The DNC has admitted in the past that they don’t need to respect the popular vote in the primaries if they want to appoint someone else. And as the last election proved they may just not make a vote happen at all if they so please.
The DNC has admitted in the past that they don’t need to respect the popular vote in the primaries if they want to appoint someone else
Me
When did the DNC ignore the popular vote in order to appoint a different candidate?
You
Don’t move the goalposts. That isn’t what Lileath said.
Literally asking for any evidence of when the DNC ignored the popular vote and appointed someone else. I’m not familiar with a time that happened, but I also don’t have a perfect memory of every primary the DNC has run.
Are you sure I’m moving a goalpost here? I really don’t think that is the case.
That is specifically what the DNC has done in the past. That’s what Lileath pointed out.
You then moved the goalpost by demanding that Lileath prove they actually did ignore the popular vote. Lileath was talking about something they claim they have a right to do. You’re then demanding evidence that they’ve actually done that thing.
Not like democrat primaries have ever represented the will of the voters the last ten years
There is a difference between moving the goalposts and asking leading questions to narrow down a very broad stance.
Yes, I am aware of the court case after the 2016 primaries. The case was tossed out because the plantiffs did not have a case, and the court had no jurisdiction. Why fight a battle of opinions when the plain facts invalidate the case? The DNCs lawyers knew this and had it thrown out categorically.
What is missing (frustratingly) every time I see someone bring up this point is that the candidate that was more popular with Democratic primary voters won the nomination. As far as I’m aware, this is the case for every candidate the DNC has selected in every single primary. I can understand people saying that the DNC does not support all their candidates equally during and after their primaries, but I do not understand them leading others on to the idea that the DNC is ignoring its voters and selecting candidates without any regard to whom it’s voters want.
None of this strikes me as moving goalposts, it’s a natural progression of discovery and inquiry, otherwise every conversation would just be two people copy-pasting the exact same thing back and forth.
The DNC has admitted in the past that they don’t need to respect the popular vote in the primaries if they want to appoint someone else. And as the last election proved they may just not make a vote happen at all if they so please.
When did the DNC ignore the popular vote in order to appoint a different candidate?
Don’t move the goalposts. That isn’t what Lileath said.
Lileath
Me
You
Literally asking for any evidence of when the DNC ignored the popular vote and appointed someone else. I’m not familiar with a time that happened, but I also don’t have a perfect memory of every primary the DNC has run.
Are you sure I’m moving a goalpost here? I really don’t think that is the case.
Read more carefully. Lileath pointed out that the DNC has admitted in the past that they do not need to respect the primaries. They’ve literally argued this in open court. They’ve argued in court that they are a private corporation and can literally ignore their own bylaws if they want to.
That is specifically what the DNC has done in the past. That’s what Lileath pointed out.
You then moved the goalpost by demanding that Lileath prove they actually did ignore the popular vote. Lileath was talking about something they claim they have a right to do. You’re then demanding evidence that they’ve actually done that thing.
There is a difference between moving the goalposts and asking leading questions to narrow down a very broad stance.
Yes, I am aware of the court case after the 2016 primaries. The case was tossed out because the plantiffs did not have a case, and the court had no jurisdiction. Why fight a battle of opinions when the plain facts invalidate the case? The DNCs lawyers knew this and had it thrown out categorically.
What is missing (frustratingly) every time I see someone bring up this point is that the candidate that was more popular with Democratic primary voters won the nomination. As far as I’m aware, this is the case for every candidate the DNC has selected in every single primary. I can understand people saying that the DNC does not support all their candidates equally during and after their primaries, but I do not understand them leading others on to the idea that the DNC is ignoring its voters and selecting candidates without any regard to whom it’s voters want.
None of this strikes me as moving goalposts, it’s a natural progression of discovery and inquiry, otherwise every conversation would just be two people copy-pasting the exact same thing back and forth.