Two months ago this would have been a silly question; the answer was undoubtedly the GOP. But now? Will anybody be surprised to see chair-flinging Sanders supporters? What a crazy election this has been.
The Democrat party created this mess by choosing to ignore the voices of many of its own voters. Party leaders such as Debbie “Fuck Bernie and Bernies supporters” Wasserman Schultz has only themselves to blame. She and the others chose to anoint Hillary before the primary contest even began. Now they’re just delivering different versions of Just Shut Up and Vote For Hillary.
Besides, Democrats like, and encourage, protestors. What could be more democratic than public political protesting?
Hillary may have won the primary fair and square but now we’ll never know. Just as the GOP is responsible for creating an environment that allowed the creation of the Tea Party, the DNC is responsible for creating an environment that may lead to a Tea Party II.
Hooboy, do we live in interesting times.
Bernie, Bernie, Bernie!
Well, I guess you have your answer, Deeg. 
*I think the 3.5 million more votes she has than Bernie Sanders means we do know, correct?
Since the 'Pubs have pretty much given up on the convention being anything other than a formality, I think violence is unlikely. Unless I’ve missed something or California votes 90% write-in candidates, the big controversy for their convention seems to be who will be speaking/conducting ceremonies and whether they’ll find anything nice to say about their own candidate or just stare dumbfounded at the back of his head.
Sanders has lost mathematically, so he can only win by making delegates change their minds. He seems to also be trying to win by discrediting the whole process which hardly seems like a winning strategy to me, but does seem likely to encourage conflict. I cannot imagine how Sanders has any credibility with anyone right now… but the crazy it out in force this year.
As with Trump, Sanders doesn’t even belong to the party he wishes to hijack. So of course he and his supporters don’t care if they cause damage to the Democratic party, just that their voices are heard. :rolleyes:
Who’s more likely to have a violent convention, Dems or GOP?
My apologies. The comment I made was in reference to your statement that we will never know who won the popular vote between HRC and BS. The fact is, we *do *know who won the popular vote: HRC.
OK, I’ve got some time on my hands, who would have won the popular vote IF the DNC leadership had treated Bernie and his supporters fairly from the very beginning?
Need I state the inherent bias in that question?
Since this thread is about which major party is more likely to have a violent convention and (I thought) it was obvious that many members/supporters of both major parties are, shall we say “pissed off”, about how their choice of candidate has been unfairly treated by their own party, is my question biased or based on reality?
If things were different, things would be different. “IF” the DNC had treated Bernie’s campaign exactly as they had treated Hillary’s campaign, which candidate would have the largest number of voters? Which candidate would have the largest number of delegates? Which candidate would have the larger number of super delegates?
I was thinking the same thing when I read doorhinge’s post. Bernie and his army of butthurt millennials just won’t accept it. They’ve tried manipulating the math every way possible to find that path and his boat still sank. Must be the party’s fault.
May I ask, how long has Bernie been a Democrat? Oh, yes, 2015 wasn’t it? Sort of looks like an opportunist to me, not a Democrat. Want to bet he’s not a Democrat come mid November?
I don’t really see violence at either. Remember, delegates have to pay their own way to the convention. I’m going to stereotype a bit, but I doubt the most hardcore Bernie supporters, who skew younger, have the funds to go to a convention for a week. I’m also sure the state parties will also remind the delegates that security will strict and you probably don’t want to mess with the secret service. A national convention is a lot different than a state caucus held in a casino ballroom.
I guess I do.
You can claim it all you want, that’s your viewpoint and not that of many (if not most) non-Bernie supporters. You’re trying to use the same argument that Trump did. “Ooooh, the rules are so unfair!” Sorry, you knew them going in. You don’t get to use that excuse.
It depends upon your application of “fairly”, right?
As mentioned, BS was not a Democrat until 2015. He declared for President, and the DNC has allowed him to use their brand, their organization, and their resources to help him in this quest.
That seems pretty fair to me.
But there are opponents in a Pres races, even within parties. And when a 1-year junior Democrat takes on a 24+ year Democratic party operative in her quest to become the first female President, it is incumbent upon both of them to understand the rules and operate within them.
This, too, seems fair.
It is also logical that the 24-year operative, who happens to be married to an ex-President, would be more experienced and connected than the 1-year entrant… and it is logical that the 1-year member is aware of this.
So, both sides knowing their strengths and weaknesses before engaging in the contest, strikes me as fair.
And the rules… they didn’t change much since 2015, right? Super delegates were a thing in 2008, and the rule book is open to all candidates.
And, honestly, knowing and agreeing-to the rules prior to the start of competition is, to me, the very definition of a “fair” contest… regardless if one opponent is completely outmatched.
But you know what else would have been fair? For the DNC to have told Bernie to kiss their ass and not supported him from the start, telling him flat out “… with your history, we feel your message is best expressed as a third party candidacy. Thank you for your 14 months of support.”
So… yes, I rest confident that the Democratic Party has done all they should do* to get Bernie Sanders’s message out.
*Please note the past tense.
To answer the question: HRC
I’ll lay odds the Bernie campaign will pay to get every delegate possible there, if necessary. However, I’d also bet that the demographics of delegates skew somewhat older (and generally less prone to idiocy) than his normal run of supporters.
The violence doesn’t have to be the delegates themselves. A bunch of protestors outside (especially if they are protesting being outside) can make things plenty violent.
What mess did it create? There’s no mess unless Bernie Sanders supporters want there to be one. And if they want there to be one and they want voters sitting at home to look at a democratic party that’s filled with unruly mob and think to themselves "Christ, I don’t want these guys (Bernie Bros) going anywhere near the White House, then that’s a conscious decision to help Donald Trump. You, then, would own that. Not the Democratic party, which probably never should have given an independent a platform to speak on anyway.