Gretchen Whitmer responds to calls by some Democrats to vote ‘uncommitted’ in Michigan’s primary on Tuesday

Gretchen Whitmer responds to calls by some Democrats to vote ‘uncommitted’ in Michigan’s primary on Tuesday

Gretchen Whitmer, the Michigan governor, pushed back on calls to not vote for Joe Biden over his handling of the Israel-Gaza conflict, saying on Sunday that could help Trump get re-elected.

“It’s important not to lose sight of the fact that any vote that’s not cast for Joe Biden supports a second Trump term,” she said on Sunday during an interview on CNN’s State of the Union. “A second Trump term would be devastating. Not just on fundamental rights, not just on our democracy here at home, but also when it comes to foreign policy. This was a man who promoted a Muslim ban.”

Whitmer, who is a co-chair of Biden’s 2024 campaign, also said she wasn’t sure what to expect when it came to the protest vote.

Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat who is the only Palestinian-American serving in Congress, urged Democrats last week to vote “uncommitted” in Michigan’s 27 February primary.

  • @[email protected]English
    6•9 months ago

    If we can’t even support the candidate of our choice in a fucking primary then democracy is actually dead. Shaming voters in the general is one thing, but doing so in a primary is dickish to the extreme. It’s attitudes like this that will actually help Trump. Who the fuck wants to get in line for a party that doesn’t give a rat’s ass what you think?

    • @jj4211
      1•9 months ago

      deleted by creator

      • @[email protected]English
        1•9 months ago

        Don’t be dense. Nobody is physically (or psychically?) keeping me from supporting anyone. I was clearly responding to the notion that we have some kind of moral responsibility to support the establishment Democratic candidate in, not only the general, but also the primary.

        The whole notion that quickly uniting behind a primary candidate is necessary or even helpful in winning general elections is wrong headed. Obama’s first primary was far more contentious than McCain’s, and Obama won the general. Hillary’s successful primary was less contentious than Trump’s, and Trump won the general. Biden’s primary was extremely contentious while Trump went largely unchallenged, and Biden won.

        Contentious primaries put the party’s platform in front of voters for tons of free media. They also give even the losing side(s) a chance to have their positions heard, which gives them at least the impression that the party cares what they think.

        What damages Democratic candidates is low voter turnout. One thing that absolutely kills voter enthusiasm is the impression that their voice is irrelevant. You are effectively telling them that their voices shouldn’t even be used, nevermind listened to. That is what will loose elections.

        • @[email protected]
          1•9 months ago

          I think you are misunderstanding my position here. Again, I voted for Bernie twice, donated thousands of dollars to him, and put in many full time weeks volunteering for his campaign. I understood going into it how primaries worked, which is why I understood it was going to be a long shot. Which is why I went so hard.

          The issue isn’t a contentious primary, it’s the division and discontent sown by sore losers after the fact which is literally still happening in this thread (and all over the Internet) that I’m talking about. This is not an abstraction. This sour grapes behavior literally contributed to Trump’s win whether you want to admit it or not. So yes, the ongoing temper tantrum absolutely creates moral liability for those who insist on picking that scab a decade later.

          In my mind, a good faith participant in this conversation would have moved on long ago. Take the lumps, work to change things, but don’t fucking go around sabotaging democratic engagement. This is why I view this continued relitigating of 2016, in a year where none of those participants are even running, with extreme skepticism. And yes, even prejudice.

          • @[email protected]English
            2•9 months ago

            The issue isn’t a contentious primary, it’s the division and discontent sown by sore losers after the fact

            That would be fine, except it ignores important context.

            • This is still the Democratic primary that is being discussed. Nobody disputes that Biden is going to win, but that doesn’t mean people are being somehow disloyal to vote for their candidate of choice, or for “uncommitted” to send a message to the party.

            • Bernie voters overwhelmingly supported both Hillary and then Biden. Those that didn’t were almost entirely right-wing voters who either mistakenly thought Bernie was a sabotage candidate, or were primarily motivated by getting an outsider candidate. There is no universe in which right wing anti-establishment voters are going to flock to someone like Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. All of this is backed up in the exit polls.

            • Hillary disingenuously scapegoated Bernie supporters for her loss to Trump, and continues to do so today. If you really feel the need to scold somebody for destroying party unity, that is where you should start. Thanks to Hillary’s bullshit, the left wing of the party is understandably a bit hypersensitive to accusations of party disloyalty, and the line that you are taking is only going to exacerbate that issue.

            • Right wing troll farms are all over the place trying to drive a wedge into this issue. I don’t know what percentage of the loudmouthed “third party” advocates are right wing trolls, but I think it’s pretty high. Feeding the trolls usually just makes it worse, but it’s reasonable with reasoned arguments about that being a terrible strategy. What’s not reasonable is to assume those arguments are representative of a large segment of leftists, then assume that to be the position of people discussing an ongoing primary.

            This sour grapes behavior literally contributed to Trump’s win whether you want to admit it or not.

            I certainly don’t “admit it”. Exit polling showed no significant tendency for leftists to vote against the Democratic nominee. Bernie voters voted for Hillary in greater numbers than Hillary voters voting for Obama, even including the right wing Bernie voters I mentioned above that were not a real factor for Obama. Obama also didn’t piss on the left after winning the way Hillary did.

            So yes, the ongoing temper tantrum

            Lets talk about your language. Using terms like “sore losers”, “sour grapes”, “temper tantrum”, and even “admit it”, and also accusing people of “sabotaging democratic engagement” for literally engaging in and discussing a Democratic primary is not an effective strategy to achieve a Democratic victory. All you are doing is driving potential voters away.

            This is why I view this continued relitigating of 2016, in a year where none of those participants are even running, with extreme skepticism.

            Nobody in either this post or the thread leading up to this comment has mentioned the 2016 election at all. It’s mentioned in other threads, but why would you bring it up here? I never said anything of the kind. However, I will say that the Democratic primary process is extremely undemocratic because it is designed to be easily manipulated by the Democratic establishment and their allies in establishment media. As long as it remains as fucked up as it is, the 2016 primary, and every other fucked up primary, will continue to be relevant.