Seriously though, as soon as she won South Carolina by nearly 50%, it was clear to almost everyone. 2008 dragged on well into April and May.
Las Vegas Democratic Debate, 9PM ET on NBC/MSNBC | Six candidates on stage, none of whom has bankrupted a single casino.
- Thread starter Wraith
- Start date
That wasn't my intention, was just trying to show how some in the media are being really two faced towards a potential nominee, but in the future I will keep immigration reform and M4A separate, asides for also wanting M4A to be available to immigrants.
Clinton did more than have the most delegates. She secured a majority of delegates necessary to make her the presumptive nominee. Something Sanders likely won't do in 2020. Sanders' campaign also floated the idea of using superdelegates to win the nomination if Clinton didn't secure the majority.
Clinton secures majority of pledged delegates
“I really wish my mother could be here tonight," said Clinton.
www.politico.com
Just face it. If Bernie Sanders was not the likely candidate to come out of this contest with the most votes or delegates, Bernie Sanders would have given the same answer as every person on that stage.
They aren't belittling other issues at all, where are you getting that from?
I think you underestimate how much sway Trump still holds. There is only one candidate with enough momentum behind him to beat Trump and it's Sanders.
Pete is like someone gave Nathan Fielder the serum from The Nutty Professor and it went even more wrong than the last time.
I think what they're saying is they don't want yet another milquetoast centrist that is going to do the bare minimum to not rock the boat. Because that doesn't really work out for a lot of people anymore.
I think he's saying that people's opinions on how elections should be run and the role of superdelegates change based on who the frontrunner is.
I'm sorry, I overreacted. I'm sick of a lot of the leftist discourse online, but at the end of the day, most of these people want the same things I do.
Right. But Bernie would be hypothetically wrong to think that way and so are these candidates. like Bernie was wrong to make that comment in 2016 - he isn't retroactively vindicated because other candidates have similar ideas or vice versa.Clinton did more than have the most delegates. She secured a majority of delegates necessary to make her the presumptive nominee. Something Sanders likely won't do in 2020. Sanders' campaign also floated the idea of using superdelegates to win the nomination if Clinton didn't secure the majority.
Clinton secures majority of pledged delegates
“I really wish my mother could be here tonight," said Clinton.
Just face it. If Bernie Sanders was not the likely candidate to come out of this contest with the most votes or delegates, Bernie Sanders would have given the same answer as every person on that stage.
I don't.
1) The Trump base is still the Trump base. Most of them still love the guy.
2) The economy is doing well and most people put their short-term interests first.
3) Trump is emboldened to get away with any amount of fuckery he can.
4) Moscow Mitch has blocked every voting security bill put on the table.
5) If the vote somehow goes to the Supreme Court again, the numbers aren't on our side.
That's why electability IS a concern in the general. Warren is IMO the best shot we've got. She doesn't have a lot of skeletons in the closet, she has practical experience fighting for working folk, she's progressive enough to attract the young vote but folksy enough to play in Peoria, she has an emotional empathy that comes through big on her stump speeches, and she can light people up in a debate like it ain't no thing.
I think your overreating here. He was comparing and contrasting responses in the media not necessarily making a judgment about either one.
Probably. But a primary race is different than a general election process also. I don't think there is anything wrong with thinking that if a person was clearly in front, but maybe not an absolute majority (nearly impossible anyway with so many people running), then yes, that person should be pushed over the edge. The only issue comes into play is if 1st and 2nd are very close.
This.
The irony of 2016->2020 may end up being that all the things that were argued for in 2016 (Caucuses, Open Primaries, Fewer Superdelegates) because they aided Bernie at the time may end up backfiring. (Caucuses help coalesce moderate votes right now, with other options available anti-H conservaitve I/R votes aren't locked for Bernie this time, fewer Superdelegates increases the delegate % needed to just ask the superDs to put you over the top as a collective)
Man, must we loop Garbodor in with that crowd? Did Garbodor ask to be born as garbage? At least Weinstein and Dubya had some agency to determine whether they would be a festering trash heap or not. Garbodor had that choice thrust upon it from its early days as a little Trubbish.
Bernie was wrong in 16. He is right in 2020, the current year. If things were different and he said otherwise then we would be saying he is wrong. Lets focus on the fact that its wrong to have a system in place that ignores the will of the people.Clinton did more than have the most delegates. She secured a majority of delegates necessary to make her the presumptive nominee. Something Sanders likely won't do in 2020. Sanders' campaign also floated the idea of using superdelegates to win the nomination if Clinton didn't secure the majority.
Clinton secures majority of pledged delegates
“I really wish my mother could be here tonight," said Clinton.
Just face it. If Bernie Sanders was not the likely candidate to come out of this contest with the most votes or delegates, Bernie Sanders would have given the same answer as every person on that stage.
Thats the downside of being the smartest person in the room on a topic while having all the conversations revolve around those topics. She's too into policy to streamline her own stances into workable soundbites.
Clinton had similar problems, amplified by her own political opportunism (a trait we generally laud in men but find distasteful in women) and an over-reliance on a nepotistic beltway campaign staff who kept feeding her trash fire "soundbites" that made her sound fake.
Yes. Biden is hanging onto viability by a thread in a lot of big states and Bloomberg is likely taking a big fucking hit after tonight. If the moderate wing continues to vote split up to Super Tuesday its real possible that he is the only viable candidate in major delegate states like California and Texas.
If the most recent poll of Nevada from Data for Progress is accurate (35% Sanders, 16% Warren, 15% Buttigieg, 14% Biden) Sanders will clean the fuck up there above current projected delegate counts.
Really depends on how the fickle voters who keep moving from Biden > Warren > Biden > Buttigieg > Klobuchar > Bloomberg > All the previous four react to this debate and Nevada. If Biden does well enough to consolidate he'll return to a viable 1/2 with Sanders. If they continue flocking to Bloomberg for his massive add buys it'll push Bloomberg into that role, though I think he's got a far lower ceiling than Biden in the primaries. Maybe they inexplicably pick Pete or Klob after tonight?
The real question is if Warren gets a second look after this debate, especially if she passes viability in Nevada. I don't think she'd have the juice to actually take a directly competing with Sanders seat unless the rest of the field bottoms out and the moderates take her as the lesser of two progressives, but if she supplants Biden and co. as the only non-Sanders candidate with viability in Texas, California, New York, etc. she's going to be in it for the duration and will be a major player come the convention.
It wasn't close. Clinton won by double digits in vote percentage and a similar amount in delegates. It was a foregone conclusion that with only two candidates that Clinton would have a clear majority well before the primary process even ended.
Sanders was playing poltiics in 2016. Anyone claiming otherwise is either lying to themselves or to everyone else. In doing so he forced a seat at the table for the progressive wing of the party, which has meaningfully advanced the party platform as a whole. But lets not revise history to act like he wasn't playing similar political games to what all the other candidates were suggesting tonight.
In fact in 2016 his campaign was all about caucuses and I'd expect that after Iowa they'll want them all gone completely, as while it benefited him as an outsider in that race it blew up spectacularly to his detriment in this one.
Sanders hasn't been winning elections for >30 years sa an independent without knowing and employing political maneuvering.
It's alright, I looked at my post after I saw your reply and realized it could be seen as such. I mean no trivization of the issue. I'll edit it to clarify I'm talking about Chris Matthews and not posters here.
Nothing in polling or the last two states indicates Warren is the most electable candidate.
A contested convention isn't ignoring the will of the people. It's acknowledging that a majority did not choose a single candidate.
I disagree with this. Having a plan to get from point A to point B doesn't mean someone actually wants plan A.
Bernie has benefitted from the obscurity of his plans to get from point A to point B because the details of how to get there weakens his message of radical change.
I would hope that people who thought that opposition to caucuses/open primaries in 2016 was just because people supported Clinton are rethinking that perspective now.
I think their point is that it seems that liberals are all for progressive casuses until it effects them personally.
Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds, as the saying goes.
Dont be disingenuous. If the person who got the most votes doesnt win were not talking about democracy. Same with the electoral college. If the dem party wants to destroy itself by ignoring its voters they can try to fuck over the winner with the most votes/delegates and see what happens.
Mine surely do. I don't give a shit about being consistent regarding party rules. Do what it takes to gain legitimacy.
I'm going to say this again. A contested convention is not ignoring the will of the people. It's an acknowledgment that the people did not come to a consensus. Which in this case is a majority. More than 50 percent. That's not undemocratic. And I don't know why you're bringing up the electoral college.
Man fuck this Pete guy man he sucks and I hate everything about him
Bloomberg also has negative charisma
Bloomberg also has negative charisma
He did argue that superdelegates should vote against the will of the people and choose him over Hillary and he argued that caucuses were good. He did say those things
We cannot afford that, as a country. Trump is dismantling or corrupting another piece of our democratic institutions every day he remains in power.
As of most recent national polling Sanders is the only one with a likely path in both swing state and national polling. Most beat him in the head to head national polls, but up until Biden's fall only Sanders and Biden clearly beat Trump in a majority the rust belt swing states needed to win the electoral college.
With Biden's slide the most recent national polls reflect that only Sanders has a lead roughly at the margin of error, everyone else is within it. That likely carries through on the swing states.
Sanders has a theory of change, Warren has actual incremental policies. Thats the difference. But Sanders has the political charisma to energize a largely untapped youth vote and a larger existing coalition behind him, both of which are essential for a progressive to win.
My take is that voter turnout is key.
Bloomberg buying the nom would result in the worst voter turnout ever
Bloomberg buying the nom would result in the worst voter turnout ever
Depends, though. Getting to 50% is nearly impossible with a field this large. I'd say that if 1st is at like 45% and 2nd at 30%, that's probably grounds to just push #1 over the edge.
I'm going to say this again. A contested convention is ignoring the will of the people. A consensus for what? Its an arbitrary number that means nothing and only exists in the event that Dems have an opportunity to use the SDs to swing the election in a way that goes against what the majority of voters/delegates picked. What youre talking about is not democracy.
the will of the people is definitely when you throw out a plurality of votes at the end of the day in favour of a bunch of opaque backroom dealings based on a shallow understanding of who those voters would actually prefer to go to if they were forced to change candidates