2020: The Democratic Presidential Nomination Thread

[rass]

Seems like this should be getting more play and totally mirrors my worry from a few days ago.

That's what democracy is, winning on a second ballot if there is no majority.

This isn't Oscar Voting.

Obama is going to be the first PEGOT.

[Steve of phpBB]

Seems like this should be getting more play and totally mirrors my worry from a few days ago.

This mirrors my worry also. This notion that if a candidate is rejected by a majority of the party's voters, he has a right to that party's nomination. And that if he doesn't get the nomination, it's not because a majority of the party's voters rejected him, it's because of some conspiracy, or an monolithic "establishment" or some other nonsense.

The job of delegates is to determine who is the party's best candidate for the nomination. *If* Bernie doesn't get a majority of Democrats (or somewhat close) - for the second time in a row, after being a beacon for his movement for four years - it is certainly with the delegates' discretion to conclude that he's not a good enough candidate to overcome the problems inherent in running from the left side of the spectrum.

[duff]

Seems like this should be getting more play and totally mirrors my worry from a few days ago.

This mirrors my worry also. This notion that if a candidate is rejected by a majority of the party's voters, he has a right to that party's nomination. And that if he doesn't get the nomination, it's not because a majority of the party's voters rejected him, it's because of some conspiracy, or an monolithic "establishment" or some other nonsense.

The job of delegates is to determine who is the party's best candidate for the nomination. *If* Bernie doesn't get a majority of Democrats (or somewhat close) - for the second time in a row, after being a beacon for his movement for four years - it is certainly with the delegates' discretion to conclude that he's not a good enough candidate to overcome the problems inherent in running from the left side of the spectrum.

But if nobody else gets the majority of the votes then go with the one that got the most. I know the convention isn't set up that way, but it damn well should be. And if the DNC is concerned at all about what happened in 2016, then they should just go with who got the most fucking votes. It is a simple and easy solution. Not something that needs to be done in the backrooms and hallways just to shut out someone.

[Joe K]

Seems like this should be getting more play and totally mirrors my worry from a few days ago.

This mirrors my worry also. This notion that if a candidate is rejected by a majority of the party's voters, he has a right to that party's nomination. And that if he doesn't get the nomination, it's not because a majority of the party's voters rejected him, it's because of some conspiracy, or an monolithic "establishment" or some other nonsense.

The job of delegates is to determine who is the party's best candidate for the nomination. *If* Bernie doesn't get a majority of Democrats (or somewhat close) - for the second time in a row, after being a beacon for his movement for four years - it is certainly with the delegates' discretion to conclude that he's not a good enough candidate to overcome the problems inherent in running from the left side of the spectrum.

But if nobody else gets the majority of the votes then go with the one that got the most. I know the convention isn't set up that way, but it damn well should be. And if the DNC is concerned at all about what happened in 2016, then they should just go with who got the most fucking votes. It is a simple and easy solution. Not something that needs to be done in the backrooms and hallways just to shut out someone.

I don’t think the Democratic Party has thought through the longterm ramifications of a brokered convention. They’d lose a significant number of voters and potential activists for a generation if Steve’s scenario played out. But at least Steve drops the pretense that this is about anyone other than Sanders ending up with a plurality. Somehow I doubt the sanctity of delegate decision making power would be so important to the DNC if Buttigieg, Biden or Warren got the plurality.

[degenerasian]

The DNCs bias and superdelegates are more the problem then the format. Winning on the 2nd ballot is common everywhere. It prevents the winner from being too polarizing.

In a ranked ballot I think Bernie would get a lot of 1sts but not many 2nds. Biden might get a lot of 2nds.

[GoodKarma]

Now whose going to be White Obama's anger translator now?

Joe Biden. It should be Joe Biden.

Wait - I don't see how this story is possible considering how much the national media hates Bernie and is favoring whoever-isn't-my-preferred-candidate. Much gratitude to the deep-state folks at ABC for bringing a story that "no one would cover" to light.

[Johnnie]

ABC reported on it 5 days later than it happened. When searching for a tweet, I wanted to make sure it was from a reputable source so that it wouldn't get discredited.

Guess I'll just share it from whatever not blue check mark person when it actually happens.

[Johnnie]

Here are the rules:

https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_delegate_rules,_2020

If Bernie doesn't get to 1,991 and, assuming he runs roughshod through the nomination process with majorities everywhere, and it goes to a second vote and he doesn't get to 2,375 after that, get fucked, Democratic party.

[degenerasian]

Here are the rules:

https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_delegate_rules,_2020

If Bernie doesn't get to 1,991 and, assuming he runs roughshod through the nomination process with majorities everywhere, and it goes to a second vote and he doesn't get to 2,375 after that, get fucked, Democratic party.

Yup, and it's Bernie's rule that the superdelegates do not vote unless there is a 2nd round. So he at least has a fighting chance in round 1 which I think at this stage he will start to steamroll and reach that 1,991 number.

[Steve of phpBB]

Seems like this should be getting more play and totally mirrors my worry from a few days ago.

This mirrors my worry also. This notion that if a candidate is rejected by a majority of the party's voters, he has a right to that party's nomination. And that if he doesn't get the nomination, it's not because a majority of the party's voters rejected him, it's because of some conspiracy, or an monolithic "establishment" or some other nonsense.

The job of delegates is to determine who is the party's best candidate for the nomination. *If* Bernie doesn't get a majority of Democrats (or somewhat close) - for the second time in a row, after being a beacon for his movement for four years - it is certainly with the delegates' discretion to conclude that he's not a good enough candidate to overcome the problems inherent in running from the left side of the spectrum.

But if nobody else gets the majority of the votes then go with the one that got the most. I know the convention isn't set up that way, but it damn well should be. And if the DNC is concerned at all about what happened in 2016, then they should just go with who got the most fucking votes. It is a simple and easy solution. Not something that needs to be done in the backrooms and hallways just to shut out someone.

Rather than bitch and rant, I'll try to set out some factual beliefs I have, and see if you agree or disagree.

1. There is such a thing as an ideological spectrum on a national level, that can generally be described as liberal-moderate-conservative. It doesn't apply perfectly to every issue, some issues just don't fit neatly anywhere, some people can be in different places on different issues, and what it means to be liberal or moderate or conservative can change over time, sometimes over a short time.

2. When asked, about thirty percent of people or less identify themselves as "liberal" on that spectrum. The number of people describing themselves as moderates or conservatives are each higher than that, but those two are roughly the same.

3. There is also an ideological spectrum within the Democratic Party and its voters. Subject to the same caveats.

4. Looking at the candidates who were in the debate last night, Bloomberg is on the right end of the spectrum within the Democratic Party. Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar are roughly in the same spot, either in the middle of the spectrum, or maybe a step or two to the right among the Democratic Party (but in the middle or to the left of the national spectrum). Warren is a three steps to the left on the Democratic spectrum. Sanders is three steps to the left of her.

5. In addition to ideology, voters are also affected by a candidate's "identity." Biden / Buttigieg / Klobuchar are in the same spot or very close ideologically, but Biden is the old, "steady hand"; Buttigieg is young and impressive; Klobuchar is female and midwestern. Obviously, people who oppose these folks say that all these descriptions are wrong, but I do think that among people who don't pay that much attention, those identities hold.

6. When it comes to actual voting - both in the decision of whether to vote and who to vote for - most voters are heavily influenced by a candidate's position on the ideological spectrum and identity.

[Joe K]

Steve, my response to your premises is that “electability” is much harder to gauge then you think. Our last two presidents are (1) a black guy with a Muslim-sounding name who hung out with Bill Ayers and a scary black pastor; and (2) an irredeemably vile and ignorant reality TV character who is a walking scandal. So at this point, I’m willing to say that “candidate who gets the most votes” is a better predictor of electability than conventional wisdom about demographic and ideological preferences.

[Steve of phpBB]

get fucked, Democratic party.

You misspelled "minorities and women and immigrants and gays and people needing health care and refugees and people concerned about pollution and people whose kids are losing sleep over climate change."

Seriously, this is the problem that really worries me. We have a candidate who in 2016 never got above 43 percent in the opinion polls among Dems and got 43% of the cumulative primary votes. That candidate lost to another one, who never got below 48(?) percent in the opinion polls among Dems and who got about 55% of the cumulative primary votes. Nevertheless, he induced a not-insubstantial number of people to believe that even though the other candidate was consistently more popular among Democrats, the nomination was taken from him through some sort of rigging. Some of that candidate's prominent supporters continued to attack the nominee throughout the election season. The nominee lost very very narrowly, in part because many of the people who would otherwise vote for a Democrat (or against a Republican) were induced to stay home. The result was the presidency of Donald Trump.

That candidate kept campaigning, either passively or actively, for the next four years. He and some of his supporters are once again saying that if he doesn't get the nomination despite the support of 43% again, it's more evidence of rigging by the establishment. Some of his supporters (and despite the fact that I'm saying this in reply to Johnnie, I'm not actually referring to him) are saying that if he doesn't get the nomination despite forty percent of the vote, they are fine with another four years of Donald Trump being president.

Probably my main beef with the Sanders candidacy is that he has made the fight against corporate power such a priority among his supporters that many are forgetting about all the other important issues. Whoever is elected will really not be able to rein in corporations, because all the big steps to rein in corporate power require Congressional action, and I have it on good authority that the entire Democratic Party (and the Republicans too) are beholden to corporate interests. Hillary Clinton is basically a Republican. There is no way that other Democrats who near her or to the right of her on the ideological spectrum will vote to rein in corporate interests.

Meanwhile, there are all these other issues, with much more immediate consequences, affecting all these other people. Obviously Sanders and his supporters *care* about these other issues, but those issues clearly are not his supporters' *priority*. No one who prioritizes the rights of women or gays or immigrants or climate change or environmental protection would ever in a million years think that Hillary Clinton is basically a Republican or that it's "almost okay" if Trump wins.

[Joe K]

get fucked, Democratic party.

You misspelled "minorities and women and immigrants and gays and people needing health care and refugees and people concerned about pollution and people whose kids are losing sleep over climate change.

Total non-sequitor here. Sanders polls better than any other candidate with Latinos, is rapidly catching up to Biden in popularity with black voters, is endorsed by the Sunrise Movement, and has been publicly supporting gay rights (including the right to marry) since the early 1970s. Maybe take all those groups’ preferences at face value instead of assuming that Sanders is actually bad for them?

[Steve of phpBB]

Steve, my response to your premises is that “electability” is much harder to gauge then you think. Our last two presidents are (1) a black guy with a Muslim-sounding name who hung out with Bill Ayers and a scary black pastor; and (2) an irredeemably vile and ignorant reality TV character who is a walking scandal.

That black guy with a Muslim sounding name was running after eight years of disastrous Republican presidential control. And he bent over backwards to appear moderate and non-threatening. He was proudly Christian. And he was viewed as only slightly more liberal than Hillary Clinton.

That reality TV character was also running after eight years of the other party holding the presidency. (Also disastrous according to some, right?) He was not considered to be very conservative. He was running against another walking scandal - she even rigged her own nomination. And he was promising not to raise taxes.

So at this point, I’m willing to say that “candidate who gets the most votes” is a better predictor of electability than conventional wisdom about demographic and ideological preferences.

If we had reason to believe that the Democratic Primary electorate was representative of the national electorate, then I think that would be a legitimate argument. But he'd be getting the most votes among a non-representative subset.

[Steve of phpBB]

get fucked, Democratic party.

You misspelled "minorities and women and immigrants and gays and people needing health care and refugees and people concerned about pollution and people whose kids are losing sleep over climate change.

Total non-sequitor here. Sanders polls better than any other candidate with Latinos, is rapidly catching up to Biden in popularity with black voters, is endorsed by the Sunrise Movement, and has been publicly supporting gay rights (including the right to marry) since the early 1970s. Maybe take all those groups’ preferences at face value instead of assuming that Sanders is actually bad for them?

I'm not saying *Sanders* is bad for them. I think Sanders would be a very good President for them and pretty much everyone else who matters.

Saying "get fucked, Democratic party" if the Democratic Party nominates someone other than Sanders is bad for them.

[degenerasian]

If it wasn't for Trump, this would be a throwaway election for the Democrats like most campaigns against a sitting president. How many republicans ran in 2012? 6? Then 17 in 2016. There is no excuse for 20 Democratic candidates to run against a sitting president other than ego stroking. Really Bernie should have had this locked up already, take his best shot against Trump and if he loses, the rest (Pete, Amy, Kamala, Cory, Christine, Beto etc..) should make a serious run in 2024 instead of wasting their bullets here.

2016 should have been Biden vs Warren. Hillary should have been nowhere close. She blocked them both.

Instead, everyone (the establishment) wants to be THE ONE that beats Trump that they're going to burn the party to the ground.

[GoodKarma]

Probably my main beef with the Sanders candidacy is that he has made the fight against corporate power such a priority among his supporters that many are forgetting about all the other important issues. Whoever is elected will really not be able to rein in corporations, because all the big steps to rein in corporate power require Congressional action, and I have it on good authority that the entire Democratic Party (and the Republicans too) are beholden to corporate interests. Hillary Clinton is basically a Republican. There is no way that other Democrats who near her or to the right of her on the ideological spectrum will vote to rein in corporate interests.

Meanwhile, there are all these other issues, with much more immediate consequences, affecting all these other people. Obviously Sanders and his supporters *care* about these other issues, but those issues clearly are not his supporters' *priority*. No one who prioritizes the rights of women or gays or immigrants or climate change or environmental protection would ever in a million years think that Hillary Clinton is basically a Republican or that it's "almost okay" if Trump wins.

Building on what Steve says Bernie's very public stance of "there shouldn't be billionaires" or "nobody needs a billion dollars", as correct as he may be, is a losing argument. It feeds the Republican narrative that Democrats want to take everybody's stuff and give it to people that didn't "earn" it. It's not about the billion dollars...the message becomes about vilifying the rich...which again, right or wrong, is a losing argument. The reason why many poor or middle class people vote against their own interest when it comes to taxes is while they may not be rich now but they expect to be someday.

Despite all of the debate what consistently gets left out is that a large number of people vote with their wallets. They may hate who Trump is as a person but Bernie is going to raise taxes on either me or people I know & like...therefore I cannot vote for him. Bernie is perceived* to be the worst candidate for everyone's wallets. Yes, M4 All polls as popular but when the follow up questions are asked about losing current private insurance, how its' paid for or potential changes in service the popularity drops considerably.

*he may or may not be...I don't care what anyone says...reality is with untested policies no one can say for sure.

[Steve of phpBB]

So at this point, I’m willing to say that “candidate who gets the most votes” is a better predictor of electability than conventional wisdom about demographic and ideological preferences.

To follow up on this, are you taking the position that the delegates to the Democratic Party Convention are *required* to adopt your beliefs about what is a better predictor of electability?

(Are you contending that they are not allowed to consider electability at all?)

[Joe K]

So at this point, I’m willing to say that “candidate who gets the most votes” is a better predictor of electability than conventional wisdom about demographic and ideological preferences.

To follow up on this, are you taking the position that the delegates to the Democratic Party Convention are *required* to adopt your beliefs about what is a better predictor of electability?

(Are you contending that they are not allowed to consider electability at all?)

I’m not talking about what the rules provide for. In saying I have little to no confidence in the accuracy of the delegates’ independent judgements as to electability, to the extent they conflict with who voters actually vote for. I would think that would be self-evident after 2016 when no one thought Trump could win, or after 2008 when Obama was considered a incredibly risky choice.

I’m also saying that it would be a terrible long-term decision for the delegates to give the nominee to someone else if Sanders gets a sizable plurality because it would alienate all the voters and activists that support him. Do you really not see the downside risk in taking a stand against the candidate that’s by far the most popular with young voters? Hard to think of a better way to harm the party going forward.

[brian]

She's the fucking best. I wish Americans were smarter.

[degenerasian]

Yep. Shes good but she should be attacking Bernie. She chose the wrong lane.

[P.D.X.]

Yep. Shes good but she should be attacking Bernie. She chose the wrong lane.

I'm guessing this isn't the only ad in her campaign.

[degenerasian]

Yep. Shes good but she should be attacking Bernie. She chose the wrong lane.

I'm guessing this isn't the only ad in her campaign.

I mean in general. Last night it was great that she attacked Bloomberg but it not going to get her one more vote.

[P.D.X.]

Yep. Shes good but she should be attacking Bernie. She chose the wrong lane.

I'm guessing this isn't the only ad in her campaign.

I mean in general. Last night it was great that she attacked Bloomberg but it not going to get her one more vote.

You don't think using a multi-billionaire in a state that has a caucus tomorrow to highlight inequality, greed, and her tax policy isn't a good strategy?

[degenerasian]

Yep. Shes good but she should be attacking Bernie. She chose the wrong lane.

I'm guessing this isn't the only ad in her campaign.

I mean in general. Last night it was great that she attacked Bloomberg but it not going to get her one more vote.

You don't think using a multi-billionaire in a state that has a primary tomorrow to highlight inequality, greed, and her tax policy isn't a good strategy?

No because she needs to pull votes from Bernie not Bloomberg.

[Joe K]

Yep. Shes good but she should be attacking Bernie. She chose the wrong lane.

I'm guessing this isn't the only ad in her campaign.

I mean in general. Last night it was great that she attacked Bloomberg but it not going to get her one more vote.

You don't think using a multi-billionaire in a state that has a primary tomorrow to highlight inequality, greed, and her tax policy isn't a good strategy?

No because she needs to pull votes from Bernie not Bloomberg.

She already has tried to attack Bernie but made the mistake of basing those attacks on sexism/Bernie Bro nonsense rather than on a substantive critique. That attack backfired badly for Warren because those type of criticisms really only resonate with people who already dislike Bernie. It was also a bad strategy because it hurt her standing with Sanders supporters whose votes she’ll eventually need to win the nomination.

[P.D.X.]

Campaigns are a bit more nuanced than 'attack Candidate X to take votes from Candidate X.'

[Shirley]

And Bloomberg became the main threat to pretty much all of them with the way he rose in the polls over the last few weeks. That and the fact that I think she and Bernie probably legitimately dislike him and his policies.

It's a bit harder for Warren to attack Bernie, because they don't disagree that much on policy.

[Steve of phpBB]

That and the fact that I think she and Bernie probably legitimately dislike him and his policies.

I think this is it. Maybe I'm naive, but I think she is more worried about what a Bloomberg nomination would mean for the country than what a Sanders nomination would mean. Just like I think she praised Klobuchar's N.H. result and defended her last night because she doesn't want to see a woman run out for bullshit. Even if Klobuchar getting run out would ultimately help her.

I imagine that if she has a strategy "against" Sanders, it's try to be the last non-Bernie standing, or at least to be a viable compromise between Bernie and Biden/Buttigieg/Klobuchar. Which, I don't know if she can afford it, though apparently she brought in a shitload of money last night.

[Joe K]

That and the fact that I think she and Bernie probably legitimately dislike him and his policies.

I think this is it. Maybe I'm naive, but I think she is more worried about what a Bloomberg nomination would mean for the country than what a Sanders nomination would mean. Just like I think she praised Klobuchar's N.H. result and defended her last night because she doesn't want to see a woman run out for bullshit. Even if Klobuchar getting run out would ultimately help her.

I imagine that if she has a strategy "against" Sanders, it's try to be the last non-Bernie standing, or at least to be a viable compromise between Bernie and Biden/Buttigieg/Klobuchar. Which, I don't know if she can afford it, though apparently she brought in a shitload of money last night.

Given how he has conducted his campaign, I think a Bloomberg nomination would be incredibly dangerous for this country in terms of accelerating a trend towards oligarchy, There have been plenty of rich politicians and presidents but the degree to which Bloomberg is trying to just flat-out buy power is pretty scary. Regardless of whatever ripple effects it may or may not have for herself and the other candidates, Warren did a really good thing for the entire country last night by going after Bloomberg like that.

[Steve of phpBB]

Holy shit, she is not letting up. Maybe she sees this as her way back in.

[brian]

Honestly.

I think that’s just who she is. She’s honestly probably more “abrasive” than Hillary but doesn’t have the Clinton baggage.

[Steve of phpBB]

Honestly.

I think that’s just who she is. She’s honestly probably more “abrasive” than Hillary but doesn’t have the Clinton baggage.

I'm just imagining what Kamala would be doing to the guy. Holy shit.

[Joe K]

This is ominous. If Wisconsin, Ohio and Iowa are now full-on red states, the Democratic Electoral College path gets really narrow. Likely necessary to win Florida or North Carolina.

[Brontoburglar]

that poll is a sample of 823 registered voters FWIW

(Wisconsin has 3.3M registered voters)

[DSafetyGuy]

that poll is a sample of 823 registered voters FWIW

(Wisconsin has 3.3M registered voters)

Do they still conduct polls by calling residential landlines only?

[Brontoburglar]

that poll is a sample of 823 registered voters FWIW

(Wisconsin has 3.3M registered voters)

Do they still conduct polls by calling residential landlines only?

says on their site announcing it that it's both landlines and cell phones, but given that it's such a small sample size it's easy to see how landlines *could* skew this for sure

I just don't like how polls with such a small sample size get so much play -- no matter the result -- without screaming out the important caveat that the sample size is so effing small

[mister d]

If the sample is truly random and representative, 823 is more than enough. I question whether the first part is accurate, especially given that smart people don't just answer their phone.

[Giff]

Yeah, we're fucked.

[L-Jam3]

Well that's a fucking kick in the dick.


ETA: It's disgusting to me that I'm gettng close to rooting for a financial recession, which will negatively impact millions of families, just to secure Trump getting out of the White House. Fuck us.