• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DNC superdelegates warn they will block Bernie Sanders at convention and spark civil war within part

Mr. Invisible

Mr. Invisible

A Man Without A Country
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
5,519
Reaction score
3,933
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...egates-nomination-2020-election-a9363626.html

Senator*Bernie Sanders’ issues with the Democratic establishment*may continue past the nominating races and into the Democratic National Convention, according to a new report.*

If Mr Sanders arrives at the convention with any less than a majority of delegates pledged to him, he may find himself with a wave of superdelegates voting against his nomination.
Click to expand...

Looks like the clinch is in


Sent from my SM-A305N using Tapatalk
 
What a dumb way to piss off the voter base of the most popular candidate present.
 
So Bernie needs to win a majority for the majority to support him?

Amazing. Imagine that. How unfair.

Did no one learn anything about the dangers of a candidate winning with anything less than a majority of the vote in 2016?




Я Баба Яга [emoji328]
 
Warning: Dirty language in video. You were warned, *****!



I've been predicting this weak stable of candidates would screw the Dems over for years now.

I hope they feel like the impeachment was worth blowing their political capital over.

2020 is theirs to lose, and boy they are really determined to **** the dog.
 
Hatuey said:
So Bernie needs to win a majority for the majority to support him?

Amazing. Imagine that. How unfair.

Did no one learn anything about the dangers of a candidate winning with anything less than a majority of the vote in 2016?
Click to expand...

Do you really think it's better for the party's electoral fortunes come the general to broker a candidate?

I don't see how this ends well for Democrats. Even if you think that it's less than desirable for a plurality candidate to get the nomination, and I can certainly see the argument, I don't see how the alternative is ultimately _better_. It's like being given a choice between bad and worse and going with the latter.

To be clear, I think it would be likewise bad to broker even if a moderate wins a plurality.
 
Last edited:
The DNC is brazenly showing that they have nothing but contempt for its base. If Bernie does not win the nomination because of super delegates, then I will not vote for the democratic nominee.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
DNC superdelegates warn they will block Bernie Sanders at convention and spark civil war within party | The Independent



Looks like the clinch is in


Sent from my SM-A305N using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If I understand this right at the convention, super delegates must vote for whom they are pledge by the state vote in the primaries and caucuses in the first round. If no candidates receives the required 50% plus one delegate, then on the second round super delegates are freed to vote their conscious. As is every other delegate at the convention unless a state has a law requiring their delegates to continue to vote past the second round for the candidate they were pledged.

So the super delegates for the most part aren't doing anything different from all the other delegates. Even so, I sure would publicize my voting past the first round.
 
Fletch said:
Theres no way the DNC would do that.


Is there?
Click to expand...

Yes, they prefer Trump to Sanders.

Lots of them are lobbyists and consultants. Sanders threatens their way of life.
 
Surrealistik said:
Do you really think it's better for the party's electoral fortunes come the general to broker a candidate?

I don't see how this ends well for Democrats. Even if you think that it's less than desirable for a plurality candidate to get the nomination, and I can certainly see the argument, I don't see how the alternative is ultimately _better_. It's like being given a choice between bad and worse and going with the latter.

To be clear, I think it would be likewise bad to broker even if a moderate wins a plurality.
Click to expand...

I'd like to know when the candidate with a plurality was ever ignored in history and how that turned out for the Democratic Party.
 
Glad they are going to stand by democracy, rather than allow a loud minority to circumvent the will of the majority of Democrats and voters. If a majority of Democratic Party voters REJECTED Sanders, even if his radical socialist attempted raid on the Democratic Party, Sanders should not be the nominee.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Or... they are concerned that Sanders will be toxic to independent voters that helped democrats win the house.
Click to expand...

But, the evidence points to Sanders excelling with Independents.
 
Winston said:
Warren is lying about Sanders in that clip.

Bernie's position from 2016 was the Super Delegates should support the candidate who won their state.

Edit: His subsequent position was even better than that, abolish Super Delegates.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'll put the effort in to work out what was what. I've largely stopped paying attention this time because Trump's awfulness and dangerousness compels me to vote for whomever wins the D nomination.

At any rate, Warren's claim/point was that Bernie's views have shifted with what would benefit or would have benefited him. You say there's no contradiction to things he said then vs. now?
 
I really wouldn't worry about it. At first it was just progressives talking about it but I already see some prominent right wingers bringing it up on Twitter. If there is one group establishment Dems will listen to, in terms of electoral strategy, it's right wingers.
 
joko104 said:
Glad they are going to stand by democracy, rather than allow a loud minority to circumvent the will of the majority of Democrats and voters. If a majority of Democratic Party voters REJECTED Sanders, even if his radical socialist attempted raid on the Democratic Party, Sanders should not be the nominee.
Click to expand...

Okay, so Trump actually lost all the primaries he won with a plurality? That's not how it works.
 
CMPancake said:
The DNC is brazenly showing that they have nothing but contempt for its base. If Bernie does not win the nomination because of super delegates, then I will not vote for the democratic nominee.
Click to expand...

Er...you already said a couple weeks ago that you wouldn't vote for the democratic nominee if it wasn't Bernie anyway.
 
Mr Person said:
Perhaps I'll put the effort in to work out what was what. I've largely stopped paying attention this time because Trump's awfulness and dangerousness compels me to vote for whomever wins the D nomination.

At any rate, Warren's claim/point was that Bernie's views have shifted with what would benefit or would have benefited him. You say there's no contradiction to things he said then vs. now?
Click to expand...

Correct, it's a false claim on her part. She's saying he went to the convention trying to lobby the Super Delegates to support him and hand him the nomination over Clinton. That's false. He has always supported the most Democratic thing, Super Delegates should support the candidate who won their state. For example, Sanders crushed Clinton in Wyoming but Clinton won the state due to Super Delegates.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
DNC superdelegates warn they will block Bernie Sanders at convention and spark civil war within party | The Independent



Looks like the clinch is in


Sent from my SM-A305N using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Again, like all news sources do these days, fighting for clicks, we get a bombastic title, but then we get this, as the last paragraph in this article:

“It’s going to be pretty tough to take the nomination away from someone who’s got a strong plurality. If it’s neck and neck and close and everybody’s close, that’s one thing. But if there’s a clear winner, it’s hard to overturn,” Congressman John Larson said. “People can fantasize about a brokered convention but it’s going to be awfully hard to overturn the will of the people.”

Which entirely contradicts the title of the article and its sensational first paragraphs.

------------

This said, the DNC has two choices:

1. Go with the candidate with the most popular votes/delegates, as they've always done except in the highly atypical 1968, and have a fighting chance against Trump (hard to beat him, but not impossible)
2. Do a sleight of hand and pick an ilegitimate candidate, alienate at least 30% of Democrat-leaning voters (including me) and lose miserably to Trump in November, in a landslide

Now, if the party is dumb enough to pick 2 over 1, then the party fully deserves to lose the November election. Period, full stop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom