(07-23-2024, 09:38 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote:

(07-22-2024, 12:40 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: Yes, you've been a reasonable and relatively moderate opposition voice which I greatly respect.  However, we're having a back and forth on the comment I made regarding subverting Democracy which you took issue with and I explained was due to the fact that Harris was selected and not elected.  You're forgetting or avoiding the hypothetical I posed of her having to go through an open primary this past year on her own and refusing to opine on what you think her chances would have been.
In accordance with the defined process, that is not required.  Would I like to have a vote? Yes.  //  Would I vote Kamala in a 2024 August Primary? I would vote for her to keep the peace but she is not my 1st choice (i like Manchin #1 but he's not even Dem anymore .... and Shapiro #2)  // Do I think the Dems did the right thing?  Yes.  Also, she now has the electoral votes to proceed (in accordance withe the process)

This will have been 2 of the last 3 Democratic primaries where the will of the people was not necessarily honored or, in the case this year, even needed.  In 2016, super delegates pledged extremely early for Hillary which not only gave her a significant lead in delegates, but likely swayed undecideds to the side of the presumed winner and/or encouraged some Bernie supporters to just stay home.  Super PACs are the norm and are not illegal--- yes, it sucks but that's the way politics go    Even in 2020, certain candidates with no chance of winning stayed in the race longer than usual in what appeared to be an effort to thwart Bernie's chances, though admittedly it may not have mattered that year as Biden was seen as a connection to the popular on the left Obama years anyway.  (If Biden in fact made a deal for Pocahontas to say in the race to peel voters off of Bernie, kudos for good primary election strategy on his part) Can't control who stays and who goes.  Otherwise there should only really be 2-3 candidates to begin with because all the others are just in there for recognition, knowing they have no chance.

I completely agree that given the current scenario and circumstances, she is the rightful candidate and I believe she's the only one that has a legitimate claim on Biden's existing war chest of campaign funds as well.  Yep, it is what it is - just glad there wasn't a revolt.  lol

Sidenote:  If Kamala wins in 2024, the Dems may need to run the course in 2028 or face backlash.  Would this really be better than starting fresh in 2028 with a new face of the party?   Only time will tell.  Just glad Biden is out .... I could not bear to watch him or listen to him anymore.

My 2 cents above

Thank you, however, Super PAC's and Super Delegates are not the same conversation.  Unless I miss your meaning in bringing them up, want to try again on that one?  Did not mention Super PACs or whether it was illegal or not.  Only that the will of the people being subverted could easily be argued here because Super Delegates being unbound to vote based on the result of the primary can vote for whomever they want to at the convention and many pledged to Hillary very early in the process giving her an artificial and likely insurmountable lead, but we have to be on the same page regarding the facts for that argument to hit home.  

Super delegates make up about 15% of the total delegates on the democratic side. The republican side does not have super delegates. In short, Hillary started the primary with the 15% slice already in her pocket. The remaining 85% was up for grabs. Bernie would have had to win 51/34 of the remaining 85% of the pie or 60% of all available remaining delegates.

Essentially, the Dem powers that be will graciously allow you to vote in their primary, but they reserve the right to choose for you your candidate unless your candidate can obtain roughly 60% of the delegates that are up for grabs and bound to vote based on the will of the people expressed through the primary vote.  That's a tall order in a contested primary.  Mikesez probably won't care because he mistakenly presumes it helps ensure a more moderate candidate, perhaps you and others feel the same way.  Regardless, it is an indictment of what the powers that be think of their voters and on what they think of a truly democratic process in general.  They did change the process for the 2020 election and beyond to no longer allow them to pledge early for a candidate (at least openly), but the rest of the rules and their very existence remain in tact which doesn't really change much.

---