Gretchen Whitmer responds to calls by some Democrats to vote ‘uncommitted’ in Michigan’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.
“It’s important not to lose sight of the fact that any vote that’s not cast for Joe Biden supports a second Trump term,” she said on Sunday during an interview on CNN’s State of the Union. “A 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.”
Whitmer, who is a co-chair of Biden’s 2024 campaign, also said she wasn’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 “uncommitted” in Michigan’s 27 February primary.
How were the Dem primaries rigged. I still see lots of people claim this to this day. But no one has ever presented evidence. I voted for Sanders in 2016 and 2020 primaries. But legitimately more people voted for Clinton in 2016. She also won more delegates. She won fair and square. Now do I think there needs to be a better process? Absolutely. But in the system democrats have used for the last 30 to 40 years Sanders lost fairly despite a strong showing.
Depends what you mean by “rigged”.
The parties, the candidates, the PACs, and the media are all theoretically (and in many cases, legally bound to be) separate entities, acting independently. But in reality, a lot of them share the same interests, and so some things happen that aren’t exactly collusion or breaking any rules, but do give an advantage to one candidate, which many voters consider unfair.
In the case of the 2016 DNC primary, I think the critical objection is not the existence of superdelegates, but how they were presented in the media.
Clinton hovered between 54%-59% of the pledged delegates, but the media coverage would consistently include superdelegates in the count, showing Clinton ahead by 600 or so delegates, giving her “70% of the total count, and making her the presumptive nominee! The Sanders campaign doesn’t have any chance of coming back from this!” …before most of the country had even voted.
This kind of thing happens all the time, with lots of stuff, and it’s not technically “rigging”.
But seeing an official-looking number on TV – that you know, provably, doesn’t reflect the reality of the ongoing election… That feels, to many people, like it’s “rigged”.
I mean rigged when I say rigged. But yes I agree with a lot of your other points. The system absolutely should be more democratic and clearer. And our media should absolutely be constantly rebuked for the shit show it is.
I have no love for the system or democrats. But I really think all this talk about it being “rigged” nearly a decade on. Realistically is keeping us from improving the situation or finding better solutions. Instead grinding some perceived axe. While people, we all would likely be United against are United themselves getting things that we hate done. Clinton and Wasserman Schultz definitely earned plenty of that ire though.
You’re apparently forgetting the head of the DNC that got fired for giving debate questions to Clinton.
You’re also apparently forgetting the DNC argument in court that because they are a private organization that they didn’t have to abide by their own rules requiring fairness.
None of those are even touching the super delegate issues that others commented on.
So, The DNC gave Clinton the questions. And then they fired the head as a patsy? Or the head gave Clinton the questions and the DNC who didn’t rig things fired her over it.
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.
There’s this idea that if it’s technically possible to succeed, that the system is not rigged (see racism, sexism, etc). But that’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, I’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.
The DNC used that system FOR DECADES. They didn’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.
They changed it fairly recently before 2016.
At this point it is clear you are arguing out of bad faith and not ignorance.
Nice projection. What was this change and how did it impact things. If you are so certain about this. There’s a reason you aren’t saying. And it’s not not because I’m the one arguing in bad babe. Not at all. It’s because if you actually point out the change it wouldn’t really support the claims being made. Better to have the innuendo unsupported.
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
That’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.
That’s untrue. Rigged means intentionally structured to achieve a certain outcome. Regardless, the concept of a “free and democratic” 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 won’t change anyone’s mind, and will just reinforce the idea that Democrats refuse to self-reform or listen to popular backlash