New York Times: Superdelegates open to brokered convention to block Sanders from nomination

[OliverQ]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/27/politics/bernie-sanders-contested-convention/index.html

Very very bad idea. Guaranteed collapse of the Democratic party, it will trigger a massive turnout suppression, and Trump is guaranteed to win again.

[Squinch]

1. I am pretty open about the fact that I don't like BS. I am asked in these

threads every 5 minutes if I would vote for him in the general. My answer is always the same: if he is the nominee, I would walk a mile over broken glass barefoot to vote for BS if it was between him and trump. I will vote for ANYONE over trump.

Every non-BS supporter I have seen asked this question has said unequivocally that if BS is the nominee, they will vote for him. Every one. No exceptions.

Are you suggesting that if there is a brokered convention. BS's supporters would not do the same?

[Mike Nelson]

2. Maybe it would be better to say...

... the Superdelegates are going to vote for someone, rather than "block" the others?

[BlueTillIDie]

8. and this just gives more fire to bernie saying the establishment is against him n/t

[LanternWaste]

10. Much as "This message was self-deleted by its author" offers plausible deniability

[ehrnst]

21. +1000.

[bluedye33139]

3. This is a no-win situation

If Sanders does not have a majority and is not chosen at the convention, a large section of his followers will absolutely become angry. His supporters who are not Democrats and who hate the Democratic party will experience a confirmation of their bias. some of his followers who are Democrats will likely leave the party, too.

If he is handed the denomination even though a majority of Democrats have voted for other candidates, this will also leave a sour and bitter taste. Mainstream Democrats and people who were hoping for something else will be alienated. Will they leave the party? Possibly some of them will.

We are looking at a no-win situation here. Both outcomes have downsides. Neither outcome is obviously superior.

[TwilightZone]

6. Well, one way is how it's supposed to operate and one isn't.

A candidate needs a majority of delegates. There are two ways to do that: 1) get a majority during the primary campaign; 2) build a coalition at the convention to acquire enough for a majority.

All of the candidates understand how it works and agreed to the terms simply by running as Democrats. We shouldn't allow hostage takers to influence how the process is supposed to unfold. If people think throwing a tantrum is more important than getting rid of the existential threat that is Donald Trump, they need to reevaluate their priorities and look out for more than themselves.

[bluedye33139]

7. If the delegates choose Sanders, that is supposed to happen also. I don't agree

that there is a clear path if no one has majority. Obviously a person with the largest support might be the candidate that other delegates get behind, and there would be nothing wrong with that. There would be nothing automatically wrong or ethically wrong or procedurally incorrect if the delegates coalesce behind Sanders.

He isn't my first or second or third choice, I should add. My personal preference would be someone else. But I don't think there would be anything procedurally wrong with the delegates choosing him, if they do so.

[Celerity]

9. it depends what his % is of the delegates and how high the next person is

I use the 40/30 rule for where the explosive ripping apart would surely start

IF Bernie has above 40% and the next person is under 30%, then his supporters will go bonkers, especially if he is at 45% and above.

If he is at 38% say, and Biden at 35% , then not so much, although they will still go argy bargy.

Even the bare minimum of the rule

Sanders 40%

Biden 29%

and Bernie is denied

it will be crazy

and

if he is at say,

45% and above and is denied the party will rip itself apart

(hard to see the 2nd place there within 10 points of him as that means all the other candidates only pulled 20% or less combined, whic as long as Klobuchar, Bloomberg, Warren, and Pete are in, I can see them pulling more than 20% en toto)

[Squinch]

19. They booed a candidate at the convention who sewed up the required delegates weeks

before the end of the last primary.

I suspect there will be complaints and defections no matter what scenario we are faced with this time.

[Celerity]

20. well, technically, Clinton, whilst very close, did not have enough pledged delegates to win

Last edited Thu Feb 27, 2020, 11:11 PM - Edit history (1)

outright, but she was very close, she was at 47.66%

There were 4,051 pledged delegates and 714 superdelegates in the 2016 cycle.

That is 4765

2383 was the magic number needed to win

based off just pledged delegates only, she had 2271


the SD's finished off the Bern before it went to a 2nd ballot, under the old rules, as well they should have as she had 3.7m more votes in the popular vote count

If it was this year, it would have gone to a 2nd ballot, where she would have won anyway

but yes, the booing was crazy and pure bullshit

[Hav]

25. But what shouldn't be forgotten, it was the mere existence and the number of the super delegates

that prevented Clinton from winning without them as she had a clear majority of pledged delegates. But because both types voted, her pledged delegates alone wouldn't have been enough. That is what made the butthurt at the convention even more crazy. She clearly won and the convention was only a technicality. The SDs were never going to overturn the majority that Clinton got from actual elections.
The way I understand it, under the new rules, there wouldn't have been a second vote as well.

[thesquanderer]

27. re:"it was the mere existence and number SDs that prevented Clinton from winning without them"

Not exactly. If Sanders had done just a little more poorly, Clinton would have won the nomination without needing any super delegates at all.

[Celerity]

34. under the new rules there would have been a 2nd ballot, as the super delegates cannot vote on the

first ballot in 2020. In 2016 they could and did. Either way, Clinton won or would have won.

[Kaleva]

41. "His supporters who are not Democrats and who hate the Democratic party"?

Are we not Democrats who are working to select our party's nominee? Or should we leave the choice to people who hate us and are not Democrats?

[George II]

4. It would have been better to post the actual NY Times article instead of a critique of the article.

That's not even the actual NY Times headline.

[JudyM]

12. OP's prerogative.

[Cha]

14. Oh wow.. thanks for that.

[ehrnst]

18. But that wouldn't have triggered the reactions that the OP author hoped for,

being good journalism and all...

[thesquanderer]

28. Yeah, the headline is just false. But posting the CNN version at least had the virtue that...

...everyone could read it without worrying about a paywall.

[TwilightZone]

5. Threats aren't generally a good way to convince people of much of anything.

We had enough of the "Sanders supporters will stay home, blah, blah" stuff last time. If you think that another four years of Trump are worth taking your ball and going home, there are tens of millions of people who disagree with you.

It's time for people to grow up and act like adults. Trump is an existential threat and if throwing a tantrum is more important to people then getting rid of him, they need to reevaluate their priorities.

[Skya Rhen]

11. Had Bloomberg not entered, there would be one clear Progressive and one clear moderate, with the

moderate having a clear lead. Now, look at the mess that has been created. Thanks, Mike.

[Kaleva]

43. What states has Bloomberg ran in so far?

[Squinch]

13. Oliver, you haven't answered my question. See the first post. I have never hesitated

to answer the question any of the dozens of times it has been put to me here. Neither has any non-BS supporter I have seen who has been asked.

Do you think many BS supporters will not support the eventual nominee unless it is BS?

[ehrnst]

15. Good luck with that...

[Squinch]

16. Right?

[OliverQ]

22. According to polling, it depends on who

the nominee is. If it's Warren, yes I think they will. If it's Bloomberg? Absolutely not. Not sure about Biden.

[Squinch]

23. So, though we would all vote for BS, BS supporters would not vote for anyone but their preferred

candidate. That's quite disgusting. Not to mention asinine, childish as can be, and suicidal.

[OliverQ]

24. I agree, but that's the way some people are.

Look how many people did that in 2016. Hillary was clearly the better option compared to Trump, but people hated her too much to do the rational thing and vote for her.

Yang supporters were the worst in the poll I saw. Over half of them said they wouldn't vote for anyone but Yang. Bernie supporters weren't that bad.

But a lot of young people are fed up with this country and the hold on power by the rich elite. Someone like Bloomberg will not make their lives any better. He's in this race to protect the billionaire class.

[ehrnst]

17. Well it sounds like you're warning people to get out of the party while the getting's good.

[thesquanderer]

26. Bad headline. It will happen, or not, regardless of whether the SDs are "open" to it or not.

Amd sure enough, the actual New York Times article says nothing of the sort. That headline text was added by CNN. Actual NYT headline is, "Democratic Leaders Willing to Risk Party Damage to Stop Bernie Sanders."

[Kurt V.]

29. all talk from a dying monarchy. it ain't happening

[mzmolly]

30. Per Warren, Bernie helped write the current rules.

[mtron32]

32. If Bernie Supporters had their way...

the Super delegates would've been gone, this was a compromise

[mzmolly]

33. Warren also pointed out that Bernie had a different position in

the past Presidential election, than he does today.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

31. None of those n/t

[oasis]

35. If malcontents stay their asses home, Democrats will win anyway.

And that goes for 2024 as well.

[OliverQ]

38. Wouldn't count on that.

[oasis]

40. I'm also no counting on malcontents staying home. They'll get Z-E-R-O

if Trump gets re-elected, and they know it. From dreams of promised free stuff to Z-E-R-O. I believe most of them will cool down by Summer's end and come to their senses.

[OliverQ]

42. That's some optimism there, but Americans are fickle and

good at shooting themselves in the foot. Lots of people will stay home if their favorite candidate doesn't win. Some candidates will suppress more votes than others.

[oasis]

45. I'll vote for Bernie if he's the nominee. If asked, I'll admit it.

Remembering Jane Sanders' ambiguous answer in 2016 after being asked for whom she cast her vote for just days before the General Election.

[OliverQ]

47. And I plan on voting for Biden if he's the nominee

even though I don't think he'll address most of my issues.

[oasis]

48. Good. I believe Joe will live up to the expectations of the majority

of all Americans.

[Kingofalldems]

36. Wow. Same thing every single day.

[OliverQ]

37. Yup, every day people are constantly bashing Bernie.

[Kingofalldems]

39. Yeah and others bash Democrats and proclaim Trump the winner.

Every day.

[gulliver]

44. It's "blue no matter who" and superdelegates are in the rules Sanders accepted.

Ideally, the center left candidates will have enough delegates to pool them and put them behind one of them Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, or Klobuchar. Then that chosen candidate would win the majority of votes on the first ballot, and the super delegates would note even have to vote.

[OliverQ]

46. Bloomberg is not center-left.

Buttigieg and Klobuchar have no shot with their minority numbers. It's going to come down to Bernie or Biden unless Warren can turn things around or Bloomberg buys his win. The one thing that could get me on board with Biden is if Warren is in contention for the VP slot. I'd like to see him pick a more progressive candidate.