he will be the candidate. I’m open to the possibility though that that might not be the case. But I can’t get worked up about a theoretical that has almost zero statistical probability of happening.

114

Ever notice why no one likes Bernie Bros? We get it, if Bernie doesn’t get the nomination, it’s rigged.

115

You are making the assumption that the job of a party is to be unbiased. The job of the party is to WIN THE DAMN ELECTION. Politics is about negotiating the trade-offs necessary to get some portion of your agenda passed. To do that, you need to actually be in power. The “party elites” (why is elite a term of admiration when we’re talking about athletes, but not when we’re talking about politics?) aren’t necessarily afraid of Sanders’ policies (though there are not-entirely-unreasonable arguments on both sides on a pure policy basis), as afraid that his style, history, and some of his policies will cause him to LOSE. His theory that he can bring out enough new voters to make up for the centrists he will scare away is untested, at best–I just heard (sorry, no cite) that first-time voters in NH broke about evenly between Sanders and Buttigieg–and he lost SC in nearly every demographic.

I can very easily see Sanders beating Trump in the popular vote by even more than Clinton did, yet still losing in the Electoral College. It does no good at all to run up the Democratic majority in California and Illinois and New York, if you can’t win some combination of states that are likely to be much closer. So what if the first-past-the-post winner of the primaries (if they don’t win an outright majority) doesn’t get the nomination? I personally think a less extreme (though still center left) candidate will have a better shot in battlegrounds that could be decisive (AZ and GA are in reach, but not if Sanders is the nominee, IMHO). Maybe my theory of the case is wrong and Sanders’ is right. But I don’t think either side in this intra-party fight is acting in bad faith, or supports an overall policy direction I disagree with (I think the differences are more in speed than direction). If Biden gets the nomination, and picks a progressive, but pragmatic, running mate (Stacey Abrams, anyone?), I think he could attract a pretty broad coalition. I’m not sure if Bernie can get enough non-voters off the couch to make up for the ones he’ll lose.

116

You DO realize that Bloomberg participating in the debates is what stalled his rise, and breathed some life back into Warren’s campaign?

I said it before the debate - those who dislike Bloomberg should have been WANTING him on the stage so that he could be attacked and be cut down. His best chance was having his paid onslaught, donations record, and stated positions, as the only version of him potential voters got to see.

117

People keep saying that the dnc can’t choose the candidate; only voters can, but that’s explicitly not true:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/dnc-argues-in-court-we-dont-owe-anyone-a-fair-primary-process%3F_amp=true

The dnc won the case on that argument.

118

That too. Didn’t this happen in 2016, or maybe 2012? Once again, we couldn’t figure out who won Iowa until much later?

There’s nothing shocking about it. He ran as a moderate, and doesn’t want to split the moderate vote. Also, he was running out of money (and winning Super Tuesday is expensive). In a “normal” year, the smaller campaigns would be crushed by Super Tuesday, or drop out before they get to that point.

119

The “party elite” only have their one vote, just as everyone does.

There is absolutely no evidence of that. Now in 2016 some DNC people were biased, they even fed Clinton some questions in advance of one debate- which didnt change a thing. The voters decide not the party. How many times do you have to read that?

what is inaccurate about “In 2016 Clinton got 55.2% of the votes and Sanders a mere 43.1%,…” because those *are *the results.

I mean you’re screaming “conspiracy” because Pete- who had no chance of winning- decides to support Biden, not sanders. Now look at Petes platform- moderate all the way, just like Biden- why on earth would Pete go for sanders? That’s politics. You endorse the guy who is more like you on the scale, whose politics and platform is closest to yours. Warren will likely endorse Sanders. Is that a conspiracy?

Nope, this Krap come straight from the Kremlin- they really want the bernie bros to say “we wuz robbed” again, like in 2016, and stay home or vote 3rd party- exactly what worked in 2016. And you’re falling for it. Even before bernie loses.

120

That cite doesnt say what you think it says:
*The Democratic National Committee is currently defending itself in court against a lawsuit brought by Bernie Sanders supporters over the Democratic presidential primary process. …
…

This lawsuit’s merits are dubious, it should be noted from the outset. The courts would set an unfortunate precedent if they started dictating how the political parties are governed and how they choose their candidates — it veers dangerously close to the political question doctrine.*

Now it’s true that :
*In this case, DNC lawyers argue that they don’t owe anyone a fair process, and that the rules in their charter are basically not binding in court. In fact, if they wanted, DNC attorney Bruce Spiva argued, they could choose their nominee in a smoke-filled back room and it still wouldn’t be legally actionable. *

And yes, that is correct. The DNC, like the RNC sets the rules. Technically, it could do that, they could change the rules to do that. But that’s not the rules. There is exactly zero chance that the DNC would over-rule a majority of delegate- because those delegates set the rules.