Quantcast
American Politics - Page 14 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Boss

American Politics

Recommended Posts

I don't understand, there are rules for how the party nominee gets elected which all candidates are well aware of and have designed their campaign strategies accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SasaS said:

I don't understand, there are rules for how the party nominee gets elected which all candidates are well aware of and have designed their campaign strategies accordingly.

 

If Sanders wins the popular vote and superdelegates take it from him in the 2nd round at a brokered convention, have fun telling his supporters that "there are rules."

 

And hope you have fun watching Trump telling the chosen one repeatedly at that point that he or she stole the nomination from Bernie as they flap around on stage ranting some shit about Russia or some other nonsensical crap, anything to hide from the absolute broken way that they got there in the first place.

 

In this article it's agreed that "rules are rules", and that the winner should have a majority. The question is how they arrive there though. This should be obvious :

 

Quote

Both sides have a point. On one hand, the rules are the rules. A nominee needs a majority of delegates for a good reason: A party's standard bearer ought to be the person with the broadest support, not simply the passionate backing of a small plurality.


But a brokered convention, with the Democratic establishment and party elites determining the nominee after 18 months of campaigning and millions of primary votes determined a clear favorite, would be a terrible look, potentially tear the party apart, and grease the re-election of President Trump. Elites shouldn't determine the winner. A majority of people should.

 

 

https://www.salon.com/2020/02/21/democrats-could-face-a-disaster-at-a-brokered-convention-heres-how-the-dnc-can-avoid-it/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have already changed the rules from last time, if I am not mistaken, superdelegates come into play when there is no clear winner with a majority. Also, last time I checked on Wiki, it was Sanders who was leading in the already pledged superdelagates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SasaS said:

They have already changed the rules from last time, if I am not mistaken, superdelegates come into play when there is no clear winner with a majority.

 

Yeah that's a brokered convention.

 

Bernie isn't leading superdelegates either :

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-endorsements/democratic-primary/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2020_Democratic_Party_automatic_delegates

Share this post


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

Probably best if you don’t spout bullshit like this if you don’t want to be seen as stupid or a hypocrite.

How is what I said bullshit ? Surely the hypocrisy would be people who have been complaining for the last 3 years about winning the popular vote and not winning the election is wrong,  now saying winning the popular vote does not mean you should win the election.

 

The question was if a candidate wins a plurality should they be given the nomination ? Every candidate apart from Bernie said no and "let the rules play out" which means effectively let the 500 Super delegates decide who should get the nomination. 

 

What would you call unelected representatives stepping in to hand the nomination to someone who gets less votes and delegates ? 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/20/democratic-convention-bernie-sanders-superdelegates-nominee

 

Debate shows Bernie Sanders could win most votes but be denied nomination

 

The Vermont senator was alone in saying he would back whoever won a plurality of delegates – with others open to superdelegates tipping the balance for another candidate at the convention

 

Amid the Mike Bloomberg pile-on and the Pete Buttigieg-Amy Klobuchar squabbling, there was a key point that slipped by almost unnoticed during Wednesday’s tumultuous Democratic debate – one that could potentially prevent Bernie Sanders from becoming the nominee.

Towards the end, each of the six candidates was asked if – at the Democratic national convention this summer in Milwaukee – they would support the person who has won the most delegates – even if that person hasn’t achieved a majority.

Five of the candidates said they would not. The Democratic socialist and Vermont senator said he would.

It might seem a wonky, opaque detail, but it raises the prospect that Sanders, who has a commanding lead in the polls and has emerged as the frontrunner, could win the most pledged delegates – those allocated on the basis of votes during the marathon Democratic primaries – but be swindled, at the last, by the Democratic party elite.

That’s because of superdelegates.

Superdelegates, who are chosen by the central Democratic party, are different from pledged delegates, who are effectively voted for during the primaries. As of 20 February, Buttigieg is in the lead in terms of pledged delegates, with 22 to Sanders’ 21.

 

But Sanders is better-placed than Buttigieg to pick up more pledged delegates in Nevada on Saturday and South Carolina the following week. He is also likely to add to his total again on Super Tuesday, when 14 states vote, yielding a total of 1,357 delegates.

If Sanders’ popularity endures, he could amass more delegates than his rivals by the time of the July convention, when the pledged delegates effectively vote for the nominee in a first round of voting that is meant to pick the nominee.

However, if Sanders does not have an absolute majority – more than 50% – during the first ballot when the pledged delegates line up behind their chosen nominee, then it is the superdelegates who will join the vote in a second round of voting.

Superdelegates, who in the past have aligned with the center, “establishment” wing of the Democratic party, will be free to wade in and vote for whomever they choose in this second ballot.

With Sanders a resolute outsider in Democratic terms – he sits as an independent in the Senate, and had to sign a pledge last year committing to the party – he is unlikely to be a favorite of these party grandees.

 

If the superdelegates vote for a more centrist figure, that could mean Sanders – even if he has secured a majority of votes in the primaries – would be pipped at the post, and not be the nominee.

That’s why that moment in the Nevada debate was so important. Five of the candidates were effectively saying that even if they were losing at the Democratic national convention, they were open to the unelected superdelegates weighing in in their favor, potentially gifting them the nomination even though they did not win the support of the most actual voters in the whole race.

It’s a prospect that would leave Sanders’ supporters irate – and even upset some non-supporters. Marianne Williamson, Sanders’ erstwhile rival for the nomination, was among those to criticize the process on Wednesday night.

“The Democratic Party should be on notice: if you even think about using superdelegates to take the nomination from someone who has the plurality of delegates going into Milwaukee, we the people will not take it lying down,” Williamson wrote on Twitter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

How is what I said bullshit ? Surely the hypocrisy would be people who have been complaining for the last 3 years about winning the popular vote and not winning the election is wrong,  now saying winning the popular vote does not mean you should win the election.

 

The question was if a candidate wins a plurality should they be given the nomination ? Every candidate apart from Bernie said no and "let the rules play out" which means effectively let the 500 Super delegates decide who should get the nomination. 

 

What would you call unelected representatives stepping in to hand the nomination to someone who gets less votes and delegates ? 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/20/democratic-convention-bernie-sanders-superdelegates-nominee

 

Debate shows Bernie Sanders could win most votes but be denied nomination

 

The Vermont senator was alone in saying he would back whoever won a plurality of delegates – with others open to superdelegates tipping the balance for another candidate at the convention

 

Amid the Mike Bloomberg pile-on and the Pete Buttigieg-Amy Klobuchar squabbling, there was a key point that slipped by almost unnoticed during Wednesday’s tumultuous Democratic debate – one that could potentially prevent Bernie Sanders from becoming the nominee.

Towards the end, each of the six candidates was asked if – at the Democratic national convention this summer in Milwaukee – they would support the person who has won the most delegates – even if that person hasn’t achieved a majority.

Five of the candidates said they would not. The Democratic socialist and Vermont senator said he would.

It might seem a wonky, opaque detail, but it raises the prospect that Sanders, who has a commanding lead in the polls and has emerged as the frontrunner, could win the most pledged delegates – those allocated on the basis of votes during the marathon Democratic primaries – but be swindled, at the last, by the Democratic party elite.

That’s because of superdelegates.

Superdelegates, who are chosen by the central Democratic party, are different from pledged delegates, who are effectively voted for during the primaries. As of 20 February, Buttigieg is in the lead in terms of pledged delegates, with 22 to Sanders’ 21.

 

But Sanders is better-placed than Buttigieg to pick up more pledged delegates in Nevada on Saturday and South Carolina the following week. He is also likely to add to his total again on Super Tuesday, when 14 states vote, yielding a total of 1,357 delegates.

If Sanders’ popularity endures, he could amass more delegates than his rivals by the time of the July convention, when the pledged delegates effectively vote for the nominee in a first round of voting that is meant to pick the nominee.

However, if Sanders does not have an absolute majority – more than 50% – during the first ballot when the pledged delegates line up behind their chosen nominee, then it is the superdelegates who will join the vote in a second round of voting.

Superdelegates, who in the past have aligned with the center, “establishment” wing of the Democratic party, will be free to wade in and vote for whomever they choose in this second ballot.

With Sanders a resolute outsider in Democratic terms – he sits as an independent in the Senate, and had to sign a pledge last year committing to the party – he is unlikely to be a favorite of these party grandees.

 

If the superdelegates vote for a more centrist figure, that could mean Sanders – even if he has secured a majority of votes in the primaries – would be pipped at the post, and not be the nominee.

That’s why that moment in the Nevada debate was so important. Five of the candidates were effectively saying that even if they were losing at the Democratic national convention, they were open to the unelected superdelegates weighing in in their favor, potentially gifting them the nomination even though they did not win the support of the most actual voters in the whole race.

It’s a prospect that would leave Sanders’ supporters irate – and even upset some non-supporters. Marianne Williamson, Sanders’ erstwhile rival for the nomination, was among those to criticize the process on Wednesday night.

“The Democratic Party should be on notice: if you even think about using superdelegates to take the nomination from someone who has the plurality of delegates going into Milwaukee, we the people will not take it lying down,” Williamson wrote on Twitter.

 


I thought superdelegates were mostly elected officials, as in, members of both houses, governers and such?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SasaS said:


I thought superdelegates were mostly elected officials, as in, members of both houses, governers and such?

From the link Red Phoenix put up;

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2020_Democratic_Party_automatic_delegates

 

 

 

 

In my previous post, I meant unelected in the context of the Primary/Caucus process as delegates are elected during this on going process, whereas the Super delegates are already decided/in place prior to the process starting. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a similar scenario would be Corbyn (for example) winning the membership vote, but MPs and Labour peers combining to give the leadership to someone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

Industry and media makes it seem less deliberate. A slow destruction. The internet has scared the masked shadows. So now they have denied to just go blatant in our faces. "come at us" "we tried but you shot us down and allowed maniacs into power" "yes, that was always the masterplan" 

 

And decent people who want a happy humanity are labelled and scared to speak. 

 

"Let us all live along, aside, but when we can't decide why then, if you are told not to be decent ask why, and don't be scared to defy the answer when its wrong. Any child born deserves the same chance as anyone. If you are a dictator that says lets send troops in then yes , as long as you lead the line. If a country can't have oil then the man who decides that has to say why. If you try and take people by arms then expect your fellow human beings to say no why me why not you why are you doing this. Life is simple if the majority weren't cunts. And it is no coincidence that the majority of self-serving evil people, are rich" 

 

Ooooh it makes you wonder. 

 

 

b3f14a14988e0c826ba56c0f9d3e8e4d.jpg565bbc2d5bd35524c94c39a7a77d590d1aff218e

image.jpg

 

 

I will support the oppressed until my "dying breath". 

Sound, but Mother Teresa was a right cunt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impressive stuff from the sanders campaign  They’ve really put in the work on the ground and it shows. South Carolina next and then onwards to Super Tuesday. He could be out of sight after that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/02/2020 at 23:15, moof said:

I guess fuckery is on the menu again

 

 

 

On 22/02/2020 at 02:44, Red Phoenix said:

If I remember rightly Nevada was a big shitshow last time around with this, I don't expect much different this time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I was reading last night about the fall of France in the summer of 1940, and the general, Reynaud, calls up Churchill and says, ‘It’s over.’ And Churchill says ‘How can it be? You’ve got the greatest army in Europe. How can it be over?’ He said, ‘It’s over.’

I don't think Matthews is comparing Sanders to Hitler, he's referring to the fact that many thought the battle for France had just begun--a reasonable assumption, given the course of WWI--when Reynaud knew it was over once his armies and it's defenses were bypassed.

 

Presumably he thinks the race for the nomination is over, despite only three states having been determined.

 

An awfully arcane reference, but good news for any Sanders supporter (if you place any stock in Matthews' opinion, of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think Sanders may actually have a shot against Trump as the complete polar opposite of him, but with a similarly rabid fanbase, for lack of a better term. I think something that 2016 may have taught us is not to discount polarizing candidates who inspire passion within voters. Whether it's love or hate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

Think Sanders may actually have a shot against Trump as the complete polar opposite of him, but with a similarly rabid fanbase, for lack of a better term. I think something that 2016 may have taught us is not to discount polarizing candidates who inspire passion within voters. Whether it's love or hate. 

Can you not post on the GF.

 

 

Thanks. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guardian on high alert after someone manages to sneak some truth in via an opinion column.

 

If “superdelegates” swung the nomination to a candidate with fewer votes, it would be confirmation that the country is ruled by elites rather than governed by the people.

 

A 'brokered convention' designed to block Bernie Sanders would be a poison pill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Bloomie shit the bed -- again.

 

Useless twit.

He comes across, understandably, as someone who is not used to being questioned. Not a good look for someone in a debate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×