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

[troph 24,562]

I'm going to find troph and pee all over her car for daring to say I would ever vote Libertarian
my GOD

My bad I thought you said that. But to be clear it’s no different than writing in Bernie or sitting out. All are as much a vote for trump as a vote for write in.

[troph 24,562]

OK
I respect that.

Thank you. I mean it sincerely.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

so here's the question (although i'm sure it's already been asked)...

what if bloomberg has the plurality heading into the convention, but bernie ends up being the nominee.  does bt write in bloomberg instead of pulling the bernie lever?

This...

I...

you...

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Don't be fatuous B_T

First of all, never.

Second of all, it's just as fair a question as anything else in this thread of fatuousness.

[henrygandorf 29,177]

50 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

You will need to help me get to Bloomberg if that is the choice, but I am a gettable on that question. 

unfortunately, here's the issue that some on this thread are running into.  many of us here are "vote blue no matter who".  i'm for pete, but zero of my posts on this thread are about pete (i don't think).  i'd much prefer to vote for bernie than vote for bloomberg, but will 100% vote for whomever is the nominee.

this is war.  if you're not voting against trump, you're voting for trump.  no depends.  no conditions.  everything else is background noise.  that's it and that's all.   

[SydneyCarton 47,884]

11 minutes ago, troph said:

I would love to see more folks on this board that take this position. Washpark has changed my mind about him. And these types of posts make Bernie more palatable. I genuinely want to like the guy and the movement. These posts help.

I like Bernie. I’m not scared of socialist misinformation bull shit. I oddly think he’d have a no nonsense approach to getting shit done and would have zero compunction thumbing his nose at the party and accomplish what he can because his marriage to the party is relatively recent. I’d be happy if he won and I don’t think the economy would shit the bed the way financial people predict; in fact I think the recession will happen regardless, we are due. I only worry he can’t win against trump. 

Edited February 13, 2020 by SydneyCarton

[softlynow 1,783]

Since it appears none of Thomas Whitmore, James Marshall, Dave Kovic or Andrew Shepherd or will not be the nominee, I'll vote for whichever schlub you fucks come up with.

[HenryJames 65,890]

Separate Bernie from the Bros. He’s fundamentally honest and decent and can’t be bought.

[troph 24,562]

Separate Bernie from the Bros. He’s fundamentally honest and decent and can’t be bought.

And I think he’s the only one that isn’t to at least some extent subject to monied influence.

[hobbes2702 12,844]

18 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

so here's the question (although i'm sure it's already been asked)...

what if bloomberg has the plurality heading into the convention, but bernie ends up being the nominee.  does bt write in bloomberg instead of pulling the bernie lever?

Of course not. His “principles” only exist for his team.

[Brisketexan 104,624]

B-t, how would you being exactly what I knew you were “drive me to the asylum?” You’re not scoring any points. You’re not impressing anyone with your Ben Shapiro-esque “logic.” You’re just reinforcing perhaps Bernie’s biggest problem: a lot of people who might like him can’t fucking stand his supporters, and Bernie is tainted by their proximity and assholery.

It’s not much different from what a lot of folks went through when they looked at libertarians: a candidate would say a few things that sounded reasonable, and maybe merited a look...and then his supporters piped up with “how are you going to stop all the chem trails? And what are your plans for dealing with the alien base under the Denver airport?”

Sane people don’t walk away from that crowd, they run.

Keep being you. Just don’t be surprised when your team’s consistent assholery costs you the very thing you won’t compromise on - a Bernie nomination.

I never had any illusions about changing your mind, even a little bit. It’s the essence of who you are. You won’t temper yourself in any way. But maybe some of your fellow Bernie supporters will see this, and think “holy shit, do I come across that badly?”, and will temper their approach, thus improving Bernie’s appeal to those who interact with them.

So, maybe you do have some usefulness to Bernie’s campaign: you can serve as a warning to others.

 

[hobbes2702 12,844]

15 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

unfortunately, here's the issue that some on this thread are running into.  many of us here are "vote blue no matter who".  i'm for pete, but zero of my posts on this thread are about pete (i don't think).  i'd much prefer to vote for bernie than vote for bloomberg, but will 100% vote for whomever is the nominee.

this is war.  if you're not voting against trump, you're voting for trump.  no depends.  no conditions.  everything else is background noise.  that's it and that's all.   

[triplehorn 2,664]

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

B-t, how would you being exactly what I knew you were “drive me to the asylum?” You’re not scoring any points. You’re not impressing anyone with your Ben Shapiro-esque “logic.” You’re just reinforcing perhaps Bernie’s biggest problem: a lot of people who might like him can’t fucking stand his supporters, and Bernie is tainted by their proximity and assholery.

It’s not much different from what a lot of folks went through when they looked at libertarians: a candidate would say a few things that sounded reasonable, and maybe merited a look...and then his supporters piped up with “how are you going to stop all the chem trails? And what are your plans for dealing with the alien base under the Denver airport?”

Sane people don’t walk away from that crowd, they run.

Keep being you. Just don’t be surprised when your team’s consistent assholery costs you the very thing you won’t compromise on - a Bernie nomination.

I never had any illusions about changing your mind, even a little bit. It’s the essence of who you are. You won’t temper yourself in any way. But maybe some of your fellow Bernie supporters will see this, and think “holy shit, do I come across that badly?”, and will temper their approach, thus improving Bernie’s appeal to those who interact with them.

So, maybe you do have some usefulness to Bernie’s campaign: you can serve as a warning to others.

 

Earlier today I posted a Sanders related link to this bit about the upcoming NV caucus :

Quote

On the evening he emerges with momentum from NH, Bernie is nuked in Nevada by Culinary with flyers in Spanish and English at union properties and direct communication to its 60,000 members via text and email. A ratcheting up of the campaign targeting him. This is something.

Jon Ralston added,

 

A short bit ago today I heard Sanders respond when questioned about his health care proposal on the union members' current health care policies.  He gave a calm confident response that seemed understandable to me.  So that's reassuring and I can imagine at least warming up to better understand what's in the balance.

But then, just now this from Geoconda Argüello-Kline speaking on behalf of the Culinary Union:

Quote

STATEMENT by Geoconda Argüello-Kline: It’s disappointing Senator Sanders’ supporters have viciously attacked the Culinary Union & working families in NV simply because we provided facts on proposals that might takeaway what we have built over 8 decades.

https://twitter.com/Culinary226/status/1227710991032635393

that shit is not my ride.

Edited February 13, 2020 by triplehorn

[BradInATX 9,208]

b_t - your unwillingness to support the nominee in a brokered convention where Sanders has the most going in but not a majority - a nominee that would make my life better and make the lives of the trans women of color better - is by its very nature a conditional support of trans rights. I know you are going to tell me I’m wrong, but I’m telling you right here and now without equivocation that my people will be worse off with 4 more years of trump compared to a decent but not sanders level of purity democrat in the White House next term. Trumps threat is visceral, palpable, and demonstrable. Bloomberg is a straw man. The front runners are all 10x better than trump. You go out of your way to be a supporter of LGBTQ rights here, but if you sit this example out or write in Bernie or you vote for the Libertarian then you are effectively voting for Trump. And if you think not, so be it, but every single LGBTQ person I know that is not a Bernie supporter will vote for him and we all agree a refusal to support the nominee for any reason is a vote against us. I’m sure you can tell me why I dunno 2000 LGBTQ folks I know across the country are wrong about that, but that’s my sample size and that’s what we think about your “it depends answer” so excuse my hostility but I think it’s very well deserved given a brokered convention is part of this landscape, it’s not a screw job, it’s politics, it’s within the rules, and it’s quite likely at this point.

Got damn this is a well put and effective post.

[henrygandorf 29,177]

23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Just don’t be surprised when your team’s consistent assholery costs you the very thing you won’t compromise on - a Bernie nomination.

actually, polling shows that bernie supporters are very open and persuadable if bernie doesn't win the nomination.

[gmr548 16,513]

Re: The socialism angle and Bernie:

Trump will hammer Sanders on socialism. You think things like reality or the truth stop that man from saying whatever he thinks helps him? LOL

Trump will go on about socialism. It'll work on people that were always going to vote for him, and yes, some overweight suburban middle management "moderate" types who really need to travel somewhere that isn't Branson, MO. That sucks. No way around it.

Here's the thing though. He'll do that against any Democrat. They always do. And it will still work on that crowd. He'll do it to Pete, Klobuchar, hell he'd do it to George Bush. So that argument doesn't do much for me.

[BradInATX 9,208]

actually, polling shows that bernie supporters are very open and persuadable if bernie doesn't win the nomination.

Yes. It's certainly clear that the majority of Bernie voters will consider voting against Trump if Bernie is not the nominee.

 

[triplehorn 2,664]

7 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Re: The socialism angle and Bernie:

Trump will hammer Sanders on socialism. You think things like reality or the truth stop that man from saying whatever he thinks helps him? LOL

Trump will go on about socialism. It'll work on people that were always going to vote for him, and yes, some overweight suburban middle management "moderate" types who really need to travel somewhere that isn't Branson, MO. That sucks. No way around it.

Here's the thing though. He'll do that against any Democrat. They always do. And it will still work on that crowd. He'll do it to Pete, Klobuchar, hell he'd do it to George Bush. So that argument doesn't do much for me.

Don't fool yourself.  What Project Alamo did in 2016 with FB, Twitter, and Cambridge Analytica was something very different than any BS Trump was spewing.  It was a weapons grade operation.  But you are correct, our population will be subjected to it again regardless of who the nominee is.  The nominee needs to connect with enough people across the party and independent spectrums in a way that ordinary people can distinguish between what's real and what's insanely fake.  Whoever it is has their work cut out.  

[bad_teammate 13,132]

actually, polling shows that bernie supporters are very open and persuadable if bernie doesn't win the nomination.

I gotta hand it to you. When you're right, you're right.

[Dutchrudder 11,115]

Don't care who they nominate, I'm an independent voting straight ticket Democrat. Fuck the Republicans and everything they stand for. I'm never voting for that party again.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,810]

Yeah I’ll even vote for Bloomberg if he’s the nominee because a) he’s not Trump and b) he can actually be removed from office if he goes all Trump on us.  

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Yeah I’ll even vote for Bloomberg if he’s the nominee because a) he’s not Trump and b) he can actually be removed from office if he goes all Trump on us.  

Bloomberg got his patronage local government in NYC to approve a 3rd term for him.

[workswithseed 2,036]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm going to find troph and pee all over her car for daring to say I would ever vote Libertarian

my GOD

Don't be a pussy, it won't hurt to have a Libertarian president.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,810]

34 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

41 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Yeah I’ll even vote for Bloomberg if he’s the nominee because a) he’s not Trump and b) he can actually be removed from office if he goes all Trump on us.  

Bloomberg got his patronage local government in NYC to approve a 3rd term for him.

Well one thing the last 3 years have taught us is anything can happen.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Well.

[triplehorn 2,664]

3 hours ago, triplehorn said:

Don't fool yourself.  What Project Alamo did in 2016 with FB, Twitter, and Cambridge Analytica was something very different than any BS Trump was spewing.  It was a weapons grade operation.  But you are correct, our population will be subjected to it again regardless of who the nominee is.  The nominee needs to connect with enough people across the party and independent spectrums in a way that ordinary people can distinguish between what's real and what's insanely fake.  Whoever it is has their work cut out.  

Thinking more about Project Alamo above, I wonder if, for the all the assumed disadvantages of having a divided field up until the convention, one distinct positive is the hydra effect.  Trump can't direct his flame on one opponent and blast away.  And the psychographic algorithms for the digital war get too variable, potentially contradictory, and simply diluted.  In 2016 it was basic full on destroy Hillary.  boost Bernie.  boost Green party.  If the Dem candidates can pull back from overt self-cannibalization, focus on 'may best woman or man win' while all attack the lawlessness of Trump, there could be a sustained withering effect on Trump.  In a 1:1 matchup, Trump simply takes all the oxygen.  I'm getting the sense that the nation having its attention focused among 4 or 5 candidates firing people up about needed initiatives and reforms marginalizes Trump and deprives him, and Parscale's digital arsenal, of a clean target.  I could also see how a constructive default campaign approach by committee up to the convention could help build broader momentum to flip Senate seats for the good of the country.  A lot hinges the collective staying positive and attacking Trump.  

[washparkhorn 9,935]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

Well.

 

Thank you for the link.

I thought he tread lightly and appropriately around that subject. And he is not wrong - it would be very divisive for the leader heading into the Convention to lose the nomination. Regardless of the candidate. Democratic Party leaders would need to have credible and persuasive answers why the leader should not be the nominee. That applies to all candidates - including Bloomberg if he were to have the most delegates or Buttigieg or Klobuchar or Warren or Biden or Sanders.

[Heisenberg 162]

Anyone but trump.  There is no candidate that I won't vote for if they appear on the ballot vs. trump.  All candidates have their own bad side - but the sum of all the D candidates' faults is minor compared to ithose of the corrupt, incompetent, criminal trump cabal.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Well.

Well... what?

[jimmyjazz 45,558]

7 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

I thought he tread lightly and appropriately around that subject. And he is not wrong - it would be very divisive for the leader heading into the Convention to lose the nomination. 

I don't understand this line of thought.  If the Democrats end up at a brokered convention, how exactly is the subsequent horse trading supposed to play out?  By definition, there are no allegiances after Round One.  

When people claim that the leader going into the convention should not lose the nomination, that is essentially saying the rules need to change.  It's saying that a plurality is sufficient as opposed to a majority.  This then brings up the role of the Super Delegates, who currently don't participate in the first vote.  They would have to . . . which further throws the outcome into question . . . or they would have to be eliminated.

It's a lot more complicated than Sanders would have us believe.

 

[troph 24,562]

Thank you for the link.

I thought he tread lightly and appropriately around that subject. And he is not wrong - it would be very divisive for the leader heading into the Convention to lose the nomination. Regardless of the candidate. Democratic Party leaders would need to have credible and persuasive answers why the leader should not be the nominee. That applies to all candidates - including Bloomberg if he were to have the most delegates or Buttigieg or Klobuchar or Warren or Biden or Sanders.

I agree my preference is for the plurality leader to come out with the nomination however Bernie’s greatest strength can be his greatest weakness. He is admired by everyone for his loyalty and consistency to his ideals. It’s truly remarkable. When people say politics are dirty part of that is really to say messy, not shady. Sometimes its shady but it’s always messy. What makes it messy? Coalition building for a majority necessarily requires compromise if you don’t have the majority without compromise. Bernie’s entire job right now is to convince a majority of democratic voters to believe in his message without compromise. If he can do that he has a mandate to run on those principles. If he wins the electoral college in a landslide he has a mandate to govern on those principles. That’s what the true followers of his message want.

 

But politics often result in pluralities and unclear messages from voters. And the fact remains, Bernie believers may be 100% right about what should happen but they must remember this is still a representative democracy at its core. Rigged and bought and sold for another conversation please. As such, when garnering a plurality, the candidate must recognize his own failure to garner the majority and begin the messy process of building a coalition.

 

Bernie’s challenge will be to build that coalition. He can start with the upper hand and high ground of the highest vote tally in round 1 but he would then be met with the current retort that the moderates as a class out voted the progressives. What we have at that time is essentially a caucus. Deals have to be made but at the convention it isn’t cookies and invitation to bridge clubs.

 

Will he play? If he does he has to make some deals and compromise in some way, if he doesn’t everyone on his side will claim a screw job.

 

And for me, this is the essence of one of my two primary concerns with Bernie. Will he compromise or will perfect be the enemy of good enough?

 

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,049]

7 hours ago, triplehorn said:

Thinking more about Project Alamo above, I wonder if, for the all the assumed disadvantages of having a divided field up until the convention, one distinct positive is the hydra effect.  Trump can't direct his flame on one opponent and blast away.  And the psychographic algorithms for the digital war get too variable, potentially contradictory, and simply diluted.  In 2016 it was basic full on destroy Hillary.  boost Bernie.  boost Green party.  If the Dem candidates can pull back from overt self-cannibalization, focus on 'may best woman or man win' while all attack the lawlessness of Trump, there could be a sustained withering effect on Trump.  In a 1:1 matchup, Trump simply takes all the oxygen.  I'm getting the sense that the nation having its attention focused among 4 or 5 candidates firing people up about needed initiatives and reforms marginalizes Trump and deprives him, and Parscale's digital arsenal, of a clean target.  I could also see how a constructive default campaign approach by committee up to the convention could help build broader momentum to flip Senate seats for the good of the country.  A lot hinges the collective staying positive and attacking Trump.  

If the candidates can utilize a coordinated attack Trump strategy then I agree. He's focusing on Bloomberg, but he has hinted (and I believe him) that he has other attack ads in the repository for everyone. He also has a lot of volunteer rabid supporters who create 'lib tear' memes, etc for fun and profit. So a battering ram is useful, but a thousand flaming arrows can create fires that are difficult to put out all at once. Having several candidates running and running, IMO keeps voters engaged. Do you want hope or hopelessness? Trump magnifies fear and hopelessness in a vacuum.

[Steamboat1874 4,032]

I am voting for whomever runs against Trump period.

Even if it turns out to be Bob  Stoops.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't understand this line of thought.  If the Democrats end up at a brokered convention, how exactly is the subsequent horse trading supposed to play out?  By definition, there are no allegiances after Round One.

The candidates who finished with fewer delegates should put aside their ego, pride, and ambition to say in unity and solidarity, "The will of the people is clear and all Round 2 delegates should respect the democratic will of the voters in our primary system."

(And yes, this applies to my dying grandfather Bernard as well.)

Now your rejoinder might be, "So naive of you, this is a bloodsport."

To which I respond, "I know, which is why they are not owed my allegiance. My allegiance is with the people."

I think, deep inside, you guys already undersand this which is why your reaction to hearing it is so angrily hyperbolic. If democracy doesn't matter, then neither does my vote.

Quote

When people claim that the leader going into the convention should not lose the nomination, that is essentially saying the rules need to change.

No rules change required, just solidarity from the losing bracket.

Just now, troph said:

But politics often result in pluralities and unclear messages from voters.

If one person has more votes than the next, that's not an unclear message. That is the fundamental precept of democracy.

Liz: 34% of delegates
Bernie: 29%
Klobuchar: 17%
Pete: 15%
Field: 5%

What would be "unclear" in this result?

 

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45,558]

Your first problem is that you continue to see a political party as a democracy.

[Jack 51]

7 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

I am voting for whomever runs against Trump period.

Even if it turns out to be Bob  Stoops.

Sorry, that crosses a clear line.  I am not about to eat a bag of dicks a day.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Your first problem is that you continue to see a political party as a democracy.

If they wanted to just select someone from within their organization they could do that, but they created and promote a massive, nationwide primary system.

You can try to sound cynically smart by saying that's just an illusion, a sop for the dumb masses, and that all the smart people know it's a facade. But what you're doing is saying, "You owe your allegiance to a corrupt organization that lies to the people and thinks they're idiots."

Which is not a convincing argument.

[Js1 85,110]

21 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't understand this line of thought.  If the Democrats end up at a brokered convention, how exactly is the subsequent horse trading supposed to play out?  By definition, there are no allegiances after Round One.  

When people claim that the leader going into the convention should not lose the nomination, that is essentially saying the rules need to change.  It's saying that a plurality is sufficient as opposed to a majority.  This then brings up the role of the Super Delegates, who currently don't participate in the first vote.  They would have to . . . which further throws the outcome into question . . . or they would have to be eliminated.

It's a lot more complicated than Sanders would have us believe.

 

Hey remember this? 

 

[Jack 51]

12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's a lot more complicated than Sanders would have us believe.

 

100% agree with this.  In a brokered convention the delegates for Sanders will likely throw a tantrum as we've seen them do repeatedly.

The problem isn't with posters like BT or Bernie himself.  There are some real bad apples that have attached themselves to the campaign and are extremely active within it.  How many of them are now delegates?  Alot of Sanders supporters felt cheated in 2016 and if they feel cheated again in 2020 they aren't going to go quietly.  

[bad_teammate 13,132]

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Hey remember this? 

 

Bernie truly does live in a society.

Bernie: "We shouldn't have the hunger games."

*Bernie thrown into the hunger games*

*Bernie stabs someone*

Brain Geniuses: "WOW LOOKS LIKE BERNIE LIKES THE HUNGER GAMES AFTER ALL HE SHOULD'VE JUST DIED ON PURPOSE!"

Edited February 13, 2020 by bad_teammate

[jimmyjazz 45,558]

That's not true.  Let's take your example -- there are valid reasons one might suggest Warren should come out of the primary with the nomination if the votes played out this way:

Liz: 34% of delegates
Bernie: 29%
Klobuchar: 17%
Pete: 15%
Field: 5%

 

A major justification would be that two "progressive" candidates took the top two spots AND THE MAJORITY.

But what if things played out like this?

Communist 1:  20.1%

Centrist 1:  20%

Centrist 2:  12%

Centrist 3:  12%

Centrist 4:  12%

Centrist 5:  12%

Centrist 6:  11.9%

 

That to me is a clear indication that the party as a whole prefers a centrist, not a communist.  THAT is why a plurality is not sufficient.

 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

A major justification would be that two "progressive" candidates took the top two spots AND THE MAJORITY.

But what if things played out like this?

Communist 1:  20.1%

Centrist 1:  20%

Centrist 2:  12%

Centrist 3:  12%

Centrist 4:  12%

Centrist 5:  12%

Centrist 6:  11.9%

 

That to me is a clear indication that the party as a whole prefers a centrist, not a communist.  THAT is why a plurality is not sufficient.

 

What you're doing here is ignoring the will of the people and putting in place categories you invent and populate.

Do all of Pete's voters think, "I am voting for him because I think he is a centrist and I think Bernie is a communist?"

No, of course not.

[jimmyjazz 45,558]

Well, you're wrong, but I'm smart enough to know that pounding my head against a wall does nothing but give me a headache.

 

Carry on.

[Jack 51]

12 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

B-t, how would you being exactly what I knew you were “drive me to the asylum?” You’re not scoring any points. You’re not impressing anyone with your Ben Shapiro-esque “logic.” You’re just reinforcing perhaps Bernie’s biggest problem: a lot of people who might like him can’t fucking stand his supporters, and Bernie is tainted by their proximity and assholery.

It’s not much different from what a lot of folks went through when they looked at libertarians: a candidate would say a few things that sounded reasonable, and maybe merited a look...and then his supporters piped up with “how are you going to stop all the chem trails? And what are your plans for dealing with the alien base under the Denver airport?”

Sane people don’t walk away from that crowd, they run.

Keep being you. Just don’t be surprised when your team’s consistent assholery costs you the very thing you won’t compromise on - a Bernie nomination.

I never had any illusions about changing your mind, even a little bit. It’s the essence of who you are. You won’t temper yourself in any way. But maybe some of your fellow Bernie supporters will see this, and think “holy shit, do I come across that badly?”, and will temper their approach, thus improving Bernie’s appeal to those who interact with them.

So, maybe you do have some usefulness to Bernie’s campaign: you can serve as a warning to others.

 

This is an excellent analogy. 

I have family that is fully onboard supporting Sanders and so I get to see plenty of their social media posts.  I agree with a lot of what they have to say conceptually but trying to have a discussion with them is like chewing on sandpaper.   It's really hard to believe that they share the same values.

 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Well, you're wrong, but I'm smart enough to know that pounding my head against a wall does nothing but give me a headache.

Answer the question:
Do all of Pete's voters think, "I am voting for him because I think he is a centrist and I think Bernie is a communist?"

You know they don't, which is why your response is this pounting, crybaby bullshit. You're just trying to rationalize your way to supporting a scenario in which the just winner is screwed out of the nomination because the person you want isn't on track to win.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

When you have a small group of unelected people overturning the expressed will of the voters because that small group of unelected people knows the voters' intentions better than the voters themselves do, what do you call that?

[jimmyjazz 45,558]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Answer the question:
Do all of Pete's voters think, "I am voting for him because I think he is a centrist and I think Bernie is a communist?"

You know they don't, which is why your response is this pounting, crybaby bullshit. You're just trying to rationalize your way to supporting a scenario in which the just winner is screwed out of the nomination because the person you want isn't on track to win.

I'm not answering your stupid question because it lacks merit.  I also wouldn't presume to speak for all of Pete's voters.

You can imagine you know my motivations, but once again, you would be wrong.  I am merely trying to show a pissy little child the rationale a party might use to not nominate the candidate who took a plurality of votes but not the majority.

For fuck's sake, all your foot-stomping about "democracy" ignores the very fact that we don't live in a country with a purely democratic government.  It's a red herring promulgated by those who lack the intellect or the honesty to actually move beyond convenient black and white arguments into the grey.  Which do you lack, intellect or honesty?

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not answering your stupid question because it lacks merit.  I also wouldn't presume to speak for all of Pete's voters.

Then why do you presume to lump their vote in as "Centrist" along with literally every non-Bernie candidate?

Quote

I am merely trying to show a pissy little child the rationale a party might use to not nominate the candidate who took a plurality of votes but not the majority.

I already know that's the sales job they will try to use, and I am rejecting the sales job.

Quote

For fuck's sake, all your foot-stomping about "democracy" ignores the very fact that we don't live in a country with a purely democratic government.

And... what?

You're the guy who literally said "Congress couldn't pass a Constitutional amendment" (when exactly ZERO of our constitution's amendments were handled via a Constitutional Convention before state ratification, and every single one of them originated in Congress), so while I'm happy to discuss things with you, the idea that you are teaching me anything about American government, democracy, or the Democratic Party is not credible.

Yes, we live in a democratic republic. We do not direct-vote on everything, we elect representatives to make those decisions for us. That thing we all learned in elementary school is true, please instruct me as to how it is relevant here.

[jimmyjazz 45,558]

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You're the guy who literally said "Congress couldn't pass a Constitutional amendment" (when exactly ZERO of our constitution's amendments were handled via a Constitutional Convention before state ratification, and every single one of them originated in Congress), so while I'm happy to discuss things with you, the idea that you are teaching me anything about American government, democracy, or the Democratic Party is not credible.

I'm sorry, are you saying an amendment could be ratified without 3/4 states' approval?  That's your angle?

[VRHorn 718]

30 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

When you have a small group of unelected people overturning the expressed will of the voters because that small group of unelected people knows the voters' intentions better than the voters themselves do, what do you call that?

A political party? One that Bernie isn't even a member of?

I will vote for anyone the dems put up, but this thinking is naive.

[Biff Tannen 45,495]

Welp, glad I started this thread.