this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2025
351 points (98.9% liked)

United States | News & Politics

2565 readers
741 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Way more than enough time for a primary

[–] Draces@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's ridiculous. Biden dropped out at the end of July. If you expect candidates to run a primary and a presidential campaign in 4 months, in America, you seriously misunderstand how informed the average voter is. People knowing who Kamala is is a big part of why she was the only valid candidate at the time

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 0 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

4 months is more than enough time to run a primary and a presidential campaign. Entire countries do it in 6 weeks. The party didn't want to do it because the party wanted to put in their chosen candidate.

[–] Draces@lemmy.world 0 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Entire countries do it in 6 weeks when they know it's happening well ahead of time and both candidates start campaigning 6 weeks ahead of time. That's unfortunately not how US elections work.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

That's not how us elections work because that's how the parties want us elections to work. Maybe more importantly that's how the US media wants elections to work. It is easily doable though. Once more we all knew the election was coming and the convention hadn't even happened yet. Easily enough time. Easily. They didn't want it to happen.

[–] Draces@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

Yes. If things worked differently then something different could have happened. What's your point? How does anything you said relate to the reality of the position Biden left Dems in?

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

My point is the Democratic party chooses to run it this way. You can't defend them by saying that's the way it is, it's the way it is because they want it that way. They choose it. They can change it whenever they want.

So saying there wasn't enough time is factually incorrect. There was enough time. Easily. They just chose not to do it. This is the position the Democrats wanted.

[–] Draces@lemmy.world 0 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Democrats do not make election laws. Those are an amalgamation of historic Federal and State policy. There are different requirements and deadlines per state to get on ballots. This isn't about a single party. They did not have time to run a primary. That is a massive undertaking, printing the ballots alone requires significant forethought. If the laws were different maybe they would have had time but that's totally irrelevant. We're not playing Calvinball we're talking about what could have happened.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

They absolutely had time to run a primary. The way they run the primers is entirely up to them. You can tell this because that's what they did already. They arbitrarily decided that the electors would just nominate harris. There was no law that said they had to run it that way they just chose to. Playing Calvin balls exactly what they did decide to do.