Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kalbear

US Politics: Pandemic Political Petard

Recommended Posts

Just now, Simon Steele said:

the NYT as a source over you seems pretty legit. 

All superdelegates are worth 16.2% of the overall delegates - on the second ballot.  That's 771.  The reporter interviewed 93, which is 12 percent of the 16 percent.  You are whining about nothing because a NYT article told you to.  That's the reality.  Deal with it as you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DMC said:

All superdelegates are worth 16.2% of the overall delegates - on the second ballot.  That's 771.  The reporter interviewed 93, which is 12 percent of the 16 percent.  You are whining about nothing because a NYT article told you to.  That's the reality.  Deal with it as you will.

You seem to be upset because someone doesn't find your analysis to be sacrosanct. I'm sure some people listen to things you say, don't feel bad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they really did pull some fuckery with the super delegates they'd be knowingly throwing the election to Trump and I'm still naive enough to think that wouldn't work well for them in the long run.

I think it's very unlikely to happen as long as Sanders has the clear lead, which if those 538 projections of super Tuesday pan out then he will.

So sure, make some noise as a warning to the party not to pull some stupid shit, but Simon I think you know me well enough to know where I'd stand on that divide and I don't think its worth fighting with people here over. Part of building the coalition after the primary is over is going to rely on pulling a lot more people onto the same page, I think some symbolic peace offerings ahead of time are a worthwhile investment. I think DMC for example would be just as on board with black balling any party officials that actually pulled such a stunt. One of the better deterrents is the idea of retribution even from within the wider DNC establishment.

Ie use their self interest to keep them in line.

Edited by karaddin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

You seem to be upset because someone doesn't find your analysis to be sacrosanct.

Nah it's just because superdelegate talk is one of my bugaboos.  Along with having sex with old ladies for money or bear traps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DMC said:

Ah, great, The Intercept publishes some bullshit article based on a single superdelegate to make a mountain out of a molehill.  Totally unlike them.  They have cornered the market on hipster neckbeards.

In general, can we please stop with the superdelegate bullshit?  Pretty please?  Like Michael told Carlo at the end of 1, it insults my intelligence.

They're not talking about a single superdelegate. Two are specifically named (Owen and Dodd) and they reference several more who are lobbyists for powerful interests. Whether or not superdelegates end up coming into play, it's beyond unseemly for the Democratic Party to have these people in the positions of power they're in, and that fact exposes something about the state of the party. 

And can we please stop with with petty broadsides like "hipster neckbeard" when someone presents you with an alternative angle from an outlet you dislike? Pretty please? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic of pluralities: I live in a country where the system rewards parties who win a plurality with total power. I've seen my country fucked over time and time again by governments that the majority of the country really did not want, but who got the power to do whatever they wanted anyway. Boris Johnson is the latest example. 

So the reflexive and sometimes insistent protests by Sanders supporters that a plurality is all he needs to be declared the winner and that to be opposed to that will somehow kill off democracy ring rather hollow to me. I'm sorry, but the opposite is true. Handing power to someone who can't win a majority is anti-democratic. 

Sanders supporters need to stop worrying about brokered conventions and superdelegates and start working to win him a majority. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

On Warren taking heat from Sanders supporters, and Sanders reversing his 2016 position, it is more nuanced than most of the rhetoric flying around.  Sanders and his campaign did NOT write the current rules, they pushed for no super delegates when the rules were hammered out in 2018.

Yeah, in 2016 Sanders tried to use every possible rule to get the nomination, particularly asking superdelegates from states that he'd won to back him.  Now he's saying the candidate who gets the most pledged delegates should be approved by the super delegates *whether or not they have the magic number.  Which is what he fought for in the rules changes unsuccessfully in 2018.  

From what I've seen, it's Warren's characterization of Sanders "writing the rules" or "helping write the rules" that Sanders' supporters are taking issue with.

Everyone loses with a brokered convention, and it's shitty that people encouraging primarying a progressive like Warren.  But she did twist a complicated scenario to make Sanders look like hypocrite answering that douche at the townhall and that's what triggered the response.  The Warren/Sanders in fighting is fucking stupid but I really think it's a very small portion of both their crowds pushing this stuff.   That's gonna happen when there a few million people involved.

 

But Sanders does look like a hypocrite simply because he was for a set of rules when it looked like it would help him, and now he’s against those rules when they would halt him.  The defense of going after Warren based on the technicality and nuance regarding writing the rules you mention rings hollow and looks more like post-justification for being angry with her for acknowledging Sanders’ Own reversal.

The hypocrisy- and it is hypocrisy whether he did the rule writing or not- is a truly terrible look for someone so purportedly concerned with fairness.  I don’t care at all about nearly any of the supposedly damaging stories about his past affection for dictators or anything like that type of oppo, but this is actually something I think is really revealing and shitty about his character.  Let me complain about the rules that don’t serve my personal interests by undermining confidence in the system, then make the opposite complaints when it personally benefits me.

Edited by butterbumps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

But Sanders does look like a hypocrite simply because he was for a set of rules when it looked like it would help him, and now he’s against those rules when they would halt him.  The defense of going after Warren based on the technicality and nuance regarding writing the rules you mention rings extremely hollow and looks more like post-justification for being angry with her for acknowledging Sanders’ Own reversal.

The hypocrisy- and it is hypocrisy whether he did the rule writing or not- is a truly terrible look for someone so purportedly concerned with fairness.  I don’t care at all about nearly any of the supposedly damaging stories about his past affection for dictators or anything like that type of oppo, but this is actually something I think is really revealing and shitty about his character.  Let me complain about the rules that don’t serve my personal interests by undermining confidence in the system, then make the opposite complaints when it personally benefits me.

It's not - it's doing whatever you can with rules that you think are unfair to win.  For both of them.

Warren did the exact same thing - they've both changed their positions when it benefits them on this.  In 2016 she didn't believe in super delegates even though she is one, and that they should be eliminated.  Now she supports them.  I don't think that's hypocrisy - trying to win with what rules are available - and since the rules have changed since 2016 it's not really the same situation for either of them.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/04/elizabeth-warren-superdelegates-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton

I think it's stupid to attack either of them on their stance on DNC delegate allocation. 

 

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

It's not - it's doing whatever you can with rules that you think are unfair to win.  For both of them.

Warren did the exact same thing - they've both changed their positions when it benefits them on this.  In 2016 she didn't believe in super delegates even though she is one, and that they should be eliminated.  Now she supports them.  I don't think that's hypocrisy - trying to win with what rules are available - and since the rules have changed since 2016 it's not really the same situation for either of them.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/04/elizabeth-warren-superdelegates-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton

I think it's stupid to attack either of them on their stance on DNC delegate allocation. 

 

Correct me if I’m wrong- I think you’re pointing out that she favored eliminating superdelegates in 2016, but supports them now, and that this is equivalent to Sanders changing his position too.   But isn’t her support of them now in order to avoid a plurality?   In 2016, Clinton had secured a majority of votes without even bringing superdelegates into the mix.   Sanders wanted them to supersede her majority, while Warren argued that supers shouldn’t exist to do such a thing, right?  Isn’t her position now that the nominee should be someone who has a majority and not a plurality?

That’s really the issue I’m seeing- Sanders wanted to use a mechanism to snatch a majority away from his former opponent, and in 2020 wants to eliminate that mechanism so that he can secure the nom with a mere plurality.

To be clear, the issue I’m having is that this is a very bad look for Sanders, as it makes him seem whiny and inclined to rig things in his own personal favor.  I also don’t see Warren’s positions on this to be nearly so self serving- she wasn’t running in 2016, and I don’t see how it would ever help her in 2020.

FWIW, I agree with Mormont above that we should be really cautious about plurality candidates getting power regardless of which candidate.

Edited by butterbumps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Biden may yet arrest his slide and have a blowout win in SC. I thought that elite endorsements didnt matter anymore, but it may be that the AA community still takes some cues from stalwarts such as Clyburn.

Biden may still not be the nominee, but this may extend the process a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Correct me if I’m wrong- I think you’re pointing out that she favored eliminating superdelegates in 2016, but supports them now, and that this is equivalent to Sanders changing his position too.   But isn’t her support of them now in order to avoid a plurality?   In 2016, Clinton had secured a majority of votes without even bringing superdelegates into the mix.   Sanders wanted them to supersede her majority, while Warren argued that supers shouldn’t exist to do such a thing, right?  Isn’t her position now that the nominee should be someone who has a majority and not a plurality?

That’s really the issue I’m seeing- Sanders wanted to use a mechanism to snatch a majority away from his former opponent, and in 2020 wants to eliminate that mechanism so that he can secure the nom with a mere plurality.

To be clear, the issue I’m having is that this is a very bad look for Sanders, as it makes him seem whiny and inclined to rig things in his own personal favor.  I also don’t see Warren’s positions on this to be nearly so self serving- she wasn’t running in 2016, and I don’t see how it would ever help her in 2020.

FWIW, I agree with Mormont above that we should be really cautious about plurality candidates getting power regardless of which candidate.

I don't think it's a bad look - Sanders has hardly been making any noise about this, he answered a couple debate questions about it.  He's been against super delegates the entire time.  Why not use that opportunity to make an appeal to popular support?  On top of the that, the fact that none of the other candidates said the leading candidate should be the nominee shows you that none of them think they have a realistic chance of attaining that.  Sniping at each other over thoughts on the nomination process isn't going to have any positive consequences.  

Re:bolded: what does this mean, in practice?  Whomever comes out of the convention, by whatever mechanism, is likely not to have a majority behind them.  Sanders is probabaly the only candidate with a chance for that.  So do we cautiously support the nominee?  With the current system, unless the primary season starts with only two candidates a majority is unlikely.

If Sanders goes into the convention with 35-40% of pledged delegates and the next closest is say Biden or Buttigieg with 15-20%, how fair would a brokered convention be?  What should we be cautious about and how? 

The only ways to avoid a plurality candidate are to have a very small initial field, or to change the rules in each state and at the convention.  Having superdelegates vote on a second ballot isn't anymore democratic that giving a candidate with 40% support the nom.  Either way you get a plurality candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the endgame arriving?

Super Tuesday on our doorstep?

Quit shooting down other Dem candidates.

Unless you believe the Dem candidate you're against is worse for the country than President DJT. (Can't help you if you think that)

Because fairly soon you may have to vote for a Dem candidate you don't like, or be part of what allowed Pres. DJT to get a second term.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, it's all about the margins. If Sanders has, say, 45% of the pledged delegates, and no one else has more than 20%, he should absolutely be the nominee. It would destroy the party to do otherwise.

But if its something like Sanders has 41%, Biden has 40%, and the rest have various amounts that add up to 19%, I don't see anything wrong with superdelegates making Biden the nominee if they feel he's the best choice. Superdelegates exist to be a check and balance, and a 1% difference between a plurality winner and the second-place finisher is essentially meaningless.

Above all though, I don't think it makes sense to get worked up over hypotheticals like this yet. Not when we have so many more immediate problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

They're not talking about a single superdelegate. Two are specifically named (Owen and Dodd) and they reference several more who are lobbyists for powerful interests. Whether or not superdelegates end up coming into play, it's beyond unseemly for the Democratic Party to have these people in the positions of power they're in, and that fact exposes something about the state of the party. 

What positions of power are they in?  What power have they expressed other than what the media is willing to craft upon them?  You're right, the article you linked mentioned 2, not 1, but please pull the quote from the Intercept or the NYT pieces where anyone explicitly states there's an effort to deny Bernie the nomination if he gets a substantial plurality.  You can't, instead we get this as the "ominous warning":

Quote

Bloomberg, notably, has discussed efforts to poach delegates from other more moderate candidates to bring together an anti-Sanders coalition. In January, his campaign hired Alexandra Rooker, a superdelegate from California, as an adviser. Michael Nutter, the former Philadelphia mayor and DNC superdelegate, is a co-chair of the Bloomberg campaign. FEC disclosures show Nutter has been paid at least $45,000 by the Bloomberg campaign.

Owen told the Times he has been in contact with multiple campaigns. Owen floated the name of Michelle Obama as a potential running mate to bring the party together. Other superdelegates, according to the Times, are floating moderate lawmakers such as Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., or Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., as potential unity candidates to lead the ticket. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, a popular progressive lawmaker, has also been floated as a unity candidate. 

My lord, Bloomberg employs Michael Nutter - and is paying him for it!  And Owen is actively trying to prevent Sanders from getting the nomination.  How dare an activist act!

Even with the NYT article, there's no one there saying there's any vast moderate-wing conspiracy to deny Sanders the nomination.  It's just a majority (probably very large majority) of 93 superdelegates Lerer talked to are worried about Sanders.  It'd be like if I interviewed Fez, Kal, Jace, Bird, Ty, Maith, Mexal, Mlle, butters, etc. and was like "many of the substantive contributors in these threads do not want Sanders as the nominee......so, shenanigans!"  What shenanigans?  We can't express our misgivings when people ask?  That's fundamentally different than trying to deny the popularly elected winner of the nomination.  Which, again, isn't going to happen not just because it's wrong, but because it's self-defeating and against these peoples' own interests.

4 hours ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

And can we please stop with with petty broadsides like "hipster neckbeard" when someone presents you with an alternative angle from an outlet you dislike? Pretty please? 

No.  Hipster neckbeards must die a slow and painful death, it is for the greater good of society.  Scahill should be the first - shaved off by Bill Maher while he cackles obnoxiously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've already started buffering for Bernie, just in case.

If you have someone around you that doesn't like Bernie because of socialism, but despises Trump, remind them Bernie can't do shit without the senate anyways.

So they can kick out Trump, without worrying about Bernie enforcing his "evil socialism" upon them.

Edited by A True Kaniggit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news...

I turned on CNBC about 15 minutes ago and in those few minutes the Dow Futures have shown the market opening down 400 to down 505.

Damn, some stock prices are looking mighty tempting already. But beware! Beware! Beware the the falling knife! Do not catch a falling knife!

Oops! Down 550. Market opens in 14 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

In other news...

I turned on CNBC about 15 minutes ago and in those few minutes the Dow Futures have shown the market opening down 400 to down 505.

Damn, some stock prices are looking mighty tempting already. But beware! Beware! Beware the the falling knife! Do not catch a falling knife!

Oops! Down 550. Market opens in 14 minutes.

Sounds like you're quoting the Raven.

(But people have been shitting on birds lately :blush:)

 

p.s.: I better reread the raven. I may have misfired on that reference.

Edited by A True Kaniggit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Re:bolded: what does this mean, in practice?  Whomever comes out of the convention, by whatever mechanism, is likely not to have a majority behind them.  Sanders is probabaly the only candidate with a chance for that.  So do we cautiously support the nominee?  With the current system, unless the primary season starts with only two candidates a majority is unlikely.

If Sanders goes into the convention with 35-40% of pledged delegates and the next closest is say Biden or Buttigieg with 15-20%, how fair would a brokered convention be?  What should we be cautious about and how? 

The only ways to avoid a plurality candidate are to have a very small initial field, or to change the rules in each state and at the convention.  Having superdelegates vote on a second ballot isn't anymore democratic that giving a candidate with 40% support the nom.  Either way you get a plurality candidate.

No, there are other ways, and in fact as far as I understand the usual way is still open to Sanders. Persuade other candidates to throw their weight behind him. To some extent this will happen naturally as candidates drop out after concluding that they can't win. But to a greater extent, it places a burden on Sanders to do things his supporters might not like: to build bridges within the party. Offer policy concessions. Be a politician. Unite the party behind him, instead of demanding that they fall into line based on 40% support. Win those battles and Sanders will be in a more powerful position and have a majority too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uniting behind a candidate is a two way street.  Everyone understands that your candidate isn't always 100% going to match your preferences.  You need to accept certain differences of opinion and style.  Some people are prepared to be more flexible than others, but amongst boarders here, virtually every single Sanders-skeptic has expressed that they will support him in the general.

But the frontrunning cnadiate also needs to make it easier to invite people on board.  Like reaching out to other candidates for their support, building bridges between your contituency and theirs, moderating your language to fit the audience, etc.  Sanders is doing a little bit of this - his stump speech has more anti-Trump, pro-unity stuff than it used to.  But Sanders still has a lot of work to do here to make sure that everyone feels welcome in his tent.  His political style has been a lot more bomb throwing than bridge building, so it remains to be seen whether he can pull it off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...