Bernie!

[Sunshine]

Those are party people, steeped in the backgrounds of the various candidates. It's a party function, so I see no reason why those doing the work of the party can't have a "more than equal" say in what candidate they are going to continue putting out work for. They certainly know more about the relative merits and electability of the candidates their party could run than a preponderance of the "only there on Tuesday" voters do.

But they are not idiots either. Imagine the backlash that would follow if super delegates handed the election to Hillary when Bernie won more delegates? Many Bernie backers would refuse to vote and Hillary would lose the election.

 

[Sunshine]

Imagine the time you could have saved not writing that. You could have, like, made a nice cup of roobios tea, watched a classic Red Dwarf episode, or jerked off.

I'd like a hot cup of roobios please.

 

[sr71plt]

But they are not idiots either. Imagine the backlash that would follow if super delegates handed the election to Hillary when Bernie won more delegates? Many Bernie backers would refuse to vote and Hillary would lose the election.

This is where "they can change their mind still" comes in. They are given the votes because they are dedicated to the party winning and they are working their tails off to see that that happens. (They'll also be working their tails off in the congressional elections). The system is there to provide an even keel to the party process with the view to party, rather than individual, success. They can bend to the most likely elected candidate right up to the final convention vote. Hillary has the most superdelegate votes at the moment because she did the work inside the party to convince them--at the time--that she was the most electable standard bearer for the party. That can change, but I doubt it would until at least after the Super Tuesday primaries.

And the party doesn't have to have primaries at all. They could settle on a candidate just by convention. This isn't federal law we're talking about in a party deciding who to run. The party leaders could do it behind closed doors if they thought they could get party member acceptance of it--and they once did it that way.

And don't be fooled. Bernie is going to back Hillary if she wins the nomination (and continue to work to influence the party toward his positions from inside the tent based on his success--and try to keep his supporters in the Democratic column) and Hillary--just like she did with Obama--is going to back Bernie if he wins. You aren't going to see the splintering in the Democratic party after the convention that you very well might see with the Republicans. Trump might even go to an independent run if the Republican party manages to maneuver him out of their nomination (which they quite evidently would love to be able to do). Cruz might even spin off with a Tea Party bid, with the Tea Party thinking he did well enough that they now can break with the Republicans and have their own national party going.

Folks need to realize that parties have great latitude in settling on a party candidate. This is earlier in the election process than when the federal election laws kick in. The federal election process kicks in when formal petitions with X number of names have to be filed with the states. Someone like Trump could get on ballots without a party behind him at all.

 

[Sunshine]

This is where "they can change their mind still" comes in. They are given the votes because they are dedicated to the party winning and they are working their tails off to see that that happens. (They'll also be working their tails off in the congressional elections). The system is there to provide an even keel to the party process with the view to party, rather than individual, success. They can bend to the most likely elected candidate right up to the final convention vote.

And the party doesn't have to have primaries at all. They could settle on a candidate just by convention. This isn't federal law we're talking about in a party deciding who to run. The party leaders could do it behind closed doors if they thought they could get party member acceptance of it--and they once did it that way.

And don't be fooled. Bernie is going to back Hillary if she wins the nomination (and continue to work to influence the party toward his positions from inside the tent based on his success--and try to keep his supporters in the Democratic column) and Hillary--just like she did with Obama--is going to back Bernie if he wins. You aren't going to see the splintering in the Democratic party after the convention that you very well might see with the Republicans. Trump might even go to an independent run if the Republican party manages to maneuver him out of their nomination (which they quite evidently would love to be able to do). Crux might even spin off with a Tea Party bid.

Folks need to realize that parties have great latitude in settling on a party candidate. This is earlier in the election process than when the federal election laws kick in. The federal election process kicks in when formal petitions with X number of names have to be filed with the states. Someone like Trump could get on ballots without a party behind him at all.

They may have latitude, but again, they also have an end goal and must keep that goal in mind. Otherwise, what good are they to the party?

I wonder who each of them would choose as a running mate?

 

[sr71plt]

They may have latitude, but again, they also have an end goal and must keep that goal in mind. Otherwise, what good are they to the party?

I wonder who each of them would chose as a running mate?

Yes, which supports my point. Nearly everyone, including them, saw Hillary as the party standard bearer in this election (and most probably still do, because they can look ahead to the probabilities of the Super Tuesday primary votes and aren't fooled by the off-beat Iowa and New Hampshire scenarios). They have no reason not to stick with the most plausible plan until/unless Hillary's bid collapses after Super Tuesday (or if she gets indicted or put on formal notice that she will be indicted). I'm pretty sure that most superdelegates are politically savvy enough to know that Bernie Sanders has low electable quotients nationally and that they'd much prefer switching to someone like Biden if they have to switch from Hillary.

Who they each would pick as running mate--for the Democrats--most likely will be the time-honored "who will balance nationally and still be a team player with the president?" choice. On the Republican side--after the zany Palin pick--except for Bush and Kasich, who would take the traditional approach) all bets are off and extreme ideology might prevail (and shoot them in the foot again).

 

[Sunshine]

Yes, which supports my point. Nearly everyone, including them, saw Hillary as the party standard bearer in this election (and most probably still do, because they can look ahead to the probabilities of the Super Tuesday primary votes and aren't fooled by the off-beat Iowa and New Hampshire scenarios). They have no reason not to stick with the most plausible plan until/unless Hillary's bid collapses after Super Tuesday (or if she gets indicted or put on formal notice that she will be indicted). I'm pretty sure that most superdelegates are politically savvy enough to know that Bernie Sanders has low electable quotients nationally and that they'd much prefer switching to someone like Biden if they have to switch from Hillary.

Who they each would pick as running mate--for the Democrats--most likely will be the time-honored "who will balance nationally and still be a team player with the president?" choice. On the Republican side--after the zany Palin pick--except for Bush and Kasich, who would take the traditional approach) all bets are off and extreme ideology might prevail (and shoot them in the foot again).

It will be interesting to watch this unfold. I think you are wrong about his electability.

 

[sr71plt]

It will be interesting to watch this unfold. I think you are wrong about his electability.

So, you really think the majority of voters--especially seeing what Trump can pull out of today's world's electorate in hate and bigotry--are going to be happy with an ancient, curmudgeony Jew with a New York accent and extreme leftist intentions? And that's not even taking into account savvy voters who have heard no specifics from him on what he's going to do about anything and how in the hell he thinks he can get there with Congress and within a budget and who know that, despite having been in Congress forever, he still knows nothing about foreign policy, with that being a major function of a president.

I mean, he's a fine guy and I'm happy with him in Congress and I wouldn't slit my wrists if he became president, but I don't pretend to be in the majority of American voters.

I'd think you were dealing with airy fairy wishful thinking on this except for one thing--he might win as a result of a vote against some horror who the Republicans might put up.

But he still wouldn't be anything but a lame duck, get no where, bumble around in the world president (which isn't necessarily a bad thing considering the other possibilities--to some extent it's worked with Obama who won by making people starry eyed about what he couldn't fully deliver--and Obama isn't an ancient, curmudgeony far leftist).

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Superdelegates: Let the voters decide
Petition by Ilya Sheyman

To be delivered to The Democratic superdelegates

The race for the Democratic Party nomination should be decided by who gets the most votes, and not who has the most support from party insiders.

That's why we're calling on all the Democratic superdelegates to pledge to back the will of the voters at the Democratic Party convention in Philadelphia.
There are currently 11,586 signatures. NEW goal - We need 15,000 signatures!
PETITION BACKGROUND Bernie won New Hampshire. And by a hair, Hillary won Iowa. In other words, there's a long Democratic primary ahead, possibly fought all the way to the convention.

But there's a problem: There are 712 superdelegates—made up of Democratic elected officials and other prominent party leaders—who have the power to tip the scales, potentially shifting the vote at the convention to whomever they choose. This process is undemocratic and fundamentally unfair to Democratic primary voters.

In 2008, when the primary looked like it could boil down to superdelegates, MoveOn launched a similar campaign calling on the superdelegates to hold off making their decisions until the voters had spoken.

Now, as we face a similarly contested primary, it's critical that we speak out again for the integrity of our voting process. Democracy only works when the votes of the people—not the decision of a small number of elites—are what determines the outcome of elections.
CURRENT PETITION SIGNERS
11586. amy from glendale, NY signed this petition on Feb 11, 2016.
11585. susan Carpenter from Mt Kisco, NY signed this petition on Feb 11, 2016.
It's time for democracy! If you don't support the choice the voters make the voters are not going to vote for your choice. That no way to win

11584. Pascale Macleod from San Francisco, CA signed this petition on Feb 11, 2016.
11583. Thomas Battle from Oceanside, CA signed this petition on Feb 11, 2016.
11582. Susan Perkins from Billerica, MA signed this petition on Feb 11, 2016.
11581. Nichole Bourcier from Portland, OR signed this petition on Feb 11, 2016.
11580. Patsy McCleary from Canton, IL signed this petition on Feb 11, 2016.
We need Bernie as President and Hillary as Vice President

 

[sr71plt]

Well, of course Bernie's backers would want this. And Bernie might have had more superdelegates from the starting gate (remember they can switch as they like, so any claim they are stuck in the "now" is bull) had Bernie actually been in the Democratic Party before recently and had done his preparation on what was best for the party and his work for maintaining the strength of the party as all of those people had done who were actually working in the Democratic Party as Democrats, rather than registered independents. As I noted, if they get to the point of believing that Bernie (or anyone else) would be a stronger Democratic Party candidate than Hillary, they'll probably change who they say they are voting for--because they are focused on what is the best for the party and fielding a party candidate is a party function. Fact is, though, that Bernie hasn't even been a Democrat for very long and might easily revert in the near future to independent. I could hardly blame party stalwarts for not running to him after one caucus in a whacky state and one primary in the state next door to Bernie's.

Nor can I fault Bernie's supporters for giving it the old college try at the point right before his future as a candidate might just take a nosedive after Super Tuesday. The delegates available in the next primary, South Carolina, swamp those of Iowa and New Hampshire put together. I'm sure Bernie's supporters realize this is the best possible moment (and maybe last one) to make this case and that's why they are doing it. And maybe why they are trying to leave the impression that the superdelegate votes are set in stone or that those who are party stalwart workers far and above other primary voters don't have a right for a greater say in who they are going to be expected to work for in greater effort than the primary voters do.

 

[JackLuis]

Never confuse the Democrat party with a democracy. Like all things in a free market, it is sold as an illusion of value.

 

[sr71plt]

That's a cynical way of putting it, but, yes, any of the parties could meet in a closed room and nominate a cocker spaniel, if they wanted to. A less cynical view than yours would be to be grateful that they don't. I choose to believe that someone working directly and extensively for a party win has earned more of a say in who they are trying to elect than a primary voter party member does.

 

[Sunshine]

So, you really think the majority of voters--especially seeing what Trump can pull out of today's world's electorate in hate and bigotry--are going to be happy with an ancient, curmudgeony Jew with a New York accent and extreme leftist intentions? And that's not even taking into account savvy voters who have heard no specifics from him on what he's going to do about anything and how in the hell he thinks he can get there with Congress and within a budget and who know that, despite having been in Congress forever, he still knows nothing about foreign policy, with that being a major function of a president.

I mean, he's a fine guy and I'm happy with him in Congress and I wouldn't slit my wrists if he became president, but I don't pretend to be in the majority of American voters.

I'd think you were dealing with airy fairy wishful thinking on this except for one thing--he might win as a result of a vote against some horror who the Republicans might put up.

But he still wouldn't be anything but a lame duck, get no where, bumble around in the world president (which isn't necessarily a bad thing considering the other possibilities--to some extent it's worked with Obama who won by making people starry eyed about what he couldn't fully deliver--and Obama isn't an ancient, curmudgeony far leftist).

Obama couldn't deliver because of a GOP majority. Change that dynamic and ny democratic president could push through their agenda.

Again, I do think he is electable.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Obama couldn't deliver because of a GOP majority. Change that dynamic and ny democratic president could push through their agenda.

Again, I do think he is electable.

The Big O had a majority in both houses of Congress for his first two years and he was able to push through his most notorious measure - his signature legislation. Once his agenda became known, the voters elected Republicans and the new GOP majorities did block his efforts, as was their mandate.

 

[Sunshine]

The Big O had a majority in both houses of Congress for his first two years and he was able to push through his most notorious measure - his signature legislation. Once his agenda became known, the voters elected Republicans and the new GOP majorities did block his efforts, as was their mandate.

That was a Republican voter mandate.

 

[Sunshine]

Well, of course Bernie's backers would want this. And Bernie might have had more superdelegates from the starting gate (remember they can switch as they like, so any claim they are stuck in the "now" is bull) had Bernie actually been in the Democratic Party before recently and had done his preparation on what was best for the party and his work for maintaining the strength of the party as all of those people had done who were actually working in the Democratic Party as Democrats, rather than registered independents. As I noted, if they get to the point of believing that Bernie (or anyone else) would be a stronger Democratic Party candidate than Hillary, they'll probably change who they say they are voting for--because they are focused on what is the best for the party and fielding a party candidate is a party function. Fact is, though, that Bernie hasn't even been a Democrat for very long and might easily revert in the near future to independent. I could hardly blame party stalwarts for not running to him after one caucus in a whacky state and one primary in the state next door to Bernie's.

Nor can I fault Bernie's supporters for giving it the old college try at the point right before his future as a candidate might just take a nosedive after Super Tuesday. The delegates available in the next primary, South Carolina, swamp those of Iowa and New Hampshire put together. I'm sure Bernie's supporters realize this is the best possible moment (and maybe last one) to make this case and that's why they are doing it. And maybe why they are trying to leave the impression that the superdelegate votes are set in stone or that those who are party stalwart workers far and above other primary voters don't have a right for a greater say in who they are going to be expected to work for in greater effort than the primary voters do.

One other thing: I disagree with you regarding Bernie's aptitude for being an effective foreign policy leader. The reason I even knew who Bernie Sanders was before he announced his bid is because of his opposition to Iraq war. I remember being outraged that we were risking lives to basically finish jacking off Cheney. If Bernie is president, he will be briefed and advised by extremely knowledgeable people, but ultimately it is his judgement that will matter. I am absolutely sure his judgement is in line with what I want for America's foreign policy. I think he proved he was very insightful when he made his case before the invasion as opposed to the majority that voted in favor of that monumentally disastrous war. He's smart, and most of all, he does not follow the crowd or feel he needs to at any point in time. He will do what is best for our country although I realize that statement is relative to what your stance is on America's involvement in conflicts around the world.

 

[Boxlicker101]

That was a Republican voter mandate.

Of course. It was a voter mandate.

 

[RUlookingup]

One other thing: I disagree with you regarding Bernie's aptitude for being an effective foreign policy leader. The reason I even knew who Bernie Sanders was before he announced his bid is because of his opposition to Iraq war. I remember being outraged that we were risking lives to basically finish jacking off Cheney. If Bernie is president, he will be briefed and advised by extremely knowledgeable people, but ultimately it is his judgement that will matter. I am absolutely sure his judgement is in line with what I want for America's foreign policy. I think he proved he was very insightful when he made his case before the invasion as opposed to the majority that voted in favor of that monumentally disastrous war. He's smart, and most of all, he does not follow the crowd or feel he needs to at any point in time. He will do what is best for our country although I realize that statement is relative to what your stance is on America's involvement in conflicts around the world.

"Bernie is smart and doesn't follow the crowd." Those two qualities alone make him electable in these days. Now whether or not you choose to vote for him is your decision but more than anything else we need leadership. This is why the disillusioned voters across the country are turning their backs on the mainstream media endorsed candidates. We want a new flavor, we've already gone through all 31. Even if this one turns out to be a re-incarnation of Rocky Road all we want to try it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

"Bernie is smart and doesn't follow the crowd." Those two qualities alone make him electable in these days. Now whether or not you choose to vote for him is your decision but more than anything else we need leadership. This is why the disillusioned voters across the country are turning their backs on the mainstream media endorsed candidates. We want a new flavor, we've already gone through all 31. Even if this one turns out to be a re-incarnation of Rocky Road all we want to try it.

Nobody who calls himself or herself a Socialist can get elected. He has had considerable success in Iowa and NH, but there is no way he can win in SC and the other states holding primary elections. Because he does have a small cadre of enthusiastic supporters, he will have some success in states holding caucuses.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Nobody who calls himself or herself a Socialist can get elected. He has had considerable success in Iowa and NH, but there is no way he can win in SC and the other states holding primary elections. Because he does have a small cadre of enthusiastic supporters, he will have some success in states holding caucuses.

Why not? People want it and are tired of politics as usual.

(D) couldn't win SC with anyone....

That's like saying a TheoCon like Cruz can never be elected because he doesn't stand a chance in California.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

We will have to see about that. I believe that you are mistaken. You just need to stop and listen to those that that no longer will be told what to think.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post

Nobody who calls himself or herself a Socialist can get elected. He has had considerable success in Iowa and NH, but there is no way he can win in SC and the other states holding primary elections. Because he does have a small cadre of enthusiastic supporters, he will have some success in states holding caucuses.

Why not? People want it and are tired of politics as usual.

(D) couldn't win SC with anyone....

That's like saying a TheoCon like Cruz can never be elected because he doesn't stand a chance in California.

What I said is he doesn't have a chance in the primary election in SC. or other states, such as CA or FL or MI where primaries are held.

 

[JackLuis]

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post

Nobody who calls himself or herself a Socialist can get elected. He has had considerable success in Iowa and NH, but there is no way he can win in SC and the other states holding primary elections. Because he does have a small cadre of enthusiastic supporters, he will have some success in states holding caucuses.

What I said is he doesn't have a chance in the primary election in SC. or other states, such as CA or FL or MI where primaries are held.

I think Bernie's chances in California are pretty good. I mean we elected Boxer and Finestine. He will have to fight the Limousine Liberal wing and Hillary, but he's got a good chance.

 

[BotanyBoy]

What I said is he doesn't have a chance in the primary election in SC or other states, such as CA or FL or MI where primaries are held.

Considering how well he's doing I'd say his chances of winning blue states is pretty good. Especially on the west coast and in New England.

FL/SC/MI? Obviously, those are quite red states.

But you never know.....TX/FL got some pretty dark blue islands, Sanders might just take HRC down if the FBI doesn't.

 

[Sunshine]

Nobody who calls himself or herself a Socialist can get elected. He has had considerable success in Iowa and NH, but there is no way he can win in SC and the other states holding primary elections. Because he does have a small cadre of enthusiastic supporters, he will have some success in states holding caucuses.

I think you're wrong.

 

[JackLuis]

I think you're wrong.

It wouldn't be the first time.