• dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Well, the poster I was replying to (who wasn’t you) was pointing out the mini-primary as an opportunity to avoid Biden and Harris and pick someone with no chance in the general election, but who passed their Progressive purity tests. I was pointing out that the “mini-primary” is just a rebrand of the same convention roll call among delegates that the party already uses, to make it sound more inclusive. And most of those delegates were picked by the Biden campaign.

    • jwiggler
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      What the heck dude, that’s not true. I think you may have misinterpreted me. I never said a mini primary was an opportunity for a progressive candidate to slip in there, or anything about some weird progressive purity test. Jeez. I mean, I’d obviously prefer a more progressive candidate, but I’m in agreement with you that if for whatever reason Biden steps aside, it’s almost certainly going to be Harris or another, (relatively) young moderate.

      I said the mini primary was being spit balled in Congress, so the idea of Biden not being the nominee is not out of the realm of reality. That was my point, not that Democrats have to throw AOC or Buttigieg in order to win, or that it is even remotely likely they’ll do that. It’s not.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Ok. My bad on that. I lose track of all the unrealistic people here.

        But regardless, the “mini-primary” is just branding for what the convention does anyway. Delegates have always picked the nominee. Some congressman floated that as an excuse to have a public debate, which will be held solely to show us all how awesome Harris is, and perhaps to help her pick her running mate. But the delegates will always have the last word, and they have already been chosen.

        • jwiggler
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          It’s all good. Honestly I think if a debate gets media attention for Dems, I’m all for it. Even if it’s just performative for Harris publicity, even though I’m not thrilled about her, I think the media attention and getting her name out there would be a good thing for November. Obviously that’s all a huge “if” depending on Biden being in or out, which if I had to guess, this whole conversation will be moot in 7 weeks.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      the mini-primary as an opportunity to avoid Biden and Harris and pick someone with no chance in the general election

      I agree that the few people who actually want Biden personally wouldn’t vote for a progressive, or even anyone besides Kamala.

      It’s just they’re a tiny tiny subset of the Dem party

      Do you remember the 08 Puma movement?

      Not only were they so statistically insignificant that Obama didn’t lose many votes, his progressive campaign picked up so many traditional non-voters there’s a couple red states who only went blue for that election in the last 50 some years. Despite everything moderates claim about how people want moderate policy, what flips red states is young charismatic candidate running progressive campaigns.

      So while I think it’ll be Kamala and her 29% approval rating, and I do think she has a better chance than Biden, neither are as good as bets of someone like Pete or Whitmere. Who still aren’t progressive, just too far left for the DNC.

      However just the existence of a mini primary would pull whoever the candidate is (even Biden if he participated) to the left and help beat Trump in the general.