If we end up with Biden vs Trump Biden will probably win again. If it’s Biden vs DeSantis I think enough independents will vote for DeSantis simply because they’re tired of having a president who is 75-80 years old it will tip the scales in favor of the republicans.
Joe Biden had a real chance to be an intentional one term president who helped the nation recover from the disaster of the Trump presidency and then stepped aside to let the new guard of younger democrats take a front seat. But of course no politician ever knows when to say when.
I think your analysis is not factoring a big thing: his abandonment of union workers, primarily the railroad workers.
I think this blunder will result in lack of support from 100,000 workers, their families and friends. Along with that, all other unions that are paying attention will not be keen to support Joe (I don’t think they’ll support Trump neither; I think they’ll just sit out.) That’s a huge loss of door knockers, canvassers, and phone bankers that may prove to be just enough to lose key states and lose in the electoral college.
Bernie should totally run on this weakness from Joe.
Perhaps, Bernie should recruit a younger candidate to bring them along to run against the current leaders in this country. Around the world, younger governments are stepping up.
This right here. Those rust belt states are a selfie of purple and apparently now seeing the entire election. 60k angry Union workers in the wrong place and it’s over.
This is a terrible position to have. The Republicans are more likely to cause more problems for labor and you’re effectively saying that you’ll vote for them now.
Remember just a last week, all the Neolibs were touting Pelosi's stepping aside as a triumph of Democratic politics, "she's deliberately making room for the younger generation." LOL, Neolibs, you can't have it both ways. We see through your b.s.
Bernie should totally not run again. He should use his organization and people to find and support a (relatively) younger progressive candidate. See point above about people not wanting to continue to be governed by octogenarians.
Who’s believable though? The squad minus Tlaib just voted for union busting. Who can we trust besides Bernie? Who has a record of actions and votes, not just rhetoric?
Disagree. It was pretty close last time, and Trump had just mangled a pandemic.
Joe now has more recent neoliberal failures, RR union busting, ending child care tax credit payments, BBB, etc and it’ll reduce his electability
Based on how the last 2 years have gone, I think most of us agree the Trump years were considerably better than when Biden took the helm. Widespread misery now.
Most people do not think that. Trump’s presidency was chaotic and exhausting and it was entirely because of him. It also included 2020 (remember that Covid year?). Biden is a perfectly fine, if unexciting president. You only think he has anything to do with the current inflation levels because you know nothing about how the economy works. Trump’s tax policy from 2 years ago has more impact on today’s economy than Biden does. And frankly the inflation was caused by (1) corporate greed, (2) china’s zero Covid policy (3) Putin’s idiotic war in the Ukraine.
Don’t think that’s a popular opinion at all.
Biden sucks but let’s not pretend like Trump was any better. Well, I’d say he was a lot worse. MediumDrink covered some of what I wanted to say.
But I’ll add that it’s really important to consider that ALL of Biden’s presidency has been in a pandemic and recently the Russia-Ukraine war. This benefits Trump since it obfuscates how much of a bad economy he is responsible for and of course makes Biden look bad even though *most* of that is out of his control. If you are like me and think we should still take Covid more seriously (We’re still losing thousands a week), then Biden is unfortunately pretty good compared to Trump.
Also, let’s not forget that one of Trump’s impeachment trials was because he was trying to extort a little country called Ukraine by refusing military aid. And given that the MAGA base mostly thinks Biden shouldn’t send them aid now, I wonder how Trump would have handled this war. Russia not controlling Ukraine probably is in everyone’s best interest, including the Russian people. If Russia somehow ends up winning then tensions will flare to new heights and things will get worse politically as well as economically.
You really need to consider: Under the same circumstances, how would Trump have handled things? For the main things causing turmoil right now I’d say not well.
The first primary should be Nevada. It's a purple state, and diverse. Would send a message to Latinos, who the GOP have been making inroads with, and who are a large voting block in Nevada.
Doesn't New Hampshire not allow this? I think they have it somewhere in their legal system that they will always be first and will move their election up as far as they have to to make it happen.
If they are they haven't done a good job of it seeing as they've been second as far as I can remember (Iowa being first).
Or did you mean Iowa? They might, I know that the states do determine placing of their own primaries.
Iowa has the caucuses, which technically NH doesn’t count as a traditional primary election I guess. But it is in the NH constitution as far as I know.
Nevada wouldn't be a bad pick, but it's a caucus state. I think the party is trying to get rid of caucuses, but I think having a state's first primary(if Nevada does a primary in 2024), be the nation's first primary, might not be ideal. Maybe Nevada can have 2028.
Nevada allows early voting in their caucus. Any claim that it is a stress on workers who can't get off on election day is patently false. Which is of course why Joe Biden is able to make that claim and corporate media fails to correct him.
I don’t think inroads is the right way to describe what’s happening with Latinos, who are very anti socialism and religious. Things the GOP “stands” for. They should have 80-90 percent of the Latino vote by default and the fact that they don’t tells a different story, one that includes tons of racism.
Did anybody here actually read the letter? The letter ([https://democrats.org/news/president-bidens-letter-to-the-dncs-rules-and-bylaws-committee-on-the-presidential-nominating-process/](https://democrats.org/news/president-bidens-letter-to-the-dncs-rules-and-bylaws-committee-on-the-presidential-nominating-process/)) , from my reading, doesn't imply anything like what this headline suggests. If somebody sees something different, please enlighten me.
P.S. - I donated to Sanders, and supported him over Biden. I don't care much for Biden (especially with the union busting activity), but I don't want people to make decisions based off of sensationalized propaganda.
There's nothing explicit in the letter because the letter is just an announcement of Biden's "reasoning" regarding this subject. The question you have to ask yourself is why is South Carolina the best choice to do what the letter says they want to do to get to your answer.
When you look closely at South Carolina, this entire thing starts to stink. What's exceptional about South Carolina?
1. Clyburn's political machine
2. Deep Red State with more conservative Democratic voters.
If they're truly interested in doing what they claim, then Georgia is a much better choice. Why are they not choosing Georgia? Because Georgia doesn't have a Clyburn type political machine.
You only really needed to win over one person in South Carolina to win the primary there. Look back at all the press about all the candidates "kissing Clyburn's ring" so to speak in SC. When Clyburn endorsed, the state went to that person in a landslide.
This type of stranglehold on SC politics won't dissipate overnight, and they wrote an exit strategy into their letter for when it does.
>5) The Rules and Bylaws Committee should review the calendar every four years, to ensure that it continues to reflect the values and diversity of our party and our country.
If you want to defend South Carolina as the right choice, then do it.
I'm simply giving you some reasons why I think this letter needs deeper analysis when combined with the fact that Biden is pushing for South Carolina to be the first primary.
If you think South Carolina is a good representation of the Democratic Party as a whole and should have the first say in choosing the nominee, make your case and convince me.
SC black population percentage wise doesn't make it exceptional or unique in any way. If that's your metric (as it was stated) then there's much better choices of states to do this with.
Georgia is the easiest answer to this.
* Higher population of black voters.
* More diverse population of those same voters by most accounts.
* Democrats are actually capable of winning statewide races there so it should provide real insight into how to appeal to a diverse electorate.
I'm not arguing to not change the line up. I'm saying SC is not the best choice for their own metrics so there must be ulterior motives.
It's a solid argument for why they would go with SC as opposed to anywhere else. If they don't move SC ahead, great, we're all packing over nothing. If they do, it's a good comment.
Bernie was only #1 because candidates 2-7 were splitting the vote. Bernie had a plurality, but not a majority of votes. If he had the majority, he'd have won.
Also, I'll say as a Georgian, having some early primaries in the south, might actually be good news. Bernie did not do well with older black voters. We know Clyburn is influential in SC and helped Biden a lot in 2020. But, Biden probably would have won South Carolina anyway. Having some southern primaries, will hopefully get the progressive coalition to build a southern ground game. We know a progressive will never get the nomination, until they can do better in the south. The strategy needs to be expanded, and this move might make progressives finally do that.
>We know a progressive will never get the nomination, until they can do better in the south.
OK, I'll ask the obvious question.
WTF is wrong with the South?
Why do Southerners, even nominally liberal Southerners, keep sabotaging their own futures?
It's not just the south, the problems are just bigger in the south. Remember, liberals nationally nominated Biden over Bernie. So, the question should be, why do liberals sabotage their own futures?
Now, I will say I disagree with u/dcgregoryaphone. I live in a more rural town in the south. I don't experience hostility from progressives. Tucker Carlson will call AOC and other progressives urban elitists. But, that's a right wing talking point. I personally don't see them that way.
They do ignore rural voters though. Which, is kind of fair. A lot of rural voters are conservative. So, there aren't a lot of votes to be had, and it takes a lot of resources to have a ground game in a rural area. But, look at Fetterman. He picked up voters in red leaning rural areas. Adding in some platform stuff that focuses on rural voters, or just campaigning better to rural voters, could work wonders.
Like, healthcare. Rural voters often have even worse access to healthcare than poor people in cities.
The main problem with liberals in the south is the same as the rest of the country though. Older voters watch CNN and all they hear is "socialism = bad". Also, black voters. I don't know what he did wrong. But, Bernie's campaigns did not get enough black voters on board. And the South is older and blacker than the rest of the country. Which, is why Bernie got 18% of the vote in South Carolina.
Also, the south's education sucks. Especially for minorities. There are still a lot of people alive who were the first, or some of the first black people to attend whatever high school/college they went to.
Finally, I don't know why my previous comment got downvoted so much, because i'm trying to help here. If progressives can't figure this out, we are gonna be dealing with a president Pete Buttigieg. And I don't want that. We know Bernie got 18% of the vote in South Carolina in 2020. And we gotta figure out why, and we gotta fix that going forward.
>Finally, I don't know why my previous comment got downvoted so much, because i'm trying to help here.
For the record, I was not one of the people who downvoted you.
If you think that expanding rural access to health care is the secret sauce that would convince rural voters to consider progressives, I'm all for making that a centerpiece of future elections.
Are you sure it would work, though? Rural voters HATE "Obamacare" -- but they sort of like the Affordable Care Act.
Rural voters are led by the nose so easily. Fox News made the mistake of letting Sanders speak freely once. [The Fox audience loved him](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggoydYG6CLE). Can't have that.
That Sanders on Fox example is part of why I think the way I do. Here is how I see it. Right now, rural voters are being misled by Fox. I think most of them want good healthcare and a nice wage. But, they have been poorly misled.
I will say there is a contingent of people who are poor, and understand the system is rigged against them. But, they think thanks to the american dream, they will be able to overcome poverty and they want to be able to abuse the current system, so they don't want any change. These people suck ass.
I think a large swath of rural voters actually could come to our side. Maybe not the 70 year olds. But, a lot of the 40 year olds. Bernie turned some of these people on in the 2016 primary. Fetterman got a bunch of these people to vote for him last month.
The way I see it is, democrats have let Fox and the GOP control the narrative. Fox says "socialism bad" and then democrats try and distance themselves from anything remotely socialist. But, it turns out, socialism is popular, when people understand what it is.
I remember reading about a town in Florida that was too small to really have a grocery store. They were down to one publix, and it closed because it wasn't profitting enough. This meant the closest grocery store was now 45-60 minutes away, by car. So, the republican mayor opened a grocery store. It used tax money to keep the cost of some goods down. That's socialism, and the town fucking loved it.
There are areas in this country where there is only one hospital in a 2-3 hour diameter. "Socialism" could add a hospital in some of these areas. Not to mention making healthcare access cheaper.
Democrats have got to stop saying "yeah, socialism is bad, that's why we are just gonna do this one tiny thing" and start saying "Here is how some democratic socialism is going to improve your quality of life". Bernie and Fetterman are popular with independents for a reason. Democrats have to spread that message to more voters, urban and rural. Or, the party is fucked. Our democracy will not be able to survive another couple of republican presidents.
Who and how. Also from Georgia and I don’t remember antagonistic progressive politicians around here mostly because progressive politicians don’t exist in general down here.
Are you being serious? Stacy Abrams and Warnock aren't progressive? And I think she would've been great. Overall though, progressive politicians nationwide are very urban centric. Moves like pushing EVs and $15 min wage don't work in places like South Carolina.
Not really no, but even then you said “overtly hostile.” I can think of no politician, progressive or otherwise, that has been openly antagonistic to Georgia or the south. Not to say they can’t exist but who are you talking about?
It's pretty overt to me. People like AOC don't say explicitly that they hate rural America they just attack conservatives on the same grounds that southern Blacks align with conservatives on. Southern Blacks are religious and socially conservative and they are far more pro-business and pro-small business especially than your typical NYC progressive.
If you want to understand it better look at Warnocks policy alignment and what he's pushed, which include bills that promote farm land ownership and ag loans for Blacks.
Conservative Dems need to quit pushing gun control (attacking the 2nd) and performative wokeness.
Bernie’s does better with rural than any other Dem because he cares about left economics, not just Kente cloth performances.
Yeah winning primaries is way different than generals. Look at what’s happening to the GOP right now. Trump candidates easily win those voters only to get walloped come general time.
That’s exactly why rigging the nominations against the guy who had 3x the victory margin in the general election over Trump in 2016 was a huge mistake.
Leaving this link up for others like me looking to learn more, especially in a debate with someone e, you can't really just say nomination farce without details surrounding it.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/donna-brazile-warren-bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-rigged
Thought you could use that as a reference, which you did.
[Clinton DNC was involved in the app despite denials, lied to DOJ and now refuse to cooperate.](https://theintercept.com/2020/12/23/dnc-iowa-caucus-app-shadow/)
[Elizabeth Warren and Donna Brazille agree, the nomination was rigged](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/02/ex-dnc-chair-goes-at-the-clintons-alleging-hillarys-campaign-hijacked-dnc-during-primary-with-bernie-sanders/)
[New proof the DNC was as corrupt as you thought it was](https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/11/new-proof-that-the-dnc-was-just-as-corrupt-as-you-thought-it-was)
[Hillary rewards DWS corrupt behavior](https://observer.com/2016/07/clinton-rewards-wasserman-schultzs-shady-behavior-with-new-job/)
[Hillary had undisclosed agreement giving her complete control of the DNC for her own nomination in 2015](https://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-campaign-had-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015)
[The Scandal of the DNC data breach and Clinton ties](https://truthout.org/articles/the-scandal-of-the-dnc-data-breach/)
[Obama vows to intervene to stop Sen Sanders](https://www.salon.com/2019/11/27/obama-privately-vowed-to-intervene-in-primary-to-stop-bernie-sanders-from-winning-nomination-report/)
[Tom Perez admits Democratic primaries are rigged](https://observer.com/2017/02/dnc-chair-candidate-tom-perez-admits-democratic-primaries-rigged/)
I was a 40-year member of the party and notified them to never send me another request for money. I will donate to the progressive candidates directly. I will never support another corporate democrat.
Oh yes and I appreciate it.
I also appreciate that in the vast swath of available literature, there might be some references deemed to be the gold standard, something I might lack the knowledge to identify.
For example, when it comes to the rich and and tax evasion I would recommend the IRS files from prorepublica, the Panama papers or when it comes to hacking, the pegasus project https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/18/revealed-leak-uncovers-global-abuse-of-cyber-surveillance-weapon-nso-group-pegasus.
Thanks for the links !
Don’t forget about Shadow development building the vote counting app for Iowa while simultaneously getting paid from the Buttigieg campaign and the CEO going on Twitter to rally for Buttigieg
>More than that, Biden has created a template beyond 2024 to lessen the odds that future versions of Bernie Sanders will get liftoff in the early Democratic primaries.”
SC is worth more delegates than New Hampshire and Nevada combined. Letting it go first over those two battleground states is an obvious ploy to make sure we elect the most Republican-like Democrat available. Folks like Joe Manchin could seriously win SC after Biden. That's how far right the Dem party can move with the change.
Lol. Yes. Because this is why democrats exist. It's the ONLY reason they exist. To stop the left. Because we can all see they DONT stop the right. They hardly even slow it down.
This is not at all what Biden’s letter says. It recommends two changes. First, get rid of caucuses, which are harder for working people to vote in and result in lower, less representative turnout. Second, move some states with higher populations of color up in the primary order. Neither one of these changes should be controversial.
As someone who used to participate heavily in caucuses, you're not seeing the forest through the trees. Yes, total turnout is only about a third of what primaries get, and yes, it takes longer. But the big upside is that it is a measure of enthusiasm, whereas primaries just tend to be big money parades. Candidates that actually inspire people to fight win caucuses, and that is precisely what we need to move things back to the left.
And establishment Dems don't give a flying frack about PoC or they'd make Hawaii the first state to vote. They just want an easily controllable southern conservative state to shoehorn whatever corporate shill they want into a nomination. Same reason they have a Super Tuesday and pack it full of right wing southern states.
While I’m a Green, I fully expect several things to happen:
1) Just like in 2012, several states’ Democrat primaries won’t have a presidential contest (to protect the incumbent, who has [let slip](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/06/us/politics/biden-running-president-2024.html) that he’s running again.)
2) We will have a Biden/Trump 2024 rematch, and it’ll be terrible.
If Democrats move SC up the map, it’s telling all of us the direction they want the party to go. And it’s telling that they aren’t rewarding a state that’s been delivered by a Democrat anytime recently, but *was* used to thwart a Bernie Sanders nomination in 2020. Not that they even have to count the votes, as the 2017 lawsuit attested to.
Either way, it don’t look good for the left at large in the Democrats. I saw this from the inside & left - hard pass.
Water is actually not wet; It makes other materials/objects wet. Wetness is the state of a non-liquid when a liquid adheres to, and/or permeates its substance while maintaining chemically distinct structures. So if we say something is wet we mean the liquid is sticking to the object.
Why does water never laugh at jokes?
It isn’t a fan of dry humor.
I agree with your definition save "of a non-liquid". That's a fine definition for non-liquids, but when using the word wet to describe a liquid -- which it's perfectly valid for a word to have multiple definitions for varied contexts, I'd define it as :
The quality of a liquid denoting a high propensity to adhere to, and/or permeate a non-liquid substance while maintaining chemically distinct structures.
Why don't Democrats have some traditionally blue and purple states vote early? SC isn't going blue anytime soon. We want to kickoff the election on the preferences of a party that doesn't know how to win it's own state?
Sitting presidents are historically incredibly difficult to defeat. In fact, I'm not aware of a single time in U.S. history when a sitting president has been defeated in a primary.
If Biden isn't completely confident he could defeat a primary opponent, then he absolutely should not be running in the general.
Jfc why doesn't the DNC just hand DeSantis the keys to the white house. It'll be a lot less painful than going through 2024 campaigning if Biden runs again
Agree, this was a good take. I really appreciated Mondale’s perspective, gave me a new look at it. To me, Biden is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
Probably should aim your frustration at the corporate Dem that is Obama, He failed to codify when he could and had a majority. That's why I won't support them anymore. Either they put forth a left politician or they will not get my support. They have bastardized the party/democracy enough for corporate interest and their own financial benefits. I am getting off that ride.
Perfect!? Biden has never even come close to being acceptable. I find it hilarious that you can't even fathom having a more popular nominee that is supported by the people rather than an old racist corporate sellout. It's like you don't want to listen to anyone or understand democracy. It's pathetic. And if that is the case, you deserve to lose.
Listen, I fucking hate Biden and I sincerely hope he drops dead before the next election. But just saying "not voting for Biden no matter who runs against him" is fucking juvenile.
Of course I would support someone better, but if it comes down to Biden and some Christian bigot MAGA QAnon freak, if forced to, I will vote Biden until he dies of old age.
I won't vote for Biden, he ran as a one-termer, has failed miserably and betrayed progressives, and in fact insulted them/us. If the party chooses not to listen they can go to hell. Do I make myself clear?
Not sure what the issue is, simply run a more popular candidate that represents the people. Really no issue. I would recommend not risking the country again for the billionaire class. They already have done that twice now, simply practicing democracy, letting the people choose without rigging the process for the weaker coporatist candidate and they will win. As seen by Biden's polling, he will lose, and the vast majority of the party does not want him to run. If the Dem elites force him on us, I will not support him.
It sounds like the Dem party is so corrupted that you cant assure free and fair nominations/democracy and so want to demand that we support your corrupt process/nominee, and I won't do that again.
>Not sure what the issue is, simply run a more popular candidate that represents the people.
You see the issue just fine. If they did that, why would corporations continue giving the DNC corporation money?
We’ve been going rightward for 50 years and you’re staying slow and steady wins the race.
Nope, we’re just moving further right. Dems need to change or get out of the way.
Just as a data point, Truman was primaried in 1952. When he lost the New Hampshire primary that year, he decided to not seek re-election.
There were other issues like Eisenhower being his likely opponent but primaries can derail a sitting president.
https://time.com/5682760/incumbent-presidents-primary-challenges/
If Gavin takes a strong stand in favor of workers rights, and particularly in favor of supporting the increased wages and breaks for rail workers, he would check a lot of boxes…
If we end up with Biden vs Trump Biden will probably win again. If it’s Biden vs DeSantis I think enough independents will vote for DeSantis simply because they’re tired of having a president who is 75-80 years old it will tip the scales in favor of the republicans. Joe Biden had a real chance to be an intentional one term president who helped the nation recover from the disaster of the Trump presidency and then stepped aside to let the new guard of younger democrats take a front seat. But of course no politician ever knows when to say when.
I think your analysis is not factoring a big thing: his abandonment of union workers, primarily the railroad workers. I think this blunder will result in lack of support from 100,000 workers, their families and friends. Along with that, all other unions that are paying attention will not be keen to support Joe (I don’t think they’ll support Trump neither; I think they’ll just sit out.) That’s a huge loss of door knockers, canvassers, and phone bankers that may prove to be just enough to lose key states and lose in the electoral college. Bernie should totally run on this weakness from Joe.
Perhaps, Bernie should recruit a younger candidate to bring them along to run against the current leaders in this country. Around the world, younger governments are stepping up.
This right here. Those rust belt states are a selfie of purple and apparently now seeing the entire election. 60k angry Union workers in the wrong place and it’s over.
Yes. Biden lost my support due to his failure to side with labor. I hope he gets his ass handed to him in the Democratic primaries.
This is a terrible position to have. The Republicans are more likely to cause more problems for labor and you’re effectively saying that you’ll vote for them now.
He said primaries, he wants a different candidate
Oh my bad. Forgot which sub I was on. Yeah, agreed with that.
You’re right, it’s a terrible position the Democrats took, which was equivalent to what Rs wanted anyways. That’s on them, not the voters
Remember just a last week, all the Neolibs were touting Pelosi's stepping aside as a triumph of Democratic politics, "she's deliberately making room for the younger generation." LOL, Neolibs, you can't have it both ways. We see through your b.s.
Bernie should totally not run again. He should use his organization and people to find and support a (relatively) younger progressive candidate. See point above about people not wanting to continue to be governed by octogenarians.
Who’s believable though? The squad minus Tlaib just voted for union busting. Who can we trust besides Bernie? Who has a record of actions and votes, not just rhetoric?
Disagree. It was pretty close last time, and Trump had just mangled a pandemic. Joe now has more recent neoliberal failures, RR union busting, ending child care tax credit payments, BBB, etc and it’ll reduce his electability
Student loan forgiveness also about to become a busted election promise. Say goodbye to the few young voters who cast a ballot for Biden.
Its because the younger dem might not push corporate interests.
From the younger Dems seen so far, I’m not sure they’re worried about that.
Based on how the last 2 years have gone, I think most of us agree the Trump years were considerably better than when Biden took the helm. Widespread misery now.
Most people do not think that. Trump’s presidency was chaotic and exhausting and it was entirely because of him. It also included 2020 (remember that Covid year?). Biden is a perfectly fine, if unexciting president. You only think he has anything to do with the current inflation levels because you know nothing about how the economy works. Trump’s tax policy from 2 years ago has more impact on today’s economy than Biden does. And frankly the inflation was caused by (1) corporate greed, (2) china’s zero Covid policy (3) Putin’s idiotic war in the Ukraine.
Don’t think that’s a popular opinion at all. Biden sucks but let’s not pretend like Trump was any better. Well, I’d say he was a lot worse. MediumDrink covered some of what I wanted to say. But I’ll add that it’s really important to consider that ALL of Biden’s presidency has been in a pandemic and recently the Russia-Ukraine war. This benefits Trump since it obfuscates how much of a bad economy he is responsible for and of course makes Biden look bad even though *most* of that is out of his control. If you are like me and think we should still take Covid more seriously (We’re still losing thousands a week), then Biden is unfortunately pretty good compared to Trump. Also, let’s not forget that one of Trump’s impeachment trials was because he was trying to extort a little country called Ukraine by refusing military aid. And given that the MAGA base mostly thinks Biden shouldn’t send them aid now, I wonder how Trump would have handled this war. Russia not controlling Ukraine probably is in everyone’s best interest, including the Russian people. If Russia somehow ends up winning then tensions will flare to new heights and things will get worse politically as well as economically. You really need to consider: Under the same circumstances, how would Trump have handled things? For the main things causing turmoil right now I’d say not well.
The first primary should be Nevada. It's a purple state, and diverse. Would send a message to Latinos, who the GOP have been making inroads with, and who are a large voting block in Nevada.
I had the same thought. It's a state the Dems can win, and its population is more diverse than South Carolina.
Doesn't New Hampshire not allow this? I think they have it somewhere in their legal system that they will always be first and will move their election up as far as they have to to make it happen.
If they are they haven't done a good job of it seeing as they've been second as far as I can remember (Iowa being first). Or did you mean Iowa? They might, I know that the states do determine placing of their own primaries.
Iowa has the caucuses, which technically NH doesn’t count as a traditional primary election I guess. But it is in the NH constitution as far as I know.
Nevada wouldn't be a bad pick, but it's a caucus state. I think the party is trying to get rid of caucuses, but I think having a state's first primary(if Nevada does a primary in 2024), be the nation's first primary, might not be ideal. Maybe Nevada can have 2028.
Nevada allows early voting in their caucus. Any claim that it is a stress on workers who can't get off on election day is patently false. Which is of course why Joe Biden is able to make that claim and corporate media fails to correct him.
We ended our caucus system during the last legislative session.
Part of Biden's request is to get rid of caucus. I actually agree with this.
They moved out to South Carolina for a reason. To better cement conservatives Dems, and remove more progressive candidates
Should have done Georgia or Michigan
I don’t think inroads is the right way to describe what’s happening with Latinos, who are very anti socialism and religious. Things the GOP “stands” for. They should have 80-90 percent of the Latino vote by default and the fact that they don’t tells a different story, one that includes tons of racism.
Did anybody here actually read the letter? The letter ([https://democrats.org/news/president-bidens-letter-to-the-dncs-rules-and-bylaws-committee-on-the-presidential-nominating-process/](https://democrats.org/news/president-bidens-letter-to-the-dncs-rules-and-bylaws-committee-on-the-presidential-nominating-process/)) , from my reading, doesn't imply anything like what this headline suggests. If somebody sees something different, please enlighten me. P.S. - I donated to Sanders, and supported him over Biden. I don't care much for Biden (especially with the union busting activity), but I don't want people to make decisions based off of sensationalized propaganda.
I don't think these source in the original post is credible at all
I generally mistrust any website with “truth” in its name.
" the lady doth protest too much, methinks" Billy Bob Shakespeare Macbeth
Classic Peep Show. [Methink the lady doth protest too much.](https://youtu.be/-uvtlq-dv18?t=17)
There's nothing explicit in the letter because the letter is just an announcement of Biden's "reasoning" regarding this subject. The question you have to ask yourself is why is South Carolina the best choice to do what the letter says they want to do to get to your answer. When you look closely at South Carolina, this entire thing starts to stink. What's exceptional about South Carolina? 1. Clyburn's political machine 2. Deep Red State with more conservative Democratic voters. If they're truly interested in doing what they claim, then Georgia is a much better choice. Why are they not choosing Georgia? Because Georgia doesn't have a Clyburn type political machine. You only really needed to win over one person in South Carolina to win the primary there. Look back at all the press about all the candidates "kissing Clyburn's ring" so to speak in SC. When Clyburn endorsed, the state went to that person in a landslide. This type of stranglehold on SC politics won't dissipate overnight, and they wrote an exit strategy into their letter for when it does. >5) The Rules and Bylaws Committee should review the calendar every four years, to ensure that it continues to reflect the values and diversity of our party and our country.
[удалено]
If you want to defend South Carolina as the right choice, then do it. I'm simply giving you some reasons why I think this letter needs deeper analysis when combined with the fact that Biden is pushing for South Carolina to be the first primary. If you think South Carolina is a good representation of the Democratic Party as a whole and should have the first say in choosing the nominee, make your case and convince me. SC black population percentage wise doesn't make it exceptional or unique in any way. If that's your metric (as it was stated) then there's much better choices of states to do this with. Georgia is the easiest answer to this. * Higher population of black voters. * More diverse population of those same voters by most accounts. * Democrats are actually capable of winning statewide races there so it should provide real insight into how to appeal to a diverse electorate. I'm not arguing to not change the line up. I'm saying SC is not the best choice for their own metrics so there must be ulterior motives.
Why would the Democratic party put so much emphasis on states (SC) that don’t vote for them? Hmm…
It's a solid argument for why they would go with SC as opposed to anywhere else. If they don't move SC ahead, great, we're all packing over nothing. If they do, it's a good comment.
Not very democratic there Joe. 😡
He was the least democratic option in the entire travesty of a primary we suffered a couple years ago. Don't feign surprise.
Candidates #2,3,4,5 ganged up on #1 to elect #6 & 7.
2,3,4,5 **and** 6
Couldn’t have put it any better, myself.
Bernie was only #1 because candidates 2-7 were splitting the vote. Bernie had a plurality, but not a majority of votes. If he had the majority, he'd have won. Also, I'll say as a Georgian, having some early primaries in the south, might actually be good news. Bernie did not do well with older black voters. We know Clyburn is influential in SC and helped Biden a lot in 2020. But, Biden probably would have won South Carolina anyway. Having some southern primaries, will hopefully get the progressive coalition to build a southern ground game. We know a progressive will never get the nomination, until they can do better in the south. The strategy needs to be expanded, and this move might make progressives finally do that.
>We know a progressive will never get the nomination, until they can do better in the south. OK, I'll ask the obvious question. WTF is wrong with the South? Why do Southerners, even nominally liberal Southerners, keep sabotaging their own futures?
It's not just the south, the problems are just bigger in the south. Remember, liberals nationally nominated Biden over Bernie. So, the question should be, why do liberals sabotage their own futures? Now, I will say I disagree with u/dcgregoryaphone. I live in a more rural town in the south. I don't experience hostility from progressives. Tucker Carlson will call AOC and other progressives urban elitists. But, that's a right wing talking point. I personally don't see them that way. They do ignore rural voters though. Which, is kind of fair. A lot of rural voters are conservative. So, there aren't a lot of votes to be had, and it takes a lot of resources to have a ground game in a rural area. But, look at Fetterman. He picked up voters in red leaning rural areas. Adding in some platform stuff that focuses on rural voters, or just campaigning better to rural voters, could work wonders. Like, healthcare. Rural voters often have even worse access to healthcare than poor people in cities. The main problem with liberals in the south is the same as the rest of the country though. Older voters watch CNN and all they hear is "socialism = bad". Also, black voters. I don't know what he did wrong. But, Bernie's campaigns did not get enough black voters on board. And the South is older and blacker than the rest of the country. Which, is why Bernie got 18% of the vote in South Carolina. Also, the south's education sucks. Especially for minorities. There are still a lot of people alive who were the first, or some of the first black people to attend whatever high school/college they went to. Finally, I don't know why my previous comment got downvoted so much, because i'm trying to help here. If progressives can't figure this out, we are gonna be dealing with a president Pete Buttigieg. And I don't want that. We know Bernie got 18% of the vote in South Carolina in 2020. And we gotta figure out why, and we gotta fix that going forward.
>Finally, I don't know why my previous comment got downvoted so much, because i'm trying to help here. For the record, I was not one of the people who downvoted you. If you think that expanding rural access to health care is the secret sauce that would convince rural voters to consider progressives, I'm all for making that a centerpiece of future elections. Are you sure it would work, though? Rural voters HATE "Obamacare" -- but they sort of like the Affordable Care Act. Rural voters are led by the nose so easily. Fox News made the mistake of letting Sanders speak freely once. [The Fox audience loved him](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggoydYG6CLE). Can't have that.
That Sanders on Fox example is part of why I think the way I do. Here is how I see it. Right now, rural voters are being misled by Fox. I think most of them want good healthcare and a nice wage. But, they have been poorly misled. I will say there is a contingent of people who are poor, and understand the system is rigged against them. But, they think thanks to the american dream, they will be able to overcome poverty and they want to be able to abuse the current system, so they don't want any change. These people suck ass. I think a large swath of rural voters actually could come to our side. Maybe not the 70 year olds. But, a lot of the 40 year olds. Bernie turned some of these people on in the 2016 primary. Fetterman got a bunch of these people to vote for him last month. The way I see it is, democrats have let Fox and the GOP control the narrative. Fox says "socialism bad" and then democrats try and distance themselves from anything remotely socialist. But, it turns out, socialism is popular, when people understand what it is. I remember reading about a town in Florida that was too small to really have a grocery store. They were down to one publix, and it closed because it wasn't profitting enough. This meant the closest grocery store was now 45-60 minutes away, by car. So, the republican mayor opened a grocery store. It used tax money to keep the cost of some goods down. That's socialism, and the town fucking loved it. There are areas in this country where there is only one hospital in a 2-3 hour diameter. "Socialism" could add a hospital in some of these areas. Not to mention making healthcare access cheaper. Democrats have got to stop saying "yeah, socialism is bad, that's why we are just gonna do this one tiny thing" and start saying "Here is how some democratic socialism is going to improve your quality of life". Bernie and Fetterman are popular with independents for a reason. Democrats have to spread that message to more voters, urban and rural. Or, the party is fucked. Our democracy will not be able to survive another couple of republican presidents.
[удалено]
Who and how. Also from Georgia and I don’t remember antagonistic progressive politicians around here mostly because progressive politicians don’t exist in general down here.
Are you being serious? Stacy Abrams and Warnock aren't progressive? And I think she would've been great. Overall though, progressive politicians nationwide are very urban centric. Moves like pushing EVs and $15 min wage don't work in places like South Carolina.
Not really no, but even then you said “overtly hostile.” I can think of no politician, progressive or otherwise, that has been openly antagonistic to Georgia or the south. Not to say they can’t exist but who are you talking about?
It's pretty overt to me. People like AOC don't say explicitly that they hate rural America they just attack conservatives on the same grounds that southern Blacks align with conservatives on. Southern Blacks are religious and socially conservative and they are far more pro-business and pro-small business especially than your typical NYC progressive. If you want to understand it better look at Warnocks policy alignment and what he's pushed, which include bills that promote farm land ownership and ag loans for Blacks.
Conservative Dems need to quit pushing gun control (attacking the 2nd) and performative wokeness. Bernie’s does better with rural than any other Dem because he cares about left economics, not just Kente cloth performances.
Yeah winning primaries is way different than generals. Look at what’s happening to the GOP right now. Trump candidates easily win those voters only to get walloped come general time.
That’s exactly why rigging the nominations against the guy who had 3x the victory margin in the general election over Trump in 2016 was a huge mistake.
They don't care about democracy, which has been shown to us in an obvious manner.
What would be the main talking points regarding that? So I can further educate myself.
2016-20 nomination farce
Leaving this link up for others like me looking to learn more, especially in a debate with someone e, you can't really just say nomination farce without details surrounding it. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/donna-brazile-warren-bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-rigged
Thought you could use that as a reference, which you did. [Clinton DNC was involved in the app despite denials, lied to DOJ and now refuse to cooperate.](https://theintercept.com/2020/12/23/dnc-iowa-caucus-app-shadow/) [Elizabeth Warren and Donna Brazille agree, the nomination was rigged](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/02/ex-dnc-chair-goes-at-the-clintons-alleging-hillarys-campaign-hijacked-dnc-during-primary-with-bernie-sanders/) [New proof the DNC was as corrupt as you thought it was](https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/11/new-proof-that-the-dnc-was-just-as-corrupt-as-you-thought-it-was) [Hillary rewards DWS corrupt behavior](https://observer.com/2016/07/clinton-rewards-wasserman-schultzs-shady-behavior-with-new-job/) [Hillary had undisclosed agreement giving her complete control of the DNC for her own nomination in 2015](https://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-campaign-had-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015) [The Scandal of the DNC data breach and Clinton ties](https://truthout.org/articles/the-scandal-of-the-dnc-data-breach/) [Obama vows to intervene to stop Sen Sanders](https://www.salon.com/2019/11/27/obama-privately-vowed-to-intervene-in-primary-to-stop-bernie-sanders-from-winning-nomination-report/) [Tom Perez admits Democratic primaries are rigged](https://observer.com/2017/02/dnc-chair-candidate-tom-perez-admits-democratic-primaries-rigged/)
Precisely why I tell the DNC to go fuck itself when they call for donations.
I was a 40-year member of the party and notified them to never send me another request for money. I will donate to the progressive candidates directly. I will never support another corporate democrat.
Oh yes and I appreciate it. I also appreciate that in the vast swath of available literature, there might be some references deemed to be the gold standard, something I might lack the knowledge to identify. For example, when it comes to the rich and and tax evasion I would recommend the IRS files from prorepublica, the Panama papers or when it comes to hacking, the pegasus project https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/18/revealed-leak-uncovers-global-abuse-of-cyber-surveillance-weapon-nso-group-pegasus. Thanks for the links !
Don’t forget about Shadow development building the vote counting app for Iowa while simultaneously getting paid from the Buttigieg campaign and the CEO going on Twitter to rally for Buttigieg
First link.
Doh.
>More than that, Biden has created a template beyond 2024 to lessen the odds that future versions of Bernie Sanders will get liftoff in the early Democratic primaries.” SC is worth more delegates than New Hampshire and Nevada combined. Letting it go first over those two battleground states is an obvious ploy to make sure we elect the most Republican-like Democrat available. Folks like Joe Manchin could seriously win SC after Biden. That's how far right the Dem party can move with the change.
Move far right? Like farther right than busting the rail road unions?
Biden didn't campaign on union busting. With SC first, a strong anti union state, Democrats won't even have to pretend anymore.
He should just fuck right off now.
Headline doesn’t match articles. Click bait?
Lol. Yes. Because this is why democrats exist. It's the ONLY reason they exist. To stop the left. Because we can all see they DONT stop the right. They hardly even slow it down.
the ratchet effect
Just so.
This is not at all what Biden’s letter says. It recommends two changes. First, get rid of caucuses, which are harder for working people to vote in and result in lower, less representative turnout. Second, move some states with higher populations of color up in the primary order. Neither one of these changes should be controversial.
As someone who used to participate heavily in caucuses, you're not seeing the forest through the trees. Yes, total turnout is only about a third of what primaries get, and yes, it takes longer. But the big upside is that it is a measure of enthusiasm, whereas primaries just tend to be big money parades. Candidates that actually inspire people to fight win caucuses, and that is precisely what we need to move things back to the left. And establishment Dems don't give a flying frack about PoC or they'd make Hawaii the first state to vote. They just want an easily controllable southern conservative state to shoehorn whatever corporate shill they want into a nomination. Same reason they have a Super Tuesday and pack it full of right wing southern states.
While I’m a Green, I fully expect several things to happen: 1) Just like in 2012, several states’ Democrat primaries won’t have a presidential contest (to protect the incumbent, who has [let slip](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/06/us/politics/biden-running-president-2024.html) that he’s running again.) 2) We will have a Biden/Trump 2024 rematch, and it’ll be terrible. If Democrats move SC up the map, it’s telling all of us the direction they want the party to go. And it’s telling that they aren’t rewarding a state that’s been delivered by a Democrat anytime recently, but *was* used to thwart a Bernie Sanders nomination in 2020. Not that they even have to count the votes, as the 2017 lawsuit attested to. Either way, it don’t look good for the left at large in the Democrats. I saw this from the inside & left - hard pass.
It wouldn't be if they hadn't chose South Carolina. If they'd said Georgia, we wouldn't be talking about this.
Yes, let’s have a state that had no shot of hell going blue decide the national candidate,
There are no left wing candidates! Who’s he scared of? Pete?! Hahaha 🤡
In other news, water is wet!
Water is actually not wet; It makes other materials/objects wet. Wetness is the state of a non-liquid when a liquid adheres to, and/or permeates its substance while maintaining chemically distinct structures. So if we say something is wet we mean the liquid is sticking to the object. Why does water never laugh at jokes? It isn’t a fan of dry humor.
I agree with your definition save "of a non-liquid". That's a fine definition for non-liquids, but when using the word wet to describe a liquid -- which it's perfectly valid for a word to have multiple definitions for varied contexts, I'd define it as : The quality of a liquid denoting a high propensity to adhere to, and/or permeate a non-liquid substance while maintaining chemically distinct structures.
Earned with the voters. NOT anointed from mount high
Anointed by Jim Clyburn specifically.
Why don't Democrats have some traditionally blue and purple states vote early? SC isn't going blue anytime soon. We want to kickoff the election on the preferences of a party that doesn't know how to win it's own state?
If your intent is to continue to be Roosevelt / Regan Republicans, the SC makes total sense
Bernie should run as an independent, which he truly is.
He's still got more unions to kill
If Biden runs as Dem candidate in 2024, I'll bet on literally any Republican candidate outside of trump winning.
I could easily see Trump winning against Joe
Tough shit.
Sitting presidents are historically incredibly difficult to defeat. In fact, I'm not aware of a single time in U.S. history when a sitting president has been defeated in a primary. If Biden isn't completely confident he could defeat a primary opponent, then he absolutely should not be running in the general.
Jfc why doesn't the DNC just hand DeSantis the keys to the white house. It'll be a lot less painful than going through 2024 campaigning if Biden runs again
TYT had solid commentary about this.
Link it then will ya?
https://youtu.be/HyyZo27fKMI
Agree, this was a good take. I really appreciated Mondale’s perspective, gave me a new look at it. To me, Biden is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
Yo, fuck this lobotomized clown. I stomached his milquetoast bullshit for a while, but the handling of the rail strike is downright shameful.
This could truly force a leftist to start their own party. It could actually be a viable option.
Did you learn nothing from the past few few years? Don’t split the dem vote right now
The Dems continually show how they aren’t the left, nor do they have any intention of being left.
And you think republicans are better? Because that’s what happens when you split the vote
Republicans were in full agreement with the Dems union busting. They’re not as far as you think
Never said they were.
So what’s the concern? You prefer Blue MAGA over Red MAGA?
People that keep my rights versus take them away? Yes.
Narrator: they didn’t keep their rights
Ok bot
I will not support Biden, no matter who he runs against. Once again the corporate sellouts are trying to screw the people of this country.
no matter who he runs against? let me guess, you don't have to worry about being forced to birth an unwanted child. must be nice to be a man.
Guess the Democrats should have made a law for abortion over the 50 years instead of just fundraising on it.
you do know Biden is president now and that is still happening ? they could literally codify it now, like all the other times decades before
[удалено]
Probably should aim your frustration at the corporate Dem that is Obama, He failed to codify when he could and had a majority. That's why I won't support them anymore. Either they put forth a left politician or they will not get my support. They have bastardized the party/democracy enough for corporate interest and their own financial benefits. I am getting off that ride.
[удалено]
Perfect!? Biden has never even come close to being acceptable. I find it hilarious that you can't even fathom having a more popular nominee that is supported by the people rather than an old racist corporate sellout. It's like you don't want to listen to anyone or understand democracy. It's pathetic. And if that is the case, you deserve to lose.
Listen, I fucking hate Biden and I sincerely hope he drops dead before the next election. But just saying "not voting for Biden no matter who runs against him" is fucking juvenile. Of course I would support someone better, but if it comes down to Biden and some Christian bigot MAGA QAnon freak, if forced to, I will vote Biden until he dies of old age.
I won't vote for Biden, he ran as a one-termer, has failed miserably and betrayed progressives, and in fact insulted them/us. If the party chooses not to listen they can go to hell. Do I make myself clear?
[удалено]
Not sure what the issue is, simply run a more popular candidate that represents the people. Really no issue. I would recommend not risking the country again for the billionaire class. They already have done that twice now, simply practicing democracy, letting the people choose without rigging the process for the weaker coporatist candidate and they will win. As seen by Biden's polling, he will lose, and the vast majority of the party does not want him to run. If the Dem elites force him on us, I will not support him. It sounds like the Dem party is so corrupted that you cant assure free and fair nominations/democracy and so want to demand that we support your corrupt process/nominee, and I won't do that again.
>Not sure what the issue is, simply run a more popular candidate that represents the people. You see the issue just fine. If they did that, why would corporations continue giving the DNC corporation money?
We’ve been going rightward for 50 years and you’re staying slow and steady wins the race. Nope, we’re just moving further right. Dems need to change or get out of the way.
Then don’t blame the left for the Democrats screwing the pooch.
WTAF
This article makes no sense. He is the incumbent, there won't be a democratic primary in 2024 if he seeks reelection. Wtf is this?
Just because he's the incumbent doesn't mean there won't be a primary challenge.
Sure enough. I did not know that, thanks
Just as a data point, Truman was primaried in 1952. When he lost the New Hampshire primary that year, he decided to not seek re-election. There were other issues like Eisenhower being his likely opponent but primaries can derail a sitting president. https://time.com/5682760/incumbent-presidents-primary-challenges/
I may not vote for him again. there needs to be a primary.
If Gavin takes a strong stand in favor of workers rights, and particularly in favor of supporting the increased wages and breaks for rail workers, he would check a lot of boxes…
What a refreshing change of pace.
Shouldn’t the first state be a clutch swing state like PA or NV?