2020: The Democratic Presidential Nomination Thread

[Steve of phpBB]

The argument isn't that she's a Republican; it's that she's spiteful enough to sacrifice her principles.

Incidentally, Bernie held 39 rallies endorsing Hillary after he lost in 2016.

Sure, but that was after he spent months slandering her, falsely accusing her of stealing the primaries, falsely accusing her of being a republican, etc. I respect the hell out of the fact that he did those rallies - after the convention he was awesome. But the damage was done.

[Jerloma]

Well, "falsely" with an asterisk. Do you recall what happened in West Virginia?

[mister d]

Of course she would have done better than Trump if elected and all that, that's not the argument. Its simply "do you believe Hillary Clinton's number one concern is and always has been her career and legacy". Which doesn't make her unique as a politician, but there's also no reason she should be protected from those types of comments.

[Steve of phpBB]

Well, "falsely" with an asterisk. Do you recall what happened in West Virginia?

Is that the debate question? That wasn't what he was talking about though. He was accusing her of other shit, like keeping voters out (when the Democratic Party chose to only allow members of the Democratic Party to vote for the nominee of the Democratic Party). He stayed in the race long after it was over, so he could keep attacking her and the Democratic Party - whose nomination he was supposedly seeking even though he was too good to actually join the party .

My mom, who actually pays decent attention to this stuff, was somehow led to believe that the only reason Clinton had more delegates than Bernie was because the superdelegates gave her the advantage. Not because she always had more support than Bernie and got a few million more votes.

After the Convention, he was great. No dispute there. Though now he is giving prominent campaign positions to folks like Nina "I'm not voting for Clinton in next week's election" Turner.

Bernie is just as much a cutthroat politician as anyone else (including Hillary, who is definitely cutthroat).

[Steve of phpBB]

Of course she would have done better than Trump if elected and all that, that's not the argument. Its simply "do you believe Hillary Clinton's number one concern is and always has been her career and legacy". Which doesn't make her unique as a politician, but there's also no reason she should be protected from those types of comments.

I don't know if that is true about Hillary. I certainly don't think it's truer of Hillary than anyone else. Hillary didn't have to stand up for Black Lives Matter. I'm sure she was astute enough to know that could cost her more votes than it would get her.

[Jerloma]

He won every single county in the primary vote and the super delegates gave her the nomination, Steve. That doesn't strike you as shady?

[Steve of phpBB]

He won every single county in the primary vote and the super delegates gave her the nomination, Steve. That doesn't strike you as shady?

No. The whole point of superdelegates is to use their own judgment as to whom the Democratic Party should nominate. They are a useful check on the process.

(If the Republicans had superdelegates in 2016, we might actually have a government that doesn't publish explicitly racist propaganda.)

Edit - Hillary got 55% of the overall primary vote. Bernie got 43% - yet still wouldn't endorse her until a couple weeks before the convention. Even Hillary 2008 was better than that - the overall popular vote was basically a tie, and it was the superdelegates who put Obama over the top after the last primary, and she conceded three or four days later.

[The Sybian]

He won every single county in the primary vote and the super delegates gave her the nomination, Steve. That doesn't strike you as shady?

No. The whole point of superdelegates is to use their own judgment as to whom the Democratic Party should nominate. They are a useful check on the process.

(If the Republicans had superdelegates in 2016, we might actually have a government that doesn't publish explicitly racist propaganda.)

Edit - Hillary got 55% of the overall primary vote. Bernie got 43% - yet still wouldn't endorse her until a couple weeks before the convention. Even Hillary 2008 was better than that - the overall popular vote was basically a tie, and it was the superdelegates who put Obama over the top after the last primary, and she conceded three or four days later.

Not to mention, the primary process isn't an election. Either Party can choose whoever the fuck they want as a nominee. Much like there was a lot of talk before the Republican Convention that they might not nominate Trump. They don't have to. The Parties are private clubs, and they can ultimately ignore their members and choose whoever they want. They never have, because the primaries are a way to determine who the most electable candidate is, and in a normal election cycle, they would be foolish to go against the people's choice.

While I can't stand Hillary, and I'm not a fan of the Democrat Party powers, and I don't like how they handled the 2016 nomination process, it shouldn't be surprising that they tilted the board in favor of the candidate who was a Party powerhouse for 30 years over the guy who refused to join the Party for years and held himself out as an Independent, only joining the Party in order to get the nomination to stand a chance at running for President.

[Jerloma]

Then why even have an election if you're just going to overturn the will of the people? Does that strike you as anything even resembling democracy?

[govmentchedda]

He won every single county in the primary vote and the super delegates gave her the nomination, Steve. That doesn't strike you as shady?

No. The whole point of superdelegates is to use their own judgment as to whom the Democratic Party should nominate. They are a useful check on the process.

(If the Republicans had superdelegates in 2016, we might actually have a government that doesn't publish explicitly racist propaganda.)

Edit - Hillary got 55% of the overall primary vote. Bernie got 43% - yet still wouldn't endorse her until a couple weeks before the convention. Even Hillary 2008 was better than that - the overall popular vote was basically a tie, and it was the superdelegates who put Obama over the top after the last primary, and she conceded three or four days later.

Then we need to get rid of superdelegates.

[Nonlinear FC]

Good Lord.

Fucking Groundhog Day on this site re: this topic.

[The Sybian]

Then why even have an election if you're just going to overturn the will of the people? Does that strike you as anything even resembling democracy?

Primaries aren't elections. They aren't required. Again, the purpose to see who the people want, and if the Parties don't like who the people select, they don't have to nominate that person. That system has always worked until now. Partially social media has taken the power of creating the narrative away from those in power, partially Trump threw everything out of whack, partially Hillary threw shit out of whack, because many in Dem party structure pre-decided the nomination was owed to Hillary. Ideally (from the Party perspective), the primary process appears to select the candidate the Party wants, and the people think they selected the nominee. I think the Party thumb has always been on the scales, but it was possible to control the narrative in the pre-social media days.

[Jerloma]

Okay, I won't call it an election but if the nominee was predetermined, why make candidates campaign there and why make people vote for who they think the best candidate is? That doesn't strike you as unethical? Do you really not think Bernie has a legit grievance there?

[Steve of phpBB]

Okay, I won't call it an election but if the nominee was predetermined, why make candidates campaign there and why make people vote for who they think the best candidate is? That doesn't strike you as unethical? Do you really not think Bernie has a legit grievance there?

I don't think so, for two reasons. First, he has proudly identified himself as a non-Democrat for his entire political career. So if the Democratic Party decides they don't want him as their nominee, he has no grievance. Second, he lost the aggregate popular vote by 55-43. So again, no grievance.

The nominee was not predetermined. The superdelegates made up something like 15 percent of the total delegates. (I think there were 700, and 4000 regular delegates.) They could only sway the outcome if it was otherwise close. Considering how much other unfairness there is inherent in any nominating process - why does Iowa go first, are caucuses allowed, can working people or disabled people really participate, etc. - they lead to a better outcome.

As I said upthread, if the Republicans had superdelegates, maybe they could have stopped Trump. To me that proves the value of the system.

[Jerloma]

I'm only talking about in WV, where he crushed her, but okay, I understand what you guys are saying. It just strikes me as bullshit.

Anyway, if Bernie is your guy, this is good...

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/22/21077041/ ... ional-poll

[Brontoburglar]

The argument isn't that she's a Republican; it's that she's spiteful enough to sacrifice her principles.

Incidentally, Bernie held 39 rallies endorsing Hillary after he lost in 2016.

and HRC was so spiteful enough to sacrifice her principles in 2008 that she ... became secretary of state

[HaulCitgo]

As I said upthread, if the Republicans had superdelegates, maybe they could have stopped Trump. To me that proves the value of the system.

Still not ok. Just let me be the sole super duper delegate and I will fix everything.

[Joe K]

Harris out. I predict she endorses Biden to make a play to be his VP pick.

Yup and gross.

Of course.

[Johnnie]

"That endorsement. That endorsement was me."

Fucking hack.

[Johnnie]

Twitter trolls are melting down over this:



I love that he said that right to Bari Weiss's face too.

[Joe K]

Twitter trolls are melting down over this...
I love that he said that right to Bari Weiss's face too.

These two Tweets are both spot on:



And many of the people mad at Bernie for the Rogan endorsement are themselves supporting candidates (Warren and Pete) who specifically asked to go in Rohan’s podcast and got denied.

[Johnnie]

Krystal Ball is my favorite. She's so good at calling out bullshit.

[Jerloma]

What did she say?

[Joe K]

What did she say?

“My favorite segment of the Dem party are the people who lionize the nevertrumpers that lied us into war and justified torture but find @joerogan beyond the pale. Keep doing you! [clown emoji]”

[Jerloma]

Oh. What's bad about Rogan? I never really listened to his podcast.

[degenerasian]

Oh. What's bad about Rogan? I never really listened to his podcast.

He lets everybody on his show, so all sides don't like him.
Except the public because he's one of, if not the most, listened to podcast.

[Johnnie]

Yup. And he's being raked over the coals for daring to state that women born as men shouldn't be allowed in athletic competitions unless all parties agree.

So, HOW DARE BERNIE ALLOW AN ENDORSEMENT FROM SUCH A TRANSPHOBIC PERSON.

It's fucking madness and a real ass showing by the righteously aggrieved.

[Joe K]

Yup. And he's being raked over the coals for daring to state that women born as men shouldn't be allowed in athletic competitions unless all parties agree.

So, HOW DARE BERNIE ALLOW AN ENDORSEMENT FROM SUCH A TRANSPHOBIC PERSON.

It's fucking madness and a real ass showing by the righteously aggrieved.

In fairness, it’s not like Bernie has a long and documented history or being at the forefront of LGBT rights issues. Oh wait...



This was decades before Clinton signed DOMA into law, and 36 years before Hillary and Obama both opposed gay marriage during the 2008 Presidential campaign. But Bernie’s NOT A DEMOCRAT and can’t be trusted.

[The Sybian]

Oh. What's bad about Rogan? I never really listened to his podcast.

Dude, you need to listen. It's truly an amazing show, you'd love it. He has on truly fascinating guests, and is great at just letting them talk. It's the most conversational show, and he is a great listener and just truly interested in learning about a very wide array of topics. Plus, he is friends with the funniest comedians, so he has all of them on for hilarious conversations. I've learned a tremendous amount, and I completely credit some of his conversations and repeated themes for changing my life for the better. Opened me up to a different way of thinking, one interview inspired me to go off antidepressants, I took up tennis because of his constantly saying how important it is to work at getting good at something new or you suck at.

He does bring on guests that are "Alt-Right," so he gets labelled as alt-right or alt-right adjacent. Sometimes he isn't knowledgeable enough to challenge them, which drives me nuts, but he is very aware of his shortcomings. He had on Milo Yanopolis right after his reckoning, and he had Alex Jones on a couple of times. He has been friends with Jones for 20 years and always says Jones is completely insane and unhinged, but people get upset Rogan "gives them a platform." He says fuck that, let them speak and if they are idiots, people will see that.

Rogan is also a big proponent of psychedelic drugs and pot, and he smokes during or before half of his shows.

[Johnnie]

And often enough the podcasts with people you haven't heard of or wouldn't think would be good get into some really, really good discussions too. He had Kevin Smith (Silent Bob) on several months after his heart attack and his philosophical approach to dying in a moment where he thought he was gone was a big "whoa" moment.

Plus, he does all his ads at the very beginning 6-8 minutes. So it's a 3 hour conversation uninterrupted.

[Johnnie]

The Des Moines Register endorsed Warren.

However, Bernie is leading in the lastest poll.

We're a week out from the Iowa Caucus. It's finally going to be primary season after all these long damn months.

[Johnnie]

Then there's this manna from heaven for the Sanders campaign. Trump feared Bernie being her VP.

(Sorry for the crappy Twitter account this is posted on.)

[Shirley]

It's unfortunate that we have Sanders and Warren essentially splitting the more progressive, more angry-with-the-status-quo vote. I like them both, and I like them a LOT more than either Biden or Mayor Pete, and I think a lot of people feel the same way. I have to think that if they were a single candidate, Bernabeth Warders would have damn near locked this thing up already.

[govmentchedda]

I think it'll happen once one of them pulls enough ahead.

[Joe K]

It's unfortunate that we have Sanders and Warren essentially splitting the more progressive, more angry-with-the-status-quo vote. I like them both, and I like them a LOT more than either Biden or Mayor Pete, and I think a lot of people feel the same way. I have to think that if they were a single candidate, Bernabeth Warders would have damn near locked this thing up already.

Assuming that she does not rally in the polls to re-emerge as a top tier candidate (Biden and Sanders have separated themselves nationally and have a good chance of winning all the early states), Warren will face MASSIVE institutional pressure from the Democratic Party to not endorse Sanders because her endorsement would likely push him past Biden. She'll probably get promised frontrunner treatment in 2024/28 or a pretty prominent spot in a Biden administration -- maybe even VP. In fact, I suspect those talks are already quietly happening.

[mister d]

DEMOCRATS 2020: We Don't Owe You, You Owe Us

[Johnnie]

It's unfortunate that we have Sanders and Warren essentially splitting the more progressive, more angry-with-the-status-quo vote. I like them both, and I like them a LOT more than either Biden or Mayor Pete, and I think a lot of people feel the same way. I have to think that if they were a single candidate, Bernabeth Warders would have damn near locked this thing up already.

I keep going back and forth on this. On the one hand I agree with all of that. On the other it feels like if there was one of them running then the other centrists would eventually drop and endorse the centrist front runner. And that mega-progressive would get trounced. A two pronged attack seems like the best strategy.

And fuck I don't hope there's some back door dealings with Warren like Joe is saying. That sounds completely plausible and very likely.

[Brontoburglar]

It's unfortunate that we have Sanders and Warren essentially splitting the more progressive, more angry-with-the-status-quo vote. I like them both, and I like them a LOT more than either Biden or Mayor Pete, and I think a lot of people feel the same way. I have to think that if they were a single candidate, Bernabeth Warders would have damn near locked this thing up already.

Assuming that she does not rally in the polls to re-emerge as a top tier candidate (Biden and Sanders have separated themselves nationally and have a good chance of winning all the early states), Warren will face MASSIVE institutional pressure from the Democratic Party to not endorse Sanders because her endorsement would likely push him past Biden. She'll probably get promised frontrunner treatment in 2024/28 or a pretty prominent spot in a Biden administration -- maybe even VP. In fact, I suspect those talks are already quietly happening.

we're talking about the same EW who would be running to be the first woman elected president at the age of 75 in 2024 in this scenario, right?

[P.D.X.]

It's unfortunate that we have Sanders and Warren essentially splitting the more progressive, more angry-with-the-status-quo vote. I like them both, and I like them a LOT more than either Biden or Mayor Pete, and I think a lot of people feel the same way. I have to think that if they were a single candidate, Bernabeth Warders would have damn near locked this thing up already.

Assuming that she does not rally in the polls to re-emerge as a top tier candidate (Biden and Sanders have separated themselves nationally and have a good chance of winning all the early states), Warren will face MASSIVE institutional pressure from the Democratic Party to not endorse Sanders because her endorsement would likely push him past Biden. She'll probably get promised frontrunner treatment in 2024/28 or a pretty prominent spot in a Biden administration -- maybe even VP. In fact, I suspect those talks are already quietly happening.

we're talking about the same EW who would be running to be the first woman elected president at the age of 75 in 2024 in this scenario, right?

Not a concern. Women keep their faculties longer than men.

[A_B]

I think the electorate would have concerns.