this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
694 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
58303 readers
97 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not to minimize the 2016 or 2020 elections, which a lot of sources say there was not a level playing field in the DNC, but this year there is an incumbent president. This is how incumbent presidents are always treated. It's normal and fair and strategically sound.
The same thing happened when Donald Trump was incumbent and nobody made a fuss.
Edit for clarity:
normal - The incumbent candidate has preferential treatment within the party in every election cycle. There are various ways that this manifests, and is usually different depending on the exact circumstances. If one chose, they could drill down into specific details to make it seem exceptional e.g. "It's never been done in with this specific mechanism or in this particular state."
fair - If you want access to preferential treatment, become President. The President is the figurehead not only of the country, but arguably even more so of their party. It would be unfair for the party leadership to undermine them while in office.
strategically sound - Incumbent candidates win elections. There is something like a 65% advantage to incumbency. Moreover, a party has limited political, social, and financial capital. If they spend that capital in the primary race, then they start the general election at a disadvantage. There is evidence (and common wisdom) that a primary race actually generates more capital, but I've never heard any credible suggestion that it could be a net gain in any area. Running a primary means a less unified party, less financial resources, less voter confidence in the victor.
In every election, the incumbent is given preferential treatment and generally treated as the de facto candidate. In which election are you thinking of that this was not the case?
Also pretty sure I distinctly remember several people running against Trump in that primary.... So "nobody made a fuss" is a lie.
You're actually proving the point. The people who ran against him demanded funding and equal access to Party resources, but they were denied. The incumbent party will always tilt the field toward the incumbent president.
Except you literally said "nobody made a fuss." Several people did.
Because not everyone agrees it's "normal and fair and strategically sound."
Just because "this is the way things are done" is an awful argument. Slavery was legal once, too, and people argued "this is the way things are done" for that, too.
It's a weak argument to say "well this is normal." So was segregation until it wasn't? Lots of morally dubious things have been argued with the "well this is normal and how we've always done it" bullshit.
If you can come up with a better argument to support it than "this is how we do it and it just is and you need to accept it" then I will listen.