The Democratic National Committee is moving ahead with its plans to virtually nominate President Joe Biden in the coming weeks, sending out an email to its members Wednesday morning stressing that that is “the wisest approach” despite fierce backlash from some Democratic lawmakers.
The party exists to support their candidate in the general.
The party doesn’t care, at all, whether the primary is competitive. In fact, until recently parties often held caucuses instead of primaries, or just selected candidates in smoke-filled rooms.
You can’t be a winner if there is no contest
This year there will be plenty of local candidates who will run opposed in the general election. If those races have no winners, then who will fill those offices?
But should those seats remain unfilled after an uncontested election? That would mean most of those seats are never filled.
I don’t think the lack of competition is an existential threat. Democratic competition is motivated by a strong desire for change. But it’s natural that in some communities nobody strongly desires change in some settings, like school board policy.
If and when the school board or judge makes mistakes, political opponents who desire change will arise.
But should those seats remain unfilled after an uncontested election? That would mean most of those seats are never filled.
You could fit three full elections between voting day and inaguration day. The idea that elections take years is an artifact of our broken electoral system, not a fact of nature.
I don’t think the lack of competition is an existential threat.
Trump is about to win a second term because the DNC conspired to knock Bernie out of the primary in 2015.
If nobody volunteers to run for school board between January and October, then nobody will volunteer in November or December.
Running a campaign takes time and money, and you shouldn’t expect someone to volunteer those just to give you the satisfaction of seeing two boxes on a ballot.
And I see no evidence that President Sanders in 2016 could have prevented Trump from running in 2024.
The party exists to support their candidate in the general.
The party doesn’t care, at all, whether the primary is competitive. In fact, until recently parties often held caucuses instead of primaries, or just selected candidates in smoke-filled rooms.
This year there will be plenty of local candidates who will run opposed in the general election. If those races have no winners, then who will fill those offices?
Nobody.
If the office needs to be filled, hold another election.
That’s not how it works. A winner is declared no matter how many candidates.
And your approach is unreasonable, you can’t keep repeating the election for county coroner when only one person even wants to run.
County coroner shouldn’t be an elected position anyway.
Should school boards be elected? This year, 58% of those seats are uncontested.
What about local judges? This year, 84% are uncontested.
Yes, yes, and those are great examples of why the lack of democratic competition is an existential threat to the nation.
But should those seats remain unfilled after an uncontested election? That would mean most of those seats are never filled.
I don’t think the lack of competition is an existential threat. Democratic competition is motivated by a strong desire for change. But it’s natural that in some communities nobody strongly desires change in some settings, like school board policy.
If and when the school board or judge makes mistakes, political opponents who desire change will arise.
You could fit three full elections between voting day and inaguration day. The idea that elections take years is an artifact of our broken electoral system, not a fact of nature.
Trump is about to win a second term because the DNC conspired to knock Bernie out of the primary in 2015.
If nobody volunteers to run for school board between January and October, then nobody will volunteer in November or December.
Running a campaign takes time and money, and you shouldn’t expect someone to volunteer those just to give you the satisfaction of seeing two boxes on a ballot.
And I see no evidence that President Sanders in 2016 could have prevented Trump from running in 2024.