I'm confident that Biden, Bloomberg, Buttegieg and Warren will work out a deal to have a nominee...

[brooklynite]

...before we get to the Convention, if there isn't a clear winner. I am not confident that Sanders will do likewise.

[empedocles]

1. Suspect Bloomberg's long strategy is to really go for it - only if JB gets undercut enough.

[brush]

2. Sanders will do whatever he can to scuttle the party if it isn't him. We've already seen that movie.

[wiley]

3. Agreed

Bloomberg has already said that he will pour at least another billion into this and hundreds of other races. I hope Steyer does the same when he drops out.

[FBaggins]

4. So you're saying that only Sanders will follow a democratic process?

The others will cut some deal regardless of what the votes say?

Interesting.

[LongtimeAZDem]

5. Yeah, all they care about is that "good of the country" nonsense

[FBaggins]

8. Interesting

Most Democrats go all in for the notion of "democracy" and let the voters decide. Not some deal between the candidates to circumvent the process.

[LongtimeAZDem]

9. No, most Democrats go all in for the notion of having a Democrat win the election

[FBaggins]

10. They are in no sense contradicatory things

A candidate who wins nomination through an anti-democratic process is far less likely to win the general election.

[LongtimeAZDem]

11. Again, no. This is not a national referendum; it is a political party choosing the best candidate

to win the election.

That party has rules and procedures in place, with the goal of finding a candidate that will represent the party's principles and win the election.

It is not a direct democracy, and complaints about that are pointless.

[FBaggins]

13. Perhaps you should read the OP before commenting on a thread?

The party's "rules and procedures" are exactly what I'm talking about. That's the process that the party set up to identify the will of the party.

The OP is instead talking about some deal between a handful of candidates to come up with a different result - obviously because THEY think their negotiated result is better for the country than what will result from those rules and procedures.

[LongtimeAZDem]

14. Candidates bow out and throw their support to others all the time. Is this your first election?

[FBaggins]

15. Lol... that clearly isn't what the OP is talking about.

Care to try again?

[LongtimeAZDem]

16. Sure it is; there's nothing in the rules that prevent them from doing preciely that, and

such alliances are how politics works.

[FBaggins]

17. Again... you should read the OP

The scenario is not only clear, it's also the same one that has been fretted over here for some time now. The OP is worried that Sanders will do well enough in the early states to change the dynamic of the race... and end up with a likely plurality (but perhaps not an outright majority) of the delegates as the convention approaches. The OP likely fears both a Sanders nomination and a contested convention where Sanders' supporters balk at the candidate with the most voted not getting the nomination.

I share those fears... but don't think that a "deal" between the non-Sanders candidates like what you're speculating on can fix it. One obvious rebuttal to the "they'll just coordinate bowing out and supporting someone else" is the fact that by far the largest portion of Warren's supporters have Sanders as their clear second choice. No "deal" that she can cut to get out of the race does anything to avoid a Sanders candidacy. The calendar also works against this theory. Even were they not suffering under their own egos (almost universal among political candidates), if they aren't out well before Super Tuesday, their selected champion (still wondering who the OP thinks that will be) still doesn't get a clear majority.

[LongtimeAZDem]

19. Nothing can "fix" it if Sanders is determined to disrupt the process; however, a deal like the OP

suggests would make it irrelevant to the actual nomination.

After that, the supporters are gonna do what the supporters are gonna do. We'll go on without them, and in spite of them.


As to who the "champion" will likely be, I weighed in on it here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=458971

[FBaggins]

22. Again... you keep confusing "the process" with this new "how do we avoid Sanders?" 'process'

Keep in mind that the OP is talking about "if we don't have a clear winner". This isn't "I'm confident that Buttigieg will drop out after Iowa/NH if he doesn't win one of those two - because his chances will have ended and all that would be left would be the spoiler role" - we won't get to the "candidate X is going to get a plurality but can't get a majority" phase until it's too late for the "get out and endorse candidate Y" to fix the problem.

Sanders can't "disrupt the process" unless he has a plurality of delegates from primaries... but not enough superdelegates to win the second ballot outright. At that point it wouldn't be him "disrupting the process" if the OP's speculation of avoiding that end game comes into play.

[emmaverybo]

28. Stunning extremes BS supporters go to trying to counter the spoiler perception and cast

him as a protector of our democratic values. Since when? He says he’s a socialist and admires authoritarian socialist leaders. He hasn’t had much to say about democratic values and ideals. Busy going on the attack against rival Dems and the Dem party.

[brush]

18. See Post #2

[FBaggins]

21. I'm not interested in violating the "Don't keep fighting the last primary" rule

It's kosher to say "I only want to support a candidate who agrees to support the eventual nominee of the party"... it isn't the same thing to say that "You shouldn't support candidate X because he won't bypass the agreed-upon process at the convention"

[DanTex]

6. Depends how the delegate counts look.

If one candidate has a substantial plurality, and that candidate doesn't get the nomination, that would not be good.

[bluewater]

20. Any "deals" must respect the candidate with the plurality of delegates.

Any deals struck that does not give the nomination to the candidate with the plurality will destroy the party.

It doesn't matter what the size of the plurality is, if the leader in delegates is cut out in some deal, we are doomed.

[msongs]

33. plurality means more people do not want him/her than want him/her nt

[bluewater]

35. That would be true for a Biden plurality, right?

If no candidate gets a majority, then of course we should support the candidate with the plurality.

No matter who that is.

Otherwise we implode the party.

[wyldwolf]

12. well, now. That was a little uncalled for.

[brooklynite]

23. Allow me to elaborate...

Let me be clear, I’m not assuming that anyone’s “stealing” the nomination from Sanders, because I don’t think he’ll be in the lead. If Sanders has a majority of the delegates then any agreement between the other candidates would be meaningless so the complaint is irrelevant.

If NO candidate has a majority of delegates then YES, we have to have an agreement before the Convention. Recite all the rules you want; an unsettled Convention fight will kill our chances in November. If Biden/Warren/Buttigieg work out an agreement and convince their pledged delegates to go along with it, that’s good for me.

My point is, Biden and the others will do what’s good for the Party. I don’t think Sanders will.

[bluewater]

24. ANY "deal" will have to respect the candidate with the plurality of delegates

Otherwise, our party will implode in 2020.

It's that simple.

[LongtimeAZDem]

25. Exactly +1

[emmaverybo]

29. A point well taken and supported by past history.

[LongtimeAZDem]

32. As Brooklynite said, Sanders having the most delegates is not the scanrio in question

The issue is if he is trailing significantly, yet refusing to concede and threatening to derail the process. In that event, an agreement among the Democrats as proffered above could lessen the damage.

[saidsimplesimon]

26. My grandson is a

Bernie in the primaries, the Democratic winner in the November election.

His second choice, my first, is Senator Elizabeth Warren.

[getagrip_already]

27. The nominee WILL have a plurality of delegates......

And in this field, it almost assured that the number of people who voted for someone else will exceed those who voted for the chosen nominee. It's just the way the system works. Always had, well....

Remember that for the first two presidential elections, the candidates were chosen by the electoral college. There were no primaries r parties.

There wasn't even a national convention until the 1800's.

This very year, the GOP isn't even holding primaries in most states, and only trump's name appears in most that are.

So if the party gets together, and combines delegates to decide a winner, by definition that person will have the plurality of delegates and be chosen as the nominee.

If the GOP had a spine in 2016, they wouldn't have trump today. They had the mechanics to chose another candidate, they just didn't.

[Aaron Pereira]

31. Bloomberg, Buttegieg and Warren will be facing the problem of the delegate threshold.

Right now it's looking like all of them will struggle with 15% threshold to capture delegates which will hurt their chances to make a meaningful deal with Biden.

The other question would be delegate transfer. I'm not sure what the convention rules are around that, maybe someone here knows. Can delegates be reassigned or do they become free agents at the convention?

[dbolski]

34. Terrible strategy, regardless how legal it is

Superdelegates should honor the popular vote. Very simple. If voters are denied a say in the primary they will make their selection in the general. And the democratic party will have to change it's name to something else!

[LongtimeAZDem]

36. Superdelegates are there to represent the party. Democrats understand that.

[ehrnst]

38. When have they not? When they were petitioned by candidates to overturn

the popular vote from a winner who won by a huge margin, they didn't....

[Demsrule86]

37. You are correct.

We need to either have Biden, Warren or Bloomberg.
Both Warren and Bloomberg need to have a VP who can help with the mid west...like Tim Ryan. Biden is by far the best choice.