you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -12 points 2 years ago (32 children)

Biden won the first primary of 2024 and he stepped back do they had a second one and Harris won it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    Biden won in a primary where the dnc refused to fund any other candidates and was only participated in by people that admitted they didn't want the position.

    There was no second primary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (14 children)

    Let us also not forget the manner in which the media claimed that Biden had "run away with it" after super Tuesday, the day in which southern states, which will never turn blue, get to decide the winner of the Democratic primary.

    And that prior to Super Tuesday, Biden had basically floundered in every state other than SC.

    And that on the Sunday/ weekend before Super Tuesday, we saw the mass dropping out of basically all candidates aside from Bernie, Warren, and Biden.

    And that Warren stayed in the race instead of basically already having had lost, which prevented the consolidation of the progressive bloc.

    We've lost the time and space for the kinds of fantasy that people like SMCF would have us engage in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 2 years ago (13 children)

    Don’t worry progressives will crack 1% of the vote one day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    Keep advocating for the ratfuckers, I'm sure it will win you an election some day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    When was the last time progressives won?

    Because liberals won 2020 and only missed out by a handful of votes in 2024.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    We get it. You are team ratfuckers.

    And liberals won 2020 because they formed a coalition with progressives. They basically handed them the entire platform in exchange for the candidate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago* (9 children)

    I’m on the team of people who have a chance to oppose MAGA.

    When was the last time progressives won?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    So your strategy for opposing MAGA is to advocate for candidates and strategies that lose to MAGA.

    Got it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago* (7 children)

    Losing by a percent of the vote is better than not even getting a percent of the vote.

    When was the last time progressives won?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Making up fictional narratives to support a losing strategy, but so long as it fits your preconceived biases, you are good with it.

    Got it. You aren't interested in winning. You are only interested in "having it your way".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    When was the last time progressives won?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

    Do you see what they do audience? Do you see how they move the argument to something other than what we were talking about? Their goal is to get you to engage on their grounds, their alternative terms, so they can structure the narrative (even if the shit they are spewing is also false). Its not even that they might be right on these secondary grounds they are choosing; in-fact, they'll often choose intentionally losing grounds to try and get you to go there (this example included) to dissuade you from your original point.

    Its a kind of narrative bait and switch; learn to look for it, and when you see it, it should raise a flag in you that the person you are having a discussion with is not engaging in good faith.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    You've dodged that question three times after saying Democrats have no chance of winning.

    This is completely on topic you're just unable to answer the question.

    So I ask again, when was the last time progressives won?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Do you see it class? Memorize this behavior. It will be on the quiz next week. If someone is doing the kind of rhetorical bait and switch SMCF is doing, you are in-no way obliged to treat them with further charity or good faith.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    I refuse to acknowledge a primary that I'll bet 90% of the country didn't know happened. They checked the box, but it was an irrelevant exercise.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago (14 children)

    I thought we were talking about primaries not primaries that you thought were good enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (13 children)

    I believe it was you who was talking about primaries, of which I pointed out that Harris never won any - even the one I "don't like". She participated in exactly one primary and had her ass handed to her.

    Your argument was that Bernie obviously can't win a general because he couldn't win a primary. Do you, or do you not, apply that same logic to Harris, and did you oppose her nomination in 2024? Your argument is ridiculous in either case, but you could at least apply it consistently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    She won the second democratic primary of 2024 on July 22.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    Now that was definitely not a primary, not even a checking the box primary. That was a coronation, and the very event I asked if you opposed.

    Anyways, it's absolutely clear to anyone seeing this that you're just a hack and not a serious person. I knew from the onset that was the best to be achieved.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    She got 4,567 of 4,695 delegates voting for her or 97.21% of the vote for the second primary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (8 children)

    Sure buddy, call that a primary if you want. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Believe what you want, and don't worry that you're not respected for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    It was a primary even if you didn’t like it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    The whole reason we are discussing primaries is that you (incorrectly) believe they indicate electability in the general. How exactly does a primary where the citizens didn't get to vote for the "winning" candidate do that? Not very well apparently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    There are people who will be saying that Bernie’s dead body should have ran in 2044.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Is this supposed to somehow further the discussion? Are you even trying to be coherent, or are you just grasping at whatever snark you can come up with?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Well it’s hard to have a conversation about primaries when your definition doesn’t match the DNC’s.

    But you’re right this has definitely reached the end of anything productive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Gosh, I ignorantly thought the primary was where the delegates get chosen (based on a candidate they agree to choose at the convention), not the process of delegates selecting the candidate. I honestly had no idea that there was a published definition that would set me straight. Can you point me in that direction?

    Still, I don't see the relevance since a primary that doesn't give citizens the opportunity to express support for a candidate can't tell us anything about support for that candidate. How we define "primary" really doesn't come into it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments