[OFFICIAL] Potential Dem brokered covention thread

It depends on the totals. If it's like 45% Bernie and 5-10% Warren, then certainly. But if your final tally of delegates and popular vote is something like:

Bernie - 35%
Biden - 25%
Bloomberg - 20%
Pete - 15%
Warren - 5%

Did the constituents really want Bernie? I would argue 60% probably really didn't want him.

Or what if Bernie does well through Super Tuesday, but then the anti-Bernie vote coaelsces around 1 person, and Bernie loses most of the last 10-15 states?

This is going to get really complex, and a lot depends on the details of how the race plays out and how dominant Bernie is. Superdelegates overriding a clear choice would be a problem, but they can only really do that if the vote is really up in the air after the first ballot. They won't override a clear favorite. But they also have their own interests at heart. The Texas Democratic Party, for example, is trying to win the state house. They know they have no shot with Bernie, so their superdelegates' self-interest is likely in avoiding that scenario.

 

How exactly is the party acting like dictators?

 

The "Blue no matter who" crowd has another one of their secret, closed-cage meetings:

 

SamFisher used guilt-trip on unemployed Midwesterner!

It's not very effective.

 

Kinda my line of thinking though I end up at the opposite conclusion, lol. DNC is a private organization. I don't look to them to deliver me democracy. The general election is democracy. The primaries are a process parties use to decide what candidate to run. I'm not a member of any party, but they ask my opinion of who they should run. I'll tell them, but I won't be offended if they don't take my advice or the advice of the majority. They're a party and they should run their process as they built it. If they're foolish about it, they'll pay the price in the general election. If they persist in foolishness, some other party will rise up and take their place in the political landscape. It's all the same to me.

 

Cynical Centrist Blue Dogs triangulate as they conspire to sell out the unemployed Midwesterners in Diner country.

 

I understand that argument but if you apply your logic to the private sector, you wouldn't be advocating fr the same, right? You wouldn't agree on a monopoly controlling an entire sector of commerce. Currently, public representation of our government has two monopolies. Only two people from two separate parties will have any shot at winning the general election. If only two private organizations control who we can vote for president and the overwhelmingly vast majority of our legislators along with the only two private organizations that get to chose who gets federal judge appointments, yes I do believe at the very least these two private organizations should be held responsible for holding up to the principles of the Constitution.

 

What principle of the Constitution is the Dem party not holding up?

Even the Constitution is opposed to pluralities winning. If neither candidate gets a majority in the electoral college, they specifically don't go with a plurality. They take it out of the hands of voters entirely and let the House decide. It's the ultimate in use of superdelegates.

The Democratic Party process is far more voter-friendly than the Constitution.

 

Agreed. I also don't like our winner-take-all system that enforces a two-party duopoly. I'd prefer a parliamentary system, though the US would pretty much have to completely collapse first to get one. I can't blame the parties, though, for the system.

 

He will. Can't lose Warren though. She's too good a Senator. I'm guessing Amy but I'll wait to se which states he wins on Super Tuesday.

 

It's the rule that they all agreed to unanimously (Bernie included) . But who cares about rules, right?

Rank voting is needed to avoid this going forward.

As for my opinion... If Bernie gets the most delegate but under 50%...

- but all the other "moderate" total have more delegates than him, a moderate should be the candidate
- and he and Warren has more delegates than the "moderates", he should be the candidate
- since Bernie supporters are "sensitive", we are probably fk if he doesn't get the nod

 

Just some recent history - don't shoot me.

Yes, Bernie argued the other way just a few years ago. He and his allies pushed for and got the rule changed for 2020.

2016 : https://www.vox.com/2016/5/6/11597550/superdelegates-bernie-sanders-clinton

Bernie Sanders's campaign has seized on a new narrative: The superdelegates will decide the Democratic primary.​

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/d...s-power-reform-caucuses-historic-move-n903866

CHICAGO — The Democratic National Committee voted Saturday to significantly curtail the power of superdelegates and make presidential caucuses more accessible, overcoming objections from a vocal minority of its membership.

The reform package, pushed by DNC Chairman Tom Perez and allies of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, among others, passed overwhelmingly by voice vote at the DNC’s summer meeting here — two years after the process started.

"Today's decision by the DNC is an important step forward," Sanders said in a statement. "This has been a long and arduous process, and I want to thank Tom Perez and all of those who made it happen.”​

 

This is a post I agree with 100%.

 

pick AOC

 

This comment has been circulating all of right wing media the past few days, and of course they take AOC's comment out of context.

But I do think that Bernie's pick will be telling as to what the plan is in regards to turning out his base vs. expanding his base. I still think Stacy Abrams sits at the top of every single candidates list, but I could see Bernie going in a direction that few can really predict. Mark Pocan is probably the most likely person that nobody has probably ever heard of if he decides to turnout his base with someone "in-house" as a progressive #2 from camp Bernie. He's unlikely to choose someone from that camp that is likely to bring him down with negative opo.

Given his recent gains among Hispanics and black voters I would say that an electorate expansion VP pick like Abrams seems like where he's much more likely to go than just staying home with someone from his camp.

 

He should pick Julian Castro, since he looks like me. Sanders/Castro ticket. Huge Hispanic voters out there.

 

This is all too premature.

Iowa and New Hampshire were dismissed as novelty white states; not a clear reflection of the party demographics and the broad coalition needed to win the nomination.

Then, we finally got to the first real "diverse state" and Bernie absolutely crushed it: 20+ points victory, carried 46% of the CCD, and dominated the demographics across the spectrum.

If Bernie repeats this on Super Tuesday; wins California, Texas, Virginia, North Carolina by similar margins to Nevada with the same broad coalition across the board, there won't be any brokering left to convention.

Nobody is going to deny the guy carrying half of the latino vote and a third of the black vote. The party of minorities will not reject the candidate who carries the most minorities. If it ever gets to that point, then Obama will step in and endorse Bernie, and this will all be over very quickly.

 

I think Bernie goes with Tammy Baldwin. @Nook has been mentioning her as a possible VP pick for awhile now and Bernie campaigned for Baldwin in 2018. She would help in Wisconsin and the upper midwest and she's got a lengthy history of fighting for health care change.

 

So with Bernie being the principled person he is he should have no problem with a brokered convention.

His supporters should not as well.

Why would he want to reverse this hard and arduous process?

 

Let's see if he can replicate this in other non caucus states.

I doubt it and him getting only 1/3rd of black voters mean 2/3rds voted for something else.

Also he will be getting scrutiny as the true frontrunner, the gloves are off.