A candidate that gets 35% of the votes shouldn't win. But a candidate that gets 25% should!

[DanTex]

This is the argument that the superdelegates will be trying to feed the voters if they decide to go with someone who didn't get the most votes. It's obviously not going to work, because a 5-year-old could understand how absurdly illogical and undemocratic that is. Which is why it would fracture the party and lead to Trump's re-election, likely in a landslide, with losses downballot as well.

Yes, the rules state that the supers can do whatever they want. They superdelegates could vote for Rush Limbaugh if they wanted. But "can" and "should" are entirely different things. There is talk of superdelegates wanting to stop Bernie. The way to do that is at the ballot box. If another candidate gets more pledged delegates than Bernie, by all means, that candidate should be the nominee. And that could still happen.

But if Bernie rolls into the convention with the most pledged delegates, and it goes to a second ballot, then the superdelegates will have a decision to make. Do they want to stop Bernie, or do they want to stop Trump? For the sake of the planet, I hope they make the right decision.

People need to understand the level of anti-establishment sentiment going around. Especially among younger voters, for whom the system is simply not working. Nothing could be more emblematic of an out-of-touch elite than a bunch of party insiders deciding to ignore the candidate who got the most votes for a candidate that the establishment thinks is more palatable. It would be a disaster.

We need to defeat Trump. Seriously, no fooling around.

[Squinch]

1. Oh, FFS.

[BlueMTexpat]

2. +1! eom

[LexVegas]

3. ...

[NurseJackie]

4. Oh, FFS!

[TexasTowelie]

14. Most definitely.

The air of desperation.

[mcar]

106. Where's that beating a dead horse gif?

[SunsetDreams2]

5. 3 states so far..

[DanTex]

9. Agreed. No idea why superdelegates are already talking about stopping Bernie at the convention.

But they are. How about we just wait until the convention, and whoever has the most pledged delegates wins? It might be Bernie. It might be Biden. It might be Bloomberg. It might be Warren. It might be Pete.

We'll see!

[SunsetDreams2]

16. The New York Times

Claimed that they were..I didn’t see a whole lot of evidence to back up the authors claims. It seemed like a whole lot of nothing, but here we are.

[DanTex]

18. Hopefully you're right, and those superdelegates that went on the record for that NYT article

were just playing.

[SunsetDreams2]

23. They quoted 3 or 4 but claimed

They spoke to 90 something superdelegates. That’s not enough to back their article up

[ehrnst]

129. "overwhelming opposition to handing Mr. Sanders the nomination if he fell short of a majority

a majority of delegates."

You left that out, Hon...

Desperation is just not a good look. You start to make really glaring errors.

[Mister Ed]

6. Maybe the convention rules should just be, "Bernie gets the nomination no matter what". n/t

[peggysue2]

12. LOL!!

Which is exactly the direction this thread is going.

[DanTex]

17. Nah. Bernie/Biden/Warren/Pete/Mike/Amy gets the nomination if (s)he gets the most votes.

Really not complicated. No idea why anyone would want to do anything else. It's the only way to unite the party and defeat Trump.

[SidDithers]

26. Most votes has nothing to do with it...

You've been told this over and over and over and over.

Sid

[DanTex]

52. It does if we want to avoid fracturing the party and re-electing Trump.

In the General Election, either we are united as a party, or we lose.

[Mister Ed]

65. If we want to avoid fracturing the party...

...then none of us should be talking about changing the rules or moving the goalposts as needed to improve the chances of our favorite candidate.

[ehrnst]

123. +1000.

[MineralMan]

71. The rules ARE the rules.

If nobody has a majority of delegates on the first ballot, there is a procedure to follow. It will be followed. Delegates will vote as they vote. Do you disagree with those rules? Sorry, but there they are.

Your claims that percentages at the time of the first ballot should decide who is the nominee are ridiculous, and go against the very rules adopted for the convention. Those rules, not your opinions, will be followed. In the Democratic Party, the majority chooses the nominee, not you.

Thank goodness for that.

[DanTex]

72. Of course. How the delegates and supers choose to carry out those rules makes all the difference.

They can choose to respect the will of the electorate, in which case we emerge as a united party.
Or they can nominate someone who got less support from actual voters, in which case the party will fracture, and Trump will likely win re-election.

[MineralMan]

76. That is your opinion, which is fine, but it has nothing

to do with what will occur at the convention. Nor is your opinion any more accurate in predicting outcomes than anyone else's.

I think you are a bit over-dramatic about all of this. We will all unite behind the nominee, whoever that person is. I'm sure you will unite with us and support the Democratic nominee, just like the rest of us will, right?

[DanTex]

81. And your opinion is fine too. We'll see. Hopefully the supers respect the will of the electorate,

because I really don't want to see Trump re-elected. Of course I'll vote Blue No Matter Who, but if the superdelegates blatantly disregard the voters in choosing a candidate, it will be very hard to bring the party together for the kind of enthusiastic turnout we need.

But they have every right, by the rules, to do whatever they want. They can nominate Rush Limbaugh if they want. But that would be a bad idea.

[MineralMan]

95. Rush Limbaugh? Why even mention his name in this discussion?

The convention delegates are the people who will decide who the nominee is. On the first ballot, they are pledged to particular candidates, except for the super delegates, who will not vote on the first ballot.

It's very likely that there will be a second ballot. At that time, the super delegates, all of whom are loyal Democrats, will vote. Delegates pledged to candidates who are eliminated for being non-viable will also vote as they choose. In fact, all delegates will be free on the second ballot to vote for the candidate of their choice.

The only rule that matters is the one that awards the nomination to the person who receives the majority of delegate votes. That is the deciding factor, and the only one that counts.

I don't understand your insistence that some other method be used. The election of the nominee will occurs as the rules state. That will not split the party up. Instead, it will reflect the will of the party, not the will of one candidate.

I'm not sure where you're coming from with all this, but it's not how the Democratic Party chooses its nominee. It never will be. The nominee will be the person who gets the majority vote of the delegates. It will not happen in any other way.

[AncientGeezer]

134. Great post...and it's not rocket science.

[ehrnst]

130. "Really not complicated. No idea why anyone would want to do anything else."

No idea at all?

On May 29, 2016, Sanders said superdelegates had the “very grave responsibility to make sure that Trump [is not] elected president of the United States. Vote for the strongest candidate.

And even as Clinton secured the Democratic nomination the following week, Sanders continued to push for superdelegates to vote to override Clinton’s pledged delegate majority.

Told on June 7, 2016, that his superdelegate convention push would defy history and the will of the voters, Sanders said, “Defying history is what this campaign has been about.””

Bernie Sanders pushed for a contested convention in 2016. Now he wants to avoid one. Feb 27, 2020.

[Mister Ed]

136. Thank you. I swear, that should be an OP, pinned to the top of the Primaries forum. n/t

[ehrnst]

137. Thank you. I agree. But certain candidates are exempt from

vetting, apparently.

[TwilightZone]

43. That's the theme of every thread by this poster.

Every. Single. One.

[xmas74]

66. It's so annoying I'm to the point of putting them on ignore.

It's nonstop Bernie and votes.

[Anaxamander]

103. Well it is primary season

and votes are kind of hot topic.

[xmas74]

139. And then there's beating a dead horse.

Why spam a page full of the same crap? It's not going to change anyone's mind. All of those posts he made could have been contained in one since it was the same thing over and over again.

Most here have enough respect not to spam the boards.

[aka-chmeee]

116. I've been there too, but don't hit the button

because I want to see what new BS(in the original sense) he comes up with next.

[xmas74]

138. Exactly nt

[Mister Ed]

69. (Sigh). All too true. And while I appreciate the passion and persistence,

I just want to keep it real around here. That means no moving of goalposts, no deflections, no cherry-picking of facts. And no pretending that we're standing on principle if our only real principle is, "My candidate uber alles!"

[Rorey]

87. And only the primaries of the first three states should count NT

[thesquanderer]

7. OTOH, you could make this argument...

A candidate that gets 35% of the vote but is considered terrible by 65% wouldn't be as good a choice as a candidate that gets only 25% of the vote but whom 65% are at least comfortable with.

[DanTex]

13. Yes, but in this case, it would be completely wrong, because

none of the leading candidates are considered terrible by 65% of the voters. According to polls, the candidate for whom the most Dem voters would be either satisfied or enthusiastic with is Bernie.

But polls are polls. And votes are votes. Whoever gets the most votes should be the nominee. Period. Simple.

[OhZone]

32. Only one of my close friends likes Bernie -

The rest almost despise him.That's more that 65% that would like any of the other candidates besides than Bernie.

[themaguffin]

33. If it's not the majority, no.

It's that simple.

[thesquanderer]

40. Yes, although I knew your post was inspired by Sanders, it was presented in the abstract,

so I answered it in the abstract.

As for whether whoever gets the most votes should get the nomination, I tend to agree with one of the talking heads the other night... If someone comes in with 45% of the votes, and second place has 28%, it's awfully hard to justify not giving the nom to the candidate with 45%. But if the leader comes in with 32% of the vote and second place has 31%, it's not as clear cut, and it perhaps becomes more relevant to consider other factors in addition to who had the most votes.

[DanTex]

48. Yes. Bernie is currently leading the polls, but that could change, of course.

Sure, if its 45/28, that's a lot clearer than if it's 32/31.

In that kind of situation, IMO the only non-disastrous way forward would be to find a solution where everyone came away feeling satisfied. I see the sentiments posted along the lines of "who cares about butthurt Bernie Bros, the rules are the rules" but obviously that is no way to unite the party, and I hope the Dems understand that.

The other thing is, according to current polling (which, again, could change), Bernie is the most popular candidate by any conceivable metric. He polls highest to the question of who would you be satisfied vs disappointed with as nominee. He has the highest favorability ratings among Dems. He polls ahead of every other candidate in head-to-head polling. Unless that changes, even if Bernie leads 32-31, there would really be no logical case to give the nomination to someone else, and it would appear to a lot of people that the establishment went ahead and put in their favorite candidate rather than the one that the voters wanted.

[ehrnst]

128. " the establishment went ahead and put in their favorite candidate rather than the one that the

voters wanted."

That would be illogical, wouldn't it?

On May 29, 2016, Sanders said superdelegates had the “very grave responsibility to make sure that Trump [is not] elected president of the United States. Vote for the strongest candidate.

And even as Clinton secured the Democratic nomination the following week, Sanders continued to push for superdelegates to vote to override Clinton’s pledged delegate majority.

Told on June 7, 2016, that his superdelegate convention push would defy history and the will of the voters, Sanders said, “Defying history is what this campaign has been about.””

Bernie Sanders pushed for a contested convention in 2016. Now he wants to avoid one. Feb 27, 2020.

[Celerity]

51. 35% is a bit low to be demanding the nomination, especially if others are only a few points back

Now, if Bernie has around 44%, 46% or up, and no one else is over 30%, and he is denied at that point, the party will rip itself apart.

He needs to get there first.

The real danger zone is 40-42% level

and someone around 9, 10 points back

you already superdelegates saying 40% is not enough

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

Representative Veronica Escobar of Texas said that if Mr. Sanders arrived at the convention with 40 percent of the delegates, it wouldn’t be enough to convince her to vote for him on the second ballot.

[boston bean]

78. NO. Whomever gets the required amount of delegates

At the convention should be the nominee.

Those are the rule no matter what you keep trying to say.

[ehrnst]

133. "And votes are votes. Whoever gets the most votes should be the nominee. Period. Simple."

You'd think, wouldn't you?

On May 29, 2016, Sanders said superdelegates had the “very grave responsibility to make sure that Trump [is not] elected president of the United States. Vote for the strongest candidate.

And even as Clinton secured the Democratic nomination the following week, Sanders continued to push for superdelegates to vote to override Clinton’s pledged delegate majority.

Told on June 7, 2016, that his superdelegate convention push would defy history and the will of the voters, Sanders said, “Defying history is what this campaign has been about.””

Bernie Sanders pushed for a contested convention in 2016. Now he wants to avoid one. Feb 27, 2020.

[Sunsky]

8. Who got 35% of the votes?

Why do I believe that the primaries have just began and we haven't reached super Tues as yet? While some already know the outcome .
We won't know the pledged delegates spread until later. However, Sanders made the pitch to the superdelegates in 2016, that electability is what counts and not the plurality of the pledged delegates. 2016 Sanders meet 2020 Sanders.
I want a candidate who can abide by the rules, especially the one that he helped to create. This is getting tedious. There are rules in place and we will abide by those rules. I really hope they make the right decision.

[DanTex]

10. Which is why it's so weird that superdelegates are already talking about "stopping Bernie."

But, for some bizarre reason, they are, apparently some are willing to risk damaging the party in order to do it. Even though the voting has just started. It's odd.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/us/politics/democratic-superdelegates.html

Whoever gets the most pledged delegates should be the nominee. That's obviously the only way to defeat Trump. But you're right, it's still early. Let's just wait to see who gets the most votes!

[Sunsky]

55. No

Bernie worked to get rid of that 2016 thinking. Are you contradicting Bernie's 2016 approach? I believe he's a selfish person. He wants to bend the rules to suit him. He now wants the 2016 rules and not the rules he helped to create in 2018. The new rules are there because of him and we will abide by the new rules. If you have a problem with the new rules take that up with Bernie Sanders.
We need more than just the presidency, we need to keep the house and retake the Senate as well. Bernie at the head of the ticket does not accomplish that goal IMO and I don't need to be conciliatory like Pelosi. She is striking the right tone as a leader but I hope the Democratic electorate will choose someone who can abide by rules, who can unite the party and who will help the down ticket ballot, along with securing the presidency. That's not Bernie.

[ehrnst]

132. "Whoever gets the most pledged delegates should be the nominee."

You'd think, wouldn't you?

On May 29, 2016, Sanders said superdelegates had the “very grave responsibility to make sure that Trump [is not] elected president of the United States. Vote for the strongest candidate.

And even as Clinton secured the Democratic nomination the following week, Sanders continued to push for superdelegates to vote to override Clinton’s pledged delegate majority.

Told on June 7, 2016, that his superdelegate convention push would defy history and the will of the voters, Sanders said, “Defying history is what this campaign has been about.””

Bernie Sanders pushed for a contested convention in 2016. Now he wants to avoid one. Feb 27, 2020.

[MrsCoffee]

11. So tired of whining and shitty either or fallacies.

It probably won’t be necessary, but we can, AND WILL stop both if we have to. Bernie guarantees four more years of Trump. We don’t know if Bernie even has four more years in him. Odds aren’t much in his favor and he refuses to release his medical records. He is a self labeled socialist who is kryptonite to down ticket races. He would provide the most cover for another treasonous election grab by Trump. No one would blink an eye or be shocked if Sanders lost all 50 states except the bros who have already alienated everyone else.

YOU may be willing to take such a ridiculous chance, but the saner heads in the party WILL prevail.

[DanTex]

15. Yes, the superdelegates whining about the people voting for the "wrong" candidate is truly tiring.

The voting has just begin, how about just let the voters have their say! And then whoever gets the most votes is the nominee! It's simple. And it's the only way to defeat Trump.

[LanternWaste]

20. Are you pulling this all out of your hat or somewhere else?

'cause you make so many statements and fail to support *any* of them.

Every time.

Your stuff is really nothing more than a series of fortune cookies read one after the other.

[MrsCoffee]

21. Even simpler than that. Just follow the rules that are already set and agreed to.

Whining is for losers.

[DanTex]

24. Absolutely. Follow the rules. I agree.

And within those rules, nominate the person with the most votes.

It's the only way to defeat Trump. And I for one do not want to see another four years of Trump.

[MrsCoffee]

28. You obviously believe that crap.

The only way. The only one.

Follow the rules, but change the rules.

And all this can be yours for the low low price of $27.

[ehrnst]

31. +1000.

[ehrnst]

35. "The responsibility that superdelegates have is to decide what is best for this country and what is

best for the party.

“I am not a great fan of superdelegates, but their job is to take an objective look at reality. And I think the reality is that we are the stronger candidate.”

On May 29, 2016, Sanders said superdelegates had the “very grave responsibility to make sure that Trump [is not] elected president of the United States. Vote for the strongest candidate.

And even as Clinton secured the Democratic nomination the following week, Sanders continued to push for superdelegates to vote to override Clinton’s pledged delegate majority.

Told on June 7, 2016, that his superdelegate convention push would defy history and the will of the voters, Sanders said, “Defying history is what this campaign has been about.””

Bernie Sanders pushed for a contested convention in 2016. Now he wants to avoid one. Feb 27, 2020.

[DanTex]

49. Best not to re-litigate the 2016 primary IMO.

[Codeine]

62. "Please stop quoting Bernie

because it makes him look hypocritical.”

[DanTex]

63. Not at all. The 2016 discussion requires (a lot of) context. Best not relitigate. Move forward.

[Codeine]

64. "We have always been at war with Eurasia." nt

[ehrnst]

83. Sorry, Pal. His own words are documented. Same context, same subject - contested convention.

[DanTex]

85. Wrong, but again, re-litigating 2016 is not useful.

[ehrnst]

91. You can keep copying and pasting "re-litigating" but that doesn't mean it has any relevance.

It's just a desperate dog whistle, and it's not working.



You don't want to "move on" when someone talks about any other candidate's previous statements and votes. It's called "vetting," Sport.

You keep avoiding actually defending your position by trying to ignore the candidate previous, documented, contradictory position on the role of superdelegates. "Move forward" = "DON'T TALK ABOUT WHAT HE SAID BEFORE!!!"



I'm not "litigating" what he said, Dan. It's all there in the record. And it contradicts what you are frantically copying and pasting about what the function of Superdelegates is, and you seem to think that it's to do whatever benefits a Sanders nomination, but can't admit it.

Bernie Sanders pushed for a contested convention in 2016. Now he wants to avoid one. (February 27, 2020)

[showblue22]

108. This is not a good look.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[DanTex]

109. Like I said, I have no interest in re-litigating 2016. Different circumstances, as we all know.

[showblue22]

112. I'll tell you why it matters.

It makes the concern for "democracy" from Bernie supporters disingenuous.

[Codeine]

124. Different how?

Why are his words no longer applicable?

[themaguffin]

36. SDs exist to prevent another 72 and 84, so people who don't know about history prior to

2016 need to learn from the past.

[ehrnst]

131. "how about just let the voters have their say! And then whoever gets the most votes is the nominee!

It's simple."

You'd think that, wouldn't you?

On May 29, 2016, Sanders said superdelegates had the “very grave responsibility to make sure that Trump [is not] elected president of the United States. Vote for the strongest candidate.

And even as Clinton secured the Democratic nomination the following week, Sanders continued to push for superdelegates to vote to override Clinton’s pledged delegate majority.

Told on June 7, 2016, that his superdelegate convention push would defy history and the will of the voters, Sanders said, “Defying history is what this campaign has been about.””

Bernie Sanders pushed for a contested convention in 2016. Now he wants to avoid one. Feb 27, 2020.

[frazzled]

140. Voters don't have a say: delegates do

They are the ones who vote for the nominee.That’s how it works, and has since the smoke-filled rooms were eliminated.

When you are voting in a primary you are voting for delegates, who are pledged to vote for that candidatemat the nominating convention. They can change their minds, though it is rare. In addition to these pledged delegates from each state there are unpledged delegates sent by each state (usually the governor, if a Democrat,, state party chair and vice chair, etc.) plus US Democratic senators and congresspersons. They vote too, but this time only if there is no majority on the first vote.

This isn’t a general election. It’s a party’s primary. Sanders, who is not a Democrat, should drop to his knees and thank the party for letting hun in their primary at all (twice!)

After these debacles with Sanders and Bloomberg (the alte kakker interlopers, as I think of them) I think the rules should be changed to disallow participation from anyone who has not been registered continuously as a Democrat for the previous four years.

[USALiberal]

27. I love "Guarantees" with no proof! nt

[MrsCoffee]

42. 2018 offers a little proof.

Guarantees is obviously a bit of hyperbole. Easy to over react to those who keep preaching about the only one and only way. So while not guaranteed, the odds are greatly in favor of disaster if he is the nominee. Happy now?

[USALiberal]

44. Current polls show Bernie leading Trump! nt

[MrsCoffee]

46. Polling shows Sanders threatening downticket races.

We would lose the house and more seats in the Senate.

So which polls are you gonna invest in?

He is the most divisive candidate in the primary. Why are we willing to risk it all on someone with such a lack of transparency and who brings so many overall negatives to the party?

[Happy Hoosier]

19. Such bullshit.

On the second ballot, all delegates become unpledged. If Mr. 35% can’t convince enough delegates to support him on the second ballot, then he doesn’t deserve to lead the party. Maybe Bernie will actually have to be nice to people for a change. Maybe instead of attacking Democratic leaders, he might actually work with them. I’d think a skilled politician with an advantage in pledged delegates ought to be able to put together a winning coalition.

I don’t now what you think you are accomplishing here... it’s certainly not winning support for Bernie.

[honest.abe]

22. You really dont get it or are you just pretending?

The decision will be who the super delegates think represents the majority of the Dem electorate and has the best chance of winning. The initial percent going into a brokered convention should be considered but its not the main factor.

[Happy Hoosier]

37. I'm sure he understands how he is coming off.

Of course, he would switch positions in a heart-beat if it turned out Bernie didn't have a plurality of delegates going in to the Convention.

[SidDithers]

25. JFC...

What is it that you don't understand about the nominating procedure?

A candidate must secure 50% of the delegates.

It's not popular vote. It's not whoever is leading.

It's the candidate that can secure 50% of the delegates.



Sid

[Codeine]

29. If Sanders has any actual political skills

(y’know, the sort of abilities that are essential to being the chief executive of an entire country) he should be able to build a coalition of delegates to win the second ballot. That’s all he needs to do — win over the released delegates.

And quit with the “superdelegate” nonsense; ALL the delegates are released for the second and subsequent ballots. If he lacks the outright majority he should be able to woo enough Warren, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar delegates to put him over the top on the second vote. Right? If he’s that popular and respected then he should be able to cobble together the votes.

[OhZone]

34. Exactly -

Almost the same kinda skills you need to pass big new laws, huh?

[blm]

30. Oh FFS!

[Hoyt]

38. Candidate with 35% of votes - when split among bunch of candidates - shouldn't win first ballot.

[DanTex]

50. Second ballot. Obviously the 35 candidate should be chosen over the 25. Because 35 is more than 25

[ehrnst]

127. "Obviously the 35 candidate should be chosen over the 25. Because 35 is more than 25"

On May 29, 2016, Sanders said superdelegates had the “very grave responsibility to make sure that Trump [is not] elected president of the United States. Vote for the strongest candidate.

And even as Clinton secured the Democratic nomination the following week, Sanders continued to push for superdelegates to vote to override Clinton’s pledged delegate majority.

Told on June 7, 2016, that his superdelegate convention push would defy history and the will of the voters, Sanders said, “Defying history is what this campaign has been about.””

Bernie Sanders pushed for a contested convention in 2016. Now he wants to avoid one. Feb 27, 2020.

[W_HAMILTON]

39. No, the argument is the candidate that can meet the required threshold should win.

If no one wins an outright majority, that means that someone will inevitably have to bring others into the fold to hit the established threshold. If they do so, that means that they won over the support of the majority and thus should be our nominee since they will represent the greatest number of Democrats.

And you keep harping on superdelegates -- I suppose to start laying the foundation for the inevitable excuses later down the road? -- when in fact it is the regular delegates that will most likely decide the nomination. The candidate that wins a majority of them -- or can establish a coalition of support from other candidates and their delegates -- will be the one that wins the nomination.

Thus far, Sanders is the only candidate (back in 2016) that has argued in favor of using superdelegates to overthrow the will of the MAJORITY of voters/delegates.

[ehrnst]

41. "The responsibility that superdelegates have is to decide what is best for this country and what is

best for the party.

“I am not a great fan of superdelegates, but their job is to take an objective look at reality. And I think the reality is that we are the stronger candidate.”

On May 29, 2016, Sanders said superdelegates had the “very grave responsibility to make sure that Trump [is not] elected president of the United States. Vote for the strongest candidate.

And even as Clinton secured the Democratic nomination the following week, Sanders continued to push for superdelegates to vote to override Clinton’s pledged delegate majority.

Told on June 7, 2016, that his superdelegate convention push would defy history and the will of the voters, Sanders said, “Defying history is what this campaign has been about.””

Bernie Sanders pushed for a contested convention in 2016. Now he wants to avoid one. Feb 27, 2020.

[helpisontheway]

45. Oh well...gonna lose in a landslide if Sanders is the nominee anyway..At least

we won’t be labeled as a socialist party forever. Rather take the chance that Bernie supporters hate Trump more than the “establishment Dems”.

[rzemanfl]

47. NTSA. Every morning. Sigh. n/t

[comradebillyboy]

53. As Bernie himself observed, one needs a majority of the delegates

to secure the nomination. He was very clear about this in 2016.

[DanTex]

54. Best not to re-litigate the 2016 primary IMO.

[comradebillyboy]

56. Not relitigating 2016 at all. But I am allowed to point out

changes in a candidates position over the years aren't I? Bernie is always trying to game the system to his own benefit. He can't unilaterally decide to change the nominating rules in the middle of the campaign.

[DanTex]

60. 2016, a lot of things went down, different circumstances entirely. I prefer not to re-litigate.

We need to move forward, in a unified manner to defeat Trump.

[ehrnst]

96. You prefer not to acknowledge the documented flip flop.

"Move forward" means "DON'T TALK ABOUT WHAT HE SAID BEFORE BECAUSE IT COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS MY ARGUMENTS FOR OPPOSING A BROKERED CONVENTION, AND THE PURPOSE OF SUPERDELEGATES!!!"

There is no "litigating" what he said that's a complete 180 from his previous proclamation - it's a matter of record.

"The responsibility that superdelegates have is to decide what is best for this country and what is best for the party.

On May 29, 2016, Sanders said superdelegates had the “very grave responsibility to make sure that Trump [is not] elected president of the United States. Vote for the strongest candidate.

And even as Clinton secured the Democratic nomination the following week, Sanders continued to push for superdelegates to vote to override Clinton’s pledged delegate majority.

Told on June 7, 2016, that his superdelegate convention push would defy history and the will of the voters, Sanders said, “Defying history is what this campaign has been about.””

Bernie Sanders pushed for a contested convention in 2016. Now he wants to avoid one. Feb 27, 2020.

[Codeine]

57. IOW "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

and the things he said four years ago.”

[DanTex]

58. Best not to re-litigate the 2016 primary. Different circumstance entirely. Let's move forward.

[Codeine]

59. Transparent. nt

[DanTex]

61. Moving forward in a united democratic fashion to defeat Trump. Yes, transparency is good.

Let the voters decide in a transparent manner.

[ehrnst]

99. "Let the voters decide in a transparent manner"

On May 29, 2016, Sanders said superdelegates had the “very grave responsibility to make sure that Trump [is not] elected president of the United States. Vote for the strongest candidate.

And even as Clinton secured the Democratic nomination the following week, Sanders continued to push for superdelegates to vote to override Clinton’s pledged delegate majority.

Told on June 7, 2016, that his superdelegate convention push would defy history and the will of the voters, Sanders said, “Defying history is what this campaign has been about.””

Bernie Sanders pushed for a contested convention in 2016. Now he wants to avoid one. Feb 27, 2020.

[DanTex]

100. Totally different, and you know it as well as I. But I'm not getting into 2016.

[ehrnst]

110. How was it totally different? You can't make the case that it was...

You can't show that your position on superdelegates isn't simply what benefits your candidate, and hasn't been contradicted, no the record, by said candidate.

Or you would have.

I've shown you factual documentation concerning the statements made by Sanders in the 2016 primary. You imply that it's not factual, but that I am "re-litigating" something. There is no 'litigating' what was said. It appears you can't provide any facts that aren't re-litigating, and won't undermine your repeated and frantic prouncements on the purpose of Superdelegates, which is not to get in the way of "the will of the voters."

Here are the facts. Explain what is 'different' in 2020 about the responsibility of superdelegates, and the importance of "letting the voters decide" other than a brokered convention not being to your candidates' advantage. Here is your chance to objectively show that as you claim, 2016 was "totally different."

On May 29, 2016, Sanders said superdelegates had the “very grave responsibility to make sure that Trump [is not] elected president of the United States. Vote for the strongest candidate.

And even as Clinton secured the Democratic nomination the following week, Sanders continued to push for superdelegates to vote to override Clinton’s pledged delegate majority.

Told on June 7, 2016, that his superdelegate convention push would defy history and the will of the voters, Sanders said, “Defying history is what this campaign has been about.””

Bernie Sanders pushed for a contested convention in 2016. Now he wants to avoid one. Feb 27, 2020.

[DanTex]

111. In many ways that I don't want to re-litigate, because 2016 is behind us...

[ehrnst]

114. It completely undermines your frantic defense of the strategy that will benefit your candidate

to acknowledge what your candidate said, on the record, that completely contradicts you.

That's the only 'litigating' there could be. Facts are facts.

Hillary Clinton was the clear choice of voters, in 2016, via the most pledged delegates, and Bernie Sanders, pushed superdelegates to overturn the choice of the voters, and give him the nomination instead in a brokered convention.

Fact. Citation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/20/bernie-sanders-pushed-contested-convention-2016-now-he-wants-avoid-one/

Sanders, (and you, a Sanders supporter) insists, in 2020, that if Sanders has more pledged delegates than other candidates, that Superdelegates should not give the nomination to any candidate but Sanders because "the voters should decide."

Fact. Citation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/20/bernie-sanders-pushed-contested-convention-2016-now-he-wants-avoid-one/

What is incorrect here? What is "completely different?" Both are Democratic primaries, both have Superdelegates.

Now, using facts, please explain what relevant "completely different circumstances" make this public, documented, reversal of Sanders position consistent, and not status quo political expediency - as you would label it in any other candidate.

If you don't I will continue to assume you don't have facts to support your claim that the 2016 relevant circumstances were "completely different."

Surprise me.

[DanTex]

115. Undermines nothing. I'm just not re-litigating all that happened in 2016. Sorry!

[ehrnst]

117. You keep copying and pasting the very same evasion, and can't ever back up your position

facts, like I have backed up mine.

Bernie Sanders pushed for a contested convention in 2016. Now he wants to avoid one.

Still waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is and just own the fact that you consider any rule, no matter how established, to be wrong if it doesn't benefit your candidate.

You don't have to keep trying to convince people that you're being consistent or unbiased, or are really concerned about what is or isn't 'undemocratic,' concerning procedures in the Democratic primary.

If it helps Bernie win, then it's moral and progressive. If it works against him winning, then it's the opposite of moral and progressive.

That's what your posts are about.

Pro Tip: Copy and paste evasions don't fool anyone, an just smack of desperation.

[ehrnst]

97. The dog whistle isn't working. It's just frantic copying and pasting now.

You can try to desperately try to redirect attention from documented history of Sanders' words that directly contradict your reasoning for opposing a brokered convention, and the purpose of superdelegates, but that doesn't make it go away.

You're not the only one who can copy and paste.

"The responsibility that superdelegates have is to decide what is best for this country and what is best for the party.

“I am not a great fan of superdelegates, but their job is to take an objective look at reality. And I think the reality is that we are the stronger candidate.”

On May 29, 2016, Sanders said superdelegates had the “very grave responsibility to make sure that Trump [is not] elected president of the United States. Vote for the strongest candidate.

And even as Clinton secured the Democratic nomination the following week, Sanders continued to push for superdelegates to vote to override Clinton’s pledged delegate majority.

Told on June 7, 2016, that his superdelegate convention push would defy history and the will of the voters, Sanders said, “Defying history is what this campaign has been about.””

Bernie Sanders pushed for a contested convention in 2016. Now he wants to avoid one. Feb 27, 2020.

[DanTex]

98. Not sure how you think it's a "dog whistle". 2016 was a different circumstance, everyone knows that

[ehrnst]

101. It's just embarrassing for you. You can't defend your position on superdelegates

and discuss Sanders' record of contradictory statements on superdelegates.

So, tell me - what is different from 2016 that makes a complete reversal on the purpose of Superdelegates consistent?

I'm not seeing it.

[DanTex]

102. I guess we differ on who is being embarrassed. It happens lol...

[ehrnst]

120. Well, you're the one backing a candidate who has directly contradicted

the argument you keep on frantically copying and pasting all over DU. Matter of historical record, just as HRC's victory in the 2016 primary is.

You're not the only one who can copy and paste.

Bernie Sanders pushed for a contested convention in 2016. Now he wants to avoid one. February 27, 2016

[Peacetrain]

67. Dan.. look me in the eyes..

... Okay.. Bernie signed up to run in the Democratic Primary knowing what the rules are. Everyone else is abiding by those rules.. if he tries to blow it up, he will lose a huge portion of the Democratic base he will need to win if he is the nominee.. its a no win situation.

You cannot change rules in the middle of the game.

Welcome to the Democratic Party..

[DanTex]

68. No rule change. It's just a matter of whether the delegates respect the will of the electorate.

[AGeddy]

73. "will of the electorate" means 50%+. With less than 50%, there isn't "will of the electorate"

If a candidate with 35% can't convince 15% more to join him, then he is by definition *NOT* a uniter and would make a bad candidate and a worse President.

If Bernie goes into convention with 35% - and through his coalition-building skills can get over 50%, then by definition he is a uniter and deserves the nomination.

If he doesn't, then he doesn't.


Anything less than 50% means there is no "will of the people" for the candidate.

[DanTex]

74. Will of the electorate means whoever got the most votes. Obviously.

It's preposterous to argue that a candidate with 25% is the will of the electorate but a candidate with 35% is not. Some people might be able to twist themselves into a pretzel to try and make that case. But it's obviously wrong, and nobody is going to buy it.

[AGeddy]

79. In a case where nobody is over 50%... then NO candidate has the "will of the electorate"

Not the 35% guy or the 25% guy.


At that point, coalitions need to form. So if the 25% guy builds a coalition with a 20% guy and a 10% guy... then that new coalition *DOES* have the "will of the electorate", because it represents more than 50%.


Conversely, if the 35% guy can get the 20% guy to join with him... then THAT new coalition represents the "will of the electorate".

[ehrnst]

105. So you're saying "let the voters decide" or it's "obviously wrong, and nobody is going to buy it?"

On May 29, 2016, Sanders said superdelegates had the “very grave responsibility to make sure that Trump [is not] elected president of the United States. Vote for the strongest candidate.

And even as Clinton secured the Democratic nomination the following week, Sanders continued to push for superdelegates to vote to override Clinton’s pledged delegate majority.

Told on June 7, 2016, that his superdelegate convention push would defy history and the will of the voters, Sanders said, “Defying history is what this campaign has been about.””

Bernie Sanders pushed for a contested convention in 2016. Now he wants to avoid one. Feb 27, 2020.

[ehrnst]

121. "It's just a matter of whether the delegates respect the will of the electorate."

On May 29, 2016, Sanders said superdelegates had the “very grave responsibility to make sure that Trump [is not] elected president of the United States. Vote for the strongest candidate.

And even as Clinton secured the Democratic nomination the following week, Sanders continued to push for superdelegates to vote to override Clinton’s pledged delegate majority.

Told on June 7, 2016, that his superdelegate convention push would defy history and the will of the voters, Sanders said, “Defying history is what this campaign has been about.””

Bernie Sanders pushed for a contested convention in 2016. Now he wants to avoid one. Feb 27, 2020.

[ehrnst]

122. +1000 But good luck...

[AGeddy]

70. If the candidate who gets 25% can convince 25% more to join them, while the one with 35% can't...

...convince 15% more to join them....

....it says that the 25% candidate is better at forming coalitions - which are needed to get stuff done.


If the 35% candidate is so divisive that they can't get even 15% more to join them, they're a bad candidate and would be a worse President.

[AGeddy]

75. What's funny about this thread is that if Bernie goes into the convention with 28%

and Biden goes into the convention with 30%..... the original poster will argue the exact opposite position.

[DanTex]

77. Of course not. Whoever gets the most pledged delegates should be the nominee.

I wonder why anyone could possibly disagree.

[AGeddy]

80. "I wonder why anyone could possibly disagree"

Other than Bernie in 2016, you mean.

[DanTex]

82. Best not to re-litigate the 2016 primary IMO.

[AGeddy]

84. Best to remain consistent in your views of what "will of the electorate" means

Instead of having the opinion that it only means whatever benefits one personally.

"Situational ethics" is a bad look for a candidate.

[DanTex]

86. I've been completely consistent. So has Bernie.

[AGeddy]

89. I don't know about you personally, but Bernie most definitely has not

Holding one view in 2016 and holding the 180-degree exact opposite view in 2020 is the opposite of "consistency".

[DanTex]

90. 2016 was a different circumstance entirely, best not to re-litigate and move forward instead

[W_HAMILTON]

93. Yes, it was different in that Hillary won the MAJORITY of both the popular vote and delegates...

...which makes Sanders trying to steal the nomination away from her -- and thus, the *actual* will of the people -- all the more disgusting and self-serving.

[AGeddy]

94. No, it really wasn't.

The only difference is that the unpledged delegates got to vote on the first ballot instead of having to wait for the second.


Bernie argued for the unpledged delegates to overturn the "will of the people" (as you call it). This time, he is arguing that the unpledged delegates should not be allowed to do so.


The situation was only different in that

A. Hillary actually had a *MAJORITY*, not just a plurality, of the pledged delegates
B. Bernie looked to benefit from the unpledged delegates.



Your faulty argument of "best not to re-litigate" is nonsensical. It's the equivalent of saying "whatever I believed before should be completely ignored, all that matters is what will benefit me now."

Very Trumpian.

[ehrnst]

107. How was it a different circumstance? You keep saying that but refuse to actually make the case.

It sounds more like you are trying to stop any discussion of something a candidate strongly advocated that contradicts your "let the voters decide" rather than have a brokered convention.

But show us you really have a case to make that it's you're simply advocating as "moral" and "democratic" whatever benefits the candidate you supports at the convention.

I'm all ears.

[Happy Hoosier]

119. LOL. EXTREMELY convenient. NT

[Happy Hoosier]

118. That fact that you wonder that is on you.

This is a nomination process, not an election. We are trying to choose the person who can unite the party and lead us in the GE. If a candidate can't convince the majority delegates to back them, what good are they? I'm flabbergasted that you can't see that.

[AGeddy]

92. The DNC has almost nothing to do with it.

Pledged delegates are chosen by the primary/caucus voters.

Unpledged delegates are chosen by the voters in the most recent elections (governors, representatives, and senators).

The "DNC" has no control over how any of them vote in a second ballot.



Secondly, if a candidate isn't able to marshall at least 50%+1 of the delegates, then absolutely *NOTHING* has been "stolen" from them.

[George II]

104. And it's done on a state by state basis by the State Democratic party.

[aka-chmeee]

113. Hey!Why Not?

In a world where a guy can join a club just in time for the big Christmas Party, hang around until after the New Years Party, quit and say terrible things about the club and still expect to be elected club president? Anything is OK.

[Bucky]

125. You don't seem to understand how coalitions work

When no one gets a majority, delegates need to make a second choice. Who results then as the winner is known as a compromise candidate.

Do you understand the idea of political compromise? It's that thing that the Framers of the Constitution believed in and which Mitch McConnell rejects.

[JustAnotherGen]

126. Sanders is a Super Delegate - right?

[OliverQ]

135. I'm already seeing lots of people say if the DNC

does this, the Democratic party is finished. Trump is guaranteed to win and people will abandon the Democrats in droves.

The primary super delegate pushing this idea is a GOP donor and healthcare lobbyist.