Jump to content
270soft Forum

NV CAUCUS RESULTS THREAD


Recommended Posts

Imagine this scenario going into the DNC: 

Buttigieg: 35% of the popular vote, most delegates

Bernie: 32% of PV, second most delegates

Warren: 28% of PV, third most delegates

Steyer: 18% of PV

Biden: 8%

Klobuchar: 8%

Is it fair to crown Buttigieg the victor despite a gross majority voting for progressives? The convention exists for the different delegates supporting different factions of the Democratic Party to come to a consensus choice of over 50% of delegates. Its infinitely better than just crowning the person who won the most under 50%. 

If someone votes for Warren, a delegate supporting her gets to go to the convention and if this delegate moves their support, they arent going to suddenly switch their vote to Bloomberg or Biden. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

30 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Man, I just don't know how to convince you that 50%+1 is the same thing as more than half.

Okay, here goes.  Imagine a pizza...

You miss the point. I obviously have to spoonfeed it to you. I hate having to spoonfeed people on the Internet. What I'm asking - which is NOT the part you're responding to - is the statement you made that under 50% of Democrats supports Sanders, but then you pretty much stated, as an absolutist statement, that every Democrat who didn't support Sanders had him at rock bottom of their priories as an automatic assumption - that it was either Sanders supporters, or "anyone but Sanders," types. THAT'S the statistic I want verified. That NO Democrat might have Sanders at a 2nd, or 3rd, or anywhere between 1st and last, choice, which is pretty much what you claimed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

You miss the point. I obviously have to spoonfeed it to you. I hate having to spoonfeed people on the Internet. What I'm asking - which is NOT the part you're responding to - is the statement you made that under 50% of Democrats supports Sanders, but then you pretty much stated, as an absolutist statement, that every Democrat who didn't support Sanders had him at rock bottom of their priories as an automatic assumption - that it was either Sanders supporters, or "anyone but Sanders," types. THAT'S the statistic I want verified. That NO Democrat might have Sanders at a 2nd, or 3rd, or anywhere between 1st and last, choice, which is pretty much what you claimed.

Okay, final response:  I have already acknowledged, in I think every single one of my comments in this thread, that anyone who gets 50%+1 of the delegates will be a nominee.  As far as I know, we all agree on this -- and if anyone doesn't agree, I don't even care because their disagreement doesn't matter.  It's reality regardless.

So we all agree 50%+1, you're the nominee.  Boom.  Done.

Now, all that's left to discuss is what happens if NOBODY gets 50%+1 of the delegates.

This literally means that nobody has convinced the majority of the party to support them.

It could play out the way that @Herbert Hoover laid out above in his hypothetical scenario.

Here's another hypothetical scenario:  

Bernie 40%
Buttigieg 20%
Biden 20%
Klobuchar 20%

Now, you could look at that and say "Bernie got twice the delegates that anybody else got in that scenario!" and you'd be absolutely right.  

However, 60% of the party backed a moderate.  They clearly disagreed on WHICH moderate, but 60% of the party wanted one, in this scenario.

How do you resolve that?  Well, that's up for the delegates to decide.  For example, say Klobuchar agrees to endorse Biden in exchange for getting to be VP.  Now you've got Bernie 40%, Biden/Klobuchar 40%, Buttigieg 20%.  

Buttigieg has made it clear that his priority is beating Trump, and that he perceives that Bernie won't succeed at this mission, so he instructs his delegates to back Biden too.

Now we're at Biden/Klobuchar 60%, Bernie 40%.

These are all just hypothetical scenarios to disprove the theory that if Bernie gets the most delegates...but less than half...it is "impossible" that he is denied the nomination and that denying it would represent "theft."  



 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Okay, final response:  I have already acknowledged, in I think every single one of my comments in this thread, that anyone who gets 50%+1 of the delegates will be a nominee.  As far as I know, we all agree on this -- and if anyone doesn't agree, I don't even care because their disagreement doesn't matter.  It's reality regardless.

So we all agree 50%+1, you're the nominee.  Boom.  Done.

Now, all that's left to discuss is what happens if NOBODY gets 50%+1 of the delegates.

This literally means that nobody has convinced the majority of the party to support them.

It could play out the way that @Herbert Hoover laid out above in his hypothetical scenario.

Here's another hypothetical scenario:  

Bernie 40%
Buttigieg 20%
Biden 20%
Klobuchar 20%

Now, you could look at that and say "Bernie got twice the delegates that anybody else got in that scenario!" and you'd be absolutely right.  

However, 60% of the party backed a moderate.  They clearly disagreed on WHICH moderate, but 60% of the party wanted one, in this scenario.

How do you resolve that?  Well, that's up for the delegates to decide.  For example, say Klobuchar agrees to endorse Biden in exchange for getting to be VP.  Now you've got Bernie 40%, Biden/Klobuchar 40%, Buttigieg 20%.  

Buttigieg has made it clear that his priority is beating Trump, and that he perceives that Bernie won't succeed at this mission, so he instructs his delegates to back Biden too.

Now we're at Biden/Klobuchar 60%, Bernie 40%.

These are all just hypothetical scenarios to disprove the theory that if Bernie gets the most delegates...but less than half...it is "impossible" that he is denied the nomination and that denying it would represent "theft."  



 

Now, first of all, put aside your self-righteousness. You had been previously answering the wrong part of what I was asking. If you stated the percentages had been a hypothetical scenario (which is not how it came across before - it came across as an absolute statistic) was indeed just hypothetical, instead of insisting on answering THREE TIMES answering a question I was NOT asking (the 50%+1 rule) instead, and only including the answer I sought as a throwaway aside statement the third time, things would have been a lot simpler. But it seemed, by hammering on answering the wrong part of the questioning in the most patronizing way possible, you were trying to show much an idiot I SUPPOSEDLY sounded like. But I don't think it was me who sounded like an idiot. But I got my answer, even if it was just a side-note on what you though were making an answer to, and indeed we can drop it, and I hope we BOTH learn a lesson about communication - me on clarity of questions, and you on self-righteous and patronizing answers when you don't really the grasp the question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

@ThePotatoWalrus @CentristGuy @Reagan04 @Kingthero @Hestia11

Get the popcorn, my fellow millennials. The 40+ crowd is going at it again! ;)

I honestly can't stand some older gens when it comes to inter-party politics,They will do anything to swing there way,that is unrealistic,for there Candidate,for example (though I don't know his age) @Actinguy conjuring up a scenario where Bernie has twice as many delegates as anyone but more "Moderates" make up 60% of votes,that is NOT how voting works. I honestly think it will happen for Bernie how it happened for Trump (But of course Bernie is a polar opposite in the best ways with his ideas and thought and morals) but primary wise I definitely think that is what is going to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheMiddlePolitical said:

I honestly can't stand some older gens when it comes to inter-party politics,They will do anything to swing there way,that is unrealistic,for there Candidate,for example (though I don't know his age) @Actinguy conjuring up a scenario where Bernie has twice as many delegates as anyone but more "Moderates" make up 60% of votes,that is NOT how voting works. I honestly think it will happen for Bernie how it happened for Trump (But of course Bernie is a polar opposite in the best ways with his ideas and thought and morals) but primary wise I definitely think that is what is going to happen.

I am actually fairly in agreement with @Actinguy I just wanted to poke some fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Herbert Hoover Oh I am fairly in disagreement then,lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheMiddlePolitical said:

@Herbert Hoover Oh I am fairly in disagreement then,lol.

Actinguy is a Buttigieg supporter. Like most Bernie bros and their assesment of Buttigieg, I don't foresee @Actinguy ever being absolutely objective in his assessment of Bernie. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheMiddlePolitical said:

I honestly can't stand some older gens when it comes to inter-party politics,They will do anything to swing there way,that is unrealistic,for there Candidate,for example (though I don't know his age) @Actinguy conjuring up a scenario where Bernie has twice as many delegates as anyone but more "Moderates" make up 60% of votes,that is NOT how voting works. I honestly think it will happen for Bernie how it happened for Trump (But of course Bernie is a polar opposite in the best ways with his ideas and thought and morals) but primary wise I definitely think that is what is going to happen.

Which political party are you accusing me of actually belonging to and trying to bias arguments toward, if I may ask?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Herbert Hoover said:

@ThePotatoWalrus @CentristGuy @Reagan04 @Kingthero @Hestia11

Get the popcorn, my fellow millennials. The 40+ crowd is going at it again! ;)

How dare you.  I am 36!  ;c)

5 hours ago, TheMiddlePolitical said:

I honestly can't stand some older gens when it comes to inter-party politics,They will do anything to swing there way,that is unrealistic,for there Candidate,for example (though I don't know his age) @Actinguy conjuring up a scenario where Bernie has twice as many delegates as anyone but more "Moderates" make up 60% of votes,that is NOT how voting works. I honestly think it will happen for Bernie how it happened for Trump (But of course Bernie is a polar opposite in the best ways with his ideas and thought and morals) but primary wise I definitely think that is what is going to happen.

I legitimately don't know what you are disagreeing with here. 

I am offering examples of how a contested convention actually works.  Also, in the example I gave, I intentionally had Biden come out as the nominee and Klobuchar as VP, with my candidate of choice coming out as empty-handed as Bernie.

What am I wrong about?  Are you saying that Bernie will surpass 50%+1 before the convention?  It will be a difficult battle, but I absolutely concur that it "could" happen.  538.com's model says there is a 40% chance right now that Bernie is the nominee.  I'd put the odds maybe more at 33%, but either way, it could happen.  If it's your take that Bernie could win prior to the convention, I agree!  He could.

Or are you saying that Bernie could win a contested convention as long as he has the most delegates heading into it?   Again, I've made it clear repeatedly in this thread:  he absolutely could!

Or are you saying...as the person I initially responded to in this thread...that it is "impossible" that Bernie would not be the nominee as long as he has the most delegates?  In that case, I would have to respond that you either don't know or don't care how contested conventions actually work -- but your anger is misplaced at "older gens", especially when your candidate is 78 god damned years old.  ;c)

Look -- contested conventions work the way that contested conventions work.  I didn't make those rules, and even if you somehow beat me into submission and I surrender, it won't actually change the reality one bit.  If Bernie (or any other candidate) wants to win the nomination without a contested convention, they have to get 50%+1 delegates.  After having received some of the Nevada delegates (with more to be awarded based on final count), he only has about 39% of the delegates awarded thus far.

And if nobody gets 50%+1...as I suspect will be the case (538 has the odds of this happening at 40%, equal to a Bernie nomination.  I'd put it around 60%)...then we have a contested convention, where damned near ANYTHING could happen.  Jimmy Carter could end up being our 2020 nominee.  I wouldn't bet on Carter, of course, but it is within the range of "possible" outcomes.

Imagine the Iowa caucus on crack, and you're getting closer to the reality of what a contested convention is.

2 hours ago, CentristGuy said:

Actinguy is a Buttigieg supporter. Like most Bernie bros and their assesment of Buttigieg, I don't foresee @Actinguy ever being absolutely objective in his assessment of Bernie. 

I'm not assessing Bernie at all, at least in this thread.  Nor am I assessing Buttigieg.  I am merely offering facts about the actual rules of the Democrat primary, to people who seem to not know them.

People appear to be having a response to those rules that is more emotional than is required, and some of that emotion appears to be directed at me.  That's fine, but changes nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I legitimately don't know what you are disagreeing with here. 

I am offering examples of how a contested convention actually works.  Also, in the example I gave, I intentionally had Biden come out as the nominee and Klobuchar as VP, with my candidate of choice coming out as empty-handed as Bernie.

What am I wrong about?  Are you saying that Bernie will surpass 50%+1 before the convention?  It will be a difficult battle, but I absolutely concur that it "could" happen.  538.com's model says there is a 40% chance right now that Bernie is the nominee.  I'd put the odds maybe more at 33%, but either way, it could happen.  If it's your take that Bernie could win prior to the convention, I agree!  He could.

Or are you saying that Bernie could win a contested convention as long as he has the most delegates heading into it?   Again, I've made it clear repeatedly in this thread:  he absolutely could!

Or are you saying...as the person I initially responded to in this thread...that it is "impossible" that Bernie would not be the nominee as long as he has the most delegates?  In that case, I would have to respond that you either don't know or don't care how contested conventions actually work -- but your anger is misplaced at "older gens", especially when your candidate is 78 god damned years old.  ;c)

Look -- contested conventions work the way that contested conventions work.  I didn't make those rules, and even if you somehow beat me into submission and I surrender, it won't actually change the reality one bit.  If Bernie (or any other candidate) wants to win the nomination without a contested convention, they have to get 50%+1 delegates.  After having received some of the Nevada delegates (with more to be awarded based on final count), he only has about 39% of the delegates awarded thus far.

And if nobody gets 50%+1...as I suspect will be the case (538 has the odds of this happening at 40%, equal to a Bernie nomination.  I'd put it around 60%)...then we have a contested convention, where damned near ANYTHING could happen.  Jimmy Carter could end up being our 2020 nominee.  I wouldn't bet on Carter, of course, but it is within the range of "possible" outcomes.

Imagine the Iowa caucus on crack, and you're getting closer to the reality of what a contested convention is.

I'm not assessing Bernie at all, at least in this thread.  Nor am I assessing Buttigieg.  I am merely offering facts about the actual rules of the Democrat primary, to people who seem to not know them.

People appear to be having a response to those rules that is more emotional than is required, and some of that emotion appears to be directed at me.  That's fine, but changes nothing.

Of course, the fact that you have repeatedly (four time, I count) answered the wrong question, and I've tried, twice to explain what I was actually asking, makes your sense of self-righteous impatience look downright foolish and embarrassing (or at least it should be embarrassing).

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Patine said:

Of course, the fact that you have repeatedly (four time, I count) answered the wrong question, and I've tried, twice to explain what I was actually asking, makes your sense of self-righteous impatience look downright foolish and embarrassing (or at least it should be embarrassing).

Your question was about a hypothetical situation which I have since answered repeatedly.  If you are still confused, look back at my 40/20/20/20 scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Your question was about a hypothetical situation which I have since answered repeatedly.  If you are still confused, look back at my 40/20/20/20 scenario.

You only answered it on the third time, whilst ranting about me not getting about you answering the wrong question again. I was done with this issue last night when I said I was, but you had to pick the scab this morning. Are we done now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Patine said:

You only answered it on the third time, whilst ranting about me not getting about you answering the wrong question again. I was done with this issue last night when I said I was, but you had to pick the scab this morning. Are we done now?

...I was responding to other people who were addressing me directly.  You said this morning that I failed to answer your question four times, but now admit that I actually did answer it and yet claim that I'm the one who picked the...oh, fuck it.  Why do I even try with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

...I was responding to other people who were addressing me directly.  You said this morning that I failed to answer your question four times, but now admit that I actually did answer it and yet claim that I'm the one who picked the...oh, fuck it.  Why do I even try with you.

You didn't read my post carefully at all. Any of them involved. And I'm the one who shouldn't be bothered with? Your arrogance and self-righteousness never ceases to astound.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CentristGuy said:

Actinguy is a Buttigieg supporter. Like most Bernie bros and their assesment of Buttigieg, I don't foresee @Actinguy ever being absolutely objective in his assessment of Bernie. 

To be fair we will never be objective in our assessment of Buttigeg but then again I know what I want and Pete definitely isn't that lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, wolves said:

To be fair we will never be objective in our assessment of Buttigeg but then again I know what I want and Pete definitely isn't that lol.

I concede that Pete can’t give you 100% of what you need.

I would respectfully counter that he CAN at least give you SOME of it.

Some is better than none.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Herbert Hoover said:

@ThePotatoWalrus @CentristGuy @Reagan04 @Kingthero @Hestia11

Get the popcorn, my fellow millennials. The 40+ crowd is going at it again! ;)

@Patine boomer

@Actinguy boomer

There

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Tell that to Bernie supporters, though.

I am, right now.  
 

I’m trying to set appropriate expectations, as most folks naturally haven’t invested the time in learning the ins and outs of how this works, and might be in for a disappointment in thinking it was rigged against Bernie when the reality is that these are the same rules for everyone — and to the extent that they’re different from 2016 (no super delegates in first round, for example), those changes were made FOR Bernie and his supporters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...