4 ms·

Do they? I've seen polls where he beats trump. Let people vote for whoever they want. Whoever you have in mind to replace him will probably not live up to ex

by wolco 7y ago

Do they? I've seen polls where he beats trump. Let people vote for whoever they want. Whoever you have in mind to replace him will probably not live up to expectations. Beside, I think he has a shot. Usually when votes goes hard right they usually go hard left next time.

gwright 7y ago
> Let people vote for whoever they want. What does this mean? Is there someone suggesting that people can't vote for whoever they want?
- Jasper_ 7y ago
  The democratic party, up until 2016, used a system of "superdelegates": hand-picked people who had way more sway in choosing the party nomination. Sanders won the primary vote, but superdelegates widely picked Clinton. So, no, direct democracy was not an option in 2016. After lots of complaints, the process was completely redesigned in 2018. Now, the candidate to get the majority of delegates becomes the party nomination. Since Bernie has been clear as an actual candidate with potential to win, some democratic members have been caught speaking about returning to the superdelegate system [0]. Some believe Bloomberg's surprise entry in the race are an attempt to "crack the vote", that is, ensure that enough people vote for Bloomberg that Sanders does not win the majority, in which case the superdelegates are the tiebreakers to pick the nomination. This theory is very loosely backed up somewhat by an overheard phone call with John Kerry advocating him to join the race, to stop Sanders. [1] [0] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-110083 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-... [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/john-kerry-overheard-discussing-possible-2020-bid-amid-concern-sanders-n1128476 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/john-kerry-ov...
  - dlp211 7y ago
    I didn't read past your first paragraph because it is patently false. Hillary won with our without the superdelegates, received more than 3 million more votes than Sanders, and the race was never close past New Hampshire.
    - celtain 7y ago
      Also, the superdelegates would not have voted for her if she had lost among the pledged delegates. How can we know that? Because that's precisely what happened in 2008. Hillary had tons of superdelegates lined up behind her when the primaries started, but then Obama got more votes, so the superdelegates switched.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - freepor 7y ago
    And thus the final step in the handover of the nomination process is complete, from the pre-17th Amendment wisdom that the people’s judgment is only useful when applied to their local leaders in their town and city, and are patently unqualified to evaluate things like presidential candidates.
imron 7y ago
> Do they? I've seen polls where he beats trump. If you recall the last election, almost every poll said Clinton would beat Trump. I wouldn't put much faith in the polls, especially this far out.

by wolco 7y ago

gwright 7y ago

> Let people vote for whoever they want. What does this mean? Is there someone suggesting that people can't vote for whoever they want?

Jasper_ 7y ago
The democratic party, up until 2016, used a system of "superdelegates": hand-picked people who had way more sway in choosing the party nomination. Sanders won the primary vote, but superdelegates widely picked Clinton. So, no, direct democracy was not an option in 2016. After lots of complaints, the process was completely redesigned in 2018. Now, the candidate to get the majority of delegates becomes the party nomination. Since Bernie has been clear as an actual candidate with potential to win, some democratic members have been caught speaking about returning to the superdelegate system [0]. Some believe Bloomberg's surprise entry in the race are an attempt to "crack the vote", that is, ensure that enough people vote for Bloomberg that Sanders does not win the majority, in which case the superdelegates are the tiebreakers to pick the nomination. This theory is very loosely backed up somewhat by an overheard phone call with John Kerry advocating him to join the race, to stop Sanders. [1] [0] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-110083 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-... [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/john-kerry-overheard-discussing-possible-2020-bid-amid-concern-sanders-n1128476 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/john-kerry-ov...
- dlp211 7y ago
  I didn't read past your first paragraph because it is patently false. Hillary won with our without the superdelegates, received more than 3 million more votes than Sanders, and the race was never close past New Hampshire.
  - celtain 7y ago
    Also, the superdelegates would not have voted for her if she had lost among the pledged delegates. How can we know that? Because that's precisely what happened in 2008. Hillary had tons of superdelegates lined up behind her when the primaries started, but then Obama got more votes, so the superdelegates switched.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- freepor 7y ago
  And thus the final step in the handover of the nomination process is complete, from the pre-17th Amendment wisdom that the people’s judgment is only useful when applied to their local leaders in their town and city, and are patently unqualified to evaluate things like presidential candidates.

imron 7y ago

> Do they? I've seen polls where he beats trump. If you recall the last election, almost every poll said Clinton would beat Trump. I wouldn't put much faith in the polls, especially this far out.