If the Democratic party doesn’t allow the person with most delegates to become the nominee, it will be a disaster

Feb 2006
15,760
4,313
California
Something deeply troubling happened during last week’s Democratic presidential debate, though it was overshadowed by Michael Bloomberg’s spectacular implosion. Towards the end, the candidates were asked whether they believed that the person who receives the most votes should be given the Democratic nomination. The only candidate who said “yes” was Bernie Sanders. All of the others said they wanted the “process” to “play out”.

It’s not surprising that the non-Sanders candidates don’t want “winning the primaries” to determine who the nominee is, because by that measure, it’s very unlikely to be any of them. Sanders has lately taken a commanding lead in the polls and is now the favorite to win in the vast majority of states. He received more votes than any other candidate in both Iowa and New Hampshire, which political scientists treat as a strong sign that a candidate will ultimately win. There are growing concerns in the party that Sanders’ lead may be becoming “insurmountable”.

But the other Democrats have not given up. They still hold out hope that they can win through what is known as a “brokered convention”. If Sanders has only a plurality of delegates at the Democratic national convention in July, rather than an outright majority, he might not win the nomination on the first ballot. Under convention rules, this would allow “superdelegates” to vote on the second ballot, and open up the possibility that other candidates can “horse trade” their delegates in order to receive the nomination, even if Sanders won all or most of the primaries and a strong plurality of pledged delegates.

It may seem ludicrous to deny Sanders the nomination if he wins the most delegates and sweeps the primaries. What’s the point in having primaries if party insiders at the convention just override the result and choose a nominee they prefer? But Democrats who fear Sanders’ takeover of the party, or who fear that a “radical” cannot beat Donald Trump, will argue that democracy needs to take a backseat to the urgency of choosing a “unity” candidate. Michael Bloomberg is reported to be plotting a brokered convention strategy, whereby other candidates would give him the delegates necessary to beat Sanders in exchange for various commitments and handouts. And Democrats are already trying to convince people that brokered conventions are fine, with the former Democratic Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell writing that we “shouldn’t fear” a brokered convention, because it would be “exciting”. The candidates’ answers on the debate stage indicated that each of them is open to using the “process” to subvert the result of the elections, if that’s what it takes to win.


But these strategies are an outright rejection of democracy, and should be treated as such. “The candidate with the most votes ought to win” is a sound electoral principle, albeit one that is absent in many areas of American politics, from the Iowa caucuses to the electoral college. If “superdelegates” swung the nomination to a candidate with fewer votes, it would be confirmation that the country is ruled by elites rather than governed by the people.

 
Dec 2015
21,175
22,122
Arizona
Okay---but why don't we see what happens on Super Tuesday before we start getting our knickers in a twist?
Bernie's got a target on his back right now and that's a good thing. It means he's winning. Bernie's a BIG BOY and he can handle the criticism and blowback.
Let's not borrow trouble.
 
Jun 2018
7,736
1,910
South Dakota
It already is a disaster. Knickers in a twist? When were they not in a twist?
It's really fun watching the loony libs keep claiming that they are somehow still on track to in an election. The last debate is the simplest most effective depiction of the state of their parties. They don't have just one anymore.
 
Feb 2006
15,760
4,313
California
Okay---but why don't we see what happens on Super Tuesday before we start getting our knickers in a twist?
Bernie's got a target on his back right now and that's a good thing. It means he's winning. Bernie's a BIG BOY and he can handle the criticism and blowback.
Let's not borrow trouble.
My Knickers are in a twist, but the sad part is the Republicans panties are all bunched up! ROTFLMAO



1582814663033.png
 
Jun 2019
312
161
CA
Why did Hillary lose in 2016?
Democrats turned off by Sanders getting shafted in the convention.
Hillary too far to the left for moderates of both parties.
Draconian gun control. (were they surprised when they lost hunter heavy states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin?)

What is the Democratic party doing for 2020?
Getting set to shaft Sanders in the convention again.
Going even farther to the left than in 2016.
Even more draconian gun control. (Hell yes, I'll take your AR15!!)

Failure is expensive. When it happens it's crucial that you get your money's worth out of it by objectively looking at what went wrong so you don't do it again.

This seems to be far beyond the capabilities of the Democratic party.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: thor gonzales
Jul 2019
12,388
8,980
Georgia
Why did Hillary lose in 2016?
Democrats turned off by Sanders getting shafted in the convention.
Hillary too far to the left for moderates of both parties.

Even more draconian gun control. (Hell yes, I'll take your AR15!!)
Hillary was moderate as hell, but I don't think most people gave enough of a shit to look into her policy positions

and Beto dropped out in case you forgot
 
Jun 2019
312
161
CA
Hillary was moderate as hell, but I don't think most people gave enough of a shit to look into her policy positions
Perhaps from a Democrat's perspective. It's all relative.

and Beto dropped out in case you forgot
I'm well aware that Beto dropped out, but I'm not going to forget the wild cheering and lack of disagreement from the other candidates when he said "Hell yes, I'll take your AR15.".
Ever.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: thor gonzales
Jul 2019
12,388
8,980
Georgia
Perhaps from a Democrat's perspective. It's all relative.


I'm well aware that Beto dropped out, but I'm not going to forget the wild cheering and lack of disagreement from the other candidates when he said "Hell yes, I'll take your AR15.".
Ever.
every dem is a gun grabber in the gun-nut's eyes

there were people seriously terrified, for eight whole years, that Obama was going to take their micropeen extension

which makes me pretty happy to think about. what losers.

~~~
just realized what the thread topic is, don't want to derail with gun melts, sorry
 
  • Like
Reactions: thor gonzales
Feb 2020
798
925
dfw, texas
hell, yes, your stupid shit assault weapons and high capacity mags are going to be banned before long. even most republicans want it. that is not the same as coming for them, and that is not what beto said either. gun nuts are just so chickenshit and paranoid, as a rule, they fantasize about people actually coming to their door to take their penis-extenders, and then they fantasize about being able to stop them, when really they would shit their pants and beg for mercy. you have to be a spineless coward to believe you need to be packing heat to go grocery shopping or to the Bounce House.

the silly ass gutless gun nuts summed up in two pictures-

obama gun bunker.jpg

gun nut krogers.jpg
 
Last edited: