• EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 day ago

    If she wins the primaries, fair and square, without the DNC rigging it in her favor? Sure.

    Anything other than that? “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

  • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Vote. In. The. Primary.

    Then accept the reality that for over 99% of state and federal offices either the Democratic or the Republican nominee will win in the general election and vote accordingly. Not voting only maintains the status quo and the only message it sends to “strategists” and candidates is that they don’t have to care about your priorities.

      • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Naturally, if you’re already voting consistently in the primaries, then you are not in the target audience for my comment… More people voting for a different candidate resulting in the other candidate winning isn’t really an example of the process not working. Keep fighting for a ballot initiative for ranked choice or approval voting, but don’t stop voting in primaries and elections just because the result isn’t what you wanted. Your presence in the process is a matter of public record and it tells every campaign that if they don’t attempt to win your vote then you’re a potential vote for someone else.

          • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            12 hours ago

            Because turnout in the primaries sucks, especially among the demographics more likely to vote for a progressive than a centrist or neolib. Because the donor class and the people in power want you to feel like voting is useless. The fewer people there are coming out to vote, the less resources they need to spend to win an election, and the less they need to do in office to hold onto it. Keep on voting, and nag everyone you know to keep voting.

              • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 hours ago

                I’m in a gerrymandered district in a very low-turnout state. So I have at times had to vote in the Republican primary to try and keep the ultra-crazy off the general election ballot. Sucks but it’s better than silencing my own voice by not voting. Even turning in a ballot without a selection is better than fully not voting, because it proves you’re engaged in the process. When they know you’re engaged, they know there’s a chance at getting your vote.

    • ExtantHuman@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      18 hours ago

      They need to run a real primary without their thumb in the scale for the first time since 2008…

      • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        I don’t disagree. But I also don’t expect them to stop as long they have the platform to. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to give in to the status quo by sitting on the sidelines or voting third party in a district/state with first-past-the-post.

      • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Superdelegates don’t even get a vote unless the pledged delegates can’t select a nominee in the first round of voting.

        • ExtantHuman@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          18 hours ago

          That was recent change based on how they were used to declare Clinton bring the victor before voting even started. So Bernie started 400+ votes behind if you listened to the way the media was reporting it

          • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            12 hours ago

            Yes, indeed it went into affect in 2018. But that means it’s one less thing to overcome in 2026 and 2028.

  • Maeve@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    Jfc

    Eta: post-read they’re going to run her. They think because of the current administration, people will vote for her in droves and the Overton Window keeps moving right. This stinks but I’m not confident they’re wrong. The people will gleefully fall for it and continue to vote status quo, ignoring the losses keep coming, despite loss-adversion voting.

  • Maeve@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    I see what the status quo dem voters of Lemmy are doing here. It will only work for the gullible and cowardly

  • MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Kamala Harris could further unite the party, have no impact, provoke a tea party, or even end up fragmenting it. We’ll have to see how she evolves, with four years to go until the next election. If she doesn’t improve and change, she’s sure not to win the primaries.

    • superniceperson@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      I can guarantee that unless she runs as the 2028 republican candidate, she will lose by such a landslide it will be a founding myth for a post apocalyptic religion.

    • kreskin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      They will try to run all of Harris, Pritzger, Slotkin, Blinken and Shapiro. Every diehard zionist will be run.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      If it’s anything like the last few primaries, the majority of us won’t have a choice at all, it will have been made before we even have a chance to vote.

      Biden was picked in 2020 after the 3rd primary.

    • ijedi1234@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’m open to installing Luigi Mangione as president. The Adjuster, and the Great Unifier knows how to reach both sides of the aisle.

    • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Our choice will be whoever the fuck we want to vote for in the primaries out of the people who chose to run.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Well, duh, but they will do everything they can to stack the deck. AOC isn’t running for this, in exchange for keeping out they will let her run for Chuck’s Senate seat.

        Aside from the Chosen Candidate, everyone else who is running is just running for the name recognition, the ability to live large for a while on campaign cash, and then back out and support the Chosen Candidate when asked to.

        • orclev@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          Maybe it’s time for the DNC to get their own version of Trump. Pick one of the “not here to win, just here for the optics” candidates and dog pile them into the general election. Remember Trump wasn’t actually a serious candidate during his primary, he was just there to gain leverage for his TV show contract negotiation. Would do a lot of good to show the DNC it’s the voters who get to decide not them.