Post removed

[NurseJackie]

1. Serving their purpose. Good!

[Autumn]

2. It will be interesting to see what they decide to do here if this is true, knowing what's at stake.

[Dopers_Greed]

3. 25% of vote is not the "will of the people"

Rules state that they have to get a majority of delegates.

If Sanders gets a majority of delegates, then I'll be happy to have him get the nomination.

[DanTex]

10. Neither is 20% of the vote. Even less, in fact. Compared to 20, yes, 25 is larger.

[AGeddy]

4. If Bernie can get 50% of the pledged delegates, the superdelegates will play no role

If he can't get to 50% of pledged delegates, then he has NO RIGHTFUL claim to the nomination, based on the rules of the game.


He must then convince enough Superdelegates to push him over the top, or convince enough of the pledged delegates for other candidates to switch to him.

If he cannot do so, then he is - by definition - not a unifying candidate and someone who cannot build coalitions to get things done.


Whichever candidate can get to 50% is - by definition - the candidate best able to build coalitions which means the best candidate to get their programs through congress.

[Squinch]

5. Krystal also aired the tape of trump saying he hoped the candidate

wouldn't be BS without ever noting that the candidacy she was talking about was Hillary's 2016 VP pick.

That seems an ... odd thing for a respectable journalist to do.

(Innocently bats eyelashes.)

[bluedye33139]

27. She is John Solomon's protege

She was at his side while he was fabricating the conspiracy theory that Rudy Giuliani went to the Ukraine to try to prove.

The site she works for does not allow readers to address her or discuss her work in any way.

When Rudy Giuliani's two accomplices were arrested, Rudy Giuliani was sitting with her for an interview. True fact. She is one of them.

Every other article at the Hill has a discussion board and robust commentary, except for John Solomon's protege. She is kept behind a glass.

[Squinch]

29. Ah! I did not know that. Makes sense.

[stopdiggin]

35. then it's kind of interesting that DU would be

posting OPs relating to this content? Is this the DU community?

[Cha]

50. lol.. Kball says and does a lot of things..

Link to tweet

[Squinch]

51. Yes. Her name seems to be often attached to provably false statements.

[Cha]

54. Exactly.. Ball also pushed that Nancy Pelosi.

Link to tweet

[SidDithers]

7. Oh FFS...

the nominee isn't the person with the most delegates.

The nominee is the person who gets 1990 delegates at the first ballot, or 2376 delegates after the first ballot.

How hard is that to understand?



Sid

[stopdiggin]

31. apparently REAL hard .. if you're a supporter of certain candidates?

FFS is right!
This is turning into .. monkey throwing poo ..
It'd be embarrassing .. if some of us were capable ....

-- -- -- --

[Nanjeanne]

8. Democracy in action. If no one has more than 50% - let some SUPER people decide that the person

with less votes should be the nominee.

I'm at a loss why the "super" delegates get two votes when the rest of the country gets one vote. Seems to me this is the very essence of elitism letting a handful of people pick the nominee. Why have primaries at all? Surely the rich and powerful know more than the common folk.

[Happy Hoosier]

11. If Bernie can't build a winning coalition at the convention...

... what does that say about his leadership skills? One aspect of being the nominee is being able to build a unifiying coalition.

[Nanjeanne]

12. What does it say about those who have even less votes than he does?

[Happy Hoosier]

15. If they can build a winning coalition....

... it says they have leadership and coalition-building skills.

[Nanjeanne]

16. If they could build a winning coalition with voters - it would say a lot. Building a coalition with

some DNC leaders - not in my eyes a winning look.

[Happy Hoosier]

19. So.....

Basically, whatever favors Bernie, eh? Lots of us oppose Bernie. Many of us do not agree on who is BEST instead of Bernie. I think a contested convention is where the candidates need to demonstrate their ability to build a political coalition. If they can;t do that, what the hell good are they?

But honestly, I would support a variety of other candidate over Bernie.

IMO, we need a national primary process with ranked choice voting.

[Nanjeanne]

21. Not at all. That's completely disingenuous of you to say. Don't tell me what I think.

I would say it about any candidate that goes into the primary with a large plurality - even if it's not a majority - should win the nomination.

If Pete, Amy, Mike, Liz and Joe's supporters want to join together and vote for one of those candidates - I say go for it. Voters choice. Before the primary. Let them drop out and the chips fall where they may. But it's also possible that some of Elizabeth's,. Pete's, Amy's or Joe's supporters would go to Bernie.

If 5 or 6 people stay in the race - no one is going to get a majority. But if someone has 1000 delegates and 35% of the popular vote - I do not think it's democracy for a handful of people to decide they know better than the American people. I think it's the exact opposite of democracy.

[Happy Hoosier]

24. Okay, whatever....

I've seen wild swings among Berners. First they hated Super delegates. Then, when it was clear Clinton would go in to the Convention with a MAJORITY of delegates, there were some trying to turn delegates, and Weaver even saying he thought they could win over Supers. All this DESPITE the fact it was clear Clinton had won a clear majority.

So pardon if me if I very, VERY skeptical of all the righteous indignation now. Suck it up Berners. You know the rules. WIN. Or not.

[stopdiggin]

33. How about having Sanders play by the rules

that he himself helped formulate? That too complicated? Unfair? Rigged? Are they being mean to us again?

[Nanjeanne]

37. Your rudeness knows no bounds does it? Bernie wanted the super delegates gone. The 2nd ballot is

the compromise position - not Bernie's.

He didn't say he wouldn't "play" by them. He said he thinks the candidate with the plurality should be the nominee. That's democracy. Of course, we could always just do away with the primaries and let the landed gentry choose the candidate.

Too complicated? Unfair? Rigged? Mean? - that's what you got? Who could argue against those salient points.

[stopdiggin]

40. "he thinks the candidate with the plurality should be the nominee"

Well .. that would be THIS year. Other years .. we might be saying something completely different ..
Because .. Bernie!

[Nanjeanne]

43. No. Actually he said in in other years too. He said if he won the states in the primary then the

super delegates should go to him - since that jibes with the voters' choice.

Actually he wanted superdelegates out of the process altogether.

And you really can't compare 2016 to 2020 anyway since super delegates were part of the 1st ballot and they had to vote.

But anything I'll say won't make a dent . . . . Because . . . Not Bernie!

[TreasonousBastard]

48. "Compromise" is the key. Bernie is not the only person who had an opinion how...

things should go. He did not fully get his way, just as others didn't.

So, what we have is, by default, Bernie's position. If he can whine and cry about how things "should" be, then everyone else can, too.

And nothing gets done.

[Nanjeanne]

49. Agree but I don't understand how he is whining. He was asked his opinion and in his opinion he

thinks the person with the plurality should be the nominee. He happens to be winning but I haven't heard him say if someone else is winning he wouldn't think they should be the nominee.

Where is he crying? Or whining?

If Amy was winning a plurality - would you prefer that some super delegates decided that Biden would be a better choice? Is that democracy?

[TreasonousBastard]

52. Since the rules are out there, after consultation with him and after agreeing...

to some of his points, neither he nor anyone else really has any business commenting on the rules at this point.

Arguing over the rules now is merely a distraction.

[stopdiggin]

32. I'm at a loss why the "super" delegates get two votes when the rest of the country gets one vote

you are at a loss about many things apparently.
Neither of the claims in the above statement are true.
You are being misled (perhaps deliberately?) in almost the entirety of your understanding of the process here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/22/us/politics/democratic-primary-dnc-superdelegates.html

maybe this will be of some help.

[Nanjeanne]

34. Really? Did I miss something in NY Times article that said the super delegates don't get to vote in

their state primaries? Maybe I'm wrong. I'll be happy to admit it. Please tell me the super delegates do not get to vote in a primary and ONLY vote in the convention process. Because if they vote in their primary and then also get a vote in the convention process - than 1 + 1 = 2.

But maybe I'm not as smart as you are which is why I am so apparently at a loss about so many things.

Please, by all means, educate me.

[stopdiggin]

39. you were under the impression that ORDINARY delegates

were NOT eligible to vote in their primaries?
Which is also CLEARLY incorrect .. but the only scenario where this post makes any sense at all.
I'll try not to confuse you any further ...
-- --

[Nanjeanne]

41. What are you talking about? You are telling me what impression I'm under?

I know you are so very much smarter than me. So I do need you to explain like I'm a 3 year old child. Obviously I must be. Because in my world . . .

I said democracy is 1 person/1 vote. People vote. They get 1 vote. Super delegates get 2 votes. One in the primary and one in the nomination process at the convention on the 2nd ballot. You said I'm wrong. So are you saying that the "super" delegates do not get to vote in their states' primary? Because that's the only way I can figure out how they get 1 vote and not 2. I simply can't find any indication that these people do not get to vote like everyone else in the primary.

Since I'm CLEARLY incorrect . . . please explain

[stopdiggin]

45. so essentially your argument is that there should be NO delegates

and no nomination or convention process.
Interesting. Not at all the system or the process that we are currently engaged in, but ....
I think we're on the same page now.
-- --

[Nanjeanne]

47. How many ways can you be wrong? Or tell me what I'm thinking or saying? I do believe there should

be no super delegates. But there are. And if there are 3 candidates within a few hundred differences in popular vote than perhaps there's a reason for super delegates to help figure out the winner. But even then I would stick with the super delegates voting for the candidate that won their state if there was a significant win.

But none of this has anything to do with what I originally said - which is that it isn't democratic to have one person have two votes. You said Super delegates don't get 2 votes and you attached a NY Times article about the process - which I am completely familiar with. You keep failing to tell me how they don't have two votes. And I'm the confused one?

Where did I say there should be no nomination process? I said that is what the superdelegates are basically saying. Is English not your first language? If it's not, I'm sorry. I'll try to be clearer.

[Happy Hoosier]

9. Hey Remember when Jeff Weaver....

Said he thought Bernie could win over super delegates and beat Hillary in a contested convention? I do.

Hypocrites.

[JudyM]

42. He was trying to work within the system, obvs.

[George II]

13. Weren't the rules under which the nominee is chosen, including super delegates, revised....

....based on input from Sanders in the first place?

Weren't the rules in place now already in place before any of the candidates announced their candidacy?

This is almost like a baseball player getting three strikes, turning to the umpire, and saying "I want four strikes before I'm out".

[BusyBeingBest]

14. This just fires up the Bernie people. Way to go, superdelegates.

[The Mouth]

17. If he gets the most delegates, but not a majority

and the supers decide on a different candidate, because, according to some here it means "he's not a unifying candidate", then,,

How the fuck could any other candidate claim to be a "unifying candidate".

Maybe they could claim to be "The candidate of the DNC establishment", or "The candidate of the people who don't want Bernie", but just convincing some super delegates to vote for them doesn't qualify a candidate IN THE EYES OF MYSELF OR OF *MANY* PEOPLE.

I understand well the reason for Super delegates, after the fiascoes of 1968 and 1972, but the original intent was to make the party appear unified, not to swipe the nomination from the person with the most delegates.

The super delegates *should* have to vote for whoever has the most delegates on the first ballot, being free to do whatever afterwards.

[Happy Hoosier]

20. It's about coalition building.

It's pretty simple. If no one gets enough votes to win outright, they have to demonstrate the political skill to build a winning coalition. I would support a variety of candidates other than my preferred candidate.

[The Mouth]

23. Yes, but

Coalition building is one thing, but does being selected by super delegates really equate to the same thing?

[JudyM]

44. Great post.

[LexVegas]

18. ...

[Old Terp]

22. The rules that they all agreed on (at the the insistance of Bernie)

was that you had to get the majority of delegates to get the nomination. A person of honor knows that you honor your agreements, pay your bills, support your child, and don't bilk your neighbor. We have a President like that now. We don't want another one like that.

[Jose Garcia]

25. No one can take the nomination from BS if he has a majority of delegates

[SharonClark]

46. Yep.

[C_U_L8R]

26. If Bernie doesn't like the rules, he doesn't have to be a Democrat.

Oh, wait.

[CentralMass]

28. Put me in the long line that thinks the electoral college should be eliminated

[C_U_L8R]

38. Apples and Oranges

We're talking DNC delegate rules.
And sure, everything could be improved... and that's what rules committees are for.
But Electoral College reform needs something more substantial like a Constitutional Amendment.

[msongs]

30. I thought kooky conspiracies were not allowed on du. nt

[OnDoutside]

36. Free will, Krystal, free will.

[Mike Nelson]

53. All the candidates should have been...

... aware of the rules before they entered the game - Bernie, most of all!