282
Biden reportedly regrets ending re-election campaign and says he’d have defeated Trump
(www.theguardian.com)
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 28 Dec 2024
282 points (90.8% liked)
News
23738 readers
2941 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Bernie is one example of not running a fair primary, but not specifically what I was referencing. I was referencing the 2024 Democratic Primary specifically, and then mentioning that very few in the past have been fair to candidates. Not just because of the way the party treats the candidates publicly, but because of the way funding works and the direct control the leaders of the party have over that funding and how blackballing works if any candidate doesn't follow the party line. Which would be fine if there were allowed to be more than two viable, active parties at once. But the electoral college, among other things, makes that almost impossible, thus why Bernie had to run as a Democrat in the first place when he doesn't usually belong to the party.
You're quoting the last half of a sentence. "The only way Democrats could have won was to hold a fair primary which they haven't done in a long time." A prepositional phrase is an addition/side comment to a current statement. Thus, the 2024 primary was the primary focus of my comment.
But, again, to address the prepositional phrase portion, yes, none of the primaries in my lifetime have been truly fair.
As for the two party system, the original comment is referencing the electoral college which is the primary cause of the two party system as I mentioned in the original comment. The reason it's relevant here is the same reason duopolies are unfair in economic contexts. When hundreds of millions of people have only 2 choices, those 2 rarely will care to appease the majority because they don't have to in order to keep the customers/constituents. They just have to be the less hated for more people than the other one.
So, funding. Where does most presidential funding come from if they don't have direct wealthy donors? The SuperPACs are controlled by the same group of people who lead the DNC. And most primary elections are determined by funding because it's so expensive just to get your name out there, your message heard, and to get on the ballots. So funding is very relevant to the fairness of the primaries.
I don't know why you're so focused on Bernie when I only side discussed decades of primaries, but OK if that's the only primary that matters in all of history, then let's discuss it.
Clinton took a bunch of money she promised to give a significant amount of to state and local Democratic parties and then a bunch of what she didn't take went to the DNC instead and less than half a percent of the $80+ million went to the state and local candidates. And this was fine with the fund raising agreement technically because the DNC wrote it that way, but definitely unethical considering the donations were made with the assumption that it would help the Democratic candidates up and down the ballot, not just Hillary and the DNC. Bernie didn't take part because of the mismanagement of the DNC and the agreement language that allowed for such things.
Additionally, Warren, Biden, and several other candidates were prevented from running through pressure from the DNC leadership. If they had been allowed to run, it was said, it would have split the vote too much away from Hillary. Again, it's easier to control the narratives with a two sided competition so they could get who they wanted.
These are just two examples of problems with the way the primary was conducted. Unfortunately, because a lot of the financials and other business of political parties is considered proprietary, much more like a corporation than something representing the people who it purports to represent, there is less evidence of a lot of the other issues. Fortunately, Hillary's campaign was more forthcoming with financial data than the DNC, so we do have some data at least.
I'm not a Hillary hater and while I think she did some things wrong, and while I admit I'm biased against her from her taking a bunch of money to drop the healthcare reform during her husband's term that could have saved a lot of lives and perhaps a certain CEO assassin's severe pain, it's the responsibility of the party to make the primary elections fair, not the candidates, beyond basic ethical standards at least.
Bernie was one of many, not the most important.
The tangents are what you're asking for because you keep focusing on one prepositional phrase in a whole paragraph. The whole point of the post was the issues of the electoral college and how it causes a necessary two party system if it ever hopes to actually elect without resorting to the contingent election system which then gives the election to the house, where more representatives per person are given to low density areas, much like the electoral college votes are distributed.
I already answered how the primaries are unfair. Funding agreements are corrupt as proven by the data from Hillary's campaign. The party doesn't allow true primaries to occur in years with an incumbent president. And in other years, candidates that might be competitive are limited to one, or at most, two strong candidates one of which is more strongly supported by the party, despite there being many others who want to run (much like how Warren, Biden, and Hickenlooper in 2016). Keeping the others out actually benefited both Sanders and Clinton, but due to the power of money and the fact that those in the party had already decided on Clinton and actually had no intention or even an obligation to allow anyone else to win, it made it much easier to sabotage just Bernie rather than having to sabotage many candidates.
The fact that the parties are allowed to be biased for a specific candidate and have no real obligation to hold primaries, much less listen to them, and the fact that there can only be two parties, means there is no true democracy (representative or otherwise) by design. Votes are rarely for something, but instead voting against something and thus selecting the "lesser evil" that is selected by a small minority. This is the point of the original post. The primaries not being fair is just a side note, and not even part of the constitution, nor is it illegal for the primaries to be biased, so it's just obfuscation of the real issue. The fact that the electoral college creates a necessary two candidate system. That doesn't mean we have to have political parties, but we do, and those are corrupt, but outside of the purview of the constitution. No matter what system is put in place, it will always be no more than two options.
I'm having problems rationalizing what you're trying to get to. You admit "the DNC stacked the deck" but you don't think that effected his outcome? You ran on the campaigns but have completely forgotten about the Nevada scandals involving unions and the caucus or what happened in SC when the DNC pressured high profile representatives to back Biden instead of Bernie (of which historically Biden has been horrible for minority communities). These are just off the top of my head, articles and references if you need them and I'll make sure to find you some more to help with the analysis.
Seems like you're splitting hairs trying to form some type of narrative. Democratic primaries have nothing to do with the two-party system? You'd have to completely wretch out decades of political knowledge from my head to even consider that nothing is connected. If there's a real, viable point you're trying to make besides "nuh uh", would love to be exposed to it.
This is all sounding a little delusional and honestly blind. Several factors have been pointed out to you, you're aware of some of it and supposedly followed along. The very statement of "they have a favorite and message in their favor" is a direct conflict to having a "fair primary".
The implication was the vote was not fair. This conversation was days ago. Move on.