• 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!

A Brokered Democratic Convention

GreatNews2night said:
The person who wants a train wreck is you, since you are NOT a Dem supporter. Oh, from half a dozen (still not named) people you're now upgrading to 20%? Based on what? Based on your wishful thinking???

Why do you think I have any hope that there will be a brokered convention? I hope there isn't one. I hope the top candidate wins it cleanly in first ballot. I'm just saying, a second ballot is not the train wreck that you are anticipating (because YOU want to see a mess, or a non-legitimate pick, so that your beloved Trump gets away with another win).

Who do you think you are fooling? Hint: no one. We all know what you stand for.
Click to expand...

The rules committee has 30 members. A half dozen of 30 is......wait for it.......get your fingers warmed up........twenty percent. I guess how your alleged party works is as foreign to you as math.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Actually Nate from 538.com who started giving it a 4% possibility, has then upgraded it to 16%, then 33%, and now 40%, or two in five. He did say that the prediction model lacks data and will be a lot clearer after Super Tuesday, actually.

Even though Bloomberg will grow more, it's still unlikely that he will win the nomination. Nate gives him something like a one in 15 chance.

FiveThirtyEight | Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight uses statistical analysis — hard numbers — to tell compelling stories about politics, sports, science, economics and culture.
Click to expand...

Nate is good. I still think it would be pretty interesting in a Trump vs. Bloomberg for all the reasons I stated. I wouldn't predict the nominee at this point. As for the brokered convention, it seems at least at some point in every primary that is brought up. I don't think it will happen. But I do agree with Nate, we'll have a better look after Super Tuesday.
 
Jay59 said:
The path is fairly clear. Someone has to take an early lead, then falter. With 40% of the delegates committed on one day early in the primary season, that is possible. It is especially possible now that Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, the longtime front runners, have stumbled badly. Both have built significant machines in key ST states. Do either of them have enough embedded strength in the Super Tuesday states to pull a substantial block? If so, will either be able to recover from recent setbacks? There are many possible scenarios.

Here is my question. If there is no candidate chosen on the first ballot, who will the Superdelegates back? They cannot vote on the first ballot according to rule. Will they choose one candidate and end things on the second vote, or will they be as fragmented as the chosen delegates?
Click to expand...

To answer your question...

It'll be like a tribal council on Survivor. The super delegates will get together with the DNC Elites and arrange a split vote with their target...in this case, the one they don't want to send home...getting the most votes. This way, they'll be able to say the vote was fair...even though it was totally scripted.
 
Drawdown said:
The rules committee has 30 members. A half dozen of 30 is......wait for it.......get your fingers warmed up........twenty percent. I guess how your alleged party works is as foreign to you as math.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I take it as way of speaking (reread my post - you quoted an earlier and incomplete version). And if you were to actually read your own sources you'd see that damaging phrase there:

Even proponents of the change acknowledge it is all but certain not to gain enough support to move past these initial conversations.
Click to expand...

There is no half a dozen people (as in 6), mate. It's a way of speaking... it means a small group (which are words written in that article, too). It's an email mentioning it... and with the position that it is not going to happen.

Learn to read your own sources, will you? Gee?

Do you actually know the meaning of "all but certain" NOT to gain support?

For your information, "all but certain not to happen" means an overwhelming chance that it won't happen, or in other words, almost no chance whatsoever that it will happen.

I guess how your own sources are written is as foreign to you as simple English.
 
GDViking said:
The only two people that could step in and change everything would be Michael Obama,with opra as her running mate. That would be game over...
Click to expand...
Michael Obama? Who's he? Does he sing opera?

Perotista said:
There was a lot of talk about a brokered convention on the Republican side in 2016. 15-16 candidates. It didn't come close. Never say never, it is possible, but on my probability scale, it's way down in the single digits. The very low single digits, one, two and possibly three.

I was going over the national polls and noticed Bloomberg has shot up from almost nothing to 15% nationally. Third place, 7 behind Sanders, 3 behind Biden. Now wouldn't that be interesting, Bloomberg vs. Trump, billionaire vs. billionaire, Ex-Republican vs. Ex-Democrat. The three time Republican Trump vs. the two time Democrat Bloomberg. A 7 time party switcher vs. a 3 time party switcher.
Click to expand...
Even with 15 candidates still in the field through New Hampshire, the Republicans in 2016 were nowhere near this fractured. Of course, they favor winner take all primaries, so there will always be a qualitative difference. Ted Cruz won Iowa, serving notice that he would not go quietly, But Trump reeled off NH, SC, NV and seven states on Super Tuesday. He had been leading the polls all along, but most Republicans were shocked that Trump was converting the polls into delegates. After Super Tuesday, Marco Rubio could probably have stopped Trump by throwing his support to Ted Cruz, but that did not happen. By the Florida primary--Rubio's home state, won by Trump--it was an insurmountable lead.

Do any of these Democrats have the draw to put the race away like Trump did? The question is how much the early leaders have already banked in the ST states vs whether any of the late surging candidates, particularly Bernie, can run off a string of wins.

I am aware of moves to change the rules at this late date, but I doubt it happens. Bernie Bros caused enough issues in 2016.
 
Jay59 said:
I am aware of moves to change the rules at this late date, but I doubt it happens. Bernie Bros caused enough issues in 2016.
Click to expand...

There are no "moves." There is ONE article on Politico mentioning some vague small group (mentioned as "half a dozen") that talked about it (there is mention of ONE email), without naming any names, and then, including this line:

Even proponents of the change acknowledge it is all but certain not to gain enough support to move past these initial conversations.
Click to expand...

People with a biased agenda of sowing discord in the Dem field are coming up with this conspiracy theory, based on an article that makes some vague claims, and then actually says it won't happen, LOL.

You know that there are people who would love to see discord and chaos among the Dems, right? So that Trump wins re-election more easily? Don't believe in everything your read on the Internet.
 
Jay59 said:
The path is fairly clear. Someone has to take an early lead, then falter. With 40% of the delegates committed on one day early in the primary season, that is possible. It is especially possible now that Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, the longtime front runners, have stumbled badly. Both have built significant machines in key ST states. Do either of them have enough embedded strength in the Super Tuesday states to pull a substantial block? If so, will either be able to recover from recent setbacks? There are many possible scenarios.

Here is my question. If there is no candidate chosen on the first ballot, who will the Superdelegates back? They cannot vote on the first ballot according to rule. Will they choose one candidate and end things on the second vote, or will they be as fragmented as the chosen delegates?
Click to expand...

Good question.
 
Surrealistik said:
Ultimately, if a brokered convention robs whoever has the plurality, it will be devastating for party unity and cohesion going into the general, and thus Democrat 2020 electoral chances; it is most certainly a nuclear option.
Click to expand...

Depends on what plurality means. If someone has a fair lead over all of the others then you would be correct but, if say someone like Bernie Sanders has a SMALL "plurality" then they might actually pick a more centrist candidate. Of course that would tick off the Bernie supporters who were already upset from 2016. This might actually be some fun.
 
Jay59 said:
The path is fairly clear. Someone has to take an early lead, then falter. With 40% of the delegates committed on one day early in the primary season, that is possible. It is especially possible now that Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, the longtime front runners, have stumbled badly. Both have built significant machines in key ST states. Do either of them have enough embedded strength in the Super Tuesday states to pull a substantial block? If so, will either be able to recover from recent setbacks? There are many possible scenarios.

Here is my question. If there is no candidate chosen on the first ballot, who will the Superdelegates back? They cannot vote on the first ballot according to rule. Will they choose one candidate and end things on the second vote, or will they be as fragmented as the chosen delegates?
Click to expand...

Wall Street Pete has been the choice of the sleazy backroom sociopaths who own the Democrat Party for MONTHS now - I'm not sure where you've been...

They LOVES them some conservative reptilian corporatist wrapped up in an Approved Identity package.

As gay white reptilian Obama, Booty's their boy!

:donkeyfla
 
Perotista said:
I don't know what the Super Delegates will do. We haven't a brokered convention since 1952. That was way back before we went to the modern primary system in 1976. Back in the day when there were only 10-12 primaries, a lot of favorite son candidates, smoke filled rooms etc. I don't expect one this time around.

There are probably 4 or 5 states for Biden to bounce back on Super Tuesday if he does real well in South Carolina before then. Warren, not many. There is Massachusetts and perhaps California. Sanders has Vermont and California, Klobuchar Minnesota. Warren is near the bottom in almost every Super Tuesday state except her own and California. One also needs to remember Bloomberg take a pass on the first four, concentrating on Super Tuesday. That wildcard hasn't been in the mix for Iowa and NH, won't be in Nevada and South Carolina either.

Who knows what will happen between now and then? Sanders look strong in Nevada, Biden in South Carolina. Too early for me to place bets. But as of today, I'd say Sanders has taken over the front runner spot, although his front runner position is extremely weak. My take.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think it means a lot that NH is Bernie's nextdoor neighbor and he easily won in 2016 with 60% but in 2020 in that same nextdoor state Bernie just squeaked through, winning by a very small margin and only 25% of the vote. I just don't see how that can be good news for Bernie.
 
Surrealistik said:
Ultimately, if a brokered convention robs whoever has the plurality, it will be devastating for party unity and cohesion going into the general, and thus Democrat 2020 electoral chances; it is most certainly a nuclear option.
Click to expand...

There is no party unity or cohesion.

The Democrats dropped an atomic bomb on their party in 2016 & have been blaming Trump for it ever since.

Every day the Democrats choose not to fix what they destroyed 4 years ago is a day the rot gets deeper.

Trump will be president through 2025.

And you know what?

Everything will be as fine as if he weren't.

:shrug:
 
3leftsdoo said:
Wall Street Pete has been the choice of the sleazy backroom sociopaths who own the Democrat Party for MONTHS now - I'm not sure where you've been...

They LOVES them some conservative reptilian corporatist wrapped up in an Approved Identity package.

As gay white reptilian Obama, Booty's their boy!

:donkeyfla
Click to expand...

Gay Obama? That's a first. Do people actually think that Obama is gay? LOL
 
GreatNews2night said:
From your own article, it says "a small group" and "half a dozen." Have you actually read your own source? It says:



From this to conclude that it is a done deal is a HUGE leap.

Yawn. Wake me up when it actually happens.

As of now, it's just a conspiracy theory.

By the way, superdelegates have always been hand-picked, but they have NEVER positioned themselves against the popular vote, and there is no reason to suspect that it will happen this time, for the very reasons you've mentioned in your last paragraph.
Click to expand...

GN2N:

I was responding to a poster's assumptions about the first ballot rules. I warned him to be wary. Are you opposed to people being wary GN2N? And here is an article describing in detail how Mr. Perez is actively stacking the super delegate pool. Perhaps the old adage that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom is appropriate here assuming a desire for a free nomination process.

Tom Perez Stacks the DNC Deck Against Progressives | The New Republic

Trying to discredit people who are paying attention to what the DNC is planning and doing (and has done before recently) by calling such concerns conspiracy theories has little affect on them or me. Complacency and apathy are the tools of managed democracy leading to oligarchy. I will continue to pay attention, despite your CT protests, and I will warn others to do likewise. So protest all you want, it's like water off a duck's back to me.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

PS. Tweedism is always done quietly and usually done quickly. Wait, sleep and you could well be faced with a fait accompli.
 
GreatNews2night said:
1. Surrealistik is not a faux Bernie supporter. He is a real one, and not the extremist, conspiracy theorist kind
2. Surrealistik's' posts are excellent. He has my respect.
3. So, none of us care? Speak for yourself. I do care. Many of his posts are very educational and I enjoy reading them.

As for the topic of this conversation, I think if no candidate wins the majority in first ballot, superdelegates will side with the candidate with the most delegates (that is, much proportional to the popular vote) like the Party has always done throughout its history. If not just for tradition, it is also because they must know that if they do otherwise and skip party unit, there is no path to victory in November; it's as simple as that.

So, all the crazy ideas that Hillary Clinton will walk in and be chosen, are simply, baseless conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Wall Street Pete's the nominee, but some good points, and Surrealistik is one of the finest posters here, hands down.

(I have to be snarkier to compensate for his highly rational conduct, in fact.) :yes:
 
Moderate Right said:
Personally, I think it means a lot that NH is Bernie's nextdoor neighbor and he easily won in 2016 with 60% but in 2020 in that same nextdoor state Bernie just squeaked through, winning by a very small margin and only 25% of the vote. I just don't see how that can be good news for Bernie.
Click to expand...

Again, you're going around saying this, when obviously the field this year is much more diverse, so naturally there are other people getting votes too, while in 2016 only Bernie and Hillary were collecting votes (other candidates were utterly negligible, I don't even remember their names). So when there are only two candidates and one is *extremely* unpopular in that state, it's understandable that Bernie won 60% versus Hillary 40%.

Now, the current race is completely different. In NH there were 9 candidates, many of them collecting lots of votes, and even the ones not doing so well collecting 3% and whatnot. So, in a much more crowded field, naturally the total for the winner was smaller.

The other way to see this, is that Bernie in 2016 beat 1 candidate, while this time he beat 8.

Look, he won. Trying to make of a win, a bad thing, is actually nonsense.
 
Perotista said:
There was a lot of talk about a brokered convention on the Republican side in 2016. 15-16 candidates. It didn't come close. Never say never, it is possible, but on my probability scale, it's way down in the single digits. The very low single digits, one, two and possibly three.

I was going over the national polls and noticed Bloomberg has shot up from almost nothing to 15% nationally. Third place, 7 behind Sanders, 3 behind Biden. Now wouldn't that be interesting, Bloomberg vs. Trump, billionaire vs. billionaire, Ex-Republican vs. Ex-Democrat. The three time Republican Trump vs. the two time Democrat Bloomberg. A 7 time party switcher vs. a 3 time party switcher.
Click to expand...

That WOULD be great, but it would destroy what little credibility the Democrat Party has left.

They'll cheat Wall Street Pete in rather than cheating Bloomturd in, and all to look like they're not cheating.

Those Democrats!
 
GDViking said:
The only two people that could step in and change everything would be Michael Obama,with opra as her running mate.

That would be game over...
Click to expand...

Nope.

MObama WAS the nuclear option, but she destroyed herself with the "whites still running from us" comment.

2nd bite = One too many

Her political future = Non-existent
 
Jay59 said:
The path is fairly clear. Someone has to take an early lead, then falter. With 40% of the delegates committed on one day early in the primary season, that is possible. It is especially possible now that Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, the longtime front runners, have stumbled badly. Both have built significant machines in key ST states. Do either of them have enough embedded strength in the Super Tuesday states to pull a substantial block? If so, will either be able to recover from recent setbacks? There are many possible scenarios.

Here is my question. If there is no candidate chosen on the first ballot, who will the Superdelegates back? They cannot vote on the first ballot according to rule. Will they choose one candidate and end things on the second vote, or will they be as fragmented as the chosen delegates?
Click to expand...

Well first of all don't be surprised if the democrats change the rules before the convention if they fear Bernie will take the nomination on the first ballot. After that the democrats will go with whoever looks the most likely to make a go of it against Trump. Bernie is who the democrat establishment fears. Anybody else is OK with the dems.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Michelle Obama would win both the nomination and the general election with a blindfold and both hands tied behind her back; she wouldn't even need to pick Oprah as a running mate (I'd rather see her pick a seasoned politician, like a good senator or governor, as a running mate). It is a pity and a disgrace that she never accepted to run. Trump would have absolutely no change against her, none. And none of the current candidates in the primaries would, either.
Click to expand...

She WOULD have, but she's ended any aspirations she has.
 
3leftsdoo said:
Wall Street Pete's the nominee, but some good points, and Surrealistik is one of the finest posters here, hands down.

(I have to be snarkier to compensate for his highly rational conduct, in fact.) :yes:
Click to expand...

You know, Pete invested heavily in both Iowa and New Hampshire, but that's about it. So, his initial good numbers will fizzle once he gets to states that are not 98% white like these two. Nate from 538 gives him a 1 in 25 chance of earning the nomination. A flash in a pan. Virtually zero support from blacks. In South Carolina, blacks make 61% of Dem primary likely voters.

So, if Pete ends up making, say, 10% of delegates, and Bernie makes, say, 45%, how do you figure that the Democratic Party would manage to nominate Buttigieg? It's not going to happen.
 
GreatNews2night said:
There are no "moves." There is ONE article on Politico mentioning some vague small group (mentioned as "half a dozen") that talked about it (there is mention of ONE email), without naming any names, and then, including this line:

People with a biased agenda of sowing discord in the Dem field are coming up with this conspiracy theory, based on an article that makes some vague claims, and then actually says it won't happen, LOL.

You know that there are people who would love to see discord and chaos among the Dems, right? So that Trump wins re-election more easily? Don't believe in everything your read on the Internet.
Click to expand...

Just be cautious about assuming that people who criticize the Democrat Party are being anything but brutally honest.

The Party is a dumpster fire in a train wreck that collided with a sociopath orgy on a bus caravan.

To put it kindly.
 
Why is Warren not dropping out?
 
3leftsdoo said:
She WOULD have, but she's ended any aspirations she has.
Click to expand...

I know, and it's a pity. Actually she never had any aspiration to start with. She hates politics and actually resented the whole thing and was eager to go back to her regular life, which she did. She is likely pretty happy now, enjoying her millions and the couple's new multi-million dollar property in Martha's Vineyard. There is no reason for her to run.

It's just a pity, because she would be the ONE person who would be guaranteed to beat Trump. I don't see any of the others doing it. I don't think it's 100% impossible but it will be extremely difficult, and not likely to happen, with the current candidates and the profound division in the party. But we'll try.
 
Moderate Right said:
Personally, I think it means a lot that NH is Bernie's nextdoor neighbor and he easily won in 2016 with 60% but in 2020 in that same nextdoor state Bernie just squeaked through, winning by a very small margin and only 25% of the vote. I just don't see how that can be good news for Bernie.
Click to expand...

Well, in 2016, it was Bernie vs Goliath - a 2 candidate race, and people LOATHE Hillary. (With good reason, IMO.)

Now people had/have a somewhat wider choice between Lyin' Lizzie the Faux social democrat, Crazy 2020 Bernie, Sleepy Joe FeelUup, & etc.

And Crazy Bernie STILL won.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom