NationStates

Valrifell wrote:

United States of Devonta wrote:
I feel like the nomination might go to convention and then the super-delegates will get involved. Unfortunately.

Superdelegates are only involved in a second round in a brokered convention.

The way I understand it, if one Democrat hasn't reached the clear majority, it goes to super-delegates.

"In a contested convention where no majority of minimum 1,886 pledged delegate votes is found for a single candidate in the first ballot, all superdelegates will then regain their right to vote on any subsequent ballot necessary in order for a presidential candidate to be nominated (raising the majority needed for such to 2,267 votes)."

This might happen .

Miami Shores wrote:

South Odreria 2 wrote:
If no candidate wins an overall majority of delegates, Sanders and Warren will most likely have a majority together and could strike a deal without superdelegates. Probably, whichever has more will be the nominee after meeting some demands from the other.

A Sanders Warren ticket, or a Warren Sanders ticket.

Sanders would likely ask for a loyalist as VP (Turner?), majority leader (Merkley?), DNC chief (Ellison?) etc. Not sure what Warren would ask for. Cabinet positions?

South Odreria 2 wrote:CBS/Yougov: Iowa: Biden 29 (+5), Sanders 26 (+7), Warren 17 (+0)
New Hampshire: Warren 27 (+9), Biden 26 (-1), Sanders 25 (+5)
Nevada: Sanders 29, Biden 27, Warren 18.

Biden at risk of losing the first three states. Sanders 3 in Iowa and 2 in NH away from sweeping.

None of the States are winner take all though. Even if Biden comes in second or third, he'll stay in given candidates can only get delegates if they get 15% or more of the vote, which this case, all three of them do. Now, Biden would get like a few less than either Sanders or Warren in those cases but come Super Tuesday, which has a sizable chunk of Southern States, you can see him gaining- that's if he has fallen flat on his face by then. This really has become a three person race.

Zurkerx wrote:

South Odreria 2 wrote:CBS/Yougov: Iowa: Biden 29 (+5), Sanders 26 (+7), Warren 17 (+0)
New Hampshire: Warren 27 (+9), Biden 26 (-1), Sanders 25 (+5)
Nevada: Sanders 29, Biden 27, Warren 18.

Biden at risk of losing the first three states. Sanders 3 in Iowa and 2 in NH away from sweeping.

None of the States are winner take all though. Even if Biden comes in second or third, he'll stay in given candidates can only get delegates if they get 15% or more of the vote, which this case, all three of them do. Now, Biden would get like a few less than either Sanders or Warren in those cases but come Super Tuesday, which has a sizable chunk of Southern States, you can see him gaining- that's if he has fallen flat on his face by then. This really has become a three person race.

That's what Clinton and Giuliani bet on in 2008.

In Congressional race news today, Tomi Lahren's fiance is running as an independent for Congress in Beverly Hills-Santa Monica: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/tomi-lahren-fiance-bradon-fricke-congress-ted-lieu-163828213.html

Shrillland wrote:In Congressional race news today, Tomi Lahren's fiance is running as an independent for Congress in Beverly Hills-Santa Monica: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/tomi-lahren-fiance-bradon-fricke-congress-ted-lieu-163828213.html

Awww I can’t vote against him

Independent? Yea right.....

San Lumen wrote:

Telconi wrote:
I don't think you understand how California elections work.

I know how they work. They have a top two primary and the two candidates with the most votes advance to the general election

I think a top-two primary system is better than first-past-the-post, but perhaps it should be modified so that the two candidates who go on to the general election must be from different parties or independent.

Bienenhalde wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I know how they work. They have a top two primary and the two candidates with the most votes advance to the general election

I think a top-two primary system is better than first-past-the-post, but perhaps it should be modified so that the two candidates who go on to the general election must be from different parties or independent.

that's a regular primary not two top

San Lumen wrote:

Bienenhalde wrote:
I think a top-two primary system is better than first-past-the-post, but perhaps it should be modified so that the two candidates who go on to the general election must be from different parties or independent.

that's a regular primary not two top

No, it is not...1. Voters would be able to vote for any candidate regardless of their party affiliation. 2. The first and second candidates who go on to the general election would not necessarily be Republicans or Democrats, but could also be third-party or independent candidates. 3. Only two candidates would be allowed to run in the general election, so that there would be no third or fourth candidates to split the vote.

Bienenhalde wrote:

San Lumen wrote:that's a regular primary not two top

No, it is not...1. Voters would be able to vote for any candidate regardless of their party affiliation. 2. The first and second candidates who go on to the general election would not necessarily be Republicans or Democrats, but could also be third-party or independent candidates. 3. Only two candidates would be allowed to run in the general election, so that there would be no third or fourth candidates to split the vote.

Lets say two democrats or republicans get the most votes. someone who came in third or less would advance to the general? That's subverting the will of the people is it not?

Bienenhalde wrote:

San Lumen wrote:that's a regular primary not two top

No, it is not...1. Voters would be able to vote for any candidate regardless of their party affiliation. 2. The first and second candidates who go on to the general election would not necessarily be Republicans or Democrats, but could also be third-party or independent candidates. 3. Only two candidates would be allowed to run in the general election, so that there would be no third or fourth candidates to split the vote.

We could just circumvent this by instituting preferential voting as more states seem interested in doing.

Shrillland wrote:

Bienenhalde wrote:
No, it is not...1. Voters would be able to vote for any candidate regardless of their party affiliation. 2. The first and second candidates who go on to the general election would not necessarily be Republicans or Democrats, but could also be third-party or independent candidates. 3. Only two candidates would be allowed to run in the general election, so that there would be no third or fourth candidates to split the vote.

We could just circumvent this by instituting preferential voting as more states seem interested in doing.

your mean like IRV or Ranked choice voting? I have no issue with those. Arent they similar though?

San Lumen wrote:

Bienenhalde wrote:No, it is not...1. Voters would be able to vote for any candidate regardless of their party affiliation. 2. The first and second candidates who go on to the general election would not necessarily be Republicans or Democrats, but could also be third-party or independent candidates. 3. Only two candidates would be allowed to run in the general election, so that there would be no third or fourth candidates to split the vote.

Lets say two democrats or republicans get the most votes. someone who came in third or less would advance to the general? That's subverting the will of the people is it not?

You make it sound to simple. The will of the people is the composite of many different individuals and communities who want different things. Anyway, many people think the current system is unfair because it allows two candidates from the same party to advance to the general election, which is why I suggested changing it.

Bienenhalde wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Lets say two democrats or republicans get the most votes. someone who came in third or less would advance to the general? That's subverting the will of the people is it not?

You make it sound to simple. The will of the people is the composite of many different individuals and communities who want different things. Anyway, many people think the current system is unfair because it allows two candidates from the same party to advance to the general election, which is why I suggested changing it.

why not just have a regular primary?

San Lumen wrote:

Bienenhalde wrote:You make it sound to simple. The will of the people is the composite of many different individuals and communities who want different things. Anyway, many people think the current system is unfair because it allows two candidates from the same party to advance to the general election, which is why I suggested changing it.

why not just have a regular primary?

Because that would probably mean having a first-past-the-post general election, which would be bad for third party and independent candidates and could lead to a candidate winning without actually getting a majority of the vote.

San Lumen wrote:

Shrillland wrote:
We could just circumvent this by instituting preferential voting as more states seem interested in doing.

your mean like IRV or Ranked choice voting? I have no issue with those. Arent they similar though?

Yeah, it's just the old name for RCV that the Australians use. At least four states have proposals down the pipe for next year. (Alaska, California, Massachusetts, Missouri)

Shrillland wrote:

San Lumen wrote:your mean like IRV or Ranked choice voting? I have no issue with those. Arent they similar though?

Yeah, it's just the old name for RCV that the Australians use. At least four states have proposals down the pipe for next year. (Alaska, California, Massachusetts, Missouri)

Good for them.

Bienenhalde wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
why not just have a regular primary?

Because that would probably mean having a first-past-the-post general election, which would be bad for third party and independent candidates and could lead to a candidate winning without actually getting a majority of the vote.

but under your system your subverting what the people voted for by not placing the two candidates on the ballot who got the most votes.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Shrillland wrote:In Congressional race news today, Tomi Lahren's fiance is running as an independent for Congress in Beverly Hills-Santa Monica: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/tomi-lahren-fiance-bradon-fricke-congress-ted-lieu-163828213.html

Awww I can’t vote against him

Independent? Yea right.....

The Republicans aren't right-wing enough for him.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Shrillland wrote:In Congressional race news today, Tomi Lahren's fiance is running as an independent for Congress in Beverly Hills-Santa Monica: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/tomi-lahren-fiance-bradon-fricke-congress-ted-lieu-163828213.html

Awww I can’t vote against him

Independent? Yea right.....

He wasn't going to lose. The district is too blue

Also, Tom Steyer has qualified for Debate Number Four in October: https://www.yahoo.com/news/tom-steyer-qualifies-october-debate-150136141.html

Shrillland wrote:Also, Tom Steyer has qualified for Debate Number Four in October: https://www.yahoo.com/news/tom-steyer-qualifies-october-debate-150136141.html

That's all we need, Steyer's puppy dog eyed face telling us all how we really really really really need to really impeach Donald really Trump.

Telconi wrote:

Shrillland wrote:Also, Tom Steyer has qualified for Debate Number Four in October: https://www.yahoo.com/news/tom-steyer-qualifies-october-debate-150136141.html

That's all we need, Steyer's puppy dog eyed face telling us all how we really really really really need to really impeach Donald really Trump.

we all know that in your view he can do no wrong. But dont feel bad many Republicans feel the same way. They will see impeachment as a witch hunt no matter the evidence and the Senate will refuse to convict and it will galvanize his rural supporters and its quite possible he wins reelection due to it

San Lumen wrote:

Telconi wrote:
That's all we need, Steyer's puppy dog eyed face telling us all how we really really really really need to really impeach Donald really Trump.

we all know that in your view he can do no wrong. But dont feel bad many Republicans feel the same way. They will see impeachment as a witch hunt no matter the evidence and the Senate will refuse to convict and it will galvanize his rural supporters and its quite possible he wins reelection due to it

To be fair, I don't think Steyer should be running either. He has far more use funding candidates and forming ballot initiatives than gambling all that away on an absurdly long-shot run for the Presidency.

San Lumen wrote:

Telconi wrote:
That's all we need, Steyer's puppy dog eyed face telling us all how we really really really really need to really impeach Donald really Trump.

we all know that in your view he can do no wrong. But dont feel bad many Republicans feel the same way. They will see impeachment as a witch hunt no matter the evidence and the Senate will refuse to convict and it will galvanize his rural supporters and its quite possible he wins reelection due to it

Things have to be true for you to know them. If they're not true, then your 'knowledge' isn't.