Democrats, Can We Agree?

there are many think pieces out there suggesting that Bernie's ego will lead him to a third party candidacy, or to not supporting Clinton out of spite.  either of which would make a Trump presidency likely.  

Sanders has said that he will do everything in his power to prevent a Trump presidency, so I don't think either of those things will happen.

sac said:

there are many think pieces out there suggesting that Bernie's ego will lead him to a third party candidacy, or to not supporting Clinton out of spite.  either of which would make a Trump presidency likely.  

Sanders has said that he will do everything in his power to prevent a Trump presidency, so I don't think either of those things will happen.

neither do I.  which is what I've been saying for days.  but it hasn't stopped some people from continuing to fret that he will sabotage Clinton.

Elizabeth Warren will endorse Hillary Clinton during an interview on MSNBC at 9:00pm tonight.

ml1 said:

I don't agree with Paul that there's any chance that Bernie will get the nomination, and outside of some really extraordinary event, should he.

But a point I've been trying to make (and I think I'm not doing it well), is to point out that getting 40% among the Democratic voters motivated enough to go out to the polls is important.  

Don't think that just because people don't want to get your point because it conflicts with their position that you are not making your point. You make your points very well.

The BHO meeting and subsequent congressional meetings, on top of the kid gloves with which he's been treated by the HRC/BHO forces, suggest that Bernie has newfound juice and must be heard.

LOST said:

ml1 said:

I don't agree with Paul that there's any chance that Bernie will get the nomination, and outside of some really extraordinary event, should he.

But a point I've been trying to make (and I think I'm not doing it well), is to point out that getting 40% among the Democratic voters motivated enough to go out to the polls is important.  

As he should. He represents 12 million Democrats who vote

GL2 said:

The BHO meeting and subsequent congressional meetings, on top of the kid gloves with which he's been treated by the HRC/BHO forces, suggest that Bernie has newfound juice and must be heard.

LOST said:

ml1 said:

I don't agree with Paul that there's any chance that Bernie will get the nomination, and outside of some really extraordinary event, should he.

But a point I've been trying to make (and I think I'm not doing it well), is to point out that getting 40% among the Democratic voters motivated enough to go out to the polls is important.  

 imonlysleeping said:

I mean, let's say the current narrative was that Hillary was up by 500 delegates rather than 900. There are, I believe, about 150 delegates left (DC pledged in addition to the remaining unpledged superdelegates). Under your scenario, even if Bernie won every single remaining delegate (which wouldn't happen given DC's racial makeup, but leaving that aside), he still wouldn't even come close to the nomination. 

The media narrative would be exactly the same: Hillary has clinched the nomination. If anything, it would be even more definitive. 

Sorry I missed this earlier.  Yes, of course if superdelegates voted in the same proportion as their states, the breakdown of total delegates would be 55-45, giving Hillary a victory.

My point is that superdelegates have been opposing the will of voters in their states since the start of the nomination process.  Bernie has complained about this.  But interestingly, it was only when Bernie announced that he would seek the support of superdelegates that we heard complaints from the Hillary side that he was seeking to oppose the will of the voters.

California has undercut Bernie's plan to appeal to superdelegates as the best candidate to defeat Trump, but recent close polling between Hillary and Trump -- after latest Trump's racist rant -- may revive this strategy.

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

FOX News Clinton 42, Trump 39 Clinton +3

Rasmussen Reports Clinton 42, Trump 38 Clinton +4

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

Reuters/Ipsos Clinton 42, Trump 34 Clinton +8

PPP (D) Clinton 44, Trump 44 Tie

PPP (D) Clinton 44, Trump 45 Trump +1

Quinnipiac Clinton 45, Trump 38 Clinton +7

“MoveOn members believe, as we have
long advocated, that the nomination should go to the winner of the
majority of pledged delegates, and that undemocratic superdelegates
should not overturn the will of the voters.

Are you really still talking about polling?  Didn't you learn this lesson with California?

.

eliz said:

Are you really still talking about polling?  Didn't you learn this lesson with California?

(a) Hillary led Bernie in every poll taken in CA for the last year.

(b) There are still 2.6 million ballots in the CA primary that have not been counted.

paulsurovell said:

 imonlysleeping said:

I mean, let's say the current narrative was that Hillary was up by 500 delegates rather than 900. There are, I believe, about 150 delegates left (DC pledged in addition to the remaining unpledged superdelegates). Under your scenario, even if Bernie won every single remaining delegate (which wouldn't happen given DC's racial makeup, but leaving that aside), he still wouldn't even come close to the nomination. 

The media narrative would be exactly the same: Hillary has clinched the nomination. If anything, it would be even more definitive. 

Sorry I missed this earlier.  Yes, of course if superdelegates voted in the same proportion as their states, the breakdown of total delegates would be 55-45, giving Hillary a victory.

My point is that superdelegates have been opposing the will of voters in their states since the start of the nomination process.  Bernie has complained about this.  But interestingly, it was only when Bernie announced that he would seek the support of superdelegates that we heard complaints from the Hillary side that he was seeking to oppose the will of the voters.

 

And Bernie supportersare doing the same thing: They started off complaining that superdelegates are unfairly undermining the will of the people and are now themselves hoping for the same thing. But that's our system. It's not surprising that candidates and their supporters are trying to use whatever tools are available to win. But the reality remains that Hillary is the (presumptive) winner, whether you look at raw votes, pledged delegates or superdelegates. That's what happened. She should be--and will be-- the nominee. 

Yes.  If the superdelegates do not change their preferences on July 25th, she will be the nominee.

My objection is that -- since Monday -- the word "presumptive" has been dropped in many, if not most cases.

I'm going to start referring to Paul's posts as "Presumptive pro-Sanders posts." I mean, technically that'll be wrong, because until he posts something, I don't actually know what he's going to post, but surely I can presume that it's going to be pro-Sanders? Or is that an incorrect use of the word presumptive?

Hillary is the "presumptive" nominee because she has not yet been nominated and cannot be until the convention actually happens. But barring death or indictment she will be the nominee, and she should be treated as such just like every other presumptive nominee has been for decades. Bernie supporters are greatly exaggerating the significance of a vote that at this point, barring extreme circumstances, is a mere formality.

imonlysleeping said:

Hillary is the "presumptive" nominee because she has not yet been nominated and cannot be until the convention actually happens. But barring death or indictment she will be the nominee, and she should be treated as such just like every other presumptive nominee has been for decades. Bernie supporters are greatly exaggerating the significance of a vote that at this point, barring extreme circumstances, is a mere formality.

yes.  earlier I referred to "extraordinary" circumstances.  At this point, the only thing I could realistically see happening to stop a nomination for Trump or Clinton would be the sudden appearance of a serious health concern.

imonlysleeping said:

Hillary is the "presumptive" nominee because she has not yet been nominated and cannot be until the convention actually happens. But barring death or indictment she will be the nominee, and she should be treated as such just like every other presumptive nominee has been for decades. Bernie supporters are greatly exaggerating the significance of a vote that at this point, barring extreme circumstances, is a mere formality.

Yes, unless something changes, it will be a formality.  But I think it will be a significant formality.  And not something that anyone who respects the nomination process should be concerned about.

Edited to add:

With regard to "every other" presumptive nominee, I would like to compare what Bernie plans to do with one of those "other" presumptive nominees, Michael Dukakis, and how Jesse Jackson took his candidacy to the convention floor, despite the fact that there was a presumptive nominee.  The vote was a formality, but it was historic and significant.

Sure. Seems totally reasonable for the Democratic party to now enthusiastically rally around its presumptive nominee, and at the same time to support Bernie as he sees the process through--and to use the convention as an opportunity to thank him for his very significant contributions to the process and party. Hard to see how reasonable people could have an issue with those things at this point. So how about it, Democrats? Can we agree?

Bernie is so obnoxious, it's basically..... noxious

BubbaTerp said:

Bernie is so obnoxious, it's basically..... noxious ">

That will really help Clinton with Sanders supporters.

cramer said:

BubbaTerp said:

Bernie is so obnoxious, it's basically..... noxious ">

That will really help Clinton with Sanders supporters.

Are you saying that Sanders supporters are so fickle, politically unreliable, that when their feelings may be hurt by someone denigrating Sanders they will help Trump get elected? Instead of voting for Clinton who voted the same as Sanders 93% of the time?

One also has to take into account some of those denigrating Sanders may be Trump supporters attempting to render the Democratic party.

BG9 said:

cramer said:

BubbaTerp said:

Bernie is so obnoxious, it's basically..... noxious ">

That will really help Clinton with Sanders supporters.

Are you saying that Sanders supporters are so fickle, politically unreliable, that when their feelings may be hurt by someone denigrating Sanders they will help Trump get elected? Instead of Clinton who voted the same as Sanders 93% of the time?

One also has to take into account some of those denigrating Sanders may be Trump supporters attempting to render the Democratic party.

I'm saying that on this board it was completely unnecessary, just as the posts by Sanders supporters  vilifying Clinton are.  At this stage, they serve no purpose.

imonlysleeping said:

Sure. Seems totally reasonable for the Democratic party to now enthusiastically rally around its presumptive nominee, and at the same time to support Bernie as he sees the process through--and to use the convention as an opportunity to thank him for his very significant contributions to the process and party. Hard to see how reasonable people could have an issue with those things at this point. So how about it, Democrats? Can we agree?

I think that is fair and would be the most effective way to unite the party.

ml1 said:

yes.  earlier I referred to "extraordinary" circumstances.  At this point, the only thing I could realistically see happening to stop a nomination for Trump or Clinton would be the sudden appearance of a serious health concern.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-convention-block-gop-insiders-224152

BubbaTerp said:

Bernie is so obnoxious, it's basically..... noxious ">

Takes one to know one

Hillary won by 13% and the campaign was a peaceful and respectful one, compared to just about any major race I've seen. It shouldn't take too much to unite the party.

You'd think, but Clintonistas keep being jerks.  I'm totally done with Clinton now.

it's silly to ask the super delegates to vote proportionally to the primary results. If that is what the DNC wanted then they wouldn't have super delegates.  What the DNC wants is 80% say by the people and 20% say by the party.  It's a party system and the party wants some say in their candidate that is going to represent their party.  It's nothing new, it didn't start with Clinton and yes it favors the candidate that didn't vote against the DNC for 30 years.  You can look at the Republican Party and see why they have that system.    

dave said:

You'd think, but Clintonistas keep being jerks.  I'm totally done with Clinton now.

I've found many of the Berniacs to be rather jerky, yet I wouldn't withhold my vote from him because of that.

I think the DNC should get rid of superdelegates AND caucuses.