Should we fear the Democratic Party?

[Venom]

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer on the other hand seem to be perfectly fine with a Sanders nomination.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And this has been the problem since day one.

Sanders and his supporters know full well he's be a distant 3rd, if he's lucky, if he runs as an independent so he's decided (until he changes his mind again) that he's a Democratic so he can run on their ticket because now that's beneficial to him.

But then both he and his followers are either annoyed that he has to play party politics or outright hostile that the DNC is looking out for the DNC and not Bernie. Sanders and his supporters both act like he's too good for the DNC that he needs to win and alternate between demonizing the DNC and whining that the DNC isn't rolling out the red carpet.

It's the Democratic Party, not the Progressive Party, not the "Who's Gonna Beat Trump" Party, not the even the Liberal Party.

Why the Democratic Party might have an issue with a candidate who sort of a Democratic when he feels like it isn't that hard to understand.

And yes this whole thing is very Trump like, but the Dems can't bet the Republicans at their own game.

 

[Venom]

Why the Democratic Party might have an issue with a candidate who sort of a Democratic when he feels like it isn't that hard to understand.

Oh I think it's quite easy to understand.

But the judgement of some of the party's top leaders in regards to Bernie Sanders being the undisputed front runner is worrying.

 

[Cain]

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).

No, it was not set up by the Democratic Party in order to "allow more radical candidates to win." That's ridiculous. You're confusing intention with effect. The Democratic Party wants to win, and the disastrous convention in Chicago threatened to pull the party apart. Concessions needed to be made. The '72 election led to yet another commission and more reforms. The reforms are a kind of professional wrestling: make the system seemingly more open and fair, but ultimately the party wants their preferred (electable) candidate. They explicitly do NOT want to run a radical who is going to ultimately lose, or one who has a significantly lower chance of winning. To believe something along those lines requires a deeply distorted view of how Democratic elites operate. Why, after all, do you think this thread exists?

 

[Cabbage]

We can choose our Candidate however we wish.

Considering the potential consequences, that's so highly debatable that I think it would be more correct to say: No you can't.

 

[Cabbage]

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.

Oh, save me your sanctimonious grandstanding.

Many of the anti-Sanders supporters are indicating an unwilling to support Sanders if 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.

 

[Cabbage]

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.

Hey, that's just like uke2se said: A gut feeling.

 

[Distracted1]

Oh, save me your sanctimonious grandstanding.

Many of the anti-Sanders supporters are indicating an unwilling to support Sanders if 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.

I agree. Not having a defeat Trump first priority puts one at odds with the majority of the Party.

 

[uke2se]

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.

I tend to distrust my gut as I recognize I am not privy to any special knowledge. I tend to rely on available evidence, especially when I plan to take a drastic action. I would consider actually doing what the Bernie Bros falsely accused the Democrats of doing in 2016 a drastic action that would eliminate a large number of voters from the Democratic tally. I would make sure that more than that number would join in for it to be worth the damage it would do to the party.

I don't see any evidence that "stealing" the nomination from Bernie would be of any use. You would alienate a large amount of people who would rightfully feel disenfranchised and would lose the drive they have to vote, especially for down ballot races. Not just the Bernie Bros - the people you are essentially labeling as distrustful - would be driven off. A lot of people would see such a move as betraying the will of the voter base. If your objective is to lose the election to Donald Trump, this is what you should do. Otherwise, you should think again.

 

[uke2se]

I agree. Not having a defeat Trump first priority puts one at odds with the majority of the Party.

Out of the two of us, I am the only one who has shown such a priority. I would enthusiastically support any nominee the Democrats puts forth. You want to alienate a large portion of the voter base in order to prevent one particular candidate from winning the nomination.

 

[Cabbage]

I agree. Not having a defeat Trump first priority puts one at odds with the majority of the Party.

Yeah, so like I said, anti-Sanders people are the problem.

QED

 

[Distracted1]

Hey, that's just like uke2se said: A gut feeling.

I see. At what point will the polls become definitive? Were they not accurate when the showed Biden winning and Sanders losing? Why not?

And once they have become definitive (if you are saying that they are not now so) what is the point of bothering with an election at all? - since the polls will have already dictated the outcome.
Perhaps polls this early can be misleading

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...sanders-electability-president-moderates-data

 

[Cabbage]

I agree. Not having a defeat Trump first priority puts one at odds with the majority of the Party.

And what happened to your recant of your claim that we know Trump will beat Sanders in rust belt states?

I see your point.

Allow me to retract the words "we know" from the part of my post that you quoted. And re submit.

A mere five days later and you're back to making the same confirmation bias mistakes.

 

[Distracted1]

Out of the two of us, I am the only one who has shown such a priority. I would enthusiastically support any nominee the Democrats puts forth. You want to alienate a large portion of the voter base in order to prevent one particular candidate from winning the nomination.

You switched cause with effect in your last sentence.
I would prevent alienating a large portion of the voter base by preventing a particular candidate from getting the nomination.

 

[Distracted1]

And what happened to your recant of your claim that we know Trump will beat Sanders in rust belt states?




A mere five days later and you're back to making the same confirmation bias mistakes.

Re read the original sentence that I would have removed that from.
I never withdrew the assertion, only the claim that it was knowledge we shared.

 

[Cabbage]

I see. At what point will the polls become definitive? Were they not accurate when the showed Biden winning and Sanders losing? Why not?

And once they have become definitive (if you are saying that they are not now so) what is the point of bothering with an election at all? - since the polls will have already dictated the outcome.
Perhaps polls this early can be misleading

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...sanders-electability-president-moderates-data

They are never definitive until the final poll that counts.

But they are always more definitive than your gut feeling.

I'm having a hard time understanding why you are having a hard time with this. It's quite simple, really.

 

[Cabbage]

Re read the original sentence that I would have removed that from.
I never withdrew the assertion, only the claim that it was knowledge we shared.

I'll take your word for it, then, and resubmit: Your mistake was making the wrong withdrawal.

 

[Cabbage]

You switched cause with effect in your last sentence.
I would prevent alienating a large portion of the voter base by preventing a particular candidate from getting the nomination.

But while we are on this topic concerning the rust belt states, I would like to ask a question that I neglected to ask last time:

If Sanders is "the candidate we know they will have the toughest time with" then please explain why, in the 2016 primary, Sanders beat Clinton in both Wisconsin and Michigan?

 

[uke2se]

You switched cause with effect in your last sentence.
I would prevent alienating a large portion of the voter base by preventing a particular candidate from getting the nomination.

How many? We can assume that quite a few people who have or will vote for Bernie Sanders would be severely off-put by such a move. Quite a few of them would rightfully see it as a betrayal and lose belief that the Democratic party is the way to go.

How many people who wouldn't vote Democratic if Sanders is the nominee would do so if you went through with your plan?

 

[Distracted1]

I tend to distrust my gut as I recognize I am not privy to any special knowledge. I tend to rely on available evidence, especially when I plan to take a drastic action. I would consider actually doing what the Bernie Bros falsely accused the Democrats of doing in 2016 a drastic action that would eliminate a large number of voters from the Democratic tally. I would make sure that more than that number would join in for it to be worth the damage it would do to the party.

I don't see any evidence that "stealing" the nomination from Bernie would be of any use. You would alienate a large amount of people who would rightfully feel disenfranchised and would lose the drive they have to vote, especially for down ballot races. Not just the Bernie Bros - the people you are essentially labeling as distrustful - would be driven off. A lot of people would see such a move as betraying the will of the voter base. If your objective is to lose the election to Donald Trump, this is what you should do. Otherwise, you should think again.

Unless Sanders comes into the convention with a mandate of 51% or more, nothing can be "stolen" from him- as nothing is his to begin with.