382
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
382 points (95.5% liked)
politics
19144 readers
2119 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Preserve American Democracy!
From the party who said primaries aren't real elections, they dont have to follow results, and were lucky they let us have them anyways!
By the president we're not allowed to primary! He won an unfair primary 4 years ago and now we're not allowed another
Such freedom...
In another 5 years we might get to vote for someone who might possibly claim they'll fight for abortion rights, fix healthcare, or stand against genocide.
Of course, if they lie to get elected we'll have to wait 8 years for the chance to pick anyone besides them or a Republican.
Sooooo much democracy
The only time a primary has "split the vote" in the general in modern history was when Clinton supporters voted Romney over Obama
And Obama still won.
Because even the majority of moderates know voting R is stupid. And no progressive is going to vote R.
So maybe if Biden lost wed see some vote trump out of spite.
But we'd likely see the same thing with Obama where lots of traditional non voters turn out
You just conveniently forgetting the time we handed Trump a 4 year term on a silver platter? Wasn't that long ago.
Fortunately for us, being the coalition party of change and progress in general, we can actually admit when we make mistakes and try to learn lessons from them. If we couldn't do that, we wouldn't deserve anyone's votes anyway.
not everyone did
was not allowed to vote
Are...
Are you really saying a primary is why Clinton lost?
Does that mean you're arguing we shouldnt have any primaries at all?
I don't understand how your comment is relevant if that's not what you're saying
Oh, absolutely Clinton lost because of the bad taste left from her primary, 100%. She handled the entire Bernie situation very, very poorly and paid the price for it.
No, this does not mean we should get rid of primaries, that is an extremely stupid idea.
😖🤚 getting rid of primary elections
😏👉 getting rid of two-party system
I have not seen this done with emojis before…
But...
Bernie supporters still overwhelming voted for her in the general.
The primary wasn't why Clinton lost, she lost because she was a terrible candidate and no one on her campaign knew what the electoral college was.
And obviously, her team helping trump in the primary was a bigger reason she lost to trump in the general, although she'd have likely lost to anyone else too. The whole reason they helped trump was they thought he was the only candidate Hillary could win against.
I just don't see any logic or basis in facts in your opinions man.
Got a source for that? I remember a lot of "maybe the DNC needs to learn a lesson."
Which, they were right, and we did. But it came at enormous cost.
It's insane people are still asking that...
And to be honest you're starting to lose benefit of the doubt here.
A higher percentage of registered Dems voted McCain over Obama than Bernie primary voters voted for trump.
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_and_liberal_support_for_John_McCain_in_2008
Normally I'd assume someone would figure out on their own that there's a shit ton more registered Dems in 08 than people who voted for Bernie in the primary in 2016. And I wouldn't think it was necessary to point out that a lot more than 10% of Bernie's primary voter don't always vote D or even consider themselves Democrats...
But the way this exchange has been going, I feel I need to explicitly mention that stuff.
You also shouldn't be surprised if I don't respond to any more of your comments at this point.
10% of democratic socialist supporters voting for Trump is terrifying. Do we have data on how many didn't vote in the general at all?
10% of moderate dem voters supporting a moderate repub makes a lot more sense.
edit for a word
Yeah, I'm blocking as soon as I finish typing this...
For everyone else:
Way more than 10% of Bernie's primary votes came from people who would never vote D in their life. He got "non voters", 3rd parties, and even a significant amount that normally vote R.
All of this shit is almosy a decade old now. Anyone that genuinely had these questions really should have been able to figure this out by now, and there's no way I'm the first to try and explain it.
Frankly, many have tried to explain it to me, but it always falls apart when I apply pressure, and the person gets upset. With how close and pivotal the election was, it creates very strong feelings, so I honestly don't really blame people for getting angry.
But for anyone who was around, it's very easy to remember just how huge a clusterfuck it all was.
Regardless, block me if you like, but that doesn't sound like a very productive decision for someone who really is trying to fight for a better, fairer, more just USA.
I volunteered for both Bernie campaigns and can tell you that, if you were paid attention, Bernie always said that if it became apparent he could not win the nomination he would drop out and support the nominee. I'm sure there were many people who are attracted to some of the things Bernie said and who would have voted for him who otherwise would not have voted for a Democrat, and who subsequently did not vote for Hillary. I remember pulling an exit pulling at the time that said virtually all of Sanders' supporters turned around and voted for Hillary; that's what Bernie urged them to do and had been urging all along. Perhaps is endorsement could have been a little more full-throated, but I think it was appropriate for how he was treated.
An alarming number of Clinton supporters voted to put Palin in the VP slot. They formed a fucking PAC to try to make it happen.
@givesomefucks and, in fact, it is that willingness to betray that is why the right wing controls the democratic party.
It the danger of "moderates" if a dem candidate is even a little progressive, they'll stomp their feet and vote Republican so they can claim Dems lost because we ran a progressive.
But the good news is progressives candidates make up for them by getting the 1/3 of non voters to turn out for once.
Moderates try to hold the party hostage, there's just not enough of them
Unfortunately they are the ones party leaders agree with
So the solution is to replace them through primaries.
Downside to that, party leaders are legally allowed to do whatever they want, even ignoring primary results.
It's a fucked up situation, and anyone acting like it's simple is likely on the side of those moderates throwing tantrums. They know it's not simple, they just have zero qualms lying to get what they want.
She won the popular vote by millions.
Ahem, we paid the price for it.
You are 100% allowed to join the DNC, run a campaign against Biden, and spend tons of time and money trying to convince the DNC to give you all their money instead of Biden for a presidential campaign. It won't work, but you can try.
Here's an article about 5 incumbent presidents that got primaried. Spoiler: they all won their primaries
https://time.com/5682760/incumbent-presidents-primary-challenges/
Only if the DNC allowed a primary, which they're not this year....
And the DNC would be allowed to influence the primary against me in anyway they want...
They could even wait till I win, then say "nah, don't think we will" and nominate Biden to the general.
This isn't my opinion, this is what the dnc told a judge, and the judge agreed.
Even further tho, the judge said the DNC can continue to claim primaries will be fair even if they're not, because it's just a "political promise" and politicians apparently are 100% allowed to lie about whether they're honest.
https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/
So yes, I can 100% try to run.
But even if I win, the DNC doesn't have to listen to voters.
Well yeah, they already have an incumbent and no one was dumb enough to burn piles of money running a campaign to try and primary that candidate.
Yes, political parties are basically private clubs, you join them, donate money, pledge support etc. They aren't public entities any more than the Dallas Cowboys are. They exist to aggregate money and votes, and they elect their own leaders to manage those resources. If they decide to choose their candidate via tea leaves or throwing bones, no one could stop them, save to elect new party leaders.
I don't know how parties are run elsewhere, but thats how they work in the U.S. They aren't constitutionally codified or defended in any way. They're a shortcut for voters and super popular because they save people time and effort. If someone came up with a better way to all but guarantee votes for a candidate, it would instantly replace parties.
No, no one had the option to try...
I
Just so we're on the same page, each state decides how it chooses candidates to put on the ballot. That's the whole thing going on with DT and the SC right now.
Derived from that power is the president primary, where parties from each state decide who to present as their candidate.
The Democratic National Committee says "Ok, everyone should just submit Biden as the candidate and skip the primary" because that's what they decided is best.
It's now up to the state parties to implement that decision or not. New Hampshire, for example, decided to hold a primary anyway:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dnc-blasts-new-hampshire-democrats-over-detrimental-primary-plans/ar-AA1mArq2
But it's politics, so who knows if it'll actually happen. I just want to point out that the national committee doesn't have power over what the states get to do, it's all just a power brokering game.
States can't put someone a ballot for a race that doesn't exist...
It's not that Biden is unopposed, it's that there isn't going to be a race.
And the only ones that have a say, are the people running the DNC.
Since that's mostly decided by how much money you can pull in...
How is this not the rich overriding democracy?
That's just not how it works. If New Hampshire decides to put Steamboat Willy on the ballot, only the SC could stop them, maybe. it's kind of up in the air right now apparently.
Realistically, no one wants to give up that sweet national committee money, so they'll probably cave, and it is the rich owning democracy. That's why I kept saying you'd have to light money on fire to get it done, but it could theoretically be done: you just have to grease a lot of wheels.
Actually, never mind
tl;dr: be the highest bidder.
Sounds like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about
everything I said is fact. It occurs to me in retrospect that the person I'm responding to doesn't realize that primaries are essentially a private function. If you make your own political party, you can have primaries every day!
Voting is a chess move, not a love letter.
Brilliant.
Blame Van Buren!
Don't forget the part where in 8 years a whole new crop of fresh faces will be old enough to argue that you don't understand politics lol
Kill me