General Discussion

W_HAMILTON

(8,635 posts)

43. The failure of your rationale here is believing that it was Schumer/Pelosi that prevented anyone else from running...

Reply to Arazi (Reply #30)

Fri Jan 17, 2025, 11:29 AM

Jan 17

...when, in fact, the voters themselves did that. Any Democrat with national aspirations knew it would be a death sentence for them to challenge Biden, not because of scary Schumer and Pelosi -- but because of the backlash from voters. And you yourself even admit this inadvertently, by pointing out the PUBLIC backlash to Dean Phillips.

You think Whitmer, Newsom, or Buttigieg wanted that to happen to them? Because it would have and they would have inevitably lost the nomination -- although probably put up more of a fight than dregs Phillips and Williamson. So, why would any of them put themselves in such a position? Become hated by Democratic voters, lose the nomination, and probably end their hopes of higher office.

That's not Schumer and Pelosi engineering that -- that's US that did that.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

76 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Democratic party needs to embrace open competition for leadership of the party. [View all] Yavin4 Jan 16 OP

It's not always good. Hard to find the positives in Ted Kennedy's 1980 challenge to President Carter. tritsofme Jan 16 #1

Carter was at his strongest during the primaries. Yavin4 Jan 16 #5

Look at past times when we went in out of power, it is an open race karynnj Jan 17 #36

My view. What we've been doing has failed pretty KPN Jan 16 #10

Right you are, and for those who are too young to remember, Carter's defeat led to the most Right Wing lurch with msfiddlestix Jan 17 #57

First of all - I don't blame the Dem Party yellow dahlia Jan 16 #2

I agree 100%. Just because he has gray hair and some years under his belt doesn't mean he's a dinosaur. BComplex Jan 17 #14

Competition opens the soft underbelly to dilution of the brand and ideology bucolic_frolic Jan 16 #3

"Party elites decide things because they are elites." ??? Yavin4 Jan 16 #4

LOL! I blame the ones who wanted to "punish" the party by not voting rather than voting for the BEST candidate. Oopsie Daisy Jan 16 #8

Getting mad at the voters is not going to get us any where. Yavin4 Jan 16 #12

I'm telling like it is. In addition to the "saboteurs" who chose self-harm to prove their piety... Oopsie Daisy Jan 17 #15

Well said SocialDemocrat61 Jan 17 #20

So, annoint candidates without any competition. Yavin4 Jan 17 #23

It's incorrect to call it annointing. In the real world, WINNING and gaining the MAJORITY are of the utmost importance. Oopsie Daisy Jan 17 #24

So your entire response seems to be qazplm135 Jan 17 #27

Correct. Educate them. Help to set realistic expectations * Oopsie Daisy Jan 17 #33

You think that's a winning strategy? Yavin4 Jan 17 #37

No. The selfish "not-voting to punish the party" strategy is failing. Oopsie Daisy Jan 17 #40

You keep talking as if the party hasn't been doing exactly what you're saying for years now. Yavin4 Jan 17 #41

Ridiculous. Totally absurd. Oopsie Daisy Jan 17 #46

So, more competition in primaries is akin to "Shitting on Democrats and bad-mouthing our party" Yavin4 Jan 17 #47

No, that's not what you're calling for. Oopsie Daisy Jan 17 #49

Any politician worth his or her salt should be able to easily defeat a primary challenger. Yavin4 Jan 17 #60

As I've said being "worth one's salt" does not mean endless supplies of cash. Oopsie Daisy Jan 17 #62

This doesn't make sense JustAnotherGen Jan 19 #73

That's ridiculous qazplm135 Jan 17 #54

For individuals who may find patience challenging Oopsie Daisy Jan 17 #66

Lol qazplm135 Jan 17 #67

It's not about me. Nice try. Oopsie Daisy Jan 17 #68

Gosh qazplm135 Jan 17 #69

Indeed. There's no excuse for not voting or for voting third-party * Oopsie Daisy Jan 18 #71

What if I disregard JustAnotherGen Jan 19 #72

Preach! sheshe2 Jan 17 #65

Not sure I agree JonAndKatePlusABird Jan 16 #7

"Party elites decide things because they are elites." Ars Longa Jan 16 #9

Don't agree DeepWinter Jan 17 #17

You don't stand for anything by allowing the principles of the party to be destroyed. bucolic_frolic Jan 17 #18

What's with the hyperbole qazplm135 Jan 17 #28

The strategy of "let's suppress younger leaders and then get mad when young people don't vote for us" Yavin4 Jan 17 #42

Nobody is doing that. That's nobody's "strategy" and saying it is only HURTS DEMOCRATS. Oopsie Daisy Jan 17 #55

What principles would be destroyed by opening the leadership competition to younger Dems? TheRickles Jan 17 #51

Good lord. Why spend time depleting the campaign funds of incumbents so that they can be out spent by Republicans? Oopsie Daisy Jan 16 #6

We cannot defeat Republicans without engaging the voters. Yavin4 Jan 16 #11

Educating them DOES work. Why would anyone be opposed to educating the voting populace? Oopsie Daisy Jan 17 #56

RIGGED! ELITES! betsuni Jan 16 #13

I feel like I need to get out my BINGO CARD when threads and posts like this one come around. Oopsie Daisy Jan 17 #35

Awesome...I read the OP 3X - Don't see the word "Elites" in there at all? Fix The Stupid Jan 17 #53

It may be worth considering the immediate future of the other party in the short term. taxi Jan 17 #16

So, wait for a collapse? Yavin4 Jan 17 #21

Not exactly taxi Jan 17 #26

That sword cuts both ways qazplm135 Jan 17 #29

Exactly the point. taxi Jan 17 #31

Republicans quickly discard and forget their failures. Yavin4 Jan 17 #44

Relying on the Republican Party to screw up and consequently winning by default seems to have been the Democratic Midwestern Democrat Jan 19 #74

Excellent point Yavin4 Jan 19 #75

Eh thebigidea Jan 17 #19

She's not "great on Twitter". She has an intense following. Yavin4 Jan 17 #22

Exactly! Patton French Jan 17 #25

Just a reminder, Pelosi and Schumer shut out any other candidates early Arazi Jan 17 #30

The failure of your rationale here is believing that it was Schumer/Pelosi that prevented anyone else from running... W_HAMILTON Jan 17 #43

6 of one, half a dozen of another Arazi Jan 17 #45

The fact that Obama became the nominee in 2008 shows that the process is at least somewhat open karynnj Jan 17 #32

The process needs to be open nationwide. Yavin4 Jan 17 #39

This is an unfair characterization of HRC's 2008 presidential campaign. StevieM Jan 17 #50

All things being equal I'd agree with you Blue_Tires Jan 17 #34

The best way to get "people willing to do whatever it takes to fucking WIN" is through competitive primaries. Yavin4 Jan 17 #38

If those are the people competing, then okay Blue_Tires Jan 17 #63

Why...that sounds like..GASP!! ....'Democracy!!' Fix The Stupid Jan 17 #48

Old politicians never just give up the power, they have to be forced out. krawhitham Jan 17 #52

No. That has proven to be create chaos. The party duty at this time is to boston bean Jan 17 #58

So keep the same people in positions of power Yavin4 Jan 17 #59

nah mdmc Jan 17 #61

We need a leader who will take the leadership away from the left-wing media. everyonematters Jan 17 #64

Good thought. Boots on the ground, instead of top ticket crazy top ticket obsession. LeftInTX Jan 18 #70

I agree with the sentiment iemanja Jan 19 #76