The Democratic National Committee is moving ahead with its plans to virtually nominate President Joe Biden in the coming weeks, sending out an email to its members Wednesday morning stressing that that is “the wisest approach” despite fierce backlash from some Democratic lawmakers.
What makes you think the party is responsible for providing choices?
Consumerist thinking at its finest. But the DNC isn’t a restaurant or Costco. They don’t exist to provide choices, that’s up to volunteers. The DNC is just there to crown the winner.
So if nobody steps up and volunteers to challenge an incumbent, then nobody will challenge the incumbent.
What makes you think the party is responsible for providing choices?
That’s what parties exist for, to align political candidates that they might support each other. Going into a general election without a primary to test the candidates only ensures an untested vandidate will be on the ballot.
Consumerist thinking at its finest. But the DNC isn’t a restaurant or Costco. They don’t exist to provide choices, that’s up to volunteers. The DNC is just there to crown the winner.
“The DNC is just there to crown the winner.”
You can’t be a winner if there is no contest. The coronation of “presumptive candidates” (presumed, specifically, by party leadership) is exactly what lost the election in 2016.
So if nobody steps up and volunteers to challenge an incumbent, then nobody will challenge the incumbent.
And thus, the party is disqualified from claiming that it is the party of democracy.
The party exists to support their candidate in the general.
The party doesn’t care, at all, whether the primary is competitive. In fact, until recently parties often held caucuses instead of primaries, or just selected candidates in smoke-filled rooms.
You can’t be a winner if there is no contest
This year there will be plenty of local candidates who will run opposed in the general election. If those races have no winners, then who will fill those offices?
But should those seats remain unfilled after an uncontested election? That would mean most of those seats are never filled.
I don’t think the lack of competition is an existential threat. Democratic competition is motivated by a strong desire for change. But it’s natural that in some communities nobody strongly desires change in some settings, like school board policy.
If and when the school board or judge makes mistakes, political opponents who desire change will arise.
What makes you think the party is responsible for providing choices?
Consumerist thinking at its finest. But the DNC isn’t a restaurant or Costco. They don’t exist to provide choices, that’s up to volunteers. The DNC is just there to crown the winner.
So if nobody steps up and volunteers to challenge an incumbent, then nobody will challenge the incumbent.
That’s what parties exist for, to align political candidates that they might support each other. Going into a general election without a primary to test the candidates only ensures an untested vandidate will be on the ballot.
“The DNC is just there to crown the winner.”
You can’t be a winner if there is no contest. The coronation of “presumptive candidates” (presumed, specifically, by party leadership) is exactly what lost the election in 2016.
And thus, the party is disqualified from claiming that it is the party of democracy.
The party exists to support their candidate in the general.
The party doesn’t care, at all, whether the primary is competitive. In fact, until recently parties often held caucuses instead of primaries, or just selected candidates in smoke-filled rooms.
This year there will be plenty of local candidates who will run opposed in the general election. If those races have no winners, then who will fill those offices?
Nobody.
If the office needs to be filled, hold another election.
That’s not how it works. A winner is declared no matter how many candidates.
And your approach is unreasonable, you can’t keep repeating the election for county coroner when only one person even wants to run.
County coroner shouldn’t be an elected position anyway.
Should school boards be elected? This year, 58% of those seats are uncontested.
What about local judges? This year, 84% are uncontested.
Yes, yes, and those are great examples of why the lack of democratic competition is an existential threat to the nation.
But should those seats remain unfilled after an uncontested election? That would mean most of those seats are never filled.
I don’t think the lack of competition is an existential threat. Democratic competition is motivated by a strong desire for change. But it’s natural that in some communities nobody strongly desires change in some settings, like school board policy.
If and when the school board or judge makes mistakes, political opponents who desire change will arise.