Biden/Buttigieg ticket

[hollodero]

(02-28-2020, 09:55 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I definitely think we will see less candidates in 2 weeks, which will bring more clarity to this.

Sure. That's after Tuesday where 1/3 of delegates are awarded at once. Meaning, any dropouts after that won't change too much - Bernie's ahead.
As I said, if there are still 7 candidates going into that super duper Tuesday, they cost each other and Bernie will have the most delegates in the end. Certainty is difficult to predict, but that one seems as close as it gets to certain.

If moderates want a viable alternative candidate that can match Bernie with his/her (ok it's his) number of delegates, then most of them have to drop out before that. I hope anyone disagrees with that analysis, but I'd suppose that's hard.

[BmorePat87]

(02-28-2020, 02:23 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sure. That's after Tuesday where 1/3 of delegates are awarded at once. Meaning, any dropouts after that won't change too much - Bernie's ahead.
As I said, if there are still 7 candidates going into that super duper Tuesday, they cost each other and Bernie will have the most delegates in the end. Certainty is difficult to predict, but that one seems as close as it gets to certain.

If moderates want a viable alternative candidate that can match Bernie with his/her (ok it's his) number of delegates, then most of them have to drop out before that. I hope anyone disagrees with that analysis, but I'd suppose that's hard.

60% is still a lot of the delegates left, however, some candidates need to reassess their campaigns after tomorrow. Warren, Steyer, and Klobuchar have no business staying in the race if they continue to place 4th and lower.

[hollodero]

(02-28-2020, 02:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 60% is still a lot of the delegates left, however, some candidates need to reassess their campaigns after tomorrow. Warren, Steyer, and Klobuchar have no business staying in the race if they continue to place 4th and lower.

60% is more than half, sure. But Bernie's lead, by all indications, might be too big to overcome still. When it's only Amy and Steyer that drop out before Tuesday, I still would say with confidence that Bernie's lead in total number of delegates is set in stone after that day. To still lose he'd have to lose out big in all the upcoming states after said Tuesday, and that just won't happen. Why would it.

Nah, just losing Amy and Steyer won't avoid that. The moderate field has to pick one candidate now or Bernie's uncatchable for any of them. Under any normal circumstances. I state again, for whatever reason, that I'm usually cautious with such predictions, but this one seems quite clear.

[Dill]

(02-28-2020, 12:57 AM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know. The black vote might not be in favor of Pete, but do they really dislike him that much? I mean, these are people who are largely with Biden to begin with. Meaning, they seem pragmatic to me, I can't quite imagine a VP Pete would really make them flee in numbers. (I do have zero insight and a very shallow view on that for sure. Doesn't mean I'm wrong.)

But even if it cost him some with the black vote - on the plus side for Biden, he'd have Pete off the ballot. And at least some Pete supporters outright switching over. This all in all hardly could amount to a net negative for Biden.

- Also, bigger picture of course, if the not-Sanderses all stay in the race, then no edge with the black vote for Biden will matter and Bernie will get the most delegates by far. Possibly not as much as he needs though. And to seriouly consider just horsetrading delegates to a way weaker candidate then on a murderous "contested convention" seems disastrous strategy. If one wants a viable more moderate candidate, then the herd needs some serious thinning now, after the next vote the latest, before half the country votes. Amy and Steyer won't be sufficient. Is any of that illogical or untrue.

The issue for many blacks, especially the older religious ones who vote reliably, will be that Pete is gay. 

This will also piss them off:
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=A2KLfR6Zclleon8A7c9XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEycGwwbmRwBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDQjkzMjZfMQRzZWMDc2M-?p=buttigieg+obama+speech&fr=tightropetb#id=4&vid=c53724956a9b0c9ff14812737dbaf43d&action=view

Some Buttigieg voters might switch. Sure.  But fractions will count in the contested states.

I think that even if Sanders does not get the nomination, he will work to persuade his voters to support whomever.

[fredtoast]

(02-27-2020, 06:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Too white. Too male.

As a Buttigieg supporter, I don’t want him to be anyone’s VP because everyone left is white.

The ticket needs to represent the diversity of the party because representation in politics is crucial.

If Buttigieg is the nominee, I’d hope for a woman of color who can represent one of the coasts.

Democrats had black options but rejected them (Harris, Booker).

It is a horrible idea to pick a candidate based on color instead of qualifications.

[SunsetBengal]

It won't matter how many delegates that Bernie Sanders wins, heck he could win 70% of them, and the superdelegates are still going to nominate who they like, as evidenced in 2016.

So, my question is; Why even go through the charade of State Primary elections for National offices, if the DNC's "chosen few" are just going to name who they want, anyway?

[GMDino]

(02-28-2020, 05:45 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: It won't matter how many delegates that Bernie Sanders wins, heck he could win 70% of them, and the superdelegates are still going to nominate who they like, as evidenced in 2016.

So, my question is;  Why even go through the charade of State Primary elections for National offices, if the DNC's "chosen few" are just going to name who they want, anyway?

Clinton won more contest, more delegates and had more votes cast for her than Sanders in the 2016 Democratic Primary.

https://tinyurl.com/ugl9bj4

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_National_Convention,_2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(02-28-2020, 12:57 AM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know. The black vote might not be in favor of Pete, but do they really dislike him that much? I mean, these are people who are largely with Biden to begin with. Meaning, they seem pragmatic to me, I can't quite imagine a VP Pete would really make them flee in numbers. (I do have zero insight and a very shallow view on that for sure. Doesn't mean I'm wrong.)

Despite it often being portrayed as a D vs R issue... if you believe the numbers, then as of 2019, 25% of Democrats don't support gay marriage. Also only 51% of African Americans support gay marriage. That 51% is only 7% higher than the Republican rate of 44%.

51% is a low number when you figure Clinton got 80% of the African American vote.

https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

Being gay is actually more of a boon to get white voters, who support gay marriage at a 62% rate. Even Catholics are at 61%, a full 10% higher than African Americans.

[SunsetBengal]

(02-28-2020, 05:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: Clinton won more contest, more delegates and had more votes cast for her than Sanders in the 2016 Democratic Primary.

https://tinyurl.com/ugl9bj4

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_National_Convention,_2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016

I know all of that is true, as I was alive and well in 2016.  However, the Bernie people all seem to claim that the nomination was "stolen" from their guy, in 2016.  

But, isn't it true that the Superdelegates don't always vote exactly the same as the State elections turned out?

[hollodero]

(02-28-2020, 05:12 PM)Dill Wrote: The issue for many blacks, especially the older religious ones who vote reliably, will be that Pete is gay. 

Really? I'm not so sure this is such a huge issue.
Even if many are opposed to gay marriage. I'm positive 90% of conservative Trump voters are opposed to adultery with pornstars. There are bigger topics at hand.
Also, he'd be the one stepping back to VP. They'd vote for Biden. How many people are rather focused on a VP.

(02-28-2020, 05:12 PM)Dill Wrote: This will also piss them off:
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=A2KLfR6Zclleon8A7c9XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEycGwwbmRwBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDQjkzMjZfMQRzZWMDc2M-?p=buttigieg+obama+speech&fr=tightropetb#id=4&vid=c53724956a9b0c9ff14812737dbaf43d&action=view

Some Buttigieg voters might switch. Sure.  But fractions will count in the contested states.

I find it odd to believe Pete dropping out would not lead to a net gain for Biden.
Same with Bloomberg. If he threw his money behind Biden, some would sure take issue with that. But in the end, it would help Biden, not hurt him.

(02-28-2020, 05:12 PM)Dill Wrote: I think that even if Sanders does not get the nomination, he will work to persuade his voters to support whomever.

Sure he will. And some will listen. Many others won't. This is actually evidenced in 2016. Except this time the establishment robbery theme would be way more justified, if he were the clear frontronner.
Nah, that would lead to a divided electorate. I doubt Bernie could say anything to fix that. (Never mind that he'd sure be angry and is not the kind of person that hides his anger too well.)

[hollodero]

(02-28-2020, 05:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Democrats had black options but rejected them (Harris, Booker).

It is a horrible idea to pick a candidate based on color instead of qualifications.

To be fair, these two things are not mutually exclusive. I'm sure Pat had a very capable person of color in mind.

[Benton]

(02-28-2020, 05:55 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I know all of that is true, as I was alive and well in 2016.  However, the Bernie people all seem to claim that the nomination was "stolen" from their guy, in 2016.  

But, isn't it true that the Superdelegates don't always vote exactly the same as the State elections turned out?

The Republican versions do. If in remembering right, since the DNC was criticized with inflating Hillary's numbers over Bernie,they changed their policy to not allowing super delegates on the first ballot. In all, I think the super delegates accounts for something like 25%. Matt probably should field this one lol.

[BmorePat87]

(02-28-2020, 05:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Democrats had black options but rejected them (Harris, Booker).

It is a horrible idea to pick a candidate based on color instead of qualifications.

Why does the VP nominee have to be a former candidate? That's quite rare. 

As far as picking someone based on color instead of qualification, you would obviously pick a qualified candidate but their skin color would be an additional qualification. Representation is very important.

[BmorePat87]

(02-28-2020, 05:45 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: It won't matter how many delegates that Bernie Sanders wins, heck he could win 70% of them, and the superdelegates are still going to nominate who they like, as evidenced in 2016.

So, my question is;  Why even go through the charade of State Primary elections for National offices, if the DNC's "chosen few" are just going to name who they want, anyway?

If he had 70% of the delegates he would win the nomination. You need a simple majority of the regular delegates to win the nomination. Super delegates only come into play if that doesn't happen and a 2nd round of delegate voting occurs at the convention.

With regards to 2016, that's false. Clinton had 55% of the regular delegates and Bernie 45%. The process was different in 2016 and super delegates were part of the first vote equation, but Bernie would have needed over 75% of the super delegates to beat Clinton because she had such a large lead over him.

[BmorePat87]

(02-28-2020, 07:33 PM)Benton Wrote: The Republican versions do. If in remembering right, since the DNC was criticized with inflating Hillary's numbers over Bernie,they changed their policy to not allowing super delegates on the first ballot. In all, I think the super delegates accounts for something like 25%. Matt probably should field this one lol.

Her regular delegate count was the same as he popular vote count (55% for both). She did receive far more super delegates, but Bernie would have needed over 75% of super delegates to pass her (something he briefly courted trying to make happen). 

Currently, you just need a majority of the pledged/regular delegates to win. Super delegates now come into play if that doesn't happen, but they only account for about 15% of the total delegates. 

[BmorePat87]

(02-28-2020, 02:47 PM)hollodero Wrote: 60% is more than half, sure. But Bernie's lead, by all indications, might be too big to overcome still. When it's only Amy and Steyer that drop out before Tuesday, I still would say with confidence that Bernie's lead in total number of delegates is set in stone after that day. To still lose he'd have to lose out big in all the upcoming states after said Tuesday, and that just won't happen. Why would it.

Nah, just losing Amy and Steyer won't avoid that. The moderate field has to pick one candidate now or Bernie's uncatchable for any of them. Under any normal circumstances. I state again, for whatever reason, that I'm usually cautious with such predictions, but this one seems quite clear.

If he maintains 30-35%, then mathematically it won't be too big to overcome. 

[SunsetBengal]

(02-28-2020, 11:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If he had 70% of the delegates he would win the nomination. You need a simple majority of the regular delegates to win the nomination. Super delegates only come into play if that doesn't happen and a 2nd round of delegate voting occurs at the convention.

With regards to 2016, that's false. Clinton had 55% of the regular delegates and Bernie 45%. The process was different in 2016 and super delegates were part of the first vote equation, but Bernie would have needed over 75% of the super delegates to beat Clinton because she had such a large lead over him.

Yeah, the whole "super delegates" versus just allowing the State election delegates to decide the winner is puzzling to me.  Why complicate a process that seems to be working well?

[BmorePat87]

(02-29-2020, 12:42 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yeah, the whole "super delegates" versus just allowing the State election delegates to decide the winner is puzzling to me.  Why complicate a process that seems to be working well?

For the most part, the state delegations are determining the winner. The only instance I can see super delegates being needed is for a brokered convention that cannot be solved. 

[hollodero]

(02-28-2020, 11:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Why does the VP nominee have to be a former candidate? That's quite rare. 

As far as picking someone based on color instead of qualification, you would obviously pick a qualified candidate but their skin color would be an additional qualification. Representation is very important.

Look at it this way, the black population already had a president, the homosexuals had no one of note so far*. It might be their turn to be represented.

*I'm aware there might be some that got caught, but that doesn't count.

(02-28-2020, 11:47 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If he maintains 30-35%, then mathematically it won't be too big to overcome. 

Does that appear realistic? At this point I have to admit that I don't exactly have a huge map with dates and delegate counts for each state in front of me, because for one I'm not completely crazy - I rather do the math on this one in more of a quick look and feel voodoo style.

I would think/look/feel/voodoo that Bernie will hold a big lead after this Tuesday extravaganza if none of the three big opponents drop out first (Warren possibly dropping out might not change much). Is that right, I don't know. But it might just be that in hindsight, this was the moment, right before super Tuesday, where the moderates fatefully kept dividing up the non-Bernie votes amongst them and therefore lost. 
And then Trump won and did four more years of really emotionally hurtful stuff like further undermining democracy and declaring the dark age of Chtulhu.

Or not.

[hollodero]

(02-29-2020, 12:42 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yeah, the whole "super delegates" versus just allowing the State election delegates to decide the winner is puzzling to me.  Why complicate a process that seems to be working well?

One might see it as some kind of establishment safeguard. Which, honestly, makes sense. You the people tend to come up with really peculiar choices.