Opponents of trump can not agree. Their disagreements will help him become president again.
Before the new US presidential elections, which will be held on November 3, another eight months, however, the election race is in full swing. On March 3, the country hosted the traditional “Super Tuesday” – the most ambitious voting day on which candidates fight to support their parties in many states at the same time. This year, he decided on the fate of the Democrats and determined who would become Donald Trump’s main rival in the fall. And now we can say with confidence: the Democratic Party once again relied on moderation, frightened by overly radical trends. How the events of the American “Super Tuesday” developed and which of the candidates for the presidency was the winner – in the material.
American parties approached the “Super Tuesday” -2020 in a completely different form. The Republicans are all clear: no one seriously disputes Trump’s candidacy for the second time, the party literally rallied around the current president. Yes, formally, the “Reds” also hold their primaries, but there is no real struggle for them, just as they will not during the official selection of the candidate at the congress next summer.
But the Democrats were not so simple: a single leader simply did not exist. In fact, the party continued a long-term split between supporters of moderate politics and adherents of a more radical approach. And since it’s not ordinary people who vote in the “Super Tuesday”, namely party members for their own candidates, the process, which in fact is able to identify an almost unconditional leader, turned out to be extremely dramatic.
This time, the Democrats distributed a third (1357) of all the votes of party electors – people who, in the national convention of the party, will officially select Trump’s opponent in the summer. For comparison: a candidate needs to get a minimum of 1991 votes to run.
The Democrats had three main candidates. The leader of the polls by March 3 was Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a socialist and supporter of radical transformations. He, in particular, proposes to stop military operations abroad, introduce free medicine and raise taxes for wealthy citizens. At the same time, he openly says that he does not know where he will take the money for universal health care, and more and more resembles the radical Trump in 2016, notes Americanist, expert of the Russian Council on Foreign Affairs Alexei Naumov.
In second place was former vice president Joe Biden, whose name has repeatedly been heard in the press in connection with the scandal surrounding Trump and Ukraine. He suggests reinstating US membership in the Iranian nuclear deal, raising the minimum wage and expanding union authority. Initially, he was called the main rival of the current American leader, but then his positions were shaken. However, in the end, his not-so-outstanding primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada were overshadowed by a crushing victory in South Carolina, where the black population is high.
In his favor, he also played a way out of the race just before the “Super Tuesday ” of Senator Amy Klobuchar, as well as former mayor and openly gay Pete Buttidzhich. They called on their supporters to support Biden, which is seen as a call for moderate Democrats to unite in opposition to the radical Sanders. “The struggle has begun between the two Septuagenarians (people aged 70 to 79 years – approx. Lenti.ru” ): a revolution led by Sanders against a restoration led by Biden, ”wrote Politico.
The dark horse, the third challenger, and yet another moderate candidate was the former mayor of New York, billionaire Michael Bloomberg. He completely missed the first primaries for the sake of the “Super Tuesday”, where he hoped to shoot. For the sake of this, he invested hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising. He also planned to attract black voters, but in this field, his chances were limited by Biden’s last success. However, Bloomberg’s entry into the game could delay the vice president’s vote.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren also stood out among the candidates. In general, her views are similar to those of Sanders, but she tried to appear as a less radical politician. Her bid during the February primaries did not materialize, but before the “Super Tuesday” she did not begin to withdraw her candidacy, hoping for victory in her native state. The fifth contender, the congresswoman from the state of Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard, basically had no chance of winning.
“Let’s win on Tuesday, move forward from the Democratic Party, defeat Trump and transform the country!” – Sanders said after the defeat in South Carolina. As a result of March 3, he could break out into almost unconditional leaders, but the Democrats’ reluctance to support his strongly leftist and socialist views still made itself felt.
Who will win
In the current “Super Tuesday”, voting took place in 14 states and on the territory of American Samoa. In total, this is about 130 million citizens – ten times more than in the four regions where the primaries and caucuses took place in February. At the same time, the states of the “Super Tuesday” are more heterogeneous in the racial composition of the population: in 53 percent of the white population versus 64 in those where the primaries will be held later.
The biggest change this year is the postponement of voting in California, the most populous state. It usually took place there in June, when the results were more or less clear. It was in California that Sanders made a serious bet (in 2016, he devastatingly lost there to Hillary Clinton ). According to surveys, he was the only one who could overcome the mark of 15 percent of the Democrats supporting him throughout the state. Such a victory would be a huge incentive for his campaign.
So far, the results for the state are preliminary, but it seems that Sanders will win there. However, this result will bring him a few advantages: in total, he takes first place in only three states – in his native Vermont, Colorado, and Utah.
While the struggle continues in Texas, which all candidates have relied on. However, even here Sanders seems to give way to Biden. Bloomberg also wanted to rise in this state, however, despite his invested funds, his campaign turned out to be a complete failure: he could win only in American Samoa and almost never even got close not only to the first but also to the second place. According to Alexei Naumov, Bloomberg was under pressure from a party that would like to force him to withdraw from the race: his entry into the game could only further spray the voices of the moderate wing.
Senator Warren, hoping to win at least in Massachusetts, which has been representing for eight years, could not do this either. She was overtaken by both Biden and Sanders, which shows a loss of support among her main supporters – women, white voters with higher education and liberals.
The undeniable triumph of the “Super Tuesday” was Biden with a victory in ten states: it seems that the tactics of the moderate Democrats to rally around him bore fruit
This alignment was a serious failure for Sanders because he was predicted by more than half of all votes – about 700 out of 1357. Now, on the side of the “democratic socialist,” there will be only about 500 voters – less than Biden. Thus, it becomes clear that the Democrats were not able to choose the “unambiguous leader” for confronting Trump.
As noted by Alexei Naumov, democratic politicians personify the split that emerged in the party back in 2016. Party elites want Biden or Bloomberg to win: they believe that Sanders’s ideas are too radical, and therefore will not find the support of voters.
Moderate Democrats hope that he will not gain the votes of the delegates in 1991, and so-called second-ballot voting will be applied. During this procedure, delegates are exempted from being tied to candidates and are free to vote as they please, and the candidate needs to get 2375.5 votes. At the same time, the so-called “superdelegates” – 771 representatives of party elites also take part in the vote. In this case, they are likely to rally around the establishment candidate and ensure victory for him. And, apparently, this scenario is becoming more and more real.
At the same time, the Republican Party believes that a protracted struggle in the ranks of the Democrats will ultimately benefit Trump. There is a difference: while the Republicans stand behind the incumbent as a united front, their opponents continue the internal struggle and cannot decide on the general course, only increasing the distrust of voters.
Where did the “super Tuesday” come from?
As told The Washington Post, experts, the tradition of holding elections in a number of regions at the same time began in the 1980s, after in 1984, Republican Ronald Reagan defeated the candidate of the Democratic Party Walter Mondale. As a result, Democrats decided to hold primaries in the southern states earlier in order to try to attract a more conservative wing and thus increase support for a more moderate candidate.
Gradually, the “Super Tuesday” became more diverse geographically. In the course of the vote, the states now rather want not to influence the elections, but to speak earlier, fearing that otherwise they will be left overboard when making decisions. And since at the same time voting takes place in a large number of states, “supertues” can either turn out to be decisive for candidates or intensify the struggle.
What happens after the primaries? According to their results, parties at the summer congresses elect candidates who will fight directly in the elections. Independent applicants can also be nominated in parallel – they need to collect signatures in the states and pay fees on time.
A popular vote on the final list of candidates for the highest post takes place in November: on the first Tuesday following the first Monday. However, due to the two-stage system, the winner is not immediately announced; first, an electoral college is formed. And only their vote, held on the 41st day after the popular election, finally identifies the new president.
In general, the US election system has been considered irrelevant for many years. The procedure for electing the American president not directly, but with the help of electors, was approved in 1787. Then the United States had not survived the civil war, and slavery was an important social factor. Since the Negroes, for the most part, did not have the right to vote, a huge number of the country’s inhabitants did not affect the election process. The appointment of electors has alleviated this problem.
In addition, such a system does not allow the most populous states to distract the attention of candidates. In direct elections, the applicant would need to enlist the support of about a dozen states, in which more than half of the total population is concentrated.
There are currently 538 electors, and they are unevenly distributed across the states. Each state has as many electors as it has seats in both houses of Congress. Moreover, in the Senate (upper house) there are always two representatives, in the House of Representatives (lower) the number depends on the size of the state’s population. As a result, it turns out that one elector in different states represents a different number of residents, and electoral votes from sparsely populated states are more valuable.
All this, coupled with the well-established electoral preferences of the states (and they are actually divided into democratic “blue” and republican “red”), allows candidates to focus on “fluctuating” regions where the result is not known in advance. It may also happen that the candidate who has won the majority of the votes of the Americans does not become president since the other bypass him in the number of electors. It is worth noting that the electors can vote differently than the people have authorized them, but there haven’t been many such cases in the whole history, and they haven’t affected the result.
46 total views, 1 views today