With an unusually large Democratic field on Super Tuesday, delegate cutoff looms large for some

[TexasTowelie]

With an unusually large Democratic field on Super Tuesday, delegate cutoff looms large for some presidential candidates in Texas

by Patrick Svitek and Alex Samuels, Texas Tribune


As the Texas presidential primary nears, the threshold to earn delegates here is looming large for some Democratic candidates, especially Michael Bloomberg, who has invested far more in the state than anyone else.

Texas will award 228 delegates March 3, the second-largest delegate trove among the 14 states that vote on Super Tuesday. Of those, 149 are awarded based on the results in each of the 31 state Senate districts. Another 79 are awarded based on the results of the statewide vote. A candidate must reach 15% in a district to compete for its delegates and 15% statewide to be eligible for statewide delegates.

Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders have led recent public polls in Texas that indicate they should have little trouble surpassing 15% statewide. It is a different story, though, for candidates like Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg and Bloomberg. Warren has hit 15% in three out of the five last surveys tracked by RealClearPolitics, while Bloomberg has crossed the threshold in two of them. Buttigieg, meanwhile, did not top 15% in any of them.

That means candidates other than Biden or Sanders could be shut out of statewide delegates and left trying to pick up delegates where they can in the Senate districts.

Read more: https://www.texastribune.org/2020/02/26/how-many-texas-delegates-will-democrats-get-super-tuesday-2020/

[Cha]

1. Thank you, TT.

[dumptrump1]

2. That's why we need to start getting behind Bloomberg!

Otherwise the delegates will be split between Bernie and Biden, and Bernie will take the state and the nomination easily.

[Progressive2020]

4. I Disagree

What is so wrong about a contest between Biden and Sanders? I would vote for either one of them in the General Election. Why is Bloomberg a better choice than either of them? I have yet to hear a compelling argument for Bloomberg, but I am all ears. We all want to defeat Trump. That alone is not enough for me to support someone. I am open to hearing the pros and cons of Bloomberg, but I am skeptical so far about Bloomberg's basic tactics of using millions and millions of dollars to buy ads. That is not very democratic to my mind. To my mind, Bloomberg is a Plutocrat, not so much a Democrat. Change my mind.

[dumptrump1]

5. Bloomberg's has an unlimited war chest and bankrolled the majority of the house forbus.

for us. We need him to win.

[Progressive2020]

8. Sorry

I still disagree. I am glad that Bloomberg has been spending money against Trump and for Democrats. That is not enough of an argument for me to vote for him in the Primaries though. If Bloomberg wins the nomination, I will support him against Trump, but I do not think that he is the best candidate. I am undecided, but I have a top three candidates. None of them is Bloomberg. I am open to coherent arguments about why we should vote for Bloomberg. The fact that he has a lot of money is not enough for me to vote for him.

[dumptrump1]

9. and that's okay

But seriously, that's his only appeal. If he goes bankrupt tomorrow and loses all investments, he loses nearly all his support.

[Indykatie]

15. I'm Tired of the Myth That Bloomberg Financed the Blue Wave of 2018

It's clear you came to DU just to advocate for Bloomberg. That's fine I guess. It's likely we will end up with a brokered convention and If he thinks the Super delegates are going to vote for someone who is not even a Dem I think he needs a new strategy.

[dumptrump1]

17. I think he will do great

Democrats need his cash, and they won't get it by putting him on the sidelines.

[Cal Carpenter]

3. It's all about that 15% in all the Super Tuesday states

A lot of candidates are polling near or below 15% in most of the states. If they dont hit it in in a lot of them, they may not be viable moving forward, and Bernie's total could be really high.

We will find out in less than a week!

[Progressive2020]

6. Yes

It is going to be a very interesting week in politics coming up. We will see what happens!

[Moderateguy]

14. There are two tiers of 15%

One at a district level and another at state level. It’s very likely that all candidate will get 15% in at least 1 district and get some delegates

[relayerbob]

7. I think this 15% rule is idiotic

We already have one state where a candidate got 34% of the vote and 47% of the delegates. It's anti-democratic and damaging to the candidates and to the morale of the campaigns and followers if basically all the delegates are awarded to candidates with only somewhat larger minorities of the voters (no one has come close to a majority)

[TexasTowelie]

10. I think that it is better than a winner-take-all approach.

If anything, the current proportional system hurts the leader by cutting into the number of delegates they receive for each additional candidate that crosses the threshold. If a proportional system was used everywhere, then candidates with minimal support (< 5%) would be awarded delegates and it would guarantee that every convention would be brokered.

[Progressive2020]

12. Yes

I Agree.

[relayerbob]

13. Yikes agreed on that point

Winner takes all should never be allowed

one person=one vote and all delegates are appointed proportionally.

And it wouldn't be "brokered", it's called negotiation and team-building and would require coalitions to form so they would realize they have to work together, rather than try to trash one another to grab others' votes. The current system allows a 30% candidate to get 50% of the delegates or even more, if the numbers work out right for them. That's effectively disenfranchising huge masses of people.

[Progressive2020]

11. I Think

I think it would be better if we had a National Primary where each candidate got delegates in proportion to the popular vote. So, if you got 10% of the vote, you would get 10% of the delegates. That said, the 15% cut off might be necessary in the current schema in that it will narrow the field rather than many candidates having a bunch of delegates but no clear winner with a clear majority. I do not think that having a brokered convention would help our chances in defeating Trump.

We need to have a clear field, with one, two, or three main candidates going forward. If we had more candidates than that with delegates, we might end up in a brokered convention, which would be bad news for us, I think. So, under the current system, I reluctantly accept the 15% cut off. There are candidates that I like that might not make the cut-off, but I will have to grin and bear it if they do not break the 15% delegate ceiling. I think the field will be narrower after Super Tuesday, and I think that is the direction that we need to go in.

[Indykatie]

16. Do You Feel Similarly About Caucuses Being Idiotic and Anti-Democratic?

To me caucuses are a lot more damaging than how delegates are apportioned.

[relayerbob]

18. YEs

I would prefer all states use primaries, one person = one vote. All delegates divided proportionately. If, say, Tulsi Gabbard goes into the convention with 5 delegates, so be it. They - WE - need to learn to work in teams, by consensus, to get things done.

Both delegate misapportionment and caucuses are fundamentally disenfranchising (for a variety of some very different reasons) and anti-democratic. This current byzantine, complex and easily manipulated system makes the Electoral College look downright perfect in comparison.