The entire two party system + electoral college is undemocratic.
So why is this tabloid arguing solely about Harris? Where was all this handwringing for the last century?
Corporately owned media. Their bottom line is money. Not truth or enlightenment. And most of these owners literally salivate at the thought of being part of the group of fascists that get to make the rules and rake in the resources. Much more than anything we need to see a dissolution of many of these groups. At least in terms of news coverage. There can still be news platforms of course. But the focus should be on the journalist themselves. And their reputations. And not monolithic easily corruptible institutions.
They were busy handwringing about how John Kerry was a coward, Gore was boring, and Howard Dean yelled real loud that one time. And, in the meantime, their friends they were running cover for were pulping the American economy for everything they could get, squeezing the vulnerable for every last little drop of blood they could manage to extract, and then throwing a lot of them in prison (profitable! it’s just a smart decision) to get rid of them.
Dukakis looked silly in a picture while the Reagan admin was committing treason
“Joe Biden is the WORST he needs to drop out he is ANCIENT, I demand a replacement or else I will not vote”
“Wtf no no no I meant I wanted you to flail and become disorganized in a way I could find weaknesses in and attack. I mean THEY could. They could find weaknesses and attack. I will not vote for Kamala.”
The article is just calling for the Democratic party leaders to recognize their mistakes and don’t repeat them.
It’s a call for more democracy in the democratic party, it’s not against Kamala, but about how she got chosen by the party.
She was by far the most popular of the possibilities for replacement, the only one more popular than Biden. And watching the reaction, the voters are CLEARLY happy with her.
I actually 100% agree with the article’s thesis as a general thing, in 2016 just as much as in 1968, and I would have (and did) apply it to Harris before this all went down, because I felt like her coming into the nomination without a mandate could be a huge problem. But looking back on how it played out I can’t see how someone can possibly say that a big messy nomination fight would have been better than what happened.
That and she was literally his VP. Was his VP for his reelection campaign. It’s honestly one of the least controversial things they could have done.
The DNC’s nomination processes has never been particularly democratic. 50 to 60 years ago or so. There were no public elections for the presidential candidate at all. They were nominated by the convention. It’s been progressively getting more and more democratic over the decades. And literally became more democratic still in the last 6 or so years. IT SHOULD BE MORE DEMOCRATIC STILL. But headlines like this are just sensationalist BS. Meant to be divisive.
When those of us who actually bothered to vote for Biden in our primaries this year, Kamala was on the Ballot as well. And while I can’t speak for everyone, I voted with the understanding that Biden probably wouldn’t live to complete a second term, and my vote was as much for Harris as it was for Biden. Harris was democratically elected as Biden’s replacement if something happened to him. It’s valid to say the circumstances were a bit unexpected, but we still voted with the understanding that she was almost certainly going to have to step up at some point.
I voted uncommitted in the primary and I’m very happy with Kamala as the candidate. Both for the reasons you mentioned about her being on the winning primary ticket and because she’s a change up from Biden especially with her stance towards Palestine.
It was not a mistake. A mistake would be flailing around right now, unsure who the candidate would even be while everyone trash talks their non-preferred candidates to show Trump what attacks will stick. A mistake would be to skip over the black woman presumptive nominee and risk alienating a critical voting block that Trump has been courting with some limited success.
There was no other possible good option in this case. And the proof is in the pudding. Kamala is going gangbusters.
There was no other possible good option in this case. And the proof is in the pudding. Kamala is going gangbusters.
It is bizarre that you think Harris was literally the only option.
Yes, I literally do. And I explained why. And I said it well before Biden even stepped down.
That’s because nobody wanted to step up after Biden endorsed Harris on the way out - that is a fucking bad thing that’s unhealthy for our party… and it doesn’t mean some potentially excellent choices weren’t ready to jump in the ring.
If Democrats agreed with you, then we wouldn’t be seeing the dramatic polling swings towards Kamala’s favor nationwide
Why is that? I’m not saying that Harris is a bad candidate, only that it’s bizarre to say she is the only possible person who could have been our candidate. She was the safe bet after Biden started waning but there were plenty of legitimate contenders and alternatives.
The politicians in smoke-filled rooms will warn that primary challengers weaken incumbents and might cost the party its electoral ambitions in the general election. They’ll worry that acknowledging the glaring undemocratic nature of the 2024 process will weaken Harris against Trump.
We need a competitive primary every four years no matter what.
We need the party leaders to stop treating primary challenges as a threat, and a way to engage voters.
Incumbents still have a huge advantage, but currently it’s almost a political death sentence to run against an incumbent, or not drop out after the first week even when there isn’t an incumbent.
This is the actual take away we need. Harris is a fine candidate for this situation - we were desperate and needed someone in a snap… but we need to have competitive primaries every election.
It’s highly likely Harris would have beat Biden and then, instead of that disastrous debate we’d have trounced Trump and low information voters would be more familiar with Harris as a candidate.
The two party system is somewhat undemocratic, but she’s more popular than the incumbent president everybody just assumed we had to stick with. Switching it up like that was more in the interests of the voters, wasn’t it? I don’t understand how that’s grounds for a claim that it was done out of distrust for the voters. Kind of the opposite, isn’t it? It wasn’t just representatives that thought Biden was hitting his limit.
I was going to begrudgingly vote for Biden. I will now optimistically vote for Harris. I will still get to engage in democracy in November and I did vote “Uncommitted” in the primaries.
While I would love actually competent primaries (and maybe ones that don’t just end before getting to my state) and would love an actually Democratic voting system I’m not sure this election was any less Democratic than previous ones.
That could just be me clouding my judgement because I think they made the right choice here, but the alternative was chaos and an inevitable loss.
deleted by creator
The Conversation - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Conversation:
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - Australia
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
Good bot
Conservatives really have their panties in a twist now that their orange pedo god king won’t get an easy win.
Putting Harris at the top of the ticket is a pragmatic approach in the context of an election where we’re trying to stave off a fascist takeover.
Also, FEC campaign regulations would have made it extremely complicated to shift Biden’s existing campaign funds and operational infrastructure to an entirely unrelated candidate.
This is a realistic solution in the context of a flawed system that’s under threat from a fascist takeover. Try to remember that in many cases, perfect is the enemy of good.
I agree, but in the context of 2016 and 2020 the shoe still fits
