The only real difference is that Dem primary voters rejected the more-extreme candidate in 2016,
If you think voters have had a day since 2008…
You should do a lot more listening and a lot less talking.
(Personally, I am going to refer to Biden 2024 for the rest of my life whenever someone questions a primary challenge to an incumbent.)
Because that is literally the complete opposite of what you should have learned
They shoved an uncharismatic, unpopular, conservative, genocide supporting geriatric down our throats again after 4 years of inaction after hiding his mental decline over four years.
And you’re like:
The problem is they stopped shoving him down our throats
Obama won the 2008 Dem primary because more people voted for him.
Hilary won the 2016.dem primary because more people voted for her.
Biden won the 2020 Dem primary because more people voted for him.
There wasn’t a serious challenge in 2024, so when the ageist drumbeat in the establishment finally chased him out the damage was done.
I’m not surprised that someone who thinks “the person more people wanted won” is evidence of corruption would hear “mention 2024 whenever someone questions a Dem primary” and jump to the entirely wrong understanding.
Let me re-state, more clearly:
No incumbent democratic should ever get to skip the primary when they run for re-election. Every damn one, especially for POTUS, should have to succeed at persuading primary voters. There is no merit to skipping the primary, and Biden 2024 would have either dropped out earlier or been in campaign shape.
Hell, if no one else the VPOTUS should run a primary challenge. It’s how most have gotten the job for decades, and tied in to their actual constitutional responsibility anyway.
How exactly does a “the DNC was broke and badly run in 2016!” cash-out book translate to proof that the democratic primary contests didn’t go to the candidate who got more votes?
If you think voters have had a day since 2008…
You should do a lot more listening and a lot less talking.
Because that is literally the complete opposite of what you should have learned
They shoved an uncharismatic, unpopular, conservative, genocide supporting geriatric down our throats again after 4 years of inaction after hiding his mental decline over four years.
And you’re like:
Obama won the 2008 Dem primary because more people voted for him.
Hilary won the 2016.dem primary because more people voted for her.
Biden won the 2020 Dem primary because more people voted for him.
There wasn’t a serious challenge in 2024, so when the ageist drumbeat in the establishment finally chased him out the damage was done.
I’m not surprised that someone who thinks “the person more people wanted won” is evidence of corruption would hear “mention 2024 whenever someone questions a Dem primary” and jump to the entirely wrong understanding.
Let me re-state, more clearly:
No incumbent democratic should ever get to skip the primary when they run for re-election. Every damn one, especially for POTUS, should have to succeed at persuading primary voters. There is no merit to skipping the primary, and Biden 2024 would have either dropped out earlier or been in campaign shape.
Hell, if no one else the VPOTUS should run a primary challenge. It’s how most have gotten the job for decades, and tied in to their actual constitutional responsibility anyway.
2016 is the easiest:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/
But it’s been almost a decade since that story broke, and people still pretend it didn’t happen…
I’m not complaining tho, it’s an easy way to disprove everything you’re saying. It’s undeniable that the 2016 primary was influenced.
You’re really bad at arguing your position.
How exactly does a “the DNC was broke and badly run in 2016!” cash-out book translate to proof that the democratic primary contests didn’t go to the candidate who got more votes?