I know it's tempting to dunk on these people, but if you know anyone like this, tell them to call their Senator and voice their displeasure. They probably won't listen, and they deserve their, "leopards ate my face," moment, but trying to mobilize them would be far more productive than saying, "told you so."
If the DNC is planning to make the same mistakes, this will continue to be relevant. Given that Minority Leader Jefferies went to a Silicone Valley donor event last week and told attendees they would take the House in 2026 by, "reaching toward the center," this kind of shit will be relevant for years to come.
Calling is the best way to be heard by your members of Congress. I've heard staffers say they assume that, for every one phone call they get, there are at least 1,000 voters who share that viewpoint. It's certainly not a magic solution, but you should absolutely be calling your Senators and Congressman every day and telling them you want them to do everything they can to resist this attempt at state capture.
OMFG dude, I'm going to explain to you how closed primaries work, step by step, and how they differ from open primaries, because you clearly have no idea what the fuck they are or how they're different. Let's do PA vs MA since we were already talking about them.
To be a primary candidate in PA, you need a certain number of signatures, to fill out a candidate affidavit, and pay a filing fee. That's it. In MA, it's virtually the same, except you have to prove you've been a party member for at least 90 days. Do you see how it's just as easy (technically slightly easier) to become a party candidate in a closed primary as an open? Do you see how there's no additional vetting that goes into it?
The difference comes in the voting. In closed primaries, only registered members of the party get to vote, while in open primaries, anyone can request a ballot for any party. However, they can only choose one, so they have to decide which party’s primary they want to vote in. Some people get scared that this will cause, "bad actors," to screw up a party's primary, but there aren't any examples of that successfully happening. Most people just want to participate in the primary for the party that most closely reflects their views.
However, closed primaries are in danger of producing worse candidates. Since people who choose not to affiliate with either party (which has become growing plurality over the last few decades) can't participate, the party primaries are being determined by a smaller, more partisan portion of the population. You could even say they're being vetted by fewer people. They can produce candidates that are more extreme or less representative of the general electorate.
So, no, dude, closed primaries don't keep faux progressives like Fetterman off the ballot. They don't add another layer of vetting to the process. They're not some vanguard against bad actors who want to mess with a party's nominating system. They just ensure that fewer people can take part in the Democratic process. That's why 70% of states favor open primaries over closed. Now please, sit down.
LOL, how do you think letting anyone run as a candidate without vetting them will turn out?
Literally anyone can run in a closed primary. A closed primary means that only registered members of the party can vote in the primary, but anyone can try to get on the ballot. It doesn't limit the candidate pool, it limits the voter pool.
Absolutely any bad actor will be able to run without intervention. The floodgates would be open. Which is probably what the bad actors calling for open primaries want.
What the fuck are you talking about? The vast majority of states currently have open primaries. There are only 15 states that hold closed primaries. I live in a state with open primaries, and I'm repped by Ed Markey, Elizabeth Warren, and Ayanna Pressley. Not exactly a bunch of secret conservatives, is it?
This is the definition of vetting. lol
It isn't. Sit down, you don't know what you're talking about.
LOL, whaf the fuck are you talking about? "We got Fetterman through the closed primary process. The only way we can prevent candidates like this is with more closed primaries."
Also, closed primaries don't add any more vetting. They just mean that the only people who get to vote in the primaries are party members. They arguable lead to less vetting, since less people get to vote in closed primaries, which means those candidates are being vetted by less people.
You're not wrong about Netanyahu, but Biden and Harris both played into his hands with an appeasement strategy, and we should absolutely blame them for that.
Closed primaries don't lead to more progressive candidates. For example, Senator John Fetterman, who you are currently complaining about, was the product of Pennsylvania's closed primary system.
Yup. We're past the pre-election period where progressive groups are loud minority that need to be ignored because listening to their fringe views will alienate the average voter. Now we're in the post-election period, where progressive groups are powerful bullies who cost the Democrats the election because they wouldn't meet their unreasonable demands.
His opponent was way better. He wanted to audit all of the DNC's consultanting contracts, which would have put people who keep getting lucrative contracts to lose elections (like Jennifer O'Malley Dillon and David Plouffe) in the cross hairs. Meanwhile, Martin wants to keep taking money from, "good billionaires," are condemned pro-Palestinian protesters.
I'm 90% sure he was the one who ruined Congressman Dean Phillips' (D-MN) career. If you don't know, Phillips was the one guy who (correctly) thought Biden was in serious jeopardy of losing and tried to get the party to hold a real primary. He ran against Biden and begged other Democrats to join him. Not only did no one help him primary Biden, but two Democrats decided to primary him instead. He decided not to run for reelection, since it was pretty clear his own party was running him out of politics.
Ken Martin was the head of the MN Democrats at the time, so it's hard to believe any Democrats would primary Phillips without at least consulting him. He was also very critical of Phillips for running and made this incredibly passive-aggressive statement when he decided not to seek reelection:
We appreciate Dean’s service and his 100% voting record supporting President Biden’s historic record of accomplishments. There are a number of talented DFLers who would be great representatives for Minnesota’s third district and who understand the importance of reelecting President Biden and keeping this seat in DFL hands. I’m confident we will have a strong and loyal nominee for the DFL Party at the conclusion of the process.
Worth noting that he has not, at any point, denied it was a Nazi salute. Closest thing to a denial he's done so far is reply, "Thank you," to an ADL tweet defending him, and he immediately followed that up with a bunch of Nazi puns. Feels like that's gonna hurt his case.
Rescinding the order is great, but we can't get complacent. He's not just doing clearly illegal things to test his boundaries. He's also normalizing illegal actions. If one big illegal order gets shot down, it will be easier to overlook the five smaller illegal actions he gets away with.
Now they're pivoting right; Zuckerberg didn't donate to Harris this year, even though he'd donated $400 million to Democrats the previous election cycle, and he's now adopting Trump's, "anti-woke," bullshit. Musk, who made a killing on Obama's electric vehicle subsidies, is now doing Nazi salutes at Trump's inauguration.
A lot of this has to do with how social media algorithms are driving people down right-wing conspiracy rabbit holes. Democrats blame a lot of their losses since 2016 on, "fake news," and online misinformation, and have begun demanding small amounts of accountability from tech giants. In response, the tech industry has been slowly moving rightward over the last eight years, and now seem to fully embrace Trump.
So, yes, California is basically owned by tech oligarchs, and it is also mostly run by Democrats. Until very recently, those two groups weren't at odds, and now that they are, we are just beginning to see what that conflict will mean for California and the rest of the country.
No! You mustn't! It's your duty as a juror to uphold the law! Even if you don't agree with it an there are no enforceable penalties for voting with your conscience instead of the law!
Boy, this, "Jury Nullification," thing sure sounds like it would give everyday Americans a dangerous amount of power of our judicial system! I hope the media writes a lot more articles about it so that more people are aware of this terrible, terrible thing that they should never, ever do.
And I'll never stop feeling angry that he didn't decide to step down after one term. The difference is that I'm going to live long enough to see the consequences of that decision.
pjwestin @ pjwestin @lemmy.world Posts 3Comments 1,069Joined 2 yr. ago
I know it's tempting to dunk on these people, but if you know anyone like this, tell them to call their Senator and voice their displeasure. They probably won't listen, and they deserve their, "leopards ate my face," moment, but trying to mobilize them would be far more productive than saying, "told you so."