Open Democratic Convention Scenerio: The Joe Biden Option
Even though Sanders is now poised to win, I think we have to turn our attention to the possibility of an open Democratic Convention. In the event that two current candidates are too close to call in pledged delegates, and the super delegates exercise their prerogative to keep their powder dry, I can easily envision a situation in which Biden emerges as the unity candidate.
Joe Biden has the charisma and horse trading skills to pull it off. Clinton people would get something (VP Spot?), the Sanders people would get something (cabinet spots), and best of all the American people would get a Democratic Party ready to lay waste to whichever douchebag piece of shit the GOP decides to go with.
Question: Why would there be an open convention when the 2008 Dem primary was a lot closer in pledged delegate than this one? I mean, you were fine with Obama winning the primary in 2008, despite it being a tighter race than today, right?
Please, Jason, we can see you’re upset that the Donald is driving all the attention to the Rethugs and the Dems have hardly any excitement.
Hate to admit it, but not enough of us are feeling the Bern to stop Hillary. Joe is yesterday’s news and if Hillary and Bernie turn the party into Humpty Dumpty, nobody’s going to put it together again in three months.
It’s been the plan all along. Trump’s going to be his VP
Do… not… want.
Dude have you hit your head?
I’ve hit something. I’ve hit on the fact that this year, with birds landing on podiums and Billionaire TV personalities isn’t going to play out like every other year, in spite of Chris Matthews desperate yearning for it to be just like every other year.
“Democratic Party ready to lay waste to …the GOP…”
Still underestimating Trump?
Biden are Sanders are like Mystic Warlords of Ka’a, Enchanted Bunny cards and everyone knows that any card beats Enchanted Bunny.
Would you please turn me on to your source. Whoever they are, they are giving you some real good sh*t to smoke. Please share!
What did I say that is impossible, or even implausible?
Joe Biden has the charisma and horse trading skills to pull it off? True.
The current candidates will end up close in pledged delegates? True.
Super delegates have the prerogative to keep their powder dry? True.
Another sign Bernie is winning:
The 2008 primary was a LOT closer than this one and you didn’t have a problem with Obama winning the nomination by that margin. True.
Really, Jason, explain this to me. Does delegate math only count if it’s in favor of your preferred candidate? If Bernie pulled ahead of Clinton by 100+ delegates would you still be calling for an open convention? Or would you be embracing the rules and declaring Bernie the rightful nominee?
I’m not sure I’m going to survive this primary season.
Another sign on how Bernie is losing – and boy, is this an embarrassment.
Bernie supporters okay with these statements from Tad Devine – you know, one of the movers and shakers of the primary/delegate rules everyone hates. Not to mention the Sanders’ campaign did compete in many of those states.
Devine kept talking: “Devine also said the Sanders campaign chose to compete for state victories, rather than compete for delegate victories. I have no idea why the campaign would deliberately choose to compete by the wrong metric that would lead to defeat, but if I were a die-hard Sanders backer, this kind of rhetoric would be incredibly frustrating.”
I get why the public focuses on state wins – even though that’s not how it works – but why would a political insider say such nonsense.
If Bernie pulled ahead of Clinton by 100+ delegates would you still be calling for an open convention? No.
The High Dems (eg. Liberalgeek) would be calling for one though. The opportunity for mischief is going to be high. Think of how Debbie Wasserman Schultz has conducted herself so far… Do you think she’d play it fair and square? I don’t.
Jason, I am concerned. You need help. The drugs you are on are destroying your life. You were once a respected liberal who actually thought rationally and realistically. Now you are a crackpot like Susan Sarandon.
Voters understand and appreciate state wins. “Delegate math” – especially superdelegates – has an odor of the back room about it. If Bernie’s mission is political revolution, state wins are the right focus for now.
He’s not a crackpot. He’s disappointed. I get that.
Sorry, puck. It doesn’t work that way. I get Sanders focusing on state wins since he’s losing the math portion, you know, the part that counts.
Then again, the Sanders’ campaign says it wasn’t really trying to win and that’s why they lost. Brilliant messaging! Sounds like Mark Penn and Tad Devine studied together.
I like that DD is concerned about Jason’s liberal bona fides. Funniest fucking thing I’ll read today.
@pandora: Just as jason is disappointed, the Hillary backers are self-satisfied. I get that. But as Andy has pointed out, why is a presidential candidate who is the equal of Carper or Coons praised while Carper and Coons are seen as the corporate-backed hacks they are?
Talk about delegate math is sports talk for people who don’t like sports.
When Hillary clinches the delegate count, will she reach out to unify the party?
I’m sure the Clinton campaign is expecting to count up her delegates and then put the Sanders challenge in the rear-view mirror, without ever seriously acknowledging the aspirations of the Sander voters. But Bernie doesn’t have to win the nomination to win the political revolution. When Hillary clinches, will Bernie drop out immediately and slink away, or will he stay in until all states have voted? If Bernie stays in and runs up his voter and delegate total as much as possible, he will have strengthened his hand, not to be the nominee, but to have influence at the convention over the platform, the VP pick – and to give credibility to future progressive candidates.I’d call that winning the revolution.
First, I really can’t stand the way some people discuss our candidates this year. It’s all good and evil, and it’s tiresome.
As far as Coons, Carper, Carney… go find things I’ve written about them that prove your point about me. Am I happy with them? Not always, but I’d say my response to them varies depending on the issue.
And delegate math is not sports talk. It is the way we choose our nominee. People who dismiss it tend to be on the losing side. This is a political blog. Discussing delegate math is a given – and something this blog did obsessively in 2008.
And I doubt Hillary will “count up her delegates and then put the Sanders challenge in the rear-view mirror, without ever seriously acknowledging the aspirations of the Sander voters” because that would be stupid, and she isn’t stupid. Painting her – a woman who worked her ass off for Obama in 2008 – so nastily is completely unfair, especially since we only need to go back 8 years and see her behavior.
That rear-view mirror line above demonstrates complete disdain for Clinton, unless you’re claiming that Sanders would do the same – not acknowledge Clinton supporters. Or is this “standard” one you only applied to Clinton? That’s my guess.
Hey, maybe if Sanders had actually tried to win those states Tad Devine says he purposefully didn’t compete in he would be in a different situation. To me, that Devine comment, is not only dismissive it’s (if they stick with it) political malpractice. But I’m sure there’s another lengthy explanation for this.
Yes, delegate math is sports talk. Nobody outside the obsessive fans cares. I’m not dismissing it. Yes, Hillary will win. Now what? If I’m supposed to say “yippee,” you’ll be waiting a long time. And no, I’m not going to “rally behind Hillary.” My positions are my positions, and I will fight for them against any politician who rejects them.
Perhaps you hadn’t noticed, but you are not the only one who writes on this blog and also backs Hillary, so comments about the blog aren’t comments directed at you. But if you’re saying that you’re just fine with Carper and Coons, then I agree with Dorian Gray — change the name of the blog to Delaware Moderate, or Delaware Democrat.
Oh look! I’ve lost my progressive card again!
I don’t see why you would want the label if you support Carper and Coons.
Why do you keep making these arguments about you? They’re not. They’re about your choices. Different thing.
Maybe because you addressed your comment above to me?
Yeah, because that’s what the electorate is gnashing their collective teeth about presently, some esoteric comment by Tad Devine. Talk about inside baseball. I’m guessing it was a big story on MSNBC last night or maybe it was the headline on Daily Kos?
If you asked 1,000 random people on the street who Tad Devine is I’d wager $1,000 less than 3 would know who you’re talking about. It’s a mildly provocative statement that a handful of political geeks even care to parse. For all intents and purposes nobody cares.
I think you all are down some bizarre rabbit hole and have lost touch completely.
As far as how the Clinton campaign will treat Sanders and Co. once the nomination is wrapped up, I haven’t the slightest idea. Any guess is pure speculation. My suspicion is that she’ll play both sides as that’s her M.O. She’ll pander to leftists when she can, but that’ll be mostly superficial talk. For example, I’d expect her VP choice will be a young minority candidate like Senator Booker or that Latino guy from San Antonio.
“unless you’re claiming that Sanders would do the same – not acknowledge Clinton supporters.”
When I say “acknowledge,” I don’t just mean a speech with soothing-sounding words. I’m sure both candidate are capable of that.
I’m talking about policy concessions. I’ll just pick minimum wage as an example, because it is number that is easy to contrast. Hillary proposes $12; Bernie $15. Hillary could win over a good chunk of Bernie supporters by running on $15, without losing her current supporters. You know it will be negotiated down if a bill actually comes up.
But what positions could Bernie change to win over Clinton supporters? Support a $12 instead of $15 minimum wage? Reduce his proposed tax increases on the rich?
No, I addressed a question to you. You didn’t answer it. Oh, wait — you answered it by waffling. No wonder you like Hillary.
You just don’t get it: The Democratic Party is no more your friend than the Republican Party; it just wants more of the same things you want.
“I don’t see why you would want the label if you support Carper and Coons.”
How has politics become an all or nothing proposition? Why can’t there be compromise and acceptance of other points of view, at least within one party? The passion with which many progressives have towards their candidates is often nullified by the requirement that these same candidates must adhere to ALL of their principles, without deviation, without compromise, and without question.
Listen, I am as liberal as they come, but I do know that you cannot expect 100% fealty to an ideology, mainly because there is no one universally accepted ideology. As you can see on the blog, “progressive” does not mean the same to everyone. So, why expect a candidate for president (or any office) to subscribe fully to a single concept when they will be representing a population with millions of differing views?
In my opinion, which is probably worth less than most, Pandora is a great example of what a Progressive should be. You can have strong views, passionately support them, but also understand that compromise is essential in moving any agenda forward. That doesn’t mean you lose, or give up, or have your “progressive card” revoked. It means you have common sense and understand the world cannot exist in a single ideological bubble. But again, just my opinion.
What would acknowledging Clinton supporters sound like? “I want to welcome the wishy-washy, the triangulators, the let’s-not-ask-for-more mollifiers into our movement.” Of course, you would have to make sure it was broadcast loud enough to reach our brave fighting moderates in their bunkers.
DG, Julian Castro. (i think that’w who you mean)
This will be the last election I will be a registered democrat. It’s not the party for me. It is a part of centrist consensus, it is a party of elites and “next in line” (one only needs to look at Delaware’s past 30 years to know that) It is not a party that respect grass-roots support (Chairwoman Schultz proudly stated as much) I will still dutifully vote against Trump this November.
It isnt that Sanders has less support than Clinton and I’m bitter about it… When she ultimately has more overall votes and a delegate lead…. that is how democracy works, and i accept it. It’s the arrogant and dismissive way party loyalists talk about Sander’s plan and the, of course, the BernieBros (DD). There has been a constant refrain of “support Clinton or you are (insert bad thing here)….” and I REALIZE THERE HAVE BEEN sexist ass-holes claiming to be Sander’s supporters posting things anonymously online. I know. What bothers me more than anonymous nit-wits, are high profile people who should be championing democracy, telling millions of people they are dumb (or ideas are stupid… actual words from a self identified democrat) and their motives are bad for supporting the candidate they support.
I wasn’t even completely sold on Sanders until recently.. and it’s more of a reaction to the way the DNC, and the powers that be are conducting themselves. I’ll say it again… I havent been drawn TO Sanders, so much as I have been driven away and repulsed by the team backing Clinton.
It is disrespectful of the process, it is disrespectful of the man himself (Hillary deserves a lot of respect for her career, so does Bernie, but he is constantly written off as a kook.) It is disrespectful of an entire generation who knows way more than we’re given credit for.
@Dem19703: If your name has “Dem” in it, I’m not likely to take you very seriously as a liberal or progressive or whatever it’s called this week.
I agree with Ben — it’s a party of squishy moderates who might as well be Republicans. In fact, there is not a lot of difference between today’s mainstream Democrats and pre-Reagan “Rockefeller Republicans.” Of course, Hillary wasn’t proud to be one of those. She was a Goldwater Gal.
If you think it doesn’t matter, notice how much Chris Coons, former Young Republican, drifts back toward his roots as he ages.
“If your name has “Dem” in it, I’m not likely to take you very seriously as a liberal or progressive or whatever it’s called this week.”
I wouldn’t expect any less of you. However, if you are supporting a primary candidate and intend to vote for them, you must be either a DEM, or a REP. So…not voting then?
Not in the presidential primary, no. But I am registered as a Democrat, since I am barred from taking part in primary elections otherwise.
Naming yourself that is an entirely different matter.
Triple AAA again! I love these comments. I’m in the same situation. I was basically forced to register as a Democrat to vote in the Wilmington Mayoral primary, which basically chooses the mayor. However, I’m certainly not going to advertise this or label myself. Therein lies the problem.
If you begrudgingly have to register as a Dem to vote in the primary, isn’t that a compromise you have to make in order to move your ideology forward, or am I wrong?
“How has politics become an all or nothing proposition? Why can’t there be compromise and acceptance of other points of view, at least within one party?”
Just to be clear, there is acceptance of varied points of view among Democrats. My question was why would she want to be called a progressive if she likes politicians who are not?
Again, the comment was about your identifying name, not your registration. And the comment toward Pandora was about the label “progressive,” not “Democrat.”
I have registered as both Democrat and Republican, depending on which party dominates where I live at the time. In locales with few Democrats, only a fool would register as a Democrat.
It’s only ensuring we have the ability to vote if we choose to do so. Nobody ever said we don’t compromise. That’s the specious argument against us. See, you’re starting to grasp it. Good for you.
“My question was why would she want to be called a progressive if she likes politicians who are not?”
Did she ever say she “likes” them, or did she just support some of their policies? Again, some is not all. Supporting a good idea does not make you a traitor to the cause. And because I can feel the follow up question, no, I do not have any specific policies in mind. I just have never seen Pandora openly gush over any of those three.
Is it specious? It may be in your case, but all you need to do is scroll up this thread and you can see many of these “my way or the cliche” opinions.
If candidate A is progressive on a few issues and candidate B on many, should a progressive support candidate A just because she’s better than a Republican?
There’s a difference between “vote for” and “support.” I would vote for HIllary, though not against Bernie, but I would never support her.
And I won’t vote in Delaware’s presidential primary because it’s a worse-than-useless waste of money.
First, I don’t see Hillary the way others portray her. I really like her. Second, when people point out what they consider her flaws I agree with some of the points, but not all. The bigger point is that we all know exactly what they are and have either decided we’re okay with them or not.
If Bernie would win the nomination I would vote for him. Not happily, but I’d vote and support him.
Third, answer me this… If we go with the much put forth argument that delegate math is insider politics and the majority of the public won’t bother to understand it, then when Bernie’s tax plan receives more light – showing significant tax increases across the board – these same people will suddenly research the topic and not just run screaming from the room? I’ve said I’m fine with the increases, I’m just having a hard time seeing how this is sold to a public that can’t understand the difference between a delegate race and a state race. My point here is this: Either the public is too disconnected/disinterested to understand or they’re not. Can’t have it both ways.
Fourth, one of my biggest concerns is how Bernie is not supporting down ticket Dems. He’ll need a friendly Congress to enact anything, no matter how small. I have no idea why he isn’t doing this.
Fifth, thanks, DG! You’re correct.
Sixth, welcome Dem19703 and thanks for the shout out!
@pandora: Selling a program to the public is not my job, or yours. You must not be a sports fan, or you would see how much like one you are.
I don’t watch football, but I work with people who talk about it endlessly, and in just the way the Hillary fans here do — what strategy will work, what are our teams strengths and weaknesses, how do our opponents look to do, etc., etc. It’s an amateur recreation of what professional coaches are doing, and how those coaches do the job — not how those fans do their pastime — will determine the outcome of the game. In short, my co-workers are obsessing over things they can’t control.
As a voter in a democratic republic, none of that is necessary for me to order my own priorities. I am looking for a candidate who shares my views not because I hold them, but because she holds them.
As for “really liking” her, I’m sure she’s a lovely person; at least, that’s what those who have met her have told me. This isn’t about liking her. It’s about her priorities and loyalties, which I don’t share.
A campaign’s death rattle makes people say silly things, like “I won’t vote …” and these things:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2016_03/sanders_was_not_well_served_by060083.php
@pandora: A piece you might like from Amanda Marcotte:
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/29/the_strange_silence_about_hillarymania_clinton_fires_up_voters_more_than_bernie_does_so_why_is_no_one_talking_about_it/
Excerpt:
“If you give it a moment’s thought, that Clinton would be such an inspiring figure to her supporters makes perfect sense. She has spent two and a half decades in the spotlight, enduring huge amounts of sexism as every single man in the country who feels threatened by smart women or powerful women projects all his anxieties on her with the passion of a thousand burning suns. But she hasn’t stopped striving. She eats haters for breakfast and keeps smiling, all while more haters are telling her she doesn’t smile enough.
For supporters, especially female supporters, who are sick to the teeth of all this sexist nonsense and sometimes wonder how they are going to keep on fighting another day, Clinton’s resilience is the stuff of legends.”
If that’s what you mean by “really liking” her, then I see why. I know she’s a fighter. But I’m against of some of the things she’ll be fighting for.
“enduring huge amounts of sexism as every single man in the country who feels threatened by smart women or powerful women projects all his anxieties on her with the passion of a thousand burning suns.”
The same hatred was focused on Bill, on Obama, and now Hillary. For Obama it is in racial terms, for Hillary it is in sexist terms, for Bill it was “draft dodger.” There is nothing unique about Republican hatred for Hillary. It’s just what they do to delegitimize Democrats of any gender. Plus Hillary has been around so long they have a larger stockpile of rightwing memes to attack her with, including some recycled from attacks on Bill.
Pandora @ 1137
Sanders doesn’t support down ticket Democrats because…He’s not a Democrat.
Now, apparently a lot of people here aren’t, either. They just want to vote in primaries, etc.
So, when “super delegates” who are, most of them, um, Democrats, rather than holier than thou opportunists who don’t want to bother building a party that more closely reflects whatever the heck their issues are, go out and vote for Hillary, they can gnash their teeth all they want.
I didn’t start as a Democrat. I started as “this state sucks. There’s only one party on the ballot, and they just spent millions of dollars proving guys will lie about getting blowjobs. I want more choices.” And the Democrats make a whole lot of choices I think are just plain wrong.
But, of the two candidates, I think Hillary’s mistakes are at least as principled as Bernies, and I prefer them. Sanders, in my opinion, mines ignorance. If he means what he says, he’s wrong too often, and in too many important places. If he doesn’t mean it, well, then he’s Trump in a shabby suit.
At this point, I expect Congress to fight any chief executive tooth and nail on any point. It’s their way. But only actual Democrats will show up then.
Tastes Great/Less Filling:
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2016/03/everybody-on-internet-is-wrong.html
I haven’t met AAAnonymous, but I’m sure we’d enjoy each other’s company. And that of most everyone else here who has a different horse in this primary.
“Sanders doesn’t support down ticket Democrats because…He’s not a Democrat.”
Bernie is the last Democrat.
Activism should be productive, not just narcissism.
Amen
Puck, perhaps Sanders is the only man alive that FDR would shake hands with. But he’s not a Democrat.
You can’t take notes as secretary in a committee meeting of the Democratic Party unless you’ve been membered up for two years, or something. But you can be the Presidential standard bearer?
Yeah. That makes sense.
That’s what I mean. He’s never been a team member, let alone team captain. He’s a color commenter, at heart.
Thanks, Pandora. Just tired of the divisiveness and the labeling of Progressives vs. Democrats. They, of course, can two separate things. However, why?? You see what is happening to the GOP with the Tea Party and whatever the Trumpeters are. What gets accomplished if there is no room for compromise, or if you decide that being labeled as something is so detrimental to your personal viewpoints that you disregard anything that is part of a mainstream group? I get it, the Democrats are a mess. Luckily, they are a little less of a mess than the GOP. Why not fix it from within, instead of using party affiliation as a convenient way to vote in a primary? The myth of the outsider changing the system is just that, a myth. Real change comes from those willing to invest time and effort to shaping the system from within.
I wholeheartedly agree with Brooke. “At this point, I expect Congress to fight any chief executive tooth and nail on any point. It’s their way. But only actual Democrats will show up then.”
Instead of pointing out all the flaws the Democrats have, fix them by participating, giving input, and actually showing up. While blogs are great for airing ideals and having heated discussions on who is a better liberal/progressive, they are also a convenient place to complain without any real effort. I give it to folks like Pandora, Cassandra, Jason, DelDem, El Somnombulo, and Brian (new guy) who also participate. I’m not saying the majority here do not do that, just that as a Democrat (hope I have not offended anyone by labeling myself), I know that our side of the spectrum is plagued by a great deal of opinion-over-action.
Cassandra, perfect quote.