DNC opting to not hold primary debates

[Hans Blaster]

Ultimately, people don't vote for candidates come election time anyway. They vote against their most hated party, specifically.

That's not completely true. I know several people that definitely voted mostly Republican in 2016 and not for Trump. They did at least the same thing in 2020. (I have some hope that at least one voted for Biden.)

 

[SimplyMe]

What does it take to get voters out of a defensive mindset, and into a pro-active state of mind?

I don't even know for sure if that's a good idea.

...Maybe in another 1000 years.

There are likely two main ways that would help. First, find a way to have more than two parties -- so people can actually feel good about more of the policies of a particular candidate. Too often people only like some of what a candidate proposes, while hating other things, so vote against the candidate who they object to more. Ranked choice voting, or similar, is likely a minimum of what it would take; though honestly it would likely take a change in government, likely to a more parliamentary system where multiple parties are "encouraged," rather than just two.

Another way would be to outlaw negative campaigning and require honesty in political advertising. Currently, much of political advertising is "scare tactics," often based on half-truths or even outright lies. By making candidates actually campaign on what they intend to do in office and their own ideas, rather than making people "afraid" of the other candidate and/or what they might do, would do a lot in changing the way Americans view candidates. What is more, it might also make our candidate choices better, when an honest man with a good reputation doesn't have to worry about having his name smeared and his reputation tarnished, since opponent will no longer be able to use lies, innuendo, and distortions of the truth.

Unfortunately, the second, requiring truth in political advertising and no negative campaigning can likely never ben instituted due to the current politicians not wanting to lose a tool to keep themselves in power, and 1st Amendment concerns.

 

[returntosender]

Hmmm, could it be because they always lose?

 

[Arcangl86]

Hmmm, could it be because they always lose?

What? We are talking about primary debates not general election debates yet. So the Democrats can't "lose" one of those since everybody in them is running as a Democrat.

 

[returntosender]

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's not completely true. I know several people that definitely voted mostly Republican in 2016 and not for Trump. They did at least the same thing in 2020. (I have some hope that at least one voted for Biden.

The other odd caveat is that some people don't seem to have a "most hated" party, but rather opt to vote on the premise "outsider" > who they perceive to be "establishment elite"

That seems to be the prevailing theory for explaining these particular groups of voters

Obama–Trump voters - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sanders–Trump voters - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Hans Blaster]

The other odd caveat is that some people don't seem to have a "most hated" party, but rather opt to vote on the premise "outsider" > who they perceive to be "establishment elite"

That seems to be the prevailing theory for explaining these particular groups of voters

Obama–Trump voters - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sanders–Trump voters - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yep. There are the "try the other guy" voters, the "stick with the current guy" voters, the single issue voters, the compulsive ticket splitters, etc. So many varieties of voters, so many reasons.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Elon Musk rips DNC for not holding primary debates, coronating Biden: 'Too much back room dealing'

Elon Musk slammed the Democratic National Committee for its plans to do without debates between President Biden and other Democratic Party presidential candidates

www.foxnews.com

Musk’s response came after prominent Twitter users, including progressives, grumbled over the DNC’s commitment to supporting the Biden 2024 re-election, to the point of not planning primary debates, even though Marianne Williamson and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have announced their candidacies.

In addition to Williamson and others blasting the decision, "The Young Turks" host and far-left commentator Cenk Uygur called out the move, claiming that the DNC is making everyone in the party "fall in line" behind Biden.
View attachment 331845

Exclusive: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. launches unlikely presidential bid backed by 14% of Biden voters

The findings underscore President Joe Biden's potential vulnerability to a more mainstream opponent for the Democratic nomination.

www.usatoday.com

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. launches his unlikely bid for the Democratic presidential nomination Wednesday with the support of 14% of voters who backed President Joe Biden in 2020, an exclusive USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds.

That is surprising strength for a candidate who has a famous political name but is now known mostly as the champion of a debunked conspiracy theory blaming childhood vaccines for autism.

In the survey taken Saturday through Tuesday, only 67% of Biden's 2020 supporters said they would support him for the Democratic nomination over his current challengers. Kennedy stands at 14%, and self-help author Marianne Williamson, a quixotic candidate for the nomination last time, is at 5%. Another 13% are undecided.

I tried to find a more "neutral" source than Fox News...they're not one I like to link very often just because that outlet comes with baggage (obviously), but couldn't find any moderate sources talking about it.

The DNC did that with Hilary too.

In an alternate dimension, I wonder how the race between Trump and Bernie Sanders went? That would have been worth watching.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The DNC did that with Hilary too.

In an alternate dimension, I wonder how the race between Trump and Bernie Sanders went? That would have been worth watching.

No, they did not. There were 9 primary debates in 2016 for the Democrats, including 5 that were Bernie v. Hillary only (after all other candidates had dropped out).

 

[Gregory Thompson]

No, they did not. There were 9 primary debates in 2016 for the Democrats, including 5 that were Bernie v. Hillary only (after all other candidates had dropped out).

Yes, your story is also on the first page of a google search. So, inconclusive. Reason: Politicians are deceitful by nature, so it would be suspicious if it appeared nothing was going on.

 

[DaisyDay]

The other odd caveat is that some people don't seem to have a "most hated" party, but rather opt to vote on the premise "outsider" > who they perceive to be "establishment elite"

That seems to be the prevailing theory for explaining these particular groups of voters

Obama–Trump voters - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sanders–Trump voters - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Throw the rascals out!"

 

[DaisyDay]

Yes, your story is also on the first page of a google search. So, inconclusive. Reason: Politicians are deceitful by nature, so it would be suspicious if it appeared nothing was going on.

Are you saying that because the information is so readily available that it appears on the first page of a google search it is inconclusive? That really doesn't follow.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

"Throw the rascals out!"

In all seriousness, I can sympathize with the anti-establishment populist movements to a degree (depending on their motivations for their position)

As someone who felt like they got burned by both the Republican and Democratic parties at various points in my life, I got pretty deep into the Libertarian Party movement for a few years simply based on the notion that "the other two teams really suck at this, I want to go with the party that at least admits government sucks, and vows to intervene as little as humanly possible"

Truth be told, I still like people like Bill Weld and Spike Cohen.

But I've moderated myself a bit and realized that libertarianism is more of a preventative measure than a prescriptive one (meaning if applied in good faith, it can prevent certain issues, but it can't correct them after the cat's already out of the bag so to speak).

I had to grit my teeth and vote for Biden this last time around, but on the previous election cycle, I did vote for Gary Johnson, I thought "these are the two best you guys can come up with???" I saw the "middle finger to the establishment" button, and I pushed it.


But cooler heads prevailed, there is a use for governance/government, it can serve a purpose if it's applied and ran correctly. But I'm still sympathetic with the crowd that's fed up, doesn't want to have their lives dictated by the whims of 1% fat cats, nor do they want it dictated by whims some 22 year old college humanities major, may not even think the person they're voting for is all that great, but says "Well, all I know is that what they've been trying for the last 30 years isn't working, I'll try something different regardless of what it is"

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Are you saying that because the information is so readily available that it appears on the first page of a google search it is inconclusive? That really doesn't follow.

Because both sides of the story appeared on the first page of the search. Therefore, either story is possible. Thus inconclusive after discarding confirmation bias of both stories.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes, your story is also on the first page of a google search. So, inconclusive. Reason: Politicians are deceitful by nature, so it would be suspicious if it appeared nothing was going on.

What? These were televised debates. They either happened or they didn't. If they did, there will be full recordings of them and stories in numerous media outlets about what happened. The debates happened.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Because both sides of the story appeared on the first page of the search. Therefore, either story is possible. Thus inconclusive after discarding confirmation bias of both stories.

Point us to a story that says no 2016 Hillary-Bernie debates happen. I dare you.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Point us to a story that says no 2016 Hillary-Bernie debates happen. I dare you.

Hillary v. Bernie definitely happened...not sure where they're getting they idea that debates didn't happen.

One could make an argument that the superdelegate system for the DNC creates problems that the few superdelegates that the RNC don't.

But that's not relevant to the claim the other poster made.

Bernie v. Hillary debates definitely happened, here's the transcripts

https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/14/politics/transcript-democratic-debate-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/index.html

Bernie did get screwed, but it wasn't because of lack of debates or airtime, it was due to the DNC systems in place in which the superdelegates get disproportionate influence in selecting their candidate.

 

[Arcangl86]

Hillary v. Bernie definitely happened...not sure where they're getting they idea that debates didn't happen.

One could make an argument that the superdelegate system for the DNC creates problems that the few superdelegates that the RNC don't.

But that's not relevant to the claim the other poster made.

Bernie v. Hillary debates definitely happened, here's the transcripts

https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/14/politics/transcript-democratic-debate-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/index.html

Bernie did get screwed, but it wasn't because of lack of debates or airtime, it was due to the DNC systems in place in which the superdelegates get disproportionate influence in selecting their candidate.

I'm not sure how fair that is actually. While Hillary did get the vast majority of super delegates and that's what pushed her over the edge, she also won the popular vote and pledged delegates by a sizable margin.

 

[returntosender]

We could have dedication to a candidate IF there were worthy candidates.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

What? These were televised debates. They either happened or they didn't. If they did, there will be full recordings of them and stories in numerous media outlets about what happened. The debates happened.

Point us to a story that says no 2016 Hillary-Bernie debates happen. I dare you.

The obstruction of other candidates, and favoring of Hillary by the DNC plus the debates both happened.

The end result was a loser DNC candidate against a Charismatic Republican candidate.

Much like with the current deal with the DNC shutting down debates, it's trying to pit a so-yesterday and vanilla DNC candidate against Trump.

"While charges against a former president and leading contender for a major party's presidential nomination are unprecedented, there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents someone who has been charged or convicted from seeking or taking office."

It really looks like rigging is going on for sure.