11·
3 days agoWhich Democratic Socialist candidate won the plurality of pledged delegates from the popular vote in the primaries and was then not nominated?
Baron Von J
I play guitar, watch USMLR and NHL, occasionally brew beer, enjoy live music and travel, and practice sarcasm.
Mastodon - @baronvonj@mas.to
Pixelfed - @baronvonj@pixelfed.social
- 0 Posts
- 20 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: June 11th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
We need the ballot access that the Democratic Party has to get any success much beyond local offices, maybe county. Only three minor parties had ballot access in more than 10 states in 2024. Over 99% of state and federal legislatives offices are either Republican or Democratic. Zero electoral votes have gone to a third party presidential candidate since 1968 (and Perot received just shy of 19% of the national popular vote in 1992).
Call me when they remove the corporate interests
Agreed
DNC listens to Dem voters about nominees.
They nominees are the ones who win the primaries, regardless of who the DNC wants the nominees to be. Progressive candidates need to run and progressive voters need to show up.
While there may be an element of the language you use, as a progressive, Fox News has been shown to actively mis/dis-inform their viewers. So if they’re watching Fox there’s a fair chance that the reporting they hear on these issues is either drastically skewed or entirely non-existent.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/
if we all wait around for the Dems to save us. If the Democrats want my vote, they need to put AOC on the ticket. If they want to run actual progressives,
This right here is what I’m saying. Anybody who meets the requirements can declare their candidacy in the party primary. We don’t need the party to turn around and say “oh hey here’s a bunch of candidates for you to pick from.” Was AOC given to us by the party? NO! She just up and ran against an incumbent because she saw Bernie do it. And the voters in the district showed up and voted for her. Fuck what “the party” wants and use their process to get what we want! It’s not up to the party to put someone on the ticket, it’s up to that someone to register to be on the primary ballot and the god damn primary voters to show up and vote!
The DNC playing favorites in 2016.
They did, but it didn’t matter, because more people showed to the primaries to vote for Clinton than did for Bernie. She had more pledged delegates, elected by the primary voters, going into the convention and the superdelegates didn’t even need to vote for her to win the nomination. The party even changed the convention rules starting in 2018 so that the superdelegatees don’t even vote unless the pledged delegates (the ones elected by the primary voters) can’t elect a candidate in the first vote.
More likely I won’t be able to vote by then because I’m trans.
Stay safe and know that you are still valued and welcome by millions of people.
Edit, I didn’t it down votes you by the way that was somebody else. We can disagree without a petty down vote war
Agree on that. Cheers!
I don’t think they’ve participated in them consistently enough and in a large enough scale for it. Either that or there simply aren’t enough progressive voters to defeat the centrists and neoliberals. In which case splintering into a third party essentially means permanent Republican majority. Everybody wants to cite Bernie as proof that a progressive isn’t allowed to win when the reality is simply that more people voted for Hillary in 2016 (not a single superdelegate vote was needed to give her the win at the convention, and the DNC changed the rules in 2018 onwards so that superdelegates don’t even vote in the convention unless the pledged delegates can’t elect a nominee in the first round) and the same is true of Biden in 2020.
Indeed I agree. Which is why I’m advocating for progressive candidates to run in the Democratic party primaries, and for the progressive voters to actually support them in those primaries.
Second, only 19% of respondents said they supported displacing the people of Gaza to other countries, including 32% of Republicans and 12% of Democrats, while 34% opposed the move, including 28% of Republicans and 39% of Democrats.
1 in 5 isn’t a very fine-grained metric. 19% of US Americans is a lot of people. I’m glad it’s not bigger, but still wish it was a lot smaller.
I call bullshit on the vote splitting.
So you’re either voting a right-leaning candidate or a left-leaning candidate. If there are multiple candidates from one of those two halves of the spectrum on the ballot where the recipient of the most votes wins, the vote for that half is split and lowers the threshold for the most popular candidate from the other half.
And so far, the Democrats have been fucking useless. So what we vote for a useless Democrat, or a fascist, or split the ticket and maybe someone worth a shit will win.
So don’t vote for them. Get a progressive to run in the next primary and then go vote in the primary to replace the useless person. When I advocate for voting in the Democratic primaries, it’s not to support incumbents like Pelosi and Schumer. They can fuck all the way off for failing so badly. It’s to utilize the infrastructure and ballot access that the Democratic party has that no third party can come remotely close to competing with. After decades of existence neither the Green party nor the Libertarian party were on the ballot in all 50 states in 2024. By all means, go 3rd party in local, even county, races when they have a chance in the polls.
The primaries are open to any candidate who meets the requirements (ie filing deadline and signatures from the district, etc). Don’t rely on a party to provide you a candidate. Fucking go participate in the process to select better candidates (but they also have to actually fucking run in those primaries, too).
In 2016, folks voted against Hillary. Get that, many folks saw Hillary as the greater of two evils and voted for Trump.
90% of Bernie voters stayed with Democratic party and voted for Hilary
If Bernie had been on the ticket he could have pulled votes from both of them and then maybe Hillary would have won Trump would have won or Bernie would have won. We don’t know.
But he wasn’t, because progressive voters didn’t show up enough in the primaries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate#2016_election
Sanders initially said that the candidate with the majority of pledged delegates should be the nominee; in May 2016, after falling behind in the elected delegate count, he shifted, pushed for a contested convention and arguing that, “The responsibility that superdelegates have is to decide what is best for this country and what is best for the Democratic Party.”[46][54] Ultimately, Clinton won the nomination without relying on the votes of superdelegates; she led Sanders by a substantial number of elected delegates (from primary and caucus votes), as well by a substantial margin in the popular vote.
More people voted for Hillary, so she was the nominee. And that’s my point. You can overcome
It’s time progressives break ranks with the duo poly. And if that means splitting the ticket then so be it.
It doesn’t fucking have to mean splitting the vote. Just fucking vote for progressives in the god damn primaries!
I will say this, I won’t get off the couch to vote for Newsome. As he has already proven that he is perfectly willing to throw me under the bus for power.
If the alternative is measurably worse, then you are just making easier for them to win by reducing the number of votes they need to receive in order to win.
Progressives will be trying to build an alternative to the corporatist zionist dems.
But how? There are already multiple parties beyond the big two. Minor parties who have existed for decades. But only 3 of them were on the ballot in more than 10 states in 2024. There’s just no way, in voting math, that a new party can just drop in and take place. Local and county seats (your link about SF LatinX group), sure. But state and federal 3rd parties are a pipe dream.
If there are enough progressives to beat a Democratic candidate (not even win the general but just beat the Democratic candidate), then there enough to win the Democratic primary. And then there will be a chance to beat the Republican rather than splitting the vote. And if there aren’t, then splitting the vote just means more MAGA.
If that means progressives finally surging to run and vote in the Democratic primaries then great. Reminder that the Tea Party movement wasn’t ever a 3rd party, and a significant contributor to its success was the billionaire Koch brothers pouring money into state legislatures first, and US Congress second. A new minor party won’t succeed much beyond county level without nationwide electoral reform (ranked choice), and only 26 states have voter-led ballot initiatives (the rest require the legislature to approve direct ballot propositions).
Considering the Democratic Party has done this 3 times in a row and that they refuse to primary wildly unpopular members of their own party.
The primaries are open to anybody who meets the requirements. We don’t have to wait for “the party” to provide us with better candidates. The better candidates just have to follow the process to declare themselves a candidate. And then we just have to show up and vote for them.
Bernie Sanders got screwed over by the super delegates who all went for unpopular Hillary Clinton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate#2016_election
Sanders initially said that the candidate with the majority of pledged delegates should be the nominee; in May 2016, after falling behind in the elected delegate count, he shifted, pushed for a contested convention and arguing that, “The responsibility that superdelegates have is to decide what is best for this country and what is best for the Democratic Party.”[46][54] Ultimately, Clinton won the nomination without relying on the votes of superdelegates; she led Sanders by a substantial number of elected delegates (from primary and caucus votes), as well by a substantial margin in the popular vote.
Also at the top of that page:
In 2018, the Democratic National Committee reduced the influence of superdelegates by barring them from voting on the first ballot at the Democratic National Convention, allowing them to vote only in a contested convention.
Imagine how wildly different things would be if he was the Democratic nominee in 2016?
It’s sad to think about how much better things could have been, and also if we had had Gore in 2000. But we shouldn’t forget that Clinton won the primaries popular vote by enough that the superdelegates’ votes didn’t matter.
Ballotpedia makes it even more bleak than I thought: “Three minor parties were recognized in more than 10 states as of January 2025”
https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States
I thought the Libertarians were on the ballot in all 50 states. Just crazy when you consider Perot had just shy of 20% of the popular vote in 1992 (and still received zero electoral votes).
3rd party for anything beyond county level just isn’t happening without ranked choice.
Started a Tea Party like movement? Or started saying we need one? Because he did not start one at all.
The Republican Tea party movement started with Ron Paul running in the 2008 Republican primaries, and that having an impact on the kinds of Republicans who won the 2010 primaries and became part of the House flipping that year. Bernie started a progressive movement for the Democratic party by … running in the 2016 Democratic party. And that had an impact of more progressives running in the 2018 primaries (hello Squad) and helping flip the House that year.
If he had we would have Democrat voters coming out in primaries more, and kicking out establishment Dems more if they don’t adhere to the parties core beliefs. He may have wanted to start one back then, but it was a false start because people lost a lot of steam when he wasn’t the candidate. Sure there were a lot of progressives elected in the next midterm, but that should have been a continuing trend, instead of something that plateaus.
Well maybe progressive voters should have kept at it, then. It’s a long road to change an organization that big. I would actually put the moment as being in the 2020 primaries when a bunch of the moderates dropped out to coalesce for Biden before super Tuesday when it looked like FPTP was helping Bernie. But that just again speaks to the fact that not enough progressives were coming out to vote.
The Left has lost steam with their movement because they don’t keep their eye on the ball, we get distracted with infighting and splitting our votes with third parties instead of relentlessly pursuing our goal of remaking the party, something the Tea Party movement did extremely well at.
Ok we’re on the same page mostly. The Tea Parties continued momentum was, in no insignificant part, thanks to the billionaire Koch brothers co-opting it by funding a bazillion primary challenges to win over state legislatures towards their goal of calling a Constitutional Convention to rewrite it in their anarcho-capitalist ideals. They weren’t quite as interested in the US Congress or the presidency.
So, I still maintain that Bernie already started the movement in much the same way that Ron Paul started theirs. Just by running in the primary and inspiring both voters and candidates to go out to the primaries.
Dunno if running in the Republican primary would be worth anything because Republican primaries are very MAGA and if you aren’t that then you won’t get the nom at all.
Sometimes just getting a platform to speak your ideas is enough to get things going. Progressive ballot measures did well in 2024. Conservative voters can change their minds when confronted with first hand experience. Bernie convinced a Fox News studio audience to like Medicare for all. And even losing the primary after that, the exposure could very well help you get the signatures to appear on the general ballot as an independent.
Dude should be saying we need our own tea party movement where we take over the Democrat party. Not that we need to fracture ourselves even more.
He already started it in 2016.
That said, I think there is an argument for independent runs in purely local politics in areas that only have Republicans run for things and have a hatred for Democrats they can’t seem to move past.
Yes. Or even run in the Republican primary (might be easier to get on the primary ballot than to get on the general election ballot).
After how 40 years of operation, the Green Party still isn’t on the ballot in 10 states. Less than 1% of the legislative offices around the country (state and federal) are held by 3rd party or independents. You need to either make ranked choice voting the state-wide method in your state first, or put that energy into taking over your state’s Democratic party via the primaries and the internal leadership elections.
But we still need a DNC and state parties if only to facilitate primaries, that’s a very important function. a month ago when we got a DNC chair who will let a fair primary happen… Now is the time to rally around the new Dem party, not make a new one
Totally agree here with emphasis on the new part. Surge the turnout in the primaries. Without ballot access in every state it’s just not realistic to expect a 3rd party can rise up and replace the Democratic party in 2026 or 2028. Except in states with direct ballot initiatives to switch to ranked choice voting, but even that is only a solution for at best the election after getting that voted into existence.
I don’t think they will this time. Republican representatives have already had to stop holding town halls because their districts are so pissed off at Musk and DOGE.
So not really Christian values.