this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
1690 points (98.1% liked)

The Onion

4489 readers
1269 users here now

The Onion

A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.

Great Satire Writing:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vordalack@lemm.ee 37 points 1 week ago (31 children)

They ran Harris thinking she would win based on her demographics. The DNC needs to learn that not everyone wants a black/LGBTQ/woman/etc candidate that just runs on their race/gender/sexuality.

They want someone that's competent that will campaign on policies that will make their lives better. The DNC has moved so far away from the working class that the RNC, the party of wealthy creeps, has them.

[–] keegomatic@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They ran Harris because she was the only viable option when it was clear that Biden was not. They did not run Harris thinking she would win at all, they ran her out of desperation because the incumbent was flatlining. It was not a choice, and it certainly was not one based on demographics. It was a “Hail Mary” and it failed as it was likely to do from the outset, and everyone who was paying attention knew that, yet had no choice but to hope for the best.

[–] Rutty@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

lol, you believe this? I don’t find it hard to believe that they put Biden though a primary, just to have him drop out…

IMO running Harris was the plan from the beginning. You know, which was kind of the problem, hijacking the primary.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

To use your own words, you believe that?

This was not a grand conspiracy geez. Biden's "primary" was perfunctory because we learned you never primary the incumbent. If he didn't perform badly at the debate he probably wouldn't have dropped out.

[–] keegomatic@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

lol, you believe this?

Do I believe that about four months ago the Democratic Party made a desperate move to replace the incumbent candidate and there were very few viable options at the time? Yes, I believe that, because we just went through it about four months ago. It’s pretty much political suicide to withdraw an incumbent candidate. You don’t plan that from the beginning, because that would be a stupid plan. It was very likely “planned” as in “plan B,” but it’s kind of idiotic to think that it was plan A. The primary was not hijacked, the incumbent is always the candidate. Primaries are always a formality for the incumbent party.

[–] Rutty@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

lol. And the DNC didn’t shill for Hilary Clinton in 2016 over Bernie Sanders

[–] keegomatic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Nope, that DID happen. But you are ignoring the obvious reality in this case.

[–] Rutty@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Please, you’re ignoring that the very obvious deduction that DNC didn’t want an open primary.

[–] keegomatic@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

And you’re ignoring history and the way the parties have always worked when they have the incumbent

load more comments (29 replies)