Harris secures enough delegate endorsements to win the DNC presidential nomination

[Bronco 25,210]

Some people have clearly zero concept of political parties, a party based political system or American politics.

If you think what the Democrats have done is bad, wait till you find out that America is one of the only countries in the world where parties let voters pick party candidates. 

Like damn, when I was a Labour party member one of our local selection meetings only needed to be attended by 6 people to be quorate and able to select the area candidate for the local elections.

[Future Lovers 7,617]

2 hours ago, ALGAYDO said:

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 

I was literally thinking about this as i typed it and wondered if anyone was also going to think about it

[Phoenix Rises 954]

I didn't know most elections were like 2-3 months in europe,france etc. USA has the longest and this wont hurt us at all. It has galvanized the democratic base and voters are energized to vote now! Im super excited to cast my ballot in october my mail. 

[CameronSpears 2,129]

I truly believe she will win, history will finally be made. She's so much better than Hillary.

[StarstruckIllusion 53,567]

The notion that voted should only be listened to when it’s time for their vote is gross, idiotic and anti democratic tbh.

Polls have BEEN showing Dems being very unhappy with Biden as their lead, and not having a proper choice in the sham 2024 Dem primary where NH was messed with, and the primaries were literally cancelled in FL and NC…

To ignore them and pretend the Dems didn’t do something totally badass that the base approves us, loves, and has energized the party is wild.

Having Kamala properly communicate Biden’s winning agenda is gonna do miracles for Dems over having him stay on.

Everyone republican crying about democracy are just mad they can’t coast to victory and they should be ignored 

[Juniper 1,062]

Kamala is such a breath of fresh air among these stiff old fossils. 

[tigerteeth 661]

19 hours ago, high culture said:

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

You’re trolling, right? I’m not from the US and know that your opinion isn’t true - nothing illegal going on here

[MOT 3,608]

19 hours ago, high culture said:

A vote is a manifestation... if you all want to continue supporting the two sides (blue/red) of the oligarchy coin that controls US politics.. then go ahead. You all think my vote is worth nothing, to me my vote is a manifestation for a future of peace and rooting out corruption in our politics. Obviously the Green Party is not going to win, but at least the blood of the genocide won't be on my hands like it is on all of yours supporting Kamala

The next President will be either the Dem candidate or the GOP candidate. The GOP candidate is Trump. He attempted to prevent the transfer of power when he lost the last election in 2020. He didn't just make speeches about it, he actually tried to stop it. If he becomes President again in January he will seek to ensure that nobody's vote will matter in future elections, to ensure that his side wins no matter how many votes are cast for Harris, Stein, Whitmer, Shapiro, whoever. You obviously care about your vote. It matters to you. And this election is about your vote. It isn't about the green agenda or Gaza (on both of which Trump is worse than Harris anyway), it is about the thing that matters more than any policy, it is about your right to have a say.

If you are interested in maintaining that right, in maintaining the power of your vote, and I think you are, you should vote blue.

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

13 hours ago, Future Lovers said:

If this is what the people wanted, which you're agreeing with, then what the hell is the problem here? But...again...the people wanted this?

 

I worked a lot with surveys and empirical research during my studies, and also created surveys myself and often used sources with surveys to reflect the opinion of the local population. Surveys are helpful because otherwise one wouldn't know what the population thinks. But surveys don't reflect reality, instead they are believed to reflect it. Pierre Bourdieu said: "Public opinion doesn't exist in the sense that there is no unbiased, independent reality that you can simply measure and reflect neutrally using surveys. Public opinion is the product of surveys."

Public opinion including polls can be subject to manipulation, social desirability bias, strategic lying, incorrect coverage and other flaws that distort reality.

I agree with the surveys (usually and also in this Biden-Harris case) because they are the most statistically likely scenario. I agree that Harris most likely would be the repeated primaries winner. I ***believe*** in the polls because of the law of probability but I also know that they could be wrong.

We have seen it in 2016, we have seen it as recently in France when Marine Le Pen surprisingly scored worse than expected - and the polls told us something else, mislead us.

As Partysick wrote in another topic, he suspects that Biden's true popularity could be better in reality and that polls don't accurately mirror it and some people deliberately give Biden bad poll answers, not to exchange him, but to pressure him into performing better. We don't truly know whether Harris performs better than Biden in reality. We assume it.

A vote is the closest thing to a certified truth, if carried out properly. In no way, can polls democratically replace votes, imo, and in no way can polls have any democratically legitimate character because they are unverified. They give us a hint. They are not democratic. 

As another user wrote, "a vote is a manifestation". A vote is submitting conscent. A poll is not binding and subject to distortion and flaws. A vote tells us a record in the truest possible way. And not an assumed truth, like all of you do.

I oppose "not spending money on repeating primaries, instead spending them on advertisements". I oppose valueing statistical chances higher than democratic core principles.

You call repeated primaries a waste of time. I call it living democracy.

And I'm not supporting how Kamala-Joe waited until primaries are over and the majority would consider it too late to repeat them. I don't know if Joe's team strategically did it this way. But the way both handled democracy is not OK. They bypassed their competitors by waiting until primaries are over, giving unfair advantage to Harris. 

Less than a months ago,  on 29th June 2024 the NYT article said:

"What would that mean for Vice President Kamala Harris?

Ms. Harris would most likely be one of probably a half-dozen candidates vying for the presidential nomination, but her standing in the party is questionable after what many have seen as a rocky tenure and weak poll numbers. She also would not be assured the No. 2 spot on the ticket, even if she wanted it, should Mr. Biden be replaced."

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

Kamala Harris was clever. She waited until it was considered too late for her competition to challenge her and took the crown from Biden. But this isn't democratic. This is strategic egoistic behavior. On 29th June 2024, Harris was considered one of many. Now she is considered "probably the only one".

If Kamala-Biden allowed new primaries early July, the new candidate would be stronger than Kamala perhaps, or Kamala herself stronger.

 

Spoiler

Quote:

"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."

I absolutely agree that the VP must be seen in the whole context. Now Harris will have a new unknown VP and that new VP can also follow-up her. That means, Harris right now is now the same context anymore. And nobody agreed and gave their permission with a vote that Harris can be subsituted by the now unkown VP. They agreed to her becomnig Vice Pres elect and afterwards being able to substitute Biden.

Biden multiple times assured the public that he will run the full term as president. Kamala re-assured that he will be president. Biden said he will not step down if corporations will tell him to do so. Biden lied and lied. It's a philosophical question whether the people that believed Biden's lies are dumb or whether they were tricked.

 

13 hours ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

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). 

Let's hypothetically assume that Harris will have bad polls in early October, that Trump will launch a Harris bullying campaign, and that as a result of that, Harris new VP will have better poll figures than her. Then corporations will launch a mass media campaign to force Harris to resign and the DNC then picks her new VP to be Pres. Cand. (and he or she will then pick a new new VP). And the same scenario repeats by end of October and the new new VP will be forced to resign and the DNC will pick the new new new VP as new president cand., justifying it by poll numbers. Do you support that and consider that democratic because polls says so?

Do you support post-primaries poll optimiziation candidate changes?

We are moving into a post-primaries constant poll optimization era.

13 hours ago, ALGAYDO said:

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 

I was part of the Coconuts trend already when Kim Petras released her Coconuts video last year. Flawless video & song

Spoiler

And I've been  cooking pancakes on coconut oil for at least 5 years

Kim Petras deserves the credits

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,279]

40 minutes ago, Okinawa said:

I worked a lot with surveys and empirical research during my studies, and also created surveys myself and often used sources with surveys to reflect the opinion of the local population. Surveys are helpful because otherwise one wouldn't know what the population thinks. But surveys don't reflect reality, instead they are believed to reflect it. Pierre Bourdieu said: "Public opinion doesn't exist in the sense that there is no unbiased, independent reality that you can simply measure and reflect neutrally using surveys. Public opinion is the product of surveys."

Public opinion including polls can be subject to manipulation, social desirability bias, strategic lying, incorrect coverage and other flaws that distort reality.

I agree with the surveys (usually and also in this Biden-Harris case) because they are the most statistically likely scenario. I agree that Harris most likely would be the repeated primaries winner. I ***believe*** in the polls because of the law of probability but I also know that they could be wrong.

We have seen it in 2016, we have seen it as recently in France when Marine Le Pen surprisingly scored worse than expected - and the polls told us something else, mislead us.

As Partysick wrote in another topic, he suspects that Biden's true popularity could be better in reality and that polls don't accurately mirror it and some people deliberately give Biden bad poll answers, not to exchange him, but to pressure him into performing better. We don't truly know whether Harris performs better than Biden in reality. We assume it.

A vote is the closest thing to a certified truth, if carried out properly. In no way, can polls democratically replace votes, imo, and in no way can polls have any democratically legitimate character because they are unverified. They give us a hint. They are not democratic. 

As another user wrote, "a vote is a manifestation". A vote is submitting conscent. A poll is not binding and subject to distortion and flaws. A vote tells us a record in the truest possible way. And not an assumed truth, like all of you do.

I oppose "not spending money on repeating primaries, instead spending them on advertisements". I oppose valueing statistical chances higher than democratic core principles.

You call repeated primaries a waste of time. I call it living democracy.

And I'm not supporting how Kamala-Joe waited until primaries are over and the majority would consider it too late to repeat them. I don't know if Joe's team strategically did it this way. But the way both handled democracy is not OK. They bypassed their competitors by waiting until primaries are over, giving unfair advantage to Harris. 

Less than a months ago,  on 29th June 2024 the NYT article said:

"What would that mean for Vice President Kamala Harris?

Ms. Harris would most likely be one of probably a half-dozen candidates vying for the presidential nomination, but her standing in the party is questionable after what many have seen as a rocky tenure and weak poll numbers. She also would not be assured the No. 2 spot on the ticket, even if she wanted it, should Mr. Biden be replaced."

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

Kamala Harris was clever. She waited until it was considered too late for her competition to challenge her and took the crown from Biden. But this isn't democratic. This is strategic egoistic behavior. On 29th June 2024, Harris was considered one of many. Now she is considered "probably the only one".

If Kamala-Biden allowed new primaries early July, the new candidate would be stronger than Kamala perhaps, or Kamala herself stronger.

 

  Hide contents

Quote:

"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."

I absolutely agree that the VP must be seen in the whole context. Now Harris will have a new unknown VP and that new VP can also follow-up her. That means, Harris right now is now the same context anymore. And nobody agreed and gave their permission with a vote that Harris can be subsituted by the now unkown VP. They agreed to her becomnig Vice Pres elect and afterwards being able to substitute Biden.

Biden multiple times assured the public that he will run the full term as president. Kamala re-assured that he will be president. Biden said he will not step down if corporations will tell him to do so. Biden lied and lied. It's a philosophical question whether the people that believed Biden's lies are dumb or whether they were tricked.

 

Let's hypothetically assume that Harris will have bad polls in early October, that Trump will launch a Harris bullying campaign, and that as a result of that, Harris new VP will have better poll figures than her. Then corporations will launch a mass media campaign to force Harris to resign and the DNC then picks her new VP to be Pres. Cand. (and he or she will then pick a new new VP). And the same scenario repeats by end of October and the new new VP will be forced to resign and the DNC will pick the new new new VP as new president cand., justifying it by poll numbers. Do you support that and consider that democratic because polls says so?

Do you support post-primaries poll optimiziation candidate changes?

We are moving into a post-primaries constant poll optimization era.

I was part of the Coconuts trend already when Kim Petras released her Coconuts video last year. Flawless video & song

  Reveal hidden contents

And I've been  cooking pancakes on coconut oil for at least 5 years

Kim Petras deserves the credits

The October hypothetical you laid out is completely irrelevant because the only reason this was possible was because Biden face planted in the debate *before* the convention. Replacing a candidate and retaining ballot access (outside of the top of ticket dying) would be virtually impossible once someone has secured the nomination. 

[TheOriginalOne 11,604]

So is she officially the democratic nominee or did I just fall out of a coconut tree ??

[StarstruckIllusion 53,567]

6 minutes ago, TheOriginalOne said:

So is she officially the democratic nominee or did I just fall out of a coconut tree ??

No, nobody was, not even Joe, until the official count around convention time next month.

She is the presumptive nominee tho

[CameronSpears 2,129]

On 7/23/2024 at 11:42 AM, high culture said:

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

Just say you don't know how elections work. We voted for the ticket Biden/HARRIS which means yes, we DID vote for Kamala Harris. We voted for them both.

You weren't going to vote for Kamala or Biden anyway, so have several seats.

[CameronSpears 2,129]

13 minutes ago, TheOriginalOne said:

So is she officially the democratic nominee or did I just fall out of a coconut tree ??

Yes, she already has the delegates and it will be official at the convention. She's technically the presumptive nominee though but she will get it.

[StarstruckIllusion 53,567]

9 hours ago, StarstruckIllusion said:

The notion that voted should only be listened to when it’s time for their vote is gross, idiotic and anti democratic tbh.

Polls have BEEN showing Dems being very unhappy with Biden as their lead, and not having a proper choice in the sham 2024 Dem primary where NH was messed with, and the primaries were literally cancelled in FL and NC…

To ignore them and pretend the Dems didn’t do something totally badass that the base approves us, loves, and has energized the party is wild.

Having Kamala properly communicate Biden’s winning agenda is gonna do miracles for Dems over having him stay on.

Everyone republican crying about democracy are just mad they can’t coast to victory and they should be ignored 

I also want to add on the ACTUAL lack of democracy was when Biden was the only allowed choice (Dems love to bully each other), and the DNC was messing around - as they sadly usually always do

Voters showed in polls (amazing tool for communication!!) that they were dissatisfied and wanted someone else repeatedly! (They were asked these direct questions). 83% of Dems approve of this decision and the hype in the campaign proves that polls aren’t “always inaccurate and should be ignored”

This is one of THE best things the democratic party has EVER done. A risky yet rewarding maneuver. It has rewarded them well I hope it shows them they can flip the script and succeed just like Republicans can

ENDLESS praise to Pelosi and Biden here fr