Anyone who thinks a sitting president won’t be the party nominee in the next election (barring a case like LBJ who voluntarily chose not to run) is deluding themselves.
The only thing that could stop Biden at this point is some kind of medical intervention.
An absolutely massive controversy could see him stepping down or losing the primary, but he hasn’t had anything like that.
But there’s almost no chance to beat both an incumbency bias and name recognition. Maybe if there was another contender as popular and well known they’d have a shot but probably still slim.
Dean who?
From Gilmore Girls, I think.
Removed by mod
In short, never. At least not in the era of modern primaries where people have a chance to vote on who will be the candidate, rather than just party leaders selecting the candidate, which began in the 1970s.
If you go back further in time, there’s been a few incidents where party leaders denied their endorsement to an election incumbent for various reasons.
https://time.com/5682760/incumbent-presidents-primary-challenges/
deleted by creator
Politico’s owner, Axel Springer, started forcing a right wing bias for their reporting,
Democrats: Trump winning the 2024 election is an eminent threat to our democracy
– 2024 DNC Primaries –
Also Democrats : Move on there is nothing to see here
Well it is consistent with what the Dems did to Bernie during the 2016 and 2020 election cycles.
deleted by creator
The deadline for parties to submit a list of approved candidates to state election officials is Thursday.
But Florida Democrats acted before then, sending a notice on Nov. 1 to the state that had Biden as the only primary candidate. Phillips had entered the race a few days earlier, and self-help guru Marianne Williamson had been campaigning for months by then.
So when they submitted the candidate list the Dems only had one serious candidate and nothing has changed since then. Got it.
Aww, you weren’t going to vote for Phillips or Williamson? /s
Is she the ORB lady?
Primaries should not be canceled.
Primaries exist solely to benefit the parties.
Remember that. The states spend a lot of resources to hold primaries, but at the end of the day the purpose is to help each party have their best shot of winning the general election. If the state Democrats think this is their best option, so be it.
I mean, it’s not like Democrats have convincingly pretended that the results of the primaries aren’t preordained since 2016. They’re just dropping the act.
Who?
The challenger that’s polling 1%, he’s there so they don’t have to mention Marianne Williamson who’s polling at 10+%.
Dean Phillips. I think he heads up the local community college.
deleted by creator
Wait, it still surprises people that the democrats rig their primary?
The incumbent is always the party candidate regardless of party.
That’s not always true, there has been one example where the incumbent lost their primary, Franklin Pierce.
He was the 14th president, winning the 1852 election. His handling of the political climate before the civil war didn’t get him enough support for the 1856 election, ultimately losing the primary bid to James Buchanan.
That’s not even considering the multiple times when someone took over for deceased presidents, then lost their own reelection primaries afterwards.
So there is precedent for not using the incumbent. It’s just usually logical to pick the person that’s already won before.
Fair. Still, it is a rare exception to the rule.
Really making the name an oxymoron huh?
Thats fine im no longer supporting the two party system. Anyone who wants to run on ranked choice or proportional representation will get my vote
^Republican voter trying to generate apathy. Or worse, someone who actually believes voting 3rd party is not handing a vote to the fascist party.
“Everyone to my left is all the way to my right.”
Shits just gonna keep getting worse until we scrap first past the post. Even more right leaning dems against republicans holding democracy hostage.
Or worse, someone who actually believes voting 3rd party is not handing a vote to the fascist party.
Ahh yes, everyone not a democrat or republican must be a nazi. Totally sound reasoning /s
Strategic voting in the general is required. Saying otherwise is a lie. Or idiocy. You can choose.
I agree strategic voting is a good thing. I never said or implied it isn’t. But it seems like your trying to straw-man me here.
Please explain how not voting for someone = handing someone else a vote.
To put it in another context, if I say I don’t want to go to applebee’s, does that mean I’m supporting going to olive garden? Here’s another one. If a republican withholds voting for trump in the general, does that mean they are handing a vote to biden even if they don’t vote for president at all?
Strategic voting in the general is required.
From the people who brought you “party unity my ass.”
Anyone who wants to run on ranked choice or proportional representation will get my vote
There’s a newish party for that. See the forward party.
It is an extremely prevalent delusion to think that we can only choose from the 2 parties nominees for president or any other office. But it is a very convenient delusion for party insiders and elites of DC that neither party is interested in dismantling.
That is not to say we shouldn’t be strategic in our votes. That means voting for the best(This is highly subjective and will usually come down to the lesser evil) candidate there is for a given race. Because it is also a delusion to think that everyone will suddenly realize they don’t have to vote for either party and elect a different candidate. Especially when other candidates aren’t really much better than the party candidates.
Here’s why nobody should vote for the Forward Party
Yeah, I’m not gonna watch an hour long video. If you put it in your own words why you are opposed to them, I will certainly listen. I don’t come to lemmy to watch videos telling me who or what I should support. I come for discussion. So if you want to convince me, explain your view.
That’s fair. It’s a fun to watch infotainment type show if you’re not familiar. You could probably jump to 40:48 and see most of what I say below.
Summing it up, they don’t stand for anything and there is no reason for the Forward Party to actually be a party. They could simply be a voting rights activist group since that’s all they claim as a platform. They don’t even have Yang’s signature Universal Basic Income as a policy. Yang’s Old Forward Party merged with the groups Serve America Movement (SAM) and Renew America Movement (RAM). The entire party is run by former Reagan, Bush and Trump administration staff and Never Trump Republicans. Surprisingly for a party entirely based on changing the voting system, they do not advocate for elimination of the electoral college (shocking since it so heavily favors Republicans). In short, it’s a conservative scam.
Thanks for giving me your take on it. My take on the Forward party in general is that it is somewhat of a single issue party focused on improving our democratic system through issues such as Ranked Choice Voting and open primaries. I do agree that a they could conceivably function as a advocacy group, and I also can see how organizing as a party can have advantages as the entire point of parties is to influence public policy like voting. They are essentially acting as an advocacy group for candidates who support their proposed reforms right now. If a state representative or senator promises to support their policies, they will help to funnel support to them by endorsing and promoting them.
State representatives are the people who have the power to change the voting system like they propose. But they do not have really have any reason to in our current system. If they replace our current First Past The Post voting system they would be opening the door for allowing more parties to have a chance to represent their constituents.
Sure, there are some conservatives that have joined, but I think you are exaggerating that the party is only run by them. Yang is on the board and he is no conservative even if he is willing to ally with them. I can understand and sympathize why you don’t like the association with conservatives. I don’t either really. I’m sure that part of the reason the UBI and elimination of the electoral college is absent from the platform is to get those conservatives willing to work with the party.
Conservatives control the vast majority of the state legislatures that make the rules for voting. Apparently Repubs hold 28 and Dems hold 19 currently. Both of those parties are pretty conservative by and large. One is regressive and conservative. The point is if you want to change the voting system you have to have a voice on the legislatures that make the voting rules. That is what they are attempting to build. It’s not something that’s gonna happen overnight.
You are welcome to believe they are a scam. I believe all parties are scams to some degree. Even so, I don’t see how instituting Ranked Choice Voting is really a conservative position. It is changing the existing system which is by definition not conservative.
I have no problem with that. The parties control the primaries, the state controls the general.
