Does it seem like it was a good idea to let the elites choose your presidential nominee for you, as opposed to holding a primary like you did in 2020?

If you're fine with it, then welcome to the Trump Train. We welcome you. If you're NOT fine with it, you need to complain to the DNC and tell them that you want to have a primary in 2028, if that's ok with George.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/201)

Does it seem like it was a good idea to let the elites choose your presidential nominee for you, as opposed to holding a primary like you d 2020?

It's the same for both parties.

The leader rises to to the top and you either support them or not.

No, it's not like that here. The parties hold what's called a "primary election" where voters get to choose who the presidential nominee shall be.

Except in 2024. The Democrats refused to hold a primary and they told voters who the nominee would be instead of asking them.

And Kamala is extremely far away from "the top." She was a candidate in the 2020 presidential primary election and she was the weakest candidate, who received the fewest votes. There was no democratic reason for her to be up against Trump in the first place.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/201)

Does it seem like it was a good idea to let the elites choose your presidential nominee for you, as opposed to holding a primary like you
did in 2020?

If you're fine with it, then welcome to the Trump Train. We welcome
you. If you're NOT fine with it, you need to complain to the DNC and
tell them that you want to have a primary in 2028, if that's ok with George.

They did have a primary. They didn't really have time for a do-over primary. If they'd tried that, by the time the candidate was chosen, it would have been time for the general election and no time for that candidate to campaign.

Their mistake (which *both* parties should learn from) was allowing Joe to
run a second time to being with, knowing that he was in cognative decline.


... "Mmmmmmmm.....bacon..."
--- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

It's the same for both parties.

The leader rises to to the top and you either support them or not.

No, it's not like that here. The parties hold what's called a "primary election" where voters get to choose who the presidential nominee shall be.

Except in 2024. The Democrats refused to hold a primary and they told voters who the nominee would be instead of asking them.

The Democrats did have primaries. RFK was one of the challengers although he withdrew before the primaries.

And Kamala is extremely far away from "the top." She was a candidate in the 2020 presidential primary election and she was the weakest candidate, who received the fewest votes.

As you say, that was 2020.

Once Biden withdrew from the race it was an open contest to be decided at the DNC. Harris Announced her campaign and was endorsed by Biden. The following day
a majority of Bidens pledged deligates pledged their support for Harris.

There was no democratic reason for her to be up against Trump in the first place.

Most of (if not all of) Biden delegates went to Harris. She could have been challenged but she wasn't.

I don't think anybody saw that coming but there is nothing out of place or undemocratic in any of the above.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-7
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

Does it seem like it was a good idea to let the elites choose your presidential nominee for you, as opposed to holding a primary like yo did in 2020?

If you're fine with it, then welcome to the Trump Train. We welcome you. If you're NOT fine with it, you need to complain to the DNC and tell them that you want to have a primary in 2028, if that's ok with George.

They did have a primary. They didn't really have time for a do-over primary. If they'd tried that, by the time the candidate was chosen, it would have been time for the general election and no time for that candidate to campaign.

I didn't know this. I was missing some facts. So they had a presidential primary this year, and Biden won it?

And then they told him to get lost?

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/201)

Once Biden withdrew from the race it was an open contest to be decided
at the DNC. Harris Announced her campaign and was endorsed by Biden. The following day a majority of Bidens pledged deligates pledged their
support for Harris.

Thank you. I didn't know all these details. So it sounds like they had a primary, the voters chose Biden, but then since Biden backed out, the delegates made a decision FOR the voters (to go with Kamala) because there was no time to hold another primary.

I guess I should lighten up on the "they never had a primary" talk, because it's more accurate to say "they had a primary but the voters still didn't get to choose a candidate because Biden backed out of the race without sufficient notice."

Most of (if not all of) Biden delegates went to Harris. She could have been challenged but she wasn't.

Right, and if I was a Democrat voter, I'd be angry about it. Especially now that Kamala lost so badly.

I don't think anybody saw that coming but there is nothing out of place
or undemocratic in any of the above.

Maybe something is going over my head this time. I don't get how it's "democratic." The people voted for Biden, and delegates said "Nope you're going with Kamala, there's nothing you can do about it, and have a nice day."

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/201)