• Viking_Hippie
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    9 months ago

    Those “primaries” were just for show and you know it.

    • Serinus
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      Because no one serious wants to run against an incumbent.

      • Viking_Hippie
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        9 months ago

        Because no one serious wants was allowed by the DNC to run against an incumbent.

        Fixed that for you.

          • Viking_Hippie
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            9 months ago

            Nope. Is this your first time considering that The Party might be wrong about something?

            • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              The incumbent party doesn’t run another candidate. They already have them in the white house.

      • Viking_Hippie
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Nothing conspiratorial about it. Anyone with half a brain could tell from their tradition of not holding a primary at all when there’s an incumbent, as well as their stacking the deck in favor of their chosen candidates in the two previous ones.

        You’re acting as if the DNC is a political party that only does what the voters ask for, rather than a for profit private corporation, which is what it’s legally registered as and behaving like.