Basically, Michigan moved up their primary against DNC rules. Obama and John Edwards obliged the DNC and didn't put their names on the ballot (so they both got 0 votes there) while Hillary did not.
NY Times summary
-
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
NY Times summary
Anecdotal but i was going over a few friends posts that live in south carolina. All African American. Theres people who are going for biden, bloomberg, and styer. I have lost faith in SC. What in the world.
Ah, I agree.
I thought a slight majority of people in PA supports the ban.
It's not going to happen, so don't worry about it and stop letting the media take advantage of you by writing articles that specifically target your biases
Would Sanders supporters honestly care what the New York Times was saying if they didn't write this specific article? Most of the time they hate large media companies, but they coincidentally think they're totally fine once they write some random article about how awful the DNC is.
Stop letting these companies so easily use you for clicks and social media engagements
if you were correct, i think the dnc should be able to nip this kind of speculation in the bud by making a statement
No I know.
I think you saying to backwards from how I think of it tripped me up. Obama DID win the popular vote in 2008, MI just isn't included.
Pretty much, yea
Just something people who spend too much time on social media are convinced will happen and give themselves unneeded anxiety
Making a statement about what? Unpledged delegates get to vote for whoever they want, the DNC can't decide that for them.
It's less that they'll 'steal the election' and more that they'll do something colossally stupid that obliterates voter turnout.
In a contested convention, voter turnout is going to be cratered anyways. There are no good outcomes.
Solution is simple: Win the election.
the dnc can certainly make a statement that they expect superdelegates to vote for a candidate with a strong plurality
I don't give a shit about the NYT, I give a shit what delegates are saying. Notice how the quotes and poll done have nothing to do with the outlet that presented the information. (unless you're going for the whole "the fact that they reported it at all is the bias" but that's the same thing as "WaPo sat on Bernie's russian support till the day before Nevada because Bezos is afraid of Bernie")
Anyways I wish I could share your optimism but I'm too cynical. We shall revisit this in July.
That would be the DNC leadership interfering in the primary.
Which everyone says they don't want to happen.
Why would they do that?
Why do so many people want to believe the DNC is both the most incompetent organization in existence that can't do anything right but also super geniuses who plan everything out in advanced for the sole purpose of getting to those dang progressives and their goals that align pretty much entirely with the party's values.
Like... those two views are at odds with each other, but so many people seem perfectly happy to believe in both
They want to win elections just as much as anyone in this thread...
Legitimate reporting from the Times is not equivalent to Trump fear mongering with 0 evidence.
that damage was already done by superdelegates being a thing in the first place
The DNC is not an incompetent organization, nor are they super geniuses.
They simply believe that Sanders will lose against Trump, and would rather pick someone who they think will win against Trump. They also believe the "cost" of Sander's base, since it would be mostly young people, is one they can afford to lose and still win.
That's it. There isn't some deep rooted hated or fear for Sanders or anything like what you see on MSNBC. It's just a firm disagreement of policies and "the one who can beat Trump." At the end it boils down to different strategies for how to win.
I totally agree with this
There's no nefarious plot against progressives, it's just different people in a huge, wide net party with varying views on who can win. But everyone ultimately has the same goal: To win elections
The question is why do they believe this. Their foresight didn't exactly yield a positive result last time.
I think they mean going into the convention. Not the entire primary like it was with Hillary. Every primary the totals showed up on screen with her Superdelegates added.
Bolded is the thing they're dead wrong about. Republicans, as a whole, have enthusiasm built in due to the way their top-down authority-driven social structure works. They turn out in droves by default. Democrats do not have this.
If the DNC cancels youth turnout through some kind of boneheaded negotiation plan, they can basically kiss the election goodbye.
"You were wrong once, therefore, how can you be right now?" isn't a good argument to me. It's pretty easily diffused, especially given that we're looking at super complicated events.
I mean, the DNC has literally no thumb on the scales anywhere in this process. It seems a bit weird to start talking about this monolithic DNC stealing things this early.
Even Bernie fans should be ecstatic that something like Bloomberg joining the debates happened, even if Warren did most of the work on that front.
Even Bernie fans should be ecstatic that something like Bloomberg joining the debates happened, even if Warren did most of the work on that front.
Dems are gonna get shellacked by the most unpopular President in decades if they try any funny business at the convention, lmao.
The point is they're going to do something stupid in an attempt to prevent a Sanders nomination. And interviewing over 10% of all superdelegates and concluding a vast majority of them oppose Sanders - some saying they'll even take action to stop him - is not a tiny fraction, unless you're assuming their sample size was wildly skewed against Sanders compared to the rest of the superdelegates. Talking to over 10% is way more data than any poll gets.
Excellent point you bring up. The answer is, that they just do believe they're right. Its not based on polling, because the head to heads have sanders consistently beating out trump, and by a bigger margin than any other candidate. They simply believe that young progressives are not the future of the party and that they aren't needed this election to win.
To be honest, to still be a liberal post-Trump, you need to firmly believe that 2016 was a fluke. That's why the Russia-gate stuff is still so prominent on late night talk shows and liberal circles. Because there was NO WAY the more "electable" candidate legitimately lost. So I can understand why they still believe in their heart of hearts that a moderate candidate is still the way to beat Trump.
Yeah, as far as I know Biden is big with older African Americans here.
The DNC were they real accelerationists all along.
"Maybe if we give Trump another 4 years, we can finally get moderate candidate!"
Lost by only 5 points, so makes sense. NC is younger, more techie, and more liberal.
It is a purple state. SC is red.
There's supposed to be a few coming today. Not sure what time though.
Not to mention they would lose the future of their party by shunning Bernie's base. Thats the short term thinking we were talking about earlier. If they think they can still win this election by fucking over the youth (and the most diverse voter base) theyre wrong, but they also wont have a base moving forward either.
If anything this is sounding like the perfect time to get an actual 3rd party started thats committed to progressive ideas and actually helping marginalized communities instead of just saying "well at least were not as bad as republicans so you have to vote for us".
Unfortunately this is not how our system works. While a third party tries to get a scant few people into congress through a FPTP system, nearly all Democrats will disappear along with the 30-35 percent (and growing) that just vanished from their base. This has a singular outcome. You think that one Reagan map was bad? The entire country will turn ruby red, and stay that way for a generation. The political system will disintegrate, and long-term probably the country along with it.
The map's going to turn ruby red if Bernie is cheated of the nomination as well.
I mean thats going to happen regardless if the Dems seriously pull some bull shit at a brokered convention. Might as well try to fix the problem instead of letting it burn with the democratic party.
Sanders in third is really tough. Any unnecessary delegate hemorrhaging will decrease his chances in brokered convention
Is it so hard to believe that the goal of the DNC is to still win elections while at the same time undermining a candidate they don't prefer?
Yeah, Biden must have this in the bag by now. Multiple polls now show him leading the field by a vast margin, greater than Sanders leads in California. He is the singular candidate in South Carolina.
- Status