Kamala Harris has the support of enough Democratic delegates to win the party’s nomination for president, according to CNN’s delegate estimate.

While endorsements from delegates continue to come in, the vice president has now been backed by well more than the 1,976 pledged delegates she’ll need to win the nomination on the first ballot.

Harris crossed the threshold amid a wave of endorsements from state delegations Monday evening.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -75 months ago

    No kidding. Now go learn what an open primary is.

    Allowing multiple candidates to present their case at the primary would give the public the chance to choose and try and to convince their delegates. It would be a farce that Kamala would still win, but it would at least present the Democrats as trying to represent instead of rule.

    We should have had a proper primary in the first place. By the way, do you even know what delegates you “chose” to represent you? I doubt it. Then how did you choose them? How many Americans do you think even know who their delegates are? I’m pretty wonky, and I have no idea. Delegates (and electors) aren’t even known, nevermind trusted by the vast majority of Americans.

    • @Carrolade
      link
      English
      85 months ago

      We did have a primary. Remember “write-in uncommitted”? Those were primaries. Anyone who wanted could have ran, even you, assuming you’re an American citizen over the age of 35. Which is actually pretty unlikely now that I think about it, but whatever.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -4
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I said a proper primary. I’m not going to argue the point though. If you think we had a proper primary then I can’t help you.

        • @Carrolade
          link
          English
          25 months ago

          In what way do you think it should have been fixed? A Philips/Biden/Williamson debate?

            • @Carrolade
              link
              English
              15 months ago

              This particular thread is about whether we had adequate primaries or not. Not when they were.

              • Nougat
                link
                fedilink
                45 months ago

                Sure, but “The primaries are over.” Whether that primary was “adequate” when Biden was a candidate is kind of orthoganal to Harris securing enough delegate endorsements.

                Seemed like the other commenter was dismissing the primary as “over” with one side of their mouth while complaining about its “inadequacy” with the other.

                • @Carrolade
                  link
                  English
                  25 months ago

                  Sure. I was mainly concerned with the inadequacy side of it this time. My problem is tangential to the OP post but not directly related. I firmly believe the primary was actually adequate, and am interested in discussing it, at great length if necessary.

                  The primaries are over thing is a legitimate argument imo, I have no issues with it. I fully understand how people could be upset with the current situation, I think that is a healthy, democratic opinion a person can have, even if I don’t personally share it.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  -1
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  I didn’t bring up the primary. Someone else brought it into the conversation (you in fact) and I responded to that point. That’s why threads fork.

                  • Nougat
                    link
                    fedilink
                    45 months ago

                    Sorry, all the propagandists look the same to me.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -25 months ago

              It’s not complicated. There is no time for a primary at this point. We had an official primary, but it was a farse. This is where the incestuous relationship between the political establishment and the media establishment comes in. They can do their primary without it ever being an actual contest. When mainstream media backs a single candidate and shuts out all others from public view, a primary becomes a joke.

              This is where the blue MAGA accusation becomes valid. You would never in a million years be OK with this state of affairs if it didn’t benefit your chosen candidate. You don’t want democracy, you want to be in charge.

            • @Carrolade
              link
              English
              25 months ago

              Probably not. Dean was running to the right of Biden and unlikely to appeal to current day dems, and Williamson has no political experience.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                15 months ago

                If the Biden that debated Trump showed up to debate Williamson, she would hand him his ass. If she’s inexperienced then let her make a fool out of herself. I’m not outraged that I didn’t get my choice, but I am outraged that the establishment can just shut opponents out of the public discourse and subvert the primary. You don’t get to decide all by yourself who is qualified to be President.

                • @Carrolade
                  link
                  English
                  15 months ago

                  Making a requirement that a certain amount of support is necessary before wasting time and money on debates is reasonable. Williamson has no experience, and debate performance has minimal value in deciding who wins an election or how good of a president they would be. Hilary won debates, lost the election.

                  This hanging onto debates as some sort of important thing is foolish. In 2020, the DNC set a record of 20 million people watching their most viewed debate. Out of 330 million citizens. Almost two dozen people participated in the debates. People just don’t really give a shit about debates, they’re not a particularly good medium, and are unnecessary to understand a candidates positions in the era of wikipedia.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    1
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    You are ignoring or rewriting every argument I make into something unrecognizable. I never said there should be no threshold for inclusion. Blackballing every potential candidate before they even declare is another thing entirely. No candidate is “serious” when the media won’t put it Tennessee n the air. Remember when MSNBC put Trump’s empty podium on the air instead of covering Bernie’s announcement? They even had a reporter there, but staton management got a call from the Hillary campaign and it was shut down.

                    You can quit lecturing me on the process and it’s rationalizations. I guarantee that I’m more familiar with them than you are, so quit being condescending.

                    I believe it was you who brought up debates. All I want is the Democrats to stop muscling progressives off mainstream media, give them a podium for a convention speech (since the primary is over) then let the chips fall where they may. Is that so unreasonable? I don’t even think anyone but Harris has a real shot, but messaging candidates are important.

                    Ultimately the message here is, progressives, sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, and tow the party line. All I want is the appearance of a contest, but even that is considered radical.

                    How many voters do you think read up on candidates on Wikipedia? Come on, pretend to be at least a little savvy.

    • Nougat
      link
      fedilink
      65 months ago

      Now go learn what an open primary is.

      I’m not sure why not having to be registered with the party whose primary it is has any relevance here, and I’m not sure why you think that’s important in this context.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            15 months ago

            A bad idea? Protesters got major concessions from the Democratic party that improved the primary process markedly. It’s still shit, but it’s not a bunch of white guys smoking cigars in a back room. Fostering democracy isn’t a bad idea. Protesting isn’t a bad idea. Mayor Daley with the blessing of the DNC cracking down on protests with over the top police violence is a bad idea. Just don’t do that and it will be fine. What kind of a pussy country curtails the political process out of fear of protests? That’s some despotic shit.

            Where are the public discourse between the candidates? Who in media is informing voters of the options? When the media establishment conspires with the political establishment to focus all discussion on a single candidate, that’s not a healthy democracy. This is just back to cigars and back rooms.

            Giving attention to the diversity of opinion under the Democratic party is healthy. The establishment always insists that any kind of contention is bad, but that’s bullshit. Clinton and Obama had a contentious primary and he won the general. Sanders challenged Hillary with kid gloves and she lost the general. Trump had massively contentious primary and he won. Biden has a contentious primary and he won. Biden has a show primary this time and that worked out great!

            This is the period when the people actually have some shred of influence over the party direction. We don’t expect a fair primary because we know that the system is designed from the ground up to make that impossible. However, when we don’t really get to run, that’s not something I’m going to shut up about.