31 points

The 1968 Democratic convention choose Hubert Humphrey. He did not receive most of the primary votes.

permalink
report
reply
20 points

I would hope that the DNC learned their fuckin lesson in 1968 and 2016, and would be okay with the will of the people and putting up the most popular person, but I’m going to go ahead and assume that that is still too much to ask. 😕

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points
*

Problem is, there is zero time for another primary to gauge who is the general public currently wants the most at this moment in time. All we really have is the last general election as the last real moment that the general public picked their heads of the DNC. Since Biden / Harris are incumbents, and challenging a presidential incumbent is rare AF, they didn’t really have a primary.

IMHO, if you want to respect the voters, you kind of need to pretend that Biden has been incapacitated and Harris is being called up from his bench.

And on top of that, she’s already on the ballots, already has the war chest of campaign cash, etc. Strategically, she is going to have the best shot. State GOP folks will have a hard time blocking her from ballot, and she can immediately start a well funded ground campaign. No one else can really do that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Yeah. And she polls better than literally everyone else who isn’t a weird and nonsensical spoiler insertion. So you could say that’s as close to a primary as we will get.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

So are you suggesting Dean Phillips (the biggest non-Biden vote getter in the primary) or Jason Palmer (the only person other than Biden to win a primary, with American Samoa) should be the nominee?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Fuck no

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

They’ll listen to their wealthiest donors before the rest of us.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I hope the lesson they learn this time is to have a primary EVERY time. Don’t just assume the incumbent is the candidate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Biden got more votes than Bernie.

And Bernie did better in cuacus states, where the DNC would have been able to weild more influence.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Everyone else transferred their votes to Biden after Super Tuesday in 2020 so that Bernie wouldn’t win. Biden was middle of the pack or lower before all the other Primary Candidates conceded to Biden.

That way the media could say Biden got more primary votes, because Bernie wasn’t willing to play along with the DNC control over policy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

sHe’S eLeCtAbLe If YoU vOtE fOr HeR

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

That’s kind of how elections work, yes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Little matter of Bobby Kennedy getting shot might have played a part in that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Bingo. Nonetheless, in 1968 the convention chose the candidate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Let’s have a contested convention

Let’s have a leader with a mandate

Please let’s not just have the DNC pick Harris and declare that she’s the answer

Fuckin hell man I hate having the future of my country in the hands of the goddamned DNC

Of course even typing it out, I pretty much know what the resolution is going to be

permalink
report
reply
35 points

How would you even see this working with 106 days to election, and a month to the convention? There’s not enough time for anything to really happen but Harris taking the ticket. Any other alternative will detract from votes, and they know that. It’s going to be Harris.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Yeah, you might be right. There is a front page article that talks about how exactly that used to be the way that we did it. And I do very much like the idea of having a genuine marketplace of candidates. We already paid the heavy heavy fuckin price of taking the incumbent away, we might as well do everything possible to make sure the replacement is going to be the definitely strongest candidate. But you may have a point.

Harris is fine. She’s a functional adult and doesn’t want to destroy the world, and she’s apparently sharp on her feet. So three points in her favor. I’m slightly worried about “fine” being the only real metric, but sure… I mean I won’t say you are certainly wrong about your way of looking at it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

She will absolutely destroy Trump in the press, any PR talking points, and debates. The contrast will make him look weak and feeble, which really was what the RNC was going to try and do with Biden. This demolishes whatever lame and taunted campaign they had planned to run, where Harris can literally just rebrand all of Biden’s campaign materials. It’s a decent plan. She needs an absolutely mind meltingly popular VP pick though, because Trump doesn’t have that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

I don’t know, it could probably work, America is the outlier for their election seasons. UK elections are held 5-6 weeks after Parliament is dissolved. The 2022 French Presidential election was held less than 2 weeks after the polling date was announced. Comparatively, the USA’s 7 months to convention, 10 months to election is a lifetime. You can do loads in 106 days

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

As an American, let me assure you that having campaign seasons of something between 7 months and 3 years is absolutely sanity-destroying. It’s fucking awful and I hate it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

106 days? Both England and France held full elections in less than that amount of time. I knew of Biden’s withdrawal 20mins after it happened. Trump getting shot at a week ago is already old news.

You can do A LOT of politics, especially in the US of A, in 106 days.

If Kamala is the choice she better come out swinging and laugh Trump out of this race. If she isn’t ready then I want someone else. Trump is an old liar who fumbles constantly and holds garbage opinions. I want to see him shut the hell up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

People were saying the same shit about Biden dropping out up to the minute he did it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Fuckin hell man I hate having the future of my country in the hands of the goddamned DNC

Hah! I so hear that. But wait til you hear what the options are.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Also, dead link, use this

permalink
report
reply
5 points

Right now it appears everybody is holding fire, giving Joe the day. A new nominee may not be determined before the convention, but there could be a consensus. Vice President Kamala Harris said she is running, so early in the week we’ll see if anyone else throws their hat in.

permalink
report
reply
7 points

Maybe like Dean Phillips or something but nobody who will get any support. Running against Kamala, endorsed by Biden, would be tantamount to running against Biden imo

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

And after a $50mm fundraising day, I just have a really hard time seeing it end up as anyone else.

I don’t like that it’s the case, but at this point it’s probably over 90% odds that it’s going to be Harris.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

This is true. If she’s going to get endorsements to what amounts to be the whole party, then the convention will be predetermined. The only item is the running mate. I would go for Big Gretch.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Biden endorsed her this morning in his announcement to end his reelection bid, so we’ll see.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points

So is there a chance we can prevent Harris? I mean no one would have a chance this late in the race but at least they could nominate someone who does not lock up innocents to further their own career

permalink
report
reply
6 points

Oh, yall are back. You’ve got a good source on this one finally right? The last guy just kinda poofed when it was pointed out that their assertions made no damn sense.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points
10 points
*

Your source is a story where someone else fucked up, and she dropped charges in about a thousand cases because there were concerns innocent individuals may be convicted?

How exactly does “dropping 1k charges” equate to “locking up innocents to further her career”?

Not to mention, she took full responsibility, owned the situation, and made the right call to release potential criminals to ensure innocents were not locked up?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/11/kamala-harris-prosecuting-marijuana-cases/

If you’re referring to the weed thing, she locked up fewer people than her predecessors

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 471K

    Comments