Political Discussion

[RenegadeMonster]

That is also not true. Are they very likely to, yeah. Are they required by any rule to do so? No.

What you heard, or took away from the Today Show appears inaccurate. But you have the internet at your disposal and can dig in to investigate.

Votes earned either by election-day ballot or early voting are still votes for those candidates who have now dropped out, and go to the convention uncommitted. The only exceptions to this are in states like Nevada and Virginia, where the delegates are required to vote for the candidate pledge to (regardless of if they dropped out) in the first round of voting. So, for example, Pete's 3 NV delegates will still have to cast their first round vote for him.

Appreciate the link

It appears it was after NV but before SC. I think SC added to my anxiety about Sanders. Maybe I'm overreacting.

At the end of the day, my sole focus is on removing the incumbent. I just worry this intra-party bickering and claims of "DNC screwing Bernie" only aid Trump and worsen the chances of beating him. From where I stand, I just don't see anything the DNC has actively done to hurt Bernie. In fact, their only act to circumvent the rules was to allow Bloomberg to enter the debates without a donor minimum, and that hurt Biden/Pete/Klobuchar; not Bernie.

According to the Democratic National Committee, district-level delegates (those won at the congressional-district level) remain entitled to those former candidates, regardless of their status. However, typically, these ex-candidates release their delegates to vote their choice or encourage them to support the candidate they've endorsed.

The statewide pledged delegates (those won at the statewide level) are reallocated proportionately to the candidates who remain in the race.

However, all pledged delegates are actually not legally bound to their candidates, whether these candidates remain in the race or not. As a result, Buttigieg’s and Klobuchar’s delegates can technically act as free agents.

Pete Buttigieg endorses Joe Biden for president

The former South Bend mayor's backing came less than a day after he ended his own presidential bid.

www.nbcnews.com

Both Pete B and Amy K did release their delegates. These released votes typically go to support the candidate they have endorsed.

Yes, they are not legally bound and can act like free agents. But the assumption is all of their votes will end up going to Biden.

 

[Indymisanthrope]

Finally, Can We All Agree? Everything We Were Told About Bernie Sanders Was Wrong

Let’s consider the nonsense that has passed for “reporting,” “commentary,” and “analysis” on Sanders over the past year or so.

theintercept.com

I almost hope he is the nominee so we can finally put this to the test once and for all.

But if he loses, I don't want to hear a peep out of all the folks who spent the last 4 years tsking about "Russiagate" being a scapegoat for Clinton's poor showing in 2016. If Clinton can't acknowledge external contributors to her loss, then Bernie can't blame anyone else if he loses either.

Bloomberg? I would assume he could be the spoiler for Biden.

Sure looks that way to me.

In fact, their only act to circumvent the rules was to allow Bloomberg to enter the debates without a donor minimum, and that hurt Biden/Pete/Klobuchar; not Bernie.

Yeah, I don't really understand complaints about letting him into the debate. It was necessary so that he could stand on a stage and let his opponents destroy him. One of the points of the primary is to get some of the oppo on your candidate out of the way. If Bloomberg had somehow sailed through to the nomination without that withering initial debate, the other side would have bombarded him with all of that in the general. Letting him into the debate legitimized his candidacy in a regrettable way, but actually letting him DO the debate was a net good for the electorate, IMO.

 

[BjorgenFjorgen]

Appreciate the link

It appears it was after NV but before SC. I think SC added to my anxiety about Sanders. Maybe I'm overreacting.

At the end of the day, my sole focus is on removing the incumbent. I just worry this intra-party bickering and claims of "DNC screwing Bernie" only aid Trump and worsen the chances of beating him. From where I stand, I just don't see anything the DNC has actively done to hurt Bernie. In fact, their only act to circumvent the rules was to allow Bloomberg to enter the debates without a donor minimum, and that hurt Biden/Pete/Klobuchar; not Bernie.

Is it a conspiracy? No. But all of the moderates who want to maintain the status quo that created Trump and fails millions of Americans lining up behind Biden, who stands for literally nothing apart from advancing his career and protecting the insurance companies is not surprising at all. If you think moderates are the reason for the blue wave in 2018, hoo boy. Every national poll in the last several months has shown Bernie with the best chance over Trump in a federal election. I can't believe you've even tried looking at numbers. If the DNC trot out Hillary 2.0 this fall they will get destroyed and they will deserve it.

 

[Indymisanthrope]

Is it a conspiracy? No. But all of the moderates who want to maintain the status quo that created Trump and fails millions of Americans lining up behind Biden, who stands for literally nothing apart from advancing his career and protecting the insurance companies is not surprising at all. If you think moderates are the reason for the blue wave in 2018, hoo boy. Every national poll in the last several months has shown Bernie with the best chance over Trump in a federal election. I can't believe you've even tried looking at numbers. If the DNC trot out Hillary 2.0 this fall they will get destroyed and they will deserve it.

But this is a pretty good example of the dual narrative at play here, too: if Bernie wins, then it is a demonstration of the will of the people overturning the system. But if another candidate wins, it's an example of the DNC "trotting out Hillary 2.0."

Frankly I think a lot of us are just existing in an extremely anxious state of analysis paralysis.

We know that the reliability of polls can be exaggerated or that the data can be misinterpreted.

We know that national polls aren't necessarily a good reflection of results because the election isn't decided by the popular vote, but by the EC which is configured to the advantage of the right.

We know the progressives have good ideas. But we know one progressive in the White House won't mean effective change.

We know a moderate is more of the same. But we know they are more likely to find a willing coalition if elected.

We know the election needs to be a referendum on the current president's performance. But we also know the country is at a point that requires a true choice for what the future of liberalism in America looks like.

We know that Trump is a historically unpopular president. But we also know that no matter who we nominate he stands a good chance at reelection.

We know that foreign powers have expressed a preference for Sanders to be the Democratic nominee. But we don't know if that's because they think he will lose to Trump or if it's because they think that releasing that information will cause America to reject him.

The people who have unwavering faith in Sanders frighten me a little, to be honest. There are good, GOOD arguments against nominating him (just as there are some great arguments in favor of him, certainly).

What I hate -- HATE -- is that this process isn't just about advancing our candidate of choice, but in utterly discrediting those we don't support. Warren and Biden are decent people who have dedicated their lives and careers to public service. But #PrimaryWarren? Biden is just an empty vessel for corporate interests? Is that the conclusion we must arrive at?

Think Bernie is a man of integrity? Wonderful, I think that's great. But why does it mean that his opponents must be completely devoid of it? Likewise, if I supported Buttigieg, for example, it's not a prerequisite to think that Bernie is some addled geezer who exists in a fantasy world. The opponents in your primary will ultimately be--hopefully--your allies in an eventual administration. I mean, jesus, even Bloomberg has a good record of fighting for gun legislation. We can smirk at the likes of Doris Kearns Goodwin for canonizing the Team of Rivals concept, but it's not an inherently flawed goal. Making ideological purity the first and only litmus test of our allies seems to me to be the only strategy that is doomed to fail.

 

[Dtknuckles]

I almost hope he is the nominee so we can finally put this to the test once and for all.

But if he loses, I don't want to hear a peep out of all the folks who spent the last 4 years tsking about "Russiagate" being a scapegoat for Clinton's poor showing in 2016. If Clinton can't acknowledge external contributors to her loss, then Bernie can't blame anyone else if he loses either.

538 looks at the 2016 election and points to Comey as a deciding factor in the small margins that led to Trumps election.

While with Bernie there are two dynamics there is the hard power of the DNC aligning against him and there is the soft power of left leaning cooperate media. How measurable these things are is highly subjective. And does anyone listen to you when your present a data driven narrative now a days anyway.

I will say that a lot of what people say when they have lost is pointing out factors and frustration they have had with the system that they are up against. Dismissing them do not improve the system and only seeks to alienate them further. If this is the route that Dem establishment takes, they hare gonna have a long time without power in the future.

 

[Btsvinylfarm]

Every national poll in the last several months has shown Bernie with the best chance over Trump in a federal election. I can't believe you've even tried looking at numbers.

A) national polls are meaningless, B) RCP aggregates show Biden performing better nationally than Sanders (+5.4 for Biden vs +4.9 for Bernie), and C) Biden is currently performing better in state polling in FL, they are running even in PA, and Bernie has a 0.1% advantage over Biden in MI.

But my concern is more about states like VA where Biden is +6 while Bernie is just +1.5, or in NC where Biden is +3.4 and Bernie just +0.7.

And then you have downballot concerns. Biden is running mostly even with Trump (+0.3) in AZ, while Bernie trails by 5%. There's a huge Senate opportunity there to take McSally's seat. No wonder why Mark Kelly (astronaut husband of Gabby Gifford's) who is running has endorsed Biden.

So yeah, I've been looking at the numbers. That's why I have concerns about Bernie and what it means for beating Trump as well as down ballot.

 

[BjorgenFjorgen]

We know a moderate is more of the same. But we know they are more likely to find a willing coalition if elected.

A willing coalition? No, we don't know that. Biden thinking that he can get Biden to "play nice" and cooperate again is infinitely more "pie in the sky", to use his terminology, than implementing universal health care. And even if we did know that, a willing coalition for what? To going back to the status quo? Who does that serve?

The people who have unwavering faith in Sanders frighten me a little, to be honest. There are good, GOOD arguments against nominating him (just as there are some great arguments in favor of him, certainly).

I don't think most supporters have unwavering faith in him. But he's the only one who's been working to improve their lives and his country for his entire career, and young people especially can spot phony. He's not that.

Warren and Biden are decent people who have dedicated their lives and careers to public service. But #PrimaryWarren? Biden is just an empty vessel for corporate interests? Is that the conclusion we must arrive at?

Highlights of Biden's career include championing the Iraq War and the war on drugs. On his campaign trail, he was dismissive of anyone who asked substantive policy questions about improving their lives. Are we sure that he's a decent person who's dedicated his life to serving Americans? Warren, despite finishing fifth in every primary so far, has continued to punch left and attack the only other progressive candidate on stage with her, the person she allegedly shared policy with and the person who encouraged her to run in the first place.

Think Bernie is a man of integrity? Wonderful, I think that's great. But why does it mean that his opponents must be completely devoid of it?

It doesn't necessarily mean that, of course. But in your example it absolutely does mean that. Buttigieg doesn't suck because he was Bernie's opponent; he sucks because he has no good policy and faked endorsements from black leaders and groups. Oh, and also for fixing my bread prices.

Making ideological purity the first and only litmus test of our allies seems to me to be the only strategy that is doomed to fail.

Uh, sure. But this is the primary when people can vote for the person whose policy is most attractive to them. Why settle?[/QUOTE]

 

[BjorgenFjorgen]

Oh it is moderates fault now for Trump? That's new...

That's...not new. The DNC believing they were entitled to working peoples' votes led in part to Trump, yes. Decades of the DNC doing nothing for those people led many of them to vote for Trump or to stay home.

 

[Indymisanthrope]

Frankly I think a lot of us are just existing in an extremely anxious state of analysis paralysis.

Just to expand on this part of the thought a little bit, a lot of us also exist in physical states that are unable to lend our voices to the process until it is all but over. There are good arguments to winnow your candidate field early. But letting the same 4 states -- basically one million voters combined -- narrow it down to one or two viable people every four years is also such a frustrating way to see this play out. Iowans aren't any smarter or better equipped to make these decisions than the rest of us. We point at the DNC when we could as easily point at each other for letting our fellow Democrats in other states disenfranchise us. By the time I get to vote in the Indiana primary in May, it likely won't matter anymore.

Likewise, when it comes to the general election, it will basically come down to Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. If this ends up being anything like 2016, 30,000 or so people in two states will determine our fate no matter who the nominee is.

I'm not on board with the "your vote doesn't count" crowd -- down-ticket races matter greatly -- but man, it's dispiriting.

 

[Indymisanthrope]

A willing coalition? No, we don't know that. Biden thinking that he can get Biden to "play nice" and cooperate again is infinitely more "pie in the sky", to use his terminology, than implementing universal health care. And even if we did know that, a willing coalition for what? To going back to the status quo? Who does that serve?


I don't think most supporters have unwavering faith in him. But he's the only one who's been working to improve their lives and his country for his entire career, and young people especially can spot phony. He's not that.


Highlights of Biden's career include championing the Iraq War and the war on drugs. On his campaign trail, he was dismissive of anyone who asked substantive policy questions about improving their lives. Are we sure that he's a decent person who's dedicated his life to serving Americans? Warren, despite finishing fifth in every primary so far, has continued to punch left and attack the only other progressive candidate on stage with her, the person she allegedly shared policy with and the person who encouraged her to run in the first place.


It doesn't necessarily mean that, of course. But in your example it absolutely does mean that. Buttigieg doesn't suck because he was Bernie's opponent; he sucks because he has no good policy and faked endorsements from black leaders and groups. Oh, and also for fixing my bread prices.


Uh, sure. But this is the primary when people can vote for the person whose policy is most attractive to them. Why settle?

Sure, but all I'm trying to convey with most of those statements is that people are understandably torn by the thought that arguments for Sanders are hypothetically at least as strong as the arguments against him. I don't think his supporters are wrong; I'm agnostic to that. I don't know, and I don't believe they can know, either -- and that's precisely what gives me this anxiety.

Settle? No,, of course not, which is why I find calls for Warren to drop out of the race frustrating, because I selfishly don't want to have to divert to my second choice.

My point at the end there is that the primary process -- or really, the campaigning process in general -- tends to find us not allowing for nuance or degrees. Especially this round: there is Bernie, who has never strayed from the path, and there are the rest, who are morally or ideologically bankrupt.

Candidacy for national office has just become such a commercial affair that the candidates' humanity is subsumed by their records, and the records are only judged insofar as they have no blemishes. The process, and the campaigns, offer us little by way of being able to examine character, history, beliefs, how we change over time...Even on the right, the most compelling thing about Trump is the thing that gets lost in the sound & fury, that under all of the orange makeup and shark-brained behavior, there's a real, human guy in there who presumably has his own heartaches and regrets and dreams (probably not ones I would sympathize with at all, but to even consider it is somewhat astonishing because he is such a caricature of a real person in our national consciousness).

Sorry, I'm spinning off into my own little fantasy tangent now.

 

[ayayrawn]

So I need someone from the Bernie camp to really start defending his electability, backed with data, to ease my anxiety about this. Because the primary goal in 2020 - like it or not - should be to remove Donald Trump from office. Policy goals are going to be secondary. That may suck to hear, but it's reality. 4 more years of Donald Trump is far worse to the goals of the folks in the Bernie camp than a Biden centrist Presidency.

This is just my perspective, but selecting a middling candidate in an attempt to appeal to a wide range of people and tout the status quo failed in 2016, failed in 2004, and failed in 2000, and will more than likely fail again this year. Obama ran under the guise of a progressive but once that faded, he lost the entirety of congress.

On another point, I'd certainly vote Biden over Trump in the general, but if he somehow wins, I won't be surprised when he starts trying to meet the republican congress halfway like "the good ole days" and we end up even further right than we are now.

 

[jaycee]

Bernie is in trouble in PA no matter what. The fracking jobs issue is a major hurdle... and he's going to need to backtrack to overcome that hurdle.

I don't believe 2016 (aka Trump) is solely because of DNC incompetency and conspiracy although those things exist. Everyone can argue all day whether Bernie would've had a better chance than Clinton but no one knows and it's just as likely he would've performed the same or worse than Clinton. It's a moot point anyway and it's bothersome that 2016 is still being used as an argument for Sanders in 2020. They 'vote for us because we got screwed' thing doesn't resonate with most people.

Working class white voters, and union workers, are not monolithic but they have generally bought into the long-term propaganda campaign that 1. government cannot be trusted 2. the bootstraps narratives 3. they have something to lose
This made the weaponization of their northern racism easy pickin's for the Roger Stones of the world

Other folks were not excited about Clinton but still voted for her.
Wealthy Purple suburbs voted for Trump because they are pro capitalist, pro business first.
These things remain true in America today.

Is Bernie more palatable than he was in 2016 - absolutely.
Is the youthful vote important to anyone going against Trump - absolutely.
Is Bernie electable - of course but is the hill steeper to climb than for Biden - almost certainly.

I don't think the Sanders campaign has done a good job of building anything but the under 30 vote. That vote is vital and maybe turnout will be so high that the other people that are not comfortable with Sanders won't matter come general election time but that's a big gamble imo. If Sanders does well today and becomes the clear popular candidate then there is time to bring those other groups into the fold. If this drags out to and thru the convention there isn't time.

What is disappointing and sad to me beyond the current political, social, and economic system that's in place is the implication that people (individuals) are dumb or brainwashed or part of a conspiracy because they are afraid of not beating Trump and they're afraid of what social policies mean to their lives. Those are not unreasonable thoughts and opinions. I personally disagree with those fears but really that fear is understandable when you stop viewing people as a vote or party member and start viewing them as people.

It's understandable why every person graduating with less and less opportunity is pissed off and sticking up a middle finger at the establishment. They're not wrong either.

But what we keep getting to is people saying no I'm right and fuck you if you disagree. I feel that way internally all of the time. I've convinced myself of a lot of things that almost everyone around me in my daily life is not fully on board with. If these campaigns can't find a way to move beyond party politics and beyond their own egos to actually be compassionate about the fears, frustrations, and reasonable disagreements people have then we are assuring another 4 years + of Trump. We may get that anyway because the majority of the American landmass has fully bought in on MAGA... and we are all fooling ourselves if we think that the majority of the American landmass is suddenly going to look at any Dem candidate and say to themselves "hey, you know what my hatred for those idiots is unjustified."

 

[jaycee]

This is just my perspective, but selecting a middling candidate in an attempt to appeal to a wide range of people and tout the status quo failed in 2016, failed in 2004, and failed in 2000, and will more than likely fail again this year. Obama ran under the guise of a progressive but once that faded, he lost the entirety of congress.

On another point, I'd certainly vote Biden over Trump in the general, but if he somehow wins, I won't be surprised when he starts trying to meet the republican congress halfway like "the good ole days" and we end up even further right than we are now.

I get it but who is middling? or did you mean middle of the road?

Biden isn't middling and Bloomberg (hopefully) isn't middling so much that Biden runs away with the Dem party 4eva crowd

Gore lost in 2000 because he was viewed as uninventive and boring... and really he lost because FLA can't count votes
Kerry lost because the anti-war propaganda, social and communist propaganda, that Karl Rove laid on them resonated with a lot of voters during the middle of the Iraq war. Can someone say swiftboat veterans for peace? - anyone? and incumbents always have a huge advantage. The last incumbent to lose was George dubs because he raised taxes.

Obama won because no one was excited by Clinton, he spoke the language of a progressive person, and represented something that every white person who remotely viewed themselves as liberal wanted to feel about themselves. A vote for Obama meant they weren't complicit in American racism. That the plight of black and brown folks truly could be overcome because 'hey, look who's in the white house' Also the right was in the midst of tea party fiascos and McCain picked Sarah Palin as a running mate.

Obama didn't lose the congress because people weren't excited about him. He lost because seeing a black progressive man in the white house, who was 'coming after your way of life', was enough to get people on board with a lot of conservative nut jobs in those purple districts and state elections.

Obama conceded on far too many policies imo and those concessions are one of the reasons that national healthcare is such a mess for so many people... but I also think he was doing what he thought he needed to do to get something done.

I guess I don't get this argument that Dems loose elections solely because they are not progressive enough - not that it isn't a legit argument. Many people, including myself, have been saying forever that embracing social principles would build a stronger coalition and be good for the country, but saying that elections, particularly presidential elections, are won or lost based on those ideals alone or even mostly seems to ignore so many other important factors.

 

[BjorgenFjorgen]

I guess I don't get this argument that Dems loose elections solely because they are not progressive enough - not that it isn't a legit argument. Many people, including myself, have been saying forever that embracing social principles would build a stronger coalition and be good for the country, but saying that elections, particularly presidential elections, are won or lost based on those ideals alone or even mostly seems to ignore so many other important factors.

I don't think most people are saying that's the only factor in winning elections. Obviously it's not. But there are far more people who haven't historically been voters that could be persuaded to vote for someone who actually represents their interests than there are "moderate Republicans" who could be convinced to vote for a moderate Dem. And the Dems time and time again ignore those people and leave those votes on the table. The populace as a whole is much more progressive than their institutions suggest. The party should take advantage of that.

 

[jaycee]

I don't think most people are saying that's the only factor in winning elections. Obviously it's not. But there are far more people who haven't historically been voters that could be persuaded to vote for someone who actually represents their interests than there are "moderate Republicans" who could be convinced to vote for a moderate Dem. And the Dems time and time again ignore those people and leave those votes on the table. The populace as a whole is much more progressive than their institutions suggest. The party should take advantage of that.

I think this is true

 

[ayayrawn]

I get it but who is middling? or did you mean middle of the road?

Biden isn't middling and Bloomberg (hopefully) isn't middling so much that Biden runs away with the Dem party 4eva crowd

Gore lost in 2000 because he was viewed as uninventive and boring... and really he lost because FLA can't count votes
Kerry lost because the anti-war propaganda, social and communist propaganda, that Karl Rove laid on them resonated with a lot of voters during the middle of the Iraq war. Can someone say swiftboat veterans for peace? - anyone? and incumbents always have a huge advantage. The last incumbent to lose was George dubs because he raised taxes.

Obama won because no one was excited by Clinton, he spoke the language of a progressive person, and represented something that every white person who remotely viewed themselves as liberal wanted to feel about themselves. A vote for Obama meant they weren't complicit in American racism. That the plight of black and brown folks truly could be overcome because 'hey, look who's in the white house' Also the right was in the midst of tea party fiascos and McCain picked Sarah Palin as a running mate.

Obama didn't lose the congress because people weren't excited about him. He lost because seeing a black progressive man in the white house, who was 'coming after your way of life', was enough to get people on board with a lot of conservative nut jobs in those purple districts and state elections.

Obama conceded on far too many policies imo and those concessions are one of the reasons that national healthcare is such a mess for so many people... but I also think he was doing what he thought he needed to do to get something done.

I guess I don't get this argument that Dems loose elections solely because they are not progressive enough - not that it isn't a legit argument. Many people, including myself, have been saying forever that embracing social principles would build a stronger coalition and be good for the country, but saying that elections, particularly presidential elections, are won or lost based on those ideals alone or even mostly seems to ignore so many other important factors.

All of this stuff may be true, but the commanality the I see, and many others see, is that the only democratic presidential nominee that has won an election this century touted progressive "change" and had an enthusiastic and passionate base of support. The others did not. I can't see Biden being the one the change that trend.

 

[ayayrawn]

I don't think most people are saying that's the only factor in winning elections. Obviously it's not. But there are far more people who haven't historically been voters that could be persuaded to vote for someone who actually represents their interests than there are "moderate Republicans" who could be convinced to vote for a moderate Dem. And the Dems time and time again ignore those people and leave those votes on the table. The populace as a whole is much more progressive than their institutions suggest. The party should take advantage of that.

This

 

[ayayrawn]

I don't think most people are saying that's the only factor in winning elections. Obviously it's not. But there are far more people who haven't historically been voters that could be persuaded to vote for someone who actually represents their interests than there are "moderate Republicans" who could be convinced to vote for a moderate Dem. And the Dems time and time again ignore those people and leave those votes on the table. The populace as a whole is much more progressive than their institutions suggest. The party should take advantage of that.

An add to this: this strategy at this point in time risks alienating an entire generation of voters. By having their votes "left on the table" not once, but twice, a lot of enthusiastic, progressive first-time voters aged 18-35 are going to feel really burned and jaded after all is said and done.

 

[gouis]

NOT GREAT

 

[Indymisanthrope]

NOT GREAT

I think you mean