60
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
60 points (78.8% liked)
politics
18883 readers
3526 users here now
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.
- 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.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If there wasn't any competition then it wasn't a primary, it was a formality.
If there isn't any competition, then it's a noncompetitive election. It's still an election. In fact, it's the most common type of election.
I.e., not an election at all.
You can stop pretending like the party's failure to provide any choice is evidence of Democracy in action. Quite the opposite, in fact.
What makes you think the party is responsible for providing choices?
Consumerist thinking at its finest. But the DNC isn't a restaurant or Costco. They don't exist to provide choices, that's up to volunteers. The DNC is just there to crown the winner.
So if nobody steps up and volunteers to challenge an incumbent, then nobody will challenge the incumbent.
That's what parties exist for, to align political candidates that they might support each other. Going into a general election without a primary to test the candidates only ensures an untested vandidate will be on the ballot.
"The DNC is just there to crown the winner."
You can't be a winner if there is no contest. The coronation of "presumptive candidates" (presumed, specifically, by party leadership) is exactly what lost the election in 2016.
And thus, the party is disqualified from claiming that it is the party of democracy.
The party exists to support their candidate in the general.
The party doesn't care, at all, whether the primary is competitive. In fact, until recently parties often held caucuses instead of primaries, or just selected candidates in smoke-filled rooms.
This year there will be plenty of local candidates who will run opposed in the general election. If those races have no winners, then who will fill those offices?
Nobody.
If the office needs to be filled, hold another election.
That's not how it works. A winner is declared no matter how many candidates.
And your approach is unreasonable, you can't keep repeating the election for county coroner when only one person even wants to run.
County coroner shouldn't be an elected position anyway.
Should school boards be elected? This year, 58% of those seats are uncontested.
What about local judges? This year, 84% are uncontested.
Yes, yes, and those are great examples of why the lack of democratic competition is an existential threat to the nation.
But should those seats remain unfilled after an uncontested election? That would mean most of those seats are never filled.
I don't think the lack of competition is an existential threat. Democratic competition is motivated by a strong desire for change. But it's natural that in some communities nobody strongly desires change in some settings, like school board policy.
If and when the school board or judge makes mistakes, political opponents who desire change will arise.
You could fit three full elections between voting day and inaguration day. The idea that elections take years is an artifact of our broken electoral system, not a fact of nature.
Trump is about to win a second term because the DNC conspired to knock Bernie out of the primary in 2015.
If nobody volunteers to run for school board between January and October, then nobody will volunteer in November or December.
Running a campaign takes time and money, and you shouldn't expect someone to volunteer those just to give you the satisfaction of seeing two boxes on a ballot.
And I see no evidence that President Sanders in 2016 could have prevented Trump from running in 2024.
Trump wouldn't even be a political figure today if the DNC didn't promote him back in 2015 believing that he'd be an easy opponent for Hillary.
[X] Doubt
Doubt all you want, it's true:
https://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/
Nothing in that article suggests Trump needed help from the DNC. He became the GOP favorite the moment he announced he was running.
You seriously think Rubio could have defeated Trump?
You realize that's worse, right? Not only did the DNC fatally misunderestimate him, they helped him for no reason.
No, it's not worse. They attacked him thinking it would help them, but it didn't accomplish anything.