politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
“Voters should decide who our primary nominees are, not DNC leadership.” Since when has the DNC not put it's thumb on the scales in the past few decades, or ignored the voters entirely?
DNC thumbing the scales is why we ended up with Trump twice. cause they kept insisting on running candidates no one wanted.
DNC: "Fuck Bernie, it's her turn."
Thumb on the scale...? The vote records are public, the primary races haven't even been close for many decades.
So is the lawsuit in which democrats successfully argued that they didn't have to hold honest primaries.
Primary races haven't been fair for decades.
Disagree, I blame lack of participation.
Am I out of touch?
No, it's the voters who are wrong.
*gestures to trump in white house
*gestures to the lack of a proper DNC primary
Or general systemic failures of the dnc in general
DNC Primaries happen even if you cover your eyes, pal.
No doubt. But those primaries won't feature the candidates people really want to vote for. The few that manage to slip through will be either ignored or derided like Bernie was.
If people wanted to vote for them then they would have won the primaries.
No, because:-
Millions are spent primarying incumbents in safe seats.
DNC officials are not neutral in primaries.
Neutrality is not codified in the party’s official rules and bylaws.
DNC officers attempt to influence the outcome of a primary election.
DNC leadership decides who our primary nominees are, not voters.
In 2016 party members felt the DNC tipped the primary scales
We absolutely should be promoting safe seats and not primary them. That makes perfect sense to me. It also makes sense that the DNC picks who runs on the DNC ticket, at least as long as first past the post still exists.
As far as "influence" you keep talking about it but the only evidence you provide is people just don't vote the way you want them to.
Why? That is anti democratic.
This is about the primary, not the candidacy.
These were not my words. I was quoting from the article.
Because splitting our voter base in parts makes us less likely to win seats in congress. It's called the Spoiler Effect.
If a person's primary candidate loses they're less likely to vote for the primary winner in the general election.
I see you using them not arguing against them.
Fair primaries have nothing to do with the Spoiler Effect.
Absolute horseshit. Anyone participating in the Democrat's primary vote will hold their nose and vote Democrat on election day.
Why would I argue against the article? You're just butthurt that your usual "no evidence" gambit failed.
Given that you've got about 100 years to play with - who else besides HRC did they put their thumb on the scale for?
Please show your work.
1968? There were literally riots
If you look at Alexandria Ocacia Cortez's primary, when the DNC realized what was happening they tried desperately to undo her primary win. Going so far as to endorse the incumbent Democrat who stayed on the ballot due to a technicality.
These people are not trustworthy at all.
Another example would be Biden's primary win in 2020. The DNC used the pandemic as an excuse to end the primary process early and just declare Biden the winner. And even before that they were heavily pushing Biden on everyone and doing their best to lock Bernie out of just about every poll they conducted, pretending like had no chance even though he was pulling numbers that were equalling, and even surpassing in places, Biden at the time.
Good examples. Both from ~six years ago and not the original claim of "decades" but good examples.
Love you casually ignoring the people/comments showing even older examples.
https://lemmy.sdf.org/comment/19535112
It's probably easier to count the ones where the DNC didn't have their thumb on the scale. First, it's been way less than 100 years since voters even determined who the candidate was; before 1976, primaries were basically just opinion polls, and delegates picked who they wanted regardless of voter input. Also, after the Carter team blamed Ted Kennedy for their loss, the DNC started ostracizing candidates that made primary challenges, so they definitely put their thumb on the scale for incumbents. So off the bat, we're looking at less than 50 years of primaries, and only in non-incumbent years.
Then the party definitely put its thumb in the scale for Clinton in 2016, Biden in 2020, and they literally just picked Harris in 2024. So, that means that the unbiased primaries would be Carter in '76, Mondale in "84, Dukakis in 88, Clinton in 92, Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004 (though personally I think they kinda did a hit-job on Howard Dean) and Obama in 2008. Out of 12 primaries in over 48 years, 7 have been open and fair contests. About 58% successful in keeping their thumb off the scale.
Oh, the primary that gave us Obama was biased as hell. For Clinton.
It wasn't enough. The party learned, though. Which is why they've been moving towards not even having primaries when they can just shove a centrist at us and order us to vote like they want.
I haven't seen any evidence that Bernie should have won the 2016 primary. He was close by like 12% margin, but he still lost by millions of votes.
Bernie's loss is seen as a direct result of DWS's committee fuckery by most people on here. Which is not the same as it being true, it just gets a lot more attention.
It's the case that he didn't win enough votes. But I think it was the first time he got such good exposure for a national contest.
I still remember the DNC talking points, along with the media going along with the bullshit superdelegate fuckery to custom the story at the time, radically changing the race. Bernie was absolutely rat fucked by the DNC. I guess people can argue He Isn'T eVeN a ReAL DemoCrat, true, but that just plays into the fuckery.
I mean, to me that isn't fuckery. They let an independent run on their primary tickets and he only lost by about 12% margin despite not being perfectly aligned with their platform. Hillary might have had a lot of advertisement money to play with but we also know that outside influences were promoting Bernie on social media to create a spoiler effect.
Inside influences were promoting Hillary on mainstream media to create a spoiler effect.
You say that like it's worse lol. Was it unclear that by "outside" I meant "outside of the USA"?
Was it unclear that by "inside", I meant "inside the DNC".
Sadly finite can't admit the dnc is anything but perfect. It's just everyone else that's the problem nothing with the dnc