Agree with this. Somehow everyone who thinks this is undemocratic thinks that the electoral college is completely democratic. Of course, they will just say, “Well those are the rules”. In this case, we are also just going by the rules.
I don’t like this line of argument as much because I don’t think you can/should be able to use polls (no matter how accurate they may be) to be able to overturn a democratic process. Of course, in this case, no democratic process is being overturned. That’s the key.
They are just using the word “undemocratic” to mean “stuff they don’t like”. It’s like when they say “unconstitutional”. They don’t mean that they have conducted a thoughtful analysis of constitutional law and arrived at an inevitable, logical finding. They must mean “I don’t like that”.
There are degrees of democracy, and it is accurate, not trash, to say that the replacement process had quite a large amount of room to be more democratic
That redoing a primary after biden dropped out and he endorsed her, with everyone panicking and just wanting the path of least resistance to agreeing on someone to run against Adolf Trump, would have resulted in Kamala
That’s accurate, but that’s not the argument they’re making. They’re not like, “Well this was democratic, but could have been better”. They are saying that this is undemocratic. By that logic, plenty of things which they themselves consider to be perfectly democratic wouldn’t be.
Like people on both sides of the argument are conflating “acceptable” with “democratic”
Most of you are not in favor of the highest degree possible of democracy in the republic you want, and that’s valid and you don’t need to get so defensive about it
If by some miracle redoing an open primary was possible in two weeks, I definitely don’t think Kamala wins. A large factor in her getting it was precisely because an open primary was impossible.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with being defensive if that means attacking the bad logic of others. You’re correct that pretty much no one wants the highest degree possible of democracy. That’s not really relevant to this specific argument.
My argument is that the Fox News talking heads aren’t saying, “Well this was a democratic process, just not the most democratic process possible.” What they are saying is that this is blatantly undemocratic. That latter form of the argument is trash especially given the less democratic processes that they are perfectly fine with (e.g. electoral college).
But they’re saying this was less democratic than a primary. That seems correct and you seem to agree, considering you think a new primary would not result in Kamala
Also I want to be clear that I’m just nitting this discussion for broader purposes. Not saying I don’t like how the process worked from a results-oriented perspective. I do. I’m glad it’s got a highly meme-able candidate that everyone across the whole country got energized and united by, to an extent that surprises nearly everyone
I think if simply Joe endorses Kamala in an “open primary,” which is a very normal thing for him to do in a democracy, she wins an open primary very easily.
I think that for the same reason that Joe won the 2020
D primary i.e. as hard as it may be to believe, D base voters actually really like the D establishment.
I’m not sure I love the results. I think Gavin would win this easily. Kamala gives us a nail biter.
In a vacuum, Kamala’s VORC (over anyone besides Biden) is not that great, and honestly might be negative. However her value over Biden is huge, so that is a big improvement. So, I love that Biden stepped down. Kamala replacing him is only best because of all of the constraints of reality. She is not the highest EV choice to defeat Trump if we could just re-run the whole thing Bidenless.