Of course, Sanders can win every primary and lose the nomination in a landslide.

[gulliver]

He has to have a majority of the pledged delegates to win on the first ballot, and the primaries all award their delegates proportionally. Even if Sanders manages 30% in every race and the other candidates split the remaining 70% to come in second, third, fourth, etc., it is the other candidates who will have the majority.

We have so many candidates this time, that it makes a (democratically solid, legitimate) "deal" at the end for pledged delegates almost inevitable, imo. The superdelegates won't even have to vote. The pledged delegates for the so-called center/left candidates will pick a candidate from among them. It's like a primary within a primary.

I think Sanders is hanging by a thread or has effectively already lost.

[ibegurpard]

1. You should hope that doesn't happen

[gulliver]

3. Why? It's democracy at work. The pledged delegates are earned by votes of voters.

[Ace Rothstein]

12. If Sanders wins every primary but isn't the nominee then we'll get crushed.

It may be the end of the party.

[gulliver]

13. No we won't. People will all get that legitimately elected, pledged delegates...

...voted the sentiments of their voters and a clear majority won. Don't underestimate people.

[Ace Rothstein]

15. You'll have millions of people who will never vote for a Democrat again.

It would be an absolute catastrophe for the party. I can't believe people are even suggesting it, some have even seemed giddy about it in prior posts.

[denem]

18. Exactly correct.

I can not believe anyone would suggest otherwise.

[gulliver]

22. Well, you're maybe assuming people aren't fair minded or able to discern the rightness...

...of such a result. I don't assume that. And I do think Sanders will be gracious about it. These are rules everyone agreed to, and they are good rules. We can't have one side's votes being split cause the side with the majority (in terms of policy sentiment) to lose. What fair-minded person would want that?

[jimfields33]

64. If Bernie has the most delegates going into the convention,

He’s the nominee period!!!!

[Laelth]

90. I don't think that's how it works.

A given candidate needs to have 1996 or more delegates to win (half of 3990 plus one). Bernie could have the most delegates of any candidate going into the convention but have fewer than 1996. Then we would go to a second ballot, and Sanders could lose that vote. He might win it, in this scenario, but there's no guarantee.

These are the rules as I understand them.

-Laelth

[jimfields33]

108. Thank you

Let’s hope one of them have the required delegates so we have a smooth convention.

[The Mouth]

111. If that happens, we will lose a LOT of Democratic voters. Forever

I am positive that in that scenario that many people will come to the conclusion that the Democratic party is invalid and dysfunctional.

[Laelth]

112. The rules seem fair to me.

If no candidate has a majority of delegates going into the convention, and if one candidate is leading in delegates, but doesn't have a majority, we have a brokered convention, and our rules (heavily influenced by Bernie Sanders) come into play. Let's say 30% support Bernie, and the other 70% are divided among Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Biden, Klobuchar, and Warren. If the Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Klobuchar, and Warren delegates all decide to vote for Joe Biden on the second ballot, then Joe will be our nominee, and he will have been supported by 70% (theoretically) of the party's delegates. What's wrong with this? I don't see how or why this would cause us to lose Democratic voters forever.

Seriously. Some voters might be mad (these hypothetical Bernie voters), but what are they going to do? Vote for the Great Pumpkin? I don't think so.



-Laelth

[The Mouth]

114. What's wrong with it is that every Bernie supporter will be pissed

and rightfully so. Although I expect most of them will suck it up and vote blue regardless, some will vote third party; I'd bet on it.

Whoever is leading should get the nomination, IMHO; 'brokered' = sleazy backroom deals in the minds of a *LOT* of people.

It's interesting that so many people saying "rules are rules" were livid about the winner being decided by the Electoral College instead of the popular vote.

FWIW, I was a Yang guy, now supporting Pete, but there are a *LOT* of Bernie voters I know personally here in Northern California, and a goodly percentage of them still have hard feelings over 2016, regarding it as having been stolen (I know, I know, I didn't say they were realistic).

I am probably wrong, but I see what I see and hear what I hear

[ehrnst]

92. You know, there have been candidates who tried to get superdelegates to overturn the

choice of the clear majority of voters.

(That is a matter of historical record, and not debatable.)

[stopdiggin]

48. nonsense. all these people are going to refuse

to participate in politics for the rest of their lives? Again .. nonsense.

[Ace Rothstein]

52. Many will vote third party and even more will stay at home.

I can't get over how many here still think voters want the status quo after the election of Trump. People are disillusioned with politics and the two party system, this would drive them further away.

[stopdiggin]

53. well the more than amply demonstrated futility of that

course of action would seem to argue AGAINST that. But if futility (and Republican control) is their thing ...

[LanternWaste]

97. Much as "I can't get over how many here still think"

Much as "I can't get over how many here still think" they can predict an absolute future of voter proclivities based on little more than tea leaves and chicken entrails.

You can of course, pretend you're doing something else.

[jr1118x]

60. Yeah not that they wouldn't participate

They just would leave the party faster than rats on the titanic. If he gets the most votes and wins the most states millions would consider it rigged and sit out or go third party.

[Garrett78]

61. How there are people who don't get that is mind-boggling. The same could be said if Bloomberg...

...is allowed to buy the nomination. The party would be lost for a generation.

Disgust with the status quo is already the driving force in the US today, and here we have people celebrating the idea of denying Sanders the nomination if he's the leader in pledged delegates. Absolute insanity.

[LongtimeAZDem]

96. Those people wouldn't vote for a Democrat in the first place. That's the problem.

[ehrnst]

66. If he wins every primary, he will be the nominee. That's how the nominee is chosen...

The one with the most pledged delegates.

Yes there have been some candidates who have tried to get superdelegates to overturn the will of the vast majority of Democratic voters, but it hasn't worked.

[Laelth]

93. Bernie could "win" every primary but still not control a majority of delegates.

A given candidate needs to have 1996 or more pledged delegates to win (half of 3990 plus one). Bernie could have the most delegates of any candidate going into the convention but still have fewer than 1996. Then we would go to a second ballot, and Sanders could lose that vote. Or, he might win it, but there's no guarantee.

These are the rules as I understand them. Please, correct me if I am wrong.

-Laelth

[ehrnst]

82. Well, in states with primaries rather than caucuses, anyway.

[Blue_true]

6. I agree. If Sanders comes in with the most delegates, even if his delegate count is way inadequate

to justify the nomination, it is going to be a bloodbath if he is "unjustly denied" the nomination, even when nominating someone else was by far the wisest course.

[stopdiggin]

49. the Sanders campaign, and delegates

have just as much chance to persuade others toward their camp. And one would suppose a reasonable argument. If they can't get the job done ...

[DanTex]

2. I really hope they have enough sense not to do something like this.

Yes, it's possible, but that would tear the party apart, and we'd lose to Trump.

[gulliver]

4. Why would it tear the party apart? It's democracy. The candidate chosen would reflect the will

of the majority, plainly, simply, and fairly.

[DanTex]

7. Because the supporters of the candidate that won the most votes/delegates and then

didn't get the nomination would be furious.

[gulliver]

10. Why would they be? Does 30% feel they have the right to defeat 70%?

Plus, Sanders would even be in on the deal. He'd play up the angle you're talking about for leverage to get something.

[DanTex]

11. You really don't think they would? Really?

Here's the thing. You might be able to convince yourself with this kind of argument, but you're certainly not going to convince Sanders supporters. Particularly since a lot of them are already inclined towards thinking that the DNC is against them.

Fortunately, I'm pretty sure the actual candidates and delegates understand how bad an idea this would be.

[msongs]

19. the other 75%, the overwhelming majority, they get a say as well nt

[denem]

24. And as important as fairness

'Democrats Election Fraud' would be the trump's slogan for the General Election. 'The Fake Nominee'. I can't believe anyone could countenance such a thing.

[ehrnst]

71. The GOP is certainly pushing that "inclination" you're talking about.

Republicans are pushing conspiracy theories about Iowa being rigged against Bernie Sanders in a transparent attempt to divide voters

https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-pushing-conspiracy-theories-iowa-rigged-against-bernie-2020-2

[flotsam]

99. I was just juried on this post

and I voted it clearly did not violate the rule (Right wing talking points). Here's the thing-I went with my default of saying the alerter misunderstood the post. Had I read the post before hand I would have ruled the alert malicious...

[jimfields33]

65. So instead of the 30 percent candidate, you'll give it to the 28 percent candidate?

That’s ridiculous.

[Horizens]

26. So What

If a majority of delegates are opposed to sanders and he is given the nomination despite the rules that he had a hand in establishing then the majority would be furious.

[DanTex]

34. So if the party isn't united, we lose to Trump. That's what.

This is why, what's going to happen is, the majority of delegates are going to end up nominating the candidate that has the most pledged delegates.

[stopdiggin]

50. possibly. but it's this kind of strong arm argument

that makes Sanders so wonderfully popular with the rest of the party.

[ehrnst]

76. +10000.

[Laelth]

95. Well said. n/t

-Laelth

[Horizens]

54. The Rules

If candidate "A" captures a plurality but not a majority of delegates on the first ballot, he/she doesn't get the
nomination. If a majority of the delegates unite behind candidate "B" on a subsequent ballot, candidate "B" gets the
nomination.

That is the rule.

[DanTex]

55. The Reality.

If the candidate with the most pledged delegates doesn’t get the nomination it will destroy party unity and re-elect Trump.

That is the reality.

[Horizens]

56. What You Write .... In Other Words

If my candidate doesn't get the nomination, I'm not going to vote for the nominee. And I'm going to blame everyone else for trump's re-election.

[DanTex]

58. No I didn't write that at all.

[Horizens]

109. Playing By the Established Rules

Re: “I don't care if there's some technicality in the rules.

It’s not a “technicality”. It’s a long – standing (several decades) rule.

Re: “…. giving it to the second place finisher who might have 27% of the vote.”

No one is “giving” anyone anything. If no candidate attains a majority on the first ballot, elected delegates are free to vote for whichever candidate they choose. (That’s the RULE and has been for several decades.) All the candidates would then seek to coalesce with delegates who had not voted for him/her on the first ballot.

Re: “They would be protesting having an election stolen. Their candidate WOULD have gotten the nomination, fair and square”

False: Giving the nomination to a candidate who failed to capture a majority of the delegates contrary to the rules would not be “fair and square.”

“Heck, I would probably sit out in November, too.”

Shame on you. I detest b sanders but will vote for him
(assuming trump is his opponent) in the GE.

Re: “We would be lowering ourselves to Trump's level of dishonesty and corruption…”

Ignoring established rules for you own political expediency and self interest …. THAT would be Trumpian.

[ehrnst]

69. Why do you even think that will happen? When has it ever happened?

[ehrnst]

67. Um... 30% should overturn the choice of the 70%?

You call that democracy?

[DanTex]

68. If one candidate gets 70% of the pledged delegates, obviously that candidate will be the nominee...

[ehrnst]

75. There have been candidates who have tried to get superdelegates to award

the nomination to them, despite getting clearly fewer pledged delegates.

So not all candidates have agreed that the nominee should be the one who got the most pledged delegates.

[DanTex]

78. And it didn't work, because everyone knows that doing that would tear the party apart

and hand the election to the GOP.

[ehrnst]

79. So why do you think that a candidate would try to do that,

if it's clear that it would tear the party apart and hand the election to the GOP?

[DanTex]

81. I don't know. 2008 was a contentious primary. But in the end the party came together.

[ehrnst]

83. Nice evasion... That was only a 3% difference in the popular vote

between Obama and Clinton, so no, that hardly qualifies as "tearing the party apart."

I see that question hit a very sore spot. I can see why. Contradicting oneself is embarassing.

[DanTex]

85. Umm, that's not an evasion. That actually happened in 2008. And the superdelegates wisely

decided to respect the will of the people. Which they will do again, because they don't want to tear the party apart.

[ehrnst]

89. I see that question hit a very sore spot.

I can imagine why. Being caught applying a very different standard to your candidate than all others would be incredibly embarrassing...

In 2008, the two finalists were separated by only 3% of the popular vote.

But here's another chance. You evaded commenting on the other candidate, who history records did this.

Why do you think a candidate who trails the winner by more than 10% of the popular vote would try to get Superdelegates to overturn the results of the popular vote (all of which is a matter of historical of record, and is not opinion, or debatable) if, as you said, "it would tear the party apart and hand the election to the GOP?"

[ehrnst]

100. Crickets...

[Fla Dem]

74. It's like baseball....... just because a team wins the most games during the regular season,

that team doesn't automatically get to go to the World Series; (General Election).

[W_HAMILTON]

5. Sanders is the only candidate that had a direct hand in writing these rules.

[DanTex]

8. Actually the DNC wrote the rules.

[W_HAMILTON]

14. In consulation with Sanders. Look up the Unity Reform Commission.

Fact is, Sanders is the only current candidate that had a say in the rules the rest of the Democrats are now having to play by.

[DanTex]

21. Yeah. Sanders wanted to get rid of superdelegates. The DNC refused.

And here's the thing. If some superdelegate stunt gets pulled to deny Sanders the nomination even though he has the most pledged delegates, the people that will need to be convinced at that point will be Bernie supporters. So all these facetious arguments about how Bernie made the rules and it's a democratic outcome and all that won't matter.

Because you might be able to convince yourself of all that, but you won't convince Bernie supporters. If you don't believe me, try it. You'll see.

Giving the nomination to someone other than the candidate that has the most pledged delegates is a recipe for disaster.

[W_HAMILTON]

27. If Sanders wanted the candidate with the most pledged delegates to win...

...instead of the candidate who has the majority of delegates, he should have included that in his list of reforms that were implemented. He didn't, because he won ~45% of the delegates last time around and thought he could win a majority this time after essentially campaigning for five years (and shamefully trying to convince progressive challengers like Warren to stay out).

[DanTex]

33. Here's the thing. If Bernie gets the most pledged delegates and doesn't get the nomination,

the total number of Bernie supporters that you are going to be able to convince with this kind of argument is zero. Everyone knows that. You'll be able to convince yourself, sure, but nobody else.

Which is why nobody is going to try to pull some kind of backroom nonsense to deny him the nomination if he gets the most pledged delegates. Because the party would be torn apart and we would lose to Trump. And nobody wants that.

[W_HAMILTON]

36. And I don't give a shit.

If Democrats can't win without Sanders ~30% of the vote, Sanders certainly can't win without the other ~70% of Democrats.

Perhaps Sanders should have thought about all this before burning bridges all over the place.

Anyone willing to let Trump be reelected by not voting for the eventual Democratic nominee is someone that should not be having a say in who we elect to begin with -- fuck them.

[DanTex]

38. That's fine, but the DNC and the delegates do give a shit, which is why they won't do that.

"Let them all stay home" is not a turnout strategy that the Democratic Party is going to embrace.

[W_HAMILTON]

40. Then what are you complaining about?

If you think all the relevant parties will "do the right thing," then so be it.

If Sanders is able to amass the majority of delegates needed to win the nomination, so be it.

If he is not, so be it.

[DanTex]

41. Nothing. Just pointing out that the whole thesis of this OP is incorrect.

The "superdelegates coming to rescue the centrists" thing is a fantasy. They won't do it, and even if they did, that would not get a centrist elected, it would get Trump elected.

[W_HAMILTON]

42. The OP specifically said that the superdelegates wouldn't even matter...

…so, no, that couldn't have been your point.

[DanTex]

43. Well, the regular delegates won't do that either.

They're not going to give the presidency back to Trump just to spite Bernie.

[W_HAMILTON]

47. And we are to believe that Sanders delegates would do the same for, say, Biden?

After all, Sanders was very anti-superdelegates last time around...

...until he realized the only way he could win was if they switched and started supporting him instead of Hillary.

If Biden ends up winning a plurality (but not majority) of delegates, are we to assume the same Sanders delegates that showed their ass in 2016 and booed several prominent Democrats will willingly support Biden for the nomination? I somehow think not...

[ehrnst]

91. +1000.

[Horizens]

16. And ...

sanders had a say in establishing the rules.

[Happy Hoosier]

9. Well, if a majority of primary voters...

Don’t want him, then a brokered convention might not pick him. He needs to build bridges rather than burn them.

[ehrnst]

80. Yep. And I don't see that happening at all.

[George II]

17. If it goes beyond a first vote, I can't see many of the delegates won by "moderate" or "centrist"...

...candidates voting for Sanders the second time around.

That's simply the way brokered votes work. A candidate deals with other candidates to "compromise" and get the delegates of that candidate. Sanders has proven over the years that he's unable to work with or "compromise" with his colleagues.

After years of bashing the Democratic Party and "Establishment" Democrats, does anyone really think candidates like Biden, Buttiegieg, Klobuchar, or even Warren (who is probably closest to Sanders ideologically) are going to ask their delegates to vote for him? Even if they try, delegates are not bound to any candidate although they can demonstrate some loyalty to their candidate.

And then we have the super delegates, who will vote overwhelmingly for one of the "Establishment" Democratic candidates.

If Sanders doesn't get a majority of the pledged delegates prior to the first vote, he's dead in the water.

[DanTex]

30. Whoever gets the most pledged delegates is going to be the nominee.

The delegates aren't stupid, they understand very well that denying Bernie the nomination if he gets the most pledged delegates would tear the party apart.

You're right, technically there's nothing that the Bernie delegates or supporters could do to stop a deal from being made to pick a centrist. But, after that happens, there's also nothing that anyone can do to get the Bernie supporters to actually vote for that nominee in the general election as opposed to voting third party or write-in or just staying home. Which is why they aren't going to do that.

Everyone knows we need to be united to beat Trump.

[brush]

20. Won't happen. It just came out that half his votes in NH's open primary were from repugs.

It's down hill from now on.

[Codeine]

28. I didn't see that.

Very interesting if accurate.

[HopeAgain]

104. It's not

[Codeine]

107. Fair enough. nt

[George II]

32. I've seen that. And even so, his vote tally this year was half that of 2016.

[Ace Rothstein]

35. Any actual evidence of this?

[HopeAgain]

103. Of course not...

That assertion is total and complete bullshit.

[Ace Rothstein]

105. Yeah, it was some random dipshit on Twitter.

The Bernie haters have taken it as gospel though.

[jmg257]

94. Can you link to that? Thanks!

[HopeAgain]

101. Citation?

It sounds like an awfully important statement to make solely according to what "just came out."

[Horizens]

23. The rule is

that to capture the nomination one must capture not the most delegates but a majority of delegates

[Skittles]

25. I can't believe he is still in play

it kills me, who has dropped out and who is left

[Codeine]

29. A thousand times this.

He’s brought only division to the table from the beginning.

[dalton99a]

31. +1

[Laelth]

98. Bernie's support is very deep.

It appears that about 25% of Democrats support him fervently. Perhaps, though, it's more like 20% of Democrats and 5% of Republicans who want to mess with the Democratic nominating process, but I have seen no proof of that.

Still, it's the sheer depth of Bernie's support that makes him a real player, here.

-Laelth

[Skittles]

110. for the life of me I cannot understand it

I see through Bernie as easily as I see through Trump.

[Laelth]

113. It is what it is.

I can't say that I understand it either, but it seems clear that Bernie will come into the convention with a good number of delegates--almost certainly not a majority of delegates, but a good number, possibly even a plurality.

Unless someone dominates Super Tuesday, it appears that we are headed for a brokered convention, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, but Bernie is clearly a force that isn't going away ... for whatever reason.

-Laelth

[Love-All]

37. We need to unite and vote against whoever the nominee is running against Trump.

[thesquanderer]

39. re:"Even if Sanders gets 30% and the other candidates split the rest to come in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc."

It may depend on how quickly things whittle down to a 3-person or 2-person race. That's where there is more potential for leading candidates to get far more than 30%.

[gulliver]

44. Yes, that's true.

If the remaining 70% of the vote is five candidates, each with 14%, Sanders would get all of the delegates for the given state.

[thesquanderer]

63. Good point. A post today shows Biden getting ALL Georgia delegates, with just 32% of the vote,

because no one else hits the 15% threshold. It's a good demonstration of how unpredictable things can be, how a large field can both work for OR against someone.

[Garrett78]

45. If we deny the pledged delegates leader or let racist, misogynist Bloomberg buy the nomination...

...we will get crushed in November. And if you think people are disenchanted with the status quo now, just wait and see what happens if we allow either of those things to take place.

The driving force in the US today is disgust with the status quo.

[gulliver]

46. We do need a lot of change for the better. That's why we have to beat Trump.

[RandySF]

51. He could even get elected and still lose us the House.

[progressoid]

70. Like Obama did.

[RandySF]

77. We won additional seats in 2008

I’m saying we can lose the House this year even if Bernie is elected.

[Farmer-Rick]

57. So now winning is losing...amazing how Bernie can't win for losing according to TPTB.

[dawg day]

59. What's scary is I read that Trump could lose by 5 million and -

win the Electoral College.

[Celerity]

62. IF he is at 40% to 49% and no one else is over 30% (which I cannot

see happening TBH) then I think we are fucked either way it goes. A '44% of the initial delegates Sanders' will never give in to someone plucked out with say 23% or someone with zero who is smokey backroom-parachuted in to be the compromise nominee.

The best hope for unity is for Sanders to start to get drubbed hard and for one of Biden, Bloomberg, or Pete (his lack of A-A support will doom him I fear, as it will Klobuchar and Warren) to take off like a rocket and hit 1990+ on the first ballot.

Even that is not going to appease some of the Bernie voters. I worry more and more each day. A Sanders winning of the nomination will, I truly fear, cost us a POTUS loss, zero chance at the Senate, and quite possibly the loss of the House.

The nation cannot recover from that for decades, if ever, as Trump will more than likely take the SCOTUS to 7-2 or even 8-1 hard RW and reign as an unchecked quasi-king for the next 5 years.

[MineralMan]

72. The superdelegates WILL vote on the second ballot.

It's not a question, really.

The answer to all of this may well come on March 4, when we see the results from the Super Tuesday states. If things go as I expect, we will have a much clearer picture then of how things are settling out in this primary season.

Right now, we just have results from two states with very small delegations at the convention. We also have a new candidate who didn't participate in those states, but who is advertising heavily in every Super Tuesday state. We have no idea how he will fare or whether Bernie Sanders and Mayor Pete will do on March 3. The entire thing may flip on March 3.

That's only two weeks and change from today. We won't have to wait very long.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. If there's no winner on the first ballot the delegates should be released to vote their conscience..

If there's no winner on the first ballot the delegates should be released to vote their conscience on the succeeding ballots and that's what I expect would happen.

[still_one]

84. If the candidate going into the convention with the most delegates doesn't get the nomination, it

isn’t going to be pretty

[Fiendish Thingy]

87. David Plouffe said if the Dems don't nominate the candidate with the most earned delegates

It would take the party DECADES to recover from that misstep.

Want to know how to suppress turnout and guarantee a second Trump term?

Play games at the convention and nominate someone who doesn’t have the most pledged delegates going into the convention.

If the moderates want to consolidate their support around one candidate, they should draw straws (or whatever) to see who gets to stay in the race, and the rest should drop out before Super Tuesday.

[Doremus]

106. Good point and a great idea. What happened instead is they sent yet ANOTHER moderate

into the fray to dilute the numbers even more.

What their motivation is I haven't a clue but the outcome doesn't look promising.

[Laelth]

88. Um, I don't think so ... unless it goes to a second ballot. n/t

-Laelth

[Coleman]

102. Winner is decided on getting 50% + 1 of the delegates

But if it goes to the 2nd ballot, Sanders is cooked. 2nd ballot is when the super delegates come back in play.