First link is inapplicable to DNC; blame conservative Supreme Court.
Second link is somewhat fair, but ultimately neither candidate adhered to local NC election policy; nor was either actually going to win the election there by the polling – but I’ll credit you this.
Tell me what you want me to take away from the 3rd link that supports your argument.
The fourth link is substantive and my stance is somewhat shifted. Some shady state-level shit, or at the very least inconsistency and incompetence.
But I have to step back and ask the following: Did these change the outcome in any conceivable way? Let’s be abundantly-clear, here: Nobody who actually voluntarily threw their hat in the ring were achieving any modicum of momentum in public polling that would suggest they’d be a viable challenger. IF, there was someone who could win opening primary states and who had some semblance of national polling that competed with Biden at any level, then I’d be more inclined to agree. But there simply was no Obama waiting in the wings.
So to repeat: Nobody “forced” anyone to not run against Biden; they simply lost and could not make up either the numbers or longstanding state-level requirements to compete. That being said, was there an obvious top-down messaging campaign to rally behind the incumbent President? Absolutely. Do I agree? Not particularly.
And I’m sorry but it’s a fact right-wing operatives routinely utilize this rhetoric to drive a wedge. Plenty of reporting on the Russian IRA Troll farms; are you unfamiliar? For fuck sake my man, you’re the one who pointed out foreign interference with Israel dumping money and utilizing their own misinformation troll farm online.
Let’s not presume upon what Bernie did; fall-in-line are your words based purely on speculation when they could’ve simply been “Bernie understood the dilemma and agreed with the top-down strategy at the time, and that no other candidate who voluntarily threw their hat in the ring had a better chance.”
Seriously, thank you for taking the time to read and respond. The 3rd link is a long word salad of an article they probably could’ve done better with, some highlights:
Another long, contentious new calendar process then might mean uncertainty with real electoral consequences — perhaps even making it difficult for Democrats running in a competitive presidential primary to know where to campaign, hire staff and advertise.
“These early states really do condition the campaign. The early states don’t guarantee a winner, but they tell us who is going to lose, at least in the first rounds,” Redlawsk said. “The winnowing is very likely to be different if the first state is South Carolina, or Nevada, or some combination, than if it were Iowa or New Hampshire.”
The party can try and mitigate that by starting its 2028 calendar discussions early, potentially even weeks after next year’s election. (we’ll see if this come to fruition)
It’s effective when you take into consideration what DNC spokesmen require, "they did not reach the standards for their nomination: a candidacy that is “generally advocated and recognized in the news media,”.
I can link articles and interviews by Bernie if you wish but I’m going to assume you know of the legal battles and statements made by him during the campaigning and after. “fall-in-line” is definitely my words, but then you go on to describe exactly what fall in line means. The term does come across as negative but the reality is he made declarative statements beforehand and has now changed his position in favor of what the DNC wishes to do… there are other terms I could use I guess but the general description is the same.
I incorrectly assumed you were using the “this is a foreign bot” defense and were telling other people to not drink the kool-aid that I see used all the time so actual conversations can’t develop. It’s why I included the you and I part so I do apologize for that.
I can’t come to the same conclusion you have with the data, I’ve pointed out just a few of the ways in which the DNC jerryrigs their primaries and candidates. We see the manipulation of media and the cost of running a candidacy which completely undermines any contender. We aren’t seeing any “viable challengers” because of decades of hurdles and organizations (both local and national) that limit those who are highlighted, which in turn allows the DNC to say “well we don’t think they have a chance so they’re not allowed to run”. It’s like a boxing match where every opponent of Biden’s has to wear weights and have their hands tied but “Biden would’ve won anyways because he’s the better boxer”.
You’ve raise fair points, thanks. I think the reality of Bernie’s position is that he wishes he was 20 years younger. In his view, neither himself nor anyone else could really say with certainty at the time last year that they would be better. After all, the economy was ticking up, abortion could be used, and Bernie got a lot of compromises and influence within the Biden administration since then. Ultimately, the Biden presidency did a lot of good work in the eyes of Bernie and a united front against Trump combined with incumbent advantages did seem to be a “safe bet” going into 2024. But we’ve seen quite an erosion of Biden’s faculties just in the last 2 years let alone 4.
Having been one of the earlier supporters of Bernie in 2015 I do remember my frustrations with the DNC oftentimes shunning Bernie and not getting the attention he deserved. I do agree there is some favoritism seniority games at play in the DNC.
I just took issue specifically with the claim that DNC did not allow anyone to run. It’s a little bit of DNC inertia, sure, but it’s also quite a lot of, “well, no good Obama-esque candidate tried” either. Now I have half a dozen names I WISH would’ve run, but alas… Now nothing has really changed ever. Candidates have always needed 1-part name-recognition, 1-part viral grassroots momentum leading to greater media coverage, and 1-part establishment backing. Some lean into one of these more so than others; some magically have all three - such as Obama.
Alas I don’t know, man. I’m at a loss. I am fundamentally disappointed at our prospects going forward and will advocate for an open convention or some alternative because this just isn’t working. If it comes down to it and Biden is indeed the nominee I’ll vote for him as well to avoid the other guy of course.
I just feel like Democrats are in a very awkward spot right now in terms of the quality of candidates they have to run; we’re between generations where one set – the Warrens, Bidens, Bernies – are too old – while the up-and-comers are just a shade too young yet – such as AOC, Katie Porter, etc. I suppose Whitmer would probably be the best bet.
First link is inapplicable to DNC; blame conservative Supreme Court.
Second link is somewhat fair, but ultimately neither candidate adhered to local NC election policy; nor was either actually going to win the election there by the polling – but I’ll credit you this.
Tell me what you want me to take away from the 3rd link that supports your argument.
The fourth link is substantive and my stance is somewhat shifted. Some shady state-level shit, or at the very least inconsistency and incompetence.
But I have to step back and ask the following: Did these change the outcome in any conceivable way? Let’s be abundantly-clear, here: Nobody who actually voluntarily threw their hat in the ring were achieving any modicum of momentum in public polling that would suggest they’d be a viable challenger. IF, there was someone who could win opening primary states and who had some semblance of national polling that competed with Biden at any level, then I’d be more inclined to agree. But there simply was no Obama waiting in the wings.
So to repeat: Nobody “forced” anyone to not run against Biden; they simply lost and could not make up either the numbers or longstanding state-level requirements to compete. That being said, was there an obvious top-down messaging campaign to rally behind the incumbent President? Absolutely. Do I agree? Not particularly.
And I’m sorry but it’s a fact right-wing operatives routinely utilize this rhetoric to drive a wedge. Plenty of reporting on the Russian IRA Troll farms; are you unfamiliar? For fuck sake my man, you’re the one who pointed out foreign interference with Israel dumping money and utilizing their own misinformation troll farm online.
Let’s not presume upon what Bernie did; fall-in-line are your words based purely on speculation when they could’ve simply been “Bernie understood the dilemma and agreed with the top-down strategy at the time, and that no other candidate who voluntarily threw their hat in the ring had a better chance.”
Seriously, thank you for taking the time to read and respond. The 3rd link is a long word salad of an article they probably could’ve done better with, some highlights:
It’s effective when you take into consideration what DNC spokesmen require, "they did not reach the standards for their nomination: a candidacy that is “generally advocated and recognized in the news media,”.
I can link articles and interviews by Bernie if you wish but I’m going to assume you know of the legal battles and statements made by him during the campaigning and after. “fall-in-line” is definitely my words, but then you go on to describe exactly what fall in line means. The term does come across as negative but the reality is he made declarative statements beforehand and has now changed his position in favor of what the DNC wishes to do… there are other terms I could use I guess but the general description is the same.
I incorrectly assumed you were using the “this is a foreign bot” defense and were telling other people to not drink the kool-aid that I see used all the time so actual conversations can’t develop. It’s why I included the you and I part so I do apologize for that.
I can’t come to the same conclusion you have with the data, I’ve pointed out just a few of the ways in which the DNC jerryrigs their primaries and candidates. We see the manipulation of media and the cost of running a candidacy which completely undermines any contender. We aren’t seeing any “viable challengers” because of decades of hurdles and organizations (both local and national) that limit those who are highlighted, which in turn allows the DNC to say “well we don’t think they have a chance so they’re not allowed to run”. It’s like a boxing match where every opponent of Biden’s has to wear weights and have their hands tied but “Biden would’ve won anyways because he’s the better boxer”.
You’ve raise fair points, thanks. I think the reality of Bernie’s position is that he wishes he was 20 years younger. In his view, neither himself nor anyone else could really say with certainty at the time last year that they would be better. After all, the economy was ticking up, abortion could be used, and Bernie got a lot of compromises and influence within the Biden administration since then. Ultimately, the Biden presidency did a lot of good work in the eyes of Bernie and a united front against Trump combined with incumbent advantages did seem to be a “safe bet” going into 2024. But we’ve seen quite an erosion of Biden’s faculties just in the last 2 years let alone 4.
Having been one of the earlier supporters of Bernie in 2015 I do remember my frustrations with the DNC oftentimes shunning Bernie and not getting the attention he deserved. I do agree there is some favoritism seniority games at play in the DNC.
I just took issue specifically with the claim that DNC did not allow anyone to run. It’s a little bit of DNC inertia, sure, but it’s also quite a lot of, “well, no good Obama-esque candidate tried” either. Now I have half a dozen names I WISH would’ve run, but alas… Now nothing has really changed ever. Candidates have always needed 1-part name-recognition, 1-part viral grassroots momentum leading to greater media coverage, and 1-part establishment backing. Some lean into one of these more so than others; some magically have all three - such as Obama.
Alas I don’t know, man. I’m at a loss. I am fundamentally disappointed at our prospects going forward and will advocate for an open convention or some alternative because this just isn’t working. If it comes down to it and Biden is indeed the nominee I’ll vote for him as well to avoid the other guy of course.
I just feel like Democrats are in a very awkward spot right now in terms of the quality of candidates they have to run; we’re between generations where one set – the Warrens, Bidens, Bernies – are too old – while the up-and-comers are just a shade too young yet – such as AOC, Katie Porter, etc. I suppose Whitmer would probably be the best bet.