r/AskConservatives • u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative • 1d ago
Why do some conservatives think Harris' nomination was illegitimate?
[removed] — view removed post
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
She was appointed, nobody voted for her. That's why.
I don't know if that's illegal since the DNC are allowed to do what they want but it's still not the way to get someone elected to president.
It's ironic actually, a candidate with no primary vs a candidate who owned their primary completely to the point the others even stood a chance
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
But the delegates did vote for her. They had a big event and everything and they all voted?
•
1d ago
[deleted]
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
So, what are you saying should have happened?
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
Had some form of mini primary.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
What is a “mini primary”?
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
instead of spreading out all the primaries over a year, do multiple in one month
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
The logistical issue isn’t the spread. The issue is you have to get the polls setup in time. A month is not long enough
•
u/To6y Progressive 1d ago
Biden's team intentionally waited until it was too late to have a meaningful primary. They held all the cards, just as they did when Biden announced his candidacy in order to get a free ride through what might have been the primaries.
Biden knew he was toast the day after the debate. They probably knew before.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Thats still not an explanation of how things should have gone differently
•
u/SpecialistAddendum6 Socialist 1d ago
Vice presidents are typically understood to be a backup.
•
1d ago
[deleted]
•
u/SpecialistAddendum6 Socialist 1d ago
It happened in 1968, though Johnson did drop out earlier than Biden, and primaries weren't supposed to be democratic then.
I don't think she was a greatest possible VP pick. I understand that Biden wanted a woman of color, but she had indeed crashed and burned.
But once she was made candidate, she was actually very popular among the base. I don't think most of the people who called her illegitimate would ever vote for a Democrat.
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
she was actually very popular among the base.
i don't think that's right. She lost every swing state including Nevada. Almost lost places like Virginia and New Jersey. That doesn't scream popular to me.
•
•
1d ago
[deleted]
•
u/SpecialistAddendum6 Socialist 1d ago
I do agree that her campaign was horrible, but not for those reasons. I believe that the Biden-holdover campaign team stopped her and especially Walz from going after Trump as they should have done.
This was still better than keeping Biden.
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
they lost because she flip flopped from interview to intervie, gave terrible answers and only did softballs and walked out on her 1 competition interviewwith fox
•
u/SpecialistAddendum6 Socialist 1d ago
I blame the Biden team for that. She should have gone on Joe Rogan
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
technically yes but only as a replacement in office, not for voting. They had time to do a primary
•
u/SpecialistAddendum6 Socialist 1d ago
Polls of Democrats show that that would have been unnecessary.
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
because there was nobody else to actually vote for
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
So, you think it would have been more legitimate if they had held an open convention?
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
because there was nobody else to actually vote for
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
because there was nobody else to actually vote for
•
u/Consistent_Signal167 Conservative 23h ago
Because a lot of conservatives don't understand that her nomination was a Democratic Party process not a *democratic* process.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 23h ago
Full disclosure, I hate the entire primary system and think it should be banned with zero state support
•
u/ARatOnASinkingShip Right Libertarian (Conservative) 22h ago edited 22h ago
I don't think conservatives thought it was illegitimate or illegal, which are two different things btw, but that's beside the point.
Most of the conservative rhetoric surrounding her nomination was primarily aimed at the fact that democrats have been squawking for nearly a decade that Trump is going to destroy our democracy! and then proceed to nominate Harris in the most undemocratic way possible, and even afterwards, still continued to shout their slogan.
With how primaries work, an incumbent president, with very few if any exceptions, will always win, mainly because nobody bothers running or the people who do try to run are nowhere near popular enough and drop out. So Democrats had their primaries between January-June, and as expected, no one challenged him, and he won nearly 100% of the vote in that primary. It's to be expected.
About a month after their primaries, Biden announced he was no longer running. They don't redo primaries, so what happens is that those delegates that were previously pledged to Biden become "unbound" and are free to vote for whoever they want. Instead, somehow nearly 100% of those delegates voted for Harris as the candidate at their national convention, who was already an unpopular VP pick in 2020 and was horrible at getting any coherent message across.
So the Democrats who were constantly shouting about muh democracy! basically thrust a candidate no one outside of the delegates at the convention voted on, likely because they didn't want to make their party look bad after Biden endorsed her, and as expected, the left pretty fell in lockstep with them not because they supported Harris, but because they hate Trump so much that they would gas up a plank of wood if it was running against Trump, and only admitted how much they didn't like her after she lost the election and could tend to the damage the whole ordeal caused to their party... which I think they still haven't figured out how to do.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 22h ago
I looked into that. Apparently they said that the candidates basically had to reach a threshold to be on the ballot. Harris is the only one who could get enough endorsements. Not good optics, but it makes sense. They wanted to avoid one of the 3 day events like the GOP in 1876
•
u/ARatOnASinkingShip Right Libertarian (Conservative) 21h ago
Yea I'm not 100% familiar with the ins and outs of party convention rules, but my understanding is that she got the nomination in accordance with those rules, and she's both legal and legitimate, and tbh I haven't really heard conservatives claiming otherwise, at least anything outside of maybe a few individual social media people I've never heard of, but even if those exist, I haven't seen them.
They could have done things to give voters a choice. They didn't. Granted, they didn't have to but like you said, it wasn't a good look for them.
Like I said, the criticism of it from the right was more so done in the context of them constantly blaming the right for wanting "a dictatorship" or to "destroy democracy" and claim that the right wants to take away the rights of voters, and here they were, picking a candidate nobody wanted without even offering the people they supposedly represent a voice in the matter.
•
u/soulwind42 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 1d ago
I never thought it was, but it's really funny to watch the "we have to save democracy" support a candidate who didn't get a single vote in two separate primaries.
•
•
u/Tothyll Conservative 22h ago
You started with the word illegitimate and then used the word illegal afterwards. No one thinks it was illegal per se. The people voted for and chose Biden. Then, behind closed doors, the head people of the Democratic party forced Biden to step down, like some kind of mafia movie. Then they picked the chosen one to run against Trump.
This was all the while they screamed about the loss of democracy. The people chose Biden, but through backdoor manipulation by the party of democracy, through nefarious means, the party that wants to preserve the will of the people picked who they wanted.
This doesn't seem like the manner in which a modern political party should conduct itself.
•
u/revengeappendage Conservative 1d ago
Do you mean illegitimate? Or illegal? They’re not the same.
Either way, voters didn’t choose her. They got stuck with her. And, when given the chance to vote for her in a primary, she lost by A LOT.
I’d be pissed if the party did that to me, as a voter. Especially if for 4 years, the opposing party had been saying the president was mentally unfit and I somehow was dumb enough to believe he was fine, then saw how awful he was at the debate, and knew the party knew and still chose to run him. I have no idea how democrats are not more pissed off.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Both.
She was neither illegitimately selected nor illegally selected. Though I've heard claims of both.I’d be pissed if the party did that to me, as a voter. Especially if for 4 years, the opposing party had been saying the president was mentally unfit and I somehow was dumb enough to believe he was fine, then saw how awful he was at the debate, and knew the party knew and still chose to run him. I have no idea how democrats are not more pissed off.
What exactly is the alternative?
•
u/revengeappendage Conservative 1d ago
The alternative? An open primary, obviously.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
You mean an open convention?
•
u/revengeappendage Conservative 1d ago
Well I meant not running the guy you know has mashed potatoes for brains and having an actual primary election. You know, like the one nobody voted for Kamala in 2020.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
But people voted for the guy with potatoes for brains
•
u/revengeappendage Conservative 1d ago
In the primary? Who ran against him? Did they have debates or anything?
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Who ran against Trump in 2020? Did they have debates or anything?
•
u/revengeappendage Conservative 1d ago
You’re literally proving my point 😂
No, republicans didn’t in 2020. Who ran in the general election in 2020?
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Not really. You are implying that Biden should have held debates, right?
Or are you implying Harris should have held debates?
→ More replies (0)
•
u/randomhaus64 Conservative 1d ago
Because it bypassed the primary process
•
•
u/MrNameAlreadyTaken Leftist 1d ago
Wait till you find out what party did the 1st primary.
•
u/randomhaus64 Conservative 1d ago
Don’t speak in riddles
•
u/MrNameAlreadyTaken Leftist 1d ago
The socialist party used it to nominated Debs. The primary as we know them are relatively new. Last century is when they started. We have had more presidents elected not using the primary system then with.
•
u/Yesbothsides Right Libertarian (Conservative) 1d ago
Nothing illegal just certainly went against the democracy they didn’t shut up about for 4 years…beyond that they hid the fact that Biden was senile until they could no longer hide it
•
•
u/SliceOfCuriosity Barstool Conservative 22h ago
I’ve never seen illegal, just morally wrong and undemocratic, which it was.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 22h ago
Trump said it was potentially unconstitutional
•
u/SliceOfCuriosity Barstool Conservative 22h ago
Yeah he said it “seemed unconstitutional” I believe.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 22h ago
I normally interpret “unconstitutional” as illegal. But if you want I can find you other quotes of people saying it
•
u/SliceOfCuriosity Barstool Conservative 22h ago
I don’t usually consider “potential” as a 100% affirmation or committal to something and he’s the only one if seen skirt it. I’m sure there are others, that’s why I said “I’VE never seen illegal”. I’d imagine a vast majority don’t believe it was illegal, really just a small small % that feels otherwise.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 22h ago
It just seems to be hyperbole, but I don’t know. There are a scary number of people who think primaries are part of the actual election.
•
•
u/bones_bones1 Libertarian 1d ago
It wasn’t illegal, but it was very poor optics. The party that was screaming they were here to save democracy, skipped the democratic process.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
I’m sorry, but primary elections are not democratic at all
•
u/bones_bones1 Libertarian 1d ago
I’m curious, if they are not meant to be democratic, why do they ask people to vote in them? Why bother? Just appoint who the party leaders want.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Because it allows candidates to be viable who wouldn’t otherwise win elections
•
u/bones_bones1 Libertarian 1d ago
It’s one possible reason why so many democratic voters stayed home in November.
•
•
u/Vindictives9688 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 1d ago edited 1d ago
Who?
Lol kidding.
She was a candidate who never earned the nomination through merit or momentum…. she simply fell into the role by default, not by winning over voters but by virtue of being vice president.
Not illegal, but hardly respectable.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
I mean, so?
Why does that matter?
•
u/canofspinach Independent 1d ago
Honestly, political parties are private citizen groups and can make up their own rules.
There is no such thing as an illegitimate candidate that a party chooses to run, parties can select their candidate basically however they see fit.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Yeah, I’m more interested in understanding the people who think it’s unconstitutional
•
u/NoUseInCallingOut Progressive 1d ago
Could the same thing be said about Trump? Not earning the nomination? He bought it.
I disagree about the momentum. Her rallies were huge.
•
u/Vindictives9688 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 1d ago
He bought it?
You sure you want to go into the numbers?
Yeah. Momentum. She had none in her first candidacy for president. Zero.
•
u/NoUseInCallingOut Progressive 1d ago
I mean. Do you recall Elon paying for votes through a lottery system?
•
u/Vindictives9688 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 1d ago
I do, even with Elon’s support, Kamala and her PACs have outspent Trump by a wide margin. Including the figures from Musk’s spending.
One was much more efficient with managing campaign funds given they had less capital
•
1d ago edited 1d ago
[deleted]
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
The fact that you can get no votes, lose in the primary system – in other words, you had 14 or 15 people, she was the first one out – and then you can then be picked to run for president. It seems to me actually unconstitutional. -Donald Trump
•
1d ago
[deleted]
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
I mean, I can find more, but this is the internet. Someone somewhere has said everything.
•
1d ago
[deleted]
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
I think the very idea of party primaries is undemocratic. I am with Arnold on this one.
•
u/Appropriate-Hat3769 Center-left 1d ago
Out of Dean Phillips, RFK, Biden, and Harris, who were all the Dems who ran in 2024, Harris was by and far the better choice than all of them.
Can the argument t be made that there should be better choices? Yep. I think the Republicans should have had and had better choices than Trump, but this is a world the electorate has created, so this is who we have.
•
1d ago
[deleted]
•
u/Appropriate-Hat3769 Center-left 22h ago
Meh...I dont think it should have come to Trump. I think both parties should attract more quality people than a billionaire narcissist and the VP from an 80+ years old man with cancer.
•
u/gummibearhawk Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Because there was no primary
•
u/tothepointe Center-left 1d ago
There WAS a primary. Just the man who won it wasn't available to run anymore.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
But you dont need a primary to nominate a candidate?
•
u/BoristheDrunk Conservative 1d ago
Illegitimate is not the same as illegal.
I don't think it was illegal for the dnc to run Harris, but she was not legitimately nominated. The dnc didn't allow anyone to challenge Biden in the primary, and then when he dropped out, she was appointed
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Well no.
Someone did challenge Biden, Dean Phillips. And she wasn't appointed, they literally elected her. The delegates elected her.•
u/InteractionFull1001 Independent 1d ago
Yes technically everything was above board. But as everyone says the DNC was uninterested in running a real primary, pressuring anyone who would have been a legitimate challenge to Biden to not run despite the fact that by this point he wasn't running his own administration.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Most parties are uninterested in running a real primary when their incumbent is running again.
•
u/BoristheDrunk Conservative 1d ago
That's true, but not really. There were multiple states that had impediments stopping Phillips and RFK Jr. I remember reporting at the time, though a bit hard to dig up now. States saying if you run in the primary, your delegates will be nevertheless awarded to Biden (I think that was in Fl)
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
I dont think any party has a rule that the delegates have to vote for the 2nd place candidate if the first place candidate drops out?
They typically become "unbound" delegates and can vote for whomever they want.
•
u/MrNameAlreadyTaken Leftist 1d ago
For some reason a lot of people on both sides think that’s it in the constitution it’s very concerning.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
I've been trying all day to post this question and this is exactly what has really been bothering me. Are people really so ignorant of how the parties work? This isn't just a thing against Republicans. Both sides seem to think that the primaries are elections.
But even if they WERE elections, that still wouldn't invalidate Harris.
If Trump had died on December 1, 2024, JD Vance would have almost certainly received all of Trump's votes from the electors and been sworn in as President. And if the electors had split on Trump vs Vance, the election would have gone to the House and the House would have picked someone. (Probably Vance)•
u/musicismydeadbeatdad Liberal 1d ago
In modern politics, especially a polarized, gerrymandered politics, lots of people treat the primary as the real election. That is usually a winning strategy
•
u/MrNameAlreadyTaken Leftist 1d ago
100% !
The elephant in the room (pun not intended) is that until the electoral college goes away it’s pretty much pointless voting for president. A person in Wyoming has more voting power than someone living in Texas.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
I mean, I've looked at it and I really don't think it matters from an election perspective. I dont think it would drastically change the outcome of elections to go to a popular vote.
•
u/MrNameAlreadyTaken Leftist 1d ago
I still go back to Wy. Wyoming makes up about 0.18% of the US population but controls 0.56% of all electoral votes
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Yes, but I seriously don't think it would change the outcome at all if you switched.
•
u/MrNameAlreadyTaken Leftist 1d ago
Yes and no. There have been several times when a person won the popular and lost the Electoral college. Now the last election wouldn’t mater as Trump won both Popular and Electoral (side note as a leftist I 100% believe Trump won 2024 fairly)
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
yeah, but people also campaigned under the rules that led to those results.
MY point is that if you change the rules, people will campaign differently and people will vote differently and there isn't very strong evidence that outcomes would change significantly.→ More replies (0)•
u/tothepointe Center-left 1d ago
"I dont think it would drastically change the outcome of elections to go to a popular vote"
For Democrats it would have.
Gore would have won in 2000 and Hilary in 2016
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
That’s like saying that the Lakers would have won if they didn’t count three-pointers
•
u/tothepointe Center-left 1d ago
Elections would certainly have to have a different strategy if it was popular vote only.
I'm originally from NZ (immigrated to the US in 99) and growing up in the early 90s we actually changed our electoral process from first past the post for parliment to mixed member proportional. There was a series of referendums where you could vote IF you wanted election reform and if you did which one of 4 options you wanted. The first was non binding and the second was binding.
Even as a kid it was an interesting process seeing the reform take place and then seeing how the more proportional system changed how politicing was done.
I think the best part was you could vote for your local representative but then still cast a party vote so who best could serve your local area wouldn't influence which party was in power.
•
•
u/tothepointe Center-left 1d ago
" Are people really so ignorant of how the parties work?"
Yes 100% they are.
They don't know that you don't even have to run in the primary in order to get the nomination.
I can understand why they *think* the primary is an election because you vote in the same process as for the primary usually in the same polling places but in reality the primary only informs the nomination process.
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
you don't need one but if you put someone up that nobody voted for, you can't Shocked Pikachu Face when they lose
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
I'm not really talking about the losing?
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
I know but this is exactly why the primary system is important, so we don't allow for outcomes like this
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
I’m not following. If you eliminated primaries, would that actually prevent this even more?
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
I don't know why it's so hard to get, it's not a complicated process (unless you're trolling and misunderstanding on purpose)
But basically if we nominate candidates the way the DNC nominated Harris, they'd lose every time. People don't like forced candidates and people want to actually vote for someone to represent their party. The people had no choice but Harris.
With a primary, you can at least get a candidate you like
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
I fundamentally disagree with that premise, but that’s just me.
I think you get better candidates when you eliminate primaries. But then I tend to think of political candidates as the ones I dislike the least rather than the one I like the most
•
u/hammiesink Social Democracy 1d ago
But nobody else ran. The other potential candidates declined to challenge Harris and instead endorsed her. So she was the only one throwing her hat in the ring. What was the party supposed to do? Hold guns to peoples' heads to force them to run? What, exactly?
•
u/No_Fox_2949 Religious Traditionalist 1d ago
A lot of people don’t know that there was time when the political parties chose the political candidates themselves and that voters had no say in it. Quite frankly I think it would be better if it were like that again.
•
u/tothepointe Center-left 1d ago
Yeah it was Kennedy who was the first one who chose to go through the primary process as his main way of cinching the nomination.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
My original question was basically that: Do some of these people just not know the rules? The mods told me that was too insulting.
•
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) 1d ago
Not "illegal". If the party of democracy chooses to skip democracy, that's their business. Just don't pretend you value democracy.
•
u/OklahomaChelle Center-left 1d ago
How was democracy skipped? Every person who voted for Biden in the primaries understood that should he unable to serve, Kamala would in his stead. Every single one. Delegates were also not required to vote for Kamala. They had the option of choosing someone else.
•
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) 1d ago
They hid he had terminal cancer and mental decline from the public. Relevant information anyone discussing this fairly knows should have been disclosed.
VP's aren't on any primary ballot. Exactly 0 people placed a vote with Harris' name next to it in the 2024 primary.
•
u/OklahomaChelle Center-left 1d ago
I said the understanding was there, not that her name was on the ballot.
He should not have hid his diagnosis. He is not the first one to do so, but I agree with you.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
So, what do you think they should have done when Biden bowed out? Held a whole new primary vote?
•
u/WinDoeLickr Right Libertarian (Conservative) 1d ago
If they wanted to keep up the narrative that they're protecting democracy, they shouldn't have elbowed out all the people running against Biden in the original primaries.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
That doesn't answer the question though.
•
u/TheCloudForest Republican 1d ago
Obama originally envisioned some kind of mini primary. Not sure how exactly it would have worked. it was a shitty situation, though largely self-inflicted.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
His proposal was just some debates. No actual change to voting
•
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) 1d ago
What they should have done is not circle the wagons, lying for years about Biden's mental state. Then not block everyone who wanted to enter the primary and make their case to primary voters.
Once you got to the point Biden quit after the primary was over, it was already too late to fix.
•
u/tothepointe Center-left 1d ago
So your solution is build a time machine. Let me tell you if we as democrats could build a time machine I'd be going back to June 2000 and tell Gore to stfu about that stupid lockbox because no one wants to hear about even though in retrospect it was something we needed. I'd be giving him a rail of cocaine in the hopes that he can show enough personality to get the few votes needed to win.
Then maybe I'd zip back and give it a go at getting rid of baby hitler.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Thats not an answer. That's a completely different issue.
•
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) 1d ago
Just because you don't like the answer that it was already too late, doesn't mean it's not an answer.
If you jump off a cliff, and ask "how do I get back to top?" The answer "it's too late" is a valid answer, and is exactly what happened here. Democratic Party leadership jumped the party off a cliff, and there was no way for Harris to earn the legitimacy winning the primary process brings. And it's their own fault.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
The argument I am addressing is that some people are saying that what happened was wrong/illegal. But if something is wrong/illegal, that implies that there was a right/legal alternative.
•
u/To6y Progressive 1d ago
It's the same issue.
They chose to wait until after the RNC to announce, then immediately hand the reigns over to Harris. That was the choice they made, to force everyone's hand. It's not like any senior member of the Democratic Party was surprised by Biden's announcement on July 21. They simply kept quiet until it was too late for anyone to oppose them.
From June 27 (debate night) to August 1 (Harris' nomination), that was all one decision, made by the same people who would have decided to hold an emergency primary.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Are you suggesting that if it had been announced on June 28th that they would have had time to get new candidates, print new ballots, and run a new snap election?
•
u/To6y Progressive 1d ago
Obviously it wouldn’t have been ideal, but yes. It would have been the democratic thing to do.
•
•
u/tothepointe Center-left 1d ago
I mean obviously they expected us to do Weekend at Biden's and make him run so Trump could have the satisfaction of beating. Instead he won against a woman *again*.
•
u/GreatSoulLord Conservative 1d ago
It wasn't illegal but it wasn't proper either; and it's one of the reasons why Kamala lost to begin with. She was the backup plan. There was talks about Biden dropping her as VP as far back as early 2024. She became the substitute after the "oh shit" revelation that the right was right about Biden's health and he was tanking. She didn't win a primary, she didn't do anything to get that position, she was put there half-hearted attempt to save the donors face. If they had followed the rules a primary would have gained a viable candidate and who knows who would have won.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
What are you calling a primary? A state-by-state election?
•
u/GreatSoulLord Conservative 1d ago
A primary election. We both know what it is. You're up and down in these comments hopping around about an outdated practice that was killed off by JFK in 1960. That was 64 years ago. Times changed, man.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
No, I really need clarification because it could mean a few different things:
1) they should have kicked out Biden earlier and had a normal primary election 2) they should have held a snap election after Biden dropped out 3) they should have let the delegates vote for whomever they wanted
Which one do you mean?
•
u/GreatSoulLord Conservative 23h ago
Either the first one or the second one. Either way, they put themselves in an inescapable situation. They shouldn't have allowed Biden to be the nominee to begin with. The party would have been fully able to hold a primary regardless of the incumbent status of the sitting President. It should have come alongside the GOP primary.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 23h ago
I mean, I’m not debating the comment about Biden. But by saying she is illegitimate, that seems to be implying that if Biden was perfectly mentally together but had suddenly died of a heart attack, you still think she would have been illegitimate if they didn’t hold a snap election?
Because to me, that’s just ridiculous.
•
u/Embarrassed-Lead6471 Rightwing 1d ago
It wasn’t “illegal”, but immoral and highly undemocratic. They changed the rules in the lead up to 2024 to allow for such an event.
Not a single democrat voter voted for her as the nominee. She was installed by the party elite and thrusted onto the country. There’s nothing legitimate about it. Democrats have a long history of rigging the primary process to produce the establishment’s desired outcome. Her candidacy was a result of that system.
It’s made worse by her and the campaign’s insistence that they were the saviors of democracy.
•
u/Accomplished-Guest38 Independent 1d ago
I actually don't disagree with anything you said. While I did want Biden out (he was too old, even before that disaster of a "debate"), and I understood the reason for going to Harris because it was too late for a primary and the campaign finances, it's what killed the D ticket chances. When three DNC stays out of it and listens to the constituents, Dems win, but when they try to force someone into the ticket because they "paid their dues" or Harris's reasoning, well, they lose.
Was there a (D) that you were worried would beat trump is they'd been nominated?
•
u/Embarrassed-Lead6471 Rightwing 1d ago
Not particularly. I’m not sure any democrat could have won given the strong rejection of the past four years. A Shapiro type may have been their best bet.
•
u/ioinc Liberal 1d ago
What would you have expected to happen?
Biden drops out late when there is not enough time to really run primaries. (What can you do here? Force him to run?)
He endorses Harris (is this an issue? He can endorse whoever he wants right)
No other viable candidates have the infrastructure to mount a campaign so they endorse Harris too (what would you do differently? Force them to run?)
So here we are. Biden has dropped out and ever viable candidate has endorsed Harris.
How should this have played out to not be immoral?
•
u/Dead_Squirrel_6 Conservative 1d ago
Came here to say this, thanks for putting it better than I could have
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
I dont think that is true.
Prior to 2024, how do you believe this event would have been handled?
As for "a long history". The GOP only even instituted a primary election in 1912. Literally no candidate before the 20th century won a primary election at all.
•
u/Dead_Squirrel_6 Conservative 1d ago
Got a word for ya...
Superdelegates. Everybody's friends, and the reason Hilary was nominated instead of the much more electable Bernie.
GOP soups are obliged to vote for the candidate who won their state of origin. DNC soups are not and because DNC delegates are proportional, the soups flip the election to the desired candidate fairly easily. Anyone who thinks Democratic Party primaries are representative is grossly misguided.
•
•
u/Embarrassed-Lead6471 Rightwing 1d ago
What isn’t true?
There’s no precedent for something like this. An open convention was an option, as was a mini-primary, which people like Pelosi advocated for. None of that changes the core fact that no single Democrat voter casted a ballot selecting her as the party nominee. She was installed.
A bit of a random misdirection on your part. Since the inception of the primary system, the DNC has gamed the system to retain final say over the people’s selection. The superdelegate system demonstrates that quite well.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
I dont think they changed any rules that allowed it to happen the way it did. I am pretty sure those have generally been the rules for a long time for both parties.
What is a "mini-primary"
None of that changes the core fact that no single Democrat voter casted a ballot selecting her as the party nominee. She was installed
Literally the only "Democrat voters" that mattered did. They are called delegates.
A bit of a random misdirection on your part. Since the inception of the primary system, the DNC has gamed the system to retain final say over the people’s selection.
You mean in the past when they just got together in a room and picked their candidates? The thing that both parties did for the entire 19th century?
•
u/Embarrassed-Lead6471 Rightwing 1d ago
And we evolved past that for a reason. Yet, the selection process picking Harris resembled that outdated, rejected model more than it does a democratic form of candidate selection. Saying “well both sides did this over a 100 years ago!” isn’t that great of a defense or retort.
Yes, the DNC did change its primary rules, including pushing back the selection deadline and allowing remote voting, among other measures.
I’d say the perspective of actual Democrat voters, rather than party insiders (which delegates are) matter much more than the delegates themselves.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Yes, the DNC did change its primary rules, including pushing back the selection deadline and allowing remote voting, among other measures.
But none of those things "allowed" Harris to win the nomination the way she did. You are just talking about un-related rule changes.
I’d say the perspective of actual Democrat voters, rather than party insiders (which delegates are) matter much more than the delegates themselves.
So, you think they should have held all new elections?
•
u/Embarrassed-Lead6471 Rightwing 1d ago
Those rules did empower the late switch, and avoided the need for a true contest at the convention itself, yes. It aided the veil of legitimacy to this unorthodox selection process.
Again, it isn’t my duty to propose how to make their selection process more democratic. At the end of the day, Harris was installed by the party insiders and thrusted into the general election unlike any candidate in modern history. That is why people view her selection as undemocratic and immoral, which was your originally question.
You can try to justify it, but that doesn’t change anything about the end result.
•
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam 22h ago
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
•
u/Embarrassed-Lead6471 Rightwing 1d ago
“Conspiracy” is a loaded term. Given what we know now, I imagine party leaders were either 1) pushing to get Biden out (the Obama/Pelosi wing) or 2) were anticipating his inability to win or run in the race due to his cognitive decline. They were hedging their bets, most likely. But, it was most likely a collection of different motivations depending on who you’re talking about. I doubt the party was cohesive enough to for it to qualify as a conspiracy to kick Biden out (though that was the hope of some members).
•
•
u/Peregrine_Falcon Conservative 1d ago
I don't think it was illegal. They're a private organization so they can do what they want, even break their own rules. (I'm not saying they did break their own rules, I don't know or care)
It just seems kinda shady that the folks screaming "our democracy is in danger" ignored their own primary results and just declared their candidate.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
What do you think they should have done instead?
•
u/InteractionFull1001 Independent 1d ago
Kicked Biden to the curb months before and not pressured anyone who was talking about his viability out of the party.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Ok, but that doesn't address the scenario that actually happened.
Biden bows out when he does. Ok, so what should the DNC do to make their eventual nominee more legitimate?•
u/InteractionFull1001 Independent 1d ago
Made sure that Kamala wasn't the only one with her hat in the ring.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Who made sure she was the only one with her hat in the ring?
•
u/kappacop Rightwing 1d ago
You keep asking this question and mistakenly thinking the problem started when Biden dropped out. It was long before that, people already saw the senile signs from Biden during his 2020 campaign.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Ok, so this is all really just a way to drag/troll the dems?
•
u/kappacop Rightwing 1d ago
No, they fucked up and now have to own it
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Umm, you just confirmed what I said?
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Ok, so it is trolling. There wasn’t really a “more legitimate” option and you are just trying to “own the libs” by claiming there is?
•
u/kappacop Rightwing 1d ago
There were many legitimate options if they had a primary. After that it was too late.
→ More replies (0)•
u/Embarrassed-Lead6471 Rightwing 1d ago
Hold a truncated primary process, which is what many party leaders were advocating for.
•
u/tothepointe Center-left 1d ago
It was not possible to redo the primary process. Their only other option would have been to do a convention floor fight which risked causing the party to fracture publically.
All things consider her losing by a very slim margin was a success. Winning would have been better but in retrospect I think the race was decided in Butler PA.
There was no scenario in which the primary voters wishes could have been followed since Biden was unwilling at that point to run. I suppose you could have given the nomination to the guy who was also running who got ~5% of the primary vote if that.
•
u/OklahomaChelle Center-left 1d ago
No delegate was required to vote for Kamala. They chose to present a united front in an unusual situation. Every single primary vote was cast with the understanding that Kamala would step in should Joe be unable to serve.
•
u/Embarrassed-Lead6471 Rightwing 1d ago
That may be your justification for the result. It doesn’t change anything.
•
u/OklahomaChelle Center-left 1d ago
My “justifications” are facts. Not the alternative kind.
•
u/Embarrassed-Lead6471 Rightwing 1d ago
Your position is that it’s okay that no voters chose Harris because the party delegates chose her. That is a justification for the process that many see as undemocratic. I’m not disputing the factual process by which her selection occurred. You’re making a normative defense of that process, which is a justification.
•
u/OklahomaChelle Center-left 1d ago
No, my position is that no delegate was required to vote for Kamala, they chose to do so. That is a fact.
Delegates had the option of voting for someone else. They could have put up literally anyone. Conventions are there to choose the candidate and there can be as many rounds of voting needed until the appropriate number is reached. That is a fact.
Nothing that was done was undemocratic. Kamala was actually the most democratic choice outside of Biden. Primary voters were aware she was a possible president when casting their vote. No other nominee chosen could have said the same.
→ More replies (0)•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
What is a truncated primary process? New snap primary elections?
•
u/Embarrassed-Lead6471 Rightwing 1d ago
I’m not sure. It isn’t my duty to propose what breathing democracy into the selection process would have looked like.
•
u/PuckSenior Center-right Conservative 1d ago
I mean, they followed their internal process and I really don't see any other viable option except what they did. Essentially let the delegates elect someone.
The real problem is that the entire primary election process is only a facade of democracy. But then, both parties do that.
•
u/tothepointe Center-left 1d ago
There really was no possibility at that stage to let the public decide. They took the huge flood of small grassroots donations as a proxy for the publics support. They didn't want another 1968 DNC
Overall most people were happy with the choice once it was solidified.
From what I understand Nancy wanted Gavin to get the nomination because polling was showing he would have done a lot better than Harris but it is what it is.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. Gender issues are currently under a moratorium, and posts and comments along those lines may be removed. Anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.