The US primaries and the general election are two different things. Voting uncommitted in the primary expresses support for the Palestinian plight and does not give Republicans any ground.
The uncommitted movement presents a safe and effective avenue for voters to voice dissatisfaction with President Biden’s policies, particularly with the Israel-Hamas conflict. By doing so in the primary, voters can signal discontent without risking a Republican victory in the general election. The purpose is to send a wake-up call to the Biden administration that it is failing to address issues and effectively engage with the party, vis a vis that Biden is enabling a genocide.
That being said, anyone who calls for an uncommitted or third-party vote in the general election I will personally kick in the gender neutral balls (in Minecraft).
Considering there is no meaningful challenge, the ONLY useful purpose a primary serves is to take the temperature of the party itself and allow it to signal if there are cracks in the base or policies that aren't resonating outside the head office.
If we're just going to have a sham election with 115% turnout and 170% approval vote, why waste the money?
As long as there is hope i will vote Democrat in the general. But man, forcing the ambassador to veto a cease fire was a swift kick in the hope sack
first paragraph is a fair assessment
not sure what you are referring to with the second part? i feel out of the loop on something (edit: i now know what you are referring to and i unequivocally disagree. skipping elections in the name of cost savings is almost the worst possible option.)
If there's no second candidate who could win, and everyone is railroaded into a unity response, it seems like a dubious third-world election, where you sometimes see dubious numbers like that.
Since election operations cost money; we could save a few bucks just anointing Biden today, if we don't intend to actually parse the primary results to figure out the electorate's needs.
…….no!? lmao?! pls tell me you are joking
if anything that would make the election more anti-democratic, fascist and (to use your word) third-world. to what, assume the winner of an election and skip it? that is, emphatically, absurd.
the reason the incumbent always sweeps in their party is already to save money. because it’s more or less pointless for the party to compete against itself when they already have the person they elected in office.
but it’s still important that the primary happen because a) it’s a safety in case the politician turns out to be bad faith and not represent the wishes of the party (this happened with George Santos iirc) or b) in the very case of this post, where Democratic voters are expressing dissatisfaction with the candidate but do not want to risk a Republican win.
this is kind of basic US politics, so if you are just hearing about this, no worries. you are wrong and i don’t want to dog on you for that but you might want to do some research and listen to some more experienced leftist commentary. i won’t claim to be the best place to get this info.