Democratic Primary

[Philly]

Hi old friends. Really wild to see Bernie actually running away with this thing. It was something that I mapped out in my head and logically saw as a potential outcome, but couldn't actually convince myself would happen in my heart of hearts. So glad it is though.

We're very quickly getting near a point where it becomes outside reasonable likelihood that any other candidate would manage to overtake Sanders' momentum and end up with more delegates than him. That means that after the final primary, the outcome will very very likely be one of two things: 1) Bernie has a majority of pledged delegates and has cleanly won the nomination, with the convention's process of actually nominating him being the formality that these things usually are, or 2) Bernie has more pledged delegates than anyone else, but less than 50% of all pledged delegates (that threshold is 1,991 delegates to be exact). If we end up with Option 2, the convention must hold a second nominating ballot. On this second ballot, the pledged delegates are "released", meaning they are now free to switch from their pledged candidate to whoever they want -- and additionally, the infamous Super Delegates will be added into the mix and allowed to throw their delegate vote to whoever they please.

I'd make this observation about the scenario laid out above: If Sanders wins the combined popular vote from all the primary contests, plus wins more pledged delegates than any other candidate, then giving the nomination to anyone other than Sanders on the second ballot with the help of superdelegates virtually guarantees that Trump will win in November. The "Bernie or Bust" narrative was always overblown and not really very significant in 2016 (about 12% of Sanders voters went Trump in Nov 2016, which is an average-to-low amount of crossover that you can normally expect among supporters of a competitive primary candidate who failed to get nominated). If Sanders outperforms all other candidates and is denied the nomination in the way I described, it WILL become a very real thing this year. There is no compromise candidate who the Dem establishment would give it to that Bernie Sanders' base would be satisfied with. Perhaps people thought Elizabeth Warren could have been such a compromise option at one time, but it should be clear by now that she isn't, and accepting such a ploy to make herself the nominee would only further diminish any credibility she still has with those voters.

What I am saying is that "Bernie or Bust" is no longer just a shorthand for the possible refusal of Sanders backers to support any other candidate. The entire Democratic Primary is most likely now Bernie or Bust. The choice the superdelegates and the rest of the party establishment will have to consider isn't whether or not they'll ever come to actually like Sanders or want him as the nominee/president (they won't). Rather, the choice is if their opposition to Sanders is worth practically ensuring their own party's failure to win back the White House (and possibly lose Congress as well as lots of state positions just before state govts across America will be tasked with redistricting for the 2020 census). I would like to say that given this situation, the Democratic establishment will grit their teeth and accept Sanders rather than give up on such an important election cycle and hand 4 more years to the guy they've all shouted from the rooftops is the most dangerous politician in American history. Sadly, I worry that it is more in line with the personal interests of many of these people to keep Bernie out of the driver's seat than it is to win power away from the GOP in 2020 or any other year.

Why? Because there are obvious benefits to seeing your party control the government rather than the party you see as immoral and dangerous. But for these people, if the Democrats take power in the form of President Sanders, it's not their party anymore. And this isn't some kind of figurative ideological matter like "This guy wants to scrap the ACA for single payer, I don't even recognize the Democratic Party anymore!" I mean, far more materially, these are folks who have a place of prominence in the current Democratic Party, in large part, due to their connections within the current party power structure and their access to donors who a party modeled after Sanders' politics would not appeal to nor covet the support of anymore. Being out of government power for these people means being less important and having less prestigious jobs. But the less prestigious jobs they still have are pretty sweet and often pay pretty well. If they screw over Sanders and therefor make winning in 2020 impossible, well, there's always 2024. But if they let Sanders have the nomination and then he wins in November, that could be the permanent end of their revolving door sweetheart deal of important-sounding government office positions when Dems win and cushy lucrative senior staff positions at think-tanks and consulting firms when Dems lose. It's not in their long term interest to prioritize winning in 2020.

What do the rest of you think?

[Kane]

[Philly]

I honestly have to say that I don't think Bloomberg is running to preserve his own wealth. I think he sees a moderate party establishment in shambles and Sanders winning and winning but only with pluralities as of yet, and he sees that as an opportunity for someone with unlimited wealth to just step in and clear out the struggling moderates to try for a 1v1 with Sanders. This is flawed thinking and Bloomberg is so contemptible that he's really the last person who should like the prospect of going 1v1 with a surging popular candidate like Bernie, but that money would make anyone think twice.

But, I don't think he's doing it to protect his personal wealth. In a sense, he's doing it to protect his class as a group more than his own bank account, which I think his massive ego has moved beyond to some extent.

Bloomberg really doesn't even try to veil the fact that he has a great deal of contempt for democracy, or that he believes ultrawealthy people like himself have not only earned the right to possession such tremendous fortunes but also the right to have a massively bigger say in matters of public interest than the general public. He sees the enormous political power that private wealth can purchase in our system as the solution, not the problem. The problem to him is all the riff raff plebs thinking that their opinions should matter when they disagree with his highly enlightened technocratic policy prescriptions for any given matter, and enough money is indeed an effective way to mitigate the significance of public opinion.

Not to be too alarmist or anything, but I think Bloomberg is running because he's always wanted to and he sees this moment as his best shot...but the reason he's always wanted to is that he finds both sides of the money/people divide in American politics disgusting. It's cheap and tacky to him. On the one side, people like Sanders telling the unwashed masses that they have a right to rise up and demand more for themselves through active political engagement. On the other side, empty suits selling their political commitments to corporate donors who are just concerned with whatever policy impacts their bottom line in the immediate sense.

As Mayor of NYC, Bloomberg used his wealth to bypass the normal political concerns - regarding party alignments, public sentiment, financing of campaigns and financing of public projects alike - and ran the city in what he surely believed was a more enlightened and high minded way than anyone else could have, because in his mind he knew what the right approach was, and avoiding all the messiness of democracy and checks on power by throwing money at any roadblock allowed his vision to move forward without being compromised or tweaked to account for the thoughts of anyone else. This is his governing philosophy, and though I'm not sure how he intends to do it on the level of the US federal government (even with all his wealth, that's much tougher than the scale of NYC Mayor) I do think Bloomberg wants to bring these same principles to the White House.

So Bloomberg is a corporate centrist with a streak of outspokenness on certain social issues and environmental issues that may look pretty shitty but not all that radical, but that's misleading because it doesn't account for his theory of change. Bloomberg wants our already very undemocratic institutions to be far less democratic, and unlike previous power-grabbers in the White House - who have cited emergency circumstances or a very generous understanding of executive power, or made appeals to an overwhelming national interest - Bloomberg's justification for this position is simply that he's rich enough to buy the government, and if he buys it then it's his to do what he wants with it. He is a bigger threat to American democracy than Trump and I say that without reservation.

[NAB]

Looks like someone’s been saving up some posts.

[John Galt]

it would be wild for bernie to win in mass (as current polling indicates)

if the polls hold true, sanders will win most everything on super tuesday. that said he's on track for 1,735 delegates, but that's only 400 more than Biden. HOWEVER, if he can pull some upset in SC I think biden is done and that drastically changes things

i kinda want biden though simply for the lulz of two senile men yelling at each other about who has a bigger penis framed as a "debate"

[Kane]

[Saz]

[Saz]

[Saz]

[Saz]