• mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 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
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 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.