The Democrat is well known after a run for the Senate last year. But former Vice President Kamala Harris' decision about whether to run looms over the field.
Now that was definitely not a primary, not even a checking the box primary. That was a coronation, and the very event I asked if you opposed.
Anyways, it’s absolutely clear to anyone seeing this that you’re just a hack and not a serious person. I knew from the onset that was the best to be achieved.
Sure buddy, call that a primary if you want. I’m not trying to convince you of anything. Believe what you want, and don’t worry that you’re not respected for it.
The whole reason we are discussing primaries is that you (incorrectly) believe they indicate electability in the general. How exactly does a primary where the citizens didn’t get to vote for the “winning” candidate do that? Not very well apparently.
Is this supposed to somehow further the discussion? Are you even trying to be coherent, or are you just grasping at whatever snark you can come up with?
Gosh, I ignorantly thought the primary was where the delegates get chosen (based on a candidate they agree to choose at the convention), not the process of delegates selecting the candidate. I honestly had no idea that there was a published definition that would set me straight. Can you point me in that direction?
Still, I don’t see the relevance since a primary that doesn’t give citizens the opportunity to express support for a candidate can’t tell us anything about support for that candidate. How we define “primary” really doesn’t come into it.
Now that was definitely not a primary, not even a checking the box primary. That was a coronation, and the very event I asked if you opposed.
Anyways, it’s absolutely clear to anyone seeing this that you’re just a hack and not a serious person. I knew from the onset that was the best to be achieved.
She got 4,567 of 4,695 delegates voting for her or 97.21% of the vote for the second primary.
Sure buddy, call that a primary if you want. I’m not trying to convince you of anything. Believe what you want, and don’t worry that you’re not respected for it.
It was a primary even if you didn’t like it.
The whole reason we are discussing primaries is that you (incorrectly) believe they indicate electability in the general. How exactly does a primary where the citizens didn’t get to vote for the “winning” candidate do that? Not very well apparently.
There are people who will be saying that Bernie’s dead body should have ran in 2044.
Is this supposed to somehow further the discussion? Are you even trying to be coherent, or are you just grasping at whatever snark you can come up with?
Well it’s hard to have a conversation about primaries when your definition doesn’t match the DNC’s.
But you’re right this has definitely reached the end of anything productive.
Gosh, I ignorantly thought the primary was where the delegates get chosen (based on a candidate they agree to choose at the convention), not the process of delegates selecting the candidate. I honestly had no idea that there was a published definition that would set me straight. Can you point me in that direction?
Still, I don’t see the relevance since a primary that doesn’t give citizens the opportunity to express support for a candidate can’t tell us anything about support for that candidate. How we define “primary” really doesn’t come into it.