Jump to content

If your preferred Dem candidate does not get the nomination, what do you do?

Biff Tannen

By Biff Tannen
in Cloak Room

 Share

If your preferred Dem candidate does not get the nomination, what do you do?  

181 members have voted

  1. 1. If your preferred Dem candidate does not get the nomination, what do you do?

    • Vote for whomever the Dem nominee is
      164
    • Not vote
      6
    • Vote for the Republican candidate
      5
    • Vote third party/write in
      6

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 477
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt
DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt

i've gone from 'i just can't vote for hilary and i'm sure as shit not voting for trump' to 'the dems could put Hitler's corpse on the ticket and they're getting my vote' in 3 very long years.

capnamerca
capnamerca

This shit better be 100% option one, or your complicit in the destruction of this country.

troph
troph

Was the thread supposed to read, “hey I’m super happy Bernie is winning New Hampshire so when he wins the Nomination will YOU vote for HIM?” because that’s what Bernie bros usually ask instead of the

Js1

Js1 85109

Posted
Posted
Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Despite B_T's destroying of this thread, like he does with every thread, the poll seems to have served its purpose and given me SOME hope.

90% overall will vote for the D candidate. 

Removing the 4 fuckwads (and Cheese, who said he'd vote for Trump if its Bloomberg), it's more like 93% of Democrats would stick with the chosen Democrat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted

 

If you're worried about unity in the face of Trump, which you should be, take a look at the calendar to put it in some context...

--------------------------------------------------------
February: 155 Delegates
March: 2448
April: 854
May: 300
June: 222 (final caucus is June 6th)
July: Democratic Nominating Convention July 13-16
--------------------------------------------------------

We will, with an almost definite certainty, know by end-March/mid-April who will walk into the convention with the most delegates. (It is very likely we know after Super Tuesday, which is March 3rd.)

If you want to know how, click the spoiler. If you don't care, skip it.

The threshold at the precinct/district/state level to receive delegates is 15%. Right now we have a candidate who is projected to meet that threshold in 98% of districts (Sanders), 96% of districts (Biden), and 65% of districts (Warren). (This is all according to

an e-mail to supporters that Warren sent out.)

If either Sanders or Biden get out to a significant delegate lead (say 80-120) coming out of Super Tuesday, it will be statistically impossible for anyone to catch up because of how the delegates are apportioned, especially in a crowded field.

Let's say Biden gets out to a 100 delegate post-Super Tuesday lead; Sanders would have to not only get delegates everywhere Biden does from then on, Sanders would have to significantly beat Biden in the rest of them to first keep up, then catch up, and finally get ahead.

So, after Super Tuesday, anyone who is 150+ delegates behind knows they aren't going to win. They're staying in out of power/appointment-seeking purposes (Hillary '08 seeking high position in Obama's cabinet) or they have a major ideological war ongoing and want to get as much oxygen to it as possible even in a losing effort (Sanders '16 seeking major changes to the policy platform and primary rules).

Then there are the dead-enders of many flavors. They are holding out hope for that 1 shot in a million. They're bitter. They're just so used to running they don't know how to stop. They are egomaniacs that just can't quit.

Then there's the final candidate type, the spoiler. They are accumulating oxygen not to actually win, but to make sure someone else loses. These types can know what they're doing or they can be a dead-ender who is functionally a spoiler.

So odds are very good we will know who the plurality leader will be by March 4th.

That is 4 months before the convention.

That is 4 months where we can, with clear eyes, know who is going to walk into Wisconsin with the most pledged delegates and figure out how to get everyone behind that candidate so we avoid the nightmare of the brokered convention.

Because unless all you really care about is war, we need to avoid a brokered convention.

Yes, we all agree that the Bernie contingent will... not take it well if Sanders goes in with the plurality of pledged delegates and doesn't walk out with the nomination. But everyone here should also honestly assess the amount of negative feelings that exist in other camps. Imagine Warren going in with a plurality and Sanders walking out with the nomination. Imagine an openly-decaying Biden going in with the plurality and Pete walking out with the nomination even though Amy had a handful more delegates than Pete because Pete got more big money superdelegates. Imagine Warren going in with a plurality and then Sanders people working with Joe on the 2nd ballot because Joe promises to do full M4A immediately.

The party-destroying permutations are endless.

So our focus needs to be on avoiding any potential of that happening. We need to go into Super Tuesday saying, "Whoever goes into Wisconsin with the plurality needs to walk out with the nomination, WHOEVER IT IS."

Do not think that the party elite can play games with this process and beat Trump. They can't. A divided party will lead to Trump's second term.

And I've been lectured for that viewpoint multiple times in this thread, but even if you don't like me as a Bernie Bro, I would encourage you to listen to the nice, safe liberals from Pod Save America.

In their latest episode they lay it out very very clearly and come to the same conclusion as me: Whoever goes into Wisconsin with the plurality needs to walk out with the nomination, WHOEVER IT IS.

Will some dead-enders still raise hell? Yes, but they won't break the party.

We will need to be patient as campaigns don't just immediately quit. Multiple candidates with no chance of winning will keep themselves alive until June. We have to weather that storm knowing in our hearts that the plurality leader is already know and that this person must become the nominee. Love or hate him/her, that's how it has to be if we want to beat Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45494

Posted
  • Author
Posted
9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

 

 

If you're worried about unity in the face of Trump, which you should be, take a look at the calendar to put it in some context...

--------------------------------------------------------
February: 155 Delegates
March: 2448
April: 854
May: 300
June: 222 (final caucus is June 6th)
July: Democratic Nominating Convention July 13-16
--------------------------------------------------------

We will, with an almost definite certainty, know by end-March/mid-April who will walk into the convention with the most delegates. (It is very likely we know after Super Tuesday, which is March 3rd.)

If you want to know how, click the spoiler. If you don't care, skip it.

The threshold at the precinct/district/state level to receive delegates is 15%. Right now we have a candidate who is projected to meet that threshold in 98% of districts (Sanders), 96% of districts (Biden), and 65% of districts (Warren). (This is all according to

an e-mail to supporters that Warren sent out.)

If either Sanders or Biden get out to a significant delegate lead (say 80-120) coming out of Super Tuesday, it will be statistically impossible for anyone to catch up because of how the delegates are apportioned, especially in a crowded field.

Let's say Biden gets out to a 100 delegate post-Super Tuesday lead; Sanders would have to not only get delegates everywhere Biden does from then on, Sanders would have to significantly beat Biden in the rest of them to first keep up, then catch up, and finally get ahead.

So, after Super Tuesday, anyone who is 150+ delegates behind knows they aren't going to win. They're staying in out of power/appointment-seeking purposes (Hillary '08 seeking high position in Obama's cabinet) or they have a major ideological war ongoing and want to get as much oxygen to it as possible even in a losing effort (Sanders '16 seeking major changes to the policy platform and primary rules).

Then there are the dead-enders of many flavors. They are holding out hope for that 1 shot in a million. They're bitter. They're just so used to running they don't know how to stop. They are egomaniacs that just can't quit.

Then there's the final candidate type, the spoiler. They are accumulating oxygen not to actually win, but to make sure someone else loses. These types can know what they're doing or they can be a dead-ender who is functionally a spoiler.

So odds are very good we will know who the plurality leader will be by March 4th.

That is 4 months before the convention.

That is 4 months where we can, with clear eyes, know who is going to walk into Wisconsin with the most pledged delegates and figure out how to get everyone behind that candidate so we avoid the nightmare of the brokered convention.

Because unless all you really care about is war, we need to avoid a brokered convention.

Yes, we all agree that the Bernie contingent will... not take it well if Sanders goes in with the plurality of pledged delegates and doesn't walk out with the nomination. But everyone here should also honestly assess the amount of negative feelings that exist in other camps. Imagine Warren going in with a plurality and Sanders walking out with the nomination. Imagine an openly-decaying Biden going in with the plurality and Pete walking out with the nomination even though Amy had a handful more delegates than Pete because Pete got more big money superdelegates. Imagine Warren going in with a plurality and then Sanders people working with Joe on the 2nd ballot because Joe promises to do full M4A immediately.

The party-destroying permutations are endless.

So our focus needs to be on avoiding any potential of that happening. We need to go into Super Tuesday saying, "Whoever goes into Wisconsin with the plurality needs to walk out with the nomination, WHOEVER IT IS."

Do not think that the party elite can play games with this process and beat Trump. They can't. A divided party will lead to Trump's second term.

And I've been lectured for that viewpoint multiple times in this thread, but even if you don't like me as a Bernie Bro, I would encourage you to listen to the nice, safe liberals from Pod Save America.

In their latest episode they lay it out very very clearly and come to the same conclusion as me: Whoever goes into Wisconsin with the plurality needs to walk out with the nomination, WHOEVER IT IS.

Will some dead-enders still raise hell? Yes, but they won't break the party.

We will need to be patient as campaigns don't just immediately quit. Multiple candidates with no chance of winning will keep themselves alive until June. We have to weather that storm knowing in our hearts that the plurality leader is already know and that this person must become the nominee. Love or hate him/her, that's how it has to be if we want to beat Trump.

This may be the most coherent and rational thing you've ever posted.  Do more like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45557

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Would you contend that the Pod Save America guys, who say the exact same thing I'm saying here, are also Bernie Bros?

I don't know who they are.  I saw plenty of reasonable thought in that prose, but it seems to be mostly predicated on the assumption that Bernie will be in the lead come Wisconsin.  Yes, I saw the lip service paid to other candidates.

I maintain that, in certain cases, it's reasonable for the party to broker a nominee who doesn't hold the plurality.  I can think of no similar argument if one candidate holds the majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85109

Posted
Posted

If someone walks into the convention with 1,990 delegates, crown them by acclimation on the first vote.

If no one walks into the convention with 1,990 delegates, and even if Sanders walks in with 1,989 delegates..... you better figure out where you're going to find the other 387 delegates on the 2nd ballot and hope the moderates don't broker a compromise candidate instead.   All bets are off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85109

Posted
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

1,991 delegates, right?

1,990 of 3,979[a] pledged delegate votes needed to win the presidential nomination at the convention's first ballot.[1]
2,376 of all 4,750 delegate votes needed to win any subsequent ballots at a contested convention.[1]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't know who they are.

They're all former Obama staffers from the 08 campaign. One of them worked for Clinton in 2016. They adore Beto and pretty much convinced him to run for president.

Quote

I maintain that, in certain cases, it's reasonable for the party to broker a nominee who doesn't hold the plurality.

That's fine, you can think it's reasonable, but do you think that would lead to a Democratic nominee with a unified center-left/left voting base necessary to beat Trump?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Js1 said:

If someone walks into the convention with 1,990 delegates, crown them by acclimation on the first vote.

If no one walks into the convention with 1,990 delegates, and even if Sanders walks in with 1,989 delegates..... you better figure out where you're going to find the other 387 delegates on the 2nd ballot and hope the moderates don't broker a compromise candidate instead.   All bets are off. 

Well yeah, we'd better hope that.

Do you think that we should all stand behind the plurality winner getting the nomination in order to build a unified base to beat Trump?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45557

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

1,990 of 3,979[a] pledged delegate votes needed to win the presidential nomination at the convention's first ballot.[1]
2,376 of all 4,750 delegate votes needed to win any subsequent ballots at a contested convention.[1]

Understood.  I had seen a site with the math wrong -- it claimed the 1st ballot majority would be 1,991 delegates, even though it correctly pointed out the 3,979 total.  Obviously, 1990/1989 is 3,979 as you pointed out.

Check yer math, ballotpedia

 

Quote

To win the Democratic nomination, a presidential candidate must receive support from a majority of the pledged delegates on the first ballot: 1,991 pledged delegates.[2][3]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45557

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

That's fine, you can think it's reasonable, but do you think that would lead to a Democratic nominee with a unified center-left/left voting base necessary to beat Trump?

I think that completely depends on the margin and the candidates involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted
On 2/13/2020 at 10:04 AM, bad_teammate said:

Ah, I see.

I do not think they should be arrested for changing from Round 1 to Round 2. I support their right to do whatever they want in that shady, backroom process. They should face zero legal or real-life reprisals.

I guess what you're trying to get to is to analogize the delegates to our elected representatives? The problem with that is that we don't vote on the actual delegates, we vote for presidential candidates and then delegates are appointed.

If the delegates themselves were elected on a platform of who they would vote for at the convention, that would make sense. But that's not how this goes.

The delegates are voted on, and who they support is part of the selection process.  There are small variations state to state, but the DNC has mostly driven the selection model.  If you are trying to be a delegate, you declare who you support.  You then are eligible to  be elected to represent that candidate, based on Congressional districts.  For example, if Warren gets 25% of the Nebraska vote, my wife will be one of the people vying for the one female Warren slot for NE-2. The Warren campaign has the ability to veto any, and all, delegate hopefuls they want.  Theoretically, they could veto anyone that hasn't been part of the campaign, and it would be a selection among campaign staffers of NE-2.  If she gets past the veto process, she would then have to receive the votes of Democrats who show up to the County Convention, and then from that group, she'd need to be selected at the State Convention, by the delegates to the State Convention.  (Note: delegates to the State Convention are not the same as delegates to the National Convention.) 

It is a complicated, confusing process, but it is certainly one where both the Candidate has a say in who represents them, as do the Democrats in the area.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Tuco said:

The delegates are voted on, and who they support is part of the selection process.

Not directly by the voters in the primaries/caucuses, which was my point.

As you point out, there's a lengthy and complicated process for selecting which delegates go to the national nominating convention that doesn't involve the voters at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted
Not directly by the voters in the primaries/caucuses, which was my point.
As you point out, there's a lengthy and complicated process for selecting which delegates go to the national nominating convention that doesn't involve the voters at all.

Was that your point of saying that they were appointed? Because I thought you just didn’t know what you were talking about. I thought you were justifying your position on a profound ignorance of the system. My mistake.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted

troph was making the argument that the delegates making the call in the 2nd round of the nominating convention was akin to a runoff election.

In a runoff election, the same voters who voted the first time get to vote again. In this process, the actual voters vote the first time, but they don't vote the 2nd time, that's left to delegates.

As I said to her, if the voters in primaries voted on delegates instead of presidential candidates, then that runoff analogy would work.

Imagine a primary where you had to choose between "Ms. B_T - Team Bernie" and "Ms. Tuco - Team Warren". Then those delegates would be more direct representatives of the voters because the voters could ask, "Hey Ms. b_t, what will you do in X- case at the convention?" and that delegate would then have informed consent. As it is now, a voter votes for Bernie, Ms. b_t gets the delegate spot through an opaque (to the voter) process, and then can do whatever at the convention.

It's fine, not a big deal.

It's very cool that your wife is involving herself in the process. An example more of us should follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...