Guest Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 4 minutes ago, Kalbear said: I don't dispute any of it - but I don't understand the argument you're making any more. The Democratic party definitely didn't want Sanders winning the nomination, and they were terrified of not only Sanders winning but him winning with a contested convention where the choices were give in to his plurality or have a massive contest. Both would have been horrible. But from a voting perspective, Sanders never really did any better than 30%. It's certainly possible that Sanders could have won had others stayed in and the party that he said was his enemy didn't oppose him heavily, but...they were going to, and again - he never was able to broaden his voting base to get a majority of primary voters consistently. That he did even worse than he did in 2016 should be another telling point. So yes, he could have won if the party didn't get their act together and also never coalesced at any point, but that hasn't been the history of modern politics for like 50 years now. It just doesn't happen, and the reason it doesn't happen is that running a candidate who gets 30% support usually doesn't end well. I think the controversy, @The Great Unwashed, is not that this happened. It's that you assume that not doing this would have caused Sanders to win, and the implication that somehow he would have been able to get a majority of votes somehow. It would have been different, and Biden wouldn't have gotten as many delegates - but it's really not clear that Sanders would have gotten particularly more, either. South Carolina really did change the narrative a lot, and we can see from early voting what the numbers were going to be like without dropouts - and they didn't look pretty for Sanders either. I think the thing that we were all surprised about is how actually vaguely competent the DNC ended up being, and how they were able to get Klobuchar and Buttigieg (along with the Clyburn endorsement) to bend the knee so well, but the party actually putting their weight behind a couple of choices shouldn't be particularly weird. This was the real key to Obama as well - he worked hard to be the outsider, but he also worked really hard to engineer relationships with party officials and get big endorsements and not be too threatening to the system. Sanders saying outright that he was coming for the Democratic establishment wasn't going to earn him a whole lot of support. No. I did not say that. What I said, and what I have clarified numerous times since then, is not that Sanders would have fucking won. It's that Biden wouldn't have had as much fucking momentum if things had played out differently, and that the reason why things played out the way they did was because the party made a deliberate decision to block Sanders from winning the nomination by coalescing around Biden. You literally make the same fucking argument in your subsequent post to this one, so it's fucking bizarre that you're arguing with me, and the only way you're able to argue with me is by saying that I've said things I most definitely have not fucking said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.