Should we fear the Democratic Party?

[uke2se]

Polls are currently showing that Sanders has about the same chanceas any other Democratic nominee right now convince me of what? That I should ignore what a lifetime spent in the very regions in question is telling me because the polls show that they are about the same right now?

Nope. You have polls. I have polls + experience. Still going to keep my own counsel.


Eight weeks ago they had Biden 10 points ahead ;were you pro-Biden at that point? The polls changed as the election moved nearer and more people began to engage in consideration of it.

In 16 more weeks the polls will be showing a Trump+ in the same States, the only difference being that we will be closer to being locked in to a losing choice.

Like I said, I have polls, you have your gut feeling. You can't tell the future. Nobody can. Available data does not support your argument, and it certainly doesn't support destroying the primary process with the objective of stopping what is demonstrably the currently most popular candidate.

 

[Distracted1]

Like I said, I have polls, you have your gut feeling. You can't tell the future. Nobody can. Available data does not support your argument, and it certainly doesn't support destroying the primary process with the objective of stopping what is demonstrably the currently most popular candidate.

Why weren't you behind Biden when he topped the polls, and Sanders was a distant fourth place?

 

[uke2se]

Why weren't you behind Biden when he topped the polls, and Sanders was a distant fourth place?

I was. I am behind whomever the Democrats nominate. My favorite is and has always been Warren, but if most Democrats want Sanders, I want him too.

 

[varwoche]

From your posts in this thread, it's actually people like you that are making that impossible. Why don't you sit down, shut up and vote blue in November, no matter who is picked as the Democratic candidate? This election is far too important for you to **** it up.

Wow, that's obnoxious.

Even though I think Bernie's nomination would be a disaster, and I hope that someone else -- anyone else -- gets the nomination, I most certainly would vote for him in the general without blinking. That's because I see the Imbecile-in-Chief as an existential threat to US democracy and it's essential that we unify to defeat him. I only wish the Bernie cultists felt the same way.

 

[JoeMorgue]

People have been predicting that Trump will fundamentally break the Republican party. It'd certainly be interesting times if both parties broke at the same time.

And sadly such a thing would be welcomed by a lot of Trump's (and no small part of Sander's) "the system is so broken it can't/shouldn't be saved" nihilistic bases.

If the Dems don't win the White House in 2020 the party is going to be too fractured to do anything for a while.

 

[uke2se]

Wow, that's obnoxious.

I'm sorry, but these people wanting to explode the Democratic party rather than it nominate Bernie Sanders get me riled up. Glad to hear you are planning on voting blue in November.

 

[Distracted1]

I'm sorry, but these people wanting to explode the Democratic party rather than it nominate Bernie Sanders get me riled up. Glad to hear you are planning on voting blue in November.

It is the Sanders supporters who seem more inclined to "blow up the party" if they don't understand that a brokered convention is pretty much th entire reason for a convention in the first place.

How small of a "plurality" should be able to insist on having a mandate, after all?
20%? 12%? % 49%?

Having a plurality still shows that the majority did not pick you. Making threats that you will pack up and go home if you don't get your way in that situation is "blowing up the party".

In fact, the one issue that a true majority of Democrats agree on this year is that whomever we select, we will support them all the way. The group that seems furthest from the majority of Democrats are those in that plurality.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm sorry, but these people wanting to explode the Democratic party rather than it nominate Bernie Sanders get me riled up. Glad to hear you are planning on voting blue in November.

How may times does this nonsense have to get debunked?

Sanders supporters are the ones who aren't going to vote if they don't get their way. We've covered this. Many, many times.

 

[Distracted1]

Like I said, I have polls, you have your gut feeling. You can't tell the future. Nobody can. Available data does not support your argument, and it certainly doesn't support destroying the primary process with the objective of stopping what is demonstrably the currently most popular candidate.

Many of us are able to predict the future accurately to some extent. To be unable to is to go extinct.

 

[uke2se]

How may times does this nonsense have to get debunked?

Sanders supporters are the ones who aren't going to vote if they don't get their way. We've covered this. Many, many times.

And yet, evidence in this thread says otherwise. In this thread, one person has proposed that even if Sanders gets a plurality of delegates, the super delegates should make sure he's not the nominee, thus hijacking the primary process in favor of some ordained centrist. This is exactly what Sanders supporters say happened in 2016. They were wrong then, and likely contributed to Trump getting elected. This time, you are wrong, and if this happens, you will have contributed to Trump's reelection.

 

[uke2se]

Many of us are able to predict the future accurately to some extent. To be unable to is to go extinct.

No, you aren't able to do that. You can only guess based on available evidence. Available evidence does not support your prediction.

 

[Distracted1]

And yet, evidence in this thread says otherwise. In this thread, one person has proposed that even if Sanders gets a plurality of delegates, the super delegates should make sure he's not the nominee, thus hijacking the primary process in favor of some ordained centrist. This is exactly what Sanders supporters say happened in 2016. They were wrong then, and likely contributed to Trump getting elected. This time, you are wrong, and if this happens, you will have contributed to Trump's reelection.

You are arguing for the elimination of super delegates, perhaps?

Or that they should automatically nominate the candidate with the most votes (even if "most" means a small percentage of total votes)?

If the "Earth is round" wing of the party is carrying %30 of the vote, while the seven "earth is not round" candidates are each getting 10%, are you suggesting that it is the duty of the super delegates to nominate the "earth is round" candidate?

 

[Distracted1]

No, you aren't able to do that. You can only guess based on available evidence. Available evidence does not support your prediction.

Perhaps evidence available to you does not support it.
Among other sources of evidence "my gut" is one that I factor into my decision making.

The only evidence presented to the contrary are some polls showing Sanders doing about the same as every other Democratic candidate against Trump when the expectation of historically high youth turnout is factored in.

 

[applecorped]

The only thing we have to fear, is shere itself. - Flat Earthers

 

[Cain]

The primary system was designed by the Democratic party precisely to filter out candidates like Sanders. They begin in Iowa and then move to New Hampshire, historically conservative states. Super Tuesday was about giving Southern states significant influence.

The notion that it was "rigged" by Hillary and the DNC just a few years ago was and is silly.

 

[Trebuchet]

The better question would be "Should we fear FOR the Democratic Party."

 

[TragicMonkey]

The better question would be "Should we fear FOR the Democratic Party."

No. Why should we? If it fails to win the election then that's proof it sucks and needs either repair or replacement. If it wins the election then clearly it's doing well enough to stick around.

 

[Brainster]

I can get the concern about the down-ticket races if Bernie wins the nomination, but I can see potentially worse problems if Bernie comes in with (say) 45% of the delegates needed to win on the first ballot while the highest other candidate has (say) 30% and the nomination goes to somebody else.

 

[Baylor]

Why weren't you behind Biden when he topped the polls, and Sanders was a distant fourth place?

His perspective is that of a European. Everything if framed around the Holocaust. Because he believes Trump is holocausting brown-but-still-white-for-some reason people, the most imperative thing is to get Trump out of office to stop this holocaust. He's unable to see it from the POV of an American, that different candidates represent different people's and group's interests.

 

[Brainster]

The primary system was designed by the Democratic party precisely to filter out candidates like Sanders. They begin in Iowa and then move to New Hampshire, historically conservative states. Super Tuesday was about giving Southern states significant influence.

It's not true that the primary system was designed to filter out a Sanders. In fact, the primary system was set up specifically to allow more radical candidates to win, following the 1968 Chicago fiasco, where the Democrats nominated Hubert Humphrey despite the fact that he had not won any primaries (partially because he got into the race too late due to Johnson's shocking withdrawal). The McGovern-Fraser Commission came up with recommendations for reform that (surprise, surprise) resulted in McGovern's nomination.

After the landslides of 1972 and 1980, another commission recommended the use of the superdelegates to dilute the power of the primaries, and they have been around ever since. They started out as about 14% of the total delegates and have gradually risen to 20%.