To the right wing, they all want bigger government and an enormous expansion of social service which makes them all socialists. A "moderate" Democrat wants a step-by-step approach, whereas Bernie wants to force radical change as quickly as possible. The preference of the majority of Democrats is for a moderate. Winning the popular vote in a contest between 6-8 people is not the same as winning the popular vote in a contest between 2 candidates. If you sum "moderates" Biden/Buttigieg/Klobuchar votes, the moderate "team" is getting the most votes. It remains to be seen who Warren will endorse after she drops out, but I'd say that there is more than a 50% chance that even she won't endorse Sanders.
I agree but I just wonder how many average democrat voter were aware of that rule. I just contend that while I acknowledge what your saying is in fact the rules if Democrats do that they are going to look like massive hypocrites AND still lose. I feel democrats especially moderates have created this situation by looking the other way when the far left was being their enforcers so now they reap what they sow. If they were really worried about Bernie's supporters they should've come out more forcefully when they were driving thru tents blowing up ICE facilities beating on people with bike locks and shooting baseball fields. Now that the moderates have enabled them they really only have one choice but to ride it out
Watching the Dems infight and focus on each other is fun. To ideal that they will all of a sudden become chums forget all if this and rally against Trump in perfect unison makes me giggle.
NATO is outdated to a certain degree. It should be revamped to face the modern non cold war challenges. I don't agree with him on the intel community fully but I do think he has some validity with his point on NATO.
It seems to me they all want to go to the same destination just some want to do it at a different pace. All of this is setting up to make Democrats look really hypocritical imo You got the flip flop on Electoral College You got them saying "ANYBODY but Trump", come to find out that meant anyone but Trump except for Bernie You got the railing against rich guys hatred only to allow a rich guy into the race Then there's the fact that the rich guy is very similar to the guy they all said they hate You got the Democrats standing by as antifa goes wild for three years only now to see the problem Etc etc etc
Huh? Let's take a couple of those things: 1) "Over 17% of their delegates are uncommitted Super Delegates" ^Yeah? And, So what? Those "Superdelegates" DON'T even vote unless it becomes necessary after deadlocked 1st Ballot. And this: 2) "In contrast, fewer than 5% of the GOP delegates are free-will delegates, and most states award all the delegates to the popular vote winner of that state". ^So, I just want to make sure that I understand your position. To illustrate an example of your position: CA sends 416 Pledged Delegates to the convention. If only 2 Candidates were running, and one got 50.1% of the Vote and the other got 49.9% of the vote, you actually think that it would be "fairer" to give the person that won 50.1% ALL 416 Delegates? Instead of splitting them up 209-207? Hmmm... It seems like the DNC Method is MUCH "fairer".
I agree that the DNC has done this to themselves. Looks like the Trump campaign sees what I see....that Bernie may not make it to the critical 1991 and that the actual majority of moderate delegates may "appear" to cheat Sanders by voting in a moderate candidate in accordance to party rules. Trump is set up nicely to play both ends of the Democrat Party against each other. If delegates choose a moderate, Trump "confirms" that "Bernie got cheated" (even though he knows that technically there was no cheating). If Bernie does win, either by getting the 1991 or the delegates go with Bernie for "public appearance" sake, then Trump has an easy election against Bernie. Either way, Trump strategy is to get a large group of Democrat voters to sit home.
The DNC knew after 16 that this may be a problem and yet they seems to be acting like this outcome never dawned on them. As far as you say 'appear' and "confirms" I'd just say that politics is about optics and not necessarily the truth but what you can convince people the truth is. The trick seems to be knowing how far you can stretch it to fit your narrative before it snaps. That being said I think that's a version of the truth that wouldn't snap
I really think the only thing they can do is take one on the chin and give Bernie his shot. If he wins (highly unlikely) 1. He's not Trump 2. Realistically he won't get much accomplished And if he loses the moderates can say "see we tried it your way, it's our turn again"
I particularly love the declaration by Amy Klobuchar who after finishing a dismal fifth place enthusiastically screamed to her audience of 12, "we did better than I expected"
And it would appear this year is most likely to be a year when the frontrunner does not get 50% of the delegates. If Bernie does not get 1991 through the primary process, then he has to win 2,375 votes after Super Delegates are allowed to vote. Plus, ALL delegates become free-will after the first round. Most of those SD's are "establishment" Democrats. It's only more fair if you believe that the popular vote supreme, as most Democrats claim (when it's convenient). So proportioning delegates is more fair now than awarding the delegates to the candidate with the most votes? By the way, even the DNC's proportional allocation is not a perfect ratio of the popular vote. Bernie won the most votes in Iowa, but Buttigieg won more delegates. In Nevada, Bernie is winning more delegates than his popular vote indicates. You or I don't determine "what's fair" in the DNC's primary contest. The people with authority do.
I figured out how the moderate Democrats win this....... You know how they keep saying "well if you add Biden with Buttigige" type stuff? Well what if all the moderates Bloomberg, Buttigige, Klohbcur and Biden got together and declared in unison "We now identify as 1 candidate running for the nomination"
Both parties count on voters not being familiar with details, rules, and technicalities. If we had a well-informed voting citizenry, like the Founders counted on to maintain this Republic, elections would be far less about optics. As it is, voters are easily fooled, except those who "dig in" to gain a knowledge of how things work versus the propaganda we are told to believe.
The pressing question, If Komrad Bernie loses by a delegate count will he be a good little communist and share his votes equally with his fellow democrats still in the running?
If it looks like he'll fall short of 1991 toward the end of the primaries, maybe he'll fake a heart attack and retire before the convention.
No kidding. That is because of the 15% "threshold" requirement. For example if 100 Delegates were at stake and: Candidate A got 45% and Candidate B got 45% and Candidate C got 10% The delegates would be proportioned 50 to 50 (Because Candidate C failed to meet the 15% threshold). So, obviously, the DNC Selection System isn't a "perfect" representation of the State's Popular Vote.
Will never work. The all too crazy Komrad Bernie Bros are far to the left to accept anything but a full blown communist as their choice. Come election day they will remain in their mom's basement pouting after breaking every window in Milwaulkee storefronts and ******** on police cars during the convention riots.
Seems insensitive on their part to not let the moderates identify as what they want. So what if all the moderates want to identify as one candidate? If that's what they feel they should be allowed to right ? Lmao
That is what most of them will mouth but I guarantee when Komrad Bernie gets stabbed again, all hell will break loose. Especially if it is Bloomberg money that takes him down.
@Andrew Jackson California is too damned big for the Winner Take All rule as applied to electors and party delegates. When Romney ran I found he got more votes in California than the total votes in many States. Yet Romney got zero electors. BTW I would rather see electors and convention delegates apportioned by who won the Congressional District geography. A reasonable blend of popular and geographical "democracy". Moi Don't ize,
