Election 2020

[gcstomp]

I can see why candidates would want to broker a deal if no one hits 1990 delegates. I also think if some average dude waited hours to cast a vote for candidate x, it should not be able to effectively be a chip that could be brokered and result as a vote for candidate y.

I am for a simple democracy. Most votes wins. I get that is not what we are, but process that leads one vote to be worth more than another vote to me is not best system.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I can see why candidates would want to broker a deal if no one hits 1990 delegates. I also think if some average dude waited hours to cast a vote for candidate x, it should not be able to effectively be a chip that could be brokered and result as a vote for candidate y.

I am for a simple democracy. Most votes wins. I get that is not what we are, but process that leads one vote to be worth more than another vote to me is not best system.

Ranked choice voting and some other ideas make sense to me. Giving the nomination to someone who squeaks out a narrow plurality that isn't really representative of the sentiment of the majority of voters (because, for instance, they split their vote among two similar candidates) does not make sense to me. This is why we have runoff elections, which I agree are not the best way to solve the problem, but it at least acknowledges that there is a legitimate issue to be addressed, and it's not anti-democratic to address it.

[B-Fly]

Ranked choice voting and some other ideas make sense to me. Giving the nomination to someone who squeaks out a narrow plurality that isn't really representative of the sentiment of the majority of voters (because, for instance, they split their vote among two similar candidates) does not make sense to me. This is why we have runoff elections, which I agree are not the best way to solve the problem, but it at least acknowledges that there is a legitimate issue to be addressed, and it's not anti-democratic to address it.

I wonder if the DNC would be able to sponsor a nationwide primary runoff election between the top two candidates by delegate count. Might need Bloomberg to agree to foot the bill, lol, but it would be democratic.

[Ken]

I wonder if the DNC would be able to sponsor a nationwide primary runoff election between the top two candidates by delegate count. Might need Bloomberg to agree to foot the bill, lol, but it would be democratic.

When are we switching to direct democracy where we all vote from our phones on all the issues?

[B-Fly]

When are we switching to direct democracy where we all vote from our phones on all the issues?

Probably when people can be suitably assured of the security of such voting methods. Is there a fingerprint or retinal scan to verify who is placing the vote? Is it tamperproof? Was it designed by the Russians and implemented by the Houston Astros?

[In the Corn]

Any chance Bloomberg decides that his opponents weren't very nice, and he goes the Independent route?

[B-Fly]

Any chance Bloomberg decides that his opponents weren't very nice, and he goes the Independent route?

No. He will do nothing to risk being blamed for a Trump re-election.

[Sour Masher]

No. He will do nothing to risk being blamed for a Trump re-election.

Probably true, but man, I could see him not enthusiastically funding some of the candidates after last night. They hit him hard!

[nots]

Any chance Bloomberg decides that his opponents weren't very nice, and he goes the Independent route?

Can’t see that happening. Much more likely to drop another $200M on Super Tuesday ads.
Plus, he probably only has a problem with Sanders and Warren (and Trump).

[B-Fly]

Probably true, but man, I could see him not enthusiastically funding some of the candidates after last night. They hit him hard!

I can also see some of them saying they don't want his money because they don't want to be beholden to him or any other monied interest. But I can also see him foregoing affirmative ads explicitly on behalf of the Democratic nominee while still spending tons of money on attacks against Trump.

[nots]

I can also see some of them saying they don't want his money because they don't want to be beholden to him or any other monied interest. But I can also see him foregoing affirmative ads explicitly on behalf of the Democratic nominee while still spending tons of money on attacks against Trump.

Yeah the saving grace here is that Bloomberg hates Trump not only as President, but on a personal level as well. If it’s anyone except Sanders or Warren, he is going to spend heavily. And even if it is Sanders or Warren, he still might spend heavily on anti-Trump ads.

[heyelander]

I can see why candidates would want to broker a deal if no one hits 1990 delegates. I also think if some average dude waited hours to cast a vote for candidate x, it should not be able to effectively be a chip that could be brokered and result as a vote for candidate y.

I am for a simple democracy. Most votes wins. I get that is not what we are, but process that leads one vote to be worth more than another vote to me is not best system.

I think it is if there are many candidates. I'd rather rank 5 people than pick one. In the scenario Kev lays out, nearly 60% prefer a progressive candidate, but split their vote, so we are going to give the nomination to a more traditional candidate when that wing of the party is supported by 40% of the people?

[heyelander]

I can also see some of them saying they don't want his money because they don't want to be beholden to him or any other monied interest. But I can also see him foregoing affirmative ads explicitly on behalf of the Democratic nominee while still spending tons of money on attacks against Trump.

Hopefully he just swiftboats Trump.

[onejayhawk]

I told y'all that the DNC did the right thing in essentially compelling Bloomberg onto a debate stage by changing the qualifying rules, and that it wouldn't work to Bloomberg's advantage. Bloomberg had soared to #2 in national polling largely on the strength of the best advertising blitz money could buy, but he needed to be vetted like any other contender, and the debates are a critical piece of how that's supposed to work. You do a disservice to the voters and the other candidates by not putting the guy running #2 or 3 in national polling on the stage to answer questions and take the slings and arrows of the other contenders.

The Great and Terrible Oz is just a small man, neither as great as his most ardent supporters suggest nor as terrible as his most ardent detractors fear. Dorothy (Warren), the Scarecrow (Sanders), the Tin Man (Biden) and Toto too (Buttigieg) helped pull back the curtain in last night's debate. (That sort of leaves Klobuchar to be the Cowardly Lion, but it doesn't really fit as well as the others, lol.)

I would have gone with Warren as the lion, Klobuchar as Dorothy, Buttigieg as the Tin Man, and Biden as the dog. I can't argue with Bernie as the Scarecrow. That's perfect.

It was a Yuuge audience to watch MB become MB not.

With Super Tuesday just twelve days away, Sanders looks in championship form. The race could be effectively over in two weeks.

Hopefully he just swiftboats Trump.

It's going to take something like that. After three years of looking, you would think they had something, but no.

J

[TranaGreg]

...
It's going to take something like that. After three years of looking, you would think they had something, but no.

J

well, they could always follow Trump's lead & just make some shit up