This shouldn't have to be said: A contested convention will doom us.

[Gravitycollapse]

If someone does not clear the delegate hurdle, we will not win the Presidency in November.

The surest way to suppress turnout is to A. not have a clear winner before the convention and/or B. not pick the most voted for candidate.

I'm not arguing that we change any rules. I'm not saying Sanders should get the nomination if he comes up short. I just think we need to be honest with ourselves. Someone needs to definitively win the primary contest.

[Renew Deal]

1. It can be argued we're doomed either way

Have you seen the news? There's a disease and Pence is in charge.

[jberryhill]

16. Ah, Pence...

The guy is a disease control expert.

Refused safe needle exchanges right up until after his own state had the two counties with the highest new HIV infection rate in the country.

[msongs]

2. only if one candidate tries to sabotage the entire election. ahemmmmmmmmmm nt

[Gravitycollapse]

3. Speak your mind.

[Squinch]

51. Exactly. I just had a conversation with a supporter of that candidate. I pointed out that

I have been asked a million times if I would vote for that candidate, who I do not like, if he is the nominee. I have never failed to answer the truth: I will vote for a rotting fish head if it is our candidate against Donald Trump. There is no Democratic candidate I would not vote for in the general.

Every poster I have seen who does not support that candidate has answered the same. They would vote for him.

This poster, though, posted to say a contested convention would lose us votes. I asked if that meant that, despite everyone else's party loyalty, this candidate's supporters would not support the nominee. The answer was, essentially, no, many of this this candidate's supporters would not support any other nominee than their candidate.

This is all coming from one place. All coming from the followers of one candidate.

A contested convention type of process chose Lincoln. I would have no problem honoring the results of a contested convention. The only way a contested convention is a problem is if we don't all stay loyal. If not to the party, then to the idea of ousting Donald Trump.

How can this even be a question?

[democrattotheend]

4. I'm not sure I agree

It will be messy, no doubt, but it will also generate a lot more viewership for our convention and interest in our candidates and airtime for our message than we'd otherwise get. If everyone goes into it with the right attitude and a commitment to support whomever is chosen through the process the candidates agreed to, and delegates are chosen who can be trusted not to be disruptive, it could end up being a good thing.

[Steelrolled]

5. I have been saying this.

I would actually watch the convention if it wasn't a cut and dried decision.

And Americans love reality TV that involve contents between people - what could be more real than this? Some great and emotional speeches by the contenders fighting for the nomination could really capture the nations's imagination.

[Gravitycollapse]

6. There is exactly a 0% chance it would go that way.

[rockfordfile]

13. No that wouldn't happen

[delisen]

24. Wise analysis.

[Blue_true]

56. One candidate and that candidate's followers are unlikely to support

any nominee but that candidate. But I sincerely believe that we can win in November with only the sanest of that candidate's supporters joining us.

[Kilgore]

79. And I have a bridge to sell you.

[OnDoutside]

81. The M4A bridge ?

[Kilgore]

91. Was thinking Brooklyn

[relayerbob]

7. No, we need to learn how to work as a team

We are doomed if our candidates piss and fight and let egos prevail at the convention. If they want to demonstrate leadership, then they need to LEAD, and form a coalition partnership that gets everyone's voice at the table, behind one person, who is willing to accept the policy decisions of the majority of the voters, which can be gleaned by looking at vote counts. If they would back off, and demonstrate such leadership, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[Gravitycollapse]

8. I agree, that's how it should be. Unfortunately, that's not how it is.

And that is not how a contested convention would go.

[NNadir]

9. Actually, in history, a contested convention saved the United States.

Abraham Lincoln was described as "everyone's second choice" in a contested convention.

The better known candidates all defeated each other.

We are facing one of the greatest crises in American history; our government and our democracy disintegrating.

We need another Lincoln at this point.

It's very clear that populist old men with small inflexible minds are extremely popular on both extremes. A brokered convention seems somewhat desirable to me, especially given recent events.

[Gravitycollapse]

11. None of the candidates are Lincoln. And this isn't the 1800s.

The political landscape is dramatically different (almost unrecognizably so). Elections hinge on relatively small margins of victory that can change course easily. A contested convention would drive away at least enough voters to hand Trump the win.

[NNadir]

15. Um, in 1860, Lincoln wasn't "a Lincoln." We do have candidates who think this is the 1960's.

Great Presidents are made by hard times, usually following ineffective government.

I see several candidates in our line up who may fit that bill, becoming "a Lincoln" without actually being seen as "a Lincoln" in the primary season.

This list excludes the guy who hasn't changed his mind about a damned thing since 1968.

I think that either of the two women remaining in the race, both of whom are clearly capable of nuanced thought, may meet this standard when presented with this challenge. Some of the men in the race may well have it in them.

What we have seen in the existing system is that in cases where there are large candidate pools, sometimes detritus rises to the top; hence the orange thug in the White House today.

We may be seeing a similar effect on the left in 2020.

If something isn't working, then something needs to be done.

[Gravitycollapse]

22. "This list excludes the guy who hasn't changed his mind..." - This is why it would fail.

Because everyone has a candidate they feel isn't viable or qualified. For many here, that candidate is the current front runner.

We don't even have to debate this to see how it will fracture the Democratic voting block.

As I said, there is no Lincoln in this race (either currently or potentially). A contested convention will be immediately public (something not possible in the 1800s) and will immediately create chaos.

[Sugarcoated]

33. Hear hear

[David__77]

10. It'll be ok.

...

[CrawlingChaos]

12. It will alienate massive numbers of voters

Young people in particular will abandon the party. Why would they feel motivated to vote for Democrats ever again?

[jberryhill]

14. You mean the massive numbers that turn out for primaries?

You know that most people actually don't give a shit until the nominations have already been final?

[CrawlingChaos]

19. They give a shit this time

I've never seen anything like it.

If they deny the nomination to the rightful winner this time it will not be business as usual.

[First Speaker]

23. Surely, the "rightful winner" is the one that the rules of the Democratic Party...

...decree is the rightful winner. (You have heard of the Democratic Party?) If some candidate--we'll mention no names--goes into the convention with, say, 35% of the delegates...Candidate #2 has 30%...and the others have the remaining 35% spread out among them...and the rules that Candidate #1 agreed to, should nominate somebody else...well, he and his supporters could certainly go off into a corner and sulk, or support Jill Stein, or do whatever they wish. I would throw them a bon voyage party, wish them well, and go and work for the Democratic nominee. And if Candidate #1 should manage to get the 16% he'd need to win the nomination for himself, then I'd work my ass off for him. May I add that this whole bit about a "brokered convention" turning people off is media horseshit, the talking head class reaching for the fainting couches at the thought of dreadful, smelly, ungenteel democracy breaking out. The only people who'd give a damn about it by November would be die hard supporters of a losing candidate, and we'll win without them, should it turn out that way...

[CrawlingChaos]

25. That "rule" is outrageous

It's the most undemocratic thing I can imagine.

And if you don't think there will be hell to pay you are in for a rude awakening.

[Blue_true]

59. Bernie Sanders fought to get that rule after his opponent had

reached the nomination number of delegates via primaries. The point that was made was that the "true" winner should be decided at the convention. The rule was active, but Clinton's delegates stayed with her and put her over the top on the first ballot.

So, the rules that the convention will be run under this year are rules that Bernie and his campaign in 2016 forced into being. Now Bernie wants to go back to the rules that his campaign forced to be abandoned.

[CrawlingChaos]

72. NOT TRUE

Bernie wanted NO superdelegates. No reasonable person would want superdelegates. They are undemocratic in the extreme.

This was the compromise that made the rules somewhat less execrable. NOT what Bernie wanted.

[jberryhill]

28. The "rightful winner" is whomever emerges from the convention with the nomination

There is literally no other definition of that term.

If the party decided, in the course of the convention, to decide on the basis of Rock Paper Scissors, then the rightful winner would be whomever threw rock the second finalist’s scissors.

Period.

[CrawlingChaos]

31. No reasonable person would see it that way

Do you think that attitude will inspire party loyalty? You just wait and see what happens.

[jberryhill]

32. That attitude is the definition of party loyalty

You seem to have failed the course in “cart and horse placement”.

[CrawlingChaos]

36. Scary authoritarian BS

You actually think you're going to win people over that way?

[jberryhill]

37. I'm not interesting in "winning people over" to the Democratic Party

This is Democratic Underground. I do not generally assume that participants on this site need any "winning over" to vote for the Democratic nominee.

With the exception of persons who do not quite understand this site, the basic assumption here is that participants are Democrats. Hence, your comment about "inspiring loyalty" seemed a bit unusual to me.

I actually do not care who the Democratic nominee turns out to be. I will vote for that nominee.

I gather that you, on the other hand, are perfectly willing to burn the party to the ground if you do not get the result you desire. Accordingly, your statement about inspiring "loyalty" is somewhat amusing, as it appears you do not quite grasp the meaning of the word.

[Mike 03]

50. +1000

[Downtown Hound]

90. Are you really that obtuse as to think that members of Democratic Underground will be the only ones

voting on election day?

[LenaW]

47. Maybe the cart and horse aren't in the right place to start with.

Which is more important - democratic voters being loyal to the party? Or the party being loyal to the democratic voters and the specific issues that they overwhelmingly agree on?

And if the party isn't beholden to its voters and their issues, who exactly is it beholden to?

[Blue_true]

63. The rules that will be used to pick the nominee are the rules that Sanders forced in 2016.

The DNC gave in to promote "party unity". If the rules result in a nominee other than Sanders, he has himself to blame. Frankly I don't give a damn, reasonable Sanders supporters are going to support the nominee in November, just like reasonable supporters of other candidates would support Sanders if he is the nominee.

[Blue_true]

60. The rules this year are rules that Sanders wanted in place. WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH THAT?!!!!! n

[CrawlingChaos]

68. NOT TRUE

Bernie wanted NO superdelegates.

NO ONE who believes in democracy would want superdelegates.

[Blue_true]

73. Bernie asked the superdelegates to overturn what primary voters had decided.

He very much wanted superdelegates, but only if they did his bidding. His team changed the rules in the platform Comittee to make it possible for Bernie to win a contested convention, but the delegates that Hillary had won in the primaries stayed true to her and she won the nomination on the first ballot.

[CrawlingChaos]

75. Bernie has been clear and unambiguous

The person with the most votes should be the winner.

He understands how this game is played and he is forced to clear the obstacle course the party has set for him.

[Blue_true]

76. Ok, if Biden or Bloomberg has the most votes, that person is the winner.

And you support that person in November. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Kathy M]

82. From my understanding superdelegates are not involved in first round

they will vote if needed on second round . Bernie may not have wanted them but didn't he agree to the rules ?

[Downtown Hound]

77. That's a pile of shit

The rightful winner should be the one with the most delegates. If Sanders gets that and the DNC takes it away from him we are finished in November. You think the massive coalition of young people he has amassed give a shit about party loyalty? Most of them don't even identitfy as Democrat, and shit like what you're suggesting is a big part of the reason why. They will ditch the Democrats in droves, and Trump will win a second term in a landslide.

Your delusion that they could do this and get away with it is not only delusional, it's dangerous. Democrats will be fucked for yeaars if they do what you're suggesting, and you are simply lying to yourself if you think any different.

[squirecam]

45. Who is the rightful winner?

Anyone who gets a majority is the winner.

Anyone with a plurality hasn’t actually won yet.

Don’t blame the delegates because Bernie can’t play well enough with his peers to earn their support.

[CrawlingChaos]

48. The rightful winner is the determined by the people

The one who gets the most votes, reflecting the will of the people, democratically.

That is the rightful winner.

[Squinch]

53. So, you set the rules rather than the party that everyone here has chose to join?

Sorry. No.

You knew what the rules were going in. If you didn't, that's on you.

Bernie knew too. He was instrumental in setting them, asking for the changes that he is now having a problem with.

Enough. This is how it works. This is how BS and everyone else agreed it should work. So the only question now is, are you in or are you out?

[CrawlingChaos]

58. Knew the rules?!

Are you freakin' kidding me?

No one, save a few elites, actually wants this shitty duopoly that has been forced on us as Americans. We have every right to fight for fair representation.

Sick of you guys acting like the Democratic Party is your private club.

And Bernie wanted NO superdelegates. This was the compromise he was able to get through. Don't try to pretend he wanted it this way.

[Squinch]

61. Yes, Bernie wanted no superdelegates. But by that time Bernie had already switched

his party back to Independent. They COMPROMISED with him and took the superdelegates out of the first round. They also gave in on his demand to make contested conventions in the event of no plurality a rule going forward.

Even though he had no standing and was no longer a member of the party, everyone COMPROMISED with him.

Just because Bernie wanted it, doesn't mean he was necessarily going to get it. That is what COMPROMISE means. Each person gives a little and gets a little. It doesn't mean that Bernie dictates terms.

As it was, he got most of what he demanded. And no, this was a very well publicized process when it happened. Again, if you didn't know about it, that's on you. Bernie certainly knew about it. Both when it was determined in 2016 and when he re-joined the party in 2019.

And whether you are sick of people thinking that the Democratic Party is a private club or not, IT IS A PRIVATE CLUB!!!! It is a club for people who support Democrats. It is a club that mutually decides upon the rules that will decide how they get Democrats elected.

If you don't like it, why did you join it???

[CrawlingChaos]

66. Why did I join it?!

Maybe because the ONLY alternative - per our horrible system - is Republicans!

Even Republicans don't have superdelegates.

[Blue_true]

64. Sanders had the selection rule changed to what it is now.

If he goes into the convention in the lead and don't get the nomination, he would have been denied by his own mechanations.

BTW, let's say that Sanders doesn't have the delegate lead coming into the convention. What do you think should happen then? I don't want whataboutisms, please answer the damed question that I posed.

[CrawlingChaos]

67. That is absolutely not true

This is not what Bernie wanted. It is willfully misleading to say otherwise.

Bernie wanted NO superdelegates. As would any reasonable person who believes in democracy.

[Blue_true]

74. Bernie tried to get the superdelegates to overturn the voters decision.

You sidestepped my question. If someone other than Bernie has the pledged delegate lead when all primaries and caucuses are done, what do you believe should happen at the convention? According to your logic, voters would have preferred the person that had the delegate lead, even if that person had not reached the number needed to win the nomination outright.

[Downtown Hound]

80. Sure, just keep pissing on the most active and loyal members of the party

Let's see were that gets us in November.

[napi21]

34. Although I keep hoping "the young people" will be energized to vote, but every time, I'm

disappointed again! You're going to have to do a lot better at convincing me before I should worry about pissing of the young new voters.

[Squinch]

54. Young people seldom come out to vote. The one time they did come out in large numbers, 2018,

the moderates did fantastically and Our Revolution and Bernie-backed candidates were clobbered. So this is a fallacy. The young, it appears, are just as moderate as the rest of us.

[LizBeth]

17. It sounds like you are saying we need to change the rules as you say you are not saying

changing the rules.

[Gravitycollapse]

18. Welcome to DU. What I said is exactly what I mean. Don't change the rules.

We should not be in any situation where that question would need to come up in the first place.

[Progressive2020]

20. Brokered Convention

I think that a Brokered Convention would be bad for our chances. It has never worked out well in modern American History. We need to have two or three leading candidates at most after Super Tuesday, and maybe one clear front-runner. I will support whoever gets the nomination, but I do hope that it is clear before the Convention.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

21. Why there won't be a contested Convention... Bernie is goin to be the Democratic nominee, period!

Might as well accept it... Bernie's inevitable!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[TexasTowelie]

27. Not if he only gets 30% of the delegates.

54 more contests to go--it's far too early to declare Bernie as the victor.

[Gravitycollapse]

30. On this, we agree.

[Callado119]

29. Nope, a BS nomination would doom us..

...I guarantee if BS falls behind in the delegate count before the convention, his fans will be screaming from roof tops for a contested convention and be threatening super delegates to vote for him...so basically what already happened in 2016..

[Meadowoak]

35. What happened in 2016, is that the rust belt states voted for Bernie in the primary.

And didn't bother to vote for Hillary in the GE. Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Pennsylvania would have voted for Bernie over Trump.

[Mister Ed]

39. Wait, don't lump Minnesota in with the 2016 Trump states.

HRC won our state's electoral votes.

[Meadowoak]

44. I stand corrected, thank you.

[Hav]

38. I agree with the points

but it's also interesting how the tune changed from "We're going all the way to the convention" and trying to get superdelegates to not support the candidate with the plurality of delegates. Suddenly, going all the way to the convention isn't that exciting anymore, isn't it?

[Demsrule86]

40. A Sanders nomination will doom us in the General.

Vote blue period. But we need someone who can win a general as our nominee.

[Nanjeanne]

41. I don't how supporters of democracy think giving super delegates the right to choose

Who they want is a democratic process. Every superdelegate can vote for their choice in their primary. Why do some party leaders get two votes? It simply makes no sense. I personally think my vote should count as much as anyone’s else and my judgement to choose who I want to be President is as valid as any “super” delegate. Do they have super powers to better choose than I do? What criteria sets them apart?

[Blue_true]

65. Until 1960, nominees were picked by party powerbrokers at the convention.

I don't favor that route, but I do want primaries that are closed to all but registered democrats.

[Nanjeanne]

71. I agree. Let's change how the primaries work but let the voters choose.

[MineralMan]

42. If a candidate has a majority of delegates,that candidate wiii

be the nominee after the first ballot. If not, a second ballot will be held, with all candidates having less than 15% of the delegates taken off the ballot. If there is a second ballot, the superdelegates will weigh in. If there is no candidate with a majority on the second ballot, the process will be repeated in additional ballots, until a candidate gets a majority.

That is how it will work. Pluralities aren't enough in our party.

[squirecam]

46. Correct

The rules could have been written that the person with the plurality is the nominee.

Bernie was against that position in 2016.

[Turin_C3PO]

43. I agree with you.

A contested convention would split our party. I hope someone has a majority going in to the convention even if that someone is Bloomberg, my least favorite.

[Blue_true]

69. I just don't see Sanders and his supporters accepting anyone but him.

If Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Warren, or Klobuchar break away and win the nomination outright via the primaries and caucuses that remain, Sanders and his supporters are likely to call the selection process corrupt, IMO.

[Aaron Pereira]

49. Opposing candidates and superdelegates are still rational actors.

Obama didn't have a delegate majority in 2008 and neither did Clinton in 2016. Their opponents did the right thing and released their delegates, made their endorsements and a contest was avoided for the sake of party unity.

Same thing will happen in 2020 if Bernie goes in with a plurality. The party establishment will look at the new voters Sanders is bringing into the process, the motivated crowds and without a doubt his hands down popularity with latino voters who represent the demographic future of the party. They won't be willing to light a match and burn all of that down for the sake of appointing their own nominee.

[OhZone]

52. Then Bernie should drop out now.

[Gravitycollapse]

62. Buahaha. The front runner...should drop out.

How does that make any sense?

[OhZone]

83. ha

I said the same thing, when Bernie supporters suggested Hillary drop out when she was ahead in 2016!

[Gravitycollapse]

84. It's sad that you can't move on from 2016.

Makes me think a lot of anti-Sanders people are just bitter and will torpedo the primary for their own selfish vendetta.

[OhZone]

85. I never change -

I support a Democrat.

((I'll still vote for Bernie in the General if he wins doe))


Also - what comes around, goes around.

[Gravitycollapse]

86. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes true, right?

Sanders is a Democrat. He took the pledge and joined the party.

[OhZone]

87. NAW

Show me where he is running as D for Senate in Vermont.

Show where he said, I AM A DEMOCRAT.

[Gravitycollapse]

88. " Bernie Sanders Signs Democratic Party Loyalty Pledge For 2020 Run"

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700524861/bernie-sanders-signs-democratic-party-loyalty-pledge-for-2020-run

[OhZone]

89. Good to see -

But he's still registered as an I in his home state? Right?

[Blue_true]

55. That is a wrong statement.

There have been contested conventions before and the nominee who emerged from it won the presidency. The last contested convention was in 1952, the democrat who was nominated, Adlai Stevenson emerged to face a very popular former General in Ike Eisenhower.

[oasis]

57. "Bite off your nose to spite your face" malcontents will be replaced

at the polls by voters who will feel a sense of relief by being able to vote for a "no drama" candidate.

[boston bean]

70. It is inevitable and has been since the day the new rules were written.

I wish I could find my posting about this when the rules were changed.

[LakeArenal]

78. It is what it is going to be.

Shouting doom and gloom serves no purpose what so ever.

Every body vote. Don’t trust polls. Research the candidates yourself and vote.

No one is dropping out for your threat of doom.