this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
60 points (88.5% liked)

politics

19194 readers
3165 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cabron_offsets 29 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You bet your balls a real primary would have helped.

[–] takeda 4 points 1 week ago

I doubt it. We are continue to underestimate information warfare. Look at Romania. A guy sympathetic to Russia who no one heard about few months ago won the first round.

The same techniques were used this election and previous one in US and Europe and we still ignoring it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I agree that what they did is ridiculous. The macro story should be that the two major parties rig their primary processes in order to sideline potential challengers to the machine apparatus.

The takeaway is you have little to no ability to influence the national candidate selection unless you're a major player in an early primary/caucus state or you're a billionaire PAC donor.

Even if they had a "real" primary the DNC would've cooked it so Kamala (or whoever the DNC elites picked) got the nod. The Obamas, Clintons, Pelosi, Bloomberg etc. already made the decision at that point and what you or I wanted was never a factor.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

I agree that a primary probably still ends up with Kamala and would probably just be the illusion of choice. The DNC would close ranks around her in the name of Biden's legacy, just like they did for Biden back in 2020 when the vote was splitting in Bernie's favor, and in 2016 when it was obvious they just wanted to coronate Hillary and move on.

That said, even with a rigged primary, putting your candidate on the debate stage to address your constituents instead of skipping directly to fellating non-existent centrists in the general would have been good.