Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Democratic Primaries
Showing Original Post only (View all)New York Times: Superdelegates open to brokered convention to block Sanders from nomination [View all]
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/27/politics/bernie-sanders-contested-convention/index.htmlVery very bad idea. Guaranteed collapse of the Democratic party, it will trigger a massive turnout suppression, and Trump is guaranteed to win again.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
49 replies, 3602 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (7)
ReplyReply to this post
49 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
New York Times: Superdelegates open to brokered convention to block Sanders from nomination [View all]
OliverQ
Feb 2020
OP
and this just gives more fire to bernie saying the establishment is against him n/t
BlueTillIDie
Feb 2020
#8
Much as "This message was self-deleted by its author" offers plausible deniability
LanternWaste
Feb 2020
#10
If the delegates choose Sanders, that is supposed to happen also. I don't agree
bluedye33139
Feb 2020
#7
They booed a candidate at the convention who sewed up the required delegates weeks
Squinch
Feb 2020
#19
well, technically, Clinton, whilst very close, did not have enough pledged delegates to win
Celerity
Feb 2020
#20
But what shouldn't be forgotten, it was the mere existence and the number of the super delegates
Hav
Feb 2020
#25
re:"it was the mere existence and number SDs that prevented Clinton from winning without them"
thesquanderer
Feb 2020
#27
under the new rules there would have been a 2nd ballot, as the super delegates cannot vote on the
Celerity
Feb 2020
#34
It would have been better to post the actual NY Times article instead of a critique of the article.
George II
Feb 2020
#4
Yeah, the headline is just false. But posting the CNN version at least had the virtue that...
thesquanderer
Feb 2020
#28
Threats aren't generally a good way to convince people of much of anything.
TwilightZone
Feb 2020
#5
Had Bloomberg not entered, there would be one clear Progressive and one clear moderate, with the
Skya Rhen
Feb 2020
#11
Oliver, you haven't answered my question. See the first post. I have never hesitated
Squinch
Feb 2020
#13
So, though we would all vote for BS, BS supporters would not vote for anyone but their preferred
Squinch
Feb 2020
#23
Well it sounds like you're warning people to get out of the party while the getting's good.
ehrnst
Feb 2020
#17
Bad headline. It will happen, or not, regardless of whether the SDs are "open" to it or not.
thesquanderer
Feb 2020
#26
It's "blue no matter who" and superdelegates are in the rules Sanders accepted.
gulliver
Feb 2020
#44