• 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

DarkWizard12 said:
Why is Warren not dropping out?
Click to expand...

She just raised another six million dollars. She said that things will turn because Buttigieg is a temporary blimp, Bloomberg is out of his mind if he thinks he will win, Biden is imploding, and Bernie is too out of touch with women, so she figures that if she stands her grounds, things will change.

I don't think so. I believe that she is toast. But she obviously doesn't see it this way. Maybe if she has a dismal showing in Super Tuesday then she will finally realize that she has no chance.
 
3leftsdoo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, the party is in disarray but still, I doubt they will commit political suicide by reinstating superdelegates in the first ballot. That would be a really stupid move. Even the Democratic Party should know that it would be stupid, thus this ONE article suggesting it, saying that even the people talking about it within the party, acknowledge that it is all but certain that it won't happen.
 
GreatNews2night said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't see that that conflicts with what I said. Yes, the fact that the field is much more deverse has led Bernie to fall considerably in his neighboring state from where he was in 2016. If that's the best he can do in his neighboring state, to just barely eek out a win it doesn't bode well for the un-neighboring states on down the road.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Gay Obama? That's a first. Do people actually think that Obama is gay? LOL
Click to expand...

Obama's bi. :thumbs:

And lots of folks are calling Wall Street Pete gay Obama or gay white Obama or just white Obama.

He appears to have studied, and consciously strives to replicate, Obama's rather stilted speech habits.

AND he checks off an important IP box.

Add in the fact that he's a conservative corporate reptile who worked in military intelligence...

...and what's for the Democrat Party oligarchs not to love?

:donkeyfla
 
Jay59 said:
That would be fun. More likely a gray pant suit to match her hair.


No offense, but what party unity?


It hasn't happened in almost 70 years, but this is a very atypical situation, not to mention a unique group of candidates.

If Biden hangs onto South Carolina, it really throws a wrench in things. The primary is on Saturday 29 February and Super Tuesday is 3 March, just three days later. That's enough for one round of stories to have an impact.
Click to expand...

Eating popcorn here and luvin it. The Dems are in complete disarray ad meltdown. The only "moderate" is a far left Progressive. LMAO
 
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...

All conventions should be brokered. We have Trump thanks to a non-brokered convention. Primaries are a bad idea, as the Founders would tell you if they could.
 
3leftsdoo said:
Obama's bi. :thumbs:

And lots of folks are calling Wall Street Pete gay Obama or gay white Obama or just white Obama.

He appears to have studied, and consciously strives to replicate, Obama's rather stilted speech habits.

AND he checks off an important IP box.

Add in the fact that he's a conservative corporate reptile who worked in military intelligence...

...and what's for the Democrat Party oligarchs not to love?

:donkeyfla
Click to expand...

Oh I see, I misread you. You were saying that Pete is the gay Obama, not that Obama is gay. Sorry.

Yes, it was very odd to see Pete doing the same Obama hallmark pauses when he was speaking after NH.

Yes, I think he wants to emulate Obama to see if he earns some of the black vote. Not going to happen, in my opinion, unless Obama actually endorses him, which he doesn't seem inclined to do before the convention.

Although, there is no doubt that Obama would prefer a moderate candidate. He actually warned the party about going too left. With Biden imploding, maybe Obama will throw his support behind Pete (pun not intended) after all.
 
Evilroddy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Some excellent points, but King George & his cronies have been in charge forever.

How a man as great as Jimmy Carter ever got into office is astonishing.
 
Integrityrespec said:
I really doubt Hillary gets in, not because she doesn't want to but I'm not sure she could mentally take another defeat.
Click to expand...

And physically. The campaign took a big toll on her in 2016. She was already low energy there, and skipping ground campaigning in essential states.

Hillary would lose in 2020 by a bigger margin than in 2016, and she probably knows it, so, she wants to preserve her legacy of "at least I won the popular vote and if not for Conmey and the Russians I would have won."

Frankly, it's the best she can expect. Any attempt to redo it would shatter even that illusion.
 
Moderate Right said:
And she will declare that we are all Stronger Together - except for those deplorables.
Click to expand...

I think she graduated to the Don Lemon stage of laughing at all of us.

When the election is over, Dr. Phil will ask "How's that working for you?"
 
Jay59 said:
Michael Obama? Who's he? Does he sing opera?


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.
Click to expand...

The early primaries, Trump was winning with 35% of the vote give or take. The winner take all didn't go into effect until after Super Tuesday. Even with the last 4-5 primaries when Trump had cinched the nomination, he still received only 40% of the total Republican vote.

I don't know if any Democratic candidate can jump ahead like Trump did after Super Tuesday. Biden probably was the best bet until he faded like all get out in Iowa and NH. Even so, I still think someone, who I don't know, will put it all together. No brokered convention. But I've been wrong many, many times.
 
Evilroddy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nah. It won't happen. Mark my words.
 
GreatNews2night said:
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.
Click to expand...

I hope you're right.

Bernie as the sacrificial nominee would be the ideal sop to the left & many indies, so it's the smart move.

But we're talking about the Democrat Party, so...
 
Integrityrespec said:
I really doubt Hillary gets in, not because she doesn't want to but I'm not sure she could mentally take another defeat.
Click to expand...

She is the most arrogant, condescending, narcissistic female on the planet. She will make it seem like she is the only "moderate" in the pack and ride in on a big white (scratch that...BLACK for equality and inclusion) Clydesdale whose back will be breaking.
 
GreatNews2night said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yup.

Black lady Reagan.

Invincible.

I might have voted for her.

Oh well.
 
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...

Sanders has the lead in Nevada today. He should win there. South Carolina is another matter. Super Tuesday may not be kind to him or Warren. But who knows for sure? Who thought Buttigieg would come on strong and Klobuchar surprise in NH.

Sanders was up by 10 in both Iowa and NH a week before their caucus and primary. It looked like smooth sailing, Sanders won, but Buttigieg was the big news out of Iowa, Klobuchar out of NH. Still, I would put Sanders as the front runner at this point. Very weak, but a front runner nonetheless.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Yes, the party is in disarray but still, I doubt they will commit political suicide by reinstating superdelegates in the first ballot. That would be a really stupid move. Even the Democratic Party should know that it would be stupid, thus this ONE article suggesting it, saying that even the people talking about it within the party, acknowledge that it is all but certain that it won't happen.
Click to expand...

Bernie supporters would NOT be happy, and it's as easy to cheat someone in on the 2nd ballot as the 1st, so why go out of their way to make the chicanery apparent?

Even the DP isn't that stupid.

Probably...

:shock:
 
Moderate Right said:
I don't see that that conflicts with what I said. Yes, the fact that the field is much more deverse has led Bernie to fall considerably in his neighboring state from where he was in 2016. If that's the best he can do in his neighboring state, to just barely eek out a win it doesn't bode well for the un-neighboring states on down the road.
Click to expand...

He should have done better - I agree.

But Crazy 2020 Bernie isn't Rational 2016 Bernie, so there's that too.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Oh I see, I misread you. You were saying that Pete is the gay Obama, not that Obama is gay. Sorry.

Yes, it was very odd to see Pete doing the same Obama hallmark pauses when he was speaking after NH.

Yes, I think he wants to emulate Obama to see if he earns some of the black vote. Not going to happen, in my opinion, unless Obama actually endorses him, which he doesn't seem inclined to do before the convention.

Although, there is no doubt that Obama would prefer a moderate candidate. He actually warned the party about going too left. With Biden imploding, maybe Obama will throw his support behind Pete (pun not intended) after all.
Click to expand...

Yeah - Pete's clearly Obama's choice, but as you say, he can't come out (as it were) until the convention.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Nah. It won't happen. Mark my words.
Click to expand...

GN2N:

I hope you're right but I don't trust the kingmakers in the DNC so I watch them closely.

Cheers and I'm rooting for you to be right.
Evilroddy.
 
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...

They will back biden, they always go for the dem establishment
 
JackA said:
All conventions should be brokered. We have Trump thanks to a non-brokered convention. Primaries are a bad idea, as the Founders would tell you if they could.
Click to expand...
Guy, learn some history.

GreatNews2night said:
And physically. The campaign took a big toll on her in 2016. She was already low energy there, and skipping ground campaigning in essential states. Hillary would lose in 2020 by a bigger margin than in 2016, and she probably knows it, so, she wants to preserve her legacy of "at least I won the popular vote and if not for Conmey and the Russians I would have won." Frankly, it's the best she can expect. Any attempt to redo it would shatter even that illusion.
Click to expand...
Biden is even worse. He looks disinterested and disoriented.

Perotista said:
Sanders has the lead in Nevada today. He should win there. South Carolina is another matter. Super Tuesday may not be kind to him or Warren. But who knows for sure? Who thought Buttigieg would come on strong and Klobuchar surprise in NH. Sanders was up by 10 in both Iowa and NH a week before their caucus and primary. It looked like smooth sailing, Sanders won, but Buttigieg was the big news out of Iowa, Klobuchar out of NH. Still, I would put Sanders as the front runner at this point. Very weak, but a front runner nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Check the dates on the polls. The ones I saw were a month old.

OscarLevant said:
They will back biden, they always go for the dem establishment
Click to expand...
Not if Joe keeps this up. It would be like running Mueller.
 
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...

If you actually run the math you can see Sanders did about comparably well relative to the number of serious participants/contenders.

There were only 2 serious contenders in NH in 2016, giving us a baseline of 50% (100% of the vote divided by 2); he outperformed the baseline by 20% with 60% of the vote; pretty good.

In 2020 by contrast, we have 5 serious contenders, giving us a baseline of 20%, which Sanders outperformed by 28% (25.6%), and this is despite less prominent candidates playing a much more significant role.
 
Last edited:
Jay59 said:
Guy, learn some history.
Click to expand...

Take your own advice. The Founders wanted Presidential candidates selected by educated and accomplished citizens (men) before they were put before impressionable voters. Primaries are a Twentieth Century invention. I've taught history, by the way.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom