This statement was from 23 July and has been overcome by events. Harris is the nominee. The only reasons to share this 3 weeks after it was published is to either pretend that there is dissent on the left about who should be the nominee, or it was a simple mistake and you didn’t see the date. Which is it?
A third option: I think it’s still important to be cognizant of their very correct call-out of the lack of democratic choice in this process. As you said, it’s too late to change that now, and certainly Beehaw is essentially all aboard the Harris/Walz train, but we did bypass an important phase of our democratic system to get here.
As it says in the article:
So we will do the hard thing: we will celebrate, and honor the joy many in our community are feeling about Kamala’s historic candidacy and path to the nomination—while calling out the undemocratic process and engaging in a vigorous discussion on the issues our community cares about.
They’re the nominees. They’re going to be on the ballots. But while I personally don’t think there was a better pair of candidates readily available at this point, I can still acknowledge that it was sad that it played out this way. Biden should have withdrew from the race back at the start, and we could have had a true primary (apart from the usual DNC shenanigans that they always pull), but Biden robbed that from us in his arrogance.
3 weeks ago, I barely had heard the name Walz, and now from what I’ve seen I love the guy. How many better candidates could we have had if we weren’t 100 days out from the election and being rushed to find good ones?
I get the potential gripe, but realistically it’s hard to call it undemocratic even as it stands. People voted for an incumbent (essentially unopposed) ticket of Biden/Harris. Had Biden simply dropped dead this would have been the very same result. We just skipped the whole death part and moved on to the natural line of succession. Besides, how many times have we had a VP become pres or at least the candidate in the past few decades? Better than half since the 70s if I count correctly.
I’m not particularly disappointed with the outcome, but it was undemocratic. Just because there is a precedent of the party bullying other candidates out of running against an incumbent doesn’t make it democratic. The party bullying it’s way to its preferred candidate is what lost us 2016.
Anything specific to say they forced others not to run? The whole bit of others dropping out and endorsing happens regularly. Happened on the R side too. Bernie didn’t get nominated because not enough people showed up to vote at the end of the day. Having dedicated fans and lots of youth energy means nothing unless the vote count says what you want when it’s over.
They didn’t force anyone to do anything, they bullied them out of it.
They cancelled primaries in Florida and North Carolina entirely, which took those delegates off the table for any challengers. They changed primary dates for 2024 which made it harder for other candidates to get on the primary ballots, and pledged to reduce the number of delegates that a state received if they held their primary on their original schedule instead.
Last year, the Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to strengthen their penalty power over states that jump the line. Not only will those states automatically lose half their delegates, the DNC also broadly empowered the national party chair to take any other “appropriate steps” to enforce the early window.
It also nearly eliminates any path for a potential Democratic primary challenge ahead of 2024 by elevating states that represent the president’s base of support.
The rules change in particular was initiated in 2022, which given it’s placement of Biden-friendly states at the start (to generate immediate momentum in delegates) was about as close to explicitly telling other democrats not to run as if they’d just sent out a newsletter.
Lastly
Bernie didn’t get nominated because not enough people showed up to vote at the end of the day.
If this is in reference to 2016, it’s more because he was robbed of it by the Hillary campaign controlling the DNC and using them to disadvantage him at every turn. But don’t take my word for that, take Donna Brazile’s, the head of the DNC at the time of the election.
To be fair, Beehaw has been clearly inundated with bad faith arguments about the election for weeks. Let’s not pretend it hasn’t. This may not be that, but it’s not appropriate to scold users for calling out dead obvious political manipulation.
This may not be that, but it’s not appropriate to scold users for calling out dead obvious political manipulation.
you can find it cringe–and i certainly don’t agree with most of the people here proposing third-party voting (which i think is total dead-enderism and morally pointless)–but people disagreeing with you is not political manipulation and it devalues the term to use it in such a cavalier manner
I literally mean political manipulation. Fully bad faith attempts to derail the Democratic party via arguments that the person in question doesn’t actually believe. Again, this may not be that, but I think it’s a mistake to pretend that Beehaw is somehow immune to this technique that the right is demonstrably using on other platforms.
We are in a notably leftist, anti-establishment, anti-authoritarian space with users who clearly speak their minds and bring the conversations had here into bigger spaces. It is ripe for being targeted by bad actors.
Again, this may not be that, but I think it’s a mistake to pretend that Beehaw is somehow immune to this technique that the right is demonstrably using on other platforms.
nobody here is pretending that it is, the issue is this is clearly not an example of this so you are functionally asserting the OP is an asset for any number of foreign disinformation and division campaigns. also the framing of “derail the Democratic party” presumes it’s not correct to do this, but that’s also a thing people can disagree on. for example: i’m a socialist–so yes, i support doing that in the long term.
I’m a leftist with a long history of supporting healthy discussion on the Threadiverse, @millie; you can easily review it by reading my post and comment history. And I’m disappointed you would assume bad faith when we just had a similar interaction last month, when you were accusing people who criticized this same weakness in the Democratic party of being bad faith actors. This was back when the defense was being used to prop up Joe Biden as the candidate after the debate that revealed his mental decline. I had hoped you might gain more appreciation of the value of dissent from that event.
Do you think it was a mistake to listen to dissent and for Joe Biden to step down?
I simply outlined the only two possible motivations for the post that I could think of and gave OP a prompt to explain if it was simply a mistake on their part. Did I miss a motivation that explains the context of the post?
This news is from over a month ago, and conditions have materially and dramatically changed since it’s publication. Regardless of the intent, posting this without noting a critical detail (it’s age) is at best incredibly misleading, and at worst intentionally subversive.
You could have just admitted it was a mistake without the grandstanding. All Democrats criticize the Democratic Party - it’s like a requirement, and it doesn’t make you special.
Criticism is our strength, though it’s often viewed as a weakness by others. But that criticism needs to be grounded in facts and reality, or else it undercuts the actual germane and real criticisms that need to be discussed and acted on.
If your post was in error, as you said, delete it and post something constructive. Maybe even link to the same thing, note the age of the link, but ask what needs to be done to make sure this doesn’t happen again. That might actually be a useful discussion. Otherwise you’re just throwing metaphorical molotovs and doing unintended damage.
The only error is that someone else didn’t post it in a more timely manner. I admire Black Lives Matter, and I enjoy signal boosting their voices. I think they have good ideas, the kind that deserve to be discussed in forums full of thinking people. The message from this statement is timeless, and I think you might benefit from reading it.
You can prevent this from happening in the future by following BLM’s media accounts and posting their relevant statements before I do.
Black Lives Matter’s criticisms of Kamala’s selection apply to more than the present moment. It’s a principled argument against the anti-democratic nature of the Democratic Party. This didn’t start with Kamala’s ascension or when Joe Biden was handed the nomination without significant opposition, but has been a feature of the Democrats’ playbook for a long time.
A party that positions itself as the defender of Democracy undermines and weakens its authority when its own party structures cynically undermine and sideline popular participation.
I don’t disagree with any of that, but again that context wasn’t obvious in your original post.
Also, those anti-democratic tendencies are inherent in all large organizations. And yes, it takes constant pressure to limit it, but that pressure needs to have a laser-like focus to be effective - otherwise bureaucracy and inertia win. That said, I’ve been involved in politics for almost 40 years, and the cliquish, insular, shambling monstrosity of the DNC is a mess - but it’s still actually better run and more open than any nationwide Democratic or GOP political committee in this country’s history. I mean the bar is on the floor in that regards, but progress and success are possible if done smartly.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
This statement was from 23 July and has been overcome by events. Harris is the nominee. The only reasons to share this 3 weeks after it was published is to either pretend that there is dissent on the left about who should be the nominee, or it was a simple mistake and you didn’t see the date. Which is it?
A third option: I think it’s still important to be cognizant of their very correct call-out of the lack of democratic choice in this process. As you said, it’s too late to change that now, and certainly Beehaw is essentially all aboard the Harris/Walz train, but we did bypass an important phase of our democratic system to get here.
As it says in the article:
They’re the nominees. They’re going to be on the ballots. But while I personally don’t think there was a better pair of candidates readily available at this point, I can still acknowledge that it was sad that it played out this way. Biden should have withdrew from the race back at the start, and we could have had a true primary (apart from the usual DNC shenanigans that they always pull), but Biden robbed that from us in his arrogance.
3 weeks ago, I barely had heard the name Walz, and now from what I’ve seen I love the guy. How many better candidates could we have had if we weren’t 100 days out from the election and being rushed to find good ones?
I get the potential gripe, but realistically it’s hard to call it undemocratic even as it stands. People voted for an incumbent (essentially unopposed) ticket of Biden/Harris. Had Biden simply dropped dead this would have been the very same result. We just skipped the whole death part and moved on to the natural line of succession. Besides, how many times have we had a VP become pres or at least the candidate in the past few decades? Better than half since the 70s if I count correctly.
I’m not particularly disappointed with the outcome, but it was undemocratic. Just because there is a precedent of the party bullying other candidates out of running against an incumbent doesn’t make it democratic. The party bullying it’s way to its preferred candidate is what lost us 2016.
Anything specific to say they forced others not to run? The whole bit of others dropping out and endorsing happens regularly. Happened on the R side too. Bernie didn’t get nominated because not enough people showed up to vote at the end of the day. Having dedicated fans and lots of youth energy means nothing unless the vote count says what you want when it’s over.
They didn’t force anyone to do anything, they bullied them out of it.
They cancelled primaries in Florida and North Carolina entirely, which took those delegates off the table for any challengers. They changed primary dates for 2024 which made it harder for other candidates to get on the primary ballots, and pledged to reduce the number of delegates that a state received if they held their primary on their original schedule instead.
The rules change in particular was initiated in 2022, which given it’s placement of Biden-friendly states at the start (to generate immediate momentum in delegates) was about as close to explicitly telling other democrats not to run as if they’d just sent out a newsletter.
Lastly
If this is in reference to 2016, it’s more because he was robbed of it by the Hillary campaign controlling the DNC and using them to disadvantage him at every turn. But don’t take my word for that, take Donna Brazile’s, the head of the DNC at the time of the election.
You’re on Beehaw right now. Let’s not sling around any accusations. Let’s just assume good faith. Even I didn’t catch that when I responded.
To be fair, Beehaw has been clearly inundated with bad faith arguments about the election for weeks. Let’s not pretend it hasn’t. This may not be that, but it’s not appropriate to scold users for calling out dead obvious political manipulation.
you can find it cringe–and i certainly don’t agree with most of the people here proposing third-party voting (which i think is total dead-enderism and morally pointless)–but people disagreeing with you is not political manipulation and it devalues the term to use it in such a cavalier manner
I literally mean political manipulation. Fully bad faith attempts to derail the Democratic party via arguments that the person in question doesn’t actually believe. Again, this may not be that, but I think it’s a mistake to pretend that Beehaw is somehow immune to this technique that the right is demonstrably using on other platforms.
We are in a notably leftist, anti-establishment, anti-authoritarian space with users who clearly speak their minds and bring the conversations had here into bigger spaces. It is ripe for being targeted by bad actors.
nobody here is pretending that it is, the issue is this is clearly not an example of this so you are functionally asserting the OP is an asset for any number of foreign disinformation and division campaigns. also the framing of “derail the Democratic party” presumes it’s not correct to do this, but that’s also a thing people can disagree on. for example: i’m a socialist–so yes, i support doing that in the long term.
I’m a leftist with a long history of supporting healthy discussion on the Threadiverse, @millie; you can easily review it by reading my post and comment history. And I’m disappointed you would assume bad faith when we just had a similar interaction last month, when you were accusing people who criticized this same weakness in the Democratic party of being bad faith actors. This was back when the defense was being used to prop up Joe Biden as the candidate after the debate that revealed his mental decline. I had hoped you might gain more appreciation of the value of dissent from that event.
Do you think it was a mistake to listen to dissent and for Joe Biden to step down?
I simply outlined the only two possible motivations for the post that I could think of and gave OP a prompt to explain if it was simply a mistake on their part. Did I miss a motivation that explains the context of the post?
This news is from over a month ago, and conditions have materially and dramatically changed since it’s publication. Regardless of the intent, posting this without noting a critical detail (it’s age) is at best incredibly misleading, and at worst intentionally subversive.
Both. I didn’t see the date, and also I like to pretend that the left is diverse and is capable of criticizing the Democratic party.
You could have just admitted it was a mistake without the grandstanding. All Democrats criticize the Democratic Party - it’s like a requirement, and it doesn’t make you special.
Criticism is our strength, though it’s often viewed as a weakness by others. But that criticism needs to be grounded in facts and reality, or else it undercuts the actual germane and real criticisms that need to be discussed and acted on.
If your post was in error, as you said, delete it and post something constructive. Maybe even link to the same thing, note the age of the link, but ask what needs to be done to make sure this doesn’t happen again. That might actually be a useful discussion. Otherwise you’re just throwing metaphorical molotovs and doing unintended damage.
The only error is that someone else didn’t post it in a more timely manner. I admire Black Lives Matter, and I enjoy signal boosting their voices. I think they have good ideas, the kind that deserve to be discussed in forums full of thinking people. The message from this statement is timeless, and I think you might benefit from reading it.
You can prevent this from happening in the future by following BLM’s media accounts and posting their relevant statements before I do.
Then my only advice would be to try and share in ways that are constructive rather than the opposite.
I disagree with that characterization.
Then help me understand - how do you feel that sharing this without the correct context was constructive?
Black Lives Matter’s criticisms of Kamala’s selection apply to more than the present moment. It’s a principled argument against the anti-democratic nature of the Democratic Party. This didn’t start with Kamala’s ascension or when Joe Biden was handed the nomination without significant opposition, but has been a feature of the Democrats’ playbook for a long time.
A party that positions itself as the defender of Democracy undermines and weakens its authority when its own party structures cynically undermine and sideline popular participation.
I don’t disagree with any of that, but again that context wasn’t obvious in your original post.
Also, those anti-democratic tendencies are inherent in all large organizations. And yes, it takes constant pressure to limit it, but that pressure needs to have a laser-like focus to be effective - otherwise bureaucracy and inertia win. That said, I’ve been involved in politics for almost 40 years, and the cliquish, insular, shambling monstrosity of the DNC is a mess - but it’s still actually better run and more open than any nationwide Democratic or GOP political committee in this country’s history. I mean the bar is on the floor in that regards, but progress and success are possible if done smartly.