• xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    4 months ago

    Then let it be an open convention. The last time the DNC crowned someone we got Hillary and a bunch of young voters switched over to Trump.

    We should have an open convention even if there’s a likely outcome to foster unity.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      If the delegates get to swoop in at the last to make someone nobody’s ever heard of the nominee instead of Harris, that’s going to be a coronation that totally disregards voters. Harris being the nominee is what would have happened anyway if Biden had to step down and the logical way to go here.

      Harris is not my favorite person in the world, but I guarantee there’s a chunk of convention delegates who want someone like a Manchin or a Bloomberg or a Clinton or someone else worse.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yes, I’m sure there will be a lot of “unity” from people like yourself when it’s Kamala Harris anyway.

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        There will be, yes.

        I think she’s a bad choice to beat Trump and the most important thing is to beat Trump. If she’s the pick I’ll back her - but I’m not going to support someone who I think will lose while there’s still a choice.

        Edit: Beautiful show of unity - downvoting someone saying they’ll back the eventual candidate. This kind of head-in-sand bullshit is what loses us fucking elections and it was all over the place shouting down people with legitimate criticisms of Biden before he stepped down.

          • Bassman1805@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            And who realistically is a better choice at this point? I can’t think of a single other Democrat with the recognition to pull a presidential campaign together in 3 months.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              The only person I have heard that even remotely has a chance of being the pick instead of Harris is Gavin Newsom and he both doesn’t seem to want it and also polls really badly against Trump.

              • Bassman1805@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Yeah, he’s widely known outside of California, but largely because he’s a massive punching bag for conservatives. Not a good pick for a presidential race.

                • njm1314@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I think Gavin Newsom will be a very strong candidate if he had time to prime the pump. Which is I imagine what he was planning to do in 2028. A shorter, if we can call four months short good Lord, campaign is not in his favor.

          • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            4 months ago

            She performed poorly on the national stage last time she was on it. She has a decent voting record but doesn’t have a lot of sponsored legislation. She has a deep flaw from being a former prosecutor. I’m not aware of her having a passion to fix any particular problems.

            I think we can do better and choose someone who can excite the voterbase to get folks to turn up. We need to fight voter apathy.

              • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                They have? She’s now popular enough to excite the base and win a sweeping victory at the convention?

                (Also, I don’t know how her being a former prosecutor has changed - and I’m quite doubtful most of my other concerns have shifted either).

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              4 months ago

              She performed poorly on the national stage last time she was on it.

              So like Joe Biden in 2020 who got elected anyway.

              She has a decent voting record but doesn’t have a lot of sponsored legislation.

              Who gives a shit?

              She has a deep flaw from being a former prosecutor.

              That is in no way a flaw, let alone a deep one.

              On top of that, 13 presidents have been lawyers, including Clinton and Obama.

              I’m not aware of her having a passion to fix any particular problems.

              Just because you’re not aware of something doesn’t mean it isn’t the case.

              • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                4 months ago

                I’m not aware of her having a passion to fix any particular problems.

                Just because you’re not aware of something doesn’t mean it isn’t the case.

                Let’s see if she can deliver a passionate platform, it’s kinda her entire job as a politician and if I, a hyperaware political person, am not familiar with it, then most people have no fucking clue.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Most people have no fucking clue because she’s been in the shadows for four years as VP and I think it was pretty obvious that Obama’s former VP was going to get the nomination in 2020.

                  She still has a lot of time for voters to get to know her and your claim of hyperawareness didn’t apparently extend to the fact that a whole lot of presidents have been lawyers.

        • paultimate14@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          As a black person she’ll alienate the racists in the DNC. There aren’t as many as the DNC, but it would be naive to think there aren’t any. As much as I don’t want to cater to racists, beating Trump is more important right now.

          As a woman she will alienate misogynists. Same thing.

          As a cop she’s going to alienate a ton of voters. She’s recently changed her positions on a lot of crime-related issues like marijuana, but idk how much that’s going to help her win the BLM crowd.

          I’ll vote for her if she’s the pick, no question. Heck, there are very few people the DNC could nominate at this point that I wouldn’t vote for. I suppose as Biden’s VP she was kind of nominated in the primary if you squint. But yeah… DNC elites appointing a cop at the last minute doesn’t strike me as the best way to fight fascism.

          Identity politics aside, I like a lot of what she claims to support, but that’s assuming that she’s truly no longer the prosecutor she used to be. She has good records on reproductive rights, economics, LGBTQ+ support. My biggest gripe with her would be she’s still just as pro-Israel as Biden and most of the DNC seems to be.

    • Bassman1805@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      People love this talking point, as if Hillary didn’t also win the popular and electoral votes in that primary. She still would’ve had the nomination of there were no super delegates.

      I wanted 8 years of Bernie too, but let’s chill with the conspiracy theories.

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        4 months ago

        No.

        In that primary the charts from day one included superdelegates for Hillary and the DNC absolutely put their thumb on the scale in a major way. That primary was an absolutely awful mistake and turned a lot of voters off of the democratic ticket.

        Were it not for the bullshit Hillary pulled we likely never would have had Trump as a president - the margin of his election was thin enough that not trampling over the progressive side of the party would have kept him out of office.

        • toast@retrolemmy.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          the margin of his election was thin enough that not trampling over the progressive side of the party would have kept him out of office

          There, see. There’s the fault in your argument. The Democratic party can’t seem to stop trampling over progressives