To humor you: because he has a life-long record of it not applying to him which is reflected in both his rhetoric and his legislative carrer
Real response: lowest-effort trolling I've seen in a long time tbh
-
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.
NY Times: Democratic Leaders Willing to Risk Party Damage to Stop Bernie Sanders
- Thread starter Lunar Wolf
- Start date
To humor you: because he has a life-long record of it not applying to him which is reflected in both his rhetoric and his legislative carrer
Real response: lowest-effort trolling I've seen in a long time tbh
Apparently he did get enough though, and the super delegates overturned it.
I just Googled it and found a link to this video explaining it, skip to 3:40. What am I misunderstanding if he won but supers changed results.
Watch Michael Moore on Democrats | Streamable
Watch "Michael Moore on Democrats" on Streamable.
streamable.com
Realest response: he's technically to the right of maybe a quarter of the forum ;)
I have no idea. We just knew they were a thing and both sides were very worried about what would happen in a 49/49/2 style situation. (Thankfully, it was avoided.) Everyone just wanted them to go along with the majority winner if one emerged, in order to not cause a riot.
Hillary won 55% of the popular vote and 54% of the pledged delegates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primariesApparently he did get enough though, and the super delegates overturned it.
I just Googled it and found a link to this video explaining it, skip to 3:40. What am I misunderstanding if he won but supers changed results.
Watch Michael Moore on Democrats | Streamable
Watch "Michael Moore on Democrats" on Streamable.streamable.com
The super-delegates rubberstamped the result, just like in '08.
An earlier thread about the same article was locked and redirected to the primary thread, so just keeping consistent: https://www.resetera.com/threads/de...owa-right-discussion-guidelines-in-op.167107/
Official Staff Communication
We're going to keep this thread open for now, so long as it doesn't turn into a second primary OT. The point of this thread is to discuss the article itself, not the finer points of various candidates or who you support and why. If you guys can't do that, then we'll lock the thread again. For good this time.
This would be party suicide. I mean, you might get away with it if we were looking at a case of say
Bernie 30%
Biden 28%
Buttigieg 26%
Bloomberg 15%
To sell it though you would need both the moderate block to have a big majority and one of their candidates to be right there. Even then it would be a huge risk.
If Bernie has any sort of significant lead it would be the end of the party
Bernie 30%
Biden 28%
Buttigieg 26%
Bloomberg 15%
To sell it though you would need both the moderate block to have a big majority and one of their candidates to be right there. Even then it would be a huge risk.
If Bernie has any sort of significant lead it would be the end of the party
Klobs and the others need to drop out after Saturday. Also if they are looking to bring someone back, bring back Beto.
In a situation like that you're playing Survivor/Poker/Fortnite/etc. and it's whoever can make a deal first.
Fuck off with this... The voters are doing their part by being engaged in the process. Putting in some corporate stooge after voters pick Bernie for the nom means this country and the Democratic party both deserve to fade into history. It means the Democratic establishment looked fascism in the eyes and shrugged it's shoulders and rolled with it. Call it supporting Trump if you want but don't blame it on the voters because they took part in the process until the process no longer mattered.
If those Democrats are vile enough to sacrifice Sander's genuine attempt to jolt the system on the altar of their consensual well being, then fu** them. You might as well let Trump run the show again: Same egotistical maniac, same lack of results...but he, at least, would keep people entertained with his idiotic tweets I guess.
Why didn't Bernie go as an independent?
If you were Buttigieg, why would you want to lead the ticket of an election you're almost guaranteed to lose? It would be better to make a deal with Bernie and be VP.
Bloomberg and Biden probably won't care about losing. For Pete it's basically the end of his career losing to someone like Trump.
obama authorized legal intelligence investigation and had to stay out of the appearance of political interference. He increased and enforced sanctions on Russia and directly addressed this with Vladimir Putin. That's also his duty as president. As for brokering peace in the Democratic convention (which is the suggestion you're responding to and pure rumor anyway) "destroying his legacy " - that's one of the worst takes I've seen in a subject rife with terrible takes.
DNC isnt going to keep getting away doing whatever it wants by pointing that gun against our heads. If they screw Bernie, my ass is voting down ballot and that's it. If he loses fairly, then fine. I'll vote for any of them, besides Bloomberg.
Because an independent can't win. He needs the Democrats, the DNC, their caucuses, and their established voters. He needs those "corporate stooges," those "bootlickers," and moderate Dems.
That's really the whole rub of this entire situation and conversation. It's a party. A coalition. And to try to "take them on" while also needing their participation to be President is a sticky catch-22.
Last edited:
My prediction:
Bernie 48%
Bloomberg 23%
Biden 18%
All others 11%
and shit is going to get weird
Bernie 48%
Bloomberg 23%
Biden 18%
All others 11%
and shit is going to get weird
Cross posting from primary thread but:
This is the thing that gets me the most about the "Stop Sanders" codswallop. If you, already distrusted and hated party elites, spend the entire primary loudly complaining and handwringing about how to stop a particular candidate from winning, how the fuck do you think their supporters will respond to you taking the nomination away from them at a contested convention?
Like, how fucking dense do you have to be to not see that one of Sanders's greatest strengths is that he's built a coalition including a lot of people who want nothing to do with that kind of shit? If you sit out in the open and display nothing but derision and contempt for a largly anguished, enraged, ideologically solid movement, then it wins, then you wrench the rightfully won electoral victory away from them or try to tamper with it in some way, how do you think that plays out?
I mean, I know it's being meme'd a bit, but it really is a case of "fuck around and find out." We already know what happens.
This is the thing that gets me the most about the "Stop Sanders" codswallop. If you, already distrusted and hated party elites, spend the entire primary loudly complaining and handwringing about how to stop a particular candidate from winning, how the fuck do you think their supporters will respond to you taking the nomination away from them at a contested convention?
Like, how fucking dense do you have to be to not see that one of Sanders's greatest strengths is that he's built a coalition including a lot of people who want nothing to do with that kind of shit? If you sit out in the open and display nothing but derision and contempt for a largly anguished, enraged, ideologically solid movement, then it wins, then you wrench the rightfully won electoral victory away from them or try to tamper with it in some way, how do you think that plays out?
I mean, I know it's being meme'd a bit, but it really is a case of "fuck around and find out." We already know what happens.
First off, I want to say thank you to the mods for re-opening this thread. Really appreciate that this topic is being left open for discussion apart from the central Primary thread and PoliEra.
Yep. I'm not too worried of this happening, because hopefully the party leaders are mindful of the full extent of the damage they'd be risking by alienating a rising portion of the base. And considering where we're at now in the world and what's coming in the next few decades, I think that would be an incredibly selfish risk to take on their part if they were to try it.
Nailed it on the head, right here.
Yep. I'm not too worried of this happening, because hopefully the party leaders are mindful of the full extent of the damage they'd be risking by alienating a rising portion of the base. And considering where we're at now in the world and what's coming in the next few decades, I think that would be an incredibly selfish risk to take on their part if they were to try it.
Nailed it on the head, right here.
Sanders can't pick Pete. Hes an 80 year old with a bad heart whose whole pitch is that hes a revolution. He can't have his pick for next in line be someone who would undo everything he'll be trying to do. It would undermine his message and that's all he has. It would make him unelectable. The others need a VP who covers their weaknesses. He needs someone who echoes his strengths. To me, the obvious choice is Tammy Baldwin. Senator from a swing state, would be the first openly gay VP, first female VP, progressive voting record, relatively young, if shes not the pick Sanders is a fool in my book.
If this is how it broke down, Bernie would easily get the nomination. +25 on the closest candidate in a field of 5+ is a clear mandate.
Bernie has been winning all of the individual immunity idols and survived every tribal council because of it. He used to have an alliance with Warren until she tried to backstab him. But now we're down to the final 3 and the rest of the survivors on the council have to vote for who they want to win. Survivor isn't just about winning, it's about winning over your fellow contestants. Bernie played a fantastic game, but he didn't make the friends he needed along the way.
There's literally no reason to try to look at what happened in 88 at the latest as relevant to how things will go now. This is literally an entirely different electorate from back then on multiple levels and demographics have shifted in massive ways.
Your data is useless because you're looking at the electorate as a monolith when it has massively changed.
Further, a large part of the liberal base blame bernie voters for 16. If bernie voters are large enough to swing an election for the dems then what do you think is gonna happen if you pull this move? Like if you thought 2016 was bad, that will be nothing compared to the shit storm they DNC would face for a move like this. It would be party ending. But honestly I think a lot of people would prefer another 4 years of Trump than getting someone like Sanders in the WH.
While I'm not a Bernie fan in the slightest, I don't like this at all. Dems better get their shit together fast.
You damn right they would. Top Dems are old, rich and have great healthcare so they are fine with another 4 years of trump.
The GoP do a much better job at shutting down outliers within their ranks than the Dems ever will.
Hell, the GoP have proven they are willing to sell their souls to push a candidate, however undesirable, to the front, because they know he'll win and they'll maintain power.
Dems? Nah. They take their ball and go home if nobody wants to play by their rules.
Hell, the GoP have proven they are willing to sell their souls to push a candidate, however undesirable, to the front, because they know he'll win and they'll maintain power.
Dems? Nah. They take their ball and go home if nobody wants to play by their rules.
This is quite the read to land at considering the 2016 GOP primary, and how the last 4 years have went.
Doesn't Trump pretty much already call himself a facist, followed by a wink?
At the very least, I think the party would be in shambles for a decade or two. Such a move would alienate the growing progressive section of the base and potentially reek havoc on younger voters' enthusiasm to even bother going out to vote.
Can confirm; I would likely have almost nothing to do with the party ever again in this scenario, and know many people my age who are similarly disaffected.
It would be the end of the party as we know it.
You had Paul Ryan try his best to endorse Trump while not endorsing him.
I'm convinced their goal was for Trump to lose, to hold onto the Senate, and spend the next four years re-litigating Benghazi.
When Trump won, the Republican establishment that wouldn't bend the knee got pushed out.
Yeah, I'd do my best to keep voting for Democratic candidates on the state level and Congress level probably if only because I recognize how much of a danger the GOP are as a whole and the problems that we as a planet are on the verge of facing in the coming decades... but I would have an incredibly hard time voting for President. Not that I absolutely wouldn't vote, but it'd be incredibly strained if I did.
And I know a number of my friends back in the States would most likely just stop giving a damn and not vote anymore if this were to happen, even if I were to try to talk them into at least voting for a Democrat.
It won't just be "younger" voters abandoning the party either. I'm getting up there in age and have been a registered Democrat straight D voter for 19 years. I won't be anymore if they fuck around. My mom is turning 70 this year and she's had it with them as well and she's been dealing with government bullshit since protesting Vietnam. This is as bad of a look as it gets for the DNC.
So folks, looks like we're going to suffer another 4 years of Trump and his band of evil idiots.
It absolutely is when you try to get something like that through congress. Like most of his proposals, they're all just pipe dreams in their current state. He's proposed like $100 trillion worth of spending. That's a red flag. He's just saying what he knows a lot of people want to hear, but he also knows there's almost no chance they'd get through congress. They'll get him votes in the primary, which is all he really cares about right now. Then even if he were to somehow miraculously win, he'd turn Democrats against each other complaining about how "they" won't support his proposals, which is just what the party needs. More dissension. It's easier for him to do that since he's not actually a member of the party and can just use the "they" and "them" labels.
I honestly think this doesn't happen unless Bernie's lead is slim and whoever's trailing him has obvious momentum going into the convention. Otherwise, they'll get obliterated up and down the ticket.
I agree.
That's the thing I find most perplexing from some folks who don't seem to be particularly concerned of this scenario. Valid or not, for all of the potential justifications that I've seen be made here (Examples: "Bernie is responsible why the super delegate rules were changed after 2016," "Bernie winning a plurality of the base isn't enough for the nomination, the Will of the People would be to nominate a moderate candidate instead," "This is part of the rules"), the simple fact is that denying Bernie the nomination (or any potential candidate with a plurality and the most votes for that matter) and giving it to someone else with a smaller number of votes would absolutely reinforce the ideas of conspiracy and corruption in the minds of most voters.
It's the sort of move that would taint the image of the entire party.
Also the sample size of out and out left-of-the-party candidates that have been run and lost is... one... in 1972. And McGovern, iirc, was very much part of the growing liberal wing of the party - he wasn't a socialist, barely a social democrat. Like, he literally ran on the Friedman UBI model to cut the "welfare bureaucracy".
Apparently, the moderates that lost in 68, 80, 84, 88, 00, 04 and 16 don't count for whatever reason.
You know who was good at winning elections? FDR.
Mondale is not a moderate neither was Dukakis. The hell is this revisionist history.
also, do you really want to tie yourself to the time when Democrats had KKK members in their ranks?
Last edited:
This thread is a glimpse into the mind of moderates and quite frankly...
It really is the "better things aren't possible" meme come to life. Your goal is literally to just stem the tide, but it's too late for that. Things are so fucked now.
This is how you wind up with voters who go "Trump and Hilary are the same" . It's not a true statement, but they feel like their vote doesn't matter because of the corrupt nature of politicians.
It really is the "better things aren't possible" meme come to life. Your goal is literally to just stem the tide, but it's too late for that. Things are so fucked now.
This is how you wind up with voters who go "Trump and Hilary are the same" . It's not a true statement, but they feel like their vote doesn't matter because of the corrupt nature of politicians.
I like how suddenly moderate Dems are the bad guys when 99% of Democrats in congress could technically fall into that category. It wasn't socialist Democrats that helped take back the house and it won't be socialist Democrats that add to their gains. Dems realize that change has to happen gradually. Obama and Clinton were both moderates and look at how much the country benefited from both. I don't get how people (not you) have been brainwashed into thinking that unless you're willing to change the structure of the country overnight, you're a moderate Dem and moderate Dems are bad.