Parroting bullshit labels like ‘coronation’ when describing the logical decision to promote the VP candidate is feeding into conservative propaganda, even when presented this way.
Especially when it was essentially a coronation for Trump this time. Pretty much no one thought DeSantis or Haley had a chance, and they came the closest. Trump knew it, which is why he didn’t bother doing any of their debates. Which made them pointless debates.
Regardless there was still a primary. I voted in it I had the choice of who to vote for. That there was a clear and overwhelming favorite doesn’t change that fact.
People have been removeding and moaning for months (I bet you included) that Biden shouldn’t be the nominee, that he was too old, that he was in cognitive decline, etc.
Now he’s not the nominee and the removeding is that people didn’t get to vote in a primary.
As soon as we perfect time machine technology, maybe we can give you what you want. Until then, you’re stuck with this reality.
Right? Like what if he had a stroke and was ina vegetative state. Would we just have to keep him as the nominee?
Your answer is to throw up your hands and say “what’s done is done”? How are we doing to get them to do it right next time if we don’t make a stink now?
There may not be a next time.
So we might as well give up any pretense of democracy? That’s some doomer shit brah
If there’s a serious candidate with enough support to be considered, they will campaign and vote.
There are only FOUR Months until the election! The campaign logistics (volunteers, staff, offices, ballots, etc) to set up for a completely new candidate are INSANE and the fact that this has to be explained is mind boggling.
And that means we can’t give them give them shit for how badly this whole thing was handled? That’s a recipe for the same nonsense 4 years from now
You can complain all you want but complaining about how bad things were handled is like standing on the sidelines whining about the iceberg while people are trying to set up lifeboats on the titanic.
You have nothing of substance to say.
Biden endorsed Harris. The donors want Harris. Even AOC endorsed Harris. It’s going to be Harris even if it’s an “open convention.”
Just to elaborate more, it is an open convention because the delegates are unbound, they could vote for anyone now that Biden has withdrawn. To get on the ballot, anyone just needs to get the signatures of 300 delegates saying they support them. If the vast majority of delegates publicly endorse Harris before the convention though, it’s essentially already over. As this would indicate she would easily win the first ballot (and no, before anyone asks, super delegates cannot vote on the first ballot).
It is always an open convention. By rules, delegates are pledged but not bound.
Then let it be an open convention. The last time the DNC crowned someone we got Hillary and a bunch of young voters switched over to Trump.
We should have an open convention even if there’s a likely outcome to foster unity.
If the delegates get to swoop in at the last to make someone nobody’s ever heard of the nominee instead of Harris, that’s going to be a coronation that totally disregards voters. Harris being the nominee is what would have happened anyway if Biden had to step down and the logical way to go here.
Harris is not my favorite person in the world, but I guarantee there’s a chunk of convention delegates who want someone like a Manchin or a Bloomberg or a Clinton or someone else worse.
Yes, I’m sure there will be a lot of “unity” from people like yourself when it’s Kamala Harris anyway.
There will be, yes.
I think she’s a bad choice to beat Trump and the most important thing is to beat Trump. If she’s the pick I’ll back her - but I’m not going to support someone who I think will lose while there’s still a choice.
Edit: Beautiful show of unity - downvoting someone saying they’ll back the eventual candidate. This kind of head-in-sand bullshit is what loses us fucking elections and it was all over the place shouting down people with legitimate criticisms of Biden before he stepped down.
Why in specific is she a bad choice?
And who realistically is a better choice at this point? I can’t think of a single other Democrat with the recognition to pull a presidential campaign together in 3 months.
The only person I have heard that even remotely has a chance of being the pick instead of Harris is Gavin Newsom and he both doesn’t seem to want it and also polls really badly against Trump.
Yeah, he’s widely known outside of California, but largely because he’s a massive punching bag for conservatives. Not a good pick for a presidential race.
She performed poorly on the national stage last time she was on it. She has a decent voting record but doesn’t have a lot of sponsored legislation. She has a deep flaw from being a former prosecutor. I’m not aware of her having a passion to fix any particular problems.
I think we can do better and choose someone who can excite the voterbase to get folks to turn up. We need to fight voter apathy.
She performed poorly on the national stage last time she was on it.
So like Joe Biden in 2020 who got elected anyway.
She has a decent voting record but doesn’t have a lot of sponsored legislation.
Who gives a shit?
She has a deep flaw from being a former prosecutor.
That is in no way a flaw, let alone a deep one.
On top of that, 13 presidents have been lawyers, including Clinton and Obama.
I’m not aware of her having a passion to fix any particular problems.
Just because you’re not aware of something doesn’t mean it isn’t the case.
I’m not aware of her having a passion to fix any particular problems.
Just because you’re not aware of something doesn’t mean it isn’t the case.
Let’s see if she can deliver a passionate platform, it’s kinda her entire job as a politician and if I, a hyperaware political person, am not familiar with it, then most people have no fucking clue.
That was almost 4 years ago and she’s been VP since. Things have changed.
They have? She’s now popular enough to excite the base and win a sweeping victory at the convention?
(Also, I don’t know how her being a former prosecutor has changed - and I’m quite doubtful most of my other concerns have shifted either).
As a black person she’ll alienate the racists in the DNC. There aren’t as many as the DNC, but it would be naive to think there aren’t any. As much as I don’t want to cater to racists, beating Trump is more important right now.
As a woman she will alienate misogynists. Same thing.
As a cop she’s going to alienate a ton of voters. She’s recently changed her positions on a lot of crime-related issues like marijuana, but idk how much that’s going to help her win the BLM crowd.
I’ll vote for her if she’s the pick, no question. Heck, there are very few people the DNC could nominate at this point that I wouldn’t vote for. I suppose as Biden’s VP she was kind of nominated in the primary if you squint. But yeah… DNC elites appointing a cop at the last minute doesn’t strike me as the best way to fight fascism.
Identity politics aside, I like a lot of what she claims to support, but that’s assuming that she’s truly no longer the prosecutor she used to be. She has good records on reproductive rights, economics, LGBTQ+ support. My biggest gripe with her would be she’s still just as pro-Israel as Biden and most of the DNC seems to be.
People love this talking point, as if Hillary didn’t also win the popular and electoral votes in that primary. She still would’ve had the nomination of there were no super delegates.
I wanted 8 years of Bernie too, but let’s chill with the conspiracy theories.
No.
In that primary the charts from day one included superdelegates for Hillary and the DNC absolutely put their thumb on the scale in a major way. That primary was an absolutely awful mistake and turned a lot of voters off of the democratic ticket.
Were it not for the bullshit Hillary pulled we likely never would have had Trump as a president - the margin of his election was thin enough that not trampling over the progressive side of the party would have kept him out of office.
the margin of his election was thin enough that not trampling over the progressive side of the party would have kept him out of office
There, see. There’s the fault in your argument. The Democratic party can’t seem to stop trampling over progressives
Hilary and Bernie fought a bruising primary battle, with elections in all 50 states that was actually somewhat close. There was no “crowning”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
Enough delegates have pledged to Harris to give her a majority. There’s not going to be a fight.
I know the media is looking to drum up controversy so they can draw eyeballs, but this is done.
Hillary was a coronation. MAGA and leftists agreed on that, and that bit of traction was a major advantage for the right.
Harris is not a coronation. At least so far. They could still screw up the messaging, for sure. But this is more like a rescue.
“coronation” is USA a monarchy now?
They’re trying out new talking points, unrelated to “Is this lady gonna try to end democracy or not,” for reasons for people not to support Harris
She was a prosecutor being another. Of course, that’s only when talking to the left; when targeting semi-conservatives who are just too sensible to want to support Trump (which is a sizable fraction of the Democrats’ base), I suspect they may soon start trying crypto-bigoted arguments like about her laugh or that she’s unstable and crazy. You know… you know what I’m saying.
“Laughing Kamala”
I still remember when the GOP tried to make a scandal about a video of AOC dancing
Like what in the fuck kind of Nathaniel Hawthorne bullshit is this… WOMEN DANCING WHAT THE FUCK WE MUST PUT A STOP TO IT
You’ve never heard that term in American politics before?
It’s not uncommon
Just because a bunch of worthless chud journalists write blog posts using the word doesn’t magically change the definition.
Coronation is a word that’s been commonly used in US politics - this isn’t unique to this election.
prove it.
NYTimes archive: https://www.nytimes.com/search?query=Coronation+
The Economist: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2015/04/11/a-contest-or-a-coronation
Also, obligatory lmgtfy: https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=dnc+coronation
Did you need more evidence?
Bro’s never heard of context…
I mean according to the Supreme Court, yeah kind of.
If we had the time to rerun primaries in fifty states and ask the voters I would say we should do that, but since we don’t and Harris is a successor all the voters could have forseen when casting ballots for Biden we should just go with her.
What I’m not looking forward to is having to hear the opinions of party insider convention delegates over the next few weeks. If they try to act like extra special voters and give the nomination to someone other than Harris that’s going to be a slap in the face to voters and make any sense of party unity totally implode.
Do we not? There’s plenty of time, I don’t know if there’s enough money and infrastructure, but let’s not pretend like 4 months from the election is not plenty of time. Most countries run their entire election in half that time or less. The only reason you think there’s not enough time is cuz 24 hour news media has trained you to think elections have to be two years long.
Most countries don’t have the idiotic mess of 50 different sets of election laws and the fucking cancer that is the Republican party to deal with. We should be able to run an election with a couple of days notice, but if we tried anything like that GOP attorneys would take it to court and right wing judges would cause all sorts of chaos.
There is only one option which is the delegates vote. The question is if they agree to stand behind one canidate. It I was a delegate I would cast my vote that was for biden to who he endorsed and was voted on during the primary as vp. but that is just me.
Harris is highly disliked. You can’t polish her no matter how much the media teams try. Open conference is the way to go.
Bernie aoc ticket all the way
Dude, stop with the Bernie thing. I wanted him to win in 2016, but he lost, and there’s no way he would beat Harris now.
I like her. I thought her comments in Trump were a breath of fresh air.
Coronation sounds bad, selection sounds better.
Outsider here. Where’s Hillary?
If it’s an honest question, the Clinton’s have endorsed Harris.
It was. She tried, almost won (got the totals but not the proportional or something like that). Now, when this thing started with Biden, I didn’t see anyone talking about her trying again. Hence, my question. So she, like, gave up for good? Retired and that’s it?
She retired from politics in 2016 after her loss. She said it was permanent then and has stood by that.
After a bad national beat, it’s unlikely most people will try again. They generally won’t have the party support for it, or the ego. In Hillary’s case, shes also largely pragmatic and knows it wont work. She’s well and truly done with running for public office.
