The Democratic National Committee is moving ahead with its plans to virtually nominate President Joe Biden in the coming weeks, sending out an email to its members Wednesday morning stressing that that is “the wisest approach” despite fierce backlash from some Democratic lawmakers.
What makes you think the party is responsible for providing choices?
Consumerist thinking at its finest. But the DNC isn’t a restaurant or Costco. They don’t exist to provide choices, that’s up to volunteers. The DNC is just there to crown the winner.
So if nobody steps up and volunteers to challenge an incumbent, then nobody will challenge the incumbent.
What makes you think the party is responsible for providing choices?
That’s what parties exist for, to align political candidates that they might support each other. Going into a general election without a primary to test the candidates only ensures an untested vandidate will be on the ballot.
Consumerist thinking at its finest. But the DNC isn’t a restaurant or Costco. They don’t exist to provide choices, that’s up to volunteers. The DNC is just there to crown the winner.
“The DNC is just there to crown the winner.”
You can’t be a winner if there is no contest. The coronation of “presumptive candidates” (presumed, specifically, by party leadership) is exactly what lost the election in 2016.
So if nobody steps up and volunteers to challenge an incumbent, then nobody will challenge the incumbent.
And thus, the party is disqualified from claiming that it is the party of democracy.
The party exists to support their candidate in the general.
The party doesn’t care, at all, whether the primary is competitive. In fact, until recently parties often held caucuses instead of primaries, or just selected candidates in smoke-filled rooms.
You can’t be a winner if there is no contest
This year there will be plenty of local candidates who will run opposed in the general election. If those races have no winners, then who will fill those offices?
I.e., not a primary at all.
This isn’t a downballot position, but even if it was, the lack of choice would still render the primary moot.
I did.
“Uncommitted” was very popular in my state. I hope they win.
If you voted uncommitted or write-in then congratulations, you voted in a primary. Which means there was a primary.
If there wasn’t any competition then it wasn’t a primary, it was a formality.
If there isn’t any competition, then it’s a noncompetitive election. It’s still an election. In fact, it’s the most common type of election.
I.e., not an election at all.
You can stop pretending like the party’s failure to provide any choice is evidence of Democracy in action. Quite the opposite, in fact.
What makes you think the party is responsible for providing choices?
Consumerist thinking at its finest. But the DNC isn’t a restaurant or Costco. They don’t exist to provide choices, that’s up to volunteers. The DNC is just there to crown the winner.
So if nobody steps up and volunteers to challenge an incumbent, then nobody will challenge the incumbent.
That’s what parties exist for, to align political candidates that they might support each other. Going into a general election without a primary to test the candidates only ensures an untested vandidate will be on the ballot.
“The DNC is just there to crown the winner.”
You can’t be a winner if there is no contest. The coronation of “presumptive candidates” (presumed, specifically, by party leadership) is exactly what lost the election in 2016.
And thus, the party is disqualified from claiming that it is the party of democracy.
The party exists to support their candidate in the general.
The party doesn’t care, at all, whether the primary is competitive. In fact, until recently parties often held caucuses instead of primaries, or just selected candidates in smoke-filled rooms.
This year there will be plenty of local candidates who will run opposed in the general election. If those races have no winners, then who will fill those offices?
Nobody.
If the office needs to be filled, hold another election.