Gretchen Whitmer responds to calls by some Democrats to vote ā€˜uncommittedā€™ in Michiganā€™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.

ā€œItā€™s important not to lose sight of the fact that any vote thatā€™s not cast for Joe Biden supports a second Trump term,ā€ she said on Sunday during an interview on CNNā€™s State of the Union. ā€œA 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.ā€

Whitmer, who is a co-chair of Bidenā€™s 2024 campaign, also said she wasnā€™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 ā€œuncommittedā€ in Michiganā€™s 27 February primary.

  • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    Ā·
    10 months ago

    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.

    Thereā€™s this idea that if itā€™s technically possible to succeed, that the system is not rigged (see racism, sexism, etc). But thatā€™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, Iā€™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.

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      Ā·
      10 months ago

      The DNC used that system FOR DECADES. They didnā€™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.

      • Count042@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        Ā·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        They changed it fairly recently before 2016.

        At this point it is clear you are arguing out of bad faith and not ignorance.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          Ā·
          10 months ago

          Nice projection. What was this change and how did it impact things. If you are so certain about this. Thereā€™s a reason you arenā€™t saying. And itā€™s not not because Iā€™m the one arguing in bad babe. Not at all. Itā€™s because if you actually point out the change it wouldnā€™t really support the claims being made. Better to have the innuendo unsupported.

      • beardown@lemm.ee
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        Ā·
        10 months ago

        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

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          Ā·
          10 months ago

          Thatā€™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.

          • beardown@lemm.ee
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            Ā·
            10 months ago

            Rigged requires an intent to deceive

            Thatā€™s untrue. Rigged means intentionally structured to achieve a certain outcome. Regardless, the concept of a ā€œfree and democraticā€ has obvious connotations and intended implications regarding the level playing field associated with that process. The DNC did not have a level playing field which is why so many believe that it is rigged, and why so many will continue to believe that until monumental structural reforms are achieved, as well as admissions of wrongdoing for prior behavior. Comments like this wonā€™t change anyoneā€™s mind, and will just reinforce the idea that Democrats refuse to self-reform or listen to popular backlash