does not make one a winner.

If it is something like 45%, it would be suicide for the delegates to nominate someone else.

Sure, if he is slightly below 50% he has to get the nomination, but if he has something like 25-35%, then it's Let's Make a Deal.

If he's under 40 then there's a mandate for "someone else." If he's within a few points, and nearly half of voters want him, then we must go that direction.

If the rules for 2020 had been in play in 2016, Hillary still would had won the nomination. She had over 100 more than 50 percent if using 2020 rules for the first ballot without including the automatic delegates.

Clinton topped a brokered ticket if the Convention turns into a lock with no clear winner. I wouldn't mind seeing Kamela Harris, Julien Castro, Cory Booker or any of the candidates as part of the ticket or in a Democratic Cabinet.

I wouldn't consider it a lock at the convention just because nobody had the majority on the 1st or even 2nd ballot. There is enough time yet for other candidates to drop out and allow a better chance to win at least by the 2nd ballot if not first.

The nominee could be decided based on who they agree to have as their running mate. It could be one of the other candidates currently still in the mix or someone else. It could be based on which state the VP nominee lives and other conditions.

I'm afraid there is no popular enough second choice to take the nomination in however many ballots they run. I think I also wouldn't mind John Kerry in a locked Convention.

states we must win. I love Hillary but no.

majority would be to have a national primary runoff.

I would NOT bet on Sanders' chances of winning if he faced just one moderate candidate in that runoff.

I believe he'd be crushed.

And he and his followers would STILL whine that it wasn't fair.

We don't have plans for a national runoff, though.

In lieu of that, with superdelegates voting, they SHOULD consider voters' preferences.

And that should foremost include the will of the majority of the people who voted against the candidate who tries to claim victory without having a majority of the votes.

What the poll you cite shows today doesn't mean anything. Though I'm sure Sanders and his supporters will wave it in superdelegates' faces if the superdelegates get to vote.

It's painfully obvious that Sanders and his supporters would like to freeze the primary race now, crown him the front-runner and presumed nominee, and insist everyone fall in line. Or #bendtheknee as some Sanders supporters on Twitter are demanding.

That won't happen.

Yes, I do hope Sanders and his supporters let the superdelegates know that head-to-head polls like this one show that Bernie is the choice of voters. It's important information. Especially since the media keep pushing the "75% against Bernie" fiction.

Example:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287255967

If Sanders can get a majority of delegates, I'll accept him as the nominee, unpleasant as it would be -- unpleasant as he is -- and vote for him.

If he doesn't have that majority, then he has to play by the rules.

No one forced him to try to use the Democratic Party for a presidential run when he knew he'd have had zero chance as an independent.

He wants to run in our party, he can play by our rules.

Last edited Thu Feb 20, 2020, 11:47 AM - Edit history (1)

Especially since the media keep pushing the "75% against Bernie" fiction.

But false assumptions are par for the course around here.

Tuesday so you can get the votes if her supporters are willing to support him after he stabbed her in the back. As for the other candidates whom I believe will also be winnowed...they are moderates and their voters won't support Sanders. We want to win a General. I will vote for Sanders in a General but I see no chance that he wins. We are between a rock and a hard place because it looks like it will come down to Wisconsin which is tough for us unless we have a moderate who maybe could take another state besides those we took in 16. Sander is not the guy to do that.

The “two person race” narrative is what’s false.

It is NOT a two person race. Even though Biden, for example, is fifth in total delegates won, we’re still only two contests in. He has as much rights to the nomination as Sanders does, as neither has the 1,991 needed.

Just about everyone who has gotten out so far did so because of money issues—they didn’t have enough to feasibly move forward. The ones still in don’t have that problem as yet, which is why no matter what kind of “inevitability” vibe Sanders tries to exude, he will still have to deal with ALL of Buttegeig, Bloomberg, Klobuchar, Warren AND Biden at least through Super Tuesday...

...that in a 2-person race, Sanders would only get 25%.

You also can’t “imply” that everyone in the 75% would have chosen Bernie. Maybe they stay home? We just don’t know.

Anyway, this isn’t a ONE person race either. This isn’t Russia. At least not YET...

It's clearly the implication whether you realize it or not.

If Bernie pulls 25% of the vote...if ANYONE pulls 25%, that means the remaining 75% of the electorate voted for SOMEONE ELSE. It is simple math. No implications necessary. It is just fact. Please try not to take this personally; it just is what it is.

You can argue about second and third choices after the fact until the Sun blows out, but those numbers will not change.

Where are the "85% chose someone else" posts in regard to other candidates?

That you're seriously arguing against what is an obvious implication is hysterical, which is why I'm continuing to play along.

It’s why you need to pull at least 15% to be awarded any delegates. And why you need 1,991 of them to get the nomination.

Bernie himself understood that in 2016. When he was behind. Now that he’s ahead every other candidate is now supposed to just hand him the nomination by virtue of having a plurality—when a MAJORITY is what’s needed. What changed?

1) It gives them more ownership in the process and thereby involvement in getting the nominee elected as President.

2) The automatic delegates are more in the know and have a better feel of what is happening both at the state and national level. Some of those automatic delegates are also Governors of states as well as state party chairs. They have access to polling data and other info not available to the elected delegates. They are also in contact with nearly 700 other DNC members.

Back to the rest of your post.
True, but there never will be a national runoff of course.
True, Sanders chance relies on splintered opposition.
True, just saw whining about last nite and they posted something from Marianne Williamson of all people talking about he should win even if it is only a plurality.
And your last two statements combined. True. If we want to win we need to galvanized and coalesce enough supporters against Trump. If there were only 2 candidates in the primaries, the winner is not likely Sanders.

That is pure egotism.

He should have dropped out when he had the heart attack. His minions might have at least accepted that reason instead of going to war with the Democratic Party again.

a tantrum and refuse to vote or vote for another party.

As some are already threatening to do.

I'm tired of seeing the party blackmailed.

have a better plan for pulling the party together than calling people derogatory names.

who are throwing the tantrums and doing the blackmailing.

I wish I could be confident that those throwing the tantrums and doing the blackmailing could be civil and act like adults.

But judging by the tweets I've been seeing from Sanders supporters and the threats being made, it's hard to have such confidence in them.

narrative. I can't imagine anything stupider than candidates attacking the supporters of another candidate if we're hoping to bring the party together.

You're right, you're just someone posting on a message board. You are free to say what you want, and none of the candidates or the DNC or anyone else should be held responsible for your actions. The same goes, of course, for the so-called "Bernie Bros" with their rude tweets. Those are also just people posting things on the internet, obviously Bernie isn't responsible for any of that either.

isn't a Sanders supporter knows it.

I'm not the one threatening not to vote or to vote third party.

Some Sanders supporters are.

If you don't like Democrats responding to their tantrums, threats and blackmail, then try to reason with them.

Well, highly paid TV commentators who think that getting rude tweets is the worst indignity that a human can suffer. And people who oppose Bernie's progressive policy agenda hop on the "Bernie Bro" train too.

Hardly "everyone".

won't go away.

The media bashing Bernie with all kinds of false talking points is a constant, we all know that.

And Bernie's still been rising in the polls, nevertheless.

And you'll keep pretending it's real, nevertheless.

...my preferred candidate can't amass the required number of delegates to win the nomination -- are you saying that you Sanders supporters won't do the same?

But, I can imagine some centrist Bloomberg supporters might not vote for Bernie. I can imagine some lefty Bernie supporters might not vote for Bloomberg. IMO, the best way to make sure the party is united behind the nominee, would be to respect the will of the primary electorate. Regardless of who gets the most pledged delegates.

...as is required by the rules. If Sanders has the most delegates and can convince enough of the other candidates to pledge him their delegates in exchange for whatever concessions, then so be it. If not, so be it. Sanders knew the rules coming into this given that he helped write them. If he is now worrying that he won't be able to amass a majority of delegates outright, maybe he and his supporters shouldn't have been shitting on all the other Democratic candidates this entire time.

The former a lesser risk than the latter... imo.

It will most likely be Biden or whoever best represents the "moderate" wing of the party.

Cop out, but in their defense it was a push poll constrained and question designed to polarize by providing limited options as answer choices.

Of course! That is why he is the problem and not the solution. Is everyone supposed to surrender due to Bernie's threats?

So there's that.

She was like Ali dancing around the ring last night.

when he waited until the last minute before stumping for Hillary to save face.

at rallies.

Perhaps you have a link to where she did?

smh

Actions speak louder than words. Him hiring Nina Turner to be a top surrogate is a decision he personally made to give a person who helped drumpf win by actively campaigning against Hillary is a total perfidy on his part and shows what a fiction he's promoting. Yeah, he wants unity when it comes to supporting him and otherwise wants to burn it down. This is shown by his selection of this top - TOP - surrogates and campaign managers who worked for Jill Stein and helped with Hillary's elector college loss. Even his wife pushed the OK to not vote for Hillary meme in 2016 - which by itself should be disqualifying in my book.

(since we're merely trading bumper stickers, wishes and pretty packaging. Again.)

rules everyone agreed to when they entered the race.

It's not a schoolyard level retort.

A schoolyard level retort would be to demand that someone take a win away from someone else who had overwhelming lead in points in a contest, and award it to them.

that the person with a majority, not the most, of delegates wins.

to determine which candidate gets a majority.

unfortunately super delegates are in the rules. You can't say that the rules should be followed for somethings but not for others.

Rules v process.

a majority of delegates.

And if you ever wonder why I see little more than a convenient, stand-up salad-bar of situational ethics with you and yours, we can point to this as Accurate Example #422.

Playing by the rules is the opposite of a rigged system. Yes, it would fracture the party but I would argue we are already there and having nothing to lose at this point. Fighting to win until the bitter end is what Bernie's supporters would want him to do so it should be no surprise to anyone if we all want to fight to the end.

Biden, Warren and Klobuchar split the other 60% evenly, that means a majority, 60%, prefer someone other than Bernie. It is just as true that 80% prefer someone other than each of the other three. There is no presumptive winner and that, as I think you understand, was the question last evening: is a plurality as as decisive as a majority?

Everyone on the stage knew the correct answer---except Bernie. Of interest also is that, in 2016, when it appeared Hillary might only have a plurality of convention delegates, Bernie's position was just the OPPOSITE of what he said last night.

As I have said before... I will follow our party leaders on this one. If Sanders doesn't make 50% + 1, its up to the Automatic Delegates. I trust Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and all other party leaders to make the right choice in who will face off against Trump.

speak,he can't be the nominee...70 % or more would oppose his candidacy. He wanted the rule change and fought for it because he believed it would benefit him...in a wonder 'karma is a bitch' world, I appears it might not benefit him...too bad so sad.

If you can't get the majority of delegates, you don't win. It's that simple.

But frankly, I find this argument coming form the Sanders camp freakin' LAUGHABLE after Sander's behavior in 2016.

I've had it up to my eyeballs with situational indignance.

The small-d democratic outcome is for whoever has more votes/pledged delegates to get the nomination. If Bernie has, say, 35% and someone else has, say, 25%, what possible rationale would there be to give the nomination to the 25% person instead of the 35% person?

... can build a coalition with other candidates to get the support of their delegates, I'd say that kind of coalition building demonstrates the kind of leadership it takes to lead the party and be President. I sure as hell don't want a banner-bearer who is unable to construct that kind of coalition.

FWIW, it's why I think we need a MUCH revised primary system that uses ranked choice voting.

Combine this with a national primary and we’ll REALLY have something...

Seriously -

I do not believe he will have enough in either popularity or delegates at the Convention. He's not inevitable. This race is wide open and America has never been in this space/place before.

We can't look to other elections - as those occurred when our Constitution and Federal Republic were intact.

I'm very fearful of what America has become, and what the next steps are in our demise.

My hope is that if what Sanders said is true - he gets out there and says: Look supporters. It wasn't good enough. It's time to move on. America is on a precipice of absolute destruction if we don't rid ourselves of Trump now.

And - I believe he will . . . if he doesn't have enough.

It's really not that difficult.

Sid

It really ISN’T that hard...