131
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.
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?
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.
I take it seriously enough that I watched the whole thing. Quick reactions point by point:
-
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.
-
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
That and the DC primary results should put Virginia in the bag, but please don’t neglect campaigning there. Polls don’t really work anymore.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
NBC News exit polls provide some clues about the coalition the former president has put together that has allowed him to cruise through the GOP nominating fight — and also where his weak spots could be in November.
The North Carolina and Virginia exit polls also show a similar trend to previous GOP contests: A majority of voters decided whom they would support before the primary became a two-person race between Trump and Haley.
Even as Trump further builds his massive delegate lead, the exit polls do provide some potential warning signs for him looking ahead to the general election, especially among more moderate and well-educated voters.
Trump endorsed Robinson in the GOP primary and recently described the lieutenant governor, who has a history of making offensive comments, as “Martin Luther King on steroids.”
The North Carolina exit poll showed Robinson’s victory was fueled by a lot of the groups that supported Trump in the presidential primary, which could be a sign that his fate in November will be closely tied to the former president’s.
His Trump-voter share was second only to those voters who hold the unfounded belief that President Joe Biden did not legitimately win the 2020 election, of which Robinson won 75%.
The original article contains 712 words, the summary contains 205 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
131 points (95.8% liked)
politics
18894 readers
3107 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS