• ModerateImprovement@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    50
    ·
    3 months ago

    The article is just calling for the Democratic party leaders to recognize their mistakes and don’t repeat them.

    It’s a call for more democracy in the democratic party, it’s not against Kamala, but about how she got chosen by the party.

    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      She was by far the most popular of the possibilities for replacement, the only one more popular than Biden. And watching the reaction, the voters are CLEARLY happy with her.

      I actually 100% agree with the article’s thesis as a general thing, in 2016 just as much as in 1968, and I would have (and did) apply it to Harris before this all went down, because I felt like her coming into the nomination without a mandate could be a huge problem. But looking back on how it played out I can’t see how someone can possibly say that a big messy nomination fight would have been better than what happened.

      • Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        That and she was literally his VP. Was his VP for his reelection campaign. It’s honestly one of the least controversial things they could have done.

        The DNC’s nomination processes has never been particularly democratic. 50 to 60 years ago or so. There were no public elections for the presidential candidate at all. They were nominated by the convention. It’s been progressively getting more and more democratic over the decades. And literally became more democratic still in the last 6 or so years. IT SHOULD BE MORE DEMOCRATIC STILL. But headlines like this are just sensationalist BS. Meant to be divisive.

    • MrMcGasion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      When those of us who actually bothered to vote for Biden in our primaries this year, Kamala was on the Ballot as well. And while I can’t speak for everyone, I voted with the understanding that Biden probably wouldn’t live to complete a second term, and my vote was as much for Harris as it was for Biden. Harris was democratically elected as Biden’s replacement if something happened to him. It’s valid to say the circumstances were a bit unexpected, but we still voted with the understanding that she was almost certainly going to have to step up at some point.

      • Dwemthy (he/him)@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I voted uncommitted in the primary and I’m very happy with Kamala as the candidate. Both for the reasons you mentioned about her being on the winning primary ticket and because she’s a change up from Biden especially with her stance towards Palestine.

    • MagicShel@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      It was not a mistake. A mistake would be flailing around right now, unsure who the candidate would even be while everyone trash talks their non-preferred candidates to show Trump what attacks will stick. A mistake would be to skip over the black woman presumptive nominee and risk alienating a critical voting block that Trump has been courting with some limited success.

      There was no other possible good option in this case. And the proof is in the pudding. Kamala is going gangbusters.

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        There was no other possible good option in this case. And the proof is in the pudding. Kamala is going gangbusters.

        It is bizarre that you think Harris was literally the only option.