Should we fear the Democratic Party?

[Venom]

As most of us have heard, Democratic Party leaders are getting very worried. In fact, establishment leaders interviewed by the New York Times say they are willing to risk intraparty damage to stop Bernie Sanders.

To be more specific, if Sanders arrives at the convention in July without a majority in delegates, even if a plurality, they are prepared to throw their support behind somebody else. Only 9 of 93 superdelegates the NYT interviewed said Sanders should get the nom if he ends up with a plurality in delegates. Look at the sheer desperation of Democratic donors floating Sherrod Brown with Michelle Obama as VP, or Kamala Harris, who's been out of the race for what seems like a year now. They are in anybody but Bernie mode.

Cue the life's not fair and Bernie's not a real Democrat, the party doesn't owe him anything.....blah blah. No the primary process isn't necessarily fair, but there's something to be said about an industry standard. Superdelegates have traditionally thrown their support behind the candidate with the most delegates, majority or not, with a few exceptions. A break from this convention I feel is going to look really, really bad. It just might hand Trump the election on a silver platter.

I understand they are looking at a wider political landscape, with Congressional elections coming up they want to keep seats in regions they feel they risk losing with Bernie Sanders as nominee/president. And some people don't believe Sanders has a great chance against Trump, even though there are polls that suggest the opposite. Does the Democratic Party really want to take that risk? Do they think pissing off hundreds of thousands if not millions of would-be general election voters is a negligible expense for the long game?

It just might backfire epically.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It depends on what side of the divide you fall:

do you think that Trump shook up Washington so much that a majority of voters want to return to the sanity of the Status Quo
- or -
do you think that Trump never accomplished what he promised in terms of healthcare, education, infrastructure and taxing the rich and another, more competent and sane anti-establishment candidate is needed

While going back to business as usual would be an improvement, I doubt that most voters would feel like it's enough: it might be the last time until AOC to get policies like the ones Sanders proposes to the top of the agenda.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Doing so would be unspeakably stupid. It would introduce divisions in the Democratic party that would never be healed or overcome. I would like to think that the party leadership is more intelligent than that, but the anti-Sanders hysteria on these boards and elsewhere has been making me question...

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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.

 

[Distracted1]

As most of us have heard, Democratic Party leaders are getting very worried. In fact, establishment leaders interviewed by the New York Times say they are willing to risk intraparty damage to stop Bernie Sanders.

To be more specific, if Sanders arrives at the convention in July without a majority in delegates, even if a plurality, they are prepared to throw their support behind somebody else. Only 9 of 93 superdelegates the NYT interviewed said Sanders should get the nom if he ends up with a plurality in delegates. Look at the sheer desperation of Democratic donors floating Sherrod Brown with Michelle Obama as VP, or Kamala Harris, who's been out of the race for what seems like a year now. They are in anybody but Bernie mode.

Cue the life's not fair and Bernie's not a real Democrat, the party doesn't owe him anything.....blah blah. No the primary process isn't necessarily fair, but there's something to be said about an industry standard. Superdelegates have traditionally thrown their support behind the candidate with the most delegates, majority or not, with a few exceptions. A break from this convention I feel is going to look really, really bad. It just might hand Trump the election on a silver platter.

I understand they are looking at a wider political landscape, with Congressional elections coming up they want to keep seats in regions they feel they risk losing with Bernie Sanders as nominee/president. And some people don't believe Sanders has a great chance against Trump, even though there are polls that suggest the opposite. Does the Democratic Party really want to take that risk? Do they think pissing off hundreds of thousands if not millions of would-be general election voters is a negligible expense for the long game?

It just might backfire epically.

Puts us in a pickle though.

Sanders supporters asserting that if not chosen they will hand Trump the election on a silver platter on one hand.
Choosing Sanders and handing Trump the election on a silver platter on the other hand.

But the young vote is really going to turn out this time, I mean like really, we can count on these kids to show up at the polls this time, for sure, they aren't going to get excited then let us down, no way.

 

[uke2se]

Puts us in a pickle though.

Sanders supporters asserting that if not chosen they will hand Trump the election on a silver platter on one hand.
Choosing Sanders and handing Trump the election on a silver platter on the other hand.

But the young vote is really going to turn out this time, I mean like really, we can count on these kids to show up at the polls this time, for sure, they aren't going to get excited then let us down, no way.

You post like the Democrats are in a real position to chose either way. The primary process is supposed to democratically chose the candidate. Right now, Bernie is winning. What do you think would happen if the party brass simply picked someone else, going against the wishes of the voters?

 

[Distracted1]

You post like the Democrats are in a real position to chose either way. The primary process is supposed to democratically chose the candidate. Right now, Bernie is winning. What do you think would happen if the party brass simply picked someone else, going against the wishes of the voters?

We can choose our Candidate however we wish.

Getting less than 50% is not necessarily "winning", it just means the process is not done yet.

If the majority of the delegates are on the "someone else" side of the argument come convention time that just means that the convention needs to serve its original purpose.

Arguing that one will not support the ultimate choice of the party because of this is tantamount to threatening to hold ones' breath until they get their way.

 

[uke2se]

We can choose our Candidate however we wish.

Getting less than 50% is not necessarily "winning", it just means the process is not done yet.

If the majority of the delegates are on the "someone else" side of the argument come convention time that just means that the convention needs to serve its original purpose.

Arguing that one will not support the ultimate choice of the party because of this is tantamount to threatening to hold ones' breath until they get their way.

Is that your proposed course of action then? Because you feel like Bernie will lose the general election, the Democratic super delegates should support someone else in order to keep Bernie from getting the candidacy, even if he has a plurality of delegates?

 

[angrysoba]

Sanders supporters asserting that if not chosen they will hand Trump the election on a silver platter on one hand.

Do they say this? Or do (some of them) say they don't want to vote for anyone but Sanders?

Choosing Sanders and handing Trump the election on a silver platter on the other hand.

Or do you mean that other Democrats are saying "Vote Sanders and we will hand Trump the election on a silver platter?"

Are you arguing that if Trump wins it will all be Sanders's fault (or his supporters) whether he is the candidate or not?

Why would you not simply blame the people who sat out the election, or voted for Trump regardless of who the Democratic candidate is?

 

[Distracted1]

Is that your proposed course of action then? Because you feel like Bernie will lose the general election, the Democratic super delegates should support someone else in order to keep Bernie from getting the candidacy, even if he has a plurality of delegates?

Yes.
Many of the Sanders supporters (and for the most part, only Sanders supporters) are indicating an unwillingness to vote in the General unless he is the nominee.

That, in itself, demonstrates that they are not on board with the number one priority of the rest of the Democratic Party- defeating Trump.

 

[uke2se]

Yes.
Many of the Sanders supporters (and for the most part, only Sanders supporters) are indicating an unwillingness to vote in the General unless he is the nominee.

That, in itself, demonstrates that they are not on board with the number one priority of the rest of the Democratic Party- defeating Trump.

So you propose that the Democrats should abandon the preferences of a plurality of their voters because a relative small portion of them have indicated that they don't want to vote for anyone but Sanders? And you think this is a good idea that would win the election for the Democrats?

That sounds to me to be about the stupidest idea anyone has ever had. Are you sure you don't secretly want Trump to win?

 

[Distracted1]

Do they say this? Or do (some of them) say they don't want to vote for anyone but Sanders?





Or do you mean that other Democrats are saying "Vote Sanders and we will hand Trump the election on a silver platter?"

Are you arguing that if Trump wins it will all be Sanders's fault (or his supporters) whether he is the candidate or not?

Why would you not simply blame the people who sat out the election, or voted for Trump regardless of who the Democratic candidate is?

We are forearmed with the knowledge of who will vote for Trump.
We know which States are in his column, and which are in ours.

We can narrow down the expected outcome enough to form a strategy for winning in the States that will matter this time around.

If the Sanders supporters make that impossible, then yes, they will bear a portion of the blame for our loss.

 

[Distracted1]

So you propose that the Democrats should abandon the preferences of a plurality of their voters because a relative small portion of them have indicated that they don't want to vote for anyone but Sanders? And you think this is a good idea that would win the election for the Democrats?

That sounds to me to be about the stupidest idea anyone has ever had. Are you sure you don't secretly want Trump to win?

I suggest they should listen to the majority of their members who wish the candidate to be "not Sanders".
Not the minority who are pushing "Sanders- or else"

 

[uke2se]

We are forearmed with the knowledge of who will vote for Trump.
We know which States are in his column, and which are in ours.

We can narrow down the expected outcome enough to form a strategy for winning in the States that will matter this time around.

If the Sanders supporters make that impossible, then yes, they will bear a portion of the blame for our loss.

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.

 

[Distracted1]

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.

Sure.
Demonstrate to me that your expectation of the behavior of the voters in the key States is superior to mine, and I will defer to your judgment on the matter.

Otherwise, I know you are- but what am I

 

[uke2se]

Sure.
Demonstrate to me that your expectation of the behavior of the voters in the key States is superior to mine, and I will defer to your judgment on the matter.

Otherwise, I know you are- but what am I

I can look at the available data, just like you. It shows Sanders performing equal to or better than any other Democratic candidate in all the battlegrounds. My argument is supported by that data. Yours by your gut feeling.

 

[angrysoba]

We are forearmed with the knowledge of who will vote for Trump.
We know which States are in his column, and which are in ours.

We can narrow down the expected outcome enough to form a strategy for winning in the States that will matter this time around.

If the Sanders supporters make that impossible, then yes, they will bear a portion of the blame for our loss.

Yes, and let's say that Sanders gets the nomination, and he loses to Trump. Who is to blame then?

 

[Distracted1]

I can look at the available data, just like you. It shows Sanders performing equal to or better than any other Democratic candidate in all the battlegrounds. My argument is supported by that data. Yours by your gut feeling.

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.

 

[Distracted1]

Yes, and let's say that Sanders gets the nomination, and he loses to Trump. Who is to blame then?

Francine Clark, of Battle Creek MI.

 

[Distracted1]

Or perhaps, a confluence of factors.
Some of them being Democrats who insisted on running a losing candidate.