A Very Good Sign: Kamala Harris Is Going Right at Corporate Greed - eviltoast
  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    3 months ago

    Yeah just like how Biden’s gonna seal the deal witch Israel tomorrow.

    I’m kind of annoyed more people aren’t offed by the fact that the DNC didn’t run a primary because we had at least 3-4 better candidates lined up, and Kamala wouldn’t have even reached close just like last time.

    I think I’m just gonna start labeling this articles “hopium”

    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      3-4 better candidates

      Who are these people and why do you say better? Kamala Harris polled better than literally any other person including Bernie Sanders, Gavin Newsome, etc etc all the people who are usually presented as other options.

      • mlg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Kamala Harris polled better than literally any other person including Bernie Sanders, Gavin Newsome, etc etc all the people who are usually presented as other options.

        What poll bruh, there was no primary. That’s literally why they ran a “roll call” to gg easy their chosen candidate.

        • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          These polls. Run it back to January and tell me which poll has someone other than Biden or Harris leading. There is one! I’ll wait for you to find it and tell me who it was that won it.

          There were some others, that weren’t focused on the “democratic primary” category. I’ll also wait for you to find one, and tell me which one has someone other than Biden / Harris winning, and who it was.

          • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            I personally have no issue with Harris as the nominee, the process that got her there, and she has my vote. But I’m not sure polls that are that hypothetical are worth very much when it wasn’t a fully serious primary but more a rubber stamp on the incumbent.

            If Biden would have decided not to run last year and let there be a full primary those polls don’t really convince me that Harris would have been the nominee. (For one thing there would have been actually campaigns by her and by alternatives.)

            • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              What happened to the other person?

              I’ve noticed that this happens a lot. It’s “what poll?” “this poll” and then all of a sudden some other person jumps in with a new line of questioning. Sort of a multi-person version of Never Play Defense.

              The second part of the question which I sent to the other person dealt very directly with the point that you’re making. There was a pretty extensive process of polling during the time when it was trying to find people to thrust into place as a substitute for Biden before he withdrew. They did a bunch of matchups of various random name-familiar Democrats.

              I absolutely refuse to accept the logic that it would have been better to have a month of infighting about who the candidate should be, as opposed to unifying behind a single strong candidate who was leading in the polls. Who would you rather have had?

              • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                What happened to the other person?

                I’ve noticed that this happens a lot. It’s “what poll?” “this poll” and then all of a sudden some other person jumps in with a new line of questioning.

                I have no clue. That’s kind of a fundamental part of this format of social media. Multiple people can converse with different viewpoints.

                I absolutely refuse to accept the logic that it would have been better to have a month of infighting about who the candidate should be, as opposed to unifying behind a single strong candidate who was leading in the polls. Who would you rather have had?

                I don’t think it would’ve been good either. Like I said:

                I personally have no issue with Harris as the nominee, the process that got her there, and she has my vote.

                I would’ve preferred this whole mess have been avoided so there could have been actual primary during the normal primary timeframe. Maybe Harris would’ve came out on top, maybe not. Without any campaigning I’m not going to take any of the “literally anyone besides who is actually running” polls from the primary season seriously.

                • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  This is more what I was talking about

                  (You can find more like this at 538.)

                  I mean, I don’t fully disagree with you that any number of polls like this aren’t real representative of much. But, the point is that any time the voters were asked, they tended to prefer Harris as much as anyone else.

                  I actually fully agreed with everything you’re saying until I saw how it worked out with Harris as the nominee and people’s reaction to her. I’m sure the honeymoon won’t last forever but it seems unlikely to me to see how that played out and then say “naw we should have done something different.”

    • K1nsey6@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      3 months ago

      They keep telling us this is the democracy they need to save. A presidential candidate that’s never won a single primary, electoral vote, and came in last in her own state is suddenly the nominee?

      • save_the_humans@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        I don’t love how it played out either but it was the delegates we voted for that elected kamala as our nominee. It was our representative democracy at play in a less than ideal situation when biden dropped out at an awkward time. And kind of the point of a vice president.

        Its this or the guy that said he’d be dictator on day one and that no one would ever have to vote again if he is elected. You decide what you want to vote for.

      • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        The parties are private entities and can set whatever rules they like for selecting a nominee. That said, this was technically still the same representative democratic process. Voters selected the delegates (which are bound on the first round voting only), but Biden dropped out and released his delegates to vote whichever way they wanted.

        Certainly I would’ve preferred for Biden to drop out last year and have had a full primary. But you can’t make someone accept the nomination when they don’t want it, and there are rules and a process for the already selected delegates to vote for someone else.