OK, here goes.
A core principle of the way the presidential primary process is designed is that broad acceptance of the nominee is important. (1/7)
(Read all 7 before you yell at me if you want any response, which isn’t guaranteed even then.)
A core principle of the way the presidential primary process is designed is that broad acceptance of the nominee is important. (1/7)
(Read all 7 before you yell at me if you want any response, which isn’t guaranteed even then.)
We don’t award all delegates in a given state to the candidate who wins a plurality. We don’t have a single national primary day. The rules don’t say “plurality of delegates win”—in fact, they’re designed so that candidate must win over some for whom s/he wasn’t 1st choice (2/7)
All those design choices and more reward candidates who can win the supporters of those opponents who have fallen short and left the race. To favor candidates who are broadly acceptable over those who are acceptable to a smaller number, but the first choice of more. (3/7)
And that’s a reasonable way to set up a party nomination process. Not the *only* reasonable way, but *a* reasonable way. A party standard-bearer should be acceptable to as much of the party as possible. (Side note: ranked choice voting please!)
(4/7)
(4/7)
Sometimes compromise has merit. If 7 friends are going to dinner and 3 want steak and 2 don’t care and 2 are vegetarian, the 3 who want steak are assholes if they insist on a steakhouse restaurant just because they have a plurality. (5/7)
Now, it’s also quite reasonable to say “we should nominate the candidate with the most votes & delegates,” and I certainly won’t disparage those who hold this position. (6/7)
What isn’t reasonable is pretending “plurality wins primary” is a sacred principle when four years ago you took the opposite stance, or pretending it is the only logical & principled position and those who disagree with you are cheating scoundrels.
(7/7)
(7/7)
PS:
* If a candidate has a large lead & a near-majority, s/he will very likely be the nominee. A 28% plurality? Less likely—and far less claim to it.
* If convention goes past 1st ballot, superdelegates are less likely to be determinative than regular delegates switching.
* If a candidate has a large lead & a near-majority, s/he will very likely be the nominee. A 28% plurality? Less likely—and far less claim to it.
* If convention goes past 1st ballot, superdelegates are less likely to be determinative than regular delegates switching.
Which is to say: much current angst is likely misplaced and everyone should probably spend the next few weeks advocating for their preferred candidate rather than pre-litigating a fight that may never happen (and on which their principles will likely mutate as convenient.)
