'16 Democratic Nomination Thread

[Mithrandir]

My concern about a third party, and maybe it doesn't matter, is that you will then have someone that most likely wins without coming close to getting half of the votes. You'll potentially have someone that well over half the country doesn't like. Right?

That's interesting. But how important is it to have someone who received more than 50% of the votes?

[Lucky]

So you're saying that the Democratic Party is not really made up of the millions of people registered as Democrats, but it really is made up of those high powered people that control who they "think" is best for their party and the USA?

Wait, let me read my post again.......yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.

[BuckyBuckner]

That's interesting. But how important is it to have someone who received more than 50% of the votes?

I dunno. That's why I said maybe it doesn't matter. It's just a personal feeling that we should have someone that at least half the country wants. Maybe I'm also having bad memories of Nader screwing this country in 2000. Gore actually won the popular vote that year.

[In the Corn]

My concern about a third party, and maybe it doesn't matter, is that you will then have someone that most likely wins without coming close to getting half of the votes. You'll potentially have someone that well over half the country doesn't like. Right?

I think we have that now, but it is masked by "I'm voting for the lesser of two evils."

Seems like many other countries have multiple parties and they seem to do just fine. They have to build coalitions in order to make policy. With only two parties their isn't as much coalition building, especially in today's culture.

[Sour Masher]

That's interesting. But how important is it to have someone who received more than 50% of the votes?

Another concern. If the third party is more progressive, which is what you'd want so that at least one party in this country represented your political views, it seems likely that it would split what was once a unified voting block of Democrats, which could mean easy GOP victories. The GOP doesn't seem capable of getting 50%+ of the country to vote for a presidential candidate in its current form, but they can probably get enough support to beat two progressive candidates splitting the vote.

Of course, it is certainly possible that creating an actual progressive party would allow the DNC to fully and openly embrace what it is--a moderately liberal party, and maybe even move more toward the center, which could, theoretically then absorb moderate GOP voters. But so many GOP voters are single issue or very few issue voters, unless the DNC switched position on some key issues like gun rights or abortion, I think a 3rd party on the left would just lead to two parties weaker than the GOP, at least on the national level.

So, basically, to make it "fair," I think four parties would work better than three. I don't think it would be wise for the left to split in two until the right does. Of course, that actually could happen in the wake of these elections.

[Hornsby]

So the main issue (and has been for years and years) is:

we need a viable 3rd party.

And again, Bernie Sanders could easily have run as a 3rd party candidate, since he is neither a Democrat or a Republican.

And Bucky, the superdelegates are probably 95% certain to vote for who've they've committed to...so yeah, it's a more than 2-1 lead in delegates for HRC at this point.

[Mithrandir]

And again, Bernie Sanders could easily have run as a 3rd party candidate, since he is neither a Democrat or a Republican.And Bucky, the superdelegates are probably 95% certain to vote for who've they've committed to...so yeah, it's a more than 2-1 lead in delegates for HRC at this point.

Would he be part of the Presidential candidates debates after the Primaries?

[baldgriff]

That would depend if he got invited........

[Hornsby]

Would he be part of the Presidential candidates debates after the Primaries?

They usually invite a 3rd party candidate if they show that they have a certain percentage of the eligible voters...it's not large, IIRC, something like 5%? Ross Perot was certainly involved...

[OaklandA's]

Why is it so fucking confusing to your everyday person (like me). Why can't it just be that the nomination goes to the person with the most votes?

Super delegates my ass.

The vote count totals at Real Clear Politics have Clinton leading the popular vote over Sanders by about 50% - 4.9M to 3.3M

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

[baldgriff]

#fml
#nohrc
#thesystemneedschange
#iluveld

oh yeah and #youdonthavetowinthepopularvotetowintheelection

[onejayhawk]

Is Hillary Clinton going to render all this moot on Tuesday? It looks like a sweep, with double-digit margins.

J

[GwynnInTheHall]

So Bernie win's 2 of 3 states yesterday, actually picks up more delegates and all I get on my feeds are Hillary Wins Arizona stories.

Bernie is 300 behind her, She still needs 1150 delegates to win the Nomination, there are almost 30 primaries yet to be held.

Yet all I hear is how Bernie should withdraw, it's over, no one supports him.

But the truth is, he's drawing more people out to his rallies. has more individual donors and even people voting for HRC think he's the more trustworthy candidate. He's won or drawn at every debate.

Still you have to search and search to find any of this on the net, never hear any of it in the media.

It's like more money, time and effort are being pout into why Bernie has no chance that why anyone SHOULD vote for Hillary.


Keep chipping away Bern, pull into a tie at the convention and watch shit hit the fan when the establishment (DNC) fucks you in the ass.

[baldgriff]

Im hoping both parties end up having implosion or near implosion moments at their conventions. Its about time that the public sees how both parties control the system.

So many people just floating along...

[Bob Kohm]

Here's why Bernie lost yesterday (and has been out of the race for weeks, now)-- he dominated two states where Dems have almost no chance of winning in November. It's part of a larger trend-- in states with a small Democratic registration and a caucus, Bernie does incredibly well. Why? To identify as a Democrat in an uber-conservative/libertarian place like Idaho, you most likely live at the far end of the left-right spectrum, which reinforces how likely it is that you come out to vote in a caucus. This is a repeated anomaly-- Bernie has won in Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, and Utah-- all very conservative states that held a Democratic caucus. He also won a Primary in Oklahoma, another very, very conservative state. Colorado is more interesting-- his lone "purple" state caucus win. He also took very liberal Minnesota's caucus, his lone convincing major blue state win. He also won a razor thin primary in Michigan on a single issue-- trade, which he campaigned hard on there-- and in his home state neighbor, New Hampshire. It's become very obvious and very widely reported that Bernie generally can only carry heavily "white" states (Michigan is the obvious exception, with Colorado arguable), so that's no longer news.

The bottom line is that as a Democrat you can sop up all of the states that carry little to no chance in November for the Dems you like, but it isn't anything like a recipe for getting anyplace close to the nomination-- which has been borne out this cycle. If Bernie had made real inroads in solid blue states-- convincing wins in Illinois, Florida, Massachusetts, etc-- or if he had realistic chances of swamping Hillary in New York and California-- this would be a real race. In major states where the Dems hope to be competitive-- Arizona, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, etc-- he's getting flat out killed. When you can't draw minority voters to your banner and when your major strength is amongst Democrats in deep red states that won;;t get you electoral votes, you lose.

Bernie has lost, decisively. Hillary has pivoted to November and Trump-- Bernie is only hanging on out of ego and his desire to see his opinions hold some sway at the Convention in the person of Elizabeth Warren.