LogFAQs > #933413562

Paratroopa1 posted...

d) I think this argument is a huge problem for our democracy, because it implies that we should hand the nomination over to the first side who's willing indicate that they'll throw a temper tantrum if it's not their nominee. I am NOT ACCUSING ANYONE HERE OF DOING THIS, mind you, but it IS the implication of a policy like this that one side would be able to hold the other sides hostage simply by being the first to refuse to budge. The reality is more complicated, of course, but I don't think this is a healthy way to look at how we should choose the nominee.

i don't see this being what that data says at all.
to me that data is just another poll indicating how firm the base is for the Democrats. i'd want a candidate that doesn't have ridiculously high numbers on this because that'd be one of the clearest signs that they can draw support from outside of the base. how many republicans or independents can warren or pete pull? not many. biden can't either but i give him more credit than either of those. bernie? a decent amount. yang? his base largely isn't democrats, he polls VERY well outside the party which makes him someone to look out for in NH - their primary isn't limited to just democrats. this is quite healthy as it means you're getting a diverse palette of individuals involved with the party. i don't like or want a voterbase that's strictly "I MUST VOTE WITH THE PARTY," that is bad for democracy. this isn't. the cringe numbers are the "vote blue no matter who (unless it's the guys i don't like)" types, not the ones involved in the process in a wider base. convince them that those people should vote for you! like a democracy should do!

---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.