Democratic Leaders Willing to Risk Stopping Sanders

[wyldwolf]

“Dozens of interviews with Democratic establishment leaders this week show that they are not just worried about Mr. Sanders’s candidacy, but are also willing to risk intraparty damage to stop his nomination at the national convention in July if they get the chance. Since Mr. Sanders’s victory in Nevada’s caucuses on Saturday, The Times has interviewed 93 party officials — all of them superdelegates, who could have a say on the nominee at the convention — and found overwhelming opposition to handing the Vermont senator the nomination if he arrived with the most delegates but fell short of a majority.”

“Such a situation may result in a brokered convention, a messy political battle the likes of which Democrats have not seen since 1952, when the nominee was Adlai Stevenson.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/us/politics/democratic-superdelegates.html

[DanTex]

1. "Risk Party Damage" is the title. Does anyone think this could possibly be a good idea?

I get that we all have our candidate preferences, but "party damage" is something that we can't have.

[W_HAMILTON]

3. The way Sanders conducted his candidacy in 2016 and his insistence on running again...

…this time around has already damaged the party, not that he cares much about that, given that he and his supporters rail against Democrats and the Democratic Party just as much as they do Trump and the Republicans.

When he couldn't put his ego aside and let a better qualified, less divisive, and more accomplished candidate like Warren take the progressive reins to run as our nominee, he pretty much set us all on this path.

[DanTex]

6. "Insistence" on running again. What?

He has as much right to run for president as anyone else. And, in case you haven't noticed, he's doing quite well.

Warren has every right to run for president too. If the Democratic electorate thinks she is a better candidate, then they can vote for her.

Democracy, you know?

[treestar]

7. So does Hillary, right?

Imagine if she'd done that.

[fallout87]

12. What stopped her?

?

[W_HAMILTON]

25. Hillary is a true Democrat that actually got behind the person that beat her for the nomination...

…which is why Obama wanted her a part of his administration and why she subsequently dominated the nomination in 2016.

Contrast that with Sanders, who has lost half his support since then and has turned many former supporters (like myself) into ardent opponents of his based on his and his supporters behavior of the past few years.

Pretty much the story of that guy's life, really: being his own worst enemy when it comes to advancing progressive policy.

[samnsara]

26. gawd Hills was treated shamefully....im still really pissed.

[W_HAMILTON]

18. He's not doing quite well.

He's even further behind in delegates than at this stage last time around, where he went on to be resoundingly trounced. The fact that there is even talk of a brokered convention shows that he is not doing well given that you have to go back decades to find a potential Democratic nominee with such little support that they would have to win the nomination that way.

And I guess progressive values be damn. If Sanders had stayed out and Warren had be the one to run as the progressive candidate, she would most likely win the nomination -- and do so outright, not by trying to win the nomination with a weak ~30% of the vote and hoping your supporters can bully the other delegates into voting for them. If a progressive does not win the nomination and subsequently the White House, you can point the finger (once again, really) at Sanders for his divisive, anti-Democratic candidacy.

And democracy *is* what is being practiced here. If Sanders can't win a majority of the vote and another candidate can put together a coalition that earns them a majority of the vote, then they will rightfully be our nominee. Whatever candidate reflects a majority of the voters is the one that should be our nominee since they will be the one to unite the largest number of Democrats.

[DanTex]

27. Yes, he is. He's ahead in delegates, he's ahead in all the polls, he's ahead in head-to-head polls

against every other candidate, and he's ahead in betting markets. He's winning by any conceivable measure.

If Bernie is doing poorly, that implies that every other candidate is doing dismally. But that's nonsense, the reality is, Bernie is leading the race.

The only reason Bernie doesn't have a majority is because it's a crowded field. But, clearly, by a significant margin, Bernie is the favorite candidate of the Democratic voters.

[W_HAMILTON]

36. The reason it's a crowded field is because Sanders is seen as such a weak candidate.

And the only polls that matter right now are the actual elections that are happening. And based on the three that we've had so far, Sanders is doing even worse -- both in actual votes and delegated received -- than he did in 2016, a race where he was blown out and essentially mathematically eliminated from the nomination after Super Tuesday.

Those are the facts.

[DanTex]

37. Well, he's obviously the strongest candidate in the field.

You don't seem to understand that portraying Bernie as "weak" because he has a plurality and not a majority implies that the other candidates are that much weaker. Bernie is leading by any conceivable measure.

You can spin it that all the candidates are doing poorly, just that all the other candidates are doing (much) worse than Bernie. You could also spin it that all the candidates are doing great and Bernie is doing better than the rest.

But regardless of which spin, Bernie is, obviously, doing better than any other candidate.

[rzemanfl]

42. I agree, but I still have to wash socks. n/t

[fallout87]

10. How dare he run for president again!

It's so, democratic if him!

[oasis]

45. Maybe it explains why he supported our last nominee with such gusto.

[honest.abe]

17. "Party damage" versus "Four more years of Trump damage"

I will take party damage.

[DanTex]

29. Except that "party damage" is what would bring "four more years of Trump."

[honest.abe]

33. Most will come to their senses by Nov.

Biden is a good man. Trump is a lunatic.

[DanTex]

34. Agreed, Bernie is a great candidate and his policies are popular with the American people.

All this fearmongering about Cuba and all that will fade away before November.

[honest.abe]

38. Bernie's love fest with Castro will never be forgotten in Florida.

Might as well just write that state off if Bernie is the nominee.

[treestar]

39. Popular with a plurality of Democrats

maybe. The independents decide the election, in the swing states especially.

[DanTex]

41. Majority of Democrats.

He's got the best favorability ratings among Dems. He beats every single other candidate in head-to-head polling.

Why do people keep denying this?

[treestar]

97. He does not have a majority of Democrats

There are so many people running, he can be in front without a majority.

[DanTex]

98. He doesn't "have" a majority, but he is "popular with" a majority.

Which was what we were talking about.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=590567

[ehrnst]

99. Louder and angrier doesn't mean more numerous.

[NurseJackie]

31. Sometimes drastic action is required to save a life... just ask any doctor.

The solution isn't always "preferred" but it's probably what's necessary.

[The Mouth]

78. I agree

Anyone willing to 'risk party damage' needs to be drummed out of the party.

And we worry about Russian bots and Trump Trolls, the real rot is within.

[wyldwolf]

4. you realize that's not how the DNC rules work, right?

The person with the most delegates - but doesn't meet the required number - doesn't automatically get the nomination. Rules are in place for a reason. Bending them or changing them to placate ANY wing of the party will be damaging. Sanders would always be thought of as the one who got the nomination handed to him to appease a group of petulant supporters.

Some would say the party is already damaged by allowing a non-Democrat to run.

[wyldwolf]

19. That's really silly

the rules mean absolutely nothing now when you have an entire generation overwhelmingly supporting one side of the party.

Does that mean another generation is overwhelmingly supporting the other side of the party? Why should the kids get their way? Ah, yes. Participation trophies.

Progressives have sat back and watched themselves be denied for nearly 50 years, voting for the moderate.

Because they've never been sufficiently organized to be asked to the dance.

They put rules in place to prevent a progressive from ever winning again via super delegates.

Rules have been changed twice to "assist" progressives.

If it is shown that the party does in fact want a progressive, and that progressive holds the plurality of delegates, to deny the progressive is to deny all progressives.

The only way it's "shown" is by winning enough delegates.

IF sanders wins the most delegates and is denied, it will be the end of the democratic party.




Only the Bernie Bros are in denial about it. It's laughable that people actually believe that Democrats will give their nomination to a non-Democrat when the future of the party and down-ballot candidates are at risk.

[ehrnst]

73. Got nothing, eh? No response....

But you're still "undecided," right?

[Malmsy]

81. +1000. (nt)

[ehrnst]

79. You mean if a candidate wins the most delegates, and someone else tried to convince superdelegates

to give it to them instead, and Superdelegates did it, it would be the 'end of the democratic party?"

Why on earth would a democratic candidate even think of doing that, then?

[HarlanPepper]

44. Yes, which is what Bernie's argument was in 2016

The hypocrisy on this issue is laughable.

[ehrnst]

80. +1000.

[ripcord]

69. Your support for the rules and the Electoral College are noted

We can't trust the voters so there has to be a mechanism in place to make sure they don't really make any decisions. We are teaching all the young voters to stay at home because their vote doesn't really matter, they will be screwed by a brokered convention to end the primaries and will then be screwed by the electoral college in November.

[W_HAMILTON]

5. That's not the rules Sanders agreed to when writing them...

...and it's not even what Sanders himself proposed back in 2016 when Hillary actually won a majority -- not just a plurality -- of delegates.

If Sanders doesn't win a majority of the delegates outright, that means that there is an even larger segment of voters that do not support him and instead supported someone else.

[W_HAMILTON]

20. Your point?

[W_HAMILTON]

28. LOL

You can do that, but it won't stop me from responding to your false claims and other propaganda that you've been pumping out in your one day of being a member here.

[wyldwolf]

24. The very definition of 'petulance.'

[honest.abe]

32. Sanders supporters will cause chaos in any scenario where Sanders loses.

Therefore that is not a factor to "keep in mind".

[ehrnst]

77. So you think he was wrong to do so?

Is that why you're "undecided?"

[treestar]

8. Not if they don't have a majority

[SidDithers]

16. You understand how representative democracy works, correct?...nt

Sid

[ehrnst]

74. They have to get elected to office first....

[ehrnst]

76. Does that mean you do understand how representative democracy works, or no?

[HarlanPepper]

48. Ah the new meme takes shape.

Stay tuned next week for another.

[honest.abe]

14. Exactly. If I were a Super I would vote to stop Sanders if he doesn't have majority delegates.

The risk of 4 more years of Trump greatly outweighs the risk of party damage.

[Eric J in MN]

35. If Bernie Sanders gets the most delegates

...from elections but isn’t the nominee then the Democratic Party will have a reputation as a hypocritical undemocratic party.

[honest.abe]

40. Winning a plurality is not winning.

What is the point of having a brokered convention if the candidate with a plurality always get the nomination.

[honest.abe]

55. If we lose in Nov with Sanders as the nominee we probably dont have a future.

As a party or a nation. Sanders is too big a risk to have as our nominee this election. I also dont trust the polls that show him winning against Trump. There are too many reports of shenanigans and cheating by "operation chaos", Russian bots, etc.

Biden is our best bet to win in Nov.

[ehrnst]

58. All this, and you're still "undecided" in terms of a candidate?

[honest.abe]

60. You cant predict what young voters will do.

They are mostly fickle and unreliable when it comes to voting.

However, this election is going to get very ugly with Trump and Biden (assuming its Biden) going toe to toe and with Bloombergs billions running attack ads non-stop until November, it will be hard for anyone to resist being a part of the process and vote in Nov.

[Zeus69]

82. How ironic

If the nominee is not Sanders, and the younger generation "stays home" or votes third party... they are actually screwing themselves for the next 20+ years!
During a second term, Trump will fully pack the judiciary and supreme court with lifetime appointed right wingers that will dictate policy for a generation. Smack in the bullseye of "young" people's peak years.

[marble falls]

85. Exactly what were saying 60 years ago, but we didn't sit in our hands and just let Nixon win ...

We backed Humphrey and then our own Bernie Sanders - McGovern and look where it got us.

We have good candidates, why all the sniping about them? Its Trumps ass we want kicked.

The question isn't who can beat Trump. Its who can get the vote out and run a Federal Government the best.

[eilen]

89. That happened in 2016.

People were upset about the result of the Democratic Primary. Wikileaks released hacked emails. An additive effect was the Comey letter. That 11 hour Benghazi hearing in the middle of the campaign, the targeted memes and ads from Cambridge Analytical, Russia and their army of Trolls...
It was a 9 ring circus. Hillary did get sick and I think she was exhausted but that got blown up into something totally exaggerated but it did slow her down a bit and I think that is what slowed down her campaign visits. So there was a percentage of Bernie supporters who voted for Trump or Stein in protest. There were plenty of conservatives who voted for the libertarian candidate instead of Trump/Clinton as well.

But young people are not reliable voters. That generation has an expectation they will be given what they want, especially if they work for it and want it badly... I guess I am saying they are easily discouraged when things don't go their way. I suppose that may be true of young people of all generations but then again, this one -- at least the college-aged can be very situationally blind and unlikely to consider the consequences. Maybe there is a bit of nihilism involved "blow it all up"-- arguably dramatic.

I see this with the protesters at Syracuse University in which they all feel so important. In fact, one of their demands is that their activism not be held against them and their grades not reflect the missed classes and other coursework not handed in because of their desire to "sit-in." Real activists don't expect that their actions will not have consequences; that they are expect to bear them and still protest earns the public's respect.

I remember the re-election of GWB. I was not on DU at the time, but I felt a reduced level of enthusiasm for John Kerry as a candidate in the zeitgeist and I don't know if enough people will truly "feel the Bern" in an economy with such low unemployment and high stock market gains (no matter how much of that is smoke and mirrors, perception beats reality to voters).

[HarlanPepper]

49. These are the rules Bernie wanted

[HarlanPepper]

54. ...

[ehrnst]

62. Yes, the person who is "undecided" thinks that Bernie was 'forced' to follow rules like

anyone else who runs on the Democratic ticket.

[HarlanPepper]

63. I know right?

Tune in next week for more pretzel logic.

[ehrnst]

61. Who forced him to run as a Democrat? And why was he a superdelegate if he

"wanted no superdelegates?"

But, yes, a candidate could try to convince the superdelegates to overturn the will of the people, even by a large margin of votes and hand the nomination to them.

So there's that.

But fortunately, they've never done that, have they?

[ehrnst]

64. You're saying if a candidate who has fewer pledged delegates asked the superdelegates

to overturn the will of the voters.. and hand them the nomination instead of allowing the choice of most pledged delegates to be the nominee...and they did, that would would be hypocritical?

And very bad?

You don't say....

[Nanjeanne]

15. Just some background info on what Sanders actually proposed.

Sanders proposed not having any super delegates voting. The compromise was 2nd ballot. Sanders always wanted the people to vote - 1 vote for person and super delegates voting in their own primaries. Not having 2 votes for them and regular folks having only 1.

In 2016 delegates voted in first ballot so candidates had to lobby for their votes. It was part of the first ballot voting. Even so, Sanders only lobbied for the super delegates in the states he WON. So basically he was asking those super delegates to honor the people in their states’ choice.

Link to tweet

[ehrnst]

65. Well, that's pretty ironic.

[PubliusEnigma]

22. Bernie Sanders, the Lose-Lose Candidate

He should have withdrawn when he had the heart attack and maybe his minions would have accepted that.

Now it's Bernie or Bust!!

[HarlanPepper]

51. And the heart attack issue is here to stay

Because Bernie won’t release the full picture of what’s up with his health.

[The Mouth]

83. I find "minions" to be rather insulting

and not a cool way to label your fellow Democrats.

[Autumn]

43. If he arrives with the most delegates and they attempt to do that, it will destroy the Democratic

party.

overwhelming opposition to handing the Vermont senator the nomination if he arrived with the most delegates but fell short of a majority.”

[TwilightZone]

47. Then why did Sanders support it in 2016?

Was he trying to destroy the party?

https://www.npr.org/2016/05/19/478705022/sanders-campaign-now-says-superdelegates-are-key-to-winning-nomination

[Autumn]

53. That has been explained time and again. I'm not wasting my time answering what you ignore.

[Skya Rhen]

66. No, it won't destroy the Dem party, instead it would free itself from being tied to socialism.

[Autumn]

71. Go with that if it comforts you. Democrats can't win with just your moderate and older voters.

Young people actually rocked the vote in 2018, new Census Bureau data finds
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/23/young-people-actually-rocked-vote-new-census-data-find/
Voter turnout spiked to a 100-year high in last year’s midterm congressional elections. Census Bureau data released Tuesday finds turnout rates jumped across nearly all groups, but the shift was particularly notable among young adults who typically stay home in nonpresidential years.

The findings illustrate an extraordinary breadth of engagement in the first congressional election since Donald Trump became president, and only four years after turnout hit a 74-year low in 2014, according to the United States Elections Project.

The Census found that 36 percent of citizens ages 18-29 reported voting in last year’s midterm elections, jumping 16 percentage points since 2014 (when turnout was 20 percent) and easily surpassing any midterm election since the 1980s. Turnout also increased sharply among adults ages 30-44, rising from 36 percent in 2014 to 49 percent in 2018. While turnout among younger adults still lags that of their elders, last year’s election marked a clear break from the past two decades of anemic turnout among the youngest citizens.

[Autumn]

72. Young adults support Bernie Sanders because they want to benefit from 'boomer socialism' that

older Americans already enjoy

Sen. Bernie Sanders is solidifying his standing as the frontrunner of the Democratic primary after a victory in the New Hampshire primary and a strong finish in the Iowa caucus. The self-proclaimed democratic socialist seeks to enact universal healthcare in the US, wipe out student debt, and fight against climate change.
Combined with promises to take on the political and financial elite, the ambitious proposals are helping generate a wave of enthusiasm among younger voters that's propelling his unabashedly progressive campaign, similar to 2016.

Business Insider recently reviewed exit polls from the New Hampshire primary on February 11 and found Sanders drew nearly half of voters aged 18-29, more than the other four major Democrats on the ballot combined.

Put simply, older voters aren't flocking to back Sanders in similar numbers. A CNN poll last month found the Vermont senator drew 30% more support among Americans under the age of 45 compared to those over 65.
Part of the reason is the unpopularity of socialism, particularly among voters born before 1975, according to Gallup. The same poll indicated that favorable views of socialism among young adults is still relatively high while those for capitalism steadily dropped over the past decade — 49% and 51%, respectively.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/younger-americans-benefit-boomer-socialism-support-bernie-sanders-capitalism-reason-2020-2-1028908562

[Yavin4]

57. OMG, I thought the thread title was "Democrats Willing to Stop and Frisk Sanders".

I glanced at it quickly before reading it thoroughly.

[redstatebluegirl]

59. The GOP wishes they had superdelegates in 2016

they could have stopped the Trump train. This is a must win for us, we need a strong down ballot candidate. BS is not that candidate.

[OliverQ]

67. This will completely destroy the Democratic party.

Lots of people will not vote for the candidate super delegates pick if they don't win the plurality of votes.

The DNC doing this will 100% guarantee Trump's re-election and the end of the Democratic Party.

[melman]

87. +1

[Me.]

68. Whew

The idea of 4 more years of the menace in the WH is chilling

[R B Garr]

70. KnR. Great news. I bet Democrats are tired of being smeared because they support

Democrats. Enough already.

[redqueen]

75. Read that this morning. Convinced me to vote for Bernie.

A brokered convention and nasty fight would pretty much guarantee a Trump win imo

[melman]

86. Remember all the outrage when he said they were trying to stop him?

lol

[eilen]

90. Hmm, is Senator Sanders registered as an Independent or Democrat at this time?

His Senate Page has him as Independent, as does the official Senate webpage listing all the senators.

[melman]

91. Can you explain how that's relevant to the topic at hand?

Thanks.

[eilen]

92. Because I am a Democrat and

I expect to vote for one.

[melman]

93. Okay but here's the thing

Last week there was a tweet where he said the Democratic establishment won't stop him..


...and people were aghast...How could he say such a thing OMG!!


And now here's an article that's all about...you guessed it...the establishment trying to stop him.


So then I said "remember the outrage? lol"


And then you said how is he registered


So then my question was how does your post relate to all this?


And I'm still wondering.

[eilen]

95. Initially I was going to post that I am voting for the Democrat

that is nominated, no matter which one... but then wondered, is he actually a democrat? So I checked and did not see that he was. So, that is a headscratcher for me. I thought perhaps the people in charge of updating official websites migh be slacking but it says "I" on his official site and I think with all the money he is receiving, and all the young tech savvy people who are in his campaign's employ.. they would be on top of that right? So which is it? So I asked. I am not an important person. I work in healthcare. I just take care of people having a run of bad days. I have no access to any power center in the Democratic Party. However, I think I should be able to trust that they are putting forth candidates that are democrats for my vote.

Which begs the question... which percentage of his supporters are democrats? If they are mostly Independents, why should I care about their strum and drang at convention? Because ultimately, we never had them anyway. If they are here to be a destructive force in the party, my feeling is, start your own party then -- here's the door. I feel like the Party has no obligation to placate people who wish to rip it apart. I mean, look at what has happened to the Republican Party. They are a cautionary tale.

[eilen]

96. The article was about superdelegates

and whether they will follow the rules if he does not reach the 1,991 of the 3,979 pledged delegates on the first ballot and they said yes. Those are the rules he fought for, remember? They have no obligation to do anything different. If no candidate wins on the first ballot, all delegates become unpledged. No point in crying in your cheerios.

As a Democrat, I plan to vote for one. In the Primary, that is my directive. If he wants votes from Democrats, maybe he ought to become one. That I think would be the first step in proving his integrity in this contest if he keeps insisting on running for Democratic nominee instead..of say...as an Independent nominee. Don't come to my party and trash it like Trump trashed the Republican party.

[BusyBeingBest]

88. Not good. This is depressing.

[Downtown Hound]

94. That will doom us to defeat way more than any Sanders campaign would. n/t