ONCE AND FOR ALL, FELLOW DEMOCRATS: THE PARTY AND COUNTRY NEED BIDEN. (caps for EMphasis, not shouting)

[ancianita]

Last edited Sat Jul 6, 2024, 01:43 PM - Edit history (3)

I'm not a constitutional lawyer and, thanks to DU'ers sourced input since the time of the OP, have been corrected that there is no vote nullification law. So the OP header has been edited.
In writing, there is no voter nullification law.

But we nullify IN SPIRIT when party members propose abandoning & pushing out the best incumbent presidential candidate we've had since FDR.

WE CANNOT RE-RUN DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES.

MAKE NO MISTAKE, FELLOW DEMOCRATS. WE VOTED FOR BIDEN IN THE PRIMARY.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOMINEE.

KOCH MEDIA OLIGARCHS WANT US TO VOTE THE TURNCOATS OUT, DIVIDE THE PARTY, DIVIDE THE ELECTORATE. BUT NO -- WE HAVE TO WIN THE TRIFECTA.

BIDEN IS THE SITTING PRESIDENT AND HEAD OF THE PARTY.

WE CAN DEAL WITH PARTY COWARDS LATER AFTER WE CONDEMN THEIR COWARDICE NOW.

CALL SENATE AND HOUSE DEMS.

House https://directory.house.gov/#!/

Senate https://www.senate.gov/senators/


REMIND HOUSE & SENATE MEMBERS: THEY CANNOT IN SPIRIT NULLIFY DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS' WISHES.

[Voltaire2]

1. Nonsense.

Biden withdraws and that releases his delegates.

Suppose Biden had, for example, an incapacitating stroke, as Wilson did, or worse, a fatal medical event. Are you still claiming that it would be illegal for the Democratic Party to nominate a replacement?

[ancianita]

2. Noted. Float your "supposes," I'm not supposing. Neither is Biden. Biden has made up his mind. RESPECT BIDEN.

[Voltaire2]

5. I do respect Biden

He is in a very difficult no good option position. I think he will do what has to be done to prevent TCF from getting elected.

I do not respect the people around him who had to know what the situation was, and knew for perhaps quite a long time.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

15. Proof?

Got any?

Actual proof, not "anonymous," "close aides," "inside President Biden's circle," "those who would only speak on the condition of anonymity," etc., etc. "sources."

Who specifically do you not respect who had to know the situation? And what exactly is the situation? Why do you want President Biden to withdraw?

Do you respect the Democratic voters who voted for him in the primaries? Just toss them because some loudmouths and worthless backstabbers say so?

[Voltaire2]

27. Well for starters whoever was prepping him

at camp david.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

46. Oh.

Thanks for that compelling argument.

[DENVERPOPS]

97. The dems should be shouting this from the rooftops:

Gish gallop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gish gallop (/ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/) is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by abandoning formal debating principles, providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments and that are impossible to address adequately in the time alloted to the opponent. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality.

Name origin
The term, "Gish gallop", was coined in 1994 by anthropologist Eugenie Scott, who named it after American creationist Duane Gish. Scott argued that Gish used the technique frequently when challenging the scientific fact of evolution.[1]

Strategy
During a Gish gallop, in a short space of time the galloper confronts an opponent with a rapid series of specious arguments, half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies that makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of the debate.[2] Each point raised by the Gish galloper takes considerably more time to refute or to fact-check than the amount of time taken to state each one in the series. This technique is known online [3] as Brandolini's law and frequently is referred to as "the bullshit asymmetry principle". That element of the technique also is referred to as spewing a firehose of falsehoods.


********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

The technique wastes an opponent's time and may cast doubt on the opponent's debating ability for an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially if no independent fact-checking is involved or, if the audience has limited knowledge of the topics.


**************************************************************************************************************************************************************

The Repubs and their USSC conservative members, CORRUPTLY "appointed" Bush in the 2000 election, and the Republicans literally torpedoed Kerry in the 2004 election with their lies, including "Swift Boating" a purple heart war hero.....
They barely missed pulling the same shit off in the 2020 election, and they will STOP AT NOTHING, to do it to Biden this time around.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

101. It would probably be easier to just say he's a lying sack of crap

Totally true, and concise.

[GiqueCee]

96. It's already been ascertained...

... that the prep team got more than a little carried away and worked Joe WAY too hard, never letting him take the time to recuperate from whatever bug he contracted. They've made that confession themselves. Someone half his age would have caved under such a grueling schedule. He was also working all his presidential duties on top of the debate prep.
I'm 4 years younger than Joe, still work full-time, and in pretty good shape for my age, but I don't think for a minute that I could keep up with him in such a demanding environment.
So my respect for all those way too eager to kick him to the curb wouldn't fill a goddam thimble.

[DENVERPOPS]

99. BRAVO

No one has pointed out, that Biden was indeed running the country, and concerned with that as his primary objective. The world is in a complete turmoil never seen before. And all of it is on Biden's shoulders as to what to do........

And the Republican Party, watches Butt-Wad recite his pre rehearsed, repetitive crap, over and over again in a debate.......

The Dems should be broadcasting what WIKI has to say about the Technique Trump was primed for using against Biden.
It is called the GISH GALLOP..........Look it up on Wiki......A known technique for literally obliterating the other debater.....

The Gish Gallop perfectly fits what happened, and Trump elevated it to a new level.........

[Cheezoholic]

98. Ya know, I initially thought that honestly, especially Ron Klain until it was reported he was at Camp David also

However, I really buy that he had a bad cold. I really buy that they loaded him up with OTC cold meds to keep any coughing down. He had a rasp in his voice when he was VP so that's not new. I don't think he and his team had a choice. What would the conversation be if he would've "called in sick" to the debate? You think it's bad now, there'd be a nationwide flaming donkey disaster if he would've cancelled, even if every Dr. in the country wrote him an excuse slip.

I just think, like he said, overall it was just a bad day. There wasn't much more to it.

[ancianita]

18. Not really. You still think he should change his mind. He's not.

[Think. Again.]

31. Yes, they DO know what the situation is...

...and according to them the situation is just fine.

But if you prefer to believe rightwing media, well....

[Marthe48]

60. What situation?

Do tell.

[Voltaire2]

63. 6/27 9:00pm.

That situation.

The level of denial, barely a week later, is astounding.

[Marthe48]

76. Beyond that

President Biden was working on a ceasefire between Isreal and hamas. Making a deal to sell oil reserves at the best price for the U.S. Last time he authorized oil reserve sales, the deal made America a lot of money.

What else:
the bridge in Baltimore Harbor
the border crisis
work on student loans
executive order calling for doctors to obey the federal laws for emergency care to save lives, including abortion care if the situration calls for it
reprimanding the I(formerly) s.c. for their decision to allow immunity for traitor

Probably an endless list of other plans and actions we have no idea about. The sideshow on cnn was not a debate. It was like eastwood talking at an empty chair. President Biden was gracious enough to attend the latest traitor show. Because if he hadn't, you can be sure that the fascists had plan b, c and d ready to get to where we are right now.

President Biden is the presumptive Democratic candidate. He can carry the water. He can bring home the bacon. He can keep this together.

[2naSalit]

94. And what "situation" do mean?

Please explain as your continued vague responses are not answering the question asked when you are asked to clarify. You gave me a link to some "proof" earlier that turned out to be some unnamed "democratic officials" to show that your pretzel shaped feedback loop of logic has backing.

[MagickMuffin]

7. If something were to happen to President Biden before the election

I believe if my history serves me correctly, the VP would be sworn as the next president!

[ancianita]

19. Cool. We know this because she's the other primary winner. But she's also totally behind Joe's decision to run.

Neither one of them is considering her as the option party leaders now are.

[Voltaire2]

22. Nope.

First, this has never happened, and further the DNC rules provide for the party to replace the nominee.

This guardian article (written long before this mess) covers various scenarios.
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/05/what-happens-presidential-candidate-trump-biden-dies

[MagickMuffin]

51. Thx for the article

I definitely found it interesting and worthwhile reading!

[Deek1935]

58. BIden is the nominee. Stop the bullshit please.

[karynnj]

61. Slight correction, as said in that post, She WOULD become President

If Biden was incapacitated or died. That has happened before.

What hasn't is a sitting President dying or being incapacitated after winning enough delegates to be the candidate for reelection. On this, there is no precedent.

[Zeitghost]

87. The VP would become the sitting President

But would not necessarily take the Presidents spot atop the ticket for reelection.

Prior to the convention, anything could happen. After the convention but prior to the election the DNC would select a new candidate. After the election but prior to the EC vote, the states would follow their rules on EC delegates. After the EC vote but prior to inauguration is when the VP automatically takes over.

[Bettie]

11. None of your scenarios have happened

he had a bad debate. That's not the same thing.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

100. Felon 45 had a worse one.

[bigtree]

12. hello

...you raised a strawman which has nothing to do with the op.

There are provisions for replacing an ailing or dead president. There are zero provisions in the constitution or law to redo the primary.

That makes the efforts of those legislators and others publicly trying to force President Biden out of the race an anti-democratic attempt to suppplant votes cast with their choice through bullying and denigrating of the man 87% of Democrats showed up to vote for, despite no serious challenger.

There was already a democratic process which is provided for in the Constitution. What these anti-Biden backroom dealers are doing is an affront to democracy, and unsupported by anything other than their own disrespect of that democracy for their own individual interest.

Sound familiar?

[MorbidButterflyTat]

16. Yes.

[ancianita]

21. Exactly. Thank you.

[Voltaire2]

24. The DNC has rules for replacing a nominee.

No do over is required. Also Biden is not the nominee and won’t be until August.

The pre convention scenario is pretty clear and straightforward. Biden withdraws releasing his delegates. A different candidate is nominated at the convention.

[bigtree]

35. hi

...that's not what's being discussed here.

The point being made is there's no provision for a do over, and this president isn't in any way incapacitated or incapable of doing the same job he's been doing all along.

Plainly put, there are no extraordinary circumstances, such as a Biden withdrawal, which would initiate those provisions to replace him.

What we're seeing from a smattering of legislators is an attempt to second-guess voters who already voted knowing full well who they were casting their ballot for.

The only way they can get Joe Biden off of the ballot is to bully him out, or convince enough delegates to switch.

Neither of those has budged a centimeter since the debate. There are zero delegates to the convention who have said they will not cast their vote at the convention for Biden or for anyone else.

What these legislators demanding Pres. Biden step aside are buttressed with is basically just their free speech rights to object. With that and a handful of beans they can buy Jack's cow.

[Voltaire2]

41. He can withdraw.

Nothing prevents that and the DNC rules cover that scenario.

[bigtree]

45. so, he says he's not going to

...so tough shit to all of the other scenarios for replacing my vote with the choice of bedwetters.

[LeftInTX]

57. Keep in mind that laws regarding primaries in most states are dated from the 1980s onward

The last time we had a convention where we did an open nomination was 1968.

This means that laws have changed since then.
Yes, it's the president.

So, what happen when a candidate dies or becomes incapacitated?
What happen when a candidate withdraws?
There are differences in laws between the two.

In Texas, if a state candidate dies before the 74th day, the party nominates via a convention as prescribed by Texas law.
If the state candidate withdraws, there is no provision. The party is straight out of luck. (These are state candidates, not presidential). Each state has laws regarding presidential candidates.

Before 1968, primaries were strictly "party business". They could be a caucus or primary. No one cared. Parties were not regulated.
We didn't have campaign finance laws etc. Now there are joint primaries, and they're administered and regulated by the state.

Nominating at a convention and invalidating primary election results is going through uncharted territory. I say it is uncharted because almost every state election code was written after the last time we had an open convention. Additionally, the DNC rules have all been re-written since 1968. They may actually need to rewrite some of the rules if there is a withdrawal. Can they rewrite and adopt the rules before the convention?

[Voltaire2]

66. What state has a law controlling how a presidential

delegate votes?

I’m fascinated.

[LeftInTX]

69. See post 30

If President Biden is removed from the ballot, the GOP will sue and keep the party off the ballot in a number of states
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=19112098

[Voltaire2]

72. Lol. Op has now repeatedly admitted ignorance.

So please provide actual evidence that there are state laws controlling how a presidential primary delegate votes at a party convention.

[LeftInTX]

77. There are laws regulating primary elections.

If you think Texas would not remove a nominee that was not elected in the primary, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Abbott could write an executive order. No one would stop him.

[Voltaire2]

78. Still waiting.

Those are not laws controlling how a delegate votes. Those are laws governing how a state election operates.

[LeftInTX]

80. Abbott could write an executive order.

Any governor could. I know Abbott would in a heartbeat.

He's written EO's to temporary change election laws previously.

We've also seen candidates removed from ballots. All it takes is a court case.


And what about Cenk Uygur? Guess what? He was on the ballot in Texas.

Even though he wasn't eligible, he was on the ballot in Texas not other states? He wasn't disqualified in Texas, yet he was in other states.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

102. You first.

You were asked several posts ago to provide proof, and opinions, please do so, before you demand it of others.

Who specifically do you not respect who had to know the situation? And what exactly is the situation? Why do you want President Biden to withdraw?

Do you respect the Democratic voters who voted for him in the primaries? Just toss them because some loudmouths and worthless backstabbers say so?

[Voltaire2]

103. I did not make the claim that it is illegal

or unconstitutional for the Democratic Party to change who it nominates, or for elected party delegates to vote for any other candidate.

All it takes is for the person making these claims to cite the relevant state or federal laws or the section of the constitution.

In general, when arguing, it is the responsibility of a person making a claim to provide some evidence for that claim.

Theoretically I could do a search of all federal and state laws in order to prove that no such law exists. It would obviously be easier for somebody to come up with one example of such a law.

On the other hand the claims are ridiculous. How political parties regulate their conventions is entirely up to those parties. The delegates are required *by party rules* to vote for the candidate they were elected to vote for, but only for the first round. In addition, there are processes in place, again set up entirely by the parties, not by any government, for contingencies such as a delegates candidate withdrawing.

The claim that this would be illegal needs some evidence to back it up.

[karynnj]

73. I agree forcing him out is undemocratic, but i doubt it is unconstutional

The constitution does not specify primaries. In fact, I think 1972 was the first year all states had either caucuses or primaries. Until then In some states, party bosses controlled the states delegates. ( The PaleyCenter/ Broadcast museum) had the coverage of the 1960 convention, where the convention picked JFK. The process where the delegates are pledged to winners of voter contests and known well before the convention started after the mess in 1968.

Note, not being unconstitutional and maybe not even illegal, does not make taking the nomination away from the man who won under the rules of the game.

ONLY if Biden steps aside and releases his delegates would it be remotely possible to do.

[Zeitghost]

83. Primaries are not covered by the Constitution

In fact the Constitution does not require a public vote for President in any way.

Primaries are largely governed by political party rules with some State oversight. They are not binding as a political party is free to choose it's representative as they see fit.

[wnylib]

32. And then how would a new candidate's name

get on the ballots in all 50 states?

[Voltaire2]

42. Same way the vp gets on the ballot every 4 years.

[wnylib]

52. Ohio?

Also, the Presidential nominee is already on the ballots when the VP is simply added. The scenario of a new candidate for both positions would be different.

But, aside from all that, switching this close to the election would only create chaos and division for Dems when we most need unity for the battle against MAGAs. It feeds right into their hands. I have no use for such chaos agents.

[Voltaire2]

54. Ohio agreed to move their deadline.

So Ohio is not a problem. However, given that it could have been a problem, we should stop agreeing to alternate late conventions.

[wnylib]

65. But I am actually more concerned with the chaos of last minute switching.

I regard the faction that wants to switch as chaos agents who are either naive or malevolent in their calls for a switch.

[Voltaire2]

68. So a growing number of people in leadership

positions within the party are ‘chaos agents’?

That is really bad news.

[wnylib]

114. Naive, perhaps, or not fully informed. Or just anxious about November

because the stakes are so high. But calling for replacement only raises anxiety levels and increases division and chaos, whether intentional or not.

I am doubtful about the number and how much it "grows." There is a lot of misinformation going around.

[VeryProgressive]

95. Nope, it's not Nonsense

Suppose monkeys flew out of your ass? If the things you are suggesting might happen of course the D Party would be able to nominate a replacement. Fortunately, that's not necessary. If the Democratic establishment were to bail on Biden, it would be disastrous and insane. It's not going to happen thank goodness.

[Goodheart]

3. No, it's not.

[ancianita]

4. What's "not."

[Goodheart]

6. It's not against the law.

[ancianita]

13. How do you know? Got a source link? I'm just supposed to take your un-sourced, un-linked word as final?

What's your point here -- to discredit other points in the OP that draw attention to current cowardly Democratic leaders?

[Goodheart]

25. My point is exactly what I stated: it's not against the law

It's a curious thing... you made an assertion about a law and now you apparently can't back that up. Just cite the law(s).

[ancianita]

29. Come ON. I conceded that I could be wrong. Yours is an empty, contrarian post without a link or concession.

My headline was only meant to grab attention to the spirit of this BS push against Biden, and you come in with nothing to prove or disprove. Why even bother. It's unhelpful.

[Voltaire2]

47. Here is a good analysis of the various scenarios

and how they work.

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/05/what-happens-presidential-candidate-trump-biden-dies

[ancianita]

49. Thanks. Also check out LetMyPeopleVote's post downthread.

[Renew Deal]

8. What law?

A link would help.

[bigtree]

14. the constitution, for one

...which has no provision for a do over.

Trying to undo the voters' choice in an election has already been done, to actual deaths.

[Voltaire2]

48. The constitution has no provisions for primaries

or for political parties or anything other than the idiotic rules for the electoral college.

[bigtree]

56. 'provision' - 'provides for'

...states to choose the method they send delegates to the convention.

That's where primaries are provided for in the constitution.

Stick to what's being written here.

Contemplating bullying President Biden out of the race because you want another choice at this point is anti-democratic and a slap in the face of voters who already cast their ballots intending for Joe Biden to run against Trump.

Nothing in that process said we were crossing our fingers behind our backs.

[Voltaire2]

59. You claimed

“The constitution, for one
...which has no provision for a do over. “

Nor does the constitution have any provision for doing it to begin with, other than it is up to the states to send electors to the stupid electoral college.

There is exactly nothing in the constitution that prevents the Democratic Party from putting any person they want on the ballot. Nor should there be.

[bigtree]

64. it provides for it, so no sea-lioning, now

...you know very well what is meant by 'provisions'.

[Voltaire2]

75. There are zero provisions in the constitution

for any primaries. I’m not sealioning, I’m rejecting your assertion that the constitution does not allow for a do over of a primary. I did not bring up some irrelevant point, it is your assertion that I am objecting to.

[bigtree]

92. yeah but that's a deflection from what you clearly know I meant

...this isn't a debating society, and including being far past the point of the original poster, it's just argumentative.

Not my bag today. You should give it up, unless you're just secretly trying to kick this post up repeatedly for the poster.

[ancianita]

17. You saw that I said I don't know for sure, right?

If I did, I'd link the law.

If that's what hangs you up, then you're missing the spirit of the OP, which is that we must not let party leaders switch candidates after the primary.

We spoke in the primary.

Our party must respect that and knock off the closed door attempt to push Joe Biden out over a 90 minute one-off.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

34. Apparently some Democrats

are totally cool with disenfranchising Democratic votes in the primaries because the loudmouth minority and rat fuckers are making loudmouth rat fucking sounds.

[bigtree]

9. it needs to be shouted

...hell, we're shouting enough at the walls here at home.

Thanks for posting,

[ancianita]

23. Okay, then!

Thank you back, bigtree! Let's pick up the phones and channel our shouting.

[Progressive dog]

10. We rely on the delegates keeping their word

and other Democrats not trying to get them to break it. When 70% of Democrats still want Biden/Harris as our nominee, it is well past time that all the Democrats trying to change the outcome of the primaries just stop enabling the media and MAGA candidate.

[hunter]

20. It may not be about Biden at all.

What if the Republican powers are floundering around searching for some legal mechanism to replace Trump? They're never going to say Trump is their actual target, or that he's become a dangerous liability to them.

If our corrupt Supreme Court fabricates some reason to push Biden aside, the Republican powers can push Trump aside too.

[ancianita]

26. It could be about any candidate who can win and then enable Proj 25 to be the end of democratic governing.

In my opinion, you make a fair point. Still. F what the other side's onto with the felon.

We're in it to win it, ridin' with Biden.

[Think. Again.]

44. Go Joe!!! 🌊 !!!

[Fiendish Thingy]

28. That's not a factual statement

Parties make their own rules for how nominees are selected, and can change them if they want without breaking any law.

Doesn’t make it right, but that is reality.

[ancianita]

33. I conceded that it might not be.

Only the primaries yet to finish can change the candidate. Those primaries already voted on have won the majority of votes for our presumptive nominee. You know this.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

38. "Look, a squirrel!"

Diversions from your point. SMDH.

[ancianita]

40. Right? I call it unhelpful niggling.

[Voltaire2]

50. The title of the op is a diversion?

“NULLIFYING THE PRIMARY VOTE IS AGAINST THE LAW. ”

Ok

[ancianita]

82. More like hyperbole. I don't want to stupidly offend, so I've edited the title.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

30. If President Biden is removed from the ballot, the GOP will sue and keep the party off the ballot in a number of states

Ballot access litigation is strange. There are traps that could be used to keep a replacement for President Biden off the ballot. The GOP will try to use any change in the party ticket to keep the Democratic candidate off the ballot. For example, the compromise with Ohio to get President Biden on the ballot may go away if the Democratic Party changes candidates.

Link to tweet

I've seen a lot of people telling me that this story means they think Biden is weak so they want him in the election. No...you're missing the goal here. What they are doing is declaring how they will conduct a coordinated lawfare campaign to screw the Democratic nominee.

First it will be this lawsuit. In close order various Republican AG's will sue the DNC on behalf of their citizens "who voted in good faith in the Primary for Joe Biden." Then they will launch coordinated campaigns to split the Democratic coalition. "See how they are treating Kamala?" "Why didn't they think California's governor leading the 3rd largest economy in the world should be nominee." it will be relentless and targeted to get people to stay home. Millions of dark money will go to third party candidates. Suddenly RFK Jr. will miraculously have the resources to get on every ballot...on and on and on.

They don't care who is on the ballot. They want us to spend time, money, and anger on each other and on defense so Trump simply strolls into the White House with 45% of the vote.

The Biden campaign needs to stop nevel gazing and get back in the fight. We all need to stop eating each other alive and remember the real enemy to our democracy is the one's cheering this on in Florida.

Link to tweet

Removing President Biden from the ticket will give the GOP and the Heritage Foundation grounds to try to keep any replacement off the ballot. Removing President Biden from the ballot is a very stupid idea

[ancianita]

36. And there we have it. THANK YOU for enlightening us on how Heritage can further complicate this stupid situation

with hyped cowards in Congress.

[jmbar2]

37. Excellent post. Thank you.

[ancianita]

53. This is too good not to be an OP on DU. Hope you'll consider. Thank you SO much - the links & insights

reveal the dark side of pre-convention politics. That I daresay Biden already knows about.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

113. I did some more research and started a thread

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219114429

[Voltaire2]

55. Whatever those fuckers are against I'm for.

[LeftInTX]

85. You're playing right into their hands

They want Biden off the ballot, so they can remove the nominee.

They're getting you to think that they want Biden. No they don't....They don't want Biden. They want someone else, so they can sue and remove them...

[sheshe2]

89. This part right here.

Removing President Biden from the ticket will give the GOP and the Heritage Foundation grounds to try to keep any replacement off the ballot.

They will go all the way to SCOTUS, a court that has been bought and paid for by MAGA. They will hand it all over to them along with the keys to the WH. Don’t for one moment think they won’t.

[Azathoth]

39. What law and what primary? Nt

[ancianita]

43. Reread the OP and my posts upthread.

Re the Democratic Primaries...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

[totodeinhere]

62. You are sincere but incorrect.

We are talking about party rules and not laws. And technically the delegates are not bound to vote for Joe.

"Pledged delegates are those who were elected in state primaries and caucuses to represent their candidate at the national convention. The Democratic National Committee rules for pledged delegates at the 2024 convention state: “Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”

The word “shall” may suggest that pledged delegates are bound to their candidates. But they are not, and that’s because of the phrase “in all good conscience” that follows the word “shall,” William Mayer, a political science professor at Northeastern University who has written numerous books on presidential politics, told us in a phone interview.

“You are kind of encouraged to vote for the candidates for whom you were elected – but ‘in all good conscience’ you could vote for someone else,” he said."

https://www.factcheck.org/2024/07/qa-how-biden-can-be-replaced-as-the-democratic-nominee/

[bigtree]

70. it's still ratfucking to try and force the people's choice to the curb

...you can tell yourself whatever you want, but no one except Pres. Biden got enough votes to be nominated at the convention by the delegates he won in the primary.

Anti-Biden election disrupters haven't produced even one Biden delegate who's switching from our board's presumptive nominee, or one even complaining about anything.

[totodeinhere]

86. I'm not arguing with your point. I am only saying that the OP is incorrect

when they say it is against the law because it is not. It has nothing to do with the law. It is about party rules. I just want us to keep our facts straight

[bigtree]

91. yeah, but

...the op has made it more than clear that's not the point of what they intended to discuss.

I'm not sure why a couple of folks seem so intent on not engaging the poster where they're actually coming from, but whatevs.

Points to you for being technically correct.

[ancianita]

71. Sincere is not for nothing.

What’s the origin of the “good conscience” rule?

The DNC adopted the “good conscience” language in 1982 after multiple rounds of reforms to its presidential nomination process.

In 1980, the Democratic National Convention adopted a rule requiring delegates to vote for the candidate that they were selected to support. The rule was an effort by supporters of then-President Jimmy Carter to bolster his reelection campaign against the insurgent candidacy of Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. Kennedy supporters dubbed the measure “the robot rule,” in that it would not allow delegates to exercise their own discretion when casting their votes at the convention.

After Carter’s defeat to Republican Ronald Reagan, the party passed additional reforms in 1982 in an effort chaired by then-North Carolina Gov. Jim Hunt. The Hunt Commission repealed “the robot rule” and replaced it with the “good conscience” language, loosening the party’s grip over its pledged delegates, though leaving in place the expectation that they will follow the will of primary and caucus voters in their states. The Commission also created unpledged delegate slots for certain party leaders and elected officials, positions that have been informally called “superdelegates.”

Changing a delegate's "good" conscience harms party unity through bad faith in the voters.

What you say is correct is exactly what our opponents want to have happen so that tsf can waltz in with 45% of the vote.

[totodeinhere]

88. All I am saying is that it is not against the law,

Your statement in the OP that it is against the law is incorrect. If you had only done a little bit of research before you made your comment you would have realized that you were incorrect.

[ancianita]

90. I hear you.

I did so research before writing the OP, couldn't come up with anything but jury and state nullification laws, and so decided to say it anyway, conceding below the header that I could be wrong, and hoping someone would find such a law when I couldn't. But nope, no law. And boy, has everyone jumped on me for being wrong.

Now, if they'd only channel that energy toward proving our Democratic leaders -- who want to push out our presumptive party nominee -- are wrong. He's not just any nominee, like some interchangeable part, which many in Congress seem to imply because they buy into the "old" hype designed to set us up to fail. They're clever by half and oligarch money does the rest.

[themaguffin]

67. Stop shouting please, especially when nobody is talking about illegal acts

[ancianita]

74. Reread the title. I'm not shouting. I'll change the wording that's incorrect, thanks.

[themaguffin]

79. "ALL CAPS" shouting

[ancianita]

84. Not Internet Law, nor a hard and fast rule on platforms or DU, and its use is explained in the title.

[bigtree]

93. SQUIRRELS!

...

[themaguffin]

111. All caps is universally considered yelling and yeah, the original post was finally edited. Oof.

Last edited Sat Jul 6, 2024, 09:51 PM - Edit history (1)

[MorbidButterflyTat]

104. The OP literally says,

"caps for EMphasis, not shouting"

JFC.

[themaguffin]

112. Yeah

because he changed it.

jfc indeed.

[ImNotGod]

81. according to scotus all laws are meant to be broken

if you're rich, well connected.

[JoseBalow]

105. But mama, that's where the fun is

[LetMyPeopleVote]

107. Dems attacking Biden are 'doing more damage' than the debate: analyst

These attacks on President Biden are very stupid and only helping TFG. Why are supposed Democrats working to re-elect TFG?

Link to tweet

https://www.rawstory.com/biden-debate-2668695029/

After stating Biden needs to get in front of voters more, she told the MSNBC hosts, "I would suggest that the response of that very small number of Democrats that have really come out after the president, and some of the media folks that have really come down on him since the election have done more damage and more harm than the president himself did during that debate."

"For me, and millions of Americans like me, this election is about the future of our country. It is about democracy, it is about getting away from the imperialistic, criminal presidency of Donald Trump and making sure that our children have a future that we can feel good about and be proud of," she explained.

She added, "It naive to think that at this point in the process you can switch candidates and still defeat Donald Trump. It is naive to think that the Democratic party will come out of a contested convention more united and stronger than they are today. "

"I think there is a lot more damage being done by folks other than Joe Biden when you look at how folks are reacting to this," she concluded.

[ancianita]

109. Absolutely. Thanks for the backup sources.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

108. Dems attacking Biden are 'doing more damage' than the debate: analyst

These attacks on President Biden are very stupid and only helping TFG. Why are supposed Democrats working to re-elect TFG?

Link to tweet

https://www.rawstory.com/biden-debate-2668695029/

After stating Biden needs to get in front of voters more, she told the MSNBC hosts, "I would suggest that the response of that very small number of Democrats that have really come out after the president, and some of the media folks that have really come down on him since the election have done more damage and more harm than the president himself did during that debate."

"For me, and millions of Americans like me, this election is about the future of our country. It is about democracy, it is about getting away from the imperialistic, criminal presidency of Donald Trump and making sure that our children have a future that we can feel good about and be proud of," she explained.

She added, "It naive to think that at this point in the process you can switch candidates and still defeat Donald Trump. It is naive to think that the Democratic party will come out of a contested convention more united and stronger than they are today. "

"I think there is a lot more damage being done by folks other than Joe Biden when you look at how folks are reacting to this," she concluded.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

110. I support President Biden more now than ever

[LetMyPeopleVote]

115. Here's some historical perspective on why you cannot change candidates at this late date

Link to tweet

[ancianita]

116. Thank you! 120 days out, it's been time to move from preaching to the converted to spreading the good thinking around.

[Deek1935]

117. YUP!