Ugh. I agree that Kamala sucks, but I think it’d be a mistake to try to go with anyone else at this point. She has a pulse, a functional brain, lots of political experience, a long life ahead of her, and yeah, she’s made some terrible decisions and gaffs in her career, just like Joe Biden.
I don’t like that she was a cop, but Joe Biden chaired the Senate Judiciary committee for like 100 years, and got us Clarence Thomas, so…nobody has the moral high ground here.
We just need to win, and frankly I think if we try to go with someone new and untested, we’ll lose. We’ve been in a “lesser of two evils” situation for some time now.
Ideally, yeah, but think about the logistics of pulling something like that off. And would it be a full primary redo? Like fresh ballots sent out to all dems? Or do you mean a mini primary just with the existing delegates? Because we already voted in the Democratic primary election…
I’m just really trying to be pragmatic about this, I can’t imagine a scenario where we pull this off and come out stronger. I would love to be wrong.
Saying a month is “plenty” of time to plan and run any kind of election on a national level is so ridiculously out-of-touch I read it back like five times thinking maybe it was sarcastic. Off the top of my head there’s booking polling places, securing & training staff, voting machines, ballots that need to make their way through the entire supply chain starting all the way back at pre-production. Mail in ballots alone usually go out like a month ahead of time to compensate for issues with the mail.
At this point in time, there’s a higher probability of Superman flying around the world backwards to rewind time and correct the gunman’s aim to actually hit Trump at that rally than there is of the Democrats being able to successfully pull off a second primary in a month. And that’s not even to touch the “coming out stronger” piece of it, which again, no chance in hell that happens with the kind of chaos a second primary would cause.
The idea that elections take years is an artifact of our broken news cycle. England can call for snap elections and install a new government just 25 days later, and that’s England.
Um OK but surely they already have policy, processes, and infrastructure in place to successfully execute it within that time frame. There’s a big difference between being already set up for it and the Dems randomly deciding that they’re going to run another primary next week.
Probly just the superdelegates choosing in secret, like they threaten too if they don’t like the public vote. If their going to only be Democratic when it’s convenient, they might as well as course correct. I am for replacing Biden, but if they are even talking about it now they best get a move on. Apathy is gaining ground every second they are not at the wheel.
If there is an actual primary, it will not be with actual voters, but amongst the named delegates (99% of whom are pledged to Biden and are obligated to vote for him of he is still in the race) and the superdelegates.
I’m not confident how this stuff works, because it’s dumb as hell, but any PAC can do whatever they want, as long as they don’t directly coordinate with the campaign. The Biden-Harris PAC can just use their money to support whoever the Democrats choose I believe. It doesn’t have to be spent supporting either of them.
You fuckers call everyone center-right. By your insane definition, the Democratic party is center right so you should stop demanding they put up a candidate that statistically no one in the country wants.
As with other things e.g. Bernie Sanders as the nominee, there actually is a sensible option here, which is running a contested convention… it is highly notable to me that a lot of the people offering such constructive criticism on this topic are so studiously avoiding those sensible strategies when they are trying to “help”
I dunno, there are actually quite a few sensible and practical ideas in this thread, your thread, btw. Your post has elicited a good discussion, why throw shade on the people earnestly participating? If you actually want a contested convention, this thread is nothing compared to some of the wild shit that would go down in that scenario.
And I am, probably to an excessive and embittered degree, made cynical by the amount of open propaganda in and out of the media which is attempting to put out bad ideas on purpose to hurt the Democrats and help the fascists
And you’re not wrong. A contested convention would be a massive shit show which might doom the Democrats in the election irrevocably. But it might also produce a nominee with some kind of mandate, which would be nice. It would also be feasible to do, whereas holding another primary election would not.
Consider working towards passing electoral reform in your state so you can vote for something that is not evil, secure in the knowledge that your vote would still count for the lesser evil.
Yep, I really do not like Harris, but in this context she’s the most realistic option and she’s slightly better than Biden on basically everything. Otherwise it becomes a battle against right-wing establishment democrats, and we have no more time for that really. Getting Biden out is hard enough.
I think someone like Newsom would be a better sell. Fact is, it’s a dangerous election and getting Republicans that don’t like trump very much to actually jump the fence a bit is going to be easier with a white man in his 50’s who isn’t too “extreme” of a leftist Democrat.
They could also choose someone from a swing state, too.
Ugh. I agree that Kamala sucks, but I think it’d be a mistake to try to go with anyone else at this point. She has a pulse, a functional brain, lots of political experience, a long life ahead of her, and yeah, she’s made some terrible decisions and gaffs in her career, just like Joe Biden.
I don’t like that she was a cop, but Joe Biden chaired the Senate Judiciary committee for like 100 years, and got us Clarence Thomas, so…nobody has the moral high ground here.
We just need to win, and frankly I think if we try to go with someone new and untested, we’ll lose. We’ve been in a “lesser of two evils” situation for some time now.
There’s weeks left to go 'til the convention, plenty of time to run an actual primary if the DNC wanted to.
Ideally, yeah, but think about the logistics of pulling something like that off. And would it be a full primary redo? Like fresh ballots sent out to all dems? Or do you mean a mini primary just with the existing delegates? Because we already voted in the Democratic primary election…
I’m just really trying to be pragmatic about this, I can’t imagine a scenario where we pull this off and come out stronger. I would love to be wrong.
Saying a month is “plenty” of time to plan and run any kind of election on a national level is so ridiculously out-of-touch I read it back like five times thinking maybe it was sarcastic. Off the top of my head there’s booking polling places, securing & training staff, voting machines, ballots that need to make their way through the entire supply chain starting all the way back at pre-production. Mail in ballots alone usually go out like a month ahead of time to compensate for issues with the mail.
At this point in time, there’s a higher probability of Superman flying around the world backwards to rewind time and correct the gunman’s aim to actually hit Trump at that rally than there is of the Democrats being able to successfully pull off a second primary in a month. And that’s not even to touch the “coming out stronger” piece of it, which again, no chance in hell that happens with the kind of chaos a second primary would cause.
People live in their fantasies, where national primary elections are just a cut and paste affair that takes two days to set up.
You know, they could be. But I agree right now they aren’t.
Personally, I don’t think it matters in this case. It’s not like we had a robust primary from the Dems this time around.
The idea that elections take years is an artifact of our broken news cycle. England can call for snap elections and install a new government just 25 days later, and that’s England.
Um OK but surely they already have policy, processes, and infrastructure in place to successfully execute it within that time frame. There’s a big difference between being already set up for it and the Dems randomly deciding that they’re going to run another primary next week.
I guess the USA just can’t handle it. We must be pretty weak.
That sounds like the party’s problem.
They should spend some of Biden’s PAC money on it.
England is also a much, much smaller country in terms of both size and population.
They have less GPD per capita too, but still manage it.
Probly just the superdelegates choosing in secret, like they threaten too if they don’t like the public vote. If their going to only be Democratic when it’s convenient, they might as well as course correct. I am for replacing Biden, but if they are even talking about it now they best get a move on. Apathy is gaining ground every second they are not at the wheel.
Feeling free yet?
If we used Ranked choice voting, then we could simply switch to the next in line. That is, if the democrats would grace us with a primary.
Please sir, but a scrap of representative democracy.
If there is an actual primary, it will not be with actual voters, but amongst the named delegates (99% of whom are pledged to Biden and are obligated to vote for him of he is still in the race) and the superdelegates.
But only Harris can keep the funds accumulated for Biden’s campaign, right? Wouldn’t make much sense to go for another candidate I think…
I’m not confident how this stuff works, because it’s dumb as hell, but any PAC can do whatever they want, as long as they don’t directly coordinate with the campaign. The Biden-Harris PAC can just use their money to support whoever the Democrats choose I believe. It doesn’t have to be spent supporting either of them.
Given the source of most campaign financing in the USA, I’d actually prefer a candidate who refuses to touch PAC money.
“The only candidate I like is the one who has no chance of winning!”
Fucking leftists getting played like a fiddle by purity testing.
Yeah, “Purity testing” like asking for left candidates to actually be left and not just more center-right neoliberals.
You fuckers call everyone center-right. By your insane definition, the Democratic party is center right so you should stop demanding they put up a candidate that statistically no one in the country wants.
That’s most of the world’s definition. America has a conservative party and a right-wing nutjob party.
If you don’t like facts, you’re going to hate it when I start pointing out policy differences between them and left-of-center parties. XD
This is America, not Europe.
I don’t think there time for an actual primary. I’d favor an open convention tbh.
You’re right and I wish they would, but I have near zero faith in their willingnes, ability, and coordination.
Look at what a practical idea this is
As with other things e.g. Bernie Sanders as the nominee, there actually is a sensible option here, which is running a contested convention… it is highly notable to me that a lot of the people offering such constructive criticism on this topic are so studiously avoiding those sensible strategies when they are trying to “help”
I dunno, there are actually quite a few sensible and practical ideas in this thread, your thread, btw. Your post has elicited a good discussion, why throw shade on the people earnestly participating? If you actually want a contested convention, this thread is nothing compared to some of the wild shit that would go down in that scenario.
Because redoing the primary is an absurd idea
And I am, probably to an excessive and embittered degree, made cynical by the amount of open propaganda in and out of the media which is attempting to put out bad ideas on purpose to hurt the Democrats and help the fascists
And you’re not wrong. A contested convention would be a massive shit show which might doom the Democrats in the election irrevocably. But it might also produce a nominee with some kind of mandate, which would be nice. It would also be feasible to do, whereas holding another primary election would not.
Consider working towards passing electoral reform in your state so you can vote for something that is not evil, secure in the knowledge that your vote would still count for the lesser evil.
If the party leadership goes with Kamala, we’d damned well better have a real primary in 2028.
Yep, I really do not like Harris, but in this context she’s the most realistic option and she’s slightly better than Biden on basically everything. Otherwise it becomes a battle against right-wing establishment democrats, and we have no more time for that really. Getting Biden out is hard enough.
I think someone like Newsom would be a better sell. Fact is, it’s a dangerous election and getting Republicans that don’t like trump very much to actually jump the fence a bit is going to be easier with a white man in his 50’s who isn’t too “extreme” of a leftist Democrat.
They could also choose someone from a swing state, too.
Who?
Gavin Newsom. California’s Governor.