2 ms·
The gorilla would be much, much better than what they did - presenting the primary as some kind of fair process, with real rules, that anyone could have a chanc
by mandmandam 5y ago
The gorilla would be much, much better than what they did - presenting the primary as some kind of fair process, with real rules, that anyone could have a chance in if they were a Democrat.
We don't have to get started on the effect putting two private organizations in charge of all high-level narrative since the 70s has done, but I fail to see how any of that excuses deceptively rigging a primary.
- ceejayoz 5y agoThe primary process is how the privately-run political parties select their candidate. Their clear goal is the benefit of the party, not an exercise in democracy. The same year saw the GOP hold a similar dislike for a particular candidate, with different results. Trump won, but the RNC certainly tried their best to prevent it for a while. No party primary in history is likely to have been entirely fair or impartial.
- jdmichal 5y agoThe parties want to have a primary, because it's better than running multiple candidates. And color me surprised that a political organization running a political election involves politics! :rolleyes: EDIT: I want to clarify my response here. There's a trend within technology to discount anything that's based on social rather than some sort of more directly measurable outcome. In this case, the implication that there should be "rules" that are clear and followed to the letter, and absolutely nothing should happen outside of them. Guess what! We live in a society, and anything involving more than one person also involves "politics". Social currency is as important, and one should pay attention to it. Otherwise one will consistently find that, no matter how good their technical justifications, they just get steamrolled by people who are both technically-correct enough AND socially juiced.