• 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!

Looking ahead.

Torus34

DP Veteran
Joined
May 5, 2019
Messages
9,573
Reaction score
4,546
Location
Staten Island, NY USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Thus far, few political pundits have parsed the implications of the Democratic Party convention set-up. Here's a start.

The actual primary process prior to the convention will cough up 3,979 'pledged' delegates apportioned among the various candidates.* It's an open and shut case if the front-runner has amassed 1990 or more delegates. Everyone parties and goes home. If the front-runner hasn't reached that total, the first 'vote' of the delegates will not produce a winner. The super-delegates then vote along with the delegates from the first vote. No delegates are pledged in this or subsequent votes.

Got that? OK.

Now, let's assume that Senator Bernard Sanders is the leading candidate as the primaries roll along. There will come a time when the other candidates, if they drop out, will insure that Senator Sanders isn't replaced by the super delegates with another of the candidates. He'll roll into the convention with the necessary votes.

If they decide not to drop out and someone other than Senator Sanders is selected by the convention, many of the Senator Sanders folks will, in all probability, not bother to vote. The effect of that is obvious.

There are other scenarios, I'm sure. Have at it.

* Nb. Some of them may be 'free' from the start if the person to whom they were pledged drops out and specifies that they should vote for someone else.
 
No one is staying home. Dream on, Trumpers.
 
Thus far, few political pundits have parsed the implications of the Democratic Party convention set-up. Here's a start.

The actual primary process prior to the convention will cough up 3,979 'pledged' delegates apportioned among the various candidates.* It's an open and shut case if the front-runner has amassed 1990 or more delegates. Everyone parties and goes home. If the front-runner hasn't reached that total, the first 'vote' of the delegates will not produce a winner. The super-delegates then vote along with the delegates from the first vote. No delegates are pledged in this or subsequent votes.

Got that? OK.

Now, let's assume that Senator Bernard Sanders is the leading candidate as the primaries roll along. There will come a time when the other candidates, if they drop out, will insure that Senator Sanders isn't replaced by the super delegates with another of the candidates. He'll roll into the convention with the necessary votes.

If they decide not to drop out and someone other than Senator Sanders is selected by the convention, many of the Senator Sanders folks will, in all probability, not bother to vote. The effect of that is obvious.

There are other scenarios, I'm sure. Have at it.

* Nb. Some of them may be 'free' from the start if the person to whom they were pledged drops out and specifies that they should vote for someone else.




Bernie Bros will riot if the super delegates pick someone else.

There will be blood on the streets.
 
Thus far, few political pundits have parsed the implications of the Democratic Party convention set-up. Here's a start.

The actual primary process prior to the convention will cough up 3,979 'pledged' delegates apportioned among the various candidates.* It's an open and shut case if the front-runner has amassed 1990 or more delegates. Everyone parties and goes home. If the front-runner hasn't reached that total, the first 'vote' of the delegates will not produce a winner. The super-delegates then vote along with the delegates from the first vote. No delegates are pledged in this or subsequent votes.

Got that? OK.

Now, let's assume that Senator Bernard Sanders is the leading candidate as the primaries roll along. There will come a time when the other candidates, if they drop out, will insure that Senator Sanders isn't replaced by the super delegates with another of the candidates. He'll roll into the convention with the necessary votes.

If they decide not to drop out and someone other than Senator Sanders is selected by the convention, many of the Senator Sanders folks will, in all probability, not bother to vote. The effect of that is obvious.

There are other scenarios, I'm sure. Have at it.

* Nb. Some of them may be 'free' from the start if the person to whom they were pledged drops out and specifies that they should vote for someone else.

And that's why, it's vital that all registered/qualified voters vote.

It wasn't 80,000 Democrats and Liberal Independents that voted for tRump that got him elected; it was millions of voters that stayed home that allowed him to be elected.

BUT, HRC was a way over rated candidate, a over confident candidate and a damaged (by 6+ years of constant investigations, lies and slander) candidate; which was never factored in. I think liberal minded people looked at the polls, looked at a luke warm candidate that was supposedly a shoe in for election and figured; "**** it, what does she need me for?".

Now, fast forward 4 years and the horrendous presidency we've endured and those "**** it" liberals are AbsaByGodLutely going to vote. Oh, for sure they may say **** it again, but only if there's 4 feet of snow. Because then they'll be saying "**** it" Fred, warm up the car we're voting; I'm not putting up with 4 more years of this bull ****!"
 
Last edited:
Thus far, few political pundits have parsed the implications of the Democratic Party convention set-up. Here's a start.

The actual primary process prior to the convention will cough up 3,979 'pledged' delegates apportioned among the various candidates.* It's an open and shut case if the front-runner has amassed 1990 or more delegates. Everyone parties and goes home. If the front-runner hasn't reached that total, the first 'vote' of the delegates will not produce a winner. The super-delegates then vote along with the delegates from the first vote. No delegates are pledged in this or subsequent votes.

Got that? OK.

Now, let's assume that Senator Bernard Sanders is the leading candidate as the primaries roll along. There will come a time when the other candidates, if they drop out, will insure that Senator Sanders isn't replaced by the super delegates with another of the candidates. He'll roll into the convention with the necessary votes.

If they decide not to drop out and someone other than Senator Sanders is selected by the convention, many of the Senator Sanders folks will, in all probability, not bother to vote. The effect of that is obvious.

There are other scenarios, I'm sure. Have at it.

* Nb. Some of them may be 'free' from the start if the person to whom they were pledged drops out and specifies that they should vote for someone else.

So far it looks like the Russian delegates are voting for Sanders.
 
And that's why, it's vital that all registered/qualified voters vote.

It wasn't 80,000 Democrats and Liberal Independents that voted for tRump that got him elected; it was millions of voters that stayed home that allowed him to be elected.

BUT, HRC was a way over rated candidate, a over confident candidate and a damaged (by 6+ years of constant investigations, lies and slander) candidate; which was never factored in. I think liberal minded people looked at the polls, looked at a luke warm candidate that was supposedly a shoe in for election and figured; "**** it, what does she need me for?".

Now, fast forward 4 years and the horrendous presidency we've endured and those "**** it" liberals are going to vote. Oh, for sure they may say **** it again, but only if there's 4 feet of snow. Because then they'll be saying "**** it" Fred, warm up the car we're voting.

If Bernie is the nominee he will be responsible for many people staying home and not voting or voting third party. But neither Bernie and his progressive friends care about that.
 
If Bernie is the nominee he will be responsible for many people staying home and not voting or voting third party. But neither Bernie and his progressive friends care about that.

Hi! I'm not so sure, having not polled a statistically sound sample of Sanders supporters, that they don't care. I propose, without proof, that some of them may be hoping that the overwhelming desire to unseat President of the United States of America Donald Trump will over-ride petty partisanship.

Regards.
 
If Bernie is the nominee he will be responsible for many people staying home and not voting or voting third party. But neither Bernie and his progressive friends care about that.

You know what I think will be poetic justice? If tRumps, trumpsters in SC try to **** with the primary and vote for Bernie trying to tip the scales so trump has a softball opponent, and then Bernie whips tRumps fat ass!
 
Last edited:
Thus far, few political pundits have parsed the implications of the Democratic Party convention set-up. Here's a start.

The actual primary process prior to the convention will cough up 3,979 'pledged' delegates apportioned among the various candidates.* It's an open and shut case if the front-runner has amassed 1990 or more delegates. Everyone parties and goes home. If the front-runner hasn't reached that total, the first 'vote' of the delegates will not produce a winner. The super-delegates then vote along with the delegates from the first vote. No delegates are pledged in this or subsequent votes.

Got that? OK.

Now, let's assume that Senator Bernard Sanders is the leading candidate as the primaries roll along. There will come a time when the other candidates, if they drop out, will insure that Senator Sanders isn't replaced by the super delegates with another of the candidates. He'll roll into the convention with the necessary votes.

If they decide not to drop out and someone other than Senator Sanders is selected by the convention, many of the Senator Sanders folks will, in all probability, not bother to vote. The effect of that is obvious.

There are other scenarios, I'm sure. Have at it.

* Nb. Some of them may be 'free' from the start if the person to whom they were pledged drops out and specifies that they should vote for someone else.
My take?

If Bernie falls short with only a very narrow lead between himself and the #2, it will be an open-field contested convention if the supers don't give it to him in round 2. If he has a substantial plurality, say 20% (or more) over the rest of the field, they'll have to give it to him.
 
My take?

If Bernie falls short with only a very narrow lead between himself and the #2, it will be an open-field contested convention if the supers don't give it to him in round 2. If he has a substantial plurality, say 20% (or more) over the rest of the field, they'll have to give it to him.

I was hoping you'd respond. I find your comments thoughtful and well worth reading. The Democratic Party has several ways of losing the election before November. I rather hope that the Democrat movers and shakers are aware of the pitfalls ahead.

Regards.
 
I was hoping you'd respond. I find your comments thoughtful and well worth reading. The Democratic Party has several ways of losing the election before November. I rather hope that the Democrat movers and shakers are aware of the pitfalls ahead.

Regards.
Well, thank you! And Ditto!

There's only so much the DNC can do with Bernie, just as their was only so much the RNC could do with Trump. Ultimately, even though not legally required to do so (political parties are non governmental private entities), the party will have to concede to the rank & file.
 
You know what I think will be poetic justice? If tRumps, trumpsters in SC try to **** with the primary and vote for Bernie trying to tip the scales so trump has a softball opponent, and then Bernie whips tRumps fat ass!

That is the most likely scenario IMO.
 
There's only so much the DNC can do with Bernie, just as their was only so much the RNC could do with Trump. Ultimately, even though not legally required to do so (political parties are non governmental private entities), the party will have to concede to the rank & file.

Why does democracy pain you so much? The horror, the voters will pick the best candidate over one who is more corrupted for powerful interests at the expense of the voters. Maybe the party is wrong to put the voters so low in their priorities?
 
Why does democracy pain you so much? The horror, the voters will pick the best candidate over one who is more corrupted for powerful interests at the expense of the voters. Maybe the party is wrong to put the voters so low in their priorities?
You've lost me with the bolded. Perhaps you're deriving intention, from what I believed was non-biased, non-ideological factual analysis?
 
Hi! I'm not so sure, having not polled a statistically sound sample of Sanders supporters, that they don't care. I propose, without proof, that some of them may be hoping that the overwhelming desire to unseat President of the United States of America Donald Trump will over-ride petty partisanship.

Regards.

That's just it, Sanders supporters will come out to vote for him. The moderates won't.
 
You know what I think will be poetic justice? If tRumps, trumpsters in SC try to **** with the primary and vote for Bernie trying to tip the scales so trump has a softball opponent, and then Bernie whips tRumps fat ass!

Well, that's certainly what happened with Trump in 2016 when Democrats crossed party lines in the primaries to make sure Trump was the nominee. They were laughing their asses off even on election day.
 
You've lost me with the bolded. Perhaps you're deriving intention, from what I believed was non-biased, non-ideological factual analysis?

You sounded disgusted by the party 'having' to listen to the 'rank and file', i.e., the voters, viewing it as a loss to the preferred result of the party getting to choose an 'insider' and push them on the voters. I was responding to how that sounded. Perhaps you didn't mean that tone about it, feel free to clarify.
 
You sounded disgusted by the party 'having' to listen to the 'rank and file', i.e., the voters, viewing it as a loss to the preferred result of the party getting to choose an 'insider' and push them on the voters. I was responding to how that sounded. Perhaps you didn't mean that tone about it, feel free to clarify.
I'll be happy to clarify.

No, I am not disgusted with democratic representation, I believe the party should generally follow the rank & file popular vote. But I do believe that in a contested convention, the horse-trading among the various delegates that leads to a nominee is a normal and reasonable part of the convention. But to that effect, I'm making this last remark in reference to only the regular delegates. I'd abolish superdelegates. I'm perfectly fine with a gaggle of regular delegates banging-away to get to 50% = 1. That's their job!
 
Last edited:
Thus far, few political pundits have parsed the implications of the Democratic Party convention set-up. Here's a start.

The actual primary process prior to the convention will cough up 3,979 'pledged' delegates apportioned among the various candidates.* It's an open and shut case if the front-runner has amassed 1990 or more delegates. Everyone parties and goes home. If the front-runner hasn't reached that total, the first 'vote' of the delegates will not produce a winner. The super-delegates then vote along with the delegates from the first vote. No delegates are pledged in this or subsequent votes.

Got that? OK.

Now, let's assume that Senator Bernard Sanders is the leading candidate as the primaries roll along. There will come a time when the other candidates, if they drop out, will insure that Senator Sanders isn't replaced by the super delegates with another of the candidates. He'll roll into the convention with the necessary votes.

If they decide not to drop out and someone other than Senator Sanders is selected by the convention, many of the Senator Sanders folks will, in all probability, not bother to vote. The effect of that is obvious.

There are other scenarios, I'm sure. Have at it.

* Nb. Some of them may be 'free' from the start if the person to whom they were pledged drops out and specifies that they should vote for someone else.

I just finished a book on the 1920 election. Going into the Republican convention, Lenard Wood had the most delegates, but he was unable to get over the top, and after three or four ballots there was little movement and finally with exhaustion setting in Warren Harding came from nowhere to get the nomination on the tenth ballot. Don't be surprised to see the moderate candidates band together to come up with enough delegates to nominate one of their own. The key will be in stopping Bernie from running the rest of the way home. Bernie can beat Trump but he might cost us congress. With the right candidate it should be another blue wave election, just like 2018.
 
I'll be happy to clarify.

No, I am not disgusted with democratic representation, I believe the party should generally follow the rank & file popular vote. But I do believe that in a contested convention, the horse-trading among the various delegates that leads to a nominee is a normal and reasonable part of the convention. But to that effect, I'm making this last remark in reference to only the regular delegates. I'd abolish superdelegates. I'm perfectly fine with a gaggle of regular delegates banging-away to get to 50% = 1. That's their job!

That's not terrible, but what I think you are missing is just how much the party's priorities seem to be 'special interests' that are 'corrupted priorities', over 'the good of the country', 'the voters' interests' type priorities. We could debate a long time about who and which policies are best, but I think the bottom line is that money has corrupted the DNC quite a bit as well as corrupting Republicans entirely.

It's damned hard for voters to overcome that situation, and Bernie is a very unusual chance to do so. It's not easy to win a nomination running against the party leaders; trump sort of did it, and Bernie is doing it. I can't think of the last time it happened. JFK sort of did it, when he changed how our nominations happen, making the primaries critical to the process. He flew to all 50 states to get around the usual process.
 
Bernie can beat Trump but he might cost us congress. With the right candidate it should be another blue wave election, just like 2018.

Non-Bernie might beat trump, but could cost us Congress. With the right candidate, Bernie, it should be another blue wave election, just like 2018.
 
Back
Top Bottom