9th Democratic Primary Debate

[littlepotter 76,617]

42 minutes ago, Halsey said:

Yes bc it shows he’s a flippin idiot.

 

The Democratic Party nomination process requires one of two things:

1. One candidate to outrightly win over 51% of delegates, likely over 51% of the vote. This is how Hillary won.

 

2. Build a coalition of delegates from other candidates who may endorse eachother, to reach over that 51%. 
 

Either way, the process ensures that a MAJORITY of delegates back the nominee, hopefully reflecting a majority of primary voters.

 

It is ~not~ designed to just hand the nomination to a candidate with 26% of the vote. Bc that’s only a plurality, not a majority. The system is designed in the party’s best interest to test the nominee and ensure it is someone well supported. If Bernie is the leading candidate and he can pull together Warren, Biden, Buttigieg, etc delegates at the convention, then clearly he is well supported. But if every other candidate united against him than, CLEARLY, his campaign is a niche 26% socialist revolution with no broadband support among the party. This isn’t some shady thing. They’ve used this system before in the days of JFK & LBJ. Candidates likely to get less delegates like Warren and Pete aren’t going to pull some shady Bloomberg stuff. They hate him.

Would you feel the same if he earned 45% of the vote?

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

37 minutes ago, Halsey said:

Yes bc it shows he’s a flippin idiot.

 

The Democratic Party nomination process requires one of two things:

1. One candidate to outrightly win over 51% of delegates, likely over 51% of the vote. This is how Hillary won.

 

2. Build a coalition of delegates from other candidates who may endorse eachother, to reach over that 51%. 
 

Either way, the process ensures that a MAJORITY of delegates back the nominee, hopefully reflecting a majority of primary voters.

 

It is ~not~ designed to just hand the nomination to a candidate with 26% of the vote. Bc that’s only a plurality, not a majority. The system is designed in the party’s best interest to test the nominee and ensure it is someone well supported. If Bernie is the leading candidate and he can pull together Warren, Biden, Buttigieg, etc delegates at the convention, then clearly he is well supported. But if every other candidate united against him than, CLEARLY, his campaign is a niche 26% socialist revolution with no broadband support among the party. This isn’t some shady thing. They’ve used this system before in the days of JFK & LBJ. Candidates likely to get less delegates like Warren and Pete aren’t going to pull some shady Bloomberg stuff. They hate him.

Except "pulling delegates at the convention" doesn't work like that, and delegates - super and pledged, are not explicitly required to follow the votes of the people who live in X state. Superdelegates can literally just vote for whoever THEY personally want, which completely ignores the will of the people. It is designed to say "we hear you, but we want someone else" to the voters, and nothing else. It protects the establishment's power and denies power to the voters. 

That means someone could get like 1000 delegates less than someone else, but still end up the nominee if they vote unanimously, which would actually ensures that the candidate is NOT someone who has shown any ability to draw together the biggest coalition, but someone that the superdelegates personally feel comfortable with. So the superdelegates can literally cost us the election if they really want to, and yes, there are reasons they might want to, today in 2020  

It's entirely undemocratic.

That means someone like Pete could get 15% in several states with only white support and no crossover appeal, but STILL become the nominee even though hes demonstrated an inability to appeal across the aisle to anyone else It  wouldn't be enough to get you a plurality of delegates or a majority (Pete, Warren, Amy) Doing 25-30% with diverse support across the board can get you a plurality or majority of votes though. (Only Bernie, formerly Biden, Bloomberg are in this camp, and increasingly Just Bernie day by day)

Biden and Warren supporters all name Bernie as their second choice, a majority of them, and they have for several months.

However, it doesn't mean that the majority of their delegates would just "go" to Bernie at the convention. It's entirely possible that Michael Bloomberg or someone else could "get" the delegates of Biden, Warren, etc, even if their supporters are very opposed to and would not vote for Bloomberg. If they were forced to back who the voters would want in a "your candidate is no longer viable" situation, then all data indicates Bernie would have the majority of the electorate on top of a plurality of delegates pledged.

They would be ignoring this and changing it to support someone who has no chance of a majority, whereas Bernie is the only one who could get there at this point.

So even then, we have a situation where the superdelegate chosen candidate again does not have the plurality of delegates OR a majority of support, just the individual delegates who are not really elected representatives of their home states or anything in the first place.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

8 hours ago, SKANK said:

 

I appreciate the length and thought you put into your posts, but I don't think you are replying to my question.

Did Bernie Sanders argue in 2016 that superdelegates ought to pledge their support to Sanders over Clinton, not just because of the pledge delegate issue you laid out, but in part because he could defeat Donald Trump?

 

Yes. I already conceded that in my first post lol. And then I said how its not the same as what the candidates are doing right now. Specifically to this point, there argument was essentially "I'm okay with them overriding the will of the voters if it means I win" - Sanders at that point in 2016 still could have been the winner by some or multiple metrics, so his argument was not "i lost, but pick me because i have a better chance" it was "I very well might win, so you shouldn't pick someone else first and alienate voters will"

[BUtterfield 8 41,822]

I fully believe warren is the only one who could take Donald on the one on one debates 

 

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

12 hours ago, Lilmonzter said:

Yep 

She was pretty good

We all want to see a white POC sit on the iron throne 

Truly

Are you Native American? If not, your opinion is irrelevant here. 

[Lilmonzter 2,864]

1 minute ago, TheQueenLG said:

Are you Native American? If not, your opinion is irrelevant here. 

You are nobody to question the legitimacy of my opinion 

As long as there's free speech I'll keep on making a point to call out people who claim to be Person of Colour as I am a person of Colour. 

It irrelevant for you or anybody else to question my  heritage 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

The situation with super delegates last time was very different. 1. There's obviously the fact that last time they voted on the first ballot and not the second. But additionally, unless you were watching in 2016, you can't attest to the media coverage and how the race was covered. The media included the super delegates in the delegate total from the beginning, making it seem like Bernie had no chance to win at all. So the framing of that entire election is so different compared to this cycle. 

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

Just now, Lilmonzter said:

You are nobody to question the legitimacy of my opinion 

As long as there's free speech I'll keep on making a point to call out people who claim to be Person of Colour as I am a person of Colour. 

It irrelevant for you or anybody else to question my  heritage 

You can continue to make your point, but that doesn't make it any more relevant. Nearly all of the criticism of Warren regarding Native ancestry comes from white people. It was a completely legitimate question. 

I would compare criticisms of Warren due to Native ancestry to criticisms of Bernie due to socialism. They're both disingenuous and unproductive. 

[Henri Bardot 3,990]

warren still exists? lol

[Lilmonzter 2,864]

2 minutes ago, TheQueenLG said:

You can continue to make your point, but that doesn't make it any more relevant. Nearly all of the criticism of Warren regarding Native ancestry comes from white people. It was a completely legitimate question. 

I would compare criticisms of Warren due to Native ancestry to criticisms of Bernie due to socialism. They're both disingenuous and unproductive. 

Oh please socialism is a far cry from claiming to be a Person of Colour 

And top that Warren did a dna test which proved what she one in thousandth native American?  Seriously! 

That's going to fodder for trump in general election and she quite calculating and conniving and if she was really so good at that, I'd be okay especially if she runs against trump. But she isn't. It's quite transparent and people see through it. At this point I frankly don't see Warren recovering. 

I think it's extremely since she hasn'treally addressed the her heritage issue and questions relating to that. If anyone brings it up she gets quite defensive and flighty. 

And to think she used to be my second choice. Good grief😑

And to clarify Bernie has always maintained he's a democratic socialist.

[HorusRa2 5,005]

13 minutes ago, TheQueenLG said:

You can continue to make your point, but that doesn't make it any more relevant. Nearly all of the criticism of Warren regarding Native ancestry comes from white people. It was a completely legitimate question. 

I would compare criticisms of Warren due to Native ancestry to criticisms of Bernie due to socialism. They're both disingenuous and unproductive. 

You are comparing apples to oranges. Warren's comments about her ancestry are comments she made that were false. The criticisms about Bernie a la socialism is a misconstrued and twisted narrative from outside sources concerning Bernie Sanders. It's very clear to anyone who understands what socialism is, and the media would do well to look that up, and how that differs from Bernie's self-identification as a democratic-socialist and his policy agenda (social-democracy). 

The two are not the same. 

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

6 minutes ago, Lilmonzter said:

Oh please socialism is a far cry from claiming to be a Person of Colour 

And top that Warren did a dna test which proved what she one in thousandth native American?  Seriously! 

That's going to fodder for trump in general election and she quite calculating and conniving and if she was really so good at that, I'd be okay especially if she runs against trump. But she isn't. It's quite transparent and people see through it. At this point I frankly don't see Warren recovering. 

I think it's extremely since she hasn'treally addressed the her heritage issue and questions relating to that. If anyone brings it up she gets quite defensive and flighty. 

And to think she used to be my second choice. Good grief😑

And to clarify Bernie has always maintained he's a democratic socialist.

All that I am saying is that Bernie will be harassed about being a socialist and Warren will be harassed about not be a Native American. Moreover, Warren is stronger than Bernie in a few ways, while Bernie is stronger than Warren in many ways. They're both good candidates who will have disingenuous attacks hurled at them if they advance. 

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

Just now, HorusRa2 said:

You are comparing apples to oranges. Warren's comments about her ancestry are comments she made that were false. The criticisms about Bernie a la socialism is a misconstrued and twisted narrative from outside sources concerning Bernie Sanders. It's very clear to anyone who understands what socialism is, and the media would do well to look that up, and how that differs from Bernie's self-identification as a democratic-socialist and his policy agenda (social-democracy). 

The two are not the same. 

I think that you're right in terms of the comparison I made. While both issues would certainly garner criticism, Warren's issue with her ancestry is less veracious. 

Democratic socialism is false-branding on Bernie's part. He should be calling himself a social democrat as that is more accurate. I'm still confused today that this is the hill he chose to die on. I, personally, am ready to accept the fact that Bernie has falsely labelled himself, but many will latch onto the 'democratic socialist' label and hurl unwarranted and disingenuous criticisms at him. 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

14 minutes ago, TheQueenLG said:

I think that you're right in terms of the comparison I made. While both issues would certainly garner criticism, Warren's issue with her ancestry is less veracious. 

Democratic socialism is false-branding on Bernie's part. He should be calling himself a social democrat as that is more accurate. I'm still confused today that this is the hill he chose to die on. I, personally, am ready to accept the fact that Bernie has falsely labelled himself, but many will latch onto the 'democratic socialist' label and hurl unwarranted and disingenuous criticisms at him. 

This is purely anecdotal and just my interpretation of this but I think Bernie clings to that identification because of MLK. He quotes him often, was part of the civil rights movement alongside MLK and many others. I think it mostly stems from the quote below. I don't think it's so much of a false-branding so much as that he identified with the beliefs of MLK so strongly that he's unwilling to let that go. 

“Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.”

[Lilmonzter 2,864]

5 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

 

“Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.”

Amen to this.