this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
131 points (95.8% liked)

politics

19080 readers
4900 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
 

Credit to @GottaLaff

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 30 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I thought the whole purpose of the primary was to send a message to the DNC/RNC of who the people want the candidate to be? Seems real pointless when this was already laid out last year.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Tbf the GOP had an open race. Their primary voters just really want Trump. For the Dems the issue is that you can’t run against an incumbent without really damaging the incumbent by attacking his track record (and to be clear, Biden has an impressive track record domestically). Both races were essentially decided when Trump/Biden decided to run.

I am really annoyed by Bidens decision specifically because he all but promised to be a one-term president during the 2020 election, but I don’t blame the DNC for not running an open primary under these circumstances. How could they run an open primary when there were no serious contenders?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, there are a handful of others.

Of course if everyone's operating under the assumption that Biden is the guy, they're gonna look a little unlikely, but that's not a foregone conclusion even at this late stage.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

I take it seriously enough that I watched the whole thing. Quick reactions point by point:

  1. Difficulty of replacing Biden and who would replace him - Yeah. 100% agreed. I have no idea about the procedures. I'm just saying as a non political expert how I see things. Part of what I keep asking about this is, is there anything actually productive I can do at this stage as a Democratic voter.

  2. 1968 - This is the one element of what he says that bugs the hell out of me. My copy of "Playing With Fire" is less than 10 feet from me as I write this. I know how seriously Lessig takes this. But his take on it here is wrong. The DNC's original sin in 1968, which they repeated in 2016 with Bernie Sanders, was not "well we can't let these people in the door, because if we do they won't shut up and we'll have to break the rules to keep them in line, and that'll be messy and lose us their support." I'm not saying that's Lessig's point precisely, but it's not wholly at odds with how he's extrapolating from 1968 to the present day, either.

The DNC keeps insisting on center-right policies. In 1968 it was Vietnam, in 2016 it was economic justice, and now it's Gaza. And then, when this massive groundswell of left wing activism that would be otherwise be theirs for the taking gets mad at them, they can't figure out why that happened, or why they're now in a dead heat with the world's worst person for president. And their solution is to turn their back on the activism.

Like I say I'm not a political pro. I don't know that a contested convention wouldn't be a bad idea for all the reasons Lessig lists, and I definitely can respect his insight on the realities and his point that it's uncharted territory. But I think it's also fair to point out that with the advent of Trump we're in pretty much uncharted territory anyway, so we might as well start trying to do what seems right and not just what we've traditionally done before.

  1. The important work isn't televised - John Stewart actually dealt with this pretty head-on. I agree, by any metric, Biden's actually done a great job with what was handed to him. Stewart's point was, Biden's job is not just to be a great president, but also to win the November election, and significant weaknesses he has on that score are worth talking about.

I'm not trying to take any kind of rabid anti-Biden stance on it; I'm planning on voting for the Democrat regardless in November, because Trump winning will mean hell comes to earth. I've also spent a decent length of time arguing with anti-Biden trolls so far. But I have to say that Ezra Klein and John Stewart actually did convince me to a certain extent that this is worth talking about.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Sure if Newsom or Whitmer would have wanted to run against Biden they could have announced their candidacy when the others did (I.e. Biden and the GOP contenders). In that case it would have been a scandal for the DNC not to run an open primary. The fact is they didn’t, for the obvious reason that you can’t run against an incumbent.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

I’d say it was laid out before last year, once it became clear Biden wasn’t doing the one term thing the only thing preventing a rematch was whether or not they both survived.