She worked the phones. Her team worked the delegates. When it was over, she had quickly locked down the nomination in a “well-orchestrated cascade,” as one party leader put it.
  • @elbuchoEnglish
    1•5 months ago

    Nothing about primaries is part of the constitution. You realize that, right? This entire time, the primary process was just bylaws of two different organizations. And this time, they weren’t able to complete the normal process because the candidate that everybody backed decided to bow out at the last minute. So what is it, exactly, that you’re mad about? Are you mad because you were operating under the illusion that this was somehow a democratic process enshrined in the constitution? Are you mad because the 81-year-old whose ego convinced him that he could totally win again was finally talked out of it? Are you mad that in a crisis, everybody looked to the most obvious person to take over? Are you mad that the Democrats now finally have a good chance to win the election? What the hell are you even bitching about?

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppetEnglish
      -2•5 months ago

      I’m aware that primaries aren’t in the constitution, which is why I said “this is how it has been done for decades”, and not “this is how it’s been done for 248 years”. I feel like I’ve explained what my issue is. It’s obvious that you guys are totally cool just taking whomever the DNC gives you so, congratulations, I guess.

      • @elbuchoEnglish
        -1•5 months ago

        which is why I said “this is how it has been done for decades”

        Ok? At what point in the last several decades has a candidate won the primary, then bowed out right before being confirmed by delegates? What time in history can you point to to show that the DNC is doing something nefarious here by voting for the person the winning candidate endorsed before backing out?

        This is an unprecedented event. The fact that you think it should have gone some other way is completely irrelevant.