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.
This is a primary. Voting for Biden won’t make it less likely that Trump will be elected.
So they’re not even the official candidates yet? Just how long is your election cycle?
4 years.
Primaries are rigged there’s no real choice
That’s not really true. Primaries weren’t rigged in the Rupublican primaries in 2016. They voted Trump in despite what the RNC wanted. It was the Dem’s primary that was rigged (and turned a bunch of people off of voting in the main election, and it seems those people still haven’t learned anything).
How were the Dem primaries rigged. I still see lots of people claim this to this day. But no one has ever presented evidence. I voted for Sanders in 2016 and 2020 primaries. But legitimately more people voted for Clinton in 2016. She also won more delegates. She won fair and square. Now do I think there needs to be a better process? Absolutely. But in the system democrats have used for the last 30 to 40 years Sanders lost fairly despite a strong showing.
Depends what you mean by “rigged”.
The parties, the candidates, the PACs, and the media are all theoretically (and in many cases, legally bound to be) separate entities, acting independently. But in reality, a lot of them share the same interests, and so some things happen that aren’t exactly collusion or breaking any rules, but do give an advantage to one candidate, which many voters consider unfair.
In the case of the 2016 DNC primary, I think the critical objection is not the existence of superdelegates, but how they were presented in the media.
Clinton hovered between 54%-59% of the pledged delegates, but the media coverage would consistently include superdelegates in the count, showing Clinton ahead by 600 or so delegates, giving her “70% of the total count, and making her the presumptive nominee! The Sanders campaign doesn’t have any chance of coming back from this!” …before most of the country had even voted.
This kind of thing happens all the time, with lots of stuff, and it’s not technically “rigging”.
But seeing an official-looking number on TV – that you know, provably, doesn’t reflect the reality of the ongoing election… That feels, to many people, like it’s “rigged”.
I mean rigged when I say rigged. But yes I agree with a lot of your other points. The system absolutely should be more democratic and clearer. And our media should absolutely be constantly rebuked for the shit show it is.
I have no love for the system or democrats. But I really think all this talk about it being “rigged” nearly a decade on. Realistically is keeping us from improving the situation or finding better solutions. Instead grinding some perceived axe. While people, we all would likely be United against are United themselves getting things that we hate done. Clinton and Wasserman Schultz definitely earned plenty of that ire though.
The superdelegates, which in 2016 made up about 15% of the delegates, were not elected and are not beholden to any voters, they just chose whichever candidate they wanted, and 604 out of 651 went for Clinton immediately, which meant Bernie started off at an immediate disadvantage.
There’s this idea that if it’s technically possible to succeed, that the system is not rigged (see racism, sexism, etc). But that’s ridiculous. If someone starts off at a major advantage over their competition, the system is rigged for them. If, in the general election, one candidate started off with 75 electoral votes because some unelected people just decided they liked that candidate, I imagine we would call that system rigged in favor of that candidate (even if it is technically possible for their opponent to win). Not only that, but starting off at such a deficit for what would already have been considered a close race is likely to make those who might have voted for Bernie just not bother showing up.
So yes, I’d say the primary was rigged against Bernie. And the Democrats seem to agree, because they got rid of superdelegates for the initial vote, because everyone was pissed.
The DNC used that system FOR DECADES. They didn’t implement it in 2015 to snub Sanders. And as shitty as it was. It was better than what they had before. This, this is why no one rightfully takes you seriously. Or shows any respect. Hyperbolic, disingenuous BS.
They changed it fairly recently before 2016.
At this point it is clear you are arguing out of bad faith and not ignorance.
Nice projection. What was this change and how did it impact things. If you are so certain about this. There’s a reason you aren’t saying. And it’s not not because I’m the one arguing in bad babe. Not at all. It’s because if you actually point out the change it wouldn’t really support the claims being made. Better to have the innuendo unsupported.
Their primary system was rigged for decades. It was used to support establishment candidates and make it harder for social democrats and leftys to win because the democratic party is owned by corporate America and has been for decades
That’s not rigged. Rigged requires an intent to deceive. They were always open and up front about how the system worked. Sanders knew about it even if you still refuse to understand. And Sanders never claimed it was rigged.
Was it not as democratic as it could have been. Absolutely. Was it worlds more democratic than when only the party chose before. Absolutely. Was it rigged. No.
You’re apparently forgetting the head of the DNC that got fired for giving debate questions to Clinton.
You’re also apparently forgetting the DNC argument in court that because they are a private organization that they didn’t have to abide by their own rules requiring fairness.
None of those are even touching the super delegate issues that others commented on.
So, The DNC gave Clinton the questions. And then they fired the head as a patsy? Or the head gave Clinton the questions and the DNC who didn’t rig things fired her over it.
Everyone says they didnt want him, but an idiot demagogue is a useful fool.
Altrrnate theory: They didnt know who would beat Hillary, so they played as many candidates as possible until they figured it out.
That’s some nice history rewriting but the RNC actually openly loathed Trump until he won the primary - that’s when they became bootlickers.
Ah yeah, politicians never lie
No, but you can believe their actions.
The Republican party was explicitly anti Trump in the 2016 primary.
Now, it is the party of Trump.
Things happen in sequential order, and are not always the same as they are now.
Were you too young to remember 2016?
Please explain to me, in detail, how the '16 Dem primaries were rigged. Bernie was literally on every single ballot, right alongside Hillary.
I responded in detail to the comment before yours (you and I posted within a minute of each other), but in a word, superdelegates.
Yea, neither Biden nor Trump have the official party endorsement yet. Presidential elections in the US usually last between two and five years depending on how you define them.
The news starts talking about the next election the day after the election so our election cycle is permanent at this point.
General election is in November. Get comfortable, it’s gonna be a while.
deleted by creator
Neoliberals never let a silly thing like facts get in their way.
They’re just republicans who don’t want the cool kids to hate them.
The fucked up part is theyre the only other option this election, and they know it.
It’s not good enough for them that Biden is better than trump, they want 100% support for all the fucked up shit Biden is doing as well.
Who are you even talking about?
Israel’s Genocide that is only possible because of our unwavering political and military support, probably
And they yell at us for not putting up with their putrid shit. Whatever happened to “push Biden left”
You have? Like, it’s been a clear influence in the policies of his administration. I’m my opinion, it would be pretty short sighted to turn that influence into disdain.
Israel’s extermination of Gazans with our unwavering funding is not a “left” policy
And wouldn’t you know it, there’s a lot more to an administration than their stance on Israel. Stop trying to boil everything down to truisms and catchphrases. If you really don’t think that the left has had a sizeable impact on Biden’s admin, we don’t really have a lot to talk about here.
The left has had a sizeable impact on Biden’s domestic policies. Including the Inflation Reduction Act, American Rescue Plan, and the Bipartisan infrastructure Law.
The Biden administration has been funding and arming the Israeli genocide of Gaza
Both are true. And genocide is the worst thing a country can do. I learned that in 6th grade when we learned about the importance of ensuring “Never Again” re: the Holocaust
I just don’t understand the pragmatism here. You sit the election out, Trump wins, Gaza is leveled for a mega church the next week and American democracy is in danger. You sit the election out, Biden wins, he now gives 0 fucks about your leverage in his second term because he doesn’t need it. You vote, Trump wins, Gaza still gets leveled for the mega church. You vote, Biden wins, progressives now have leverage to force Biden into a harsher stance on Israel in his second term, exactly like you’ve been doing already in his first.
Subtlety and nuance have never been a strength of populist movements, but the left should really examine their impact on Biden’s Israel stance. No, he hasn’t completely blown up our relationship with Israel, but this is the harshest stance America has taken against Israel possibly since its inception. I’m one of the huge percentage who want further action done to bring Israel to heel, but my only realistic avenue to achieve that is by continuing to exact the leverage I have while keeping that leverage intact.
Frankly, if you want anything more, the left needs to grow and get more powerful. Objectively right now, they are weaker than the major political parties, which is what has forced them into this relationship. If you want a president who is going to give you your deepest wishes with no concessions, you’re going to need to get a hell of a lot stronger. Frankly, because of that lack of pragmatism and political capital, I don’t see it happening in my lifetime.
I don’t see how voting for a hypothetically successful Biden candidacy would create any leverage on Biden. He is term limited and cannot run for reelection if he wins in November. And even if Kamala/Newsom/Whitmer/etc want to win in 2028, I don’t see how anti-Zionists uniformly voting for Biden in 2024 will have any bearing on their development of policy re:Israel. If anything, voting for him in November despite Israel’s genocide seems to demonstrate that Israel can do whatever it wants, including exterminating the Palestinians, and Dems still won’t meaningfully lose any votes. It’s the same concept as Trump saying he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and not lose any votes - here, it seems that Dems/Biden can do anything including funding and arming a genocide, and, under your hypothetical, they won’t lose any votes. How does that enable anti-Zionists to get leverage? If anything, it encourages establishment politicians to disregard anti-Zionists and take them for granted.
Also,
I’m not bothered by this, but this sort of rhetoric is highly unpersuasive and will not cause you to persuade anyone to your point of view, which I assume is your goal. It makes it less likely that people will agree with you when you insult them. Especially when you imply there is something innate about them that prevents them from being as rational as you. It’s othering, and it creates resentment, not changed views