|
I am not sure whether the delegate question was meant as a softball for Bernie or as a grenade for the Democratic party. In this primary it's easy to envision a scenario where Bernie gets a plurality of delegates but not actually enough to win the nomination straight up. It made logical and ethical sense for the other candidates to say that they wouldn't automatically support Bernie in that scenario, especially since his voter % would very probably be significantly less than his delegate %. It was, frankly, smarmy of Bernie to not cut that line of questioning off at the knees.
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 05:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:God drat Bending the knee just in time for Bernie to wheel out the guillotines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 05:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PhilipWegmann/status/1230348153934708737
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 05:33
|
|
|
LOL. I'm not owned etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 05:34
|
|
|
mike passes a paper around, urging the other candidates to sign a No Debates Agreement
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 05:34
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:I am not sure whether the delegate question was meant as a softball for Bernie or as a grenade for the Democratic party. In this primary it's easy to envision a scenario where Bernie gets a plurality of delegates but not actually enough to win the nomination straight up. It made logical and ethical sense for the other candidates to say that they wouldn't automatically support Bernie in that scenario, especially since his voter % would very probably be significantly less than his delegate %. It was, frankly, smarmy of Bernie to not cut that line of questioning off at the knees. How do you figure it makes ethical sense?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 05:35
|
|
|
How many debates are there between now and Super Tuesday? Seems like time is running out and face planting in Nevada will only make it worse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 05:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ErikaAndiola/status/1230349254457094144?s=20
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 05:36
|
|
|
Zophar posted:How many debates are there between now and Super Tuesday? Seems like time is running out and face planting in Nevada will only make it worse. Just one I think
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 05:37
|
|
|
Chris Matthews has already accepted his fate, lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 05:39
|
|
|
Crumbskull posted:How do you figure it makes ethical sense? e: note that Sanders actually fares pretty well in head to head votes against other Democrats (only Warren comes close), so he can probably summit the requirement in that scenario. But it just doesn't make sense for people to be obliged to support him if he only has a plurality. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Feb 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 05:41
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:In the New Hampshire primary, Bernie got 25% of the vote but 38% of the delegates. This is normal owing to the nature of the delegate assignment rules. It's easy to see a scenario where Bernie gets a plurality of like 30% of the vote and 45% of the delegates. It is not violating the will of the people in any way for the other candidates to say they don't support an automatic Bernie victory in that scenario. Whoever gets the most votes should win
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 05:42
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:In the New Hampshire primary, Bernie got 25% of the vote but 38% of the delegates. This is normal owing to the nature of the delegate assignment rules. It's easy to see a scenario where Bernie gets a plurality of like 30% of the vote and 45% of the delegates. It is not violating the will of the people in any way for the other candidates to say they don't support an automatic Bernie victory in that scenario. Bernie will still have won more votes in that scenario...
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 05:42
|
|
|
Hillary should have won! She got the most votes! The electoral college needs to be done away with! ... We have to follow the process! It works the way it works!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 05:45
|
|
|
Oh please. I'm sure you guys are smarter than that. The primary is not done via ranked choice, delegates are the means to control vote splitting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 05:46
|
|
|
idk if we should read too much into those answers yet. the question was basically "will you support bernie" and nobody wants to say yes to that at this stage
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 05:48
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Oh please. I'm sure you guys are smarter than that. The primary is not done via ranked choice, delegates are the means to control vote splitting. Are you making an argument for process or for supporting the will of the voters? Because you seem to be making the mistake of assuming that Bernie is actually facing off against a moderate Voltron and not a collection of different candidates. Polling on preference has made it abundantly clear that this isn't a Sanders vs. Everyone race, so it's not obvious that vote splitting is the issue that you're making it out to be. Like you said, he performs pretty well in head-to-heads.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 05:50
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:In the New Hampshire primary, Bernie got 25% of the vote but 38% of the delegates. This is normal owing to the nature of the delegate assignment rules. It's easy to see a scenario for the entire primary where Bernie gets a plurality of like 30% of the vote and 45% of the delegates. It is not violating the will of the people in any way for the other candidates to say they don't support an automatic Bernie victory in that scenario. Yes it is If they choose someone else, how do they know that's the will of the people. Does Warren go back and ask everyone who voted for her if they're fine with her giving her delegates to Pete or whoever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 05:52
|
|
|
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/19/politics/who-won-democratic-debate/index.html LOSERS * Michael Bloomberg: The first hour of the debate was an absolute and total disaster for the former mayor. He looked lost at times -- and those were the best times for him! Warren dunked on him repeatedly. Sanders slammed him. Biden bashed him. It was like watching a pro wrestling match where everyone decided to gang up on a single wrestler in the ring -- and that wrestler was totally and completely caught off-guard. Bloomberg is still very, very rich -- and will continue to spend his money on the race. So he's not going away. But it's hard to see how the momentum Bloomberg had built through his heavy ad spending wasn't slowed considerably by a performance that slid waaaaay under what was a very low bar of expectations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 05:58
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Oh please. I'm sure you guys are smarter than that. The primary is not done via ranked choice, delegates are the means to control vote splitting. Yeah, but whoever gets the most votes should win
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 05:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes it is It's an assumption made with the full knowledge its imperfect. We could build a more responsive system today, but these systems were the best available when devised. And TL;DR inertia. Paradoxish posted:Are you making an argument for process or for supporting the will of the voters? I'm making no such assumption at all. If Bernie has such support, he should come through the convention just fine. Bernie is not *owed* the nomination in the scenario of getting a questionable plurality. Not by the rules of the contest and not by any rule of ethics. But that's what you guys are saying. In this hypothetical, Bernie would be the major beneficiary of anti-democratic flaws in the First Past The Post voting systems. Anyone who cares enough to post in this thread has probably bitched about FPTP and the electoral college being counter-democratic bullshit. Well, it's time to put up or shut up in that regard. Do you love FPTP as long as it benefits your guy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:00
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:It's an assumption made with the full knowledge its imperfect. We could build a more responsive system today, but these systems were the best available when devised. And TL;DR inertia. Actually, the voters are owed their candidate, in the form of whoever most of them choose winning
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:03
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:It's an assumption made with the full knowledge its imperfect. We could build a more responsive system today, but these systems were the best available when devised. And TL;DR inertia. Given that the choice you're presenting is two imperfectly democratic systems, (not to mention the presence of un-elected unaccountable super-delegates): yeah, it seems better to me to nominate the person with the most votes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:03
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:I'm making no such assumption at all. If Bernie has such support, he should come through the convention just fine. Bernie is not *owed* the nomination in the scenario of getting a questionable plurality. It should be ranked choice voting all the way through, but you're clearly being disingenuous in attacking Bernie's almost guaranteed plurality as "anti-democratic." What's anti-democratic is that the nomination will then be decided by the party machine. It's not controversial to say that if Bernie got the most delegates, he ought to be the nominee. It's the same as saying that if Clinton won the popular vote, she should be President, and the electoral college is anti-democratic. (These are aligned positions! You're being even more disingenuous by pretending they're opposed!) And if Bernie got the most votes in Iowa (in the 1st AND 2nd alignment!) he should have gotten the most delegates. But only one of those things gets said by people like you, because you only love democracy when it benefits your guy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:04
|
|
|
Lol. I wonder what other principles you guys are willing to throw away if the will of the majority is on the chopping block already. Cup Runneth Over posted:It should be ranked choice voting all the way through, but you're clearly being disingenuous in attacking Bernie's almost guaranteed plurality as "anti-democratic." What's anti-democratic is that the nomination will then be decided by the party machine. It's not controversial to say that if Bernie got the most delegates, he ought to be the nominee. It's the same as saying that if Clinton won the popular vote, she should be President, and the electoral college is anti-democratic. (These are aligned positions! You're being even more disingenuous by pretending they're opposed!) And if Bernie got the most votes in Iowa (in the 1st AND 2nd alignment!) he should have gotten the most delegates. But only one of those things gets said by people like you, because you only love democracy when it benefits your guy. I am not sure you actually understand the argument. Most is not MAJORITY. Literally, in this hypothetical Bernie would have 30% of the voters and less than 50% of the delegates. He would not be the winner by any rule of the contest, nor any democratic principle. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Feb 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:04
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Lol. I'm a big supporter of the will of the majority, which is why I think whoever gets the most votes should win
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:05
|
|
|
It's actually a really good point, voters pick up on cues like this. None of them were smart enough to project confidence that they themselves expect to knock off these other centrist twerps and wrestle Bernie for the crown and maybe come out on top with a plurality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:06
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I'm a big supporter of the will of the majority, which is why I think whoever gets the most votes should win You literally are not. You do understand that most is not synonymous with majority, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:08
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:You literally are not. You do understand that most is not synonymous with majority, right? most /mōst/ Learn to pronounce determiner · pronoun greatest in amount or degree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:08
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:You literally are not. You do understand that most is not synonymous with majority, right? Yes, but if more people vote for one person than any other, that person should win
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:09
|
|
|
I hope Pete enjoyed the sloppy blowjob Chris Mathews gave him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:10
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Lol. To your mind, allowing the candidates to apportion delegates as they see fit and also allowing a bunch more delegates who don't represent any electorate at all decide to nominate someone who did not get the most votes and delegates is a more democratic system than giving the nomination to the person with the most votes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:10
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:It's an assumption made with the full knowledge its imperfect. We could build a more responsive system today, but these systems were the best available when devised. And TL;DR inertia. TheDeadlyShoe posted:I'm making no such assumption at all. If Bernie has such support, he should come through the convention just fine. And even if they voluntarily stayed out of it, candidates can give their delegates to anyone they want, they don't have to give it to the candidate with the most support! If people vote for Warren because she promised Medicare For All, then she cuts a deal with Biden to make him president, she's going against the will of her voters. TheDeadlyShoe posted:Bernie is not *owed* the nomination in the scenario of getting a questionable plurality. Not by the rules of the contest and not by any rule of ethics. But that's what you guys are saying. TheDeadlyShoe posted:In this hypothetical, Bernie would be the major beneficiary of anti-democratic flaws in the First Past The Post voting systems. Anyone who cares enough to post in this thread has probably bitched about FPTP and the electoral college being counter-democratic bullshit. Well, it's time to put up or shut up in that regard. Do you love FPTP as long as it benefits your guy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:11
|
|
|
Personally I think its obvious that FPTP is a bad and undemocratic system. It is not at all obvious to me that a brokered convention is a more democratic system, particularly given recent history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:11
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:In this hypothetical, Bernie would be the major beneficiary of anti-democratic flaws in the First Past The Post voting systems. Anyone who cares enough to post in this thread has probably bitched about FPTP and the electoral college being counter-democratic bullshit. Well, it's time to put up or shut up in that regard. Do you love FPTP as long as it benefits your guy? "The system is flawed - would you prefer those flaws to benefit your guy or the other guy?" is a hell of a weird question. Delegate trading doesn't actually solve any problem here and it doesn't offer a more democratic solution. Once they're free, they no longer represent the will of the voters in any meaningful way. Is ranked choice on the table? A run-off primary? No? Then I'm going to say that the candidate with the most votes should take it, because that's still better than a brokered convention.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:12
|
|
|
metasynthetic posted:Oh, good to know. I already don't always tip depending on how mad I am at the DNC on any given day but I was pleased with everyone gutting Bloomer tonight. I want my tips back, in that case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:12
|
|
|
Btw, half of the top YouTube clips about the debate right now are Bloomberg media corporation clips, heavily edited to make Mike look less bad. Can one pay to push specific clips to the top of YouTube search?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:15
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:I am not sure whether the delegate question was meant as a softball for Bernie or as a grenade for the Democratic party. In this primary it's easy to envision a scenario where Bernie gets a plurality of delegates but not actually enough to win the nomination straight up. It made logical and ethical sense for the other candidates to say that they wouldn't automatically support Bernie in that scenario, especially since his voter % would very probably be significantly less than his delegate %. It was, frankly, smarmy of Bernie to not cut that line of questioning off at the knees. Crumbskull posted:How do you figure it makes ethical sense? Any course of action that might result in a win, and for that matter any exercise of power over and above just turning the "democracy" crank to see what comes out, is unethical behavior to a liberal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:15
|
|
|
kidkissinger posted:they already skim Is this just the processing fee or are you referring to something else?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Lol. It's pretty clear that the candidate with the plurality of the delegates has the strongest claim to the nomination, isn't it? Who else would?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:18
|
|