As in, they’d all have to come to a consensus on one candidate other than Biden, and that’s just not a likely thing to happen without Biden stepping aside voluntarily.
I just don’t see the DNC changing rules to choose someone besides Biden, even if that is technically possible. I could see them adding rules for what happens to delegates if a presumptive nominee steps aside before the convention. But hey, I’m a regular person who read a single article on DNC rules and listens to NPR Politics Podcast. Those kinds of analyses aren’t going to delve too far into the, “well, what if the DNC changes the rules, holds a mini primary without Biden, etc, etc.” because they either think they aren’t likely, or because it is simply too early to tell which way things will move as of today.
As in, they’d all have to come to a consensus on one candidate other than Biden, and that’s just not a likely thing to happen without Biden stepping aside voluntarily.
They don’t to change the rules…
And they can change it to:
Everyone at the DNC votes for who they want, most votes is the nominee.
But you’re talking about what they’re likely to do, but were phrasing it as what they can do.
I’m talking about what they literally can do.
They can do a whole hell of a lot. They’re just not taking the threat seriously enough and willing to run Biden because even if he loses, the status quo at the DNC remains the same. All the same people get another 4 years in power of one of the only two major political parties in America.
Sure, but I don’t think they have as much power as you’re making out, not because they don’t technically have that power, but because of the consequences of using it. I.e. the moderate establishment democratic party. I think there are political interests in place that prevent what you’re talking about from happening.
I suppose the difference in our line of thinking is that you see it as one united entity, whereas I see it as a lot of divided individuals. There is no consensus in the Democratic party right now regarding Biden’s candidacy, so it might as well be two groups of people. Yeah, they could do it they wanted to. The problem is, they don’t all want to. There are many interests in play, which is a shame because the stakes of the election, but it’s just the truth. Case Biden.
Also, I get we’re on the Internet, but it’s pretty rude to bruh everything someone says. Pretending like what I’m saying is somehow an egregious leap of logic doesn’t actually lend itself to your side of the conversation. And if it is a leap of logic and you correct me, I’m much more likely to be swayed to your side if you’re conversationally curious rather than combative. Just saying.
What?
Obviously at the end of the day they’d need to nominate one person as the candidate.
The DNC can come up with that name themselves, they can do a primary/survey/whatever for voter input or not.
But yes, eventually they have to name a candidate regardless of if that’s Biden or not.
Delegates may be pledged, and current rules may say they need to vote for who they’re pledged to.
But the DNC can just change that rule this afternoon if they wanted to.
As in, they’d all have to come to a consensus on one candidate other than Biden, and that’s just not a likely thing to happen without Biden stepping aside voluntarily.
I just don’t see the DNC changing rules to choose someone besides Biden, even if that is technically possible. I could see them adding rules for what happens to delegates if a presumptive nominee steps aside before the convention. But hey, I’m a regular person who read a single article on DNC rules and listens to NPR Politics Podcast. Those kinds of analyses aren’t going to delve too far into the, “well, what if the DNC changes the rules, holds a mini primary without Biden, etc, etc.” because they either think they aren’t likely, or because it is simply too early to tell which way things will move as of today.
They don’t to change the rules…
And they can change it to:
But you’re talking about what they’re likely to do, but were phrasing it as what they can do.
I’m talking about what they literally can do.
They can do a whole hell of a lot. They’re just not taking the threat seriously enough and willing to run Biden because even if he loses, the status quo at the DNC remains the same. All the same people get another 4 years in power of one of the only two major political parties in America.
Sure, but I don’t think they have as much power as you’re making out, not because they don’t technically have that power, but because of the consequences of using it. I.e. the moderate establishment democratic party. I think there are political interests in place that prevent what you’re talking about from happening.
Bruh…
Who do you think is the majority power in the DNC if not
Like, you’re arguing a group of people won’t do something because the same group of people don’t want it to happen.
I’m trying to explain that means they could do if they wanted…
The only difference is you’re acting like it’s two groups of people and not literally the exact same people.
I suppose the difference in our line of thinking is that you see it as one united entity, whereas I see it as a lot of divided individuals. There is no consensus in the Democratic party right now regarding Biden’s candidacy, so it might as well be two groups of people. Yeah, they could do it they wanted to. The problem is, they don’t all want to. There are many interests in play, which is a shame because the stakes of the election, but it’s just the truth. Case Biden.
Also, I get we’re on the Internet, but it’s pretty rude to bruh everything someone says. Pretending like what I’m saying is somehow an egregious leap of logic doesn’t actually lend itself to your side of the conversation. And if it is a leap of logic and you correct me, I’m much more likely to be swayed to your side if you’re conversationally curious rather than combative. Just saying.