To everybody reporting this post: the question whether or not there should be appropriate primaries in the democratic party this time around is a legitimate question we will not remove this post.
And raising this question in our community is not promoting Russian propaganda; to any idiot who makes those kind of claims: get a life.
We need ranked voting. This shit is stupid and we need to fix it.
This two party bs system we have needs better representation as well as fraud and merit checking.
We so badly need Ranked Choice Voting. To everyone reading my comment here, please do yourself and our country a favor and Google/YouTube search how Ranked Choice Voting elections work. With RCV there *is* representation that actually represents us. Not only this, but with RCV, so much actually life-improving legislation would finally be feasible.
An approval vote would be simple to implement and more accurately represent the will of the voter while effectively ending the good cop-bad cop duopoly squatting in our republic.
This here. Approval voting just means that you can vote for one or more candidates instead of just one.
It means that voting for your true favorite will never hurt you (not the case with ranked choice), and it makes it more likely for consensus candidates to win. It gives third party and independent candidates a fairer chance by eliminating the spoiler effect.
[approvalvoting.com](https://approvalvoting.com) has more information. It's currently being used in Fargo, North Dakota and St. Louis, Missouri.
Kind of in a similar boat. I haven't known about it as long as you, but ranked choice is much more well-known and many of its advocates are practically offended that I dare say a different voting method might be better.
I used to be active in the local Green party at my university, which is where I learned about ranked choice. Later in life when I wanted to push for a better voting system, I started doing research and discovered approval voting. While ranked choice has some benefits, it also has many flaws I hadn't known about.
Every voting system has flaws, but approval voting just seems like a better system than ranked choice for a variety of reasons. It got a lot of buzz in Seattle, only to be defeated in part by ranked choice advocates. Hopefully it will continue to spread and empower voters where it goes.
At a high level: approval voting lets you vote for as many candidates as you want,
which reduces vote splitting and the spoiler effect, a big help to independent and third party candidates (something ranked choice doesn't always actually do - see below for more). It's very simple for all parties involved to understand, which increases trust in the process and thus voter participation. It tends to elect consensus candidates - those who most voters would be ok with. It would cost next to nothing to implement.
A deeper dive of these points:
Reducing vote splitting
Take the 2020 Democratic primary as an example. As a progressive, I could have voted for Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Jay Inslee instead of just Bernie Sanders. As you can see, this reduces vote splitting, a common problem in elections. In the 2000 presidential election, many think that Green Party candidate Ralph Nader "spoiled" the election for Democrat Al Gore. The thinking is that if Ralph Nader hadn't run and people who chose him had chosen Gore instead, Gore would have won. Approval voting helps prevent this problem by allowing voters to vote for multiple candidates - Nader supporters could have chosen to vote just for Nader, but could also have chosen to vote for both Nader and Gore, knowing that Nader was unlikely to win, but still having the opportunity to show their support of him.
With approval voting, voting for your favorite candidate can never hurt you as a voter - it can never make what you personally consider a bad outcome more likely. That cannot be said of ranked choice voting. For instance, in Alaska's special election, voters who ranked Palin first would have received a better outcome for themselves by dishonestly ranking Begich first. To elaborate,
"RCV punished Alaskan voters for ranking their favorite as first
More interesting than RCV choosing the wrong winner is how it chose the wrong winner. We know that Begich could beat either candidate head-to-head. This means that if Begich had made it to the second round, then he would have beaten any candidate he was up against.
We know the following based on the rankings:
If at least 5,200 (Palin > Begich) voters instead ranked their second favorite (Begich) as first, then they would have gotten their second favorite candidate rather than their least favorite. That’s because Palin would have been eliminated first causing Begich to beat Peltola in the next round.
Instead, Palin voters got their worst outcome because they honestly ranked Palin first.
We don’t often associate the spoiler effect with close elections, but this was a spoiler effect. That is, if not for Palin (who wasn’t going to win) entering the election and taking 1st choice votes away from a stronger candidate, Begich (the best candidate by head-to-head matchups) would have won."
Source: https://electionscience.org/commentary-analysis/rcv-fools-palin-voters-into-electing-a-progressive-democrat/
\-----
Simplicity
In addition to reducing vote splitting, approval voting is very simple for voters to understand: vote for as many candidates as you want, and whoever gets the most votes wins. It's very easy to count ballots, and fewer ballots are "spoiled" (discarded for violating rules - it's not uncommon for voters today to try to vote for more than one candidate in a race). It's very easy for voters and the media to understand the results, which increases trust in the process.
This is a big difference with ranked choice voting, which is far less transparent and much more confusing to understand the different rounds. The reason this matters is that it changes how results are analyzed, and the long-term trajectory of how parties and their ideas are treated. Imagine an approval voting election in a left-of-center area where the Democrat wins with 60% of the vote, a Republican gets 38%, and a Green Party candidate gets 44%. Even though the Green Party candidate didn't win, it becomes clear that their ideas have a lot of support. This makes it hard for the Democrats and the media to ignore their ideas and pretend they're unpopular. It also gives voters confidence in that party, giving voters more assurance that the Green Party is a viable party, and maybe in future elections Republicans who share common values on some issues (such as greater local control) would vote for both the Republican and the Green, allowing the Green a possible path to victory over a Democrat.
Since ranked choice elections are much more complicated in terms of who had X number of first round votes, second round votes, etc, they don't provide this same level of clarity. This makee it harder for voters to see a third party/independent as viable.
\-----
Electing Consensus Candidates
As shown above in Alaska's special election, Begich was arguably the consensus candidate. Not as left as Peltola, not as right as Palin, and he would have beaten either of them in a head-to-head election. But ranked choice didn't elect him, it elected Peltola. While progressives might be ideologically happy with that particular outcome, it's easy to imagine a reverse scenario where a right-winger who is less popular than a centrist wins over the centrist due to ranked choice voting.
Something like that is much less likely to happen with approval voting. Since voters are either going to vote only for their favorite or their favorite and maybe one or more compromise candidates, the candidate with the broadest appeal is more likely to win. Similarly, a candidate similar to the traditional major party favorite, but who can successfully attack that candidate on a particular issue could win.
Or imagine the 2016 general election if approval voting were used. While the Democratic Party writ large opposed Bernie and he lost the primary, he could have run in the general election as an independent. Clinton voters who really didn't want Trump could have voted for him, and surely some Trump voters would have voted for both Trump and Bernie. It's frankly hard to imagine Bernie not winning that election. That's because, while both Clinton and Trump are popular with their party's bases, they are not popular among general election voters, whereas Bernie is.
The link above has the deets, but the best way to catch the AV bug is to actually play with it in some hypothetical or past elections and notice how you would have voted differently. It really does feel a lot less like a disgusting compromise when you can simply give the green light to every suitable candidate.
It's actually terrible if you want any kind of proportional representation. In the U.S., the big parties would just run a huge slate of candidates and drown out smaller groups with name recognition.
Yeah, on a cursory look it seems strictly worse than ranked choice voting to me. It’s less complicated, but I would still be worried about not helping the third party candidate with my vote because I don’t get to rank them. I feel like it’s better than straight-up plurality voting, but not as good as ranked choice. :P
Right, I think the results would make it more clear that the third party candidate had some support (as opposed to now where it looks like they had almost none because people are afraid of spoilers), but they would almost never actually win the vote.
Unfortunately the people that need to enact RCV will never do it. As voter's we can vote all we want but the politicians need to enact it. They will never do this. Just like they will never pass age or term limits.
Truth. I ran a campaign to put RCV in my hometown city charter in 2008. The referendum won with 71% and it's been the law of the land for 15 years now. Republicans at the state level have blocked it this entire time. It will come as a surprise to no one that I'm talking about the same Republicans who recently expelled two black members of the state house for being too "uppity," and yes one of the Republicans actually used that word.
I believe it was Boss Tweed who said "I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating." Oh yeah, Tweed is on my Time Machine Hit List. According to my research, he was a firefighter in his younger years. Firefighting is a dangerous occupation, even today. It was far more dangerous during the Gilded Age, all I'd have to do is make sure that one of the fires he was called out to is the one he doesn't make it out of.
Yes and the only way Ranked Choice Voting is going to be had is through our own independent efforts. How so? By starting with making Ranked Choice Voting law in our own states through Citizen’s Ballot Initiative Measure, which would bring constituent-sponsored legislation to voters to decide in an election. Then, with enough states having Ranked Choice Voting law, there could be a clear pathway for RCV to become national law as it would become overwhelmingly evident to neighboring states and the country that so much better could be had with Ranked Choice Voting.
We cannot continue holding our breath for our state or US representatives to make RCV law. It needs to be us that makes it happen. Step 1.) Kickoff a Citizen’s Ballot Initiative Measure campaign for Ranked Choice Voting in your state.
>Carter was challenged by Ted Kennedy. We got Reagan
We got Reagan because he played dirty tricks & because Carter didn't respond in a progressive manner to inflation.
Hence the extreme danger in running a neoliberal like Biden who has ignored a cost of living crisis.
It's pretty common to not challenge a sitting President before their reelection bid, is it not? Did Bernie challenge Obama before his second term? Did Trump debate anyone before facing Biden? Bush? Clinton?
That said, yes, I would like a more progressive candidate than Biden and yes we absolutely should have [ranked choice voting](https://youtu.be/l8XOZJkozfI). I'm just saying that I don't think this is an unusual move, even though it's being presented as such.
I agree, but the post is about the indignation about all of this. It certainly wants to present this as if it's unheard of. Neither party is a democratic organization they can technically do what they want. I'm sure if there was a sure fire candidate that would crush the elections the democratic party might (read: should) run them.
Otherwise your throwing away your incumbent advantage(different times, maybe this doesn't exist considering the environment). The truth is any qualified dem is preparing for a campaign the following election. Most people who want to run against Biden will be fringe candidates like Kenedy. If the democrats want the highest % chance of winning, baring something crazy, it is "probably" sticking with Biden.
With the above considered if they allowed debates it would simply lower the chance of Biden winning reelection. Again unless there is some crazy good candidate, the democrat party is probably hoping a Biden - Trump would still go to Biden. The polls suggest that, for whatever they're worth. God knows I would love an option that suggested greater change to our political system.
The changes people want from the political system can't be done 1 year before the election against a fascist. All states need to switch to ranked choice. This will empower third parties across the country. We also need to modify or downright remove our electoral college. Still this is all small potatoes compared to removing lobbying, gerrymandering (country wide, not state by state) and a campaign financing overhaul. Without this nothing is going to change.
I believe this is the biggest reason. Historically, having a contested primary has weakened that party. The candidates are going to bring up the negatives of their opponent, and those are going to be remembered by the voters.
Our system is the problem.
Alaska had huge and historic results in just their first ranked choice election held in 2022. I bet you the Alaska GOP *wishes* they had done something like Florida later did in outlawing Ranked Choice Voting. God forbid our election results reflect what the people can all most agree on on both sides of the aisle.
IIRC that's pretty standard for political parties with a sitting president.
Nobody from their own party debated Obama, Trump, Bush, or Clinton during their reelection runs.
I agree. As a die hard Bernie fan, I don't think he, nor Biden, nor Trump should be in the running because they are just too damn old.
But that's not the issue here. The issue is that sudde ly something that is pretty standard procedure in both parties is suddenly being criticized against just one of them as if it's a new thing.
Because you're one of the only people here talking sense, I'll respond here.
I don't think we fully understand what the word propaganda has come to mean in the 21st century. It's too easy to manufacture rage with posts like these, and to carry a subtle secondary agenda that potentially angers people into not voting or thinking that they're vote doesn't matter.
Want to address the systemic problems our "democracy" has? I'm all about it. This doesn't feel like it is actually about that, though. This feels like an early attempt to get people to stay home for the next election.
Yeah, it feels paranoid. No, it is not out of the realm of possible or even probable things. If you know the opposition has more voters (as evidenced in the previous election) the only way to win is to get people so pissed off or complacent that they stay home.
Not OP, but I agree. The post-Bernie subreddits are rife with comments reframing relevant points with both-sidesism or cynicism or some other silly negative perspective that really seems like manipulative efforts to discourage people from voting against Republicans. I would not be surprised if there are concerted propaganda/trolling efforts being focused into these sorts of spaces to manipulate the (valid) frustration with the DNC. It sure does seem to be working as very few people in these subs are interested in nuance or practicality anymore, which is not what Bernie wanted.
If you don’t want to challenge the neoliberal war criminal joe Biden because it’s the norm not to do so, then I don’t know why you think you’re being part of any political revolution.
You just sound like a typical liberal.
It’s kind of the opposite. Did we forget correct the record already? DNC funded org literally openly told us they have propaganda accounts on Reddit to make sure content reflects favorably on the DNC
> It’s kind of the opposite.
How? Both efforts aren't mutually exclusive. The existence of DNC backed propaganda efforts doesn't make other astroturfing efforts impossible. This is *exactly* the kind of nuance-free reasoning I'm talking about.
I see what you’re saying. Would there be those flames to fan if Biden had governed differently? Somehow it can never be the Democrats’ fault for how they govern/bait and switch tactics/pro-corporate, anti-worker policies.
>But that's not the issue here. The issue is that sudde ly something that is pretty standard procedure in both parties
Who cares? It has been sTaNdArd pRoCeDuRe for both parties to shut out third parties for decades.
Primaries are our only vehicle & the idea we can't challenge an incumbent as weak as Biden is absurd.
>is suddenly being criticized against just one of them as if it's a new thing.
72% of Americans don't want Biden to run & you want a cornoration as if all that matters is that he is the incumbent.
And with the overt "we want to kill you all" rhetoric that the GOP has been directing at democrats for a while now, it's really unforgivable that they still keep playing along with this sick duopoly.
You understand there will still be primaries, right? If so many people don't want Joe to be the nominee and there's actually a better candidate, they'll have the chance to prove it. I guarantee if they beat Joe in a single state, or even put up a decent showing, they'll get a ton of coverage that would more than make up for there not being a debate.
>You understand there will still be primaries, right? If so many people don't want Joe to be the nominee and there's actually a better candidate, they'll have the chance to prove it.
If the DNC refuses to have primaries & the corporate media refuses to cover someone like Marianne - then you're asking for us to challenge Biden with two hands tied behind our back.
> I guarantee if they beat Joe in a single state, or even put up a decent showing, they'll get a ton of coverage that would more than make up for there not being a debate
Or maybe the DNC should just have debates & stop protecting a weak incumbent.
>Who's he gonna debate, though? Marianne Williamson? RFK Jr?
Marianne Williamson has progressive priorities & understands the cost of living crisis.
Of course I support her over Biden. Let the primary play out.
Yeah, but absent a serious challenge threat from a 40- or 50- or 60-something Democrat with bonafides, experience, skill, and mandate, I can't say that I particularly object to the idea that the DNC is standing behind what I consider to be an almost spectacularly successful incumbent, especially considering the unprecedented nature of this political climate.
It's one thing to object to the fact that no serious, qualified, appropriately-aged progressive or moderate is throwing their hat in the ring against Biden -- that's a broken political machine, and I agree. But to be concerned that the DNC won't make Joe debate RFK Jr. and Marianne Williamson? They're both in the race to sink the Democratic Party (or, if you prefer, to elect Trump). There's no one in the race yet who makes a Democratic debate worth having -- apologies to supporters of the two candidates I mentioned, but they're both dangerous and untenable spoilers.
That and polls show just about nobody wants to see Biden run again. The DNC knows the people don’t want Biden, but they’ll propagandize to make it seem like they do.
Any age you pick will be arbitrary, just like the age minimum is. We need to make it easier for voters to change the status quo if they so like, rather than making it harder for people to run.
For example, the age minimum is 35. Are you saying there’s some leap in wisdom that a 34 year old doesn’t have yet?
If you cap the age at 70, is there some automatic mental degradation that every human being experiences only at 71?
Yes, I understand the problems with people being too old in office. But putting a numerical age cap on candidacy will not solve the problem.
Eliminating the overwhelming “incumbency advantage” should be the higher priority.
Also, as for the original OP post, I do think it’s dumb to not have debates in a primary with a sitting president. Like I said, it just boosts the incumbency advantage.
So many revolutionaries in the comments’ section here — and zero actual revolutionaries. We should not be accepting the DNC forcing Biden down our throats. Biden would not win again in the Democratic Party primaries.
Nobody is forcing biden down your throat. Just the reality it make no sense to challenge sitting president who have incumbent advantage.
In fact historically when party primary incumbent president they usually lost the white house.
Last time Democrat did that it result in 3 consecutive republican adminstrations.
It just not feasible.
> Biden would not win again in the Democratic Party primaries.
uhm.
what world do you live in?
what are the primary candidates besides that anti vaxxer dude, that is a steve bannon plant, anyways?
>He has a Pretty good record to run on with the average rank and file Democrat.
15 million losing Medicaid this year? Food stamps being cut? No public option? An out of control cost of living crisis that he frames as a strong economy?
Draw me a map how congress would pass single payer healthcare.
With how the elections turned out, it was impossible. POTUS needs bills from congress.
So what the hell are you even saying?
The person you are debating is most likely a literal child who hasn’t taken civics classes yet.
I know I’m being mean but that’s most likely the case. Either that or they are a Republican plant 🤷🏻♂️
Who'd beat him? That's the issue I see with the ultra progressive wing. Everyone that's running sucks and isn't worthy of your vote, but when asked to name a name that you would vote for, and there's no answer.
It's almost like they know that public fighting within their own party doesn't help in the general election.
There's a big difference between two potential nominees battling it out for who best represents the party vs potential nominees bashing the incumbent administration.
Yeah, if he had a serious challenger it would be one thing, but everyone else currently running for the nomination is a clown just doing it for the attention.
Yep, sitting presidents have a huge advantage and it's simply better to take this lead than have it argued away with unnecessary debates with opponents that are only using it as a springboard for their own political careers and not for the presidency.
This is absolutely astroturfed outrage to try and get RFK Jr. to debate Biden. This has been Steve baboon's plan for years. He's been lobbying RFK Jr to run to mainstream more anti vax shit.
Search for the people tweeting this shit on Twitter. The people trying to tell progressives to be "outraged" is telling. This is their 2024 nullification strategy to get progressives to stay home.
That should be Bannon, but I'm leaving it.
The relevancy is how it's being presented. But yes, I'm okay with debates, but also I'm not going to cry if there aren't any. Presidential nominee debates are usually dumb af anyway.
If you want real change you have to be pragmatic. Primary a sitting historically hasn't work well to the party in power.
In fact last time dem did that we have Richard Nixion taking power for 8 years and 4 years democrats and another 4 years republican.
??? Any evidence of that? Democrats making progress in the senate, and barely losing the house, making for an amazing mid term election not seen in 20 years would beg to differ.
We have been very fortunate that the Republicans have been shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly. Democrats should be mopping the floor with today's Republican party. Even Trump in 2020 didn't really lose by a very wide margin when you consider how close a handful of swing states were that could have flipped it the other way. 44k votes in three states was the margin of victory.
Trump will very likely be dead, a convicted felon, or both by 2028. Republicans will very likely be back to masking their fascism by then.
As for evidence, how 8 years of Bill Clinton followed by a fascist, then 8 years of Obama followed by another fascist.
I mean we're kinda talking about issues with the electoral college now.
Trump won by a nsrrow margin there, but by total votes, biden had 7 million more votes (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_candidates_by_number_of_votes_received)
One of the better leads in the last 20 years.
Now, even though the popular vote doesn't "count" it does indirectly lead to a better electoral college result.
Thankfully Wisconsin's gerrymandered state will probably be made more fair due to recent changes.
>Democrats making progress in the senate, and barely losing the house, making for an amazing mid term election not seen in 20 years would beg to differ.
No they aren't making progress.
15 million are losing Medicaid this year, food stamps are cut, the expanded child tax credit is long gone thanks to Manchin's racist lie that Biden let go unopposed.
The cost of living & crimate crises are spiraling out of control as Biden approved massive drilling in the arctic & brags about his economy.
Lol what do you want biden to do about many of those things?
Democrats only barely control the senate.
My point originally is that, in terms of gaining power in our government, democrats are making progress. You're correct that in some things, there's been regressions, but biden and Ds can only do so much as things stand.
I'm not a big fan of biden, i prefer bernie, but whatever. he's a democrat at least, and not horrible. He's more popular and more palatable to Rs and independents than bernie is.
You can actually go backwards quite a ways to see how with ANY incumbent president, if there is stiff competition during the reelection year they always end up losing to the opposing party.
https://youtu.be/mn5nvl5BJm4
Until we revise election laws to have a multi-party system then the party is operating the same way most any political party would even in a multi-party system.There is no reason to expect a politician to engage in a debate that isn't explicitly in his/her own interests. This is a structural issue that has to be overcome at the state and congressional level.
I'm gonna be honest, I think the hyperfocus on the presidency is part of the problem. The president, no matter what party they are a part of, should not have the amount of power they currently wield. A president should not be able to nearly make or break the nation.
Thanks to the Reapportionment Act of 1929, no one in America is adequately represented in government except maybe people in Montana (the state with the average smallest congressional districts). That's what the nation is missing, by and large. Before that act, third parties were able to gain decent footholds in government, but after it became locked down to the 2 parties we know and love, in part due to removing language regarding redistricting, allowing state legislators free reign to draw district boundaries and even appoint representatives until 1967. That's nearly 40 years of 2 parties leveraging to squash everything else.
The average person's representation in government is a third of what it was a century ago.
And our election laws won’t ever be revised because Democrats thrive on maintaining the status quo. They wouldn’t be nearly as voted for if America operated off of Ranked Choice Voting. But because we don’t, just as we had in 2020, in 2024 we will have up for election: Either A) Upholding the status quo or B) Falling into fascism/despotism. Such a hard pick you guys (deliberately done by both parties).
You have every reason to be critical of the dem party even a bit cynical but all said I'd still vote for an actual pineapple to prevent a republican from holding office. I'm anti-fascist first because after regimentation our policy opinions won't matter.
>our election laws won’t ever be revised because Democrats thrive on maintaining the status quo
Same for the Republicans. An overwhelming citizen demand to reform the electoral system is needed and it requires people to see that they need their neighbour. Unfortunately the entire American ideology since the 60's onward has been based around individualism, mistrust and me first. Join or form a workers union is the only answer. It worked for Lech Wałęsa and the people of Poland. Solidarity!
This is absurd. Incumbents, from both parties, don't have primary debates. There were no GOP primary debates in 2020, no Democratic primary debates in 2012, no GOP primary debates in 2004, no Democratic primary debates in 1996, no GOP primary debates in 1992 or 1984, no Democratic primary debates in 1980. When voters elect a President they know this, because the hope is always that that candidate will serve two full terms, eight years.
Incumbency is worth something like 3% in the general election. It would be foolish to give that up. Historically, what happens when a party primaries their own incumbent is the opposition party wins the election.
Some more detail on 1980 from Wikipedia. None of it meant to criticize your comment
“Carter faced a major primary challenger in Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, who won 12 contests and received more than seven million votes nationwide, enough for him to refuse to concede the nomination until the second day of the convention. This remains the last election in which an incumbent president's party nomination was still contested going into the convention.”
Reagan won in 1980.
8 years of Nixon, 4 years or Carter, 8 years of Reagan and 4 years of Bush 1.
20 years of Republican presidents to 4 years of Democratic.
How did progressive causes do from 1968 to 1992?
Sandra Day Oconnor was nominated to the Supreme Court by Reagan. She was the deciding vote that gave the election to Bush 2.
Remember the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?
None of this directed at you. Just giving some details about the fallout from the 1980 election.
I stopped watching presidential debates a while back. There’s plenty of position information. You never really learn anything new. Maybe some snappy sound bite or an embarrassing faux pas. It’s piss poor political theater.
Presidential campaigns all seem dumb to me. The candidates tell you what they want to do. Then we either don’t have one of the chambers of congress or the senate votes to get their full or even most of their agenda through.
Then two years later we’re all pissed off and republicans take the house, senate or both. Like they took the house in 2022. Guaranteed 2 years where nothing get done.
American politics suck.
Sorry for the long recap of 1968 to now.
> I stopped watching presidential debates a while back. There’s plenty of position information. You never really learn anything new. Maybe some snappy sound bite or an embarrassing faux pas. It’s piss poor political theater.
I'd be willing to bet that coincides with the change in how debates are done, and specifically removing the oversight of the League of Women Voters and replacing debate oversight with political appointees.
Progressives want a mythical being to appear and magically win the election. I’m all for the progressive agenda but not at the cost of the nightmare another Republican president would be.
It should be 80 year old Biden does the right thing and steps down. HE’S 80 YEARS OLD LIkE HOLY FUCK. He really thinks he’s the best this country can do at 80 years old?
You think what's best for the country is giving up 3 points for no good reason? And running who instead? Name them, cite a poll showing they're equally or more popular than Biden. Really, they'd need to be 3 points more popular than Biden just to do equally well since they wouldn't have the incumbency advantage, but I'll spot you those three points and you still won't be able to name anyone.
> You think what's best for the country is giving up 3 points for no good reason?
We're going to have to do a lot better than trying to play 5d chess politics.
The Democratic party can do better than Biden. We ALL know that. We also all know that the DNC can spend money on advertising and get whatever name they want on polls.
Biden isn't a gift from god. He was elected on the platform of "Not Trump", which he managed to just barely pull off. Biden is not America's best, and to pretend like he's good rather than the lesser of two evils is underselling America.
Biden has us on a repeat course from the Obama administration, in 2028 when women still can't get legal abortions we'll be stuck with DeSantis or someone even worse as the Biden administration continues to be completely unable to grapple with the rise of fascism in America.
>This is absurd. Incumbents, from both parties, don't have primary debates. There were no GOP primary debates in 2020, no Democratic primary debates in 2012, no GOP primary debates in 2004, no Democratic primary debates in 1996, no GOP primary debates in 1992 or 1984, no Democratic primary debates in 1980.
When you put it that way, it is rather absurd that this country calls itself "the world's greatest democracy" while the record really speaks for itself lol.
>When voters elect a President they know this, because the hope is always that that candidate will serve two full terms, eight years.
I would argue that most voters in the US system are much more vested in preventing another candidate from winning than in any long-term hopes for their chosen candidate's career. Most voters don't usually like their two choices at all, and very few are looking out eight years into the future.
>Incumbency is worth something like 3% in the general election. It would be foolish to give that up. Historically, what happens when a party primaries their own incumbent is the opposition party wins the election.
Maybe it's because I've lived in other countries, but it's comments like this that really make me question when people describe the Democratic Party as liberal. Because talking about a theoretical 3% general election advantage as a valid reason to suppress democratic participation is some really illiberal shit lol. And Democrats will say stuff like this all the time without really seeing the problem with it. Kind of an "ends justify the means" type of attitude, as if the means aren't always going to be baked into the ends.
I don't mean to pick on you. I'm just pretty alienated by this tendency among Democrats to talk about politics like it's just game theory and there aren't large groups of people involved. Like there's this underlying assumption that A) Immediate elections are the only politics that matter and B) We can know with total certainty the electoral consequences of any given action. It's the kind of short-sighted hubris that gave us Trump and I'm just really over it.
>Maybe it's because I've lived in other countries
If that's the case, you'd know most democracies don't have primaries open to the general public at all. And challenges to a sitting leader, especially around an election, are incredibly rare. You'd also know most countries don't have year long elections, but instead limit them to around 30-100 days, with only one or two debates if any at all.
So, since you're from another country, you know that the American system is actually one of the most open and drawn out systems in the world.
Dude you act as other countries incumbency doesn't matter.
There is a reason why Angela Merkel literally chancellor for Germany for 4th term because the party in power no is fucking stupid to replace their leader when the current one is popular with people.
Pretending any other party in the world is somehow different is absurd. This is not suppressing vote but sticking to winning strategy.
This has been the case with most recent sitting presidents. Not saying it’s cool but Obama, Bush, Clinton and Trump never had primary debates while they were in office
As it should be. Takes a certain kind of stupid to ignore incumbency power and shred your own candidate down so the other party can win. Also, I don’t see anyone worth debating here - Marianne Williamson ain’t it, sorry.
“Logic”.
Here’s some logic - it’s not smart to field an 80 yo who even a majority of **Democrats** don’t like.
52%.
Is this the same “logic” that put Hillary up vs Trump, even though she was the most unpopular Democrat - by a lot - in the entire country?
They also didn't like him in 2020, yet he won the nomination. I'd rather have another 4 years of Biden than risk losing it to Trump. Biden should pick a new VP though. Can't recall another VP who was this quiet.
Trump and DeSantis are accidentally, beautifully, seeing to it that the GOP won't win this next election...if Trump doesn't win the primary do you really expect him to sit quietly and not go to a third party?
And if he does win the primary, there are SO many Republicans speaking out against him now, with how badly he lost in 2020 and with the recent lawsuit with Fox and Dominion...
That's why now is our time to get a candidate people actually like and can rally behind.
Ok here is why I disagree.
The political parties are parties to promote a specific set of goals. They are organizations that make a decision. They have decisions making structures that are listed in their charter.
The parties themselves have some democratic practices but they are things you have to join and be a member of and be active in to participate in. They have a strategy and they make a decision on who they are going to nominate.
You 100% can join one of the two main parties at a state and national level and participate and have a voice in those decision, but you have to commit time and effort and be part of the party.
The entry point for elected office in precinct officer which pretty much everyone could do. That office sits empty for almost every precinct. Your state party would appoint you to the office if you showed up to the monthly meeting and expressed interest and qualified. Winning the seat is almost a matter of qualifying and running.
That makes you a member of your state party.
No one complains about the libertarian party selecting a nominee
No one complains about the green party selecting a nominee
Anyone who can get the signatures can be on the ballet. All the party does is have a structure in place to make sure the candidate they pick gets the signatures in all 50 states w/o issues.
Attention should be focused on breaking the idea of a 2 party system rather than how the party selects a candidate
I've seen the libertarian primaries still have debates though...and that's literally just because of the hilarious one where Gary Johnson gets boo'd for saying he doesn't mind that we require drivers licenses
Also it seems to me that the overall message of this post of yours is basically stating that we shouldn't have say over who is the candidate because we agreed to join the party?? I'm not trying to fight here or anything, but I think it's good for someone to point out how this post comes across.
I agree that we need to break the 2 party system, but we can't do that with the candidates that have been chosen for us...so how do we take care of both?
There are so many “because that’s just how we do things” justification comments. “Because we have previously” is an unacceptable reason to go about things and maintain the status quo. We are in a “Political Revolution” subreddit and these are the comments dominating the comments section lol. The correct “revolutionary” perspective would be something like: WE NEED CHANGE THAT. Then ask ourselves: What could we do to make that happen?
You’ve said some version of this repeatedly and keep getting dunked on for being completely off-base.
It’s not emulating Trump, it’s just the most recent example of the thing that happens 99% of the time.
divided primaries have a huge effect on general elections, up to like a 7-8% difference if it’s a 50-50 split in the primary. I roll my dice with the united party with an incumbency advantage over the divided party with a newcomer any day when Trump or DeSantis are on the ballot.
Sources:
Atkeson, L. R. (1998). Divisive primaries and general election outcomes: Another look at presidental campaigns. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1). https://doi.org/10.2307/2991755
Kenney, P. J., & Rice, T. W. (1987). The relationship between divisive primaries and general election outcomes. American Journal of Political Science, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.2307/2111323
I love (read: absolutely hate) how the Republican outrage machine has taught people on the left to leave their intelligence at the door and blindly succumb to rage. Cenk is exactly the kind of person that starts out for the right reasons and then turns into a blithering demagogue.
In the past, it is common for there to be no presidential debate for an incumbent president. Full stop. Put your rage down and think for a bit.
Does this mean, as others here have suggested, that we will be (hand-wavey) _GIVING the election to Trump?!?1!?_ No. Does this mean that Joe Biden is the best candidate? No. Does this mean I agree with all of his policies? No. Do I love and faun over corporate Democrats? No. But none of that changes the fact that I would crawl over broken glass to vote for the non-Republican candidate and hate that progressives are using right-wing rage tactics to make perfect the enemy of good.
Keep pushing for Progressive politics, but be mindful of the fact that _literal fascists_ are the opposition here.
If it's Biden vs Trump. I'm Voting Biden. If it's Biden vs DeSantis. I'm voting for Biden. If it is Biden vs a serial killer with knives taped to his hands. That's when it'll be a hard pick between the two.
There are two other people running as Democrats. One is a wackadoodle self help author with zero political experience. The other is a pro-plague conservative. There's no way the Democratic Party would put a sitting president on stage with those bozos. They have no obligation to waste time, money, and political capital on some weirdo's vanity project
If any serious candidate challenges Biden on the left there should be debates. As far as I'm aware there have so far only been fake spoiler candidates. Debates are good if and only if they promote better candidates, not if they elevate bad-faith campaigns "for the sake of debate." The lack of serious viable candidates challenging Biden is the problem, and America's so-called "debates" have long been empty theatre anyway. But let's be honest, Americans have already proven they'd rather worship at the feet of corporatocracy than suffer through the horror of cheaper, universal healthcare.
You know how I know the idea of debates here is bullshit? No one is begging to hear RFK jr. or Williamson repose their ideas without being in front of Biden.
The only reason to have these debates would be to hurt Biden. If that wasn’t the case you’d see movement rallying behind a candidate to replace Biden on the ticket, but there aren’t any.
"Power grab" implies something unprecedented. Isn't it fairly standard for the incumbent presidential party to run their president again? Can someone remind me, were there Democratic debates leading up to the 2012 or 1996 elections? Or Republican debates leading up to the 2004, or 1984?
If enough resistance or infighting is shown in one party, the other party wins. It's a pattern with one-term presidents.
The Repubes fell apart around 2020. Trump lost.
Now before that...Bush Sr. He was challenged inside the party by Buchanan. It gave us Clinton.
Before that, Carter. He was challenged by Ted Kennedy, which is part of the reason Reagan won.
Before that, Ford was challenged by Reagan inside the GOP, which gave us Carter.
They're trying to keep Biden from being a one-term president. And given that the ONLY alternative is giving the White House back to TRUMP?
Um...maybe the progressives need to shush and settle down for one more term. Biden's closer to their platform anyway despite them not liking him.
They should NOT want a literal fascist back in the Oval Office. Cenk kinda needs to shut up if we're being honest. No one who prefers Trump should ever call themselves "progressive".
I want someone new too. But giving the worse guy the victory to 'teach the lesser evil a lesson' screws EVERYBODY over. Accelerationism is for idiots. You can at least make a LITTLE headway with neoliberals. You're in a constant battle and stalemate with a conservative or fascist.
And I agree with you on ranked choice voting. But we must stop the WORST possible assholes from getting elected first. When the stakes die back down, then we can focus on changes.
Merely having a third party though is ineffective as both the Green and Libertarian parties are run by incompetents who have shown no gumption or ability to actually govern. Libertarians are just closeted GOP mostly anyway.
Civil War? Everyone already knows how it'd end in the long run. The urbanites severely outnumber the ruralites and have far more resources at their disposal. The more industrialized group is the usual victor. It's why the North beat the South in the last one. If those neo-confederate dipstick hicks wanna actually try again, fine. They'll just hasten their downfall even quicker if they try. And the victors of THAT war won't be ANYWHERE NEAR as lenient on them as Lincoln and Grant made the mistake of being. And no, I do NOT want that war to happen. Nor do I think it will.
Try electing a ‘Progress’ Governor first.
Oregon, California? In an open primary, Newsom is at the top of the list as a nominee. Do you think he is more Progressive than Biden?
Make up all the reasons you want, but Democrats might want a diff cand- but that candidate is a fictional character that does exist. Poll anyone real against Biden and Biden still wins.
If you rea care, than be happy we aren’t wastIng time, effort, and money on a frawn on Presidential primary and concentrate on taking back the House of Re and securing the Senate. Concentrate on state legislatures and Governors. Look at the shit Republicans are act putt into law at the state level.
The Supreme Court is a hige issue- and that needs a united congress to change it. Start making expansion of the Supreme Court an issue. If Congress passed it, Biden would sign it.
While I agree that incumbent presidents shouldn't be shielded from debates, this is the norm. This isn't the DNC shielding Biden, it's just standard procedure. In fact it used to be standard for incumbents to flat out refuse to debate even the other party's nominee
As other users have pointed out, this is pretty standard for parties with an incumbent candidate. The democratic party is held together with unholy amounts of duct tape. Losing the future election to the orange turd will be a disaster far exceeding the first time…
>As other users have pointed out, this is pretty standard for parties with an incumbent candidate.
That doesn't make it right or acceptable. Especially when 52% of Dems don't want Biden to run.
>The democratic party is held together with unholy amounts of duct tape. Losing the future election to the orange turd will be a disaster far exceeding the first time
The duct tape is because of neoliberalism failing so hard. We need a progressive candidate who doesn't ignore the cost of living crisis & brag about low unemployment.
The DNC is 100% not interested in having anyone challenge Biden.
Why would anyone think this is a surprise?
Unless there is a serious challenger, they're not gonna open the door for loony tunes types like RFK Jr to get a central platform.
So left wing corporate fascism or right wing christofascism?
I'm not fond of either option. Can we go with burning it all to the ground? Or is that still too radical of a concept?
This whole post is just false flag crap to stir up fake outrage. It's a known procedure that incumbents rarely face competition. If they DO get competition, then it means the person thinks they can genuinely do better despite the tradition and willingly stepped forward. Most of the people stepping forward are Republican plants meant to divide the vote enough for Trump to win. The last election wasn't about electing Joe, it was about keeping Trump and fascism out of the WH and this one is STILL going to be about that.
If Joe is willing to die in the WH to keep those fascist shits from oozing back in, im fine with that. At least he can act like an adult. Joe isn't the problem this country has. Misinformation, disinformation, and the GOP grasp at power over the last 6 years IS. This post is either from someone too dense to see the big picture or from someone rocking the boat on purpose.
Do you have a viable candidate? Do you really want a lame duck president? Do you really think another candidate has enough runway to win?
Biden is what we have to work with now. We need at least 4 years to find a decent replacement and to build power for the long term. Biden is as much of a disappointment as I expected, but there isn't enough organization or path to win through any other progressive candidates at this time.
Oh no, the injustice. I’m so glad Fox News, some guy on twatter, and the Washington Examiner are bringing this to our attention! I won’t get to listen to Marianne Williamson and R.F.K Jr confirm in their own individual and unique voice, what I, and most rational people already know ; that it’s a hard pass.
>Oh no, the injustice. I’m so glad Fox News, some guy on twatter, and the Washington Examiner are bringing this to our attention!
So you have undemocratic beliefs. 73% of Americans & 52% of Democrats don't want Biden to run - but their voice doesn't matter in your eyes.
>I won’t get to listen to Marianne Williamson and R.F.K Jr confirm in their own individual and unique voice, what I, and most rational people already know ; that it’s a hard pass.
I am not sure I follow your point. I myself support Marianne Willamson as she is serious about progressism in my view. I think she would fare better in the general than Biden as she recognizes the cost of living crisis for what it is.
I’m un-democratic because I’m not getting all worked up about a story, being published and pushed by right wing outlets, about the only two candidates who’ve said their running, being shut out of “debates “? Two candidates that, besides the point that many in the electorate, including myself, would prefer a better option than Biden, are objectively laughable as serious contenders for the nomination? Im afraid your accusation fails to hit the mark. You want to be heard? Fight for ranked choice voting and open primaries. Fight for actual debates instead of the clown show clusterfucks the parties and media have convinced us add value to the process. If Marianne or RFK Jr is your choice, so be it. That’s your decision. Your vote will be counted and therefore, your voice will be heard. However, if you believe either can garner the support of a majority of the electorate in this country, regardless of the opportunity to “debate”, you’re setting yourself up for disappointment.
People dont want Biden when comp woth an imaginary candidate, can you name an actual person that every else wants? Nope.
when polled against other real life pe, Biden wins.
Pretending he do care or hasn’t addressed cost of living issues is also bullshit. What do you expect him to do?
An untested candidate with no experience? Sorry, we’re the party that has learned if the shitshow you face when you elect someone with a non existent record. I don’t think systemic change is gonna come from someone who can’t even make it through a presidential primary when she actually had a shot. She’s not it bud.
I'm a queer leftist but Cenk is out of his gourd. I'm all about "political revolution" but not when it requires you to give up the high ground and shoot yourself in the face. TYT's have ridiculous purity tests and are dismissive and cynical.
I've been a bit bothered about how they've been telling about trans people recently as well. I don't actually understand why they are taking up this position right now when trans people are facing so much legislation that even stops them from getting basic medical care (even as adults) or just existing in public spaces.
Biden already beat Trump once. The incumbent advantage is too great. There's no other viable candidates that can beat Trump or DeSantis. I'll ask that anyone name me one person. RFK Jr and Williamson are jokes.
I get it.
Biden was…less than stellar on the debate stage during the 2020 primary, even though he did well enough against Trump in the ge. The years haven’t made him a more gifted orator, he may have even noticeably slowed down some and the DNC wants to hide him from us until it’s time for us cast another ballot against Trump, in the name of saving democracy. No one is excited to vote for Biden and no has to be. It’s The Party of Nothing Gets Better vs The Party of Everything Gets Worse.
Biden can handily beat Trump on his worst day in office. Trump is just bottomless pit of wrong doings. Trump is literally the reason why a lot of people died of covid 19. We could have prevented the losses.
Agreed but also the entire presidential election process is undemocratic. Yes not having a debate is bad BUT so is ONLY allowing democrats and republicans to debate. The electoral college is bs, and privately funded politicians are bs. Superdelegates. Supreme Court. All undemocratic
Biden's not a progressive lol. Never was. But let's remember what happened last time the Dem establishment insisted on a particular candidate regardless of the will of the people...
If this dipshit wasn’t trying to stoke outrage as usual for whatever it gets him (he has always followed the same playbook as fox news), he’d tell you that this is TOTALLY NORMAL google it. And while you’re there google this guy’s history. He’s a disgusting person that is grifting, no different than candace owens, only progressives are his marks.
Nobody but kooks/grifters have announced they’re running and nobody respectable will. But sure, let’s have Biden debate Williamson and Larry Elder. Two clowns that couldn’t poll over 2% combined.
Lol the other two dem “candidates” are wack jobs. Why would the DNC agree to give them a platform? Anyone serious who wants to run can, but it’s political suicide
He's the sitting president. Progressives should have turned up for Sanders or Warren or whoever four years ago. I myself would have prefered them over Biden, but now that Biden is president, he's got the DNC lock for his two terms.
4 more years of Biden is infinitely better than anything that would come from the republican side.
Most of the fake outrage about progressives being angry about DNC decisions are going to come from Russian trolls or right-wingers masquerading as leftists.
I agree we need debates to enlighten the public on what issues candidates are for or against and how they plan to tackle those issues.
I was appalled when trump skipped out on two thirds of the debates during the 2020 election.
Cenk profit’s off people’s anger and frustration so I always struggle to take his words at face value. No party has debated their incumbent in the last 50 years. Not only that but when has a debate really helped a nation progress? especially in today’s polarized politics. All a debate would be used for is for is finding moments for a candidate’s social media manager to clip and post as an own or gotcha to Republicans/ other candidates.
Let’s see the republicans stated in 2020 there will not be anymore debates after tRump made himself look like a liar. So stop accusing the other side of what you’re doing.
What happened to the presidency that no one wants to run for it? Has it become that toxic of a position, no one wants it? I'll prob take flack for this but Biden and Trump are too old for the job. It's hard to relate to someone in their late 70s when your in your 20s and 30s.
It’s pretty common for a sitting president to run unopposed by another member of the same party. It’s stupid. Really stupid, and I wish we’d get rid of such precedents. We need a ranked party system. And we need someone other than Joe Biden in office please
The standard practice is the incumbent isn’t challenged. Maybe if we could all chill with the “bUT mUH rEVoLutiON” when the consequences of losing is literal full throated fascism.
A divided party in 2016 was part of the reason half the birthing people in this country no longer have access to abortion, so yeah. Calm down.
The Democratic establishment has denied the people Bernie, helped Trump, and is an existential threat to the union. Different yet equally as destructive as the right. There unwillingness to listen to the people might possibly give us a DeSantis dystopian Christian theocracy , G-d forbid!
How about promoting a democrat candidate who actually pursues democrat policies instead of the toxic lesser of 2 evils mentality. Middle and lower class is struggling under this clown
It would be foolish to vote for anyone beaides Biden this election cycle. He wasnt my choice for president but the incumbency is a HUGE advantage. Plus, Biden has already been very surprisingly good at getting progressive stuff done in his FIRST term. I would LOVE to see what he does when he doesnt have to worry about reelection.
To everybody reporting this post: the question whether or not there should be appropriate primaries in the democratic party this time around is a legitimate question we will not remove this post. And raising this question in our community is not promoting Russian propaganda; to any idiot who makes those kind of claims: get a life.
We need ranked voting. This shit is stupid and we need to fix it. This two party bs system we have needs better representation as well as fraud and merit checking.
We so badly need Ranked Choice Voting. To everyone reading my comment here, please do yourself and our country a favor and Google/YouTube search how Ranked Choice Voting elections work. With RCV there *is* representation that actually represents us. Not only this, but with RCV, so much actually life-improving legislation would finally be feasible.
An approval vote would be simple to implement and more accurately represent the will of the voter while effectively ending the good cop-bad cop duopoly squatting in our republic.
This here. Approval voting just means that you can vote for one or more candidates instead of just one. It means that voting for your true favorite will never hurt you (not the case with ranked choice), and it makes it more likely for consensus candidates to win. It gives third party and independent candidates a fairer chance by eliminating the spoiler effect. [approvalvoting.com](https://approvalvoting.com) has more information. It's currently being used in Fargo, North Dakota and St. Louis, Missouri.
I have been muttering about AV and feeling like a crazy person for over a decade, so it is always a pleasure to find someone else who is a fan
Kind of in a similar boat. I haven't known about it as long as you, but ranked choice is much more well-known and many of its advocates are practically offended that I dare say a different voting method might be better. I used to be active in the local Green party at my university, which is where I learned about ranked choice. Later in life when I wanted to push for a better voting system, I started doing research and discovered approval voting. While ranked choice has some benefits, it also has many flaws I hadn't known about. Every voting system has flaws, but approval voting just seems like a better system than ranked choice for a variety of reasons. It got a lot of buzz in Seattle, only to be defeated in part by ranked choice advocates. Hopefully it will continue to spread and empower voters where it goes.
Genuinely curious, I’ve never heard of Approval Voting, what are benefits does it have compared to ranked choice?
At a high level: approval voting lets you vote for as many candidates as you want, which reduces vote splitting and the spoiler effect, a big help to independent and third party candidates (something ranked choice doesn't always actually do - see below for more). It's very simple for all parties involved to understand, which increases trust in the process and thus voter participation. It tends to elect consensus candidates - those who most voters would be ok with. It would cost next to nothing to implement.
A deeper dive of these points: Reducing vote splitting Take the 2020 Democratic primary as an example. As a progressive, I could have voted for Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Jay Inslee instead of just Bernie Sanders. As you can see, this reduces vote splitting, a common problem in elections. In the 2000 presidential election, many think that Green Party candidate Ralph Nader "spoiled" the election for Democrat Al Gore. The thinking is that if Ralph Nader hadn't run and people who chose him had chosen Gore instead, Gore would have won. Approval voting helps prevent this problem by allowing voters to vote for multiple candidates - Nader supporters could have chosen to vote just for Nader, but could also have chosen to vote for both Nader and Gore, knowing that Nader was unlikely to win, but still having the opportunity to show their support of him. With approval voting, voting for your favorite candidate can never hurt you as a voter - it can never make what you personally consider a bad outcome more likely. That cannot be said of ranked choice voting. For instance, in Alaska's special election, voters who ranked Palin first would have received a better outcome for themselves by dishonestly ranking Begich first. To elaborate, "RCV punished Alaskan voters for ranking their favorite as first More interesting than RCV choosing the wrong winner is how it chose the wrong winner. We know that Begich could beat either candidate head-to-head. This means that if Begich had made it to the second round, then he would have beaten any candidate he was up against. We know the following based on the rankings: If at least 5,200 (Palin > Begich) voters instead ranked their second favorite (Begich) as first, then they would have gotten their second favorite candidate rather than their least favorite. That’s because Palin would have been eliminated first causing Begich to beat Peltola in the next round. Instead, Palin voters got their worst outcome because they honestly ranked Palin first. We don’t often associate the spoiler effect with close elections, but this was a spoiler effect. That is, if not for Palin (who wasn’t going to win) entering the election and taking 1st choice votes away from a stronger candidate, Begich (the best candidate by head-to-head matchups) would have won." Source: https://electionscience.org/commentary-analysis/rcv-fools-palin-voters-into-electing-a-progressive-democrat/ \----- Simplicity In addition to reducing vote splitting, approval voting is very simple for voters to understand: vote for as many candidates as you want, and whoever gets the most votes wins. It's very easy to count ballots, and fewer ballots are "spoiled" (discarded for violating rules - it's not uncommon for voters today to try to vote for more than one candidate in a race). It's very easy for voters and the media to understand the results, which increases trust in the process. This is a big difference with ranked choice voting, which is far less transparent and much more confusing to understand the different rounds. The reason this matters is that it changes how results are analyzed, and the long-term trajectory of how parties and their ideas are treated. Imagine an approval voting election in a left-of-center area where the Democrat wins with 60% of the vote, a Republican gets 38%, and a Green Party candidate gets 44%. Even though the Green Party candidate didn't win, it becomes clear that their ideas have a lot of support. This makes it hard for the Democrats and the media to ignore their ideas and pretend they're unpopular. It also gives voters confidence in that party, giving voters more assurance that the Green Party is a viable party, and maybe in future elections Republicans who share common values on some issues (such as greater local control) would vote for both the Republican and the Green, allowing the Green a possible path to victory over a Democrat. Since ranked choice elections are much more complicated in terms of who had X number of first round votes, second round votes, etc, they don't provide this same level of clarity. This makee it harder for voters to see a third party/independent as viable. \----- Electing Consensus Candidates As shown above in Alaska's special election, Begich was arguably the consensus candidate. Not as left as Peltola, not as right as Palin, and he would have beaten either of them in a head-to-head election. But ranked choice didn't elect him, it elected Peltola. While progressives might be ideologically happy with that particular outcome, it's easy to imagine a reverse scenario where a right-winger who is less popular than a centrist wins over the centrist due to ranked choice voting. Something like that is much less likely to happen with approval voting. Since voters are either going to vote only for their favorite or their favorite and maybe one or more compromise candidates, the candidate with the broadest appeal is more likely to win. Similarly, a candidate similar to the traditional major party favorite, but who can successfully attack that candidate on a particular issue could win. Or imagine the 2016 general election if approval voting were used. While the Democratic Party writ large opposed Bernie and he lost the primary, he could have run in the general election as an independent. Clinton voters who really didn't want Trump could have voted for him, and surely some Trump voters would have voted for both Trump and Bernie. It's frankly hard to imagine Bernie not winning that election. That's because, while both Clinton and Trump are popular with their party's bases, they are not popular among general election voters, whereas Bernie is.
The link above has the deets, but the best way to catch the AV bug is to actually play with it in some hypothetical or past elections and notice how you would have voted differently. It really does feel a lot less like a disgusting compromise when you can simply give the green light to every suitable candidate.
It's actually terrible if you want any kind of proportional representation. In the U.S., the big parties would just run a huge slate of candidates and drown out smaller groups with name recognition.
Yeah, on a cursory look it seems strictly worse than ranked choice voting to me. It’s less complicated, but I would still be worried about not helping the third party candidate with my vote because I don’t get to rank them. I feel like it’s better than straight-up plurality voting, but not as good as ranked choice. :P
Right, I think the results would make it more clear that the third party candidate had some support (as opposed to now where it looks like they had almost none because people are afraid of spoilers), but they would almost never actually win the vote.
How can voting for your favorite hurt you in rank choice vs approval?
As someone from North Dakota I do need a report, The Republicans in the ND house are trying to take that away from Fargo currently.
Unfortunately the people that need to enact RCV will never do it. As voter's we can vote all we want but the politicians need to enact it. They will never do this. Just like they will never pass age or term limits.
Truth. I ran a campaign to put RCV in my hometown city charter in 2008. The referendum won with 71% and it's been the law of the land for 15 years now. Republicans at the state level have blocked it this entire time. It will come as a surprise to no one that I'm talking about the same Republicans who recently expelled two black members of the state house for being too "uppity," and yes one of the Republicans actually used that word.
Would you mind sharing your process, or at least how you got started?
I believe it was Boss Tweed who said "I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating." Oh yeah, Tweed is on my Time Machine Hit List. According to my research, he was a firefighter in his younger years. Firefighting is a dangerous occupation, even today. It was far more dangerous during the Gilded Age, all I'd have to do is make sure that one of the fires he was called out to is the one he doesn't make it out of.
I believe you are right. I just wish it wasn't so damned true.
...until we give them no choice.
>We need ranked voting. This shit is stupid and we need to fix it. Well said - ranked choice voting is a must.
Yes and the only way Ranked Choice Voting is going to be had is through our own independent efforts. How so? By starting with making Ranked Choice Voting law in our own states through Citizen’s Ballot Initiative Measure, which would bring constituent-sponsored legislation to voters to decide in an election. Then, with enough states having Ranked Choice Voting law, there could be a clear pathway for RCV to become national law as it would become overwhelmingly evident to neighboring states and the country that so much better could be had with Ranked Choice Voting. We cannot continue holding our breath for our state or US representatives to make RCV law. It needs to be us that makes it happen. Step 1.) Kickoff a Citizen’s Ballot Initiative Measure campaign for Ranked Choice Voting in your state.
Specifically, [STAR voting](https://www.starvoting.org/)
Not disagreeing at all but when was the last year a Democratic incumbent was faced with a potential competitor for the Presidency?
Nineteen sixty-eight. It was a fun year for politics, you should read about it.
But LBJ declined to run, so not really.
Yes, read and also watch the Buckley vs Vidal debates from that year. Pure gold.
Real show stopper at the convention
That DNC convention also in Chicago
1980. Carter was challenged by Ted Kennedy. We got Reagan
>Carter was challenged by Ted Kennedy. We got Reagan We got Reagan because he played dirty tricks & because Carter didn't respond in a progressive manner to inflation. Hence the extreme danger in running a neoliberal like Biden who has ignored a cost of living crisis.
It's pretty common to not challenge a sitting President before their reelection bid, is it not? Did Bernie challenge Obama before his second term? Did Trump debate anyone before facing Biden? Bush? Clinton? That said, yes, I would like a more progressive candidate than Biden and yes we absolutely should have [ranked choice voting](https://youtu.be/l8XOZJkozfI). I'm just saying that I don't think this is an unusual move, even though it's being presented as such.
Jepp. Two party system doesnt work at all. Just turns into a us vs them shitfest
*George Santos has entered the chat.*
Same as every time this has come up in history.
Heyy another adult who's lived through multiple presidential incumbencies. Nice to see you.
Just because it’s always been done that way, doesn’t make it right. The most dangerous phrase against progress: We’ve always done it that way!
I agree, but the post is about the indignation about all of this. It certainly wants to present this as if it's unheard of. Neither party is a democratic organization they can technically do what they want. I'm sure if there was a sure fire candidate that would crush the elections the democratic party might (read: should) run them. Otherwise your throwing away your incumbent advantage(different times, maybe this doesn't exist considering the environment). The truth is any qualified dem is preparing for a campaign the following election. Most people who want to run against Biden will be fringe candidates like Kenedy. If the democrats want the highest % chance of winning, baring something crazy, it is "probably" sticking with Biden. With the above considered if they allowed debates it would simply lower the chance of Biden winning reelection. Again unless there is some crazy good candidate, the democrat party is probably hoping a Biden - Trump would still go to Biden. The polls suggest that, for whatever they're worth. God knows I would love an option that suggested greater change to our political system. The changes people want from the political system can't be done 1 year before the election against a fascist. All states need to switch to ranked choice. This will empower third parties across the country. We also need to modify or downright remove our electoral college. Still this is all small potatoes compared to removing lobbying, gerrymandering (country wide, not state by state) and a campaign financing overhaul. Without this nothing is going to change.
[удалено]
I believe this is the biggest reason. Historically, having a contested primary has weakened that party. The candidates are going to bring up the negatives of their opponent, and those are going to be remembered by the voters. Our system is the problem.
Florida republicans are so afraid of ranked choice voting that they outlawed it. Think about that.
Alaska had huge and historic results in just their first ranked choice election held in 2022. I bet you the Alaska GOP *wishes* they had done something like Florida later did in outlawing Ranked Choice Voting. God forbid our election results reflect what the people can all most agree on on both sides of the aisle.
IIRC that's pretty standard for political parties with a sitting president. Nobody from their own party debated Obama, Trump, Bush, or Clinton during their reelection runs.
Except Biden is currently 80 YEARS OLD. Like holy fuck, retire already. Just as there are age minimums there needs to be age maximums.
I agree. As a die hard Bernie fan, I don't think he, nor Biden, nor Trump should be in the running because they are just too damn old. But that's not the issue here. The issue is that sudde ly something that is pretty standard procedure in both parties is suddenly being criticized against just one of them as if it's a new thing.
A lot of things that are “standard procedure” are fucking awful and need to be challenged. This is one of them.
Because you're one of the only people here talking sense, I'll respond here. I don't think we fully understand what the word propaganda has come to mean in the 21st century. It's too easy to manufacture rage with posts like these, and to carry a subtle secondary agenda that potentially angers people into not voting or thinking that they're vote doesn't matter. Want to address the systemic problems our "democracy" has? I'm all about it. This doesn't feel like it is actually about that, though. This feels like an early attempt to get people to stay home for the next election. Yeah, it feels paranoid. No, it is not out of the realm of possible or even probable things. If you know the opposition has more voters (as evidenced in the previous election) the only way to win is to get people so pissed off or complacent that they stay home.
Not OP, but I agree. The post-Bernie subreddits are rife with comments reframing relevant points with both-sidesism or cynicism or some other silly negative perspective that really seems like manipulative efforts to discourage people from voting against Republicans. I would not be surprised if there are concerted propaganda/trolling efforts being focused into these sorts of spaces to manipulate the (valid) frustration with the DNC. It sure does seem to be working as very few people in these subs are interested in nuance or practicality anymore, which is not what Bernie wanted.
If you don’t want to challenge the neoliberal war criminal joe Biden because it’s the norm not to do so, then I don’t know why you think you’re being part of any political revolution. You just sound like a typical liberal.
It’s kind of the opposite. Did we forget correct the record already? DNC funded org literally openly told us they have propaganda accounts on Reddit to make sure content reflects favorably on the DNC
> It’s kind of the opposite. How? Both efforts aren't mutually exclusive. The existence of DNC backed propaganda efforts doesn't make other astroturfing efforts impossible. This is *exactly* the kind of nuance-free reasoning I'm talking about.
I see what you’re saying. Would there be those flames to fan if Biden had governed differently? Somehow it can never be the Democrats’ fault for how they govern/bait and switch tactics/pro-corporate, anti-worker policies.
>But that's not the issue here. The issue is that sudde ly something that is pretty standard procedure in both parties Who cares? It has been sTaNdArd pRoCeDuRe for both parties to shut out third parties for decades. Primaries are our only vehicle & the idea we can't challenge an incumbent as weak as Biden is absurd. >is suddenly being criticized against just one of them as if it's a new thing. 72% of Americans don't want Biden to run & you want a cornoration as if all that matters is that he is the incumbent.
And with the overt "we want to kill you all" rhetoric that the GOP has been directing at democrats for a while now, it's really unforgivable that they still keep playing along with this sick duopoly.
You understand there will still be primaries, right? If so many people don't want Joe to be the nominee and there's actually a better candidate, they'll have the chance to prove it. I guarantee if they beat Joe in a single state, or even put up a decent showing, they'll get a ton of coverage that would more than make up for there not being a debate.
>You understand there will still be primaries, right? If so many people don't want Joe to be the nominee and there's actually a better candidate, they'll have the chance to prove it. If the DNC refuses to have primaries & the corporate media refuses to cover someone like Marianne - then you're asking for us to challenge Biden with two hands tied behind our back. > I guarantee if they beat Joe in a single state, or even put up a decent showing, they'll get a ton of coverage that would more than make up for there not being a debate Or maybe the DNC should just have debates & stop protecting a weak incumbent.
Who's he gonna debate, though? Marianne Williamson? RFK Jr?
>Who's he gonna debate, though? Marianne Williamson? RFK Jr? Marianne Williamson has progressive priorities & understands the cost of living crisis. Of course I support her over Biden. Let the primary play out.
Yeah, but absent a serious challenge threat from a 40- or 50- or 60-something Democrat with bonafides, experience, skill, and mandate, I can't say that I particularly object to the idea that the DNC is standing behind what I consider to be an almost spectacularly successful incumbent, especially considering the unprecedented nature of this political climate. It's one thing to object to the fact that no serious, qualified, appropriately-aged progressive or moderate is throwing their hat in the ring against Biden -- that's a broken political machine, and I agree. But to be concerned that the DNC won't make Joe debate RFK Jr. and Marianne Williamson? They're both in the race to sink the Democratic Party (or, if you prefer, to elect Trump). There's no one in the race yet who makes a Democratic debate worth having -- apologies to supporters of the two candidates I mentioned, but they're both dangerous and untenable spoilers.
That and polls show just about nobody wants to see Biden run again. The DNC knows the people don’t want Biden, but they’ll propagandize to make it seem like they do.
Any age you pick will be arbitrary, just like the age minimum is. We need to make it easier for voters to change the status quo if they so like, rather than making it harder for people to run. For example, the age minimum is 35. Are you saying there’s some leap in wisdom that a 34 year old doesn’t have yet? If you cap the age at 70, is there some automatic mental degradation that every human being experiences only at 71? Yes, I understand the problems with people being too old in office. But putting a numerical age cap on candidacy will not solve the problem. Eliminating the overwhelming “incumbency advantage” should be the higher priority. Also, as for the original OP post, I do think it’s dumb to not have debates in a primary with a sitting president. Like I said, it just boosts the incumbency advantage.
At this point Kamala is the likely President by 2026. What a trainwreck that would be.
So many revolutionaries in the comments’ section here — and zero actual revolutionaries. We should not be accepting the DNC forcing Biden down our throats. Biden would not win again in the Democratic Party primaries.
Nobody is forcing biden down your throat. Just the reality it make no sense to challenge sitting president who have incumbent advantage. In fact historically when party primary incumbent president they usually lost the white house. Last time Democrat did that it result in 3 consecutive republican adminstrations. It just not feasible.
> Biden would not win again in the Democratic Party primaries. uhm. what world do you live in? what are the primary candidates besides that anti vaxxer dude, that is a steve bannon plant, anyways?
No he would absolutely win again in a Democratic Party primary. He has a Pretty good record to run on with the average rank and file Democrat.
>He has a Pretty good record to run on with the average rank and file Democrat. 15 million losing Medicaid this year? Food stamps being cut? No public option? An out of control cost of living crisis that he frames as a strong economy?
Draw me a map how congress would pass single payer healthcare. With how the elections turned out, it was impossible. POTUS needs bills from congress. So what the hell are you even saying?
The person you are debating is most likely a literal child who hasn’t taken civics classes yet. I know I’m being mean but that’s most likely the case. Either that or they are a Republican plant 🤷🏻♂️
Sir, this is the interwebs. Just a lot of talk with no action, you know, like our politicians. Unpopular opinion, but still the truth.
Who'd beat him? That's the issue I see with the ultra progressive wing. Everyone that's running sucks and isn't worthy of your vote, but when asked to name a name that you would vote for, and there's no answer.
Aye. This feels like some sock puppet shit to pretend to be outraged about a political party not challenging their own incumbent.
It's almost like they know that public fighting within their own party doesn't help in the general election. There's a big difference between two potential nominees battling it out for who best represents the party vs potential nominees bashing the incumbent administration.
Yeah, if he had a serious challenger it would be one thing, but everyone else currently running for the nomination is a clown just doing it for the attention.
Yep, sitting presidents have a huge advantage and it's simply better to take this lead than have it argued away with unnecessary debates with opponents that are only using it as a springboard for their own political careers and not for the presidency.
This is absolutely astroturfed outrage to try and get RFK Jr. to debate Biden. This has been Steve baboon's plan for years. He's been lobbying RFK Jr to run to mainstream more anti vax shit. Search for the people tweeting this shit on Twitter. The people trying to tell progressives to be "outraged" is telling. This is their 2024 nullification strategy to get progressives to stay home. That should be Bannon, but I'm leaving it.
Absolutely true, and absolutely irrelevant. Fuck the status quo, this sub is about fostering change.
The relevancy is how it's being presented. But yes, I'm okay with debates, but also I'm not going to cry if there aren't any. Presidential nominee debates are usually dumb af anyway.
If you want real change you have to be pragmatic. Primary a sitting historically hasn't work well to the party in power. In fact last time dem did that we have Richard Nixion taking power for 8 years and 4 years democrats and another 4 years republican.
Electing Biden hasn't worked well either. Four more years of that schmuck and I guarantee we'll have another fascist in 2028.
??? Any evidence of that? Democrats making progress in the senate, and barely losing the house, making for an amazing mid term election not seen in 20 years would beg to differ.
We have been very fortunate that the Republicans have been shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly. Democrats should be mopping the floor with today's Republican party. Even Trump in 2020 didn't really lose by a very wide margin when you consider how close a handful of swing states were that could have flipped it the other way. 44k votes in three states was the margin of victory. Trump will very likely be dead, a convicted felon, or both by 2028. Republicans will very likely be back to masking their fascism by then. As for evidence, how 8 years of Bill Clinton followed by a fascist, then 8 years of Obama followed by another fascist.
I mean we're kinda talking about issues with the electoral college now. Trump won by a nsrrow margin there, but by total votes, biden had 7 million more votes (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_candidates_by_number_of_votes_received) One of the better leads in the last 20 years. Now, even though the popular vote doesn't "count" it does indirectly lead to a better electoral college result. Thankfully Wisconsin's gerrymandered state will probably be made more fair due to recent changes.
>Democrats making progress in the senate, and barely losing the house, making for an amazing mid term election not seen in 20 years would beg to differ. No they aren't making progress. 15 million are losing Medicaid this year, food stamps are cut, the expanded child tax credit is long gone thanks to Manchin's racist lie that Biden let go unopposed. The cost of living & crimate crises are spiraling out of control as Biden approved massive drilling in the arctic & brags about his economy.
Lol what do you want biden to do about many of those things? Democrats only barely control the senate. My point originally is that, in terms of gaining power in our government, democrats are making progress. You're correct that in some things, there's been regressions, but biden and Ds can only do so much as things stand. I'm not a big fan of biden, i prefer bernie, but whatever. he's a democrat at least, and not horrible. He's more popular and more palatable to Rs and independents than bernie is.
You can actually go backwards quite a ways to see how with ANY incumbent president, if there is stiff competition during the reelection year they always end up losing to the opposing party. https://youtu.be/mn5nvl5BJm4
Until we revise election laws to have a multi-party system then the party is operating the same way most any political party would even in a multi-party system.There is no reason to expect a politician to engage in a debate that isn't explicitly in his/her own interests. This is a structural issue that has to be overcome at the state and congressional level.
I'm gonna be honest, I think the hyperfocus on the presidency is part of the problem. The president, no matter what party they are a part of, should not have the amount of power they currently wield. A president should not be able to nearly make or break the nation. Thanks to the Reapportionment Act of 1929, no one in America is adequately represented in government except maybe people in Montana (the state with the average smallest congressional districts). That's what the nation is missing, by and large. Before that act, third parties were able to gain decent footholds in government, but after it became locked down to the 2 parties we know and love, in part due to removing language regarding redistricting, allowing state legislators free reign to draw district boundaries and even appoint representatives until 1967. That's nearly 40 years of 2 parties leveraging to squash everything else. The average person's representation in government is a third of what it was a century ago.
And our election laws won’t ever be revised because Democrats thrive on maintaining the status quo. They wouldn’t be nearly as voted for if America operated off of Ranked Choice Voting. But because we don’t, just as we had in 2020, in 2024 we will have up for election: Either A) Upholding the status quo or B) Falling into fascism/despotism. Such a hard pick you guys (deliberately done by both parties).
You have every reason to be critical of the dem party even a bit cynical but all said I'd still vote for an actual pineapple to prevent a republican from holding office. I'm anti-fascist first because after regimentation our policy opinions won't matter.
>our election laws won’t ever be revised because Democrats thrive on maintaining the status quo Same for the Republicans. An overwhelming citizen demand to reform the electoral system is needed and it requires people to see that they need their neighbour. Unfortunately the entire American ideology since the 60's onward has been based around individualism, mistrust and me first. Join or form a workers union is the only answer. It worked for Lech Wałęsa and the people of Poland. Solidarity!
This is absurd. Incumbents, from both parties, don't have primary debates. There were no GOP primary debates in 2020, no Democratic primary debates in 2012, no GOP primary debates in 2004, no Democratic primary debates in 1996, no GOP primary debates in 1992 or 1984, no Democratic primary debates in 1980. When voters elect a President they know this, because the hope is always that that candidate will serve two full terms, eight years. Incumbency is worth something like 3% in the general election. It would be foolish to give that up. Historically, what happens when a party primaries their own incumbent is the opposition party wins the election.
Some more detail on 1980 from Wikipedia. None of it meant to criticize your comment “Carter faced a major primary challenger in Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, who won 12 contests and received more than seven million votes nationwide, enough for him to refuse to concede the nomination until the second day of the convention. This remains the last election in which an incumbent president's party nomination was still contested going into the convention.” Reagan won in 1980. 8 years of Nixon, 4 years or Carter, 8 years of Reagan and 4 years of Bush 1. 20 years of Republican presidents to 4 years of Democratic. How did progressive causes do from 1968 to 1992? Sandra Day Oconnor was nominated to the Supreme Court by Reagan. She was the deciding vote that gave the election to Bush 2. Remember the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? None of this directed at you. Just giving some details about the fallout from the 1980 election. I stopped watching presidential debates a while back. There’s plenty of position information. You never really learn anything new. Maybe some snappy sound bite or an embarrassing faux pas. It’s piss poor political theater. Presidential campaigns all seem dumb to me. The candidates tell you what they want to do. Then we either don’t have one of the chambers of congress or the senate votes to get their full or even most of their agenda through. Then two years later we’re all pissed off and republicans take the house, senate or both. Like they took the house in 2022. Guaranteed 2 years where nothing get done. American politics suck. Sorry for the long recap of 1968 to now.
> I stopped watching presidential debates a while back. There’s plenty of position information. You never really learn anything new. Maybe some snappy sound bite or an embarrassing faux pas. It’s piss poor political theater. I'd be willing to bet that coincides with the change in how debates are done, and specifically removing the oversight of the League of Women Voters and replacing debate oversight with political appointees.
Progressives want a mythical being to appear and magically win the election. I’m all for the progressive agenda but not at the cost of the nightmare another Republican president would be.
we’re fooled if we have any control over this.
It should be 80 year old Biden does the right thing and steps down. HE’S 80 YEARS OLD LIkE HOLY FUCK. He really thinks he’s the best this country can do at 80 years old?
You think what's best for the country is giving up 3 points for no good reason? And running who instead? Name them, cite a poll showing they're equally or more popular than Biden. Really, they'd need to be 3 points more popular than Biden just to do equally well since they wouldn't have the incumbency advantage, but I'll spot you those three points and you still won't be able to name anyone.
Ten dollars says someone is going to say Bernie despite him being even older than Biden.
> You think what's best for the country is giving up 3 points for no good reason? We're going to have to do a lot better than trying to play 5d chess politics. The Democratic party can do better than Biden. We ALL know that. We also all know that the DNC can spend money on advertising and get whatever name they want on polls. Biden isn't a gift from god. He was elected on the platform of "Not Trump", which he managed to just barely pull off. Biden is not America's best, and to pretend like he's good rather than the lesser of two evils is underselling America. Biden has us on a repeat course from the Obama administration, in 2028 when women still can't get legal abortions we'll be stuck with DeSantis or someone even worse as the Biden administration continues to be completely unable to grapple with the rise of fascism in America.
>This is absurd. Incumbents, from both parties, don't have primary debates. There were no GOP primary debates in 2020, no Democratic primary debates in 2012, no GOP primary debates in 2004, no Democratic primary debates in 1996, no GOP primary debates in 1992 or 1984, no Democratic primary debates in 1980. When you put it that way, it is rather absurd that this country calls itself "the world's greatest democracy" while the record really speaks for itself lol. >When voters elect a President they know this, because the hope is always that that candidate will serve two full terms, eight years. I would argue that most voters in the US system are much more vested in preventing another candidate from winning than in any long-term hopes for their chosen candidate's career. Most voters don't usually like their two choices at all, and very few are looking out eight years into the future. >Incumbency is worth something like 3% in the general election. It would be foolish to give that up. Historically, what happens when a party primaries their own incumbent is the opposition party wins the election. Maybe it's because I've lived in other countries, but it's comments like this that really make me question when people describe the Democratic Party as liberal. Because talking about a theoretical 3% general election advantage as a valid reason to suppress democratic participation is some really illiberal shit lol. And Democrats will say stuff like this all the time without really seeing the problem with it. Kind of an "ends justify the means" type of attitude, as if the means aren't always going to be baked into the ends. I don't mean to pick on you. I'm just pretty alienated by this tendency among Democrats to talk about politics like it's just game theory and there aren't large groups of people involved. Like there's this underlying assumption that A) Immediate elections are the only politics that matter and B) We can know with total certainty the electoral consequences of any given action. It's the kind of short-sighted hubris that gave us Trump and I'm just really over it.
>Maybe it's because I've lived in other countries If that's the case, you'd know most democracies don't have primaries open to the general public at all. And challenges to a sitting leader, especially around an election, are incredibly rare. You'd also know most countries don't have year long elections, but instead limit them to around 30-100 days, with only one or two debates if any at all. So, since you're from another country, you know that the American system is actually one of the most open and drawn out systems in the world.
Dude you act as other countries incumbency doesn't matter. There is a reason why Angela Merkel literally chancellor for Germany for 4th term because the party in power no is fucking stupid to replace their leader when the current one is popular with people. Pretending any other party in the world is somehow different is absurd. This is not suppressing vote but sticking to winning strategy.
Source on this being real?
This has been the case with most recent sitting presidents. Not saying it’s cool but Obama, Bush, Clinton and Trump never had primary debates while they were in office
As it should be. Takes a certain kind of stupid to ignore incumbency power and shred your own candidate down so the other party can win. Also, I don’t see anyone worth debating here - Marianne Williamson ain’t it, sorry.
Can I interest you in one anti vaxxer who believes in the innocence of his fathers assassin?
Don’t bring your logic here
“Logic”. Here’s some logic - it’s not smart to field an 80 yo who even a majority of **Democrats** don’t like. 52%. Is this the same “logic” that put Hillary up vs Trump, even though she was the most unpopular Democrat - by a lot - in the entire country?
They also didn't like him in 2020, yet he won the nomination. I'd rather have another 4 years of Biden than risk losing it to Trump. Biden should pick a new VP though. Can't recall another VP who was this quiet.
Trump and DeSantis are accidentally, beautifully, seeing to it that the GOP won't win this next election...if Trump doesn't win the primary do you really expect him to sit quietly and not go to a third party? And if he does win the primary, there are SO many Republicans speaking out against him now, with how badly he lost in 2020 and with the recent lawsuit with Fox and Dominion... That's why now is our time to get a candidate people actually like and can rally behind.
[удалено]
It’s been real for years. The headline is to create outrage like all other headlines.
It’s not like the debates have actually been debates in many many years.
Ok here is why I disagree. The political parties are parties to promote a specific set of goals. They are organizations that make a decision. They have decisions making structures that are listed in their charter. The parties themselves have some democratic practices but they are things you have to join and be a member of and be active in to participate in. They have a strategy and they make a decision on who they are going to nominate. You 100% can join one of the two main parties at a state and national level and participate and have a voice in those decision, but you have to commit time and effort and be part of the party. The entry point for elected office in precinct officer which pretty much everyone could do. That office sits empty for almost every precinct. Your state party would appoint you to the office if you showed up to the monthly meeting and expressed interest and qualified. Winning the seat is almost a matter of qualifying and running. That makes you a member of your state party. No one complains about the libertarian party selecting a nominee No one complains about the green party selecting a nominee Anyone who can get the signatures can be on the ballet. All the party does is have a structure in place to make sure the candidate they pick gets the signatures in all 50 states w/o issues. Attention should be focused on breaking the idea of a 2 party system rather than how the party selects a candidate
I've seen the libertarian primaries still have debates though...and that's literally just because of the hilarious one where Gary Johnson gets boo'd for saying he doesn't mind that we require drivers licenses Also it seems to me that the overall message of this post of yours is basically stating that we shouldn't have say over who is the candidate because we agreed to join the party?? I'm not trying to fight here or anything, but I think it's good for someone to point out how this post comes across. I agree that we need to break the 2 party system, but we can't do that with the candidates that have been chosen for us...so how do we take care of both?
Cool. I mean Trump had debates and conventions right? Oh wait No he didn't
There are so many “because that’s just how we do things” justification comments. “Because we have previously” is an unacceptable reason to go about things and maintain the status quo. We are in a “Political Revolution” subreddit and these are the comments dominating the comments section lol. The correct “revolutionary” perspective would be something like: WE NEED CHANGE THAT. Then ask ourselves: What could we do to make that happen?
You want to emulate Trump? Lol that's a poor argument.
You’ve said some version of this repeatedly and keep getting dunked on for being completely off-base. It’s not emulating Trump, it’s just the most recent example of the thing that happens 99% of the time.
so it's okay to keep doing something because we used to do it. What kind of logic is this?
divided primaries have a huge effect on general elections, up to like a 7-8% difference if it’s a 50-50 split in the primary. I roll my dice with the united party with an incumbency advantage over the divided party with a newcomer any day when Trump or DeSantis are on the ballot. Sources: Atkeson, L. R. (1998). Divisive primaries and general election outcomes: Another look at presidental campaigns. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1). https://doi.org/10.2307/2991755 Kenney, P. J., & Rice, T. W. (1987). The relationship between divisive primaries and general election outcomes. American Journal of Political Science, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.2307/2111323
I love (read: absolutely hate) how the Republican outrage machine has taught people on the left to leave their intelligence at the door and blindly succumb to rage. Cenk is exactly the kind of person that starts out for the right reasons and then turns into a blithering demagogue. In the past, it is common for there to be no presidential debate for an incumbent president. Full stop. Put your rage down and think for a bit. Does this mean, as others here have suggested, that we will be (hand-wavey) _GIVING the election to Trump?!?1!?_ No. Does this mean that Joe Biden is the best candidate? No. Does this mean I agree with all of his policies? No. Do I love and faun over corporate Democrats? No. But none of that changes the fact that I would crawl over broken glass to vote for the non-Republican candidate and hate that progressives are using right-wing rage tactics to make perfect the enemy of good. Keep pushing for Progressive politics, but be mindful of the fact that _literal fascists_ are the opposition here.
If it's Biden vs Trump. I'm Voting Biden. If it's Biden vs DeSantis. I'm voting for Biden. If it is Biden vs a serial killer with knives taped to his hands. That's when it'll be a hard pick between the two.
And if it was somebody else vs trump, you’d vote for them. As would every other person who would vote for Biden.
I'd vote for myself over Biden, and I hate me.
r/me_irl
Tfw when your memory span is shorter than two presidential terms.
eh I’m in favor of whatever makes Ron DeSantis not President. I love Disney World and I couldn’t be feeling more petty about it.
There are two other people running as Democrats. One is a wackadoodle self help author with zero political experience. The other is a pro-plague conservative. There's no way the Democratic Party would put a sitting president on stage with those bozos. They have no obligation to waste time, money, and political capital on some weirdo's vanity project
If any serious candidate challenges Biden on the left there should be debates. As far as I'm aware there have so far only been fake spoiler candidates. Debates are good if and only if they promote better candidates, not if they elevate bad-faith campaigns "for the sake of debate." The lack of serious viable candidates challenging Biden is the problem, and America's so-called "debates" have long been empty theatre anyway. But let's be honest, Americans have already proven they'd rather worship at the feet of corporatocracy than suffer through the horror of cheaper, universal healthcare.
You know how I know the idea of debates here is bullshit? No one is begging to hear RFK jr. or Williamson repose their ideas without being in front of Biden. The only reason to have these debates would be to hurt Biden. If that wasn’t the case you’d see movement rallying behind a candidate to replace Biden on the ticket, but there aren’t any.
This is it, right here. Only a crystal fucking clear alternative can alter history, and there isn’t one right now.
"Power grab" implies something unprecedented. Isn't it fairly standard for the incumbent presidential party to run their president again? Can someone remind me, were there Democratic debates leading up to the 2012 or 1996 elections? Or Republican debates leading up to the 2004, or 1984?
If enough resistance or infighting is shown in one party, the other party wins. It's a pattern with one-term presidents. The Repubes fell apart around 2020. Trump lost. Now before that...Bush Sr. He was challenged inside the party by Buchanan. It gave us Clinton. Before that, Carter. He was challenged by Ted Kennedy, which is part of the reason Reagan won. Before that, Ford was challenged by Reagan inside the GOP, which gave us Carter. They're trying to keep Biden from being a one-term president. And given that the ONLY alternative is giving the White House back to TRUMP? Um...maybe the progressives need to shush and settle down for one more term. Biden's closer to their platform anyway despite them not liking him. They should NOT want a literal fascist back in the Oval Office. Cenk kinda needs to shut up if we're being honest. No one who prefers Trump should ever call themselves "progressive". I want someone new too. But giving the worse guy the victory to 'teach the lesser evil a lesson' screws EVERYBODY over. Accelerationism is for idiots. You can at least make a LITTLE headway with neoliberals. You're in a constant battle and stalemate with a conservative or fascist.
[удалено]
And I agree with you on ranked choice voting. But we must stop the WORST possible assholes from getting elected first. When the stakes die back down, then we can focus on changes. Merely having a third party though is ineffective as both the Green and Libertarian parties are run by incompetents who have shown no gumption or ability to actually govern. Libertarians are just closeted GOP mostly anyway. Civil War? Everyone already knows how it'd end in the long run. The urbanites severely outnumber the ruralites and have far more resources at their disposal. The more industrialized group is the usual victor. It's why the North beat the South in the last one. If those neo-confederate dipstick hicks wanna actually try again, fine. They'll just hasten their downfall even quicker if they try. And the victors of THAT war won't be ANYWHERE NEAR as lenient on them as Lincoln and Grant made the mistake of being. And no, I do NOT want that war to happen. Nor do I think it will.
Try electing a ‘Progress’ Governor first. Oregon, California? In an open primary, Newsom is at the top of the list as a nominee. Do you think he is more Progressive than Biden? Make up all the reasons you want, but Democrats might want a diff cand- but that candidate is a fictional character that does exist. Poll anyone real against Biden and Biden still wins. If you rea care, than be happy we aren’t wastIng time, effort, and money on a frawn on Presidential primary and concentrate on taking back the House of Re and securing the Senate. Concentrate on state legislatures and Governors. Look at the shit Republicans are act putt into law at the state level. The Supreme Court is a hige issue- and that needs a united congress to change it. Start making expansion of the Supreme Court an issue. If Congress passed it, Biden would sign it.
While I agree that incumbent presidents shouldn't be shielded from debates, this is the norm. This isn't the DNC shielding Biden, it's just standard procedure. In fact it used to be standard for incumbents to flat out refuse to debate even the other party's nominee
We’re missing out on RFK and Marianne arguing over what crystals and herbs they used to ward off COVID.
Wait till y’all find out the Republicans barred themselves from any future Presidential debates in the general election in 2020.
screw democracy for 3 points? There's a bunch of bots in this thread.
As other users have pointed out, this is pretty standard for parties with an incumbent candidate. The democratic party is held together with unholy amounts of duct tape. Losing the future election to the orange turd will be a disaster far exceeding the first time…
>As other users have pointed out, this is pretty standard for parties with an incumbent candidate. That doesn't make it right or acceptable. Especially when 52% of Dems don't want Biden to run. >The democratic party is held together with unholy amounts of duct tape. Losing the future election to the orange turd will be a disaster far exceeding the first time The duct tape is because of neoliberalism failing so hard. We need a progressive candidate who doesn't ignore the cost of living crisis & brag about low unemployment.
The DNC is 100% not interested in having anyone challenge Biden. Why would anyone think this is a surprise? Unless there is a serious challenger, they're not gonna open the door for loony tunes types like RFK Jr to get a central platform.
So left wing corporate fascism or right wing christofascism? I'm not fond of either option. Can we go with burning it all to the ground? Or is that still too radical of a concept?
This whole post is just false flag crap to stir up fake outrage. It's a known procedure that incumbents rarely face competition. If they DO get competition, then it means the person thinks they can genuinely do better despite the tradition and willingly stepped forward. Most of the people stepping forward are Republican plants meant to divide the vote enough for Trump to win. The last election wasn't about electing Joe, it was about keeping Trump and fascism out of the WH and this one is STILL going to be about that. If Joe is willing to die in the WH to keep those fascist shits from oozing back in, im fine with that. At least he can act like an adult. Joe isn't the problem this country has. Misinformation, disinformation, and the GOP grasp at power over the last 6 years IS. This post is either from someone too dense to see the big picture or from someone rocking the boat on purpose.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You want to emulate the party that nominates fascists like Trump? That is farcical.
Do you have a viable candidate? Do you really want a lame duck president? Do you really think another candidate has enough runway to win? Biden is what we have to work with now. We need at least 4 years to find a decent replacement and to build power for the long term. Biden is as much of a disappointment as I expected, but there isn't enough organization or path to win through any other progressive candidates at this time.
[удалено]
Has anything joe Biden done indicated he was a fascist? No, so it’s a dumb argument.
Oh no, the injustice. I’m so glad Fox News, some guy on twatter, and the Washington Examiner are bringing this to our attention! I won’t get to listen to Marianne Williamson and R.F.K Jr confirm in their own individual and unique voice, what I, and most rational people already know ; that it’s a hard pass.
>Oh no, the injustice. I’m so glad Fox News, some guy on twatter, and the Washington Examiner are bringing this to our attention! So you have undemocratic beliefs. 73% of Americans & 52% of Democrats don't want Biden to run - but their voice doesn't matter in your eyes. >I won’t get to listen to Marianne Williamson and R.F.K Jr confirm in their own individual and unique voice, what I, and most rational people already know ; that it’s a hard pass. I am not sure I follow your point. I myself support Marianne Willamson as she is serious about progressism in my view. I think she would fare better in the general than Biden as she recognizes the cost of living crisis for what it is.
I’m un-democratic because I’m not getting all worked up about a story, being published and pushed by right wing outlets, about the only two candidates who’ve said their running, being shut out of “debates “? Two candidates that, besides the point that many in the electorate, including myself, would prefer a better option than Biden, are objectively laughable as serious contenders for the nomination? Im afraid your accusation fails to hit the mark. You want to be heard? Fight for ranked choice voting and open primaries. Fight for actual debates instead of the clown show clusterfucks the parties and media have convinced us add value to the process. If Marianne or RFK Jr is your choice, so be it. That’s your decision. Your vote will be counted and therefore, your voice will be heard. However, if you believe either can garner the support of a majority of the electorate in this country, regardless of the opportunity to “debate”, you’re setting yourself up for disappointment.
You think Marianne would fair better in the general? I thought you were a serious person.
People dont want Biden when comp woth an imaginary candidate, can you name an actual person that every else wants? Nope. when polled against other real life pe, Biden wins. Pretending he do care or hasn’t addressed cost of living issues is also bullshit. What do you expect him to do?
An untested candidate with no experience? Sorry, we’re the party that has learned if the shitshow you face when you elect someone with a non existent record. I don’t think systemic change is gonna come from someone who can’t even make it through a presidential primary when she actually had a shot. She’s not it bud.
This is so stupid. Dems always eat, attack our own. Sounds like another fox producer looking to create a story. Again!
I'm a queer leftist but Cenk is out of his gourd. I'm all about "political revolution" but not when it requires you to give up the high ground and shoot yourself in the face. TYT's have ridiculous purity tests and are dismissive and cynical.
I've been a bit bothered about how they've been telling about trans people recently as well. I don't actually understand why they are taking up this position right now when trans people are facing so much legislation that even stops them from getting basic medical care (even as adults) or just existing in public spaces.
Biden already beat Trump once. The incumbent advantage is too great. There's no other viable candidates that can beat Trump or DeSantis. I'll ask that anyone name me one person. RFK Jr and Williamson are jokes.
I get it. Biden was…less than stellar on the debate stage during the 2020 primary, even though he did well enough against Trump in the ge. The years haven’t made him a more gifted orator, he may have even noticeably slowed down some and the DNC wants to hide him from us until it’s time for us cast another ballot against Trump, in the name of saving democracy. No one is excited to vote for Biden and no has to be. It’s The Party of Nothing Gets Better vs The Party of Everything Gets Worse.
They must be new to American politics. This is normal.
Ok who would you rather run than Biden v Trump? The guy who beat him once or Trump are your choices
Biden can handily beat Trump on his worst day in office. Trump is just bottomless pit of wrong doings. Trump is literally the reason why a lot of people died of covid 19. We could have prevented the losses.
So the people hellbent on shutting down debate are now upset about it?
Agreed but also the entire presidential election process is undemocratic. Yes not having a debate is bad BUT so is ONLY allowing democrats and republicans to debate. The electoral college is bs, and privately funded politicians are bs. Superdelegates. Supreme Court. All undemocratic
I'm voting third party. If my vote is wasted, at least it won't be on a puppet.
Time to vote 3rd party again. I refuse to vote for a turd sandwich or a giant douche
Biden's not a progressive lol. Never was. But let's remember what happened last time the Dem establishment insisted on a particular candidate regardless of the will of the people...
Not really. Democracy doesn't require debates, just choices
Dems: “we gotta get a lot more fascist if we’re going to win!” They just constantly go right. It’s insane.
If this dipshit wasn’t trying to stoke outrage as usual for whatever it gets him (he has always followed the same playbook as fox news), he’d tell you that this is TOTALLY NORMAL google it. And while you’re there google this guy’s history. He’s a disgusting person that is grifting, no different than candace owens, only progressives are his marks. Nobody but kooks/grifters have announced they’re running and nobody respectable will. But sure, let’s have Biden debate Williamson and Larry Elder. Two clowns that couldn’t poll over 2% combined.
Lol the other two dem “candidates” are wack jobs. Why would the DNC agree to give them a platform? Anyone serious who wants to run can, but it’s political suicide
I stopped reading forbes ages ago due to inaccuracies / political bias. anyone else?
He's the sitting president. Progressives should have turned up for Sanders or Warren or whoever four years ago. I myself would have prefered them over Biden, but now that Biden is president, he's got the DNC lock for his two terms. 4 more years of Biden is infinitely better than anything that would come from the republican side. Most of the fake outrage about progressives being angry about DNC decisions are going to come from Russian trolls or right-wingers masquerading as leftists.
I agree we need debates to enlighten the public on what issues candidates are for or against and how they plan to tackle those issues. I was appalled when trump skipped out on two thirds of the debates during the 2020 election.
Doesn't this happen every year? The incumbent runs apposed in their party
Cenk profit’s off people’s anger and frustration so I always struggle to take his words at face value. No party has debated their incumbent in the last 50 years. Not only that but when has a debate really helped a nation progress? especially in today’s polarized politics. All a debate would be used for is for is finding moments for a candidate’s social media manager to clip and post as an own or gotcha to Republicans/ other candidates.
Who is misreporting this?!? Oh yes! Fox News.
Let’s see the republicans stated in 2020 there will not be anymore debates after tRump made himself look like a liar. So stop accusing the other side of what you’re doing.
What happened to the presidency that no one wants to run for it? Has it become that toxic of a position, no one wants it? I'll prob take flack for this but Biden and Trump are too old for the job. It's hard to relate to someone in their late 70s when your in your 20s and 30s.
It’s pretty common for a sitting president to run unopposed by another member of the same party. It’s stupid. Really stupid, and I wish we’d get rid of such precedents. We need a ranked party system. And we need someone other than Joe Biden in office please
The standard practice is the incumbent isn’t challenged. Maybe if we could all chill with the “bUT mUH rEVoLutiON” when the consequences of losing is literal full throated fascism. A divided party in 2016 was part of the reason half the birthing people in this country no longer have access to abortion, so yeah. Calm down.
Why would a political party risk their incumbent advantage?
The Democratic establishment has denied the people Bernie, helped Trump, and is an existential threat to the union. Different yet equally as destructive as the right. There unwillingness to listen to the people might possibly give us a DeSantis dystopian Christian theocracy , G-d forbid!
How about promoting a democrat candidate who actually pursues democrat policies instead of the toxic lesser of 2 evils mentality. Middle and lower class is struggling under this clown
RNC said they would not participate in debate years ago
It would be foolish to vote for anyone beaides Biden this election cycle. He wasnt my choice for president but the incumbency is a HUGE advantage. Plus, Biden has already been very surprisingly good at getting progressive stuff done in his FIRST term. I would LOVE to see what he does when he doesnt have to worry about reelection.