Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[cubby]

Why do democrats want to get rid of the electoral college but are perfectly fine with elitists suits in Washington deciding who represents their party if they get scared the people don't vote for the person their bank accounts like?

Way to deflect and ignore. It's almost like you don't want to answer the real questions. Are you a member?

[GreenJesus]

Way to deflect and ignore. It's almost like you don't want to answer the real questions. Are you a member?

No I'm not a member of the DNC. Are you? And way to deflect MY question. Do you support anti-democratic primaries?

[eschatological]

Why do democrats want to get rid of the electoral college but are perfectly fine with elitists suits in Washington deciding who represents their party if they get scared the people don't vote for the person their bank accounts like?

Because superdelegates are actually not Washington elitist suits, but rank-and-file party members ACROSS THE WHOLE FUCKING COUNTRY.

Jesus Christ.

[GreenJesus]

Because superdelegates are actually not Washington elitist suits, but rank-and-file party members ACROSS THE WHOLE FUCKING COUNTRY.

Jesus Christ.

Well if they are "rank-and-file" party members that represent the people then why have them at all? They surely would represent who the people choose anyway right? No. It is a fail safe system the establishment in washington set up.

[cubby]

No I'm not a member of the DNC. Are you? And way to deflect MY question. Do you support anti-democratic primaries?

Yes, I am. Join the party and change the rules if you're so upset. Your question is species at best, and the sentiment is illogical. The primaries are democratic. Or were you confused about there being different forms of voting in a democracy?

- - - Updated - - -

Well if they are "rank-and-file" party members that represent the people then why have them at all?

Because Primaries are democratic.

[eschatological]

Well if they are "rank-and-file" party members that represent the people then why have them at all? They surely would represent who the people choose anyway right? No. It is a fail safe system the establishment in washington set up.

I will agree that the system is set up to keep true outsiders at bay, a little. But you're overstating their rigidity on changing their minds, as they quickly and by a large majority moved to Obama in 2008, a political outsider running against a very popular DNC-backed candidate, Senator, and former FLOTUS.

Think about this: if Republicans had superdelegates - Trump wouldn't have been the nominee for the GOP in 2016.

That the DNC (and a lot of their superdelegates) considers Bernie an outsider is.....well, that's on Bernie. Maybe he had an excuse in 2016 for not expecting to do so well, but he's had 4 years to make inroads in the DNC. Hell, he even had rules pushed through about superdelegates....but he's built no consensus or any bridges in even HIS OWN SUPPOSED PARTY that he's running for the nomination of.

[Edge-]

https://www.postandcourier.com/polit...1d262994c.html

Oh look, Republicans are advocating for their members to shit up the Democratic primary in SC as it's an open one.

Why? To boost Sanders, as they view they have the best chances of winning against him.

[Nurasu]

Well if they are "rank-and-file" party members that represent the people then why have them at all? They surely would represent who the people choose anyway right? No. It is a fail safe system the establishment in washington set up.

The general population has no fucking clue how to run a political campaign; if they want to nominate someone completely out there for president they have all the freedom in the world to do that - off the Democratic ticket.

[GreenJesus]

https://www.postandcourier.com/polit...1d262994c.html

Oh look, Republicans are advocating for their members to shit up the Democratic primary in SC as it's an open one.

Why? To boost Sanders, as they view they have the best chances of winning against him.

I keep hearing conflicting reports. I thought Trump was more scared of Bernie.

- - - Updated - - -

The general population has no fucking clue how to run a political campaign; if they want to nominate someone completely out there for president they have all the freedom in the world to do that - off the Democratic ticket.

That means you don't support democracy then. Those "stupid little people don't know what's best for them". Interesting.

[JohnBrown1917]

I keep hearing conflicting reports. I thought Trump was more scared of Bernie.

- - - Updated - - -



That means you don't support democracy then. Those "stupid little people don't know what's best for them". Interesting.

Trump is, his supporters are not

- - - Updated - - -

The general population has no fucking clue how to run a political campaign; if they want to nominate someone completely out there for president they have all the freedom in the world to do that - off the Democratic ticket.

I agree, all justice dems should start running independent campaigns.

[Dug]

https://www.postandcourier.com/polit...1d262994c.html

Oh look, Republicans are advocating for their members to shit up the Democratic primary in SC as it's an open one.

Why? To boost Sanders, as they view they have the best chances of winning against him.

No they think Sanders would "destroy" the Democratic party. But as dems are so fond of saying they'd vote for a ham sandwich or an avocado or whatever so it shouldn't be a problem.

[Edge-]

No they think Sanders would "destroy" the Democratic party. But as dems are so fond of saying they'd vote for a ham sandwich or an avocado or whatever so it shouldn't be a problem.

For the Democratic base, it's not. But that's not who needs to get out to vote: That's the swing voters/independent that aren't quite as enthused about Sanders.

Ya'll keep looking to the Democratic base or to national polling to support sanders. That shit is largely irrelevant. All that matters is the key swing states and districts. That's it. Sure, it's not "Democracy", and it sucks we have to operate like this until we get rid of the Electoral College, but you gotta play the game to win and change the game. Failing to play the game leads to losses, meaning you have no chance to affect change.

[Endus]

It's not "their" party. It's the American people's party. They just happen to be occupying the seats. Why do you support such an anti-democratic system just because it's "status quo"?

There is absolutely zero requirement that a party's primary process be democratic, at all. They could randomly pull a member's name out of a hat. A council of 5 could meet behind closed doors and make the decision. They could release a puppy in the middle of a circle of candidates and see which ones it goes to first. They could have everyone do a rock-paper-scissors tournament for the nom.

It's entirely up to the DNC membership what their rules are, because the DNC is not a part of the government. They're beholden to their members, based on the rules they set for themselves.

The election will be democratic. That's what democracy is. Demanding it of everything else is just . . . silly. Democratic systems aren't magically perfect for all things. Which is why court decisions aren't democratic, for instance.

[Dug]

For the Democratic base, it's not. But that's not who needs to get out to vote: That's the swing voters/independent that aren't quite as enthused about Sanders.

Ya'll keep looking to the Democratic base or to national polling to support sanders. That shit is largely irrelevant. All that matters is the key swing states and districts. That's it. Sure, it's not "Democracy", and it sucks we have to operate like this until we get rid of the Electoral College, but you gotta play the game to win and change the game. Failing to play the game leads to losses, meaning you have no chance to affect change.

Independents don't want the democratic establishment so...

[Edge-]

Independents don't want the democratic establishment so...

And this is based off of what data, exactly?

[Dug]

And this is based off of what data, exactly?

You're the one that brought them up first and their so called lack of enthusiasm for Sanders.

[GreenJesus]

There is absolutely zero requirement that a party's primary process be democratic, at all. They could randomly pull a member's name out of a hat. A council of 5 could meet behind closed doors and make the decision. They could release a puppy in the middle of a circle of candidates and see which ones it goes to first. They could have everyone do a rock-paper-scissors tournament for the nom.

It's entirely up to the DNC membership what their rules are, because the DNC is not a part of the government. They're beholden to their members, based on the rules they set for themselves.

The election will be democratic. That's what democracy is. Demanding it of everything else is just . . . silly. Democratic systems aren't magically perfect for all things. Which is why court decisions aren't democratic, for instance.

Except the election is based on only 2 candidates (Red vs. Blue). If red side is on the other spectrum from your politics, then you are basically forced to vote for Blue Candidate. The primary is when the people get to decide the direction of the party and who represent them; and if it is decided by some faceless cabal, then is there even really an election in the first place if the red side is already eliminated from the choice pool? The only "election" is showing in november to check the D the establishment chose for you.

[JohnBrown1917]

You're the one that brought them up first and their so called lack of enthusiasm for Sanders.

That poll that was posted earlier showing that only around 50% of Sanders voters will vote for any democrat in election is a pretty big tell.

[Dug]

That poll that was posted earlier showing that only around 50% of Sanders voters will vote for any democrat in election is a pretty big tell.

Do you have that post?

[Endus]

Except the election is based on only 2 candidates (Red vs. Blue). If red side is on the other spectrum from your politics, then you are basically forced to vote for Blue Candidate. The primary is when the people get to decide the direction of the party and who represent them; and if it is decided by some faceless cabal, then is there even really an election in the first place if the red side is already eliminated from the choice pool? The only "election" is showing in november to check the D the establishment chose for you.

I'm not sure what you think you're getting at, here.

It's a two-party system, but those parties do not have to remain the same. If the Democrats decided to do something most Democratic voters hated, and an alternative popped up, the Social Liberal Party, and all those voters liked what the SLP had to say, they could . . . just all vote SLP. Then the government would be Republican and SLP split, with some legacy DNC hangers-on left behind until next election.

This has literally happened, in the past, so don't tell me it can't happen.

You're not "forced" to vote for "Blue Candidate". You just don't think there's a valid alternative. Blue Candidate is the least-worst option. And that's how democracy works. You don't get your ideal choice, most of the time. You vote for the least-worst. Because you're not the only voice that matters, and you don't get to pick the candidate all by yourself. That's an idea that flies against democratic processes, it isn't a call for them.