2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

Status
Not open for further replies.
InfiniteBoredom said:
‘Negotiated’ is a fairly liberal characterization.

Basically the two campaigns got to nominate people to the Unity Reform Cmte., which wrote the rules for this cycle, something like a third were DNC representatives, a bit more than a third from the winning campaign (Clinton) and a bit less than a third from Sanders’s folks. He wanted to do away with supes entirely, but they didn’t agree so they arrived at the 2nd ballot solution, which none were really happy about. They however also fought to keep the caucuses, which they succeeded, and tried to get all primaries become open, which they didn’t.

Saying Sanders wanted to keep supes is wrong, but then again the reasoning that since they are still there, trying to make a play for them is ok since that was something Sanders himself did is valid.
Click to expand...

He was a part of private negotiations with Hilary which resulted in the current rules. They wouldn’t be in place today had both parties not come to an agreement in the end.
 
Raoul said:
He was a part of private negotiations with Hilary which resulted in the current rules. They wouldn’t be in place today had both parties not come to an agreement in the end.
Click to expand...
He was outnumbered, so while the party did have to make concessions, it isn’t fair to characterize that as ‘Sanders wanted to keep superdelegate’.

I can sympathize with candidates saying that ‘I’m staying in because that was what Bernie did’, because it is factually true. Jeff Weaver began making the case shortly after New York that superdelegates should back Sanders due to electability, and it became the campaign’s rationale in the final month leading to CA and then the convention, but saying the current rules are his responsibility entirely or even chiefly is flat out wrong.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
He was outnumbered, so while the party did have to make concessions, it isn’t fair to characterize that as ‘Sanders wanted to keep superdelegate’.

I can sympathize with candidates saying that ‘I’m staying in because that was what Bernie did’, because it is factually true. Jeff Weaver began making the case shortly after New York that superdelegates should back Sanders due to electability, and it became the campaign’s rationale in the final month leading to CA and then the convention, but saying the current rules are his responsibility entirely or even chiefly is flat out wrong.
Click to expand...

No one said the rules are his responsibility, but they are a result of a negotiation that both parties agreed to. Therefore he has little leverage to criticize the rules in the present.
 
This is really difficult. As a Bernie supporter, I recognize that anyone in the Dem field is FAR better than Trump, and if Bernie loses because he had fewer delegates going into the convention I would gladly support the winner. But if he has more delegates and the DNC fecks him over, I would actually consider either sitting it out.
 
MarylandMUFan said:
This is really difficult. As a Bernie supporter, I recognize that anyone in the Dem field is FAR better than Trump, and if Bernie loses because he had fewer delegates going into the convention I would gladly support the winner. But if he has more delegates and the DNC fecks him over, I would actually consider either sitting it out.
Click to expand...
More delegates as in simply being in the lead? What if he has ~35%, and the rest of is split but they come together to support the leader of that group? That's generally considered a fair outcome in other electoral systems. First past the post is what causes the 2 party system in the US in the first place.
 
Raoul said:
If Sanders loses by way of superdelegates, it would be a result of the very rules he negotiated with Hillary in the summer of 2016 - namely that they can’t be used as they were in the past and would only come into play if a candidate didn’t accrue the minimum amount of delegates after all the primaries were finished.
Click to expand...

Its simple.
The candidate with the most delegates heads the ticket.

If you cite rules to voters who are angry, be ready for a second Trump term.
 
MTF said:
More delegates as in simply being in the lead? What if he has ~35%, and the rest of is split but they come together to support the leader of that group? That's generally considered a fair outcome in other electoral systems. First past the post is what causes the 2 party system in the US in the first place.
Click to expand...

THe leader of what Group? Are making the assumption that It's Bernie vs. 5 other people and those 5 other people are one group?
What I think would be fair is that if there is not a 51% majority of delegates, you take delegates away from the poorest performers and work your way up. Lets pick a single state/candidate to make it easy. If Amy wins Minnesota but finishes with only 2% of the delegates, I could see moving the MN delegates to the 2nd place finisher from the MN primary (so the voters are still having a say). So if Amy wins MN and Biden finishes 2nd, the MN delegates would switch to Biden and we work our way up the chain until someone gets 50%.
 
Good discussion about delegates.
The reality is Sanders will not be able to get to 1990 without Super Delegates.
They will negotiate well before the convention. Most likely about VP and Cabinet spots plus the platform.

btw @MarylandMUFan . good idea.
That would be fair. But would the DNC do that? Lets remember these are business people who don't give a shit about people.
 
Red Dreams said:
The word Socialist should not be in a third party formation.

Simply call it the Justice Independent Party which can include everyone.
Even Conservatives want good health care, education and Climate change to be addressed.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It could be like the TEA party only progressive an
Red Dreams said:
Good discussion about delegates.
The reality is Sanders will not be able to get to 1990 without Super Delegates.
They will negotiate well before the convention. Most likely about VP and Cabinet spots plus the platform.

btw @MarylandMUFan . good idea.
That would be fair. But would the DNC do that? Lets remember these are business people who don't give a shit about people.
Click to expand...

There is no way they would do that. The Dems are worse than the GOP when it comes to rigging their primary. Too much money from the health care industry is pouring into the Dems for them to risk someone like Bernie winning.
 
MarylandMUFan said:
This is really difficult. As a Bernie supporter, I recognize that anyone in the Dem field is FAR better than Trump, and if Bernie loses because he had fewer delegates going into the convention I would gladly support the winner. But if he has more delegates and the DNC fecks him over, I would actually consider either sitting it out.
Click to expand...

Understable, but at the end of the day a second Trump term would be far worse.

Red Dreams said:
Its simple.
The candidate with the most delegates heads the ticket.

If you cite rules to voters who are angry, be ready for a second Trump term.
Click to expand...

These are the rules that everyone agreed to before deciding to participate.
 
MarylandMUFan said:
Agreed. It could be like the TEA party only progressive an


There is no way they would do that. The Dems are worse than the GOP when it comes to rigging their primary. Too much money from the health care industry is pouring into the Dems for them to risk someone like Bernie winning.
Click to expand...

The Tea Party was a manufactured organisation for people who had no brains. It became a monster the GOP could not control. Remember the Debt Ceiling debacle?
The Dems and GOP are just as bad. neither party cares a jot about human beings. Why both are willing to let people die.
There is no lesser of two evils. They are both equally evil.
The reality is both parties would prefer a Trump administration to Sanders.

Profits.

But if they decide to feck over people by citing 'rules' the Dems will lose the whole thing including Congress.
Its not just some on here talking about not voting Democrat I can tell you.
 
Florida Man said:
I don’t think so. Economy is a whole different ball game. People put up with Trump’s bullshit solely because they’re happy with economy (even though it’s very misleading but that’s a different discussion). If that tanks, watch how fickle the “moderates” become.
Click to expand...
Completely agree
 
MarylandMUFan said:
In the end, my vote really doesn't count anyway (though it could in the primary). Maryland is a solid blue state so whoever the Dem candidate is, will win my state, with or without my vote.
Click to expand...

True. Though it may be tricky with Minnesota.

But remember. We are talking millions of people all over the country.
And the damage will not be for just this cycle.
A third party is a realistic option. It wont be easy.
But ultimately it would get voters from both parties that feel disenfranchised.
 
Red Dreams said:
True. Though it may be tricky with Minnesota.

But remember. We are talking millions of people all over the country.
And the damage will not be for just this cycle.
A third party is a realistic option. It wont be easy.
But ultimately it would get voters from both parties that feel disenfranchised.
Click to expand...

Agreed. This is why I think Bernie can win the rust belt states and possibly the white house. His message should resonate with them which is why I think the "Bernie can't win" reaction from the DNC is bought.
 
MarylandMUFan said:
Agreed. This is why I think Bernie can win the rust belt states and possibly the white house. His message should resonate with them which is why I think the "Bernie can't win" reaction from the DNC is bought.
Click to expand...

The DNC Knows Bernie will win the Rust Best. As I said, its about profits.
They want someone who will keep filling their coffers.
 
Grinner said:
Why? Wasn't he always expected to do well here? Bernie will win Super Tuesday and that should be that.
Click to expand...

Polls in SC have been tightening considerably in the last few weeks so this late surge towards Biden will give him momentum. A decisive win in SC will sway undecided voters to vote for Biden on Tuesday.

Though the problem for Biden is that a large number of voters have already voted in Texas & California
 
Red Dreams said:
Raoul. As I said you cannot cite rules to people whose voices are being silenced.

There will be consequences that would make the 1968 Convention look like a friendly class debate.
Click to expand...

Lets hope he wraps up the nomination with enough delegates to meet the minimum requirements, otherwise it’s going to be rough sailing ahead.
 
Drifter said:
How could anyone compare the Tea Party to the Democratic socialist.
Click to expand...

I really wasn't (or it wasn't my intent). I was thinking that if Bernie had a large majority of delegates and the DNC decided not to go with him, it could really fracture the Dems and cause a new party to form to take on what has become a very right winged democratic party.
 
MarylandMUFan said:
I really wasn't (or it wasn't my intent). I was thinking that if Bernie had a large majority of delegates and the DNC decided not to go with him, it could really fracture the Dems and cause a new party to form to take on what has become a very right winged democratic party.
Click to expand...
Ok my misunderstanding,but the right are serial deflectors and have been trying to paint DS as some crazy radical ideology,where they need to look closer to home.
 
Look, if Bernie gets 25% of delegates and Biden gets 24%, then yeah whatever, broker that shit. 25% isn't a mandate to be fair. I'd rather the process was democratic rather than done in a smoke filled room. Also, ranked choice voting is a good idea I think.

If Bernie gets 49.7% of delegates and the nearest contender is getting 15% or some shit... then come on.
 
I get that the dem party hacks hate Bernie. But if he becomes the chosen nominee then surely they have to get behind him 100% as the lesser of two evils.
 
Charlie Foley said:
Down south! I’m in Annapolis
Click to expand...
If you are curious, I looked up the 2016 superdelegates in Maryland and 14 went to Clinton and 1 went to Sanders. Note that Hillary won 62% of the vote to Bernie's 33%.
Hillary Clinton573,24262.53%
Bernie Sanders309,99033.81%



Ben Cardin MD Sen. Clinton[5]
Maria Cordone MD DNC[1] Clinton[20][81]
Elijah Cummings MD Rep. Clinton[88]
John Delaney MD Rep. Clinton[5]
Donna Edwards MD Rep. Clinton[5][81]
Tefere Gebre MD DNC[1] None
Janice Griffin MD DNC[1] None
Steny Hoyer MD Rep. Clinton[5]
Victoria Jackson-Stanley MD DNC[1] None
Bel Leong-Hong MD DNC[1] Clinton[81]
Yvette Lewis MD DNC[1] Clinton[81][189]
Glenard S. Middleton, Sr. MD DNC[1] None
Barbara Mikulski MD Sen. Clinton[5][81]
Heather Mizeur MD DNC[1] Sanders[218]
Bruce Morrison MD DNC[1] Clinton[20]
Gregory Pecoraro MD DNC[1] Clinton[237]
Carol Pensky MD DNC[1] Clinton[81]
Bruce Poole MD DNC[1] Clinton[246]
Karen Pope-Onwukwe MD DNC[1] Clinton[20][81]
Stephanie Rawlings-Blake MD DNC[1] None
Dutch Ruppersberger MD Rep. Clinton[5]
John Sarbanes MD Rep. Clinton[5]
Chris Van Hollen MD Rep. Clinton[5]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.