This. If Bernie has the plurality he doesn't have to do shit. If they want to play games and try and force a VP on him or some shit he could threaten to run 3rd party. The DNC holds no cards in that situation.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
The DNC emails don't demonstrate anything was rigged.
They demonstrate DNC staffers preferred a candidate who was a member of their party to one who wasn't.
And Warren inserting and amending her opinion is interesting but certainly not receipts.
Here's a newsflash for the Bernie fans in this thread: if Hillary had not had so much clout and cleared out potential competitors beforehand, Bernie's campaign would have died before it started.
The DNC didn't change a single vote and Bernie got his day in the sun. His campaign also wrongfully breached Hillary's campaign data so unless you have concrete evidence of foul play (rather than staffers in a party having an expressed preference for a member of the party for its nomination) this "the DNC rigged the nomination" nonsense is a total nonstarter.
I doubt any non-Cuban voters really cares about the Castro stuff. The more worrisome attack on Bernie IMO is the 'how are you gonna pay for it' stuff, especially in the general election. Unfortunately there is a long history of white people in this country who will not support higher taxes for better social services if it means minorities disproportionately benefit, even if it they are better off as well.
Its such short term thinking too. Bernie's base is the future of the party, he has the youth. The most diverse coalition. And theyre going to try and fuck them ovee to prevent a sanders nom? Or force him to pick moderates? You do that and you destroy the party entirely. I honestly am not sure if even the dems are THAT stupid to do it.
I didn't say "rigged;" Liz Warren did. But if your prerogative is to believe the primary was entirely above board then go ahead.
Yeah, it is fascinating, but it's not moderates vs. Bernie, it's all six of them all trying to win. There is no collective "team moderate" that exists, not in voters' minds nor in the candidates themselves. To each of them, quitting just means losing.
Majority sure, large plurality , yeah. This is an easy thing.
Weak plurality (the only relevant scenario) - any candidate is going to need to cut deals and ensure a smooth second vote, we either are in this all together in unison or we hang separately.
Again wrong. Anyone who had less of a plurality than sanders has even less of an argument than he does, even if he has a weak plurality (but still more than everyone else). They can try to fuck around all they want in that scenario but to do so would come at the expense of their own party. Sanders is smart enough to know that.
There's an argument that he's done more than Democrat has done to shift the window left.
Just this week, you had a presidential candidate do the following:
- Directly called Bibi a racist during a primary debate.
- Trashed AIPAC for harbouring bigotry.
- Unequivocally told the world that he believes Palestinians deserve the same right to live in security as Israelis.
Like I said, no one gives a shit about Warren and her plans. They want that progressive fire from her that had rich assholes sweating, not this technocrat detailing her plans in minute detail and hedging her bets because she thinks about political realities.
Last edited:
I have a hard time believing that a scenario in which the only thing standing between Bernie Sanders and Medicare for All is the filibuster and he just throws up his hands and says "well, we tried!" The people who elected him would not stand for that shit, we would march.
Interesting thread regarding a possible plan of attack for Warren in this race, definitely give it a look, even if with a grain of salt.
TLDR: There's a chance Warren's true intent at this point is to scoop up voters who want an alternative to Bernie in order to prevent them from voting for Biden/Bloomberg. The more unviable candidates in the race, the better Bernie does, so stealing votes from the big threats, even if she knows she's out of the race herself, helps Bernie's chances of a majority. If this is true, it could explain why she has almost exclusively targeted Bloomberg and only attacks Bernie on unsubstantive issues (Bernie Bros, superdelegates, etc) that she knows won't actually sway any on-the-fence Bernie voters.
TLDR: There's a chance Warren's true intent at this point is to scoop up voters who want an alternative to Bernie in order to prevent them from voting for Biden/Bloomberg. The more unviable candidates in the race, the better Bernie does, so stealing votes from the big threats, even if she knows she's out of the race herself, helps Bernie's chances of a majority. If this is true, it could explain why she has almost exclusively targeted Bloomberg and only attacks Bernie on unsubstantive issues (Bernie Bros, superdelegates, etc) that she knows won't actually sway any on-the-fence Bernie voters.
As a Bernie supporter since 2016, if I heard this back then I'd have laughed.
There's no way in hell the same sane-minded person wrote the beginning and end of this sentence consecutively.
Filibuster is something you get rid of at the start of 2021 though otherwise it's too late,
This needs to be brought up every time someone says Sanders and Warren are the same. The foreign policies are like night and day. It honestly comes off that most don't give a shit about foreign affairs and I don't know why there isn't as much shame there as there are with any other issues.
That's if we win the senate.. in which case my comment still stands. If Sanders squanders a trifecta because he doesn't want to nuke the filibuster then I will be mighty pissed. And again, I don't see us getting to that bridge and not crossing it. This is what Sanders has said regarding the filibuster:
"Bernie Sanders" said:
Now what do you think the argument for that is? I'm guessing it MIGHT be somewhere around implementing his core policy that has propelled him to where he is now. If he thinks healthcare is a right, he's not letting the filibuster stop that from happening.
He's smart enough to ensure a unifying convention at any cost if he has a weak plurality. This will mean some concessions so the majority of the party that didn't vote for him has their voices heard and we all leave pretty happy!
If Bernie wants to fight, he won't get one. The DNC supers will dumpster him and cut a deal among the most number of supers and delegates that causes the least amount damage under a unifier (such as Warren).
I mean, the point is that if Bernie has the plurality, as long as he's a rational actor he gets the nomination. But viva la revolution Bernie rolling in with a frontloaded 30% delegate share w/ a lead from one state (CA) and just expecting everyone else to just bend the knee is completely ridiculous.
Bernie can't singlehandedly dismantle the American Empire, but god, I hope he can get the conversation going.
Nah screw that I believe in popular vote. Most votes wins. If they want to cut deals then Bernie should threaten to run 3rd party. I'm so fucking sick of this party.
I personally have no opinion on the filibuster issue because it's way above my understanding tbh, but wouldn't defeating the filibuster just mean that whenever a Republican majority comes back into power, they can pass whatever they want with no resistance? Ofc Bernie's plan of budget reconciliation sets the same precedent, but people keep talking about ending the filibuster as if it's some massive partisan victory.
Here's the actual truth - nobody is voting for Bernie Sanders. I didn't vote for Sanders in '16, Edwards in '08, or Kerry in '04.
I voted for Delegates for those candidates, who then go to the convention to choose the actual nominee.
If there is no majority, then the three thousand odd delegates in Milwaukee, will have to come to an agreement on a platform, and a ticket.
The reason why ending the filibuster is good, is because at the moment, Republican's can say "I support crazy thing x" in a primary, to win a primary, and even vote for that crazy thing once in Washington, secure in the knowledge that it'll never pass because of the filibuster requirement. Then, they can go back and say, "I voted for crazy thing x, but those damn RINO's and Democrat's blocked me, so we just need real true conservatives blah blah..."
It is true if remove the filibuster, the GOP can pass a whole lot of terrible things.
The difference is, well, then they'd actually have to run on all the terrible things they just passed. There's a reason why the Obamacare repeal was a mess, because the Senator's knew it'd be terrible politically, if they agreed ideologically, and had publicly supported a repeal.
A GOP without the cushion of a filibuster to block their worst ideas is one that will either lose elections because they pass unpopular things, or move enough to the middle where their candidates are no longer promising crazy things.
It's important to note that up until the past ten years or so, the filibuster was basically only used in regards to the Civil Rights and everything else, passed on a 50-vote requirement, because even people who didn't support a bill didn't filibuster every damn thing they opposed.
got em
real shit though im consistently amazed by the people who say this shit. just incredible
You only need a majority to change the Senate rules at the beginning of a session. Why that's not filibusterable is weird arcane crap even a dork like me doesn't know. Now, the Democrat's may still not have the votes because of institutionalists within their own caucus, but at worst, you'll likely have more stringent filibuster requirements (aka - actual talking filibusters required) or the lowering of cloture to 55.
Yes, and that's why the candidate's names don't appear on the ballo-
Oh, wait, that's all that's on the ballot? GTF with that sophistry.
Elizabeth, worst case Bernie is being a hypocrite.
Idc. Idc. Idc.
If we go to a convention and Bernie gets the most votes, but doesnt end up the nominee, Trump will be reelected, for sure. Republicans are the ones that justify the most heinous things, purely base on accusations of hypocrisy. We need Trump out of office, and it's pretty clear at this point Bernie will get at least a plurality.
Idc. Idc. Idc.
If we go to a convention and Bernie gets the most votes, but doesnt end up the nominee, Trump will be reelected, for sure. Republicans are the ones that justify the most heinous things, purely base on accusations of hypocrisy. We need Trump out of office, and it's pretty clear at this point Bernie will get at least a plurality.
Should ask her about her feelings about military coups in other countries.
Expert in winning things, Clay Aiken.
Technically true but extremely disingenuous.
Here's a fun scenario: what if Clinton won the electoral college but your state's electors decided to go for Trump, thus changing who's gonna be president?
Would you be saying "oh well, we didn't actually vote for Clinton, we voted for the delegates"
Also the comparisons to a parliamentary system are completely misguided, and anyone making them is really showing their ass. In a parliamentary system you vote for a party and depending on the results they end up in a coalition. This is voting for just one person to be the candidate, the only things that could be asked of the plurality winner is some cabinet picks, not to leave the candidacy to someone else. That would destroy the party and give the election to Trump.
Last edited:
Yeah, I think this was a fair point to make pre-Nevada. Post-Nevada it's brain dead. Bernie killed it there (along with a lot of my anxiety about him becoming the nominee).
So, if Joe Biden ends up with 33% of the delegates because he incredibly overpreforms in the South, Bernie has 30%, and Warren has 21%, you'd have absolutely no issues and would say Bernie should release his delegates to Biden immediately to put him over the top without asking for any concessions at all?
Did you read my post? I talked about concessions.
If Biden gets a plurality he should be top of the ticket, I'm not gonna pretend to know how many concessions he should give (probably a lot in that scenario!) but he should be the presidential candidate.
Gonna be honest, I think in a case where the top person is only 3% ahead of the second person in a contested convention, no matter who wins there's gonna be enough dissatisfied people to give the election to Trump. Like, that scenario is a nightmare that I don't really even want to contemplate.
No, Bernie ought to do the same exact thing as in 2016 in that case. But I'm less concerned with being consistent and "right" on matters of Machiavellian process shit than I am in leftists properly wielding power to create a more equitable society.
I've already said why saying Bernie is hypocritical on rules is bullshit from an objective point of view using the critics own framing, but really if i'm being honest fuck that. I don't give a shit about the rules of an undemocratic process. I don't care about being consistent. This is a war and I want to win.
If silly rules are ignored or slightly bent to make America a better place for all Americans and the World in general, that's not the worst thing.
Jeez, this place turned on Warren on a dime. With friends like these...
Yeah, I don't get it
Especially when the other side has no qualms doing just that and routinely fucking Democrats and the US democracy over.
This video is evergreen:
Yeah, Biden's idea is to change filibuster rules without getting rid of it. Bernie's idea is to basically abuse budget reconciliation to get around filibusters. Both are basically trying to get filibuster busting like results without getting rid of the filibuster, which I suppose the logic is that the votes are likely not there to get rid of the filibuster altogether, but... Like, on the budget reconcilation abuse thing, I don't see the people that would be against nuking the filibuster to be for that, and filibuster rule change is so vague that you'd be relying on whatever the consensus of the dem Senate on what should be in a filibuster break. Like, in a 55 cloture scenario where the dems have 50-52 seats there wouldn't even really be any moderate republicans left to get even the barest, limpest of things done.
Also, I'd bet money that McConnell tries to put the judicial filibuster back up in a lame duck to force dems into the awkward position of re-dismantling it rather than just gliding through some nominations without changing the rules. There might be enough cross-over votes for that (since quite a few dem Senators have pledged to put the judicial filibuster back up and they'd be getting called out on that) to just put it back up.
Even putting aside all that, you'd be relying on marginal Senators in a 50-52 dem Senate, and those marginals would use any push back from the presidency as a badge in advertisements to show how independent they are, so things might be pretty screwed regardless.
Of course, this is assuming we get a narrow majority, which it's entirely possible we do not.
Best to hope for is new states, which every dem senator supports and would allow this clusterfuck to be lessened. You might even get a few pubs on board for Puerto Rico statehood.
Last edited:
Clay Aiken famously lost his season of American Idol but still went on to be a bigger and more prominent figure than the person who beat him. You'd think he'd have a more nuanced understanding of what winning is.
Love Warren but she's not this savvy. She criticizes Bernie on those issues because that's the only daylight between them. You don't go through running for president unless you want to be the president real bad. Probably her case is being a good alternative in a contested convention or some other contingency
You know, late to the convo but honestly, yeah, better listen to someone in the green party than someone who would not bat an eyelid at increasing drone strikes halfway across the world, murdering civilians in a continous fashion. And that includes both republican and democrat presidents.
- Status