• t3rmit3@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I mean, yes? Just because it’s a precedent here doesn’t make it democratic.

    It’s literally a practice that denies or heavily suppresses having a healthy crop of new primary candidates to vote for, which makes the party much less responsive to voter sentiment changes.

    8 years is a LONG time, and yeah, a lot of people who felt that a candidate represented them 4 years ago may not feel they do anymore, and they still deserve the same chance to democratically decide who represents them.

    Without that happening in the primary, their only options are to get no say in their candidate, withhold their vote, or vote for another party, in the general election.

    • Tiltinyall@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      So 3rd term precedent is up for grabs, or are we just so superbly selective in which policy to ignore? I’m asking because I’ll be real interested in 4 years.

      • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        The term limit on presidents is a law.

        The incumbent presidents’ campaigns retaining control of the party organizations (DNC and GOP are entirely private entities) during primary season is entirely the self-made rule of the political parties.

        The incumbent’s team should be removed from the DNC before the primary begins, have the primary, and then integrate them back in if and when they re-win the nomination.