You might say this isn’t the same because Bernie is much closer to a being a normative Democratic politician than Trump is to being the kind of Republican politician normative before his administration. I’d even say it. (Although I predict Bernie would fade once the Republican he-was-a-Trotskyite-communist ads take hold.)
If a political party’s leaders were to allow into power someone who is wildly unqualified – say, Marianne Williamson – the fact that they were following bad rules is no excuse IMHO. At a minimum, the party needs to insure that those vying for the highest political office have actual relevant job experience. As for whether they should should block a Sanders – I think that a borderline case.
The Democrats have a pretty good system with no winner take all or winner take most primaries or caucuses. It just sucks that the DNC is forced to bend over backwards to allow so many undeserving clowns into the debates this far in. There’s still too much toxicity left over from 2016 and even the most minor of candidates can make something go viral. Remember when Tulsi didn’t make the third debate and a tiny faction of burn down the house Dems egged on by Fox News and concern trolls from abroad screamed on social media about DNC conspiracy theories. Wednesday’s debate should be 6 at most and even that’s a stretch as the Harris campaign is hanging on for dear life.
Too old*, too white, too Northeastern. Good ideological balance, though, but that’s about it. (And, lots of relevant experience).
But if it polls best vs. Trump in Great Lakes states, go for it. That’s the ONLY thing that matters, this time around. (I don’t know whether to laugh or cry during these Dem debates? “Medicare for some” vs. “public option for dogs” vs. whatever…FORGET IT! The next president will spend the entire 4 years partially repairing the damage Trump has caused, and that’s IT. We’ll be back to the 2016 baseline, from which to move forward, by 2025 IF WE’RE LUCKY).
*i know, Warren is actuarially young, and full of vigah. True.
Most of the posts here seem to assume that a contested convention would be a bad thing. Would it? I don’t necessarily trust the semi-mythical cigar-smokers to make a good decision … but I trust ordinary voters even less.
Clowns? Inslee, Hickenlooper and perhaps Brown all seemed to me to be viable candidates who might make good Presidents. I have much less confidence in any of the four or five (non-clowns?) the race is reducing to.
I’d like to see a dark-horse emerge and grab the brass ring. Unfortunately Bloomberg ain’t him.
So if the front-runners split the delegates 35-30-25-10, the one with 35% should almost automatically get the nod?
The early debates, fine, let everyone in although I wish it would have been split with a kiddie table debate. But it’s late November, it’s ridiculous to still have 10 candidates, 5 of them polling poorly after plenty of time to get their message out. Iowa votes in early February.
And it seems every fucking 4 years, there’s always a white knight that’ll jump into the race. I’ve seen this shit since 1992 when everyone thought that Mario Cuomo would parachute in and save the day. 2016 Romney would save the Republicans from Trump and Biden would jump in to settle Bernie vs Hillary
Obviously, the point is that isn’t true. He was a Dem candidate and if people like you and Chronos don’t like, I guess you’ll have to bring it up at the next rules convention. Besides, Sanders is more Dem than a few people with an official D after their name.
I’m going to declare the backward-looking discussion of what was rigged or how Sanders qualified last time to be a derailment. This thread is about looking forward to next summer. Let’s keep it that way instead of relitigating the past for the thousandth time.
I don’t think it would necessarily be a bad thing. It would depend on how the party handles it. That’s why I think the superdelegates should hold off until a 3rd or later round of voting before weighing in. Either that or agree to split their votes equally between all the candidates over a certain threshold. The 15% number required to win delegates in a primary sounds fair, so if three candidates have over 15% of the delegates then the superdelegates should agree to split into thirds, one group for each of the three, until the candidates can work out a deal between themselves.
I don’t assume it would be bad AKA good for our ruling demagogue in chief. I just think it probably would be.
There are different kinds of contested conventions.
One is where you have two candidates, either of which is close to having enough delegates to win on the first ballot. Then the one with a narrow lead wins on the first or, possibly, second ballot (when super-delegates can start voting).
Another is an actual brokered convention where delegates get scared that Trump will win after a long convention. Party leaders then get together and endorse a highly electable fresh face. Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo might be my favorite here, although either Sherrod Brown or Al Gore is more likely.
I don’t think that unfair, personally. I would love to vote for Raimondo. But it’s gotten to where there would be a perception of unfairness if the primaries were overruled.
The last convention when anything was in doubt was the Republicans in 1976 with Ford vs Reagan.
And, yes, I took that college freshman American political history class where we had to research all those smoke filled room conventions when the party would pick a candidate out of nowhere. I think that died with, ‘We want Wilkie!’ I’ll stick with the current primary system.
First of all because they are sparring each other. Warren suggesting he should run in the GOP primary, Biden bringing up Warren’s actual GOP past.
If Biden’s at the top he needs someone youthful, probably a woman, who can mobilise that demographic and minority voters who might not be enthused by another old white man.
If Warren is at the top she also needs someone youthful but who can unite the factions of the electorate by reaching out to the battleground states where she might have a problem. Sherrod Brown would be great. Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar could fit the bill.
IF you believe that he represents the desires and views of the most Democrat voters and is best able to best win the general election. I do not, see no evidence of either, but that is the argument to be made.
The 15% rule is in fact a bit more complex than many think it is. 538 had a recent article about it -
It is way premature to be making predictions about a contested convention. It is easy to imagine paths that lead to it. Different states may have different sets of three getting state-wide delegates and some who do not get state-wide delegates may still get a meaningful number of district level delegates. Warren and Sanders could end up splitting the more progressive side, maybe 25 to 20%, and Biden could stay at his 30ish with Buttigieg getting 20 and a few delegates here and there at state and more at delegate levels to a few others. No one with a clear majority, the plurality for any individual not being dramatic, and no clear mandate between the more center Left and the harder progressive wings.
Second vote the delegates are all released and the supers can vote.
But yeah, realistically put it in a box until after Super-Tuesday …
Right now this is a strangely static race. Everyone keeps waiting for Biden to collapse and yet his support seems highly stable. Bernie had a frikking heart attack without any apparent damage to his campaign. Warren had a good run but her momentum has completely stalled. It’s now Pete’s turn to climb but even if he wins both Iowa and NH, it’s hard to see him becoming the dominant front runner with his levels of Black/Hispanic support; at best he may join the top 4 nationally. No one else looks likely to break into the top tier.
Perhaps things will change when the actual voting starts but right now it’s looking quite likely that the top 3-4 candidates will keep chugging along with 15-30% for months in which case a contested convention becomes a serious possibility.
Yeah, the most realistic path to a brokered convention would be all 4 top candidates staying strong throughout primary season. I can see Pete winning as a moderate in some states with Biden winning others. Warren winning on the progressive side with Bernie picking up the occasional state. Neither Bernie nor Buttigieg would have to drop out early since they’re both fundraising powerhouses.
Now, I don’t think this will happen. If Biden starts beating Pete regularly, I think Pete will drop out. He’s young and barring scandal has a bright future in the party. That would clear the path for Biden in the moderate lane.
Bernie vs Warren would be a bit different. This is Bernie’s last campaign and he’s shown he’s stubborn and a fundraising machine. It’s also likely the last shot for Warren in 2020. So, they could slug it out until the end even if one of them is clearly amassing more delegates.
It’s been a an interesting campaign with Pete and Biden taking the most mudslinging so far while Warren and Bernie are getting the kid glove treatment. Warren’s Medicare change should have been much bigger news, it was crowded out by the Impeachment hearings as well as the DMR poll with Pete surging.
The issue is if his level of Black and Hispanic support would stay as low as it is. Most do not dislike him, they just have no opinion about him yet. IF he won Iowa and New Hampshire then they’d suddenly actually look at him and decide. His winning both (improbable I think), more so if Biden is out of the top three in both, would signify to many that Biden does not have the electability that he is presumed to have after all. That would be when Biden could collapse. Lots of all demographics would look at him as the winner of those first two a lot more deeply and decide if they liked him, or one of the harder line progressives, more. If no other moderate did well, exceeded expectations at least and get press, in the first two, then that would be the choice in many minds. With some staying with Biden too.