597
Kamala Harris might run for president again in 2028. Please, no | Arwa Mahdawi (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
312 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 49 child comments
    •
  • [+] -17 points 8 months ago (28 children)

    1992? 2000? 2004? 2008? 2020?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

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

    What about 2008? It wasn't fair?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Cynthia McKinney was elected as a Democrat in Georgia around that time. iirc she was looking at a presidential run. You might have seen her on here yesterday for her latest tweet. (Spoiler: super bigot)

    Which is to say, if you open the field to everyone in the country you will spend a certain amount of time winnowing the contenders from the stunt candidates. Republicans don't do that because they're all the same candidate. So they spend almost zero time (since Perot) dealing with that.

    Superdelegates aren't great, but an alternative to achieve that aim of not having to platform every trust fund kid with a boot on their head might be good.

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

    She ran as a Green Party candidate, not a Democratic one. I’m not sure how she’s relevant?

    She was pretty suspect even in 2008, so I’m not sure I buy that if we don’t have superdelegates and let voters decide who the candidates are, then the stupid masses will just pick whoever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago

    Oh man you’re right I’d forgotten that.

    I don’t think superdelegates are to prevent popular candidates (see Obama), I think they’re to get a comprehensible slate of candidates to focus on issues and themes and not on turning the Iowa caucus into something bizarre by claiming to be a Democrat who just happens to demand we all live in the sea or something.

    Again, republicans don’t have this problem, and they’re well known to fund ‘spoiler candidates’ with the intention of wrecking momentum or message or other campaign aspects.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -12 points 8 months ago (19 children)

    Even 2016 was pretty fair. The nomination went to the person with the most votes and the majority of the non-super delegates. 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    Ah yes, super delegate shenanigans like the majority going to the candidate who had over 3 million more votes than the other. The only way Bernie could have won with super delegates is if he got almost all of them. And if he did then the candidate who got 3 million less votes would have won the nomination and we would still be facing people saying the democratic primaries aren't "fair".

    Now don't get me wrong, DWS was biased as fuck. But if the voters simply turned out and voted for Bernie then bias wouldn't have mattered. The RNC was biased towards Jeb bush and Ted Cruz but you know how that turned out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    Nope Bernie won the state. He won and got 18 delegates and Clinton got 11. But then at the convention Clinton got the 8 super delegates from the state which put her at 19 delegates to Bernie's 18 but Bernie still won the state. Here's my source.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (5 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    You win the majority of the delegates that were up during the primary by voting in the primary. Which Bernie did. But when the convention rolled around and Hillary was 3 million votes ahead of Bernie country wide and significantly closer to the nomination delegate threshold, the super delegates came into play to decide things. But that doesn't change that Bernie won the state. Those 8 super delegates are from West Virginia but they were only allocated at all because neither Bernie nor Hillary had reached the delegate threshold needed to win the nomination.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

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

    This seems to be a complete misunderstanding of how the primary system works. I am saying that Bernie won West Virginia and got the majority of those delegates that could be won that day. That is winning the state. The super delegates get lumped in but they aren't a part of the same process. Bernie won WV because he got the most votes even if he didn't get the super delegates he still won the state. You could literally look at my source I provided and you'd see that he won.

    I'd recommend separating the super delegates from the situation and look at it just for what the delegates were up at the time of the vote. Thats what determines who won the state.

    Even better, just look around this wikipedia article to see who won what states and everything. It's all right there. I'm just repeating the literal reality of how it went down.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -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)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    Yeah this is something that really bothers me about my fellow leftists and is pure revisionism about the 2016 primary. Bernie lost fair and square and all we had to do to make sure that didn't happen was get more people to vote for him. But according to many people on here if the candidate fails to win then it's their sole fault because they couldn't convince voters to go with them. But I guess that doesn't apply to Bernie.

    Also I hate how DWS screwed up talking about this all because she was biased as fuck towards Clinton. Her bias wouldn't have mattered if more people had voted for Bernie but her having a bias at all must mean Bernie was cheated out of the nomination.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -11 points 8 months ago (19 children)

    2024 was the only year recently we didn't have a primary.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 8 months ago* (9 children)

    I've been voting since I was 18 and I've never seen that in the past 16 years. 2024 was skipping because Biden was the incumbent at the time. Incumbent are almost always given the primary. The GOP does the same and is entirely different.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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. 

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    It absolutely is true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

    In 2012 Obama was the incumbent, which again as I mentioned, incumbents typically aren't primaried if they are doing a decent job and up for re-election.

    Since then there was 2016, 2020, where both years had a primary for the DNC. 2024 was just a fluke because Biden should have dropped out. Or even stuck with his original campaign promise of not running for re-election. You're young and your sample size is 4. My sample size is 5, but it's been consistent in years prior.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (4 children)

    Nope. Bernie should have won the primary but the dems decided it was “Hillary’s turn” so they fucked Bernie.

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

    Bernie didn't have the votes. Period.

    I voted for Bernie, but most people I knew at the time voted for Hillary because of the name recognition.

    Argue all you want, but facts are facts.

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

    [Citation Needed]

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

    On July 22, WikiLeaks published the Democratic National Committee email leak, in which DNC operatives seemed to deride Bernie Sanders' campaign[12] and discuss ways to advance Clinton's nomination,[13] leading to the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other implicated officials. The leak was allegedly part of an operation by the Russian government to undermine Hillary Clinton.[14][15] Although the ensuing controversy initially focused on emails that dated from relatively late in the primary, when Clinton was already close to securing the nomination,[13] the emails cast doubt on the DNC's neutrality and, according to Sanders operatives and multiple media commentators, showed that the DNC had favored Clinton since early on.

    The Dems fucked Bernie. From your own sources.

    All I was talking about was 2016.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent