you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 146 points 8 months ago (66 children)

So long as there's a proper primary I don't see the harm in this, not really. I can't see her running a good enough campaign to make it through the primaries, at least not without also having a good enough campaign to beat the fascist party after Trump.

  • source
  • hideshow 66 child comments
  • [–] 142 points 8 months ago (49 children)

    the key here is “proper primary.” I can’t remember a time when they’ve had one that wasn’t fucked up in some way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 49 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 48 points 8 months ago* (6 children)

    2008. They were NOT expecting Obama to oust Hillary, and took steps to make sure something like that doesn’t happen again. Allegedly the new DNC head or whatever his title is wants fair primaries, so I guess we’ll see.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    What about 2008? It wasn't fair?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    As far as I know/remember it was, at least as fair as any primary with superdelegates can be. Or rather, it was still using an unfair system and enough people turned out so that the system to keep nominations “in check” didn’t work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 29 points 8 months ago (10 children)

    neat. i have been voting for longer than that. there have been years where there was only one person on the primary, which efficiently means “primary votes are cancelled” - when the dnc say they want the incumbent.

    that is a de facto cancellation. telling the people who could vote that they are ignored.

    my point stands: the dem side needs to do a better job.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    yeah. see. i disagree that incumbents should be given anything. earn it. primary every time.

    i have been voting since 1997.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I agree with you, but as devil's advocate, why would a political party vie against itself for a seat it already holds. At best, it would only slightly sully the incumbent's name. Take Biden for example: either he's doing a good job, or he needs to be replaced because he's not doing a good enough job.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    From what I've read the reason primaries aren't done on incumbents is because every single time it's been tried the incumbent lost the actual election and the seat went to the other party.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    ? If incumbent wins the primary its the same as if they didn’t have one but at least the party members chose.

    primaries are separate by party.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    It's not a thing that happens often, but as far as I can find every single time the incumbent president has had someone try to primary them, the incumbent's entire party lost the seat.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_challenge

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    That's absolutely not true. I've been voting since 2012 and the only presidential primary I've voted in that had more than one candidate was the Hillary-Bernie primary. That's the only one. 

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 19 points 8 months ago (10 children)

    No, Bernie had the nom stolen by Hillary and DWS via corrupt back room dealings and superdelegate shenanigans. Everyone was voting Bernie and for the corporate elite that was a problem. They solved it by ratfucking the primaries, a tried and true dem tactic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    In the 2016 WV Democrat Primary, Bernie won every single county, 40k more votes than Clinton, but Clinton won the state. Your math isn't mathing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    So do votes count towards winning or do delegates? Cause 19 sounds more than 18 to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I honestly can't believe you're making the case that Bernie won 18-19. I don't even know how to argue that, and it's the first time I've ever heard it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    I think @DaMummy@hilariouschaos.com’s point is that if one doesn’t receive the most votes from the State when it’s all said and one they didn’t really “win” that State. They may have gotten more voter votes, but the they didn’t win the overall vote count from the State (voter+superdelegate) so it’s not really a “win” Bernie took 2nd in WV votes that mattered.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    So Clinton got more total delegates if you just separate the vote count from the equation? Is that what you're telling me. Because that's literally what I'm trying to say to you. That votes don't matter(or at least didn't in the 2016 dem primary) and even if a candidate wins 100% of the counties in a state, they can still lose in the thing that matters, delegates.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] -3 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    Bernie lost because people didn't want to vote for him because of a variety of reasons but not because the primary wasn't "fair". If more people voted for him he would have won.

    Uh oh

    (I agree, although DWS really screwed up everything including discussing this)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I think where a lot of this comes from is that HRC had locked in the vast majority of the superdelegates right from the start. The media consistently represented Bernie as having no chance to win, due to all the superdelegates being in the bag for Clinton, regardless of how people voted. This depressed progressive turnout, as a Clinton victory was apparently a foregone conclusion. Absent the superdelegate system, and the lopsided media coverage it engendered, many would argue the result would have been different. Obviously, there's no way of knowing at this point, but it's not as if these claims have no basis in reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    See now that's an actual conversation to have! Not saying that Clinton cheated and/or was always going to be the candidate but that how the media represented the race depressed turnout. That's a thing that continues to happen from the media trying to suppress progressive turnout and it often works. But those things still don't change that if those progressives hadn't been so easily suppressed and had continued to go out and fight and vote regardless of what the media said, just like trump voters did, then Bernie would have won the primary and the super delegates wouldn't have mattered. And then likely would have won versus Trump, in my opinion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    Does this mean if Trump enforces voting via Real ID, and millions of people get removed from their right to vote, and Trump wins in '28, that more people should have voted for Democrats or that Trump shouldn't have purged the voter rolls of as many people as possible that wouldn't vote for him?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 45 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Three words: Hillary Rodham Clinton

    It sure looked like Bernie was gonna kick her butt until the DNC decided they didn’t like a Democratic Socialist possibly winning. Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned for a reason.

    I don’t trust the primaries to be fair. There is too much money and power at stake to let “the people” actually decide the candidates. To me it’s the major reason everyone says both parties are the same. It’s because both candidates are picked by the same people, at least at this level. Yes I know they aren’t the same, especially now. But have you ever noticed how feckless the Democratic leadership seems to be? It’s because the billionaires are really the ones in power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    If there’s a form of Ranked Choice Voting in the primaries, such as STAR Voting or Ranked Robin, then the DNC will have a much more difficult time pulling shenanigans.

    First Past the Post voting in the primaries favors moderates and extremists, but an issue with moderates is that they don’t excite voters with big life changing policies. So no one, except people already bought into preventing the worst option, show up to vote in the general elections. Which makes it harder for everyone.

    More states need to get forms of Ranked Choice Voting implemented, specifically STAR or Ranked Robin voting if we want to see more progressive wins.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    If there’s a form of Ranked Choice Voting in the primaries, such as STAR Voting or Ranked Robin, then the DNC will have a much more difficult time pulling shenanigans.

    Shame the fascist GOP is making RCV illegal wherever they can.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago

    The only purpose of the staggered primary is for them to slowly manufacture your consent for who they want. The only way we're going to get an honest primary is if the entire country did it on one day like we do the general

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 48 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Just to terrify you a little bit. In the 2020 election, Harris and Biden only had one candidate that regularly polled worse than they did, which was a culty Tulsi. And if you remember, out of that large field, Biden won.

    The DNC has a gigantically fat thumb on the scales.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    a regular primary with enough debates, and where superdelegates are shun till the end, should be bare minimum

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 8 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 14 points 8 months ago

    All delegates need to go. The electoral college and all the historical reasoning behind it are no longer valid.

    If you want a more fair election, ranked choice, with weighted votes like a Borda system. Borda is good at finding broadly acceptable compromise candidates because it rewards strong second- and third-place support instead of only first-place votes. It’s good at finding better consensus candidates but even this can be gamed by deliberately ranking strong candidates last. No system is perfect, but there are lots better options than what we are currently using.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago*

    Why would the Democratic Party operate like that when it risks allowing a Bernie-style candidate to go all the way to the general?

    They're going to crowd the field with slop candidates, like Tulsi Gabbard and Liz Warren and Beto were in '20, then consolidate the rest of the field around whatever neolib shithead demonstrates a significant popular appeal. The roadmap was laid out in '76 and repeated in every open primary since then.

    Keeping populists like Jesse Jackson and Paul Wellstone and Bernie Sanders out of the top ticket slot is absolutely a feature, not a bug.

  • source
  • parent