Harris secures enough delegate endorsements to win the DNC presidential nomination

[FATCAT 60,888]

1 hour ago, Okinawa said:

No, they agreed to Biden serving a second term as president for at least a fraction of time - commencing with his inauguration - and Harris serving a second term as Vice President for at least a fraction of time - commencing with her inauguration -, and gave their permission that Vice President Harris will take over the REMAINDER (!!!) term of the president, if the president drops out of office, which requires Harris to be sworn Vice President during her second term in first place, and equally requires Biden to be sworn second term president for at least a second!

That's mental gymnastics, the spirit of her being Biden's backup still holds true. Dems are not upset about her being nominated, she has the full party backing her.

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,279]

56 minutes ago, Okinawa said:

No, because Harris is only automatically entitled to replace Biden if he has been elected second term president before and she elected Vice President for her second term, and if this isn't the case, the position is open to anyone [again] (and therefore , I think primaries should be repeated). This is impossible for the next term, as Biden is not gonna be pres anymore. [It is possible for this term] Therefore, she cannot claim any votes from the 81 million as "hers", as she won't be Vice Pres on inauguration day or Vice Pres elect after November, as supposed to be according to the primaries rules. 

She cannot directly jump from Vice Pres Cand. to Pres. Cand. (before election day) without primaries being repeated. But I agree, that we have to distinguish.

"The Democratic National Committee’s official procedures for the convention, adopted in 2022, give the committee the authority to choose a new candidate if either member of the ticket — the presidential or vice-presidential nominee — withdraws or dies."

https://www.nytimes.com/article/replace-biden.html

What I wanted to say is that before pres. election day, that the Vice Pres does not automatically follow up to the Pres. The DNC can choose whoever they want to choose in this case, it can be anyone over 35 years old. Only after election day, Harris is entitled to automatically follow up Pres if Biden resigns. Before that, the Vice Pres is not a default successor.  If they do it without local people voting for it again, it kinda lacks deomcratic elements, imo.

 

The Biden(P)-Harris(VP) ticket is not even exisiting anymore, it is now Harris(P)-someonelse(not  Biden)(VP). The conditions of the primaries are violated and should be repeated if they are supposed to be democratic.

 

The article you quoted stated that the DNC’s policy is that they have the authority to change the candidate if either the Pres or the VP on the ticket dropped out. Biden dropped out, committee coalesced around Harris. What exactly is the issue here? 

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,279]

9 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

That's mental gymnastics, the spirit of her being Biden's backup still holds true. Dems are not upset about her being nominated, she has the full party backing her.

This user is essentially creating the framework for a lawsuit that would get summarily tossed out in court lmao 

[Phoenix Rises 954]

5 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

This user is essentially creating the framework for a lawsuit that would get summarily tossed out in court lmao 

Gop is already saying we disenfranchised voters, since when do they care? And we didnt IMO,Kamala said she wanted an open process not a coronation where it was automatic . She is campaigning and voters are fired up to vote for her! Cant use the age excuse no more and she has lots of Gen Z on her team in Delaware running her tiktok,X etc. I feel hope again , for months I was like ' Might as well expect trump policies and more hate jan 20 2025'. We can do this and win big .

[Future Lovers 7,617]

21 hours ago, GregJA said:

This is quite the gamble - most Democrats see the party nominating someone with zero votes is… well not great.

1. It’s not a gamble, she is the safest choice they could’ve made (and I mean that positively)

2. Very, very few Democrats have viewed this as not good. In fact, 83% according to polls approve. 

3. Piggybacking on that…she WAS voted into this position. Her name was on the ticket during the primaries as the VP. When you vote for a President either for a primary or a general, you are also voting for their VP to be President should the time come that that is necessary. Democratic voters already said back in the primary they’re fine with her. 

[Future Lovers 7,617]

9 hours ago, high culture said:

The way the Democrats literally bypassed democracy for this... and expect us to support them 💀 no thanks 

How did they bypass democracy? By moving over to a candidate that was already vetted, primaried, and has thus far gained near unanimous support from constituents? Democratic voters en masse ASKED for this.

Yes, they expect us to support them and we should because they finally listened to what their voters were telling them.

If you’re not supporting them, then please do enlighten me as to who you ARE supporting?  

[Future Lovers 7,617]

8 hours ago, high culture said:

I voted in the primary... for Marianne Williamson. I did not want Joe nor Kamala. I have been planning on voting for Jill Stein and plan on still doing so

Oh nevermind, I should’ve kept reading before I asked my question above. 

So the answer is you’re voting selfishly and don’t really give a **** what happens to the people who will suffer most under a Trump presidency. 

[Future Lovers 7,617]

1 hour ago, Okinawa said:

No, because Harris is only automatically entitled to replace Biden if he has been elected second term president before and she elected Vice President for her second term, and if this isn't the case, the position is open to anyone [again] (and therefore , I think primaries should be repeated). This is impossible for the next term, as Biden is not gonna be pres anymore. [It is possible for this term] Therefore, she cannot claim any votes from the 81 million as "hers", as she won't be Vice Pres on inauguration day or Vice Pres elect after November, as supposed to be according to the primaries rules. 

She cannot directly jump from Vice Pres Cand. to Pres. Cand. (before election day) without primaries being repeated. But I agree, that we have to distinguish.

"The Democratic National Committee’s official procedures for the convention, adopted in 2022, give the committee the authority to choose a new candidate if either member of the ticket — the presidential or vice-presidential nominee — withdraws or dies."

https://www.nytimes.com/article/replace-biden.html

What I wanted to say is that before pres. election day, that the Vice Pres does not automatically follow up to the Pres. The DNC can choose whoever they want to choose in this case, it can be anyone over 35 years old. Only after election day, Harris is entitled to automatically follow up Pres if Biden resigns. Before that, the Vice Pres is not a default successor.  If they do it without local people voting for it again, it kinda lacks deomcratic elements, imo.

 

The Biden(P)-Harris(VP) ticket is not even exisiting anymore, it is now Harris(P)-someonelse(not  Biden)(VP). The conditions of the primaries are violated and should be repeated if they are supposed to be democratic.

 

The very article you posted states that what they’re doing is not only legal and correct procedure, but is what they are REQUIRED to do by federal regulations. 

I get the spirit pal but it’s pretty evident you don’t really understand how the American political system works and what campaign rules (especially in regards to finances) are. 

[Franch Toast 27,737]

US citizens don't have the right to vote for the party nominee; they have the right to vote for president. In theory, the DNC & RNC (and other parties) could dispense with primaries and just select whomever they would like. 

I get that what's happening is not ideal, but the main issue is that if Democrats go to an open convention, given the time crunch, the Democratic nominee would very likely not be included on the ballot in several key states, including Ohio, thus handing the presidency to Trump. There is no time to do another primary or to wait till the convention. And to repeat, this process is not circumventing any of our constitutional rights. The constitution does not delineate how to nominate presidential candidates. Historically, delegates haven't necessarily represented the electorate. 

For more information, please see here: 

https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/presidential-election-process/political-primaries-how-are-candidates-nominated/

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

1 hour ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

The article you quoted stated that the DNC’s policy is that they have the authority to change the candidate if either the Pres or the VP on the ticket dropped out. Biden dropped out, committee coalesced around Harris. What exactly is the issue here? 

Being legal does not automatically equal democratic, nor morally appropriate. It simply means it cannot be successfully contested in court.

The Admin of this site is in prison in Eastern Europe, which is perfectly legal there according to their laws, but it is not morally okay, imo.

Some countries have elections every 6 years, others every 4 years, others none at all, all legal in their judicial systems. Yet, ever 4 years is more democratic than every 6 years.

DNC has the power to solve the question of Biden's follow-up by introducing primaries again. They choose not to do so, so far. That's legal but not a democratic way, imo.

And it renders the primaries kinda useless if afterwards candidates are exchanged and the DNC can appoint anyone they want without asking the people for approval. All legal. Not democratic.

 

1 hour ago, Future Lovers said:

 Democratic voters en masse ASKED for this.

 

They asked en masse for it, yes. Often. Biden ignored them and didn't listen to the people.

He wanted to become president despite what people thought of him. He clearly said that. Then, suddenly, global corporations intervened, launched an anti-Biden bullying campaign and within 1 week he was ousted.

This was not the result of the people's will but of an intervention of global corporations.

If they didn't intervene, Biden would be still there running. It is not the result of a democratic process but a result of the intervention of powerful companies acting on their own. It should not have been this way. Ideally, Biden would have listened to the people and suggested new primaries some weeks ago. It was not until they threatened him to withdraw money, diminishing his ads.

1 hour ago, Franch Toast said:

And to repeat, this process is not circumventing any of our constitutional rights.

You're entirely correct. It's perfectly legal. The Dems and Reps can self-organize themselves whatever way they want. They are a private party and not a public institution after all.

Again, legal does not equal democratic. It remains a surgical intervention by the DNC lacking a democratic legitimation by the people.

And the Dems and Reps de facto have a monopoly. They could theoretically minimize the democratic elements to 0, throughout their entire process rather than the loopholes they use now. This would be perfectly legal. But it's not very democratic. If in a two-party system one party or both parties skip democratic nominations, this is much more problematic than if it occured in a multi-party system (5 parties or more without the "winner takes all"-principle and gerrymandering).

Do we really want to become the first potential female president a president on less favorable democratic terms than her male counterparts?

[Future Lovers 7,617]

1 hour ago, Okinawa said:

They asked en masse for it, yes. Often. Biden ignored them and didn't listen to the people.

He wanted to become president despite what people thought of him. He clearly said that. Then, suddenly, global corporations intervened, launched an anti-Biden bullying campaign and within 1 week he was ousted.

This was not the result of the people's will but of an intervention of global corporations.

If they didn't intervene, Biden would be still there running. It is not the result of a democratic process but a result of the intervention of powerful companies acting on their own. It should not have been this way. Ideally, Biden would have listened to the people and suggested new primaries some weeks ago. It was not until they threatened him to withdraw money, diminishing his ads.

 

If this is what the people wanted, which you're agreeing with, then what the hell is the problem here? Why are you upset that the party did what the party's supports asked for them to do? Why are you upset that the party is actually following the law rather than skirting around it to do something shady? 

Your whole "legal doesn't equal moral" thing, sure whatever, legality and morality don't always align. But...again...the people wanted this? And they're donating and signing up to work on the campaign and everything that they've not been doing for Biden. How are you going to sit here and say that this is wrong when almost everyone is very happy? 

What would be the point of a new primary when this is what the results would be anyway? What would be the point in wasting more of the very little time that we have?

The people voted for Harris. A vote for Biden in the primary was a vote for Harris. You cannot remove the Vice President from the sole context that they exist within which is potentially being the President. 

If anyone voted for Biden without also thinking about Harris becoming the President, that's not really the DNC's problem. It's that person's problem for being so dumb. 

People really just want something to bitch about. They've become so angry and jaded with the world that they simply cannot help themselves by seeing a moment of genuine hope in everyone and deciding that they simply must be the voice of dissent. 

All it is is a cry for attention. 

[LateToCult 41,864]

The way some people I know are damn near dancing in the street now that they don’t have to worry about Biden slipping and saying a slur on national television is a sight to see. 

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,279]

1 hour ago, Okinawa said:

Being legal does not automatically equal democratic, nor morally appropriate. It simply means it cannot be successfully contested in court.

The Admin of this site is in prison in Eastern Europe, which is perfectly legal there according to their laws, but it is not morally okay, imo.

Some countries have elections every 6 years, others every 4 years, others none at all, all legal in their judicial systems. Yet, ever 4 years is more democratic than every 6 years.

DNC has the power to solve the question of Biden's follow-up by introducing primaries again. They choose not to do so, so far. That's legal but not a democratic way, imo.

And it renders the primaries kinda useless if afterwards candidates are exchanged and the DNC can appoint anyone they want without asking the people for approval. All legal. Not democratic.

 

They asked en masse for it, yes. Often. Biden ignored them and didn't listen to the people.

He wanted to become president despite what people thought of him. He clearly said that. Then, suddenly, global corporations intervened, launched an anti-Biden bullying campaign and within 1 week he was ousted.

This was not the result of the people's will but of an intervention of global corporations.

If they didn't intervene, Biden would be still there running. It is not the result of a democratic process but a result of the intervention of powerful companies acting on their own. It should not have been this way. Ideally, Biden would have listened to the people and suggested new primaries some weeks ago. It was not until they threatened him to withdraw money, diminishing his ads.

You're entirely correct. It's perfectly legal. The Dems and Reps can self-organize themselves whatever way they want. They are a private party and not a public institution after all.

Again, legal does not equal democratic. It remains a surgical intervention by the DNC lacking a democratic legitimation by the people.

And the Dems and Reps de facto have a monopoly. They could theoretically minimize the democratic elements to 0, throughout their entire process rather than the loopholes they use now. This would be perfectly legal. But it's not very democratic. If in a two-party system one party or both parties skip democratic nominations, this is much more problematic than if it occured in a multi-party system (5 parties or more without the "winner takes all"-principle and gerrymandering).

Do we really want to become the first potential female president a president on less favorable democratic terms than her male counterparts?

Given that the party utilized this policy at the behest of an overwhelming majority of their voters, you could pretty easily argue that the decision was democratic (the DNC was actually staunchly *opposed* to the idea of replacing Biden until a critical mass of people came out in favor of the idea). 

[ALGAYDO 35,140]

27 minutes ago, Future Lovers said:

You cannot remove the Vice President from the sole context that they exist within which is potentially being the President.

That user probably thinks Kamala just fell out of a coconut tree, but she exists in the context of all in which she lives and what came before her 

[PartySick 172,546]

6 hours ago, Okinawa said:

No, because Harris is only automatically entitled to replace Biden if he has been elected second term president before and she elected Vice President for her second term, and if this isn't the case, the position is open to anyone [again] (and therefore , I think primaries should be repeated). This is impossible for the next term, as Biden is not gonna be pres anymore. [It is possible for this term] Therefore, she cannot claim any votes from the 81 million as "hers", as she won't be Vice Pres on inauguration day or Vice Pres elect after November, as supposed to be according to the primaries rules. 

She cannot directly jump from Vice Pres Cand. to Pres. Cand. (before election day) without primaries being repeated. But I agree, that we have to distinguish.

"The Democratic National Committee’s official procedures for the convention, adopted in 2022, give the committee the authority to choose a new candidate if either member of the ticket — the presidential or vice-presidential nominee — withdraws or dies."

https://www.nytimes.com/article/replace-biden.html

What I wanted to say is that before pres. election day, that the Vice Pres does not automatically follow up to the Pres. The DNC can choose whoever they want to choose in this case, it can be anyone over 35 years old. Only after election day, Harris is entitled to automatically follow up Pres if Biden resigns. Before that, the Vice Pres is not a default successor.  If they do it without local people voting for it again, it kinda lacks deomcratic elements, imo.

 

The Biden(P)-Harris(VP) ticket is not even exisiting anymore, it is now Harris(P)-someonelse(not  Biden)(VP). The conditions of the primaries are violated and should be repeated if they are supposed to be democratic.

 

Look, I'm not saying you're ethically wrong, 'cause you're right in that aspect and I see where you're coming from. I'm just saying that just isn't how things work.

If the DNC wanted, they could completely replace Kamala with someone who never got a single vote and it'd be entirely legal.