I mean, has there been an instance where someone else within the party snipes the nomination before the second term?
this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
39 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10163 readers
162 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Two that I know of.
Both landslide losses at the polls.
Its ok for political parties to choose their candidates. The problem is the two party system. No one is confused that the US is not a direct democracy.
Honestly, I think we'd be better off if we got rid of primaries. I do think they tend to lead to more extreme/radical/fringe nominees, since the party candidates try to out compete each other on their party/ideology bona fides. Maybe it is better if go back to the party establishments picking a candidate.
There are other reason as well. One is that parties are private organizations. So why does a government often run them? I know that's not true all states. In some states, the primaries/caucuses are almost entirely run and organized by the parties. But in others, primaries are done by state and local governments. Do the parties pay the state back for this? Idk. Regardless, still seems strange.
Yes. Clearly it is undemocratic for the person who won the last presidential election to sit as an incumbent.
🙄
I mean, yes? Just because it's a precedent here doesn't make it democratic.
It's literally a practice that denies or heavily suppresses having a healthy crop of new primary candidates to vote for, which makes the party much less responsive to voter sentiment changes.
8 years is a LONG time, and yeah, a lot of people who felt that a candidate represented them 4 years ago may not feel they do anymore, and they still deserve the same chance to democratically decide who represents them.
Without that happening in the primary, their only options are to get no say in their candidate, withhold their vote, or vote for another party, in the general election.
When you say "literally" it torpedoes your argument. Do you know any other adverbs?
This is Beehaw; argue the issue or topic, but not stuff like this.
Care to explain this? I'm not using "literally" to mean "practically", I'm using it to mean "literally".
block and move on, t3rmit3. i think we're getting trolled.
So 3rd term precedent is up for grabs, or are we just so superbly selective in which policy to ignore? I'm asking because I'll be real interested in 4 years.
The term limit on presidents is a law.
The incumbent presidents' campaigns retaining control of the party organizations (DNC and GOP are entirely private entities) during primary season is entirely the self-made rule of the political parties.
The incumbent's team should be removed from the DNC before the primary begins, have the primary, and then integrate them back in if and when they re-win the nomination.
Would you say more on this? Specifically the connection between democratic/undemocratic and incumbents.
Honestly, I'm not sure if you are making a joke about how a monarchy can't be democratic. Or if this is a comment about him legit "deserving" to be president more.
Monarchy... Really...? This is not even remotely close to a monarchy situation.
The edge is strong with these trolls, I'm almost positive this is what we're dealing with here.
Yeah, I literally just stop replying when they trickle in. Rather plant seeds and move on than get bogged down by Putin's trolls.
not sure about you, but we're trying to have political discussions in this space. Strolling into a thread a day late, accusing everyone of being Russian trolls, and then ignoring your replies is a terrible way to foster discussion.
Monarchy was obviously the wrong word, but I think their underlying point is correct; there is not supposed to be a Right to Rule in America.
No one deserves to be a president any more than anyone else, and treating an incumbent as though they do, without having to go through an open, democratic primary process, is to treat them as more deserving of future authority than other citizens.
No one deserves to be a president any more than anyone else, and treating an incumbent as though they do, without having to go through an open, democratic primary process, is to treat them as more deserving of future authority than other citizens.
There was a primary, and Biden got the most votes/delegates under the rules. Nobody is saying that incumbents should automatically get renomination. Or even that the incumbent should get some sort of rules advantage (like say, the way the defending world champ in chess gets an auto-bid to defend his title against a challenger who has to win a tournament to get there).
The rules are already set up to where any challenger has an equal structural change of winning the primary. They just won't have the actual popular support. You know, the core principles of democratic elections.
There was a primary
The rules are already set up to where any challenger has an equal structural change of winning the primary.
Man, you've got some hilarious jokes. Tell me, during an incumbent primary, who controls the DNC?
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/biden-democratic-primaries-rules/
https://www.vox.com/2023/9/12/23868230/biden-democratic-primary-challenge-polls
Tell me, during an incumbent primary, who controls the DNC?
Same as during a non-incumbent primary. The person who won the most recent nomination tends to have an outsized voice in the selection of party officials (because it's their pledged delegates who vote on all the other stuff). Yes, that means Biden-affiliated insiders had an inside track in 2020, but that's also true of Clinton allies in 2016, Obama allies in 2012, Obama allies in 2008, and Kerry allies in 2004.
More than a year ago, the DNC adopted new rules—including a primary calendar that ignored state law in Iowa and New Hampshire and eliminated any primary debates—designed to ensure that Biden’s coronation would proceed untroubled by opposition from any credible Democrat.
Which of those changes in the rules do you think were designed to benefit Biden specifically? De-emphasizing the role of Iowa and New Hampshire? There's been people clamoring for that for decades, within the party.
There's basically no set of rules that will ever create a credible challenge to an incumbent who wants to run for reelection. It's a popularity problem, not a structural problem.
It's not just about pledged delegates. The incumbent's campaign remains in control of the party during the primary. And in 2016, Hilary's campaign was literally in complete control of the DNC even prior to her getting the nomination despite not being an incumbent.
It's not just about pledged delegates
The leadership of the DNC, DCCC, DSCC, etc., are chosen by election, by members of each committee. State parties send their delegates to participate in these things.
despite not being an incumbent
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. These are processes that longtime party members participate in, and run on, about the structural rules and procedures to follow, and they're open to everyone. Elections often pit "establishment"/"insider" candidates against "insurgent"/"outsider" candidates, and there are examples of each kind (or hybrid candidates) winning the nomination in the modern primary system.
It's more of a spurious correlation: incumbency doesn't buy the advantage in the nomination race, but reflects that a candidate has the network and resources to have the popular support of their own party. That's why incumbents always win the nomination, and tend to win reelection in the general.
And she lost. Because it's a bad strategic move.
Uh, what was? Running Hillary? I agree. Giving her control of the DNC before the primary? Also agree.
Failing to run the incumbent was the bad strategic move. Also giving her control of the DNC, but Biden would have been an easy win at the time.
Like, I would have loved to see Sanders, personally. Strategically, though? If you're just thinking about getting a Democrat in the office? Biden was the play.
Hit on 16 in blackjack, run your incumbent in elections. The odds do, in fact, matter. The actual odds, not the figures arrived at by making a few hundred thousand cold calls and finding the people who actually want to talk about politics, as if that weren't a biasing factor in political position.
Failing to run the incumbent was the bad strategic move
It was the end of Obama's 2nd term, and he couldn't run again. There was no incumbent.
If you’re just thinking about getting a Democrat in the office? Biden was the play.
Biden would have had the same chance in 2016 as Hillary. The entire reason Obama beat Hillary out in the 2008 primary was that people didn't want another white Centrist. The reason Biden won in 2020 was because of Trump, not because he was a good choice. He barely won.
run your incumbent in elections. The odds do, in fact, matter.
Didn't work out for Trump, since he was so unpopular. Biden is also basically there, he's just less hated than Trump. But this time, a lot of people are going to sit out if they're not invigorated (as they were invigorated against Trump in 2020).
The actual odds
It's very convenient to wave your hand and make nebulous claims about the "actual odds" without any evidence. Polling is no longer mostly done via cold calls, it's mostly internet surveys, or via services that have paid-to-participate groups that are easy to control for, demographically.
I mean, okay fair enough, this is a longstanding thing that's happened though. It's pretty rare for incumbents to be challenged within their own party (and this is normally not a controversial thing).
It's also less that "nobody could" and more "nobody [with a remote chance of winning] did."
There's no "right to rule" here, that's entirely a retroactive facade that's contrary to the facts.
(EDIT: Bit more info https://www.vox.com/2023/9/12/23868230/biden-democratic-primary-challenge-polls)
Thanks much! Spot on.
view more: next ›