A brokered convention means chaos, the media reproduces that chaos "dems in disarray 24/7 for an entire week". The chaos of 1968 and 1980 significantly hurt Humphrey and Carter respectively.
A candidate can pledge their delegates to someone else at any time. They don't need to wait for a second ballot.
Oh, with regards to people, sure. I'm talking about politicians and the party apparatus. If Sanders got the nomination through a majority, he would completely replace the party apparatus. Put all his people into the Dem party itself, take only his people with him to the White House, ensure Dem party funds are more fairly given to candidates from local elections to national. It'd be a complete upheaval.
I imagine - dependent on the delegate math, anyway - any sort of brokered convention deal that involves two of the candidates teaming up for a majority of pledged delegates would happen before the convention itself.
Yeah, it's more complicated than that, the rules vary state by state iirc. But there's nothing saying you can't make a deal for the first ballot ahead of time.
Not with Super Tuesday days later. Pete and Amy and Elizabeth aren't dropping that close to Super Tuesday, Steyer never had a chance so I don't know why he hasn't dropped yet, and Bloomberg after the past two performances should drop but won't until after Super Tuesday when he takes some untold number of delegates but has no path to the nomination.
The problem is that he surrounds himself with perpetually aggrieved contrarian burn it down types.
I'm not entirely sure on a state-to-state basis, but it's to my understanding that for the first ballot pledged delegates will remain alligned to the candidate that voters -- and not the candidate themselves -- chose them to represent.
Your post is doing a lot of hypotheticals here, especially the last sentence. No matter how popular Bernie may be with Moderate Democrats (who are NOT moderates, no matter how much people want to pretend they are) you still need a hell of a lot more people than your base to win an election. If Bernie is toxic among our new coalition that has, in part, college educated suburban voters, he totally 100% can lose and depress turnout. One cannot argue that Bernie's demographic weaknesses don't matter, but Biden's do.
Warren is probably being underestimated in VA and CO. I also don't get why people keep repeating that South Carolina's results would change the voting behavior of Texas voters. They're not exactly next door neighbors or even demographically similar. Turnout is currently through the roof and they were probably paying more attention to what majority hispanic Nevada had to say in this primary instead. Same for California as well. Come Super Tuesday I think we'll be in for a few surprises regardless of what happens in South Carolina.
It's down 3500 pts in the past two weeks. That's more than 10%.
Right. That doesn't refer to the candidate, I believe. That refers to the electorate.
youtu.be
The Dow dropped 14% off its high back in 2018, it's not the worst drop since 2008 AFAIK.
What do you mean by "Moderate Democrats aren't Moderates"? You're saying we should ignore all polling and all data - which paints the picture that Bernie is the most electable in the field - and instead subscribe to the media-forged narrative that he's somehow toxic and divisive despite this being nowhere to be found in the data? Sorry but your take on this is absolutely hysterical.
This is where the Democratic Party is supposed to broker the convention in such a way that Bernie's base is satisfied and turns out to vote and the Bernie skeptics get some sort of assurance. Any scenario in which Bernie Sanders wins a sizable plurality and is not at the top of the ticket would be unacceptable to his voter base. There's data corroborating this and I'm sure Bernie himself would say he's supportive of the nominee either way and campaign for him/her, but that wouldn't placate his base and it would end up being a disaster. This isn't "holding the nomination hostage" but being pragmatic and taking the appropriate steps to ensure the Party doesn't implode in November. Now, a scenario in which Bernie does get the nomination but is forced to take a VP as recommended by the upper echelons of the Democratic Party sounds very feasible and would go a long way to quiet the fears of some congressional Democrats.
www.nbcnews.com
It's accurate.
What? I'm confident in my understanding of the rules, but more than open to be proven wrong. Delegates must vote for who they are elected to support. That's why forecasts like 538 can be confident in their scenarios and don't have to account for compromises in the first round of voting. After the first round, delegates are given leeway to change their votes, but superdelegates are also introduced/ This has nothing to do with "Bernie against the world," and frankly I'm tired of hearing so many people say it to dismiss others based on who they may or may not support in the election.
Right, and it's one of my biggest issues with him, if not the biggest. But at the end of the day, the convention -- and the primary writ large -- is about deciding the next nominee and hopefully president, not the next White House chief of staff.
Bernie Sanders' left-wing purist image belied by record of compromise
The Democratic front-runner, criticized as an unyielding hard-liner, is willing to accept incrementalism. He just doesn't like to talk about it.
Sahil Kapur @sahilkapur
Bernie Sanders has a long history of settling for incrementalist measures when his progressive ideal fails. This side of him is not well-known because neither he nor his critics like to talk about it. So I looked at his record.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/bernie-sanders-image-left-wing-purist-belied-record-compromise-n1143956 …
Former Harry Reid aide who dealt with Bernie Sanders: "He likes to draw lines in the sand and take tough positions, but like most Democrats he believes in governing. He isn't there to blow things up."https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/bernie-sanders-image-left-wing-purist-belied-record-compromise-n1143956 …
11:16 AM - Feb 27, 2020
It's a running joke. Gertz gets Gaetz hatemail because of the similarity of the handles.
The flu annually kills around 646,000 people worldwide. COVID19 is more transmissible, has a longer asymptomatic incubation period (making it harder to respond to) and is twenty times as lethal. I agree that it is not fearmongering to say the markets are pricing in this risk, whether it's of direct economic impact, general disruption, or deaths.
