https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/02/13/assessing_the_prospects_for_a_brokered_convention_142386.html

The field is still overcrowded...and now Bloomberg’s been added

I don’t think the top 5 dropout

Bern
Pete
Lizzo
Biden
and Bloomberg

The math doesn’t look good for a primary winner

Brokered Convention = SuperDelegates decide...and the devil laughs again.

i think bloomberg running makes a bernie plurality win much more likely. and i doubt that gets upended at a convention.

superdelegates have never overturned the popular vote (even tho bernie tried to get them to do that in 2016 after demonizing them for an entire campaign).

>superdelegates have never overturned the popular vote (even
>tho bernie tried to get them to do that in 2016 after
>demonizing them for an entire campaign).

NO SHIT. Classic playing the refs strategy.

>i think bloomberg running makes a bernie plurality win much
>more likely.

The votes Bloomberg will steal will likely be mostly from Biden and Buttigieg, not Bernie...

But I got $50 to say you’re wrong about this
You in or nah?

But they take suspicion to the point of consistent and persistent conspiracy which is a world view that holds far too many assumptions of competence and cohesion.

The powers that be most likely do hate most of us and would crush any bit of hope to maintain their power.
But if your response to that isn't to coalition build but just call everyone else a bootlicking, morally bankrupt tool of the power ... there's no way to go from there.

the D nominee...a year ago?

I’m not a mathematician, but the odds of picking correctly, out of a +20 person field...have to be pretty low

Joementum...just happened to coincide with the field dropping out and endorsing him...in unison...?

Predictions aren’t easy...but they’re a lot easier in hindsight...

Here's an article from March 2019

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/12/18261834/2020-democratic-primary-polls-joe-biden

Polls drive media narratives, so much so that the narratives often end up driving behaviors of the voters. Because Americans (as a whole) assign authority and lend credibility to people on TV for the sole reason that if they're on TV they must be smart or credible.

It's like 87% of American television programming.

...so we’re going to keep ignoring the mass exodus of candidates at the same time subsequently endorsing Biden simultaneously...

Mere coincidence?

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-09-29/former-ukraine-prosecutor-says-no-wrongdoing-biden

He said he met unofficially with Giuliani in New York and in Warsaw last year. Other accounts put the New York meeting earlier this year, but he insisted it was January 2018. The Warsaw meeting was in March, he said.

“I went to his office and was there for several hours over three days,” Lutsenko said. “He was certainly prepared.”

Giuliani quickly raised the issue of the Ukrainian gas company that had hired Hunter Biden. Burisma is run by a Ukrainian oligarch who had been under investigation for tax evasion and lives abroad. But once back taxes were paid, Lutsenko said, the case was shelved.

“He was wondering why the case was closed,” he said. “I had to tell him how law enforcement functions here.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/joe-biden-pac-2020-presidential-run

Is there at any point that you're willing to take a look at your fellow citizens or is everything in life orchestrated by a powerful cabal and kabuki theater in your world view?

https://www.businessinsider.com/poll-joe-biden-2020-democratic-frontrunner-2016-12

The Delaware Democrat garnered 31% support in the poll, which consisted of interviews with 400 Democratic primary voters between December 6 and 7.

Coming in second was Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont — who staged an insurgent 2016 presidential bid — with 24%. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, with 16%, was third.

No other potential candidate included in the poll garnered more than 4%, and 14% of respondents were undecided.

>...so we’re going to keep ignoring the mass exodus of
>candidates at the same time subsequently endorsing Biden
>simultaneously...
>
>Mere coincidence?

No. It was strategic. The candidates dropped out because they saw the writing on the wall (i.e. the will of the voters) and strategically dropped out when they realized they didn't have a chance, and backed the guy they knew would win because they, unlike you and your ilk, understand the full ramifications of what's at stake with a 2nd 45* term and are willing to grudgingly do whatever it takes to avoid that disaster.

In polls. Of people. Humans.

Didn't have to be Miss Cleo to make that prediction.

The question is why are fellow Americans so susceptible to persuasion from people in power.
There were a multitude of better politicians than Joe Biden running for president.
And the prevailing case for Joe Biden throughout was "he polls well and so he has the best chance to beat Trump"
Rather than any case for his policies.
Electibility should not be a word that common people use. That's pollster talk.

>The question is why are fellow Americans so susceptible to
>persuasion from people in power.
>There were a multitude of better politicians than Joe Biden
>running for president.
>And the prevailing case for Joe Biden throughout was "he polls
>well and so he has the best chance to beat Trump"
>Rather than any case for his policies.
>Electibility should not be a word that common people use.
>That's pollster talk.

And this year Warren
The Warren campaign kept in touch with constant communication, field calls, small texts, small donation requests ... every weekend there was a ground crew trying to get me out to register voters ... it was a campaign.

Years prior the Obama campaign was very similar.

The Sanders campaign was
Not
Not in the least.
It was the grassroots campaign that never expanded its soil. Sure there have been rallies, but it operated the same way a Green Party candidacy did. That if the ideas are good enough the people will come. Despite that literally never working out to scale in America. The Bernie Sanders second run was cynical as hell. It operated much like Magneto and the Brotherhood, that the hope was that enough people are disillusioned with the now that they'll gather together to usurp it.

But that requires work. That strategy requires a lot of work that the campaign simply did not do. And the failures of that campaign lie within that. Not with boogeyman, but the lack of will to do the work to sell the ideas.

There really wasn't any option besides Biden, just like last time there was no option besides Clinton. The illusion of choice.

> how was an idiot like trump able to accurately predict



Democrats/Liberals won't ever admit this, and will get angry about it because to acknowledge this would start the process of destroying their world view.

Political power structures (DNC included) are myopic and have a self reinforced world view that's disconnected from the constituents they're supposed to serve.

That the DNC ends up supporting it's most lackyish people to hold control over its body is no different than the way the NFL hires retreads and family members.

That quite often the DNC seems more apt to appeal to the moneyed donors is no different than shitty television that gets greenlit for product placement

The DNC is susceptible to being changed by activists and numbers just like any other political body but people would first have to admit that the failures of the DNC and the failures to change the DNC are an engagement, organization, and people issue.

Yall make this shitty body of old rich white people and moderate Black people who survived "America" by the skin of their teeth to be some kind of mega goliath of civic suppression and manipulation when their opposing party is a white nationalist death cult that's unaccountable to anything.

>Political power structures (DNC included) are myopic and have
>a self reinforced world view that's disconnected from the
>constituents they're supposed to serve.
>
>That the DNC ends up supporting it's most lackyish people to
>hold control over its body is no different than the way the
>NFL hires retreads and family members.
>
>That quite often the DNC seems more apt to appeal to the
>moneyed donors is no different than shitty television that
>gets greenlit for product placement
>
>The DNC is susceptible to being changed by activists and
>numbers just like any other political body but people would
>first have to admit that the failures of the DNC and the
>failures to change the DNC are an engagement, organization,
>and people issue.
>
>Yall make this shitty body of old rich white people and
>moderate Black people who survived "America" by the skin of
>their teeth to be some kind of mega goliath of civic
>suppression and manipulation when their opposing party is a
>white nationalist death cult that's unaccountable to
>anything.
>
>
>

Iowa is *still* not settled and there are a myriad of inconsistencies and errors in the results. Also, they awarded Pete anywhere from 12-14 delegates (and only 12 to Sanders despite winning the popular vote by ~6,000).

Now it appears Pete gets 13 delegates from Iowa - but still unclear.

Each of them got 9 from NH (again, despite Sanders as the clear winner).

Nevada looks like it'll be a mess as well.

As it stands right now:

Pete: 22
Sanders: 21
Warren: 8
Klobuchar: 7
Biden: 6

-->

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/483480-what-happens-during-a-contested-democratic-national-convention

Iowa and New Hampshire have voted, but the Democratic field has not appreciably thinned. With no candidate even gaining 30 percent in the first two states, political forecasters have noted that the odds are greatly increasing that no one will have a majority heading into the Democratic convention in Milwaukee this summer. While discussion of a brokered convention comes up every four years, the parties have done little to plan for what one would actually look like. Thanks to changes in the process, a contested fight could be vastly more complicated than in the past.

Conventions, especially those without an incumbent, were rarely smooth operations. But there was an understanding of how the process worked. During the convention era, which effectively ran from 1832 to 1968, the choice of presidential candidates was usually made by a small group of bosses. The actual delegates were chosen by the state parties if there were no primaries or caucuses, and were usually divided in who they supported by state affiliation rather than interest in ideology or a specific candidate. Often times, these delegates were well known and actually owed their livelihood to the delegation leaders. But there were further rules that helped ensure that delegates stayed in line.

The delegates were usually bound by the unit rule that state delegates internally voted on a candidate, and would cast all their ballots as one for the winner. So winning over the state leader was frequently enough to capture the whole state at once. Additionally, a “winner take all” system was usually in place for states that used a primary or caucus system. So even when there was a vote of the people, there was limited dissent among state delegates.

Unless a leader of the state had a chance at the nomination, the delegates were used as bargaining chips, often voting for a “favorite son” candidate in early ballots until they could be traded. This horse trading and tough calculations forced leaders to come to a consensus. For Democrats, especially before 1932, when they removed a rule requiring the winner to get two-thirds of the vote, this system could be disastrous. Republicans controlled the presidency during the heart of the era, holding it for all but 16 years from 1860 to 1932. But the general principles of how a convention operated, and that horse trading was needed, were well accepted.

Starting in the 1960s, the Democrats gradually changed these rules. Every state now uses the primary and caucus system, and the “winner take all” rule for apportioning delegates is not allowed by the Democrats. Instead, the delegates of each state are divided proportionally, thereby limiting the ability to swing votes. The unit rule has been banned, so the delegates of each state will no longer be forced to vote as one.

Selection of delegates is now done by the individual campaigns themselves. They are chosen for their support of the candidate, though they are actually not bound to vote for any specific candidate, so in good measure they may not be beholden or even know party officials. Perhaps as importantly, there are now many more delegates at the convention.

The Democrats have 4,750 delegates able to vote on the floor, nearly 3,980 selected in primaries and caucuses, and at least 770 superdelegates who are elected leaders in government or established party leaders. The superdelegates cannot vote on the first ballot if no candidate has 50 percent. Compare this to 1952, the last convention that went beyond one ballot, where only 1,230 delegates had a vote, and a good number of those would now be superdelegates. If there is a contested race, the campaign may have to woo delegates one by one.

What these changes have done is cut out the middlemen, or those with the credibility to broker a deal. Now the delegates are likely to have intense loyalty only to the candidate themselves. It may be that the losing candidates are the only people with the credibility to sell their own delegates on a deal. These candidates are unlikely to throw in the towel and back a competitor if they think there is any chance that they can still sneak in for the nomination. If there are hard feelings from a loser in the horse trading, charges of a corrupt bargain are certain to be made, especially by President Trump, who still uses complaints over the fairly straightforward 2016 nomination fight to attack Democrats.

While the likelihood of a contested convention this summer remains uncertain, Democrats have good reason for it. Beyond bad publicity, it could lead to a potential fatal rupture in the party that is otherwise showing strong cohesion around the idea of ousting the president. The party leaders should start planning for how to devise a method to choose a candidate who would not be damaged by such a fight.

Joshua Spivak is a senior fellow who focuses on politics and history with the Hugh Carey Institute for Government Reform with Wagner College.

Loooot of finessing of the numbers by the IDP - and it just so happened to benefit the candidate not named Sanders. Who would've guessed?

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/18/buttigieg-sanders-iowa-recanvass-gap-115898

Pete Buttigieg's already narrow state delegate equivalent lead over Bernie Sanders has reduced further, to less than a hundredth of a percentage point, after the Iowa Democratic Party announced the results of a recanvass of targeted precincts from the state's Democratic caucuses.

Buttigieg now leads Sanders by .08 state delegate equivalents, according to results posted by the state party — 26.186 percent for Buttigieg to 26.182 percent for Sanders. The initial results were marred by apparent reporting or mathematical errors.
-->

Super Tuesday they will all drop out. Pete and sanders will stay in. Hopefully Bloomberg gets trounced on Super Tuesday and that’s the end of that

40+ states AND has a clear plurality of votes, and they find a way to leap frog Bloomberg into the nomination on the 2nd vote with Superdelegates???

SHEEEEiiittttttttt >_<

and I'm just gonna sit back and pour some shitlib tears into my coffee

She really splits the difference between Bloomberg, Biden and Sanders. She seems like so many people second choice.

She should have accepted PAC money. She should have gone on Fox. Let's see how her campaign ends.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

people like p booty and biden wouldnt mind giving their delegates to her. but i cant see dems settling on the 3rd or lower place nominee with all of the upheaval that would bring.

ironically enough...it wasnt even bernie who really made bloomberg jump in the race. he jumped in during that october/november warren surge while she was discussing her wealth tax.

she needs to be 2nd or a really close 3rd in delegates for it to make sense.

warren kind of had everyone shook back then, left and right of her. if she had any sort of bump in polling recently i would feel better about her chances. shes kind of flatlined or keeps dropping and the voting so far matches. NV could change things but who knows.

it is kinda weird how overt/vocal they were in opposition to her...but dont seem to be as demonstrative against sanders (relatively).

i wonder if they feel warren could actually implement her agenda but sanders is less likely to get shit through.

maybe her record in regards to cfpb/dodd frank makes them take her more serious.

influence her campaign, make her into a "Pink Hat President" instead of the person who was making Wall Street tremble, and fighting for M4A. The best thing she had going for her, she abandoned, AND had to throw an ally under the bus AGAIN in the process. Best case scenario is she ends up Senate Majority Leader and keeps her seat in Massachusetts. Not sure if she would come back after slamming Bernie so much.

5 out of 6 candidates at the debate last night said they don't believe the person with the most votes should win?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcX_fMQgKe0&feature=youtu.be&t=6357

As he and his surrogates were looking for superdelegates to overturn a result where the other candidate DID win a majority of pledged delegates.

I agree that that was the wrong move then and was probably a desperation attempt out of frustration at the end of an unfair fight and hopefully something he regrets. It's not apples to apples though. Bernie was always against super delegates on principle and what was most undemocratic last time were huge swaths of super delegates declaring for Hillary before others even entered the race. Also having Hillary leave States where Bernie won in landslides with more super delegates. As has been well documented the whole DNC was owned by Hillary from the beginning.

Bernie's team tried to fight for the total elimination of super delegates for 2020 but Hillary's team stopped him and they were only able to get them moved to the second ballot. Things appear more democratic this time thanks to the efforts of Bernie's team. If Pete and Warren are so against the electoral college then it is hypocritical of them to not give the nomination to the person with the plurality of pledged delegates. If it's the will of the people it should be the will of the people.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/us/politics/democratic-superdelegates.html

It's entertaining watching people criticize Trumpster for 3 years...then resort to the same tactics when their power/privilege is threatened.

Unify the party ehh...

https://www.amazon.com/Hillary-Clinton-Riveter-Magnetic-Sticker/dp/B01MTJHCXJ#immersive-view_1582912689942