A contested convention will doom us.

[dutch508]

Gravitycollapse (8,022 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287589672
 
This shouldn't have to be said: A contested convention will doom us.

If someone does not clear the delegate hurdle, we will not win the Presidency in November.

The surest way to suppress turnout is to A. not have a clear winner before the convention and/or B. not pick the most voted for candidate.

I'm not arguing that we change any rules. I'm not saying Sanders should get the nomination if he comes up short. I just think we need to be honest with ourselves. Someone needs to definitively win the primary contest.

 

Star Member Renew Deal (75,797 posts)

1. It can be argued we're doomed either way
 
Have you seen the news? There's a disease and Pence is in charge.

 

Star Member msongs (53,263 posts)

2. only if one candidate tries to sabotage the entire election. ahemmmmmmmmmm nt

 

Squinch (29,786 posts)

51. Exactly. I just had a conversation with a supporter of that candidate. I pointed out that
 
I have been asked a million times if I would vote for that candidate, who I do not like, if he is the nominee. I have never failed to answer the truth: I will vote for a rotting fish head if it is our candidate against Donald Trump. There is no Democratic candidate I would not vote for in the general.

Every poster I have seen who does not support that candidate has answered the same. They would vote for him.

This poster, though, posted to say a contested convention would lose us votes. I asked if that meant that, despite everyone else's party loyalty, this candidate's supporters would not support the nominee. The answer was, essentially, no, many of this this candidate's supporters would not support any other nominee than their candidate.

This is all coming from one place. All coming from the followers of one candidate.

A contested convention type of process chose Lincoln. I would have no problem honoring the results of a contested convention. The only way a contested convention is a problem is if we don't all stay loyal. If not to the party, then to the idea of ousting Donald Trump.

How can this even be a question?

The 1860 Republican National Convention was a presidential nominating convention that met from May 16 to May 18 in Chicago, Illinois. It was held to nominate the Republican Party's candidates for president and vice president in the 1860 election. The convention selected former Representative Abraham Lincoln of Illinois for president and Senator Hannibal Hamlin of Maine for vice president.

Entering the 1860 convention, Senator William H. Seward of New York was generally regarded as the front-runner, but Lincoln, Governor Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, former Representative Edward Bates of Missouri, and Senator Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania all commanded support from a significant share of delegates. Seward led on the first ballot but fell short of a majority, while Lincoln finished in a strong second place. Cameron's delegates shifted to Lincoln on the second ballot, leaving Lincoln essentially tied with Seward. Lincoln clinched the nomination on the third ballot after consolidating support from more delegates who had backed candidates other than Seward.

Hamlin was nominated on the second vice presidential ballot, defeating Cassius Clay of Kentucky and several other candidates. The Republican ticket went on to win the 1860 general election. After taking office in 1861, Lincoln would appoint all four of his major opponents for the Republican nomination to his cabinet.

The 1860 Democratic National Conventions were a series of presidential nominating conventions held to nominate the Democratic Party's candidates for president and vice president in the 1860 election. The first convention, held from April 23 to May 3 in Charleston, South Carolina, failed to nominate a ticket. Two subsequent conventions, both held in Baltimore, Maryland in June, nominated two separate presidential tickets.

Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois entered the Charleston convention as the front-runner for the presidential nomination, and he won a majority on the first presidential ballot of the convention. However, convention rules required a two-thirds majority for nomination, and Douglas's adherence to the Freeport Doctrine regarding slavery in the territories engendered strong opposition from many Southern delegates. Opponents of Douglas's nomination spread their support among five major candidates, including former Treasury Secretary James Guthrie of Kentucky and Senator Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia. After 57 ballots in which Douglas consistently won majority support but failed to cross the two-thirds threshold, the Charleston convention adjourned.

The Democratic convention reconvened in Baltimore on June 18, but many Southern delegates were either excluded from the convention or refused to participate. Douglas was nominated for president on the second ballot. Senator Benjamin Fitzpatrick of Alabama was nominated for vice president but later refused the nomination; he was ultimately replaced by former Governor Herschel Vespasian Johnson of Georgia. A group of Southern Democrats met in their own separate convention, adopted a pro-slavery platform, and nominated incumbent Vice President John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky for president and Senator Joseph Lane of Oregon for vice president. Douglas and Breckinridge both went on to win a significant share of the popular vote in the 1860 presidential election, but Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the election.

Star Member relayerbob (1,440 posts)

7. No, we need to learn how to work as a team
 
We are doomed if our candidates piss and fight and let egos prevail at the convention. If they want to demonstrate leadership, then they need to LEAD, and form a coalition partnership that gets everyone's voice at the table, behind one person, who is willing to accept the policy decisions of the majority of the voters, which can be gleaned by looking at vote counts. If they would back off, and demonstrate such leadership, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

NNadir (23,848 posts)

9. Actually, in history, a contested convention saved the United States.
 
Abraham Lincoln was described as "everyone's second choice" in a contested convention.

The better known candidates all defeated each other.

We are facing one of the greatest crises in American history; our government and our democracy disintegrating.

We need another Lincoln at this point.

It's very clear that populist old men with small inflexible minds are extremely popular on both extremes. A brokered convention seems somewhat desirable to me, especially given recent events.

CrawlingChaos (1,878 posts)

12. It will alienate massive numbers of voters
 
Young people in particular will abandon the party. Why would they feel motivated to vote for Democrats ever again?

 

Star Member jberryhill (60,494 posts)

14. You mean the massive numbers that turn out for primaries?
 

You know that most people actually don't give a shit until the nominations have already been final?

CrawlingChaos (1,878 posts)

19. They give a shit this time
 
I've never seen anything like it.

If they deny the nomination to the rightful winner this time it will not be business as usual.

First Speaker (3,283 posts)

23. Surely, the "rightful winner" is the one that the rules of the Democratic Party...decree is the rightful winner.

(You have heard of the Democratic Party?) If some candidate--we'll mention no names--goes into the convention with, say, 35% of the delegates...Candidate #2 has 30%...and the others have the remaining 35% spread out among them...and the rules that Candidate #1 agreed to, should nominate somebody else...well, he and his supporters could certainly go off into a corner and sulk, or support Jill Stein, or do whatever they wish. I would throw them a bon voyage party, wish them well, and go and work for the Democratic nominee. And if Candidate #1 should manage to get the 16% he'd need to win the nomination for himself, then I'd work my ass off for him. May I add that this whole bit about a "brokered convention" turning people off is media horseshit, the talking head class reaching for the fainting couches at the thought of dreadful, smelly, ungenteel democracy breaking out. The only people who'd give a damn about it by November would be die hard supporters of a losing candidate, and we'll win without them, should it turn out that way...

  ... you could just buy Bernie another house...

CrawlingChaos (1,878 posts)

25. That "rule" is outrageous
 
It's the most undemocratic thing I can imagine.

And if you don't think there will be hell to pay you are in for a rude awakening.

Star Member jberryhill (60,494 posts)

28. The "rightful winner" is whomever emerges from the convention with the nomination
 

There is literally no other definition of that term.

If the party decided, in the course of the convention, to decide on the basis of Rock Paper Scissors, then the rightful winner would be whomever threw rock the second finalist’s scissors.

Period.

CrawlingChaos (1,878 posts)

31. No reasonable person would see it that way
 
Do you think that attitude will inspire party loyalty? You just wait and see what happens.

Star Member jberryhill (60,494 posts)

32. That attitude is the definition of party loyalty
 

You seem to have failed the course in “cart and horse placement”.

CrawlingChaos (1,878 posts)

36. Scary authoritarian BS
 
You actually think you're going to win people over that way?

Star Member jberryhill (60,494 posts)

37. I'm not interesting in "winning people over" to the Democratic Party
 

This is Democratic Underground. I do not generally assume that participants on this site need any "winning over" to vote for the Democratic nominee.

With the exception of persons who do not quite understand this site, the basic assumption here is that participants are Democrats. Hence, your comment about "inspiring loyalty" seemed a bit unusual to me.

I actually do not care who the Democratic nominee turns out to be. I will vote for that nominee.

I gather that you, on the other hand, are perfectly willing to burn the party to the ground if you do not get the result you desire. Accordingly, your statement about inspiring "loyalty" is somewhat amusing, as it appears you do not quite grasp the meaning of the word.

Squinch (29,786 posts)

53. So, you set the rules rather than the party that everyone here has chose to join?
 
Sorry. No.

You knew what the rules were going in. If you didn't, that's on you.

Bernie knew too. He was instrumental in setting them, asking for the changes that he is now having a problem with.

Enough. This is how it works. This is how BS and everyone else agreed it should work. So the only question now is, are you in or are you out?

CrawlingChaos (1,878 posts)

58. Knew the rules?!
 
Are you freakin' kidding me?

No one, save a few elites, actually wants this shitty duopoly that has been forced on us as Americans. We have every right to fight for fair representation.

Sick of you guys acting like the Democratic Party is your private club.

And Bernie wanted NO superdelegates. This was the compromise he was able to get through. Don't try to pretend he wanted it this way.

Squinch (29,786 posts)

61. Yes, Bernie wanted no superdelegates. But by that time Bernie had already switched
 
his party back to Independent. They COMPROMISED with him and took the superdelegates out of the first round. They also gave in on his demand to make contested conventions in the event of no plurality a rule going forward.

Even though he had no standing and was no longer a member of the party, everyone COMPROMISED with him.

Just because Bernie wanted it, doesn't mean he was necessarily going to get it. That is what COMPROMISE means. Each person gives a little and gets a little. It doesn't mean that Bernie dictates terms.

As it was, he got most of what he demanded. And no, this was a very well publicized process when it happened. Again, if you didn't know about it, that's on you. Bernie certainly knew about it. Both when it was determined in 2016 and when he re-joined the party in 2019.

And whether you are sick of people thinking that the Democratic Party is a private club or not, IT IS A PRIVATE CLUB!!!! It is a club for people who support Democrats. It is a club that mutually decides upon the rules that will decide how they get Democrats elected.

If you don't like it, why did you join it???

 

CrawlingChaos (1,878 posts)

66. Why did I join it?!
 
Maybe because the ONLY alternative - per our horrible system - is Republicans!

Even Republicans don't have superdelegates.

Star Member Blue_true (21,159 posts)

64. Sanders had the selection rule changed to what it is now.
 
If he goes into the convention in the lead and don't get the nomination, he would have been denied by his own mechanations.

BTW, let's say that Sanders doesn't have the delegate lead coming into the convention. What do you think should happen then? I don't want whataboutisms, please answer the damed question that I posed.

CrawlingChaos (1,878 posts)

67. That is absolutely not true
 
This is not what Bernie wanted. It is willfully misleading to say otherwise.

Bernie wanted NO superdelegates. As would any reasonable person who believes in democracy.

Ah... I am beginning to see the problem with your arguement...

Progressive2020 (538 posts)

20. Brokered Convention
 
I think that a Brokered Convention would be bad for our chances. It has never worked out well in modern American History. We need to have two or three leading candidates at most after Super Tuesday, and maybe one clear front-runner. I will support whoever gets the nomination, but I do hope that it is clear before the Convention.

InAbLuEsTaTe (22,763 posts)

21. Why there won't be a contested Convention... Bernie is goin to be the Democratic nominee, period!
 
Might as well accept it... Bernie's inevitable!!

   
Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

 

Star Member TexasTowelie (73,258 posts)

27. Not if he only gets 30% of the delegates.
 
54 more contests to go--it's far too early to declare Bernie as the victor.

Callado119 (117 posts)

29. Nope, a BS nomination would doom us..
 
...I guarantee if BS falls behind in the delegate count before the convention, his fans will be screaming from roof tops for a contested convention and be threatening super delegates to vote for him...so basically what already happened in 2016..

Star Member Demsrule86 (39,919 posts)

40. A Sanders nomination will doom us in the General.
 
Vote blue period. But we need someone who can win a general as our nominee.

Nanjeanne (3,931 posts)

41. I don't how supporters of democracy think giving super delegates the right to choose Who they want is a democratic process. Every superdelegate can vote for their choice in their primary. Why do some party leaders get two votes? It simply makes no sense. I personally think my vote should count as much as anyone’s else and my judgement to choose who I want to be President is as valid as any “super” delegate. Do they have super powers to better choose than I do? What criteria sets them apart?

Aaron Pereira (327 posts)

49. Opposing candidates and superdelegates are still rational actors.
 
Obama didn't have a delegate majority in 2008 and neither did Clinton in 2016. Their opponents did the right thing and released their delegates, made their endorsements and a contest was avoided for the sake of party unity.

Same thing will happen in 2020 if Bernie goes in with a plurality. The party establishment will look at the new voters Sanders is bringing into the process, the motivated crowds and without a doubt his hands down popularity with latino voters who represent the demographic future of the party. They won't be willing to light a match and burn all of that down for the sake of appointing their own nominee.

OhZone (2,096 posts)

52. Then Bernie should drop out now.

Star Member oasis (43,473 posts)

57. "Bite off your nose to spite your face" malcontents will be replaced
 
at the polls by voters who will feel a sense of relief by being able to vote for a "no drama" candidate.

 

[Drafe Hoblin]

Dems can't leave the Convention-venue, once they're gaveled-in.

Reporters won't have access to broker-deliberation.

Those are the two stone-pillars that will frame the chaos.  Because the announcement will be 'sudden', after having gone-though 26 candidates to get to that point.  It's a recipe for a beautiful disaster.

[SVPete]

The 2020 version of "Operation Chaos" seems to be being executed by the Dems themselves, . Glad they're showing Rush how to do it right!    

[jukin]

I hope that all Cavers have stocked up on popcorn for the communist convention.

[FiddyBeowulf]

I hope that all Cavers have stocked up on popcorn for the communist convention.

It is happening in my neck of the woods. I am stocking up on other stuff in the expectation Bernie gets the nomination stolen from him and his supporters freak out Chicago 1968 style.

[BadCat]

Oh, I am really hoping for a brokered convention, and it looks like the dims are going to give us one.
The Bernie Bros have already threatened to burn down Milwaukee if the old blowhard doesn't win, so, it should be good.

[SVPete]

I hope that all Cavers have stocked up on popcorn for the communist convention.

  also might be temporarily out-of-stock at Costco. Sun Chips ...

[Old n Grumpy]

Gravitycollapse (8,022 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287589672
 
This shouldn't have to be said: A contested convention will doom us.

Thank GOD!!

We are really sick of you all.

[GOP Congress]

There will be no contested convention. The RINO-progressive Deep State apparatus will guarantee it won't happen. Bernie Bros won't be as pissed this time around, despite the Project Veritas tapes, especially once the VP selection will be a communist on steroids.

Let's play along for a second. If a Biden/Omar ticket should somehow win, then Biden will be resigning the last week of January 2022, and President Omar will be giving that year's State of the Union. The week is selected so that his successor will be able to run in two, not just one, relection terms, and still have the advantage of incumbency of almost two year. She will then bring on a caretaker VP, perhaps a vulnerable senator from a state controlled by a Dem governor and legislature (one that guarantees a communist Dem replacement that can then be given the incumbent advantage at the next election) until 2024, after which Omar will then select Speaker AOC as her permanent VP.