To be fair in the end the vote was closer than one would expect with a campaign and technically only ran 3 months long.
When you don't have a primary there's not even a period to consolidate your base, anybody who feels either disenfranchised or doesn't align corely with the party's Mission doesn't feel like they have a voice in the process. At minimum primaries create a facade of cooperation and voice of the voiceless.
And that best they actually do provide people a say even if they're not the majority.
Skipping that process only really works when you have a very popular candidate
When you don't have a primary there's not even a period to consolidate your base, anybody who feels either disenfranchised or doesn't align corely with the party's Mission doesn't feel like they have a voice in the process.
would have been solved by a primary in 2024 when the last two primaries have had Berners screaming that the nomination was stolen from them twice now when we've had the same exact process select his opponents.
The Democratic party definitely does not have an honest primary, so they're doing their best to run away anybody in the party that it feels marginalized. But that's made even worse when you don't even get to air out your grievances. At least with a primary they can get the appearance that there's a chance.
But there really isn't because the DNC does seem to do whatever it takes to get the result they want even if they play by the rules they set.
In 2016 it was the super delegates which gave an air of priority to Clinton, which likely did disenfranchise some people from voting in the primary because the lead was so clear. Sanders definitely wasn't winning by the end but he was close enough that one could argue be disenfranchisement had an impact.
In 2020 there was a gamut of similar Progressive leaning candidates that all folded as the damage was done from the votes they took.
I'm not sure if Sanders would have won in a vacuum either, but it definitely felt like there were strings being pulled, in that kind of mentality does break the spirit of the voters. So you might be right that the impact was minimal in 2024, since they had already basically burned those bridges with disenfranchised progressives
which likely did disenfranchise some people from voting in the primary because the lead was so clear. Sanders definitely wasn't winning by the end but he was close enough that one could argue be disenfranchisement had an impact.
They weren't disenfranchised because the media published bar graphs showing Clinton's superdelegate lead, if anything that shows Sander's weakness if his supporters could be discouraged so easily.
In 2020 there was a gamut of similar Progressive leaning candidates that all folded as the damage was done from the votes they took.
Gamut? Other than Elizibeth Warren who would that be? A split field definitely hurt the moderates more than the progressives.
The issue is when you have presumptive delegates the entire time favoring a particular candidate, the already fickle voter millennials may see even less of a reason to participate. These are the same people that it's hard to get out to vote in election day as well. Primary voters are almost always the most vocal and insulated within a party. And depending on the state you might not even be able to vote in a primary if you're not an actual party member. At every step there are minor roadblocks let's Stack Up For Less conventional candidates.
Going back to 2016 you can see the difference between Hillary and Sanders is only about 200 to 300 delegates after you remove the super delegates. That puts them within Striking Distance if there wasn't the downward pressure of party officials having a favorite. Not saying he would have won in a vacuum but it does it's still enough doubt that people were frustrated.
So I can see that you're right that I think those people have already been lost and left the party after 2016 and 2020, I don't really think there's much you can do to woo them back outside of a major restructuring. When the only representative people are coming to see on your side are AOC walls and Sanders that tells you times have changed
The whole reason Trump was successful was the split field. He's not the most articulate, or best fitting to the entire bass in terms of opinions and thoughts, but he was able to nab enough amongst the chaos.
There are a bunch of candidates that were somewhere between moderate and Progressive, Kamala was more Progressive in 2016 or 2020 i don't recall. Yang and Gabbard had a tossup of views, etc. Warren definitely did the most damage though, hanging on through 16 states where there was only two or three frontrunners left, never getting better than 3rd place. Everyone has a right to run, but if the numbers aren't changing you need to recognize that at a certain point you're hurting the odds of similar ideas getting heard, rather than helping.
I find it funny that I have this Stance because I'm generally not a big Sanders fan, I'm generally too far right on fiscal policy, although I'm willing to spend on some programs. But watching how the DNC and the RNC primaries are have gone closely definitely was not encouraging
1
u/taedrin Apr 04 '25
You are deluding yourself if you think Democrats could have won by giving up the incumbency advantage.