FAH1223

Go Wizards, Go Terps, Go Packers!
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
73,907
Reputation
8,567
Daps
222,454
Reppin
WASHINGTON, DC
Agreed let’s see but our margins would be massive in Colorado, Mass and Cali. There’s crossover in progressive states

if Biden walks in with a plurality, he should be the nominee. It would never happen cause the DNC but I’d pissed if I was a Biden supporter and there was Bernie/Warren voodoo delegate magic at the convention to get one of them the nominee

That'd be ironic wouldn't it? Bernie and Liz playing 4 dimensional chess behind the scenes.

For the most part, the plurality winner gets the nomination. Saw this on Bernie subreddit that no one gets a majority...

Yeah, the answer is you usually don't get to that many.

In 2016, you needed 2,383 delegates to be the nominee, because it included Super Delegates. Clinton only got 2205 delegates which was why we went to the convention last cycle. Because Clinton didn't get the required amount of pledged delegates to win the nomination. Sanders got 1846 in 2016. The issue in 2016 came down to Hillary getting literally every other available delegate except like 20. Once the unpledged delegates decided whom to go with, Hillary ended with 2842 delegates and Sanders 1865.

In 2008, you needed 2117 delegates to secure the nomination at the convention. Obama went to the convention with 1794 delegates, Clinton 1732 (it was much closer in 2008 than people seem to remember for some reason). The super delegates that were unpledged gave the election to Obama because... as has always been the case, the plurality leader at the convention is nominated for the ticket.

This is why the media and the candidates arguments that the "convention should decide" are total bullshyt. There's no "rule" that says the plurality leader becomes the nominee. But history has shown us over and over again that every convention has a plurality leader with no majority leader. The plurality leader is always the presumptive nominee going to the convention.

Somehow everyone is just ignoring the fact that both 2008 and 2016 went to the convention without either candidate having a majority of delegates. And each time the plurality leader was given the win.

But to answer your question, nobody ever gets to a majority. It's setup this way on purpose so the party can stop someone they don't like... like a Bernie Sanders. But really, it's more to stop someone who doesn't fall in line. There were very likely back room conversations in 2008 before the convention in which the higher ups at the DNC basically sat Obama down and said look these are the things we're going to need as concessions from you or we'll give the nod to Clinton.

If Bernie is the plurality leader going into the convention they'll do the same with him and if he refuses to make any concessions they'll likely give the nomination to someone else. But getting to a majority lead is impossible, it's always been impossible, in fact it's why nobody really ever gets to one.
 

Don Homer

Molto Bene
Supporter
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
31,196
Reputation
5,482
Daps
105,728
That'd be ironic wouldn't it? Bernie and Liz playing 4 dimensional chess behind the scenes.

For the most part, the plurality winner gets the nomination. Saw this on Bernie subreddit that no one gets a majority...

Yeah, the answer is you usually don't get to that many.

In 2016, you needed 2,383 delegates to be the nominee, because it included Super Delegates. Clinton only got 2205 delegates which was why we went to the convention last cycle. Because Clinton didn't get the required amount of pledged delegates to win the nomination. Sanders got 1846 in 2016. The issue in 2016 came down to Hillary getting literally every other available delegate except like 20. Once the unpledged delegates decided whom to go with, Hillary ended with 2842 delegates and Sanders 1865.

In 2008, you needed 2117 delegates to secure the nomination at the convention. Obama went to the convention with 1794 delegates, Clinton 1732 (it was much closer in 2008 than people seem to remember for some reason). The super delegates that were unpledged gave the election to Obama because... as has always been the case, the plurality leader at the convention is nominated for the ticket.

This is why the media and the candidates arguments that the "convention should decide" are total bullshyt. There's no "rule" that says the plurality leader becomes the nominee. But history has shown us over and over again that every convention has a plurality leader with no majority leader. The plurality leader is always the presumptive nominee going to the convention.

Somehow everyone is just ignoring the fact that both 2008 and 2016 went to the convention without either candidate having a majority of delegates. And each time the plurality leader was given the win.

But to answer your question, nobody ever gets to a majority. It's setup this way on purpose so the party can stop someone they don't like... like a Bernie Sanders. But really, it's more to stop someone who doesn't fall in line. There were very likely back room conversations in 2008 before the convention in which the higher ups at the DNC basically sat Obama down and said look these are the things we're going to need as concessions from you or we'll give the nod to Clinton.

If Bernie is the plurality leader going into the convention they'll do the same with him and if he refuses to make any concessions they'll likely give the nomination to someone else. But getting to a majority lead is impossible, it's always been impossible, in fact it's why nobody really ever gets to one.
that's what i'm saying

if bernie goes in with more dels, and they dont give him the nom, the democratic party will be lost forever.

young people are very tuned in, and they'll be done with the party if that's the case
 

afterlife2009

Superstar
Joined
Aug 15, 2014
Messages
4,802
Reputation
1,100
Daps
17,620
Right leaning sites have been better at covering the Democratic primary than all of our institutional Dem media and even half of our lefty Twitter people. Posting the piece below. This guy hates socialists but he clearly understands the dynamic at play
The Democratic civil war has been a long time coming | Spectator USA

Bernie Sanders has had an unlikely ally during the 2020 Democratic nomination race: Donald Trump. The president has repeatedly insisted that the Democrats are staging a ‘coup’ against Sanders, who, he has said, is the only Democrat with a real movement behind him. Some would argue that Trump is cynically encouraging the nomination of an unelectable candidate. I think this would be foolish, as Sanders is obviously more electable than the memory of Joe Biden, but it might be how the president thinks. I believe that another explanation for why Trump is vaguely sympathetic towards Sanders, though, is what they have in common. Don’t shoot, Trump and Sanders fans. I am not suggesting that they are politically similar. What I am suggesting is that unlike a glistening non-entity like Pete Buttigieg or a 2016-era Marco Rubio, Trump and Sanders are authentically themselves. You know, pretty much, what you are getting.

I can’t hate the so-called ‘dirtbag left’ for the same reason. Sure, I hate most of their politics. Granted, most of them seem to be giant a$$holes. Yes, I would rather swan-dive into a septic tank than listen to their podcasts. But amid a crowd of gleaming party apparatchiks, dead-eyed pundits and hysterical moralizing commentators they are at least themselves.

What is the ‘dirtbag left’? Well done for asking. You clearly have a healthier relationship with the internet than me. The dirtbag left is a ragtag subculture of socialists who use satire and trolling to disturb their more liberal and conservative opponents. While their flagship platform is the podcast Chapo Trap House, their radical leftism and confrontational behavior puts them in the league with more mainstream pundits like Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald.


The dirtbag left are in conflict with more ‘moderate’ Democrats. I use the word ‘moderate’ with sneer quotes as the likes of Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden are clearly radical in a social sense, and the former if not the latter is clearly radical in an economic sense. Still, Warren and Biden are concerned with managing capitalism rather than attempting to replace it, and with scaling back — at most — America’s military commitments rather than dramatically and rapidly abandoning them.

The dirtbags also reject the stylistic norms of civility, and balance, and high-mindedness. As someone who thinks these norms are generally a front behind which spite, and groupthink, and smugness lurk, I am fairly unmoved by this, though it is always unpleasant to be on the wrong side of mass trolling.

Nellie Bowles of the New York Times clearly does not know quite what to make of the dirtbag left. Her long profile of the men and woman behind Chapo Trap House oscillates between condescending sympathy and prim disapproval. The high-minded tone is a bit ridiculous. She says the Cum Town podcast has a name which ‘cannot be printed’, which would make sense if she was writing for the Catholic Herald but is absurd in a paper which publishes weekly tributes to polyamory. Bowles has obviously never bothered to listen to the show, which, unlike Chapo Trap House, is not ideological and is consistently entertaining.

A more significant thing about Bowles’s piece is how ahistorical it is. In her article, the dirtbags seem to have emerged out of nowhere, but in fact their ideological and stylistic roots are deep. Others have written about how their trolling was perfected on the ‘Something Awful’ forums, where young posters graduated from making racist jokes to posting esoteric anti-capitalist screeds. Their godfather, though, in my opinion, was the Irish-American writer Alexander Cockburn, who combined the politics of Noam Chomsky with a combative satirical style. Bowles writes about the Chapo hosts telling their audience that joy is ‘not as good a motivator when you’re really going to war as spite’, and Cockburn was famous for asking new Nation magazine interns, ‘is your hate pure?’

Cockburn was also famous for the contempt in which he held the Democratic party, which he held to be pro-war and pro-capitalist. Cockburn supported Nader in 2000 and 2004, sneering:

‘Nader’s seen it happen time and again. Bold promises from a Democratic candidate, followed by ignominious collapse. And each time the promises are vaguer, more timid. Each time the whole system tilts further in the direction of corporate power.’

Obama’s 2008 triumph delighted most Democrats, who saw the US leave Iraq, the expansion of healthcare coverage and the symbolic triumph of an African American president. Some left-wing Americans, however, saw Obama intervene in Libya and prolong the Afghanistan war, compromise with the Republicans on healthcare and maintain what they regard as the racist institutions of ICE and mass incarceration. One important blog was ‘Who Is IOZ’, where an anonymous blogger wittily and cruelly skewered liberal pundits that he thought were too bloodless, too spineless and too elitist. (Will Menaker, the host of Chapo Trap House, was a fan of Who Is IOZ, and signed its author to a book deal when he was still working for the publishers W.W. Norton.) Other blogs in this subculture included the wonderfully named ‘Stop Me Before I Vote Again’, on which the author Michael J. Smith inadvisably compared left-wing Democrat voters to a battered housewife too scared to leave their spouse.

These currents of discontent almost bubbled up to the surface in the 2016 primary race, but the Democrats, and their candidate Hillary Clinton, just about kept them down. The moderate Democratic favorite Joe Biden faces a harder test, though, because the dirtbags have spent four years stewing over Clinton’s seizure of the nomination from Sanders and subsequent humiliating loss to Trump. In that moment, all the arguments that they had heard about moderation, and rationality, and civility were shattered. The moderate, rational candidate had been beaten by a foul-mouthed, philandering billionaire.

Of course, I oppose the dirtbags. As I wrote in my review of the Chapo book, I think their politics combine a starry-eyed utopianism with a nihilistic spite, and that their personalities tend to combine a posturing cynicism with a startling lack of self-awareness. But I sympathize with them. They have been told for years that a party establishment which voted for the Iraq war and lost to Donald Trump is the only alternative to the Republicans, and now the abrupt ending of Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar’s campaigns and immediate endorsement of Biden have shown that this establishment will move Heaven and Earth not to give them a chance. To some extent one can understand their pure hatred.
 

OfTheCross

Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
43,350
Reputation
4,874
Daps
98,671
Reppin
Keeping my overhead low, and my understand high
Peak Bernie: Kiss His Chances Goodbye


https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fmaven-user-photos%2Fmishtalk%2Fpolitics%2FzmfATcSa4EegwR7v_znq6Q%2FIG7Usq-v5kWHqsLsQK-shQ
 

Kenny West

Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
25,167
Reputation
6,098
Daps
92,704
Reppin
NULL
It's gonna be tight State-wise.

Hopefully when Bernie wins he blows him out and when he loses it's a close vote.

Margins matter.
Thats why I have the edge to bernie.

He can close margins with the ground game and the states he beats Biden in he beats him rather soundly.
 

nyknick

refuel w/ chocolate milk
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
18,714
Reputation
6,060
Daps
90,745
If Biden pulls off Texas without any organizing until the day before, while Bernie's team spent millions, it really proves campaign infrastructure (calls, texting, canvassing) doesn't mean shyt and that earned media narrative is the undisputed kingmaker in politics.
Grassroots movement, thousands of doors knocked and calls made, amazing online presence, the best Latino outreach, multiple rallies across multiple states in a single day :hula: just saying "my friend President Barack Obama :smugbiden:"



We're about to find out tonight :francis:
 
Top