440
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 23 points 6 months ago

No shit but also why the fuck didn't we primary him?

[-] Nihilistic_Mystics@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago

People tried. They didn't even come close.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

Seems like they'd have done better with 62% of the voting public behind them.

Trump faced an entire gaggle of conservative opponents and rarely failed to clear the 50% mark by state.

Biden's biggest defeat was to the 20% of voters who cast spoiled ballots in Michigan. Marianna Williamson and Dean Phillips were barely acknowledged.

Even RFK Jr isn't polling at better than 10%.

Who do these people actually want for the position?

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 13 points 6 months ago
[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 13 points 6 months ago

Because causing division/voter apathy when facing a threat to democracy is a terrible idea

[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)
[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

Democracy is perfectly fine until my candidate loses, at which point democracy is dead until late September when mid-terms start ramping up, and then suddenly democracy works again and we need to get ready to vote in 2026.

[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Democracy would be cool with primarying an incumbent president. I checked.

[-] distractionfactory@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Democracy is perfectly fine until the candidate that loses refuses to accept the results, tries to retain power by force, then continues to try undermine faith in democracy for 4 years and is somehow still the frontrunner for his party.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

Democracy is perfectly fine until the candidate that loses refuses to accept the results

Sore Lieberman '00

[-] distractionfactory@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Gore’s VP (Joe)? I don’t remember all of the details, but that was legitimately a contested election by the numbers, not by a sore loser. Won the popular by a decent margin but lost the electoral. It was by a slim enough margin to trigger a recount. As far as contested elections go I thought that could have gone a whole lot worse.

I’m not sure I get the comparison here.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 months ago

So you can imagine how much worse 2 years of it would be

[-] Ilikecheese@lemm.ee 0 points 6 months ago

It’s not though. Even though we’d prefer a different candidate, everyone who isn’t a complete moron has at least agreed that we’re gonna stick with Biden because he’s better than the alternative and it’s not even close.

[-] Phegan@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

Democrats no long believe in primaries.

[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

All the way up till 2024 democrats were furiously protecting Biden. Shutting down any critism of him. Now it's election time and all the discussions they refused to have for the last 3 years are at the forefront. Shame they waste their energy defending the presidential elect rather than vetting the better candidates. Like thats never blown up in their faces.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 6 points 6 months ago

Except for the fact, of course, that the Democrat primaries have never been more democratic. But let's not let the facts or history get in the way of the narrative!

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

So you are admitting they were previously less democratic and could be more democratic?

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

I don't know if I would label it "admitting," but rather just being aware of history. Parties didn't start having votes until around WWII, and after all of the hand wringing after the 2008 and 2016 primaries, Democrats voted overwhelmingly to dilute their power even more.

Making 2020 the most democratic primary for Democrats ever.

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Did you mean 2024 or are you saying the recent primaries were less democratic (e.g. incumbent advantage).

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

Didn't really include them because they aren't concluded yet, but the rules have not changed.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Well, I mean it's a lot of effort rigging things so they don't look completely janky. Debbie Whatsername-Smith was done worn out at the end of 2016 making sure it was Her Turn.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

Watching the media lose its mind in 2020 when Bernie won Nevada, and candidates abandoning their campaigns like rats fleeing a sinking ship when he won California, really makes me think it was more than just DWS in 2016 fucking with things.

Also, whatever you do, don't google "Shadow Inc Acronym Iowa Primary" or trust anything this news article says about the caucus process because its fine, everything is fine, democracy is actually very healthy and normal in this country, and anyone who says otherwise is a Russian bot.

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Because the unwritten rule is not to run against the incumbent.

[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

That's just not good enough anymore

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

Because no primary challenger has ever beaten an incumbent for president. It would be a waste of time and money.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

no primary challenger has ever beaten an incumbent for president

So, a bit of history.

https://time.com/5682760/incumbent-presidents-primary-challenges/

Before primary elections became the dominant way to pick a nominee, party leaders were more able to either shut down challengers or smoothly pass the nomination to someone else. Notably, four incumbents who were denied the nomination in the 19th century — John Tyler, Andrew Johnson and Chester A. Arthur — had been Vice Presidents who rose to the Presidency following the deaths of their predecessors, perhaps suggesting they’d never won their parties’ full support in the first place.

Then

In the 1952 Democratic Party presidential primaries, President Harry S. Truman was challenged by Senator Estes Kefauver. Truman lost the New Hampshire primary to Kefauver and dropped out of the race shortly after.

Also

TIME reported that McCarthy’s surprisingly strong showing in the New Hampshire primary was a statement that was “as much anti-Johnson as antiwar,” citing a NBC poll that found more than half of Democrats didn’t even know McCarthy’s position on Vietnam. Less than a week after New Hampshire, Attorney General Robert Kennedy jumped into the race. Then, on March 31, Johnson announced he wasn’t going to run for re-election.

As TIME reported in the April 12, 1968, article on Johnson dropping out, “So low had Johnson’s popularity sunk, said one Democratic official, that last-minute surveys before the Wisconsin primary gave him a humiliating 12% of the vote there.”

It should be noted that Ford nearly lost to Reagan in 1976

He racked up 1,187 delegates compared to Ronald Reagan’s 1,070, which was barely more than the 1,130 he needed to secure the nomination.

And Kennedy nearly beat Carter four years later

Carter won 36 primaries that year, but Kennedy’s 12 victories included important ones in New York and California, and he didn’t concede until Aug. 11, 1980, at the Democratic National Convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.

In another historic race, William Taft was nearly edged out by Theodore Roosevelt, who went on to place second behind Woodrow Wilson in 1912. That gave Taft the dubious distinction of being the only incumbent to come in at third place in a general election.

[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

62% of the voters seem to think it's a worthwhile endeavor. You're probably right in the sense that democrats couldnt find a progressive candidate if they came up and kicked them in the ass.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The last time the Democrats did that was Ted Kennedy challenging Carter. Even with a historically unpopular president and a well-known challenger he still lost.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but our government is dysfunctional and incumbents are not successfully primaried.

[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world -2 points 6 months ago

What was lost if Biden can't get it over the goal line?

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

Lots of things. That's what we get for having a dysfunctional government. Stop thinking it's going to work effectively: It won't.

[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

.... you're saying things won't work effectively but then claiming to understand exactly how it works. I sense a contradiction.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Your initial question didn't make sense at all because the verb tenses don't agree. I'm just doing my best to attempt to communicate with you.

[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

This was my initial question you AI sounding mfr

No shit but also why the fuck didn’t we primary him?

What don't you get?

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

What was lost if Biden can’t get it over the goal line?

Now who sounds like an AI?

No shit but also why the fuck didn’t we primary him?

Because that's not how our government really works.

[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Seems like you understand everything just fine. Still being obtuse but still understand, I guess.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

English isn't your first language, right?

[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

So now you're just going with personal attacks. I CONCEDE YOUR POINT IS DEFINITELY VALID NOW.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

I'm just having a hard time understanding you. Asking if it's not your first language isn't an attack.

[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago
[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Do you mean that I am a turd and should bite you, or are you telling me to bite your turd?

[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago
[-] unconsciousvoidling@sh.itjust.works -2 points 6 months ago

According to a Pew Research Poll. Whatever the fuck that means.

[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Right, I do all my own polling personally.

Heh… well I’m just saying polls are unreliable. I wouldn’t bet the farm on them.

[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

I think these polls and the climate is very telling.

this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
440 points (83.3% liked)

politics

19136 readers
3921 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS