4 ms·

As a registered Republican who voted IND in 2016 and then for Trump in 2020 (which probably puts me in about a 0.1% minority on a site like this), I feel upset

As a registered Republican who voted IND in 2016 and then for Trump in 2020 (which probably puts me in about a 0.1% minority on a site like this), I feel upset that the democratic process for choosing a nominee for the Democratic Party is about to just get bypassed. Are other folks feeling this? I’d be even more riled up if this were my party telling me, “Oh, that guy you voted for in the primaries? We thought he couldn’t win so we will harass him until he quits, then we are going to replace him with someone better (since we know better than the voters).”

joshmarinacci 2y ago
Voting for the candidate at the convention actually is the process. It always has been. It’s just been a while since the outcome of the vote was unknown until we got to the convention itself.
- twodave 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - jlev1 2y ago
    Make up your mind, are you mad they pressured him to withdraw or mad they tried to keep him in the race? Given your voting record and the fact that you’ve just criticized the democrats for two opposite courses of action in back to back posts (and I see your now several other posts hoping to find democrats mad at the DNC), I think you’re a plain ol’ conservative who’s inclined to find fault with the Democratic Party regardless of what specifically they do.
    - lesuorac 2y ago
      I mean whats the point of a having a primary system if you're going to just have the guy that won it back down and appoint a successor? Sure, the convention is the votes that actually matter just like the electoral college but every time the popular vote gets upset by the electoral vote people are mad.
      - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        The primary and convention system have always existed in parallel. In fact, the USA doesn’t really have a primary system for presidents, just rules each state establishes on delegates should vote given the outcome of whatever happened in their state (and not all states have primaries of course, there are still caucus only state I think?). Even under a strict interpretation of the current system, the VP would take over the ticket if something happened to the president, so we aren’t even far off from that. Conservatives are just going to have to deal with there already being a mechanism in here for nominating a candidate in a convention.
    - twodave 2y ago
      That isn’t the point. The point is that primaries were held (or in some cases, not held) based on a belief that the man would be fit for office, and the fact that he isn’t was being hidden from the voters participating in those primaries. I’m far beyond hoping for honesty from our politicians on either side, but I would classify this as fraud, albeit difficult to prove. I think too many people on both sides consider it “legal if you don’t get caught” to do basically anything they please. And I think the fact that each side acts a lot further apart on issues than we actually are is just as sad. There’s no middle voice anymore. Either you consume left-wing media and hear their reactions to the 5% radical right or vice versa. All it means is that most Americans agree that 10% of us are batshit crazy.
      - cocacola1 2y ago
        A vote for Biden is a vote for Harris. That's how the Vice Presidency works.
jimberlage 2y ago
No, I am not feeling riled up about this. I’m much more riled up about the state of the executive branch from 2016-2020.
- twodave 2y ago
  You aren’t upset that an entire party conspired to keep Biden on the ticket until he bombed a debate? What if he hadn’t bombed it but instead done “barely enough”? Isn’t this basically what Trump was just convicted of some felonies for recently?
  - jimberlage 2y ago
    No, I am not upset about anything the DNC has done. Trump has more and nastier court cases (including a pedophilia case) than the convicted felony. The RNC is abhorrent and the two cannot be compared.
fngjdflmdflg 2y ago
I don't think most democrats actually care who the president is as long as it isn't Trump. That's why they voted for Biden in the first place. It is kind of ironic though that the party of "saving democracy" will not put the winner of the primaries as their candidate but I think practically speaking there is already somewhat of a consensus among the party for doing this. Also see polling that shows Harris with equal or better numbers than Biden.
- twodave 2y ago
  I believe you, and the more I read the more I am seeing this same sentiment. It’s just wild to me.
  - dllthomas 2y ago
    Part of it is that there really wasn't a primary in the first place. Democratic voters gave their consent to Biden on the understanding that he was capable of beating Trump again. As it became more clear that that wasn't the case, it became less reasonable to rely on that consent. Polls have all along shown voters preferring someone else by a substantial margin, although I don't know that they ever agreed on the someone. There is a degree to which this move is "less democratic", but we have to be careful. It is less democratic in the governance of the Democratic Party, but it's worth noting that the Democratic Party is not a polity. Running someone who can win instead of who the party chose might be a more democratic outcome with respect to the organization that matters more. There's absolutely room for this to be taken too far. With mostly just the two parties, elites could (and arguably did, pre-'68) use these kinds of concerns as cover for excluding certain perspectives from power. That's something to watch for, but given the context it is obviously not what is happening here when the person being excluded is the current President, with the support of the party elites up to this point.
    - twodave 2y ago
      This makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks for the insightful comment.
listless 2y ago
Independent here. Did not vote Trump in 2020. I tend to agree that for a party that spends a lot of time talking about the importance of democracy, we’re in fairly undemocratic territory here. However, you could make the argument that voters did kind of vote for Harris when they voted for Biden.
eightysixfour 2y ago
No, I am angry at Biden, he shouldn’t have run again. He is the one that created this situation by not accepting his obviously growing limitations. While the lack of real primary competition will further reinforce the elitist “kingmaker” perception of the Democratic Party, I also can’t really blame them for working within the system and the one we have doesn’t encourage hard primaries against your own incumbent President. For reference, in February 2019, the RNC voted to provide undivided support to Trump. A few states outright cancelled their primaries. All things considered, I’ll take an elitist party with a whiny progressive arm over a President and party that tried to stop the peaceful transition of power.
Capricorn2481 2y ago
> I’d be even more riled up if this were my party telling me, “Oh, that guy you voted for in the primaries? We thought he couldn’t win so we will harass him until he quits ...What do you think your party has been doing to Trump challengers?
jiggawatts 2y ago
So as a Republican, what do you think about the certainty that your party will suddenly find themselves no longer concerned about the age of presidential nominees?
- twodave 2y ago
  It wasn’t ever really about age IMO. It is hard to have a serious conversation about this because of personal lines and dislikes, so I’ll leave it at that.
Nimitz14 2y ago
It's difficult to take this in good faith since the amount of effort to understand why this opinion is misguided is so minimal: People voted for him in the primary based on the belief that he was and would stay in good health. The debate revealed that belief to be false. Post-debate, Democratic voters were massively (70+%) in favor of him resigning his candidacy. NOT stepping down would have been the UNdemocratic thing to do.
jarsin 2y ago
I think Kennedy will get way more votes than usual because of this. Which will ensure a Trump victory.
dyauspitr 2y ago
Not even a little bit. The Democratic Party has clearly stated policies and goals, the vast majority of which I agree with (possibly besides some of the trans policies). Who the final candidate is this time matters very little compared to making sure Trump doesn’t win and destroy American hegemony.

joshmarinacci 2y ago

Voting for the candidate at the convention actually is the process. It always has been. It’s just been a while since the outcome of the vote was unknown until we got to the convention itself.

twodave 2y ago
[flagged]
- jlev1 2y ago
  Make up your mind, are you mad they pressured him to withdraw or mad they tried to keep him in the race? Given your voting record and the fact that you’ve just criticized the democrats for two opposite courses of action in back to back posts (and I see your now several other posts hoping to find democrats mad at the DNC), I think you’re a plain ol’ conservative who’s inclined to find fault with the Democratic Party regardless of what specifically they do.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    I mean whats the point of a having a primary system if you're going to just have the guy that won it back down and appoint a successor? Sure, the convention is the votes that actually matter just like the electoral college but every time the popular vote gets upset by the electoral vote people are mad.
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      The primary and convention system have always existed in parallel. In fact, the USA doesn’t really have a primary system for presidents, just rules each state establishes on delegates should vote given the outcome of whatever happened in their state (and not all states have primaries of course, there are still caucus only state I think?). Even under a strict interpretation of the current system, the VP would take over the ticket if something happened to the president, so we aren’t even far off from that. Conservatives are just going to have to deal with there already being a mechanism in here for nominating a candidate in a convention.
  - twodave 2y ago
    That isn’t the point. The point is that primaries were held (or in some cases, not held) based on a belief that the man would be fit for office, and the fact that he isn’t was being hidden from the voters participating in those primaries. I’m far beyond hoping for honesty from our politicians on either side, but I would classify this as fraud, albeit difficult to prove. I think too many people on both sides consider it “legal if you don’t get caught” to do basically anything they please. And I think the fact that each side acts a lot further apart on issues than we actually are is just as sad. There’s no middle voice anymore. Either you consume left-wing media and hear their reactions to the 5% radical right or vice versa. All it means is that most Americans agree that 10% of us are batshit crazy.
    - cocacola1 2y ago
      A vote for Biden is a vote for Harris. That's how the Vice Presidency works.

jimberlage 2y ago

No, I am not feeling riled up about this. I’m much more riled up about the state of the executive branch from 2016-2020.

twodave 2y ago
You aren’t upset that an entire party conspired to keep Biden on the ticket until he bombed a debate? What if he hadn’t bombed it but instead done “barely enough”? Isn’t this basically what Trump was just convicted of some felonies for recently?
- jimberlage 2y ago
  No, I am not upset about anything the DNC has done. Trump has more and nastier court cases (including a pedophilia case) than the convicted felony. The RNC is abhorrent and the two cannot be compared.

fngjdflmdflg 2y ago

I don't think most democrats actually care who the president is as long as it isn't Trump. That's why they voted for Biden in the first place. It is kind of ironic though that the party of "saving democracy" will not put the winner of the primaries as their candidate but I think practically speaking there is already somewhat of a consensus among the party for doing this. Also see polling that shows Harris with equal or better numbers than Biden.

twodave 2y ago
I believe you, and the more I read the more I am seeing this same sentiment. It’s just wild to me.
- dllthomas 2y ago
  Part of it is that there really wasn't a primary in the first place. Democratic voters gave their consent to Biden on the understanding that he was capable of beating Trump again. As it became more clear that that wasn't the case, it became less reasonable to rely on that consent. Polls have all along shown voters preferring someone else by a substantial margin, although I don't know that they ever agreed on the someone. There is a degree to which this move is "less democratic", but we have to be careful. It is less democratic in the governance of the Democratic Party, but it's worth noting that the Democratic Party is not a polity. Running someone who can win instead of who the party chose might be a more democratic outcome with respect to the organization that matters more. There's absolutely room for this to be taken too far. With mostly just the two parties, elites could (and arguably did, pre-'68) use these kinds of concerns as cover for excluding certain perspectives from power. That's something to watch for, but given the context it is obviously not what is happening here when the person being excluded is the current President, with the support of the party elites up to this point.
  - twodave 2y ago
    This makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks for the insightful comment.

listless 2y ago

Independent here. Did not vote Trump in 2020. I tend to agree that for a party that spends a lot of time talking about the importance of democracy, we’re in fairly undemocratic territory here. However, you could make the argument that voters did kind of vote for Harris when they voted for Biden.

eightysixfour 2y ago

No, I am angry at Biden, he shouldn’t have run again. He is the one that created this situation by not accepting his obviously growing limitations. While the lack of real primary competition will further reinforce the elitist “kingmaker” perception of the Democratic Party, I also can’t really blame them for working within the system and the one we have doesn’t encourage hard primaries against your own incumbent President. For reference, in February 2019, the RNC voted to provide undivided support to Trump. A few states outright cancelled their primaries. All things considered, I’ll take an elitist party with a whiny progressive arm over a President and party that tried to stop the peaceful transition of power.

Capricorn2481 2y ago

> I’d be even more riled up if this were my party telling me, “Oh, that guy you voted for in the primaries? We thought he couldn’t win so we will harass him until he quits ...What do you think your party has been doing to Trump challengers?

jiggawatts 2y ago

So as a Republican, what do you think about the certainty that your party will suddenly find themselves no longer concerned about the age of presidential nominees?

twodave 2y ago
It wasn’t ever really about age IMO. It is hard to have a serious conversation about this because of personal lines and dislikes, so I’ll leave it at that.

Nimitz14 2y ago

It's difficult to take this in good faith since the amount of effort to understand why this opinion is misguided is so minimal: People voted for him in the primary based on the belief that he was and would stay in good health. The debate revealed that belief to be false. Post-debate, Democratic voters were massively (70+%) in favor of him resigning his candidacy. NOT stepping down would have been the UNdemocratic thing to do.

jarsin 2y ago

I think Kennedy will get way more votes than usual because of this. Which will ensure a Trump victory.

dyauspitr 2y ago

Not even a little bit. The Democratic Party has clearly stated policies and goals, the vast majority of which I agree with (possibly besides some of the trans policies). Who the final candidate is this time matters very little compared to making sure Trump doesn’t win and destroy American hegemony.