Have dems considered
- Thread starter gardentiger
- Start date
You are assuming members of the democratic party have rational thought.
Bad assumption.
Bad assumption.
Yeah that’s the point. Democrats didn’t hold an open primary.
In 2020 they screwed Bernie by rigging the debates and giving Hillary the questions ahead of time.
In 2024 they anointed Kamala.
But Trump is the threat to democracy. Ok Dems.
If you have an OPEN and HONEST primary she won’t be in the top 5. But I doubt the Democrat ability to be open and honest and so she will probably be at the top of the ticket.
In 2020 they screwed Bernie by rigging the debates and giving Hillary the questions ahead of time.
In 2024 they anointed Kamala.
But Trump is the threat to democracy. Ok Dems.
If you have an OPEN and HONEST primary she won’t be in the top 5. But I doubt the Democrat ability to be open and honest and so she will probably be at the top of the ticket.
Last edited:
Hey Porcine One: Did the Repugnicants have primaries in 2020? Please refresh our recollection on that subject.
You said that she'd be our nominee in 2028 but also said she wouldn't come in the Top 3 in a primary. So is your contention here that the primary for 2028 won't be open and honest and somehow they're going to force Harris through (who just lost) or are you just confused?
Correct. What makes you think that democrats will hold an OPEN and HONEST primary this time?
Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Because every one of the primaries that were held were open and honest? That there was no primary in 2024 is sort of besides the point, the circumstances there were pretty extraordinary (but I'll admit it was "undemocratic"). Even if they decided to cancel primaries for 2028, why do you think they'd pick Harris? She's already proven she can lose.
Extraordinary? I don't think so. I think people lied and covered up for Joe Biden. There was a team effort to conceal his cognitive decline even though it was beyond obvious to republicans and anyone paying attention. The leadership of the democratic party thought they could get away with selling that Joe was OK even though he never spoke to the press and when he did he would lose train of thought and make non sensical answers. His cancer was hidden from the public, unless you believe the excuse the doctor "missed it". The debate exposed him and the leadership panicked. They panicked and anointed Kamala instead of letting their constituents have a voice.
They also rigged the 2020 primary by giving Hillary the debate questions ahead of time.
What makes you think that the democrat party leadership will let the people decide this time?
If they were somehow to have a truly contested primary, Kamala won't finish in the top 5. She is that bad. I'm not convinced they will have an honest, contested primary. I wouldn;'t be surprised if they try to save face and pretend that Kamala wasn't that bad and put her back on the ticket somehow. Maybe they feel like they owe her or they didn't give her a fair shot. I don't know.
I just look at previous actions to predict future results and the past two primaries have not been up to the voters in the democratic party. There is an "elite" group at the top of the party that has a heavy thumb on the scale.
Do you really think the primaries were open and honest? Like do you truly believe that? There is overwhelming evidence that is not the case.
Open and honest means you have choices and that all information is on the table. That has not happened in the past two democrat primaries.
By they time they made a decision, there wasn't time for a primary. That's a factual statement of events. Everything else is conjecture but I do think it would have been better if Biden had dropped out in late 2022 so we could have done a whole primary. As a reminder, the GOP straight up cancelled primaries in 2020.
You have even less faith in the voters than I do if you think that Clinton getting told about a very obvious question stripped voter's of their abilities to make a decision. Sanders got waxed.
There is less of a thumb on the scale than ever. If anything, I think the party should have less open primaries and not more. I think primary voters are terrible at choosing good candidates. (To note, I wouldn't support this while we still have first past the post voting).
You're getting high off your own supply if you think Democrats would rig a primary in favor of Kamala Harris at this point.
There were VERY obvious signs of Bidens mental decline before the primary. He did not develop cancer between the primary and when they told the public. If you believe that you are probably interested in that ocean front property in Oklahoma. He had "medical episodes" that were covered up before the primary. We will have to agree to disagree if you truly think Bidens health was disclosed prior to the primary. From his brief public appearances before the primary an honest observer knew he was not healthy.
If there was no advantage to getting the questions before the debate, then why give her the questions ahead of time? Maybe Bernie would have gotten waxed even if she didn't have the questions ahead of time (I don't believe it was only1 question). But the fact is the powers that be at the top of the party cheated by giving her the questions.
I hope democrats have a competitive primary, it will result in better candidates for all of us.
I'm glad you agree that someone would have to be on drugs to think Kamala was a good candidate. Something we can agree on, because she was an awful candidate. Definitely the worst candidate in US political history.
I don't believe we've ever had a primary for any party at any point in time where "all information is on the table". 2016 was about the same as any other primary, we just got a stupid anti-establishment bent in this country that was enflamed by Russian involvement that got everyone going "but muh Bernie Sanders!" (And I voted for the guy, twice!)
Every primary there are candidates who never make it to the debate stage. There are rules EVERY SINGLE CYCLE for who gets to get up there and debate. Pretending that we've ever had primaries where the parties had no say is just stupid.
Don't put words in my mouth. She wasn't a great candidate but she was by far the best won in that election.
Honestly even making such a claim is just another piece of evidence that you don't bother to think about things before you say them.
in 2016 Trump beat out 17 candidates. They had an open debate and process. Event though there were establishment figures like Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, John Kasich, etc that im sure the party elite would have rather had, the people got a voice and voted for Donald Trump.
She was a great candidate but you would have to be on drugs to think the party would elect her this cycle? Ok flaw47. (There was no election, she was anointed)
She was, without a doubt, the worst candidate in US political history.
And the GOP "manipulated" who was on stage on which nights. They had a thumb on the scale, is all I'm saying. I'd say both primaries in 2016 were fine.
I know reading is hard but I literally said "she wasn't a great candidate". You can tell because it says that in your post when you quoted me. I was referring to her being the best candidate in the 2024 general election, not the 2024 primary (which didn't exist, as we've both covered).
She wasn't the best candidate in the 2024 general election because she lost in an overwhelming landslide.
Against what I just said, I'm going to respond to this. I would remind you that history didn't start in 2024.
MY PERSPECTIVE is that Harris was a flawed candidate but still better than Donald Trump, who is uniquely awful.
The 2024 election was the closest one since 2000. How that equates to an "overwhelming" landslide is beyond me.
The 2024 election was not close. Trump won the popular vote. Trump won the electoral count. Trump won more states. Trump won more counties. Trump won all of the swing states. It was an overwhelming landslide because 1) Kamala was an awful candidate and 2) many dems stayed home because they were disenfranchised by the non-process used to get Kamala on the ticket and 3) Trump was the better candidate.
Kamala was an awful candidate. She will not finish in the top 5 if a true open and honest primary is held next cycle. I'm not so sure dem party elite will allow that due their past actions, so i think it's possible she finishes better than top 5 and even possible she ends up on the ticket again. I hope i am proven wrong, because literally any other candidate will be a better option for the people.
If we're allowed to just make up definitions for words like "overwhelming" and "landslide" and completely ignore facts then I truly don't know what we're doing here. Good luck out there. I'm sure it's nice and cozy in your own fairy tale.
If democrats don't want to face reality and maintain that she was the "best candidate on the ticket" while at the same time declaring she "wasn't a great candidate", we are going to keep getting ****** candidates on the ticket. That is a detriment to everyone for both parties. Competition produces better results.
And yes, Trump won the past election in a landslide depsite Kamala's claim that this was the closest election ever. A close election would be if the electoral college count was close. It wasn't. A close election would be if one candidate won the popular vote while another wont the electoral count. Didn't happen. There is no evidence to suggest this was a close election. It was an overwhelming defeat.
And yes, Trump won the past election in a landslide depsite Kamala's claim that this was the closest election ever. A close election would be if the electoral college count was close. It wasn't. A close election would be if one candidate won the popular vote while another wont the electoral count. Didn't happen. There is no evidence to suggest this was a close election. It was an overwhelming defeat.
I actually agree with you on this. Hillary lost in 2016 because everyone knew the establishment rigged the primary in favor of her and to the detriment of Bernie.
2020 was fair IMO.
2024 was a disaster. Expectations should’ve been set that Biden was going to be one-term. I think Kamala still would’ve won, but it would’ve been a fair process and she would have been able to campaign without all the resistance from people who felt conned because they had no say in the candidate.
You gave it an honest try, but you were wasting your time on a troll. He thinks Mango Mussolini is the single greatest President in American history. Let THAT sink in. LOL ...
Anyone ever wonder why folks, whatever side of the aisle you sit on, insist on using this type of language to refer to the other side? I've never understood it. I guess it's the same as USUC or Clemsux, taters and cocks (although that one is real), Magats and demorats, playground insults. I just don't understand, other than simple childish pokes. I rarely see a person of the bluer hue hold an argument without it coming up. I'm not attacking you btw. I believe in your right to your own view and respecting them, until the name calling starts. I don't know that Red/blue have ever, or will ever, see eye to eye. It's a fundamental perspective difference, and until folks acknowledge it, we won't get past it. But hey, we all love the Tigers, as difficult as that may seem currently.
