No the majority had the most votes. Combining the rest of the field together in a pool of candidates this large is almost certainly always going to fail to reach 50%. Also its funny we keep ignoring that part of the argument is having a bunch of party members in this event just say, eh we'll decide who gets the nom then, which even with your own definition would still be ignoring the will of the people lol.
Sorry, I thought you were making more of a point than you apparently were. My bad.
The problem here is not merely what he said, but the obvious hypocrisy behind his change of stance. Probably shouldn't lecture on arguing in good faith if you're going to misconstrue what others are taking issue with.
It's frustrating. When Bernie wanted to do this exact same thing when he clearly lost his supporters we're behind it 100%. Funny how the times change.
It's not a dumb as dog shit. It's literally why we have run-off elections.
Yeah, thank god that asshole Nixon never got any real power.
It definitely wouldn't be great for the party. Which is why if Sanders gets the most delegates but not enough to clinch, I think most everyone will fall in line. Easier to move a moderate than a fervent Sanders supporter I'd think.
No one is saying a brokered convention is a run off.
Every candidate on the stage is in it to win it, OF COURSE they're going to say the thing that benefits them. It would be absolutely nonsensically stupid for them not to. Instead of focusing on hypocrisy (a politician being hypocritical when it suits their needs- whodathunkit!), focus on the question that actually matters. If Sanders (or whoever) gets a plurality of votes but does not win the nomination, how would that influence the chances for Democrats in the general election? In my opinion, it would pretty fucking bad.
So then why are you bringing it up since this entire conversation is about a brokered convention?
I brought it up because another poster said the idea of not giving a nomination to someone who has failed to secure a majority is dogshit. I said it's not dogshit, and that it is the literal basis of a runoff election. That is not saying the brokered convention is a runoff.
yes. no one is saying a brokered convention is a run off so why did you bring them up lmao
Almost everyone in here calling it dog shit is calling it as such because of the way a brokered convention gets figured out, which you continue to ignore everytime we repeat it to you. Youre ignoring half the reason why anyone was calling it dog shit.
Your natural assumption doesn't feel very natural at all. I said you could argue that ignoring that a majority did not vote for a candidate is ignoring the will of the people. That's it. I didn't say anything about second choices or the next most viable moderate. It's like you just picked an argument you wish I was having with you and ran with it.
Don't forget to make at least one Central Park reference every two weeks AT MINIMUM or you'll be put on suspension.
you're absolutely right my friend, there's really no way to read this and assume you were implying nothing else about what 'the majority' would want in this situation and i have just been arguing with a strawman
His arguments were more nuanced than this. He said in 2016 that superdelegates from states he won should support him as well as states that Hillary won before he entered the race. The latter is pretty questionable but the former is completely reasonable.
I'm ignoring it because it has nothing to do with what I've actually said. I said going to a brokered convention isn't ignoring the will of the people. A majority is required to win the nomination, and if you get to a brokered convention, a majority was not achieved. That's not undemocratic. If you have a problem with how brokered conventions are run, which I think is the argument you want us to have, then that's fine, I don't disagree with you there.
Fair, but also if you pick a different candidate then what the people voted for by way of shady delegate dealings at a convention then don't be surprised when your entire party gets destroyed because you just lost the majority of progressive voters to an undemocratic party rule and moderates have proven since the start of the 21st century they can't carry dems to victory alone.
It has nothing to do with what you said, but has everything to do with what the people you were arguing said.
I don't know what to tell you. Read better? Quote better too next time.
Well you're kind of showcasing why we're discussing it. You're giving brownie points to Sanders for being "right" in 2020...while acknowledging he was wrong in 2016, and likely has only changed his position because it benefits him politically. So why give him brownie points at all? Why chastise the other candidates for a position he held just one presidential cycle ago?
