andym
andym's Journal538 now predicts a 3 in 5 chance that no one wins on the first ballot-- caucus-like convention
1 in 4 chance for Bernie to win outright
1 in 7 chance for Biden to win outright
less than 1 in 100 chance for any of the others to win outright
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
So what happens is that to a large extent the convention will become like a caucus-- with inviable candidate thresholds etc, on subsequent ballots. There is one difference: superdelegates could play a role as well as on the second ballot there would be 764 (771?) delegates added to the pool-- which would presumably raise the threshold for winning. It might be interesting if superdelegates decided to sit out subsequent rounds, forcing the campaigns and their elected delegates to negotiate.
Updated:
1991 delegates required on first ballot
2375.5 delegates required on second ballot
source: ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/Superdelegates_and_the_2020_Democratic_National_Convention
are these numbers correct?
Two votes in my family for Liz in CA by mail today.
Hope she does well on Super Tuesday.
I never appreciated that a party's nominee is not only for President but for head of the party
if they win. Of course they do not officially hold the DNC chairmanship, but the chair of both parties almost always defers to the President of their own party.
Now it's generally, not always true. For example, when Jimmy Carter was President, it never seemed he was head of the Democratic Party as he faced quite a bit of opposition to his ideas in Congress, which was controlled by Democrats. In the end he was unsuccessfully primaried by Ted Kennedy. But Carter is the exception, LBJ was clearly both President and party chief. Trump is an extreme example for Republicans, with almost every Republican kowtowing to him.
I'm not sure that the electorate understands this dual role completely. It would be very interesting to hear what each candidate has to say about how they would lead the party at a debate. Many posts here seem to be concerned about the latter role, and how the nominee would promote down ticket races or not.
The big "Mo" in primaries has been the story in the primaries for years (right or wrongly)
That's why it was so predictable that Mayor Pete and Bernie emerged after Iowa, why Biden lost steam nationally (not as badly as Dean did in 2004, thankfully for Joe, who I think is a great candidate), why Bernie emerged as the front runner after NH, and why Bernie is going to be on a roll after Nevada (given the results we ware seeing), and why the second place finisher will call themselves the comeback "kid"-- probably Biden, and may get some serious boost.
"Mo"= momentum
President and VP acting as effective Co-Presidents?
In 1980, Ronald Reagan considered former President Ford as a potential effective co-President-- at one point the GOP convention entertained the idea of a VP who would be more like a President (Reagan/Ford).
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/25085/reagan-and-ford-considered-co-presidency-1980
[I edited this post correcting the history]
The idea originally comes from the corporate world. For example, https://www.fastcompany.com/3068272/are-co-ceos-a-great-ideaA-or-a-total-disaster
If the Democratic convention does not have a first ballot nominee this year, should the possibility of having the Democratic nominee and VP act as co-Presidents if elected to win the election and placate various wings/party interests? Of course such a scenario would have to be carefully planned as to which duties belonged to whom, and one person would still technically be the President.
Understand that technically one person would be President and the other the Vice-President, it would just be that the Vice-Presdient's role would be expanded and the President's role decreased by mutual agreement. At any time the actual President could end such a deal technically.
What's been missing as a focus of the Democratic platform for years is catalyzing financial success
by directing providing more opportunities through the market system itself. How? By creating new programs (grants/loans/education) at the Small Business Administration directed to allowing everyday middle and working class citizens to become entrepreneurs for example (even as a sideline). Making this a major focus would be both traditional and progressive.
That said the availability of free/affordable college, or night school or trade school is consistent with this goal--and that does get some focus these days from at least Sanders and Warren.
The availability of really affordable healthcare is also important for upward mobility. How can one take risks needed to create small businesses for example, if one's family lacks needed healthcare? The ACA is only a beginning here--the good news is that most of our candidates support expanding government's role--which is smart, as Elizabeth Warren emphasizes many aspects of our economy work best with a market approach, others like health care would work better with a socialized approach.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Sep 26, 2003, 10:31 PMNumber of posts: 5,443
