Should we fear the Democratic Party?

Venom · 29th February 2020, 02:09 AM

As most of us have heard, Democratic Party leaders are getting very worried. In fact, establishment leaders interviewed by the New York Times say they are willing to risk intraparty damage to stop Bernie Sanders.

To be more specific, if Sanders arrives at the convention in July without a majority in delegates, even if a plurality, they are prepared to throw their support behind somebody else. Only 9 of 93 superdelegates the NYT interviewed said Sanders should get the nom if he ends up with a plurality in delegates. Look at the sheer desperation of Democratic donors floating Sherrod Brown with Michelle Obama as VP, or Kamala Harris, who's been out of the race for what seems like a year now. They are in anybody but Bernie mode.

Cue the life's not fair and Bernie's not a real Democrat, the party doesn't owe him anything.....blah blah. No the primary process isn't necessarily fair, but there's something to be said about an industry standard. Superdelegates have traditionally thrown their support behind the candidate with the most delegates, majority or not, with a few exceptions. A break from this convention I feel is going to look really, really bad. It just might hand Trump the election on a silver platter.

I understand they are looking at a wider political landscape, with Congressional elections coming up they want to keep seats in regions they feel they risk losing with Bernie Sanders as nominee/president. And some people don't believe Sanders has a great chance against Trump, even though there are polls that suggest the opposite. Does the Democratic Party really want to take that risk? Do they think pissing off hundreds of thousands if not millions of would-be general election voters is a negligible expense for the long game?

It just might backfire epically.

The Great Zaganza · 29th February 2020, 02:55 AM

It depends on what side of the divide you fall:

do you think that Trump shook up Washington so much that a majority of voters want to return to the sanity of the Status Quo
- or -
do you think that Trump never accomplished what he promised in terms of healthcare, education, infrastructure and taxing the rich and another, more competent and sane anti-establishment candidate is needed

While going back to business as usual would be an improvement, I doubt that most voters would feel like it's enough: it might be the last time until AOC to get policies like the ones Sanders proposes to the top of the agenda.

Shadowdweller · 29th February 2020, 03:30 AM

Doing so would be unspeakably stupid. It would introduce divisions in the Democratic party that would never be healed or overcome. I would like to think that the party leadership is more intelligent than that, but the anti-Sanders hysteria on these boards and elsewhere has been making me question...

Squeegee Beckenheim · 29th February 2020, 03:59 AM

People have been predicting that Trump will fundamentally break the Republican party. It'd certainly be interesting times if both parties broke at the same time.

Distracted1 · 29th February 2020, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by Venom

As most of us have heard, Democratic Party leaders are getting very worried. In fact, establishment leaders interviewed by the New York Times say they are willing to risk intraparty damage to stop Bernie Sanders.

To be more specific, if Sanders arrives at the convention in July without a majority in delegates, even if a plurality, they are prepared to throw their support behind somebody else. Only 9 of 93 superdelegates the NYT interviewed said Sanders should get the nom if he ends up with a plurality in delegates. Look at the sheer desperation of Democratic donors floating Sherrod Brown with Michelle Obama as VP, or Kamala Harris, who's been out of the race for what seems like a year now. They are in anybody but Bernie mode.

Cue the life's not fair and Bernie's not a real Democrat, the party doesn't owe him anything.....blah blah. No the primary process isn't necessarily fair, but there's something to be said about an industry standard. Superdelegates have traditionally thrown their support behind the candidate with the most delegates, majority or not, with a few exceptions. A break from this convention I feel is going to look really, really bad. It just might hand Trump the election on a silver platter.

I understand they are looking at a wider political landscape, with Congressional elections coming up they want to keep seats in regions they feel they risk losing with Bernie Sanders as nominee/president. And some people don't believe Sanders has a great chance against Trump, even though there are polls that suggest the opposite. Does the Democratic Party really want to take that risk? Do they think pissing off hundreds of thousands if not millions of would-be general election voters is a negligible expense for the long game?

It just might backfire epically.

Puts us in a pickle though.

Sanders supporters asserting that if not chosen they will hand Trump the election on a silver platter on one hand.
Choosing Sanders and handing Trump the election on a silver platter on the other hand.

But the young vote is really going to turn out this time, I mean like really, we can count on these kids to show up at the polls this time, for sure, they aren't going to get excited then let us down, no way.

uke2se · 29th February 2020, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Puts us in a pickle though.

Sanders supporters asserting that if not chosen they will hand Trump the election on a silver platter on one hand.
Choosing Sanders and handing Trump the election on a silver platter on the other hand.

But the young vote is really going to turn out this time, I mean like really, we can count on these kids to show up at the polls this time, for sure, they aren't going to get excited then let us down, no way.

You post like the Democrats are in a real position to chose either way. The primary process is supposed to democratically chose the candidate. Right now, Bernie is winning. What do you think would happen if the party brass simply picked someone else, going against the wishes of the voters?

Distracted1 · 29th February 2020, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

You post like the Democrats are in a real position to chose either way. The primary process is supposed to democratically chose the candidate. Right now, Bernie is winning. What do you think would happen if the party brass simply picked someone else, going against the wishes of the voters?

We can choose our Candidate however we wish.

Getting less than 50% is not necessarily "winning", it just means the process is not done yet.

If the majority of the delegates are on the "someone else" side of the argument come convention time that just means that the convention needs to serve its original purpose.

Arguing that one will not support the ultimate choice of the party because of this is tantamount to threatening to hold ones' breath until they get their way.

uke2se · 29th February 2020, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by Distracted1

We can choose our Candidate however we wish.

Getting less than 50% is not necessarily "winning", it just means the process is not done yet.

If the majority of the delegates are on the "someone else" side of the argument come convention time that just means that the convention needs to serve its original purpose.

Arguing that one will not support the ultimate choice of the party because of this is tantamount to threatening to hold ones' breath until they get their way.

Is that your proposed course of action then? Because you feel like Bernie will lose the general election, the Democratic super delegates should support someone else in order to keep Bernie from getting the candidacy, even if he has a plurality of delegates?

angrysoba · 29th February 2020, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Sanders supporters asserting that if not chosen they will hand Trump the election on a silver platter on one hand.

Do they say this? Or do (some of them) say they don't want to vote for anyone but Sanders?

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Choosing Sanders and handing Trump the election on a silver platter on the other hand.

Or do you mean that other Democrats are saying "Vote Sanders and we will hand Trump the election on a silver platter?"

Are you arguing that if Trump wins it will all be Sanders's fault (or his supporters) whether he is the candidate or not?

Why would you not simply blame the people who sat out the election, or voted for Trump regardless of who the Democratic candidate is?

Distracted1 · 29th February 2020, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

Is that your proposed course of action then? Because you feel like Bernie will lose the general election, the Democratic super delegates should support someone else in order to keep Bernie from getting the candidacy, even if he has a plurality of delegates?

Yes.
Many of the Sanders supporters (and for the most part, only Sanders supporters) are indicating an unwillingness to vote in the General unless he is the nominee.

That, in itself, demonstrates that they are not on board with the number one priority of the rest of the Democratic Party- defeating Trump.

uke2se · 29th February 2020, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Yes.
Many of the Sanders supporters (and for the most part, only Sanders supporters) are indicating an unwillingness to vote in the General unless he is the nominee.

That, in itself, demonstrates that they are not on board with the number one priority of the rest of the Democratic Party- defeating Trump.

So you propose that the Democrats should abandon the preferences of a plurality of their voters because a relative small portion of them have indicated that they don't want to vote for anyone but Sanders? And you think this is a good idea that would win the election for the Democrats?

That sounds to me to be about the stupidest idea anyone has ever had. Are you sure you don't secretly want Trump to win?

Distracted1 · 29th February 2020, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Do they say this? Or do (some of them) say they don't want to vote for anyone but Sanders?

Or do you mean that other Democrats are saying "Vote Sanders and we will hand Trump the election on a silver platter?"

Are you arguing that if Trump wins it will all be Sanders's fault (or his supporters) whether he is the candidate or not?

Why would you not simply blame the people who sat out the election, or voted for Trump regardless of who the Democratic candidate is?

We are forearmed with the knowledge of who will vote for Trump.
We know which States are in his column, and which are in ours.

We can narrow down the expected outcome enough to form a strategy for winning in the States that will matter this time around.

If the Sanders supporters make that impossible, then yes, they will bear a portion of the blame for our loss.

Distracted1 · 29th February 2020, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

So you propose that the Democrats should abandon the preferences of a plurality of their voters because a relative small portion of them have indicated that they don't want to vote for anyone but Sanders? And you think this is a good idea that would win the election for the Democrats?

That sounds to me to be about the stupidest idea anyone has ever had. Are you sure you don't secretly want Trump to win?

I suggest they should listen to the majority of their members who wish the candidate to be "not Sanders".
Not the minority who are pushing "Sanders- or else"

uke2se · 29th February 2020, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by Distracted1

We are forearmed with the knowledge of who will vote for Trump.
We know which States are in his column, and which are in ours.

We can narrow down the expected outcome enough to form a strategy for winning in the States that will matter this time around.

If the Sanders supporters make that impossible, then yes, they will bear a portion of the blame for our loss.

From your posts in this thread, it's actually people like you that are making that impossible. Why don't you sit down, shut up and vote blue in November, no matter who is picked as the Democratic candidate? This election is far too important for you to **** it up.

Distracted1 · 29th February 2020, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

From your posts in this thread, it's actually people like you that are making that impossible. Why don't you sit down, shut up and vote blue in November, no matter who is picked as the Democratic candidate? This election is far too important for you to **** it up.

Sure.
Demonstrate to me that your expectation of the behavior of the voters in the key States is superior to mine, and I will defer to your judgment on the matter.

Otherwise, I know you are- but what am I

uke2se · 29th February 2020, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Sure.
Demonstrate to me that your expectation of the behavior of the voters in the key States is superior to mine, and I will defer to your judgment on the matter.

Otherwise, I know you are- but what am I

I can look at the available data, just like you. It shows Sanders performing equal to or better than any other Democratic candidate in all the battlegrounds. My argument is supported by that data. Yours by your gut feeling.

angrysoba · 29th February 2020, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Distracted1

We are forearmed with the knowledge of who will vote for Trump.
We know which States are in his column, and which are in ours.

We can narrow down the expected outcome enough to form a strategy for winning in the States that will matter this time around.

If the Sanders supporters make that impossible, then yes, they will bear a portion of the blame for our loss.

Yes, and let's say that Sanders gets the nomination, and he loses to Trump. Who is to blame then?

Distracted1 · 29th February 2020, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

I can look at the available data, just like you. It shows Sanders performing equal to or better than any other Democratic candidate in all the battlegrounds. My argument is supported by that data. Yours by your gut feeling.

Polls are currently showing that Sanders has about the same chanceas any other Democratic nominee right now convince me of what? That I should ignore what a lifetime spent in the very regions in question is telling me because the polls show that they are about the same right now?

Nope. You have polls. I have polls + experience. Still going to keep my own counsel.

Eight weeks ago they had Biden 10 points ahead ;were you pro-Biden at that point? The polls changed as the election moved nearer and more people began to engage in consideration of it.

In 16 more weeks the polls will be showing a Trump+ in the same States, the only difference being that we will be closer to being locked in to a losing choice.

Distracted1 · 29th February 2020, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Yes, and let's say that Sanders gets the nomination, and he loses to Trump. Who is to blame then?

Francine Clark, of Battle Creek MI.

Distracted1 · 29th February 2020, 08:03 AM

Or perhaps, a confluence of factors.
Some of them being Democrats who insisted on running a losing candidate.

uke2se · 29th February 2020, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Polls are currently showing that Sanders has about the same chanceas any other Democratic nominee right now convince me of what? That I should ignore what a lifetime spent in the very regions in question is telling me because the polls show that they are about the same right now?

Nope. You have polls. I have polls + experience. Still going to keep my own counsel.

Eight weeks ago they had Biden 10 points ahead ;were you pro-Biden at that point? The polls changed as the election moved nearer and more people began to engage in consideration of it.

In 16 more weeks the polls will be showing a Trump+ in the same States, the only difference being that we will be closer to being locked in to a losing choice.

Like I said, I have polls, you have your gut feeling. You can't tell the future. Nobody can. Available data does not support your argument, and it certainly doesn't support destroying the primary process with the objective of stopping what is demonstrably the currently most popular candidate.

Distracted1 · 29th February 2020, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

Like I said, I have polls, you have your gut feeling. You can't tell the future. Nobody can. Available data does not support your argument, and it certainly doesn't support destroying the primary process with the objective of stopping what is demonstrably the currently most popular candidate.

Why weren't you behind Biden when he topped the polls, and Sanders was a distant fourth place?

uke2se · 29th February 2020, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Why weren't you behind Biden when he topped the polls, and Sanders was a distant fourth place?

I was. I am behind whomever the Democrats nominate. My favorite is and has always been Warren, but if most Democrats want Sanders, I want him too.

varwoche · 29th February 2020, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

From your posts in this thread, it's actually people like you that are making that impossible. Why don't you sit down, shut up and vote blue in November, no matter who is picked as the Democratic candidate? This election is far too important for you to **** it up.

Wow, that's obnoxious.

Even though I think Bernie's nomination would be a disaster, and I hope that someone else -- anyone else -- gets the nomination, I most certainly would vote for him in the general without blinking. That's because I see the Imbecile-in-Chief as an existential threat to US democracy and it's essential that we unify to defeat him. I only wish the Bernie cultists felt the same way.

JoeMorgue · 29th February 2020, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

People have been predicting that Trump will fundamentally break the Republican party. It'd certainly be interesting times if both parties broke at the same time.

And sadly such a thing would be welcomed by a lot of Trump's (and no small part of Sander's) "the system is so broken it can't/shouldn't be saved" nihilistic bases.

If the Dems don't win the White House in 2020 the party is going to be too fractured to do anything for a while.

uke2se · 29th February 2020, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by varwoche

Wow, that's obnoxious.

I'm sorry, but these people wanting to explode the Democratic party rather than it nominate Bernie Sanders get me riled up. Glad to hear you are planning on voting blue in November.

Distracted1 · 29th February 2020, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

I'm sorry, but these people wanting to explode the Democratic party rather than it nominate Bernie Sanders get me riled up. Glad to hear you are planning on voting blue in November.

It is the Sanders supporters who seem more inclined to "blow up the party" if they don't understand that a brokered convention is pretty much th entire reason for a convention in the first place.

How small of a "plurality" should be able to insist on having a mandate, after all?
20%? 12%? % 49%?

Having a plurality still shows that the majority did not pick you. Making threats that you will pack up and go home if you don't get your way in that situation is "blowing up the party".

In fact, the one issue that a true majority of Democrats agree on this year is that whomever we select, we will support them all the way. The group that seems furthest from the majority of Democrats are those in that plurality.

JoeMorgue · 29th February 2020, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

I'm sorry, but these people wanting to explode the Democratic party rather than it nominate Bernie Sanders get me riled up. Glad to hear you are planning on voting blue in November.

How may times does this nonsense have to get debunked?

Sanders supporters are the ones who aren't going to vote if they don't get their way. We've covered this. Many, many times.

Distracted1 · 29th February 2020, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

Like I said, I have polls, you have your gut feeling. You can't tell the future. Nobody can. Available data does not support your argument, and it certainly doesn't support destroying the primary process with the objective of stopping what is demonstrably the currently most popular candidate.

Many of us are able to predict the future accurately to some extent. To be unable to is to go extinct.

uke2se · 29th February 2020, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

How may times does this nonsense have to get debunked?

Sanders supporters are the ones who aren't going to vote if they don't get their way. We've covered this. Many, many times.

And yet, evidence in this thread says otherwise. In this thread, one person has proposed that even if Sanders gets a plurality of delegates, the super delegates should make sure he's not the nominee, thus hijacking the primary process in favor of some ordained centrist. This is exactly what Sanders supporters say happened in 2016. They were wrong then, and likely contributed to Trump getting elected. This time, you are wrong, and if this happens, you will have contributed to Trump's reelection.

uke2se · 29th February 2020, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Many of us are able to predict the future accurately to some extent. To be unable to is to go extinct.

No, you aren't able to do that. You can only guess based on available evidence. Available evidence does not support your prediction.

Distracted1 · 29th February 2020, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

And yet, evidence in this thread says otherwise. In this thread, one person has proposed that even if Sanders gets a plurality of delegates, the super delegates should make sure he's not the nominee, thus hijacking the primary process in favor of some ordained centrist. This is exactly what Sanders supporters say happened in 2016. They were wrong then, and likely contributed to Trump getting elected. This time, you are wrong, and if this happens, you will have contributed to Trump's reelection.

You are arguing for the elimination of super delegates, perhaps?

Or that they should automatically nominate the candidate with the most votes (even if "most" means a small percentage of total votes)?

If the "Earth is round" wing of the party is carrying %30 of the vote, while the seven "earth is not round" candidates are each getting 10%, are you suggesting that it is the duty of the super delegates to nominate the "earth is round" candidate?

Distracted1 · 29th February 2020, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

No, you aren't able to do that. You can only guess based on available evidence. Available evidence does not support your prediction.

Perhaps evidence available to you does not support it.
Among other sources of evidence "my gut" is one that I factor into my decision making.

The only evidence presented to the contrary are some polls showing Sanders doing about the same as every other Democratic candidate against Trump when the expectation of historically high youth turnout is factored in.

applecorped · 29th February 2020, 10:45 AM

The only thing we have to fear, is shere itself. - Flat Earthers

Cain · 29th February 2020, 11:04 AM

The primary system was designed by the Democratic party precisely to filter out candidates like Sanders. They begin in Iowa and then move to New Hampshire, historically conservative states. Super Tuesday was about giving Southern states significant influence.

The notion that it was "rigged" by Hillary and the DNC just a few years ago was and is silly.

Trebuchet · 29th February 2020, 11:17 AM

The better question would be "Should we fear FOR the Democratic Party."

TragicMonkey · 29th February 2020, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

The better question would be "Should we fear FOR the Democratic Party."

No. Why should we? If it fails to win the election then that's proof it sucks and needs either repair or replacement. If it wins the election then clearly it's doing well enough to stick around.

Brainster · 29th February 2020, 11:36 AM

I can get the concern about the down-ticket races if Bernie wins the nomination, but I can see potentially worse problems if Bernie comes in with (say) 45% of the delegates needed to win on the first ballot while the highest other candidate has (say) 30% and the nomination goes to somebody else.

Baylor · 29th February 2020, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Why weren't you behind Biden when he topped the polls, and Sanders was a distant fourth place?

His perspective is that of a European. Everything if framed around the Holocaust. Because he believes Trump is holocausting brown-but-still-white-for-some reason people, the most imperative thing is to get Trump out of office to stop this holocaust. He's unable to see it from the POV of an American, that different candidates represent different people's and group's interests.

Brainster · 29th February 2020, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Cain

The primary system was designed by the Democratic party precisely to filter out candidates like Sanders. They begin in Iowa and then move to New Hampshire, historically conservative states. Super Tuesday was about giving Southern states significant influence.

It's not true that the primary system was designed to filter out a Sanders. In fact, the primary system was set up specifically to allow more radical candidates to win, following the 1968 Chicago fiasco, where the Democrats nominated Hubert Humphrey despite the fact that he had not won any primaries (partially because he got into the race too late due to Johnson's shocking withdrawal). The McGovern-Fraser Commission came up with recommendations for reform that (surprise, surprise) resulted in McGovern's nomination.

After the landslides of 1972 and 1980, another commission recommended the use of the superdelegates to dilute the power of the primaries, and they have been around ever since. They started out as about 14% of the total delegates and have gradually risen to 20%.

29th February 2020, 02:09 AM	#1
Venom Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: United States Posts: 4,957	Should we fear the Democratic Party? As most of us have heard, Democratic Party leaders are getting very worried. In fact, establishment leaders interviewed by the New York Times say they are willing to risk intraparty damage to stop Bernie Sanders. To be more specific, if Sanders arrives at the convention in July without a majority in delegates, even if a plurality, they are prepared to throw their support behind somebody else. Only 9 of 93 superdelegates the NYT interviewed said Sanders should get the nom if he ends up with a plurality in delegates. Look at the sheer desperation of Democratic donors floating Sherrod Brown with Michelle Obama as VP, or Kamala Harris, who's been out of the race for what seems like a year now. They are in anybody but Bernie mode. Cue the life's not fair and Bernie's not a real Democrat, the party doesn't owe him anything.....blah blah. No the primary process isn't necessarily fair, but there's something to be said about an industry standard. Superdelegates have traditionally thrown their support behind the candidate with the most delegates, majority or not, with a few exceptions. A break from this convention I feel is going to look really, really bad. It just might hand Trump the election on a silver platter. I understand they are looking at a wider political landscape, with Congressional elections coming up they want to keep seats in regions they feel they risk losing with Bernie Sanders as nominee/president. And some people don't believe Sanders has a great chance against Trump, even though there are polls that suggest the opposite. Does the Democratic Party really want to take that risk? Do they think pissing off hundreds of thousands if not millions of would-be general election voters is a negligible expense for the long game? It just might backfire epically.

29th February 2020, 02:55 AM	#2
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,852	It depends on what side of the divide you fall: do you think that Trump shook up Washington so much that a majority of voters want to return to the sanity of the Status Quo - or - do you think that Trump never accomplished what he promised in terms of healthcare, education, infrastructure and taxing the rich and another, more competent and sane anti-establishment candidate is needed While going back to business as usual would be an improvement, I doubt that most voters would feel like it's enough: it might be the last time until AOC to get policies like the ones Sanders proposes to the top of the agenda.
	__________________ The things that you're liable To read in the Bible It ain't necessarily so

29th February 2020, 03:59 AM	#4
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 31,372	People have been predicting that Trump will fundamentally break the Republican party. It'd certainly be interesting times if both parties broke at the same time.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

29th February 2020, 06:44 AM	#5
Distracted1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 5,610	Originally Posted by Venom As most of us have heard, Democratic Party leaders are getting very worried. In fact, establishment leaders interviewed by the New York Times say they are willing to risk intraparty damage to stop Bernie Sanders. To be more specific, if Sanders arrives at the convention in July without a majority in delegates, even if a plurality, they are prepared to throw their support behind somebody else. Only 9 of 93 superdelegates the NYT interviewed said Sanders should get the nom if he ends up with a plurality in delegates. Look at the sheer desperation of Democratic donors floating Sherrod Brown with Michelle Obama as VP, or Kamala Harris, who's been out of the race for what seems like a year now. They are in anybody but Bernie mode. Cue the life's not fair and Bernie's not a real Democrat, the party doesn't owe him anything.....blah blah. No the primary process isn't necessarily fair, but there's something to be said about an industry standard. Superdelegates have traditionally thrown their support behind the candidate with the most delegates, majority or not, with a few exceptions. A break from this convention I feel is going to look really, really bad. It just might hand Trump the election on a silver platter. I understand they are looking at a wider political landscape, with Congressional elections coming up they want to keep seats in regions they feel they risk losing with Bernie Sanders as nominee/president. And some people don't believe Sanders has a great chance against Trump, even though there are polls that suggest the opposite. Does the Democratic Party really want to take that risk? Do they think pissing off hundreds of thousands if not millions of would-be general election voters is a negligible expense for the long game? It just might backfire epically. Puts us in a pickle though. Sanders supporters asserting that if not chosen they will hand Trump the election on a silver platter on one hand. Choosing Sanders and handing Trump the election on a silver platter on the other hand. But the young vote is really going to turn out this time, I mean like really, we can count on these kids to show up at the polls this time, for sure, they aren't going to get excited then let us down, no way.
	__________________ The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

29th February 2020, 06:58 AM	#6
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 14,181	Originally Posted by Distracted1 Puts us in a pickle though. Sanders supporters asserting that if not chosen they will hand Trump the election on a silver platter on one hand. Choosing Sanders and handing Trump the election on a silver platter on the other hand. But the young vote is really going to turn out this time, I mean like really, we can count on these kids to show up at the polls this time, for sure, they aren't going to get excited then let us down, no way. You post like the Democrats are in a real position to chose either way. The primary process is supposed to democratically chose the candidate. Right now, Bernie is winning. What do you think would happen if the party brass simply picked someone else, going against the wishes of the voters?
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

29th February 2020, 03:30 AM	#3
Shadowdweller Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 1,025	Doing so would be unspeakably stupid. It would introduce divisions in the Democratic party that would *never* be healed or overcome. I would like to think that the party leadership is more intelligent than that, but the anti-Sanders hysteria on these boards and elsewhere has been making me question...

29th February 2020, 07:14 AM	#7
Distracted1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 5,610	Originally Posted by uke2se You post like the Democrats are in a real position to chose either way. The primary process is supposed to democratically chose the candidate. Right now, Bernie is winning. What do you think would happen if the party brass simply picked someone else, going against the wishes of the voters? We can choose our Candidate however we wish. Getting less than 50% is not necessarily "winning", it just means the process is not done yet. If the majority of the delegates are on the "someone else" side of the argument come convention time that just means that the convention needs to serve its original purpose. Arguing that one will not support the ultimate choice of the party because of this is tantamount to threatening to hold ones' breath until they get their way.
	__________________ The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

29th February 2020, 07:19 AM	#8
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 14,181	Originally Posted by Distracted1 We can choose our Candidate however we wish. Getting less than 50% is not necessarily "winning", it just means the process is not done yet. If the majority of the delegates are on the "someone else" side of the argument come convention time that just means that the convention needs to serve its original purpose. Arguing that one will not support the ultimate choice of the party because of this is tantamount to threatening to hold ones' breath until they get their way. Is that your proposed course of action then? Because you feel like Bernie will lose the general election, the Democratic super delegates should support someone else in order to keep Bernie from getting the candidacy, even if he has a plurality of delegates?
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 Last edited by uke2se; 29th February 2020 at 07:24 AM.

29th February 2020, 07:29 AM	#9
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,599	Originally Posted by Distracted1 Sanders supporters asserting that if not chosen they will hand Trump the election on a silver platter on one hand. Do they say this? Or do (some of them) say they don't want to vote for anyone but Sanders? Originally Posted by Distracted1 Choosing Sanders and handing Trump the election on a silver platter on the other hand. Or do you mean that other Democrats are saying "Vote Sanders and we will hand Trump the election on a silver platter?" Are you arguing that if Trump wins it will all be Sanders's fault (or his supporters) whether he is the candidate or not? Why would you not simply blame the people who sat out the election, or voted for Trump regardless of who the Democratic candidate is?
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

29th February 2020, 07:36 AM	#10
Distracted1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 5,610	Originally Posted by uke2se Is that your proposed course of action then? Because you feel like Bernie will lose the general election, the Democratic super delegates should support someone else in order to keep Bernie from getting the candidacy, even if he has a plurality of delegates? Yes. Many of the Sanders supporters (and for the most part, only Sanders supporters) are indicating an unwillingness to vote in the General unless he is the nominee. That, in itself, demonstrates that they are not on board with the number one priority of the rest of the Democratic Party- defeating Trump.
	__________________ The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

29th February 2020, 07:39 AM	#11
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 14,181	Originally Posted by Distracted1 Yes. Many of the Sanders supporters (and for the most part, only Sanders supporters) are indicating an unwillingness to vote in the General unless he is the nominee. That, in itself, demonstrates that they are not on board with the number one priority of the rest of the Democratic Party- defeating Trump. So you propose that the Democrats should abandon the preferences of a plurality of their voters because a relative small portion of them have indicated that they don't want to vote for anyone but Sanders? And you think this is a good idea that would win the election for the Democrats? That sounds to me to be about the stupidest idea anyone has ever had. Are you sure you don't secretly want Trump to win?
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

29th February 2020, 07:40 AM	#12
Distracted1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 5,610	Originally Posted by angrysoba Do they say this? Or do (some of them) say they don't want to vote for anyone but Sanders? Or do you mean that other Democrats are saying "Vote Sanders and we will hand Trump the election on a silver platter?" Are you arguing that if Trump wins it will all be Sanders's fault (or his supporters) whether he is the candidate or not? Why would you not simply blame the people who sat out the election, or voted for Trump regardless of who the Democratic candidate is? We are forearmed with the knowledge of who will vote for Trump. We know which States are in his column, and which are in ours. We can narrow down the expected outcome enough to form a strategy for winning in the States that will matter this time around. If the Sanders supporters make that impossible, then yes, they will bear a portion of the blame for our loss.
	__________________ The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

29th February 2020, 07:42 AM	#13
Distracted1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 5,610	Originally Posted by uke2se So you propose that the Democrats should abandon the preferences of a plurality of their voters because a relative small portion of them have indicated that they don't want to vote for anyone but Sanders? And you think this is a good idea that would win the election for the Democrats? That sounds to me to be about the stupidest idea anyone has ever had. Are you sure you don't secretly want Trump to win? I suggest they should listen to the majority of their members who wish the candidate to be "not Sanders". Not the minority who are pushing "Sanders- or else"
	__________________ The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

29th February 2020, 07:43 AM	#14
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 14,181	Originally Posted by Distracted1 We are forearmed with the knowledge of who will vote for Trump. We know which States are in his column, and which are in ours. We can narrow down the expected outcome enough to form a strategy for winning in the States that will matter this time around. If the Sanders supporters make that impossible, then yes, they will bear a portion of the blame for our loss. From your posts in this thread, it's actually people like you that are making that impossible. Why don't you sit down, shut up and vote blue in November, no matter who is picked as the Democratic candidate? This election is far too important for you to **** it up.
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

29th February 2020, 07:45 AM	#15
Distracted1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 5,610	Originally Posted by uke2se From your posts in this thread, it's actually people like you that are making that impossible. Why don't you sit down, shut up and vote blue in November, no matter who is picked as the Democratic candidate? This election is far too important for you to **** it up. Sure. Demonstrate to me that your expectation of the behavior of the voters in the key States is superior to mine, and I will defer to your judgment on the matter. Otherwise, I know you are- but what am I
	__________________ The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

29th February 2020, 07:48 AM	#16
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 14,181	Originally Posted by Distracted1 Sure. Demonstrate to me that your expectation of the behavior of the voters in the key States is superior to mine, and I will defer to your judgment on the matter. Otherwise, I know you are- but what am I I can look at the available data, just like you. It shows Sanders performing equal to or better than any other Democratic candidate in all the battlegrounds. My argument is supported by that data. Yours by your gut feeling.
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

29th February 2020, 07:50 AM	#17
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,599	Originally Posted by Distracted1 We are forearmed with the knowledge of who will vote for Trump. We know which States are in his column, and which are in ours. We can narrow down the expected outcome enough to form a strategy for winning in the States that will matter this time around. If the Sanders supporters make that impossible, then yes, they will bear a portion of the blame for our loss. Yes, and let's say that Sanders gets the nomination, and he loses to Trump. Who is to blame then?
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

29th February 2020, 08:00 AM	#18
Distracted1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 5,610	Originally Posted by uke2se I can look at the available data, just like you. It shows Sanders performing equal to or better than any other Democratic candidate in all the battlegrounds. My argument is supported by that data. Yours by your gut feeling. Polls are currently showing that Sanders has about the same chanceas any other Democratic nominee right now convince me of what? That I should ignore what a lifetime spent in the very regions in question is telling me because the polls show that they are about the same right now? Nope. You have polls. I have polls + experience. Still going to keep my own counsel. Eight weeks ago they had Biden 10 points ahead ;were you pro-Biden at that point? The polls changed as the election moved nearer and more people began to engage in consideration of it. In 16 more weeks the polls will be showing a Trump+ in the same States, the only difference being that we will be closer to being locked in to a losing choice.
	__________________ The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure. Last edited by Distracted1; 29th February 2020 at 08:02 AM.

29th February 2020, 08:02 AM	#19
Distracted1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 5,610	Originally Posted by angrysoba Yes, and let's say that Sanders gets the nomination, and he loses to Trump. Who is to blame then? Francine Clark, of Battle Creek MI.
	__________________ The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

29th February 2020, 08:03 AM	#20
Distracted1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 5,610	Or perhaps, a confluence of factors. Some of them being Democrats who insisted on running a losing candidate.
	__________________ The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

29th February 2020, 08:04 AM	#21
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 14,181	Originally Posted by Distracted1 Polls are currently showing that Sanders has about the same chanceas any other Democratic nominee right now convince me of what? That I should ignore what a lifetime spent in the very regions in question is telling me because the polls show that they are about the same right now? Nope. You have polls. I have polls + experience. Still going to keep my own counsel. Eight weeks ago they had Biden 10 points ahead ;were you pro-Biden at that point? The polls changed as the election moved nearer and more people began to engage in consideration of it. In 16 more weeks the polls will be showing a Trump+ in the same States, the only difference being that we will be closer to being locked in to a losing choice. Like I said, I have polls, you have your gut feeling. You can't tell the future. Nobody can. Available data does not support your argument, and it certainly doesn't support destroying the primary process with the objective of stopping what is demonstrably the currently most popular candidate.
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

29th February 2020, 08:07 AM	#22
Distracted1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 5,610	Originally Posted by uke2se Like I said, I have polls, you have your gut feeling. You can't tell the future. Nobody can. Available data does not support your argument, and it certainly doesn't support destroying the primary process with the objective of stopping what is demonstrably the currently most popular candidate. Why weren't you behind Biden when he topped the polls, and Sanders was a distant fourth place?
	__________________ The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

29th February 2020, 08:08 AM	#23
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 14,181	Originally Posted by Distracted1 Why weren't you behind Biden when he topped the polls, and Sanders was a distant fourth place? I was. I am behind whomever the Democrats nominate. My favorite is and has always been Warren, but if most Democrats want Sanders, I want him too.
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

29th February 2020, 08:11 AM	#24
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 15,465	Originally Posted by uke2se From your posts in this thread, it's actually people like you that are making that impossible. Why don't you sit down, shut up and vote blue in November, no matter who is picked as the Democratic candidate? This election is far too important for you to **** it up. Wow, that's obnoxious. Even though I think Bernie's nomination would be a disaster, and I hope that someone else -- anyone else -- gets the nomination, I most certainly would vote for him in the general without blinking. That's because I see the Imbecile-in-Chief as an existential threat to US democracy and it's essential that we unify to defeat him. I only wish the Bernie cultists felt the same way.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.

29th February 2020, 08:17 AM	#25
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 31,391	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim People have been predicting that Trump will fundamentally break the Republican party. It'd certainly be interesting times if both parties broke at the same time. And sadly such a thing would be welcomed by a lot of Trump's (and no small part of Sander's) "the system is so broken it can't/shouldn't be saved" nihilistic bases. If the Dems don't win the White House in 2020 the party is going to be too fractured to do anything for a while.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

29th February 2020, 08:18 AM	#26
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 14,181	Originally Posted by varwoche Wow, that's obnoxious. I'm sorry, but these people wanting to explode the Democratic party rather than it nominate Bernie Sanders get me riled up. Glad to hear you are planning on voting blue in November.
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

29th February 2020, 08:55 AM	#27
Distracted1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 5,610	Originally Posted by uke2se I'm sorry, but these people wanting to explode the Democratic party rather than it nominate Bernie Sanders get me riled up. Glad to hear you are planning on voting blue in November. It is the Sanders supporters who seem more inclined to "blow up the party" if they don't understand that a brokered convention is pretty much th entire reason for a convention in the first place. How small of a "plurality" should be able to insist on having a mandate, after all? 20%? 12%? % 49%? Having a plurality still shows that the majority did not pick you. Making threats that you will pack up and go home if you don't get your way in that situation is "blowing up the party". In fact, the one issue that a true majority of Democrats agree on this year is that whomever we select, we will support them all the way. The group that seems furthest from the majority of Democrats are those in that plurality.
	__________________ The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

29th February 2020, 08:56 AM	#28
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 31,391	Originally Posted by uke2se I'm sorry, but these people wanting to explode the Democratic party rather than it nominate Bernie Sanders get me riled up. Glad to hear you are planning on voting blue in November. How may times does this nonsense have to get debunked? Sanders supporters are the ones who aren't going to vote if they don't get their way. We've covered this. Many, many times.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

29th February 2020, 08:57 AM	#29
Distracted1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 5,610	Originally Posted by uke2se Like I said, I have polls, you have your gut feeling. You can't tell the future. Nobody can. Available data does not support your argument, and it certainly doesn't support destroying the primary process with the objective of stopping what is demonstrably the currently most popular candidate. Many of us are able to predict the future accurately to some extent. To be unable to is to go extinct.
	__________________ The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

29th February 2020, 09:10 AM	#30
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 14,181	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue How may times does this nonsense have to get debunked? Sanders supporters are the ones who aren't going to vote if they don't get their way. We've covered this. Many, many times. And yet, evidence in this thread says otherwise. In this thread, one person has proposed that even if Sanders gets a plurality of delegates, the super delegates should make sure he's not the nominee, thus hijacking the primary process in favor of some ordained centrist. This is exactly what Sanders supporters say happened in 2016. They were wrong then, and likely contributed to Trump getting elected. This time, you are wrong, and if this happens, you will have contributed to Trump's reelection.
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

29th February 2020, 09:11 AM	#31
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 14,181	Originally Posted by Distracted1 Many of us are able to predict the future accurately to some extent. To be unable to is to go extinct. No, you aren't able to do that. You can only guess based on available evidence. Available evidence does not support your prediction.
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

29th February 2020, 10:37 AM	#32
Distracted1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 5,610	Originally Posted by uke2se And yet, evidence in this thread says otherwise. In this thread, one person has proposed that even if Sanders gets a plurality of delegates, the super delegates should make sure he's not the nominee, thus hijacking the primary process in favor of some ordained centrist. This is exactly what Sanders supporters say happened in 2016. They were wrong then, and likely contributed to Trump getting elected. This time, you are wrong, and if this happens, you will have contributed to Trump's reelection. You are arguing for the elimination of super delegates, perhaps? Or that they should automatically nominate the candidate with the most votes (even if "most" means a small percentage of total votes)? If the "Earth is round" wing of the party is carrying %30 of the vote, while the seven "earth is not round" candidates are each getting 10%, are you suggesting that it is the duty of the super delegates to nominate the "earth is round" candidate?
	__________________ The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

29th February 2020, 10:41 AM	#33
Distracted1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 5,610	Originally Posted by uke2se No, you aren't able to do that. You can only guess based on available evidence. Available evidence does not support your prediction. Perhaps evidence available to you does not support it. Among other sources of evidence "my gut" is one that I factor into my decision making. The only evidence presented to the contrary are some polls showing Sanders doing about the same as every other Democratic candidate against Trump when the expectation of historically high youth turnout is factored in.
	__________________ The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

29th February 2020, 10:45 AM	#34
applecorped Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 20,145	The only thing we have to fear, is shere itself. - Flat Earthers
applecorped Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 20,145

29th February 2020, 11:04 AM	#35
Cain Straussian Join Date: May 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 14,298	The primary system was designed by the Democratic party precisely to filter out candidates like Sanders. They begin in Iowa and then move to New Hampshire, historically conservative states. Super Tuesday was about giving Southern states significant influence. The notion that it was "rigged" by Hillary and the DNC just a few years ago was and is silly.
	__________________ April 13th, 2018: Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.