Who is your choice in the Democratic Presidential Primary?

pjl44 said:

POnWis97 said:

show previous quotes

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

pjl44 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I like warren, and it's too bad she's sliding in the polls. she makes the most sense and actually tells you what her plans are and how she'll do it. 

friendly reminder that only 5% of the delegates have been declared
there's a long road ahead
as more candidates drop out, those delegates will migrate to the more moderate candidates who remain
(that won't be bernie)

That is exactly what everyone said about Trump 4 years ago. Everyone said "don't worry, as some of the other 15 candidates drop out then their votes will not go to Trump." But that is exactly what happened. I'm guessing it will happen here too. Bernie only needs about 20% of the other voters when they drop to keep the lead, and that isnt much.

The GOP rules are very different than the DNC. Most states award their delegates on a winner take all basis similar to the electoral college. Trump won slot of early states with well under 50%.

Many experts surmise if the 2016 gop nominating contest was played under democratic rules, trump very well might never have become president.

Bernies big chance is California.  If he gets a blowout win there he might get into the 40% range of total delegates.  Anything less than 40% heading into the DNC and Bernie is done. He is not a democrat nor running on democratic values.

Dead on, although I don't know that even 40% of CA and TX will get him to a tipping point.  He needs to win with majorities in some states I believe, to make his nomination inevitable.  Great point on the 'winner take all' statement.  Winning CA at 35% is meaningful in optics for the media, but not necessarily from a delegate or convention perspective. 

Couldnt he have 16% in CA. if the rest are under 15 he gets it all?

No, that was Lex's point.  The Democrats allocate their delegates proportionately.  It is not "winner take all" like the GOP.  

I've always contended (though most people disagree with me) that this is how the electoral college should work in the general election. I'm not for abolishing it like many people are, but some tweaks would work well. Like in 2016, Trump beat Hillary in Pennsylvania 48.1% to 47.4%. Why the heck should Trump get all of PA's electoral votes for that? 

If you allocated electors by congressional district (or something), you'd give candidates a reason to campaign in non-swing states. Sure Trump can't win California as a whole, but maybe there are a few places where he could get some electoral votes. Same with Hillary in a place like Texas. Or New York. Sure the Democrat is going to win NYC, and thus the state, but I'd like if the other candidate could maybe pick up some electors in upstate New York. Upstate New York and NYC couldn't be more different. 

Just a way to make everyone's vote count without having to go to a full-on popular vote. 

A lot of great points. I might not ultimately agree with you, but it's definitely a sound argument. Maintaining the voice of each state while recognizing 51-49 and 70-30 should yield different rewards.

Yeah they'll never change it because the almighty Founding Fathers didn't lay it out that way. But I'd just like for the entire country to be a part of the process. Trump is doing a townhall in Scranton, PA next week. That will be the first of at least ten times he visits that area this year. The democratic nominee will do the same thing. Yet neither will visit Los Angeles or New York, the two-most populated cities in the country.  A dozen visits to Scranton, and none to Los Angeles, New York, or Houston. That makes no sense. 

Nothing against Scranton, I have roots there. But it's mind-numbing to think that Scranton is more important to a presidential candidate than much larger cities in non-swing states. 

I think m russ was echoing my point that the GOP primaries are winner take all like the electoral college.

I'm fairly certain that only the electoral college is in the constitution, not the winner take all allocation of electors. I'm fairly certain there was a movement or lawsuit to fight the winner take all format as unconstitutional because it takes away votes from a block of voters. Fat chance that will ever be opined on by the USSC.

Maine already splits the EC votes.  I think NE may as well.  There's nothing in the Constitution to prohibit it. 

I think I'm talking about the opposite, that Winner take all is taking votes away from the minority within each state. That's what could be unconstitutional.  Not the EC itself but how the votes are allocated in 48 states.

The  constitution directs us to follow the electoral college. As your point demonstrates, not winner take all.

I fully agree. Keep the Electoral College - practically, it mitigates further outsized representation by either the enormously populated or scarcely populated states - but allocate EC seats proportionally based on the voting outcome within the state.

It would really change the game, that's for sure.  Candidates would campaign in states that have long been forgotten by time the general comes around (NY, CA, TX) as close loss in those states would be worth exponentially more than a win in most states.  It would be interesting to game this out and determine how many, if any, election results would have changed.  It would more closely mirror the popular vote, and render the smaller states fairly insignificant.  

I actually think the only reasons the Dems even have an outside shot is that most states are winner-take-all.  If every state followed the Maine/Nebraska model, you'd see the 438 votes based on congressional districts roughly mirror the population* but the 100 Senate-based votes would heavily favor the GOP.  What would happen to California and New York alone is huge...though obviously that would also happen in Texas.

Actually, not only do states not have to be winner-take-all (as Maine and Nebraska prove) they don't even have to let their citizens vote.  If, say, Nevada, wants to have its own legislature vote for its electors, it can do so (that's kind of how it was originally set up).   (I could not find a great source, but it's discussed in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#Alternative_methods_of_choosing_electors) 

*this would probably make gerrymandering even worse.

Lerxst1992 said:

show previous quotes

pjl44 said:

The gif that defines Bernie. He will not be willing to work with the moderates so why should the party change their rules after the fact?

brianlux said:

show previous quotes

Lerxst1992 said:

pjl44 said:

The gif that defines Bernie. He will not be willing to work with the moderates so why should the party change their rules after the fact?

Why jump to conclusions so fast?  What was Bernie's reply?  Might have been very friendly.  A brief chopped gif defines nothing.

brianlux said:

show previous quotes

cincybearcat said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

pjl44 said:

The gif that defines Bernie. He will not be willing to work with the moderates so why should the party change their rules after the fact?

Why jump to conclusions so fast?  What was Bernie's reply?  Might have been very friendly.  A brief chopped gif defines nothing.

Hahahahaha have you been following bernies run for President at all over the last 6 years??

Nahhhh!  Not that long. 

"What's for dinner?"

"Chopped gifs 'n Bernie dawgs!"