I mean, yes? Just because it’s a precedent here doesn’t make it democratic.
It’s literally a practice that denies or heavily suppresses having a healthy crop of new primary candidates to vote for, which makes the party much less responsive to voter sentiment changes.
8 years is a LONG time, and yeah, a lot of people who felt that a candidate represented them 4 years ago may not feel they do anymore, and they still deserve the same chance to democratically decide who represents them.
Without that happening in the primary, their only options are to get no say in their candidate, withhold their vote, or vote for another party, in the general election.
So 3rd term precedent is up for grabs, or are we just so superbly selective in which policy to ignore? I’m asking because I’ll be real interested in 4 years.
The incumbent presidents’ campaigns retaining control of the party organizations (DNC and GOP are entirely private entities) during primary season is entirely the self-made rule of the political parties.
The incumbent’s team should be removed from the DNC before the primary begins, have the primary, and then integrate them back in if and when they re-win the nomination.
Honestly, I’m not sure if you are making a joke about how a monarchy can’t be democratic. Or if this is a comment about him legit “deserving” to be president more.
Monarchy was obviously the wrong word, but I think their underlying point is correct; there is not supposed to be a Right to Rule in America.
No one deserves to be a president any more than anyone else, and treating an incumbent as though they do, without having to go through an open, democratic primary process, is to treat them as more deserving of future authority than other citizens.
I mean, okay fair enough, this is a longstanding thing that’s happened though. It’s pretty rare for incumbents to be challenged within their own party (and this is normally not a controversial thing).
It’s also less that “nobody could” and more “nobody [with a remote chance of winning] did.”
There’s no “right to rule” here, that’s entirely a retroactive facade that’s contrary to the facts.
No one deserves to be a president any more than anyone else, and treating an incumbent as though they do, without having to go through an open, democratic primary process, is to treat them as more deserving of future authority than other citizens.
There was a primary, and Biden got the most votes/delegates under the rules. Nobody is saying that incumbents should automatically get renomination. Or even that the incumbent should get some sort of rules advantage (like say, the way the defending world champ in chess gets an auto-bid to defend his title against a challenger who has to win a tournament to get there).
The rules are already set up to where any challenger has an equal structural change of winning the primary. They just won’t have the actual popular support. You know, the core principles of democratic elections.
Tell me, during an incumbent primary, who controls the DNC?
Same as during a non-incumbent primary. The person who won the most recent nomination tends to have an outsized voice in the selection of party officials (because it’s their pledged delegates who vote on all the other stuff). Yes, that means Biden-affiliated insiders had an inside track in 2020, but that’s also true of Clinton allies in 2016, Obama allies in 2012, Obama allies in 2008, and Kerry allies in 2004.
More than a year ago, the DNC adopted new rules—including a primary calendar that ignored state law in Iowa and New Hampshire and eliminated any primary debates—designed to ensure that Biden’s coronation would proceed untroubled by opposition from any credible Democrat.
Which of those changes in the rules do you think were designed to benefit Biden specifically? De-emphasizing the role of Iowa and New Hampshire? There’s been people clamoring for that for decades, within the party.
There’s basically no set of rules that will ever create a credible challenge to an incumbent who wants to run for reelection. It’s a popularity problem, not a structural problem.
It’s not just about pledged delegates. The incumbent’s campaign remains in control of the party during the primary. And in 2016, Hilary’s campaign was literally in complete control of the DNC even prior to her getting the nomination despite not being an incumbent.
The leadership of the DNC, DCCC, DSCC, etc., are chosen by election, by members of each committee. State parties send their delegates to participate in these things.
despite not being an incumbent
Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about. These are processes that longtime party members participate in, and run on, about the structural rules and procedures to follow, and they’re open to everyone. Elections often pit “establishment”/“insider” candidates against “insurgent”/“outsider” candidates, and there are examples of each kind (or hybrid candidates) winning the nomination in the modern primary system.
It’s more of a spurious correlation: incumbency doesn’t buy the advantage in the nomination race, but reflects that a candidate has the network and resources to have the popular support of their own party. That’s why incumbents always win the nomination, and tend to win reelection in the general.
not sure about you, but we’re trying to have political discussions in this space. Strolling into a thread a day late, accusing everyone of being Russian trolls, and then ignoring your replies is a terrible way to foster discussion.
Yes. Clearly it is undemocratic for the person who won the last presidential election to sit as an incumbent.
🙄
I mean, yes? Just because it’s a precedent here doesn’t make it democratic.
It’s literally a practice that denies or heavily suppresses having a healthy crop of new primary candidates to vote for, which makes the party much less responsive to voter sentiment changes.
8 years is a LONG time, and yeah, a lot of people who felt that a candidate represented them 4 years ago may not feel they do anymore, and they still deserve the same chance to democratically decide who represents them.
Without that happening in the primary, their only options are to get no say in their candidate, withhold their vote, or vote for another party, in the general election.
When you say “literally” it torpedoes your argument. Do you know any other adverbs?
This is Beehaw; argue the issue or topic, but not stuff like this.
Care to explain this? I’m not using “literally” to mean “practically”, I’m using it to mean “literally”.
block and move on, t3rmit3. i think we’re getting trolled.
So 3rd term precedent is up for grabs, or are we just so superbly selective in which policy to ignore? I’m asking because I’ll be real interested in 4 years.
The term limit on presidents is a law.
The incumbent presidents’ campaigns retaining control of the party organizations (DNC and GOP are entirely private entities) during primary season is entirely the self-made rule of the political parties.
The incumbent’s team should be removed from the DNC before the primary begins, have the primary, and then integrate them back in if and when they re-win the nomination.
Honestly, I’m not sure if you are making a joke about how a monarchy can’t be democratic. Or if this is a comment about him legit “deserving” to be president more.
Monarchy… Really…? This is not even remotely close to a monarchy situation.
Monarchy was obviously the wrong word, but I think their underlying point is correct; there is not supposed to be a Right to Rule in America.
No one deserves to be a president any more than anyone else, and treating an incumbent as though they do, without having to go through an open, democratic primary process, is to treat them as more deserving of future authority than other citizens.
I mean, okay fair enough, this is a longstanding thing that’s happened though. It’s pretty rare for incumbents to be challenged within their own party (and this is normally not a controversial thing).
It’s also less that “nobody could” and more “nobody [with a remote chance of winning] did.”
There’s no “right to rule” here, that’s entirely a retroactive facade that’s contrary to the facts.
There was a primary, and Biden got the most votes/delegates under the rules. Nobody is saying that incumbents should automatically get renomination. Or even that the incumbent should get some sort of rules advantage (like say, the way the defending world champ in chess gets an auto-bid to defend his title against a challenger who has to win a tournament to get there).
The rules are already set up to where any challenger has an equal structural change of winning the primary. They just won’t have the actual popular support. You know, the core principles of democratic elections.
Man, you’ve got some hilarious jokes. Tell me, during an incumbent primary, who controls the DNC?
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/biden-democratic-primaries-rules/
https://www.vox.com/2023/9/12/23868230/biden-democratic-primary-challenge-polls
Same as during a non-incumbent primary. The person who won the most recent nomination tends to have an outsized voice in the selection of party officials (because it’s their pledged delegates who vote on all the other stuff). Yes, that means Biden-affiliated insiders had an inside track in 2020, but that’s also true of Clinton allies in 2016, Obama allies in 2012, Obama allies in 2008, and Kerry allies in 2004.
Which of those changes in the rules do you think were designed to benefit Biden specifically? De-emphasizing the role of Iowa and New Hampshire? There’s been people clamoring for that for decades, within the party.
There’s basically no set of rules that will ever create a credible challenge to an incumbent who wants to run for reelection. It’s a popularity problem, not a structural problem.
It’s not just about pledged delegates. The incumbent’s campaign remains in control of the party during the primary. And in 2016, Hilary’s campaign was literally in complete control of the DNC even prior to her getting the nomination despite not being an incumbent.
And she lost. Because it’s a bad strategic move.
The leadership of the DNC, DCCC, DSCC, etc., are chosen by election, by members of each committee. State parties send their delegates to participate in these things.
Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about. These are processes that longtime party members participate in, and run on, about the structural rules and procedures to follow, and they’re open to everyone. Elections often pit “establishment”/“insider” candidates against “insurgent”/“outsider” candidates, and there are examples of each kind (or hybrid candidates) winning the nomination in the modern primary system.
It’s more of a spurious correlation: incumbency doesn’t buy the advantage in the nomination race, but reflects that a candidate has the network and resources to have the popular support of their own party. That’s why incumbents always win the nomination, and tend to win reelection in the general.
Thanks much! Spot on.
The edge is strong with these trolls, I’m almost positive this is what we’re dealing with here.
Yeah, I literally just stop replying when they trickle in. Rather plant seeds and move on than get bogged down by Putin’s trolls.
not sure about you, but we’re trying to have political discussions in this space. Strolling into a thread a day late, accusing everyone of being Russian trolls, and then ignoring your replies is a terrible way to foster discussion.
Would you say more on this? Specifically the connection between democratic/undemocratic and incumbents.