There a sudden chorus trying to make it a given that, “Of course, if Bernie wins a plurality of delegates, he must receive the nomination.”
Not true. Many of us believe that the rules that were adopted at the urging of Bernie supporters should be followed.
If no candidate reaches 50% of the delegates, the delegates have an obligation to respect the wishes of those who sent them there. In other words, they should represent their own candidate’s wishes because people voted for that candidate.
If the remaining other candidates’ delegates represent more than 50% of the validly elected delegates in an open process, they absolutely have every right to band together and respect the wishes of that 51+% by nominating someone who can garner the support of that 51+% at the convention.
Will some Bernie delegates be outraged? Yes, but they sure should not be. They are the ones who insisted on these rules, because last time they were the ones arguing that it would be unjust to “coronate” a candidate (Hillary) just because she had a plurality of delegates.
There is no perfect solution to bringing this party together. If you think all of Bloomberg’s supporters and Buttigieg’s supporters are going to swallow being labeled McCarthyite reactionaries, “corporatists” (whatever that is – aren’t The Progressive Radio channel on Sirius, and MSNBC, corporations?), and “establishment Democrats” by their standard bearer, and drag themselves out to vote for Bernie, you are incorrect. I wish they would, but even in this terrible year, the reality is that there will be a certain drop-off by either side.
There will be some candidate partisans who will stay home no matter what.
That is why the wisest course is to nominate whichever candidate has the strongest likelihood of success in November, after fully considering the entire context and our electoral college system with its crucial swing states – not just which group of voters will squawk the loudest if they don’t get their way.
We should respect the majority of Democratic voters, regardless of which candidate wins that majority.
If Bernie goes into the convention with 40% of the delegates and does not come out the nominee, this isn’t going to be an issue of “squawking,” it will be an issue of “walking.” The Democratic Party does not own the left. Trump will be reelected and the Democratic Party will be toast for years.
How do you propose judging “whichever candidate has the strongest likelihood of success in November, after fully considering the entire context and our electoral college system with its crucial swing states”?
You keep posting that it can’t be Bernie and has to be Biden or someone else, but why?
It seems like one should factor in things like enthusiasm, fundraising, matchup polls (including in swing states), overall favorability, the broadest coalition, ground game, the most volunteers, youth vote, non-Democrat support, etc. If you consider those things, Bernie looks very strong. If you go with a gut feeling, an embrace of the conventional wisdom, and giving into fear, then yeah, you want a moderate, any moderate, regardless of how well they perform by any of these other criteria.
Hillary Clinton was a much stronger primary and general election candidate in 2016 than any of the moderates running this year, especially Biden. She still lost the Electoral College to Donald Trump. Exit polls show Bernie would have closed the gap with white working class voters in PA, MI, and WI and perhaps black voters were unenthusiastic about her past record on criminal justice questions. Nobody doubts Sanders commitment to unions, workers rights, or criminal justice reform.
Bernie’s main problem right now is making sure his supporters are magnanimous in victory and that he reaches out to his primary opponents. He should strongly consider a candidate from the moderate wing of the party. I think now is the time for moderates to rally around Sanders and ask him for reasonable unity building concessions like that.
Unity is for after the convention. Nobody should be rallied behind with just three states having voted.
That’s not what happened when Kerry won the first three, and it was not what would have happened had Biden won them. All of you Biden supporters would be insisting on unity so we could avoid a “divisive” convention. Now that Bernie is the frontrunner though, the delegates have to have the final say. If Bernie wins S.C. it’s over. Sooner we unite behind the nominee, the better. I’m willing to move on from my first choice since she does not have a realistic shot at winning, if Biden loses S.C.-neither does he.
Absolutely. If Biden had won the first three, Bernie’s run would be exactly the same as Dean’s in 2004. The calls for unity would be overwhelming and activity in later primary states would dry up.
Sure there are a lot of states left but looking at available polling, Tuesday could likely end campaigns. For example, I believe Klobuchar is polling well below delegate viability in every state except Minnesota. She doesn’t have much of an opportunity like the NH debate to shake things up – she’s likely to get low single digits in SC. Pete is below or just near viability in many Tuesday states, as is Warren. It looks like it will be a challenge for Warren to get a narrow win in MA.
The question is how much of a narrative Biden could get with a large win in SC.
The New York Times has an article today about the state of Biden’s campaign. Apparently he has not campaigned in a Super Tuesday state except for fundraising in more than 30 days. He is staking his campaign 100% on winning SC and getting a bounce in the media. He has no ground game in Texas. Democratic leaders in Arkansas are wondering where he’s been in a state that should be a big win for Biden. Not great.
Not to mention Biden and Bloomberg will be splitting the vote in some of those states. Apparently Bernie’s lead is so dominant in California that the also rans there might not even reach viability. It’s the exact same scenario when everyone still thought Trump could lose after he took NH. It was already over. In a seven candidate field the candidate with 30-40% is the winner.
Yeah, there are some scary polls in CA.
Bernie around 35 and everyone else under 15. I don’t think that will happen, but if it did, CA would be call this whole thing.
But maybe we shouldn’t count CA heavily because it’s diverse, but not diverse in the right way to give us a true picture of who the most popular candidate is . . . [MSNBC guest on Wednesday]
It takes more than just a win in South Carolina. If Mr. Sanders wins a plurality in SC and the black vote goes to Mr. Biden, then we have a genuine dilemma.
Is that mathematically possible? I’m genuinely asking, my impression is that the black vote in that primary is typically such a high percentage of the total that it would not be. Bernie was only a few points behind Biden in Nevada for the black vote, and I think the collapse of Steyer will benefit them both equally.
Winning a plurality is winning the state. That would mean one candidate has won the most votes in the first four states across a mix of state demographics. Bernie would likely raise $10M before Tuesday and he would have momentum on top of his already strong polling and ground game.
Biden winning the black vote by not a huge margin (if he wins by a huge margin, he wins SC) and solely because of strength among 65+ voters won’t help enough. The important states on Super Tuesday don’t have similar demographics of huge AA populations of older, more conservative voters.
If Sanders wins SC and Biden tops Sanders overall on Super Tuesday, I will donate $50 to the non-profit of your choice.
I think what we’re likely to see is a decent but not blowout win from Biden in SC. Biden wins older black voters handily, loses younger black voters handily, and overall has a lead among black voters with Sanders in a strong second and no other candidate close. The question is how much of a media-generated bump Biden can get and whether his campaign can capitalize for Tuesday. The time is sooooo short and we have a pandemic eating up news (as it should). Bernie has by far the strongest presence in CA and TX. Biden has almost nothing.
Not really. They still count up the votes and award delegates accordingly. Pretty sure we don’t use a 3/5 clause:)
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I have said in every cycle that there is no nominee until one candidate posts a majority of the necessary delegates. Please don’t refer to me as “you Biden supporters” as if we are a monolith.
Sanders is free to make all of those arguments at the convention, but Trump will be on the other side of the ballot so there is no excuse to not “vote blue no matter who”.
If this goes to a contested convention Trump will have already won.
I categorically reject that, but if that does happen it’s because of the spoiled brats on our side.
Who are the spoiled brats in that scenario? The ones standing behind the candidate with the most votes and delegates coming into convention or the ones supporting candidates who did more poorly trying to coalesce around an alternative using unelected superdelegates?
The spoiled brats are the ones who sit on their hands in November because the convention did not nominate the candidate they preferred. That goes for anyone, but I’ve mostly heard threats to do that from Sanders supporters if he goes into convention with a plurality. Also stop calling the ex officio delegates unelected.
They are not elected Christopher, not by primary voters like regular delegates. I get that many of them are elected officials, but some of them are big pharma lobbyists that donate to Mitch McConnell. So let’s be real-the push for superdelegates to block Sanders if he has a plurality is a push to overturn the will of the voters. Frankly, so is having superdelegates in the first place. The GOP fell in line behind Trump and now enjoy unprecedented power. Their moderates fell in line. So should ours if Sanders gets the most votes.
Please don’t make the slightest suggestion that GOP moderates falling in line was a good thing. It has been an absolute disaster for the country and has turned a once great party into a cult of personality. I believe the person referred to in the link is a DNC member and per party rules probably should be ousted on that account. DNC members are elected by party members through their state committees or conventions. The ex officio delegates aren’t any more monolithic than other subsets and every delegate is a free agent on the second ballot anyway. The will off the voters is not, nor should be, absolute anyway, especially if they do not clearly express it by giving one candidate a majority.
All I want to know is : this time around will the spoiled brats at least have the class to serve cheese and crackers with their whine?
The only whiners I see are Sanders opponents upset that their candidate is not as successful.
Let’s see who’s successful today.
Then you need to get out more!
I have two questions.
1) How would a contested convention be anything other than an unmitigated disaster?
2) Would you and Fred not be calling to unite around the nominee if Sanders and Biden traded places and his supporters were hoping to fight it out until the convention?
I say let the voters speak-not the delegates. We still have a long way to go before the actual primary is concluded.
I think it’s particularly important to wait until we see actual primary election results from actual black, Latino, and Hispanic voters.
It is the delegates’ job to speak. My own answer to #2 emphatically the same regardless of who is in the lead. I don’t accept the premise of #1 and would love to for once in my life see a real convention.
The vast majority of Democratic primary voters are unaware that this is how the process works and will likely be bitterly disappointed if the convention selects a nominee with less popular support than the frontrunner going into the first ballot. It’s not a good look if a compromise candidate emerges from the convention who earned fewer overall votes in the primary than the delegate leader coming in. I will state this now that whoever is the popular vote and delegate leader going into the convention on the first ballot should be the nominee. Unless the results are too close to call, which seems far less likely to me than a frontrunner coming in with 40%.
I think it would be disastrous, but to clarify my position, if it’s 1701 to 1700 delegate count choice, that is an issue. Negotiation is needed. Unfortunately, it likely would not be an old guy and younger woman matchup that could result in a joint ticket.
The more likely situation is a 1700 v. 400 v. 300 v. 200 delegate count choice. A brokered convention there that doesn’t end with the 1700 person on top is game over for the party for a while.
The truly wild and explosive thing would be what some superdelegates are talking about now and giving it to someone who wasn’t even running. There’s only one person who could maybe pull that off, but it can’t be that person because he was already President for two terms. Some people are talking about Warner or Coons(!!!!!!). Others raised Sherrod Brown, but then that is a lost Senate seat for a long time.
Your middle paragraph explained it perfectly. The second delegate math scenario is far more likely, and if the non-Bernie candidates cannot drop off now and coalesce around a single candidate, why do we think they will suddenly do that in a contested convention? We are looking at multiple ballots or the convention picking somebody who either did not win a majority of primary voters or did not even compete at all.
His wife is also incredibly popular and could probably pull it off.
Not with the George Bush hugging.
Your delegate count doesn’t add up, and if it did 1700 would be a majority so no question of that person being the first ballot nominee.
1991 is the number for a majority.
Right, which means the total is 3880, but your numbers only add up to only 2600. If 2600 were the total then 1700 delegates is more than enough for a majority. Your example leaves 1280 delegates unaccounted for.
Sure, the math is not correct. Apologies for writing 1700 and not 1500. The point is that a 40.1% v. 40.0% event has differences from a 40% v. 15% 15% 15% 15% situation.
Fair enough. I’ve always said the greater the plurality and greater the gap, the greater the claim, but still no guarantees nor should there be.
That’s all we are saying. I do not think that is what Fred and Terry are saying. I think they are arguing that even if this is the case, Sanders is so beyond the pale that superdelegates and the lesser candidates should rally around an alternative. No matter how divisive that strategy may be.
My hope is that Pete, Amy, and Warren drop out after they lose their homestates and it comes down to a Biden vs. Bernie contest. I hope Bloomberg does worse than Biden. I could live with a Biden nomination, and could see a pathway where he beats Bernie fair and square before a convention. I think Silver has that pegged at 1 in 6. I strongly disagree with Bloomberg’s strategy of getting just enough support to trigger a contested convention where he will bring up how many superdelegates he’s bought, er donated to, in the past.
Excuse me. I’m saying that. Let the voters speak.
So if Bernie comes out of Super Tuesday with a substantial delegate and popular vote lead will you support the presumptive nominee? Or do you want unelected superdelegates to elevate your candidate to the nomination?
I want the eventual nominee of my party to respect the rules of my party and win a MAJORITY vote — NOT a plurality — at our convention to EARN the nomination.
See how easy that was?
Has anyone argued for a violation of the rules?
I have not seen it.
The argument is that the nomination SHOULD go to the person with a plurality. Meaning that superdelegates should back the person with the most pledged delegates and actual votes cast so that person becomes the nominee.
See how easy that was?
Yes, many Bernie supporters HAVE argued for a violation of the rules.
See how easy that was?
Who are these many Bernie supporters that are saying that rules should be violated? What rules are they saying should be violated? And, how are they suggesting that they should be violated?
Is this in reference to people holding the opinion that the person going in with the most amount of votes should be the nominee?
How is holding that opinion an argument to violate rules?
The rules require the nominee to win a MAJORITY of 1991 delegate votes — not a plurality — at the Democratic convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on July 13.
Thems the rules we all agreed to play by BEFORE this contest began and by Jove thems the rules we gonna stick to
come hell or high water.
I do not think anyone is questioning the rules. I am questioning the strategy of denying a clear plurality leader a majority if that plurality leader happens to be Bernie Sanders. If there is no clear plurality leader, than horse trading is inevitable but we should also seek to avoid that process. That is part of the reason why I am voting for Sanders. I know Warren is no longer viable as a potential nominee, and I want to avoid a contested convention. So should all Democrats who want to win in November. I will hold true to this if Biden or another candidate becomes the delegate leader after Super Tuesday. I just want a nominee as soon as possible and selected by voters, not delegates. The latter possibility is of course allowed under the rules, but would be lead to electoral disaster if the delegates went a different way than the voters.
Where?
I think what Fred is getting at, and I’ve sensed it a bit too, is that some Sanders supporters feel entitled to his nomination even if he only gets plurality and not majority. They (and frankly I’ve heard similar arguments from you) suggest that if even by following the rules to the letter, a coalition, possibly aided by ex officio delegates, managed to push a different candidate over the 50% threshold on a subsequent ballot, that would be such an outrageous nullification of democracy that it would be worth acquiescing to the re-election of Trump. What baffles me is the assumption that every delegate whether pledged, PLEO, or ex officio, is not fully invested in winning in November. Seems to me if the convention turns to a candidate other than the plurality winner it will be in large part precisely because they believe that candidate has a better shot at winning.
Got it. You want superdelegates to pick your candidate over the will of the primary voters. Same bad position Bernie Sanders took in 2016 (for which I criticized him at the time when urging him to drop out). I am old enough to remember when some thought Obama was too radical and should be stopped with superdelegates.
We should all calm down and let this process play out. As I said in 2016, if Bernie could not beat Hillary in the primary than he could not have beaten Trump in the general. The same logic holds true for his opponents-if they can’t win primary elections they are not more ‘electable’ than the candidate who does. Let’s see if Joe can win a single primary before we call on superdelegates to crown him.
You are peddling this nonsense that ex officio delegates and act in concert to overturn a plurality of the pledged delegates. Don’t you think that, politicians that they are, many of them WILL support the candidate with a plurality? Also don’t forget that after the first ballot even the pledged delegates are not obligated to stick with their first vote. This is how a convention should be resolved, but I wish I did not have to resort to West Wing reruns to see it in action:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXoLaMhx-zI
There is literally a movement afoot where politicians and ex oficio superdelegates are moving to block a Sanders nomination, no matter what the outcome of the primaries is. I think all Democrats should oppose this movement, even if they support another candidate. I strongly feel non-viable candidates should drop out after Super Tuesday to prevent that outcome.
Re: West Wing is not real. In real life, a contested convention would keep the party divided before a general election. Let me state unequivocally, I think we all have an obligation to use our votes to avoid a contested convention. Moderates should vote for Biden, Progressives should vote for Bernie. I will back whomever has the most delegates and votes going into the convention. All the other candidates have a 1 in 100 change of winning the nomination. Right now no majority has the best odds, and we should all be nervous about that.
@Moderates should vote for Biden, Progressives should vote for Bernie:
I emphatically disagree with this. I think that a hotly contested primary is precisely when it is most important for each primary voter to cast their vote for their PREFERENCE. I think we should have enough faith in the system to trust that we will collectively come to the best answer after doing that.
In my view, this is an information game. While imperfect, I think primary votes according to voter preference are the most accurate way to get information about the state of the Democratic hive mind.
In particular, my personal opinion is that I don’t like Mr. Sanders, especially in contrast to Ms. Warren. Because I know that I’m reasonably far out on the progressive side of the spread of national opinion, I think that the mainstream of national voters are even less likely to like him than me. I think that Elizabeth Warren is a better candidate, a better elected official, and I like her more. That’s why I’m going to vote for her.
I similarly don’t like Mr. Biden. Even though I know that it is at least superficially baseless, I don’t like the taste that the entire Hunter Biden episode leaves in my mouth. Similarly to my feelings about Mr. Sanders, I feel that mainstream America is even less likely to support Mr. Biden than me.
I want to be as clear as I can about the causality here. I’m NOT saying that I don’t support Mr. Sanders or Mr. Biden because I think they’re less electable. I’m saying the inverse — I don’t like either candidate, and because I don’t like either candidate, I think they’re less electable.
I’m therefore going to cast my vote for Elizabeth Warren on Tuesday. I want to see every Democrat cast their vote for whichever candidate they like best. I think that adjusting our vote based on who we think is going to win subverts the process and maximizes the chances that we pick a loser.
I think the Democratic primary is a singular opportunity for each and every voter to express their valuable and singular opinion about which candidate is best able to win the election and then be President. I think that’s particularly important in this primary because the stakes are so high in this election.
I think that do anything less is to squander that precious opportunity.
There’s no way of knowing that. Contested elections used to be the rule rather than the exception and obviously somebody won. They weren’t necessarily bad at picking candidates either. The party will be divided only if the leadership is and regular voters will follow their example. If the leaders set the tone that we are united leaving convention I think we’ll be fine.
Can’t compare contested conventions back then to today since they predate the primary system. Since the McGovern Committee the weight has been behind the preferences of voters and not party insiders. Whether accurate or not, the impression will be the the insiders choose the nominee and not the people. It would be a very demoralizing way to start the election. I say that even if the convention picks Bernie over a more popular Biden. It has nothing to do with my candidate preferences and everything to do with the voters if the party having the final say.
The vast majority off delegates are activists to be sure, but not THAT inside. Yes, there has recently been the expectation that voters pick because the primaries have sorted out that way and the voters were clear. What we are discussing only comes to pass if the voters collectively do not fully back one candidate.
To the extent there is a movement it is because they are afraid Sanders can’t win. I’m personally not convinced of that based on the polls, but let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and remember they are on our team too. Ex officio delegate do NOT have the numerical strength to block anyone on their own. Plus if someone does get a majority they are out of luck. I also think ex officio delegates are politicians and many of them will support Sanders if their constituencies do, and there are some who just support him on the merits anyway.
I refuse to give them the benefit of the doubt, I think in a democracy the people should matter more than a group of delegates with their own biases and conflicts of interest. I’d be fine with scrapping them entirely and just holding a series of ranked choice primaries for virtual delegates just to keep score.
They DO matter more. After all, there are just shy of 4000 pledged delegates to just something like 771 of the ex officio delegates. Personally, I think the smart money is still on a first ballot nominee. We always speculate at this point of the calendar that one of the parties won’t do it, but ever since the prevalence of primaries it has always sorted itself out. As a political junkie I just want to for once be glued to my TV in the suspense of not knowing the outcome. It could be good for the party because Americans will likewise be fascinated and we have a captive audience for our message. Plus, why not give them the benefit of the doubt? These are the most hard core partisans and stalwarts of our team. They certainly want to win in November more than anyone.
Most Americans are not political junkies and would be really turned off by the spectacle. I think we can agree on this-I also think it’ll be settled on the first ballot and a clear consensus will emerge. I think today’s results really clarified who is going forward and who is not.
Just a heads-up: That is not an airtight argument.
I do not wish to relitigate 2016. I will concede it’s an unanswerable question and one could argue it either way. I simply mentioned that was my position four years ago to establish my own consistency on this issue. I believe that the winner of the most votes in the primary should be the nominee. Full stop. I think that is the clearest indicator we have that they will be the most successful candidate in the general election. I think nominating someone who get fewer votes because they better meet some media invented conception of electability is a suicide mission.
“Super”delegates are not unelected – try again!
From wikipedia. Unlike pledged delegates, their vote is not determined by the primary voters and they are not all elected officials. I think unelected is a fair term. Voters did not select them for this role and have no say in how they operate in this process.
You don’t really think you have to school me in the internal workings of the party, do you?
That’s a good reminder for why I’m not officially a part of it anymore.
OK, you need to get the chip off your shoulder now. This is a nomination process with pros, cons, and obviously plenty of opinions about how it should run. You are welcome to give your input in that process, but once we have a nominee it’s that person or Trump. Regarding the ex officio delegates who are also elected officials you can contact them and ask them to vote a certain way just as you would in their public capacity. Your bitter side is not pleasant.
I’m voting for the nominee no matter who, I also think if the will of the people was overturned by the delegates there will be hell to pay in November. I do not think re-electing Trump is worth the risk just to let some county committee chairmen from Wyoming feel important for one night.
The state party (not county) chair of WY will get to cast his one lowly vote if it goes to a second ballot.
Neither is yours. I am not attacking your knowledge simply stating the fact that 68’ was a disaster precisely since the machine politicians and the party insiders who knew better than the masses outside picked the nominee instead of the voters. The McGovern committee then created a system to prevent that from happening again. It would be a shame for a candidate with 40% of the vote to lose to a candidate with 15% of the vote or some dark horse who was never on a primary ballot. I think that outcome would re-elect this President. Someone who also won only 40% of the vote, but at least the GOP respects or fears its base enough to fall in line. They know winning elections matters more than whether you win with a centrist or a base candidate.
68 was a disaster because of Vietnam and the party was sent reeling by the recent assassination of the person who had the pre-convention momentum (though I don’t think outright majority). I don’t believe the masses outside, which isn’t how it should be decided anyway, were demonstrating in favor of a particular candidate though presumably they weren’t fans of Humphrey. I’m not sure if there’s any way of knowing if a different candidate would have faired better and IIRC the general election was very close.
I’m sorry if I come across as bitter. I admit it’s hard for me to hide my contempt for any suggestion people won’t vote for our candidate given the alternative because they are upset over the inside baseball.
I was just going to say the same thing about the 68 convention. I don’t think either of you are old enough to remember it — I am.
The entire nation was in chaos. The JFK assassination was still fresh and oozing wound. Nobody expected LBJ to withdraw, and nobody was prepared to campaign. The RFK and MLK assassinations were devastating.
The masses outside were protesting the war. It was obvious that Mr. Humphrey was going to be nominated, and he was reviled because of his implicit support for the war. My recollection is that he didn’t even bother to campaign in the primaries because he already knew he had the nomination. I don’t think the situation today is remotely similar.
There is just ZERO relationship between what was happening in 1968 and what is happening today. The problem in 1968 was too few candidates, too few primaries, and the leading candidate shot down at his CA victory party. The problem today is too many candidates, too many primaries (or at least a campaign season that is FAR too long), too many debates, and all in the face of the most serious existential threat to America since the Civil War.
I also feel the need to remind us that we reviled Boomers drove the much needed changes that happened in 1968. Young people were the dominate force then. The reason why 18 year olds have the right to vote today is that my cohort and I stood up to police batons and dogs in order to make it happen.
I therefore have very little patience with an entire generation that can’t be bothered to show up or in any way participate — and then offer disparaging commentary about those of us who do.
I do find myself wondering whether the millennial generation might be more motivated to vote if their friends, lovers, brothers, and sisters were coming home in boxes and stretchers after being coerced to fight an illegal war. I fear that we have collectively forgotten how precious our rights and freedoms are, how easily they may be stripped from us, and how hard they are to regain once lost.
Perhaps another four years of Trumpism — and another fifty years of Trumpist judges dominating our judicial system — will hammer home the awful realities that no amount of cajoling, reporting, commentary, and advertising have been able to accomplish.
Take another look at the age distribution of the South Carolina exit polls.
ELEVEN PERCENT of the voters were 17-29, compared to FORTY TWO percent of the voters aged 45-64. Just 29% of the turnout was under 44, compared to 71% over 44.
I don’t know what the comparable figures are for eligible voters in those age ranges, but I doubt that they’re that lopsided.
If Millennials can’t be bothered to vote, then they can’t expect to be taken seriously when they whine about the results.
The rub, of course, is that America desperately needs each and every one of those votes. I find it selfish and lazy for young people in particular to ignore the political process. I really don’t know the answer.
I do know that my first question whenever a Millennial starts to complain to me about the government is whether or not they vote.
Nearly every single millennial I know is voting and having conversations about the race. In person and online. We care and we want Trump gone.
Also my biggest complain about Boomers is not what they did in the 60’s, which I strongly admire them for, but what they did in the 80’s and 90’s to commodify their cultural revolution into another product to be manufactured overseas in horrible conditions and sold by Madison Avenue. Steve Jobs is the prototypical Boomer sellout. From Woodstock to Foxcomm..
Politically they should be supporting Bernie Sanders who got arrested in Chicago protesting housing discrimination and protested the draft in Vietnam. He’s the first candidate in my lifetime to fully integrate economic and social justice into a coherent message like Bobby Kennedy did. The boomers I got beef with are the ones like Clinton and Kerry, the former who made peace with neoliberalism and the latter who cynically voted for my generations Vietnam.
Instead, Sanders is least popular among Boomers who like their socialized medicine and refuse to share it with the rest of us. There is a boomer in the White House who carried the boomer vote. Dad was appalled one of his closet friends, who still looks like Dennis Hopper when he rides his motorcycle, voted for Trump for the tax cuts and to “keep the illegals out”. The generation that helped stop the draft, lower the vote, and give us the counter culture is now cynically saying “I got mine, up yours” to mine. For every Abbie Hoffman there’s a Donald Trump or George W. Bush.
I loved marching against the Iraq War with Vietnam Vets for Peace. Love the boomers I did meet on the Obama and Sanders campaigns. Some people didn’t forget their values, people like you or my dad who are still fighting, but a lot of you did. Its sad.
@Some people didn’t forget their values, people like you or my dad who are still fighting, but a lot of you did. Its sad.:
I agree with you about pretty much all of this, even though it’s painful to admit.
I daresay that some significant part of this is a function of age, sadly. It is difficult to remain faithful to ideals over an extended period of immersion in a culture that trashes them.
Even in the 60s, the anti-war movement was by no means universal. I was reviled and mocked in high school because of my beliefs, because of my choices in music (which was far more central then than now), and because of my appearance.
I therefore think that we are actually seeing a clash of worldviews, belief systems, and ideologies that transcends age. I think it’s acted out in different ways by people of different ages.
I wish that more Millennials were as active as the ones you know. My younger children and their peers (now in their twenties, born in 1990s) generally refuse to participate in what they view as a corrupt and irrelevant “system”.
I share that contempt. I ultimately voted for Hillary and thought she’d make a good president. I have zero tolerance for third party voters in 2016 swing states and even less tolerance for them today considering the stakes. There’s definitely a cultish element to the Sanders base I dislike and it initially made me reluctant to give him another shot. There’s also no doubt in my mind it would be a disaster to deny him or any other candidate with a decisive plurality the nomination.
In Nevada, he assembled a truly multiracial and inter generational coalition. Joe Biden won the clear majority of black support yesterday (although Bernie still carried black voters under 30). I think these two candidates represent the best of the two lanes of our party. I would honestly take Biden (with a younger and more progressive Vice President) over Bloomberg or Buttigieg. I’m hoping that Amy and Pete follow Steyer lead and Bloomberg doesn’t even get his 15% on Super Tuesday. This race coming down to two finalists would be very good for the party.
My understanding is that if the first vote fails to result in a majority for a one candidate, then ALL delegates are free to vote for whomever they like in subsequent rounds.
It seems to me that whatever arguments support the legitimacy of the Iowa caucus process apply even more strongly here.
I frankly don’t think the process for selecting delegates matters after the first round I think we’ll all have to live with whatever nominee emerges from the convention — if the convention is even allowed to happen.
Uprated with the exception of your final clause.
The “respect the majority” versus “I got the most votes”.
Is it time to have a discussion about the merits of RCV and it’s impact on some of the things we are discussing.
No, the battle for the heart and soul of our party must be our top priority now..
Please understand, I have been — and will continue to be — an early, passionate advocate for RCV.
But this is not the time to change the rules we all agreed to play by before the contest began.
Todays new battleground states (10) poll* shows Biden leading Trump by biggest margin:
Arizona, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin
Biden 50 (+7) Trump 43
Sanders 48 (+3) ” 45
Warren 47 (+2) ” 45
Buttigieg 46 (+2) ” 44
Bloomberg 43 (-) ” 43
* Yahoo News / You Gov poll of 2/28/20
Are those numbers national polls or state polls? Only the latter matter. The polling I’ve seen shows Biden and Sanders doing roughly about as well.
Yeah, this is cherrypicking. Most matchup polls show Biden and Bernie doing about the same against Trump, both nationally and in the midwestern swing states. The matchup polls, however, look a lot less rosy for Warren and especially Klobuchar.
I think the big takeaway from these is that this is going to be a close election and that the fears of a 1972 repeat or Corbyn-like loss are total BS with respect to Bernie.
It looks like a compilation of the 10 selected states.