“This blatant disregard for democratic principles is
unacceptable.the way it was done prior to 1972.”I get that for people who aren’t old enough to remember a time before primaries this may come as a shock, but it’s not unheard of.
Parties are allowed to function how they want.
100%. Even in the last seven or eight years. The primaries have become more democratic. Far from perfect and they should be more democratic still. But people are so focused on finding anyway to snatch defeat from the jaws of possible victory. What good would it do to finally get their ideal candidate and still lose regardless. It would be just another phyrric victory. Where nothing would actually get better. But for One Shining Moment they could say they virtue signaled proudly.
I’m sure as hell ain’t fond of either party. But we can do a lot worse than Harris Walz. And if they fail to get elected we will do a lot worse. I’m all for lobbying them and pushing them to be better. But maybe we shouldn’t count our chickens before they’re hatched. Get them elected and then say their next election depends on them addressing these things. While in the meantime actually finding, mobilizing, and funding candidates for Democratic office that better align with people’s real views.
BLM wants to hold primaries and risk a black woman’s chances at becoming the first female president? Why on earth…
Political pageantry I guess
BLM isn’t about getting just any black person into power, it’s about police violence and social justice. It’s not surprising that Harris wouldn’t be a favored candidate. Many of them were supporting Warren in the 2020 veepstakes, despite the field being dominated by black women (half of which had ‘tough on crime’ positions in their political background).
I know that, I suppose I’m just surprised about the level of doubt with regards to Kamala. I know there were a lot of attacks against her in 2020 (which were largely overblown) about her history as a DA, but still, she seems incredibly progressive and a best case scenario for this office.
I don’t think progressives would ever call Harris “incredibly progressive”. She’s kind of a middle of the road Democrat, interested in the energy that comes with progressive causes, but who will water them down or abandon them if they encounter resistance. So “doubt” specifically is a very good descriptor for the viewpoint of progressive organizations.
I do agree she was better than most of the floated alternatives, so a primary is kind of a pointless ask. It’s not like there was a Warren-level progressive in the running. Harris is a fine candidate, with potential for progressive upsides, and more importantly she was always the only real option for a successful replacement. And thus far she’s demonstrated an interest in motivating and listening to Democrats, which is a big vibe change from Biden’s desire for bipartisanship and prickliness whenever anyone on the left would ask anything of him. Middle of the road Democrat >>>>>> centrist.
That’s what I’m basically saying. Sure, she’s not as progressive as I am, but she’s the most progressive person I think the American people will vote for in 2024. Hopefully this trend continues for a long time, of the country moving left and democrats moving to keep up.
It’s not like there was a Warren-level progressive in the running.
And if there were, we know from 2020 there’d still be cosplay communists insisting she wasn’t progressive enough.
BLM as a movement was co-opted to be about maximum disruption. Ultimately, if you can convince people to distrust the institutions, then democracy becomes fragile. BLM has been about disrupting trust in institutions as much as anything else it has attempted to represent.
When you see the system is entirely broken, this ideology makes sense.
When you rely on the system to survive and get life saving medicine, it’s a lot harder to get behind.
