this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
115 points (71.9% liked)

politics

18986 readers
4281 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net -2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

All true but I don’t agree that this meant there wasn’t a primary. They just conspired to win the primary.

Also, don’t presume to know the future. Maybe the revolution will start in South Carolina. State politics don’t change overnight but they are also not as static as we often assume.

[–] bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'd argue a Russian-style "election" isn't an election, since the result is preordained by a single group of oligarchs, so it wasn't really a primary in 2020. I guess the bright side is now they don't even pretend to let their electorate vote anymore, so it's honest at least.

Even if the DNC started having token primaries again (which I'm skeptical of now that they're openly using their national party power to bar candidates from state primary ballots) even a Schumer-backed Obama-style "revolution" from within the party's center-right leadership will be rendered impossible with South Carolina as the first state. It's alllllllll Hillaries from here on out...

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Well I think this is not a black and white issue. In Russia, Sanders would be arrested or killed. Here the oligarchs don’t have complete power, and if we assume they do, we cede them more power. Sanders could have won the primary—it was not a foregone conclusion. And I think your assumption that South Carolina is only party loyalists is mistaken. If the left wing speaks to those voters directly, they can be persuaded.

[–] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Let's also not ignore the fact that the DNC runs the primaries, and the eventually nominee is purely their decision. Effectively, the actual primaries are more for them to gauge the popularity of various candidates.

Let's also not pretend that they were ever going to let Sanders be their nominee... someone who's not even a party member.

It would be more surprising if he'd won the primary process and the DNC actually backed him than the alternative of them simply saying no, he's not a party member, we'll choose the highest finishing actual Democrat instead.

[–] spider@lemmy.nz 1 points 7 months ago

Let's also not ignore the fact that the DNC runs the primaries, and the eventually nominee is purely their decision.

...what William Greider said here, basically.

[–] beardown@lemm.ee 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So you admit that the primaries are a facade and that we are not a democracy?

In which case, we should openly admit that and teach our children as such. Otherwise, China will do so for us on TikTok and elsewhere

[–] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

What's the deal with people on Lemmy always trying to get people to "admit" shit? If you want to engage in conversation just do so. There's no need to try to paint another conversation participant as an opponent and corner them into anything, just say what you have to say. I'm not trying to attack or defend primaries, just making an observation, so there's nothing to "admit", so you can knock off with that angle.

Further, the primaries, despite what you may think, are not a part of the national democratic election process. They are a function of the parties themselves, a way for them to gauge their members and choose a nominee.

If a party wanted to, there's no reason they couldn't cancel their primary entirely and simply have party leadership meet and choose a nominee, end of story. That doesn't make the American process any more or less of a democracy. It may make that party's process of choosing a nominee more or less democratic, but each party is and should remain within their rights to choose their own nominee in whatever way they see fit.

I'm not aligned with or registered to any political party, and in my state, that means I'm completely barred from voting in the primaries at all. In my city, one party has held the mayor's office my entire life, so the primary for that party is effectively the race for that seat, and I don't get to vote in it. I'm not upset about that. I can still vote in the actual race, and as a non-party-member, I agree with their leadership that I shouldn't have a say in who they select as their nominee.

[–] Facebones@reddthat.com 2 points 7 months ago

The dnc going to court to have it legally decided that they do what they want and their voters/supporters can go eat a dick says everything you need to know about the dnc.

Democrats are still mid right and faschie light. Hell, they attack leftists harder than they do Republicans. Blame us for losing elections but anytime policy or candidates come up we get told to shove it until an election comes around and we get blamed again.