Handing VP Kamala Harris the Democratic presidential nomination without having her compete in primaries is a throwback to less democratic ways of picking nominees, a political scientist says.
“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.”
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.
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.
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.
“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.
It is bizarre that you think Harris was literally the only option.
Harris officially has no opponents for the Democratic nomination after key deadline passes
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.
Such as?
Yes, I literally do. And I explained why. And I said it well before Biden even stepped down.