General Politics Discussion (VI) [ARCHIVED] • Page 2129

sure. Because it would be. If you get a brokered convention and walk away with one of the candidates who was running still winning a large portion of the party is gonna be mad that they have to be the ones to make the sacrifice while some other candidate gets to win. If you go with an outside candidate, no one is perfectly happy but on the flip side I don't think they would be as mad.

 

I know he’s basically the Cory Gardner of the Dems in that he’s taken a fuck it approach because he knows he’s not winning in November...but damn I do like this guy.

 

I'd be okay if the convention was brokered and went to The Rock. Please don't roast me.

 

This is the dumbest take in the history of this thread maybe? That after spending millions of dollars, campaigning for months, organizing and building out a policy platform, and having millions of people invest their time and effort to support a large field of candidates, thinking the DNC saying a big FUCK YOU to everyone involved and throwing out a nobody that has never campaigned would be a GOOD idea is just insanity.

This is has to be a bit and it’s gone on way too long.

 

What world are you living in lmao

 

I'm convinced Clucky works for WWE and is the reason they constantly say fuck it and just throw brock lesnar back out there lol

 

The DNC ignoring the entire primary and picking Tammy fucking Baldwin not only wouldn’t get me out of bed to vote for her on Election Day, id probably become a Republican. Why would I trust the Democrats ever again if they pulled some nothing matters fuck you shit like that?

 

Anyway, Romney actually having the balls to make the vote is good. Love to see action, even if his intentions are inherently craven because Trump is not popular in Utah and he sees the writing on the wall that this is not going to end well.

 

Someone already pointed it out but imagine everyone who worked on all of these campaigns, watching someone completely uninvolved with the entire process until the last minute take it from all of them. “They wouldn’t be that mad” absolutely delusional lol

edit: didn’t read incognitojones’ reiteration of the point before I typed this lol

 

I mean the other option is to tell the majority of your party FUCK YOU YOU HAVE TO COMPROMISE THESE PEOPLE DON'T which is even more insane. None of the candidates would have a clear mandate from the party in that scenario. You would need a hybrid policy platform to actually help get everyone on board. And I think a lot of voters would having trusting a candidate they didn't support to actually support the dems policy platform instead of their own.

 

I figured out the bit. He's riffing on a storyline from the West Wing. Governor Baker enters a brokered convention in the 11th hour and almost wins.

 

It's an important storyline because a character actually suggests a foreign nation might blackmail a first lady over having depression.

 

Wanting Biden or Pete over someone like Baldwin just because Biden and Pete campaigned and their supporters put energy into their campaigns is a really dumb take

 

Democrats 2020: We All Lose Together!

 

Streetlight Manifesto gonna play the rallies "And when we faaaaaaall, we will fall together"

 

It's absolutely not more insane. Jason's point aside about the campaigns having poured all of those resources and people's efforts into them (which is a good point), imagine wanting somebody who has never been held accountable on a debate stage, who has never spoken at a rally or a town hall or anywhere laying out their policy points, being the one whom we would lift up as the nominee. THAT'S insane.

 

It’s not at all about wanting them over Baldwin. It’s about your insistence that Baldwin or whoever getting it would make anyone anything less than absolutely furious.

 

I have no dog in this fight but brokered conventions where someone from out of left field and never being nominated in the lead up or during the initial stages of the convention has happened in history. There is a few where the convention couldn't agree and then picked someone that was not expected.

 

sure thing man, we are all wrong, it should be john edwards or some shit. you got it.

 

Two questions: Did any of them win? Did any of that happen past 1900?

Serious question lol

 

So instead of telling the majority of the party the have to compromise, you want to tell THE ENTIRETY of the party that they don’t matter and the DNC is just putting up someone who did nothing?

This is too insane to even comprehend, the party would dissolve before they did some shit like this. EVERYONE would be furious, the Democrat party would be torn down and rightfully so. They’d lose every state, lowest turnout in history, no confidence, just give the country to the Republicans.

If no one has a majority they should give it to the candidate with the most support who will make some policy concessions. It’s not that hard unless you want to set a world record for incompetence.

 

Yes and Yes

The big reason this hasn't happened since around that time is that they changed the two-thirds of delegate threshold in 1936...I believe.

 

Got ya.

 

I know it hasn’t happened with the presidency but I’m pretty sure that’s how we got stuck with Truman as VP and then eventually president

 

I believe Warren Harding was one though that was on the tenth ballot I think and John Davis was after the 103rd ballot.