• Steve
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Biden never should have run a second time at all. His running scared away any other candates. If he clearly said he wouldn’t run for a second term, they could’ve had a full open primary with a dozen candates or more.

    As it was, they did everything they could to discourage a real, full primary process.

    Even after he was forced out, he could’ve not handed he’s entire campaign war chest and staff to Harris. And instead had a contested convention where candates lobbied attendees for their votes. Like used be done a century ago. Then given all his campaign resources to that nominee.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Supposedly he couldn’t give the resources to anyone else as they were gathered for a biden/Harris campaign.

      Since Harris was part of that there was no problems with her taking it over

      Probably some kind of fraud otherwise. Collecting funds for a different purpose.

      • Steve
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        That makes sense.

        • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          no it doesn’t harris raised almost a billion in 3 days. that billion was not committed to biden. not even 200 million of it was before he dropped out. trump won on 400 million.

          • Steve
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            I’m not sure how any that matters to any campaign finance rules that might prevent Biden from giving his war chest to another candate?

            • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              You dont realize how the majority of money was raised after he dropped out and that trump managed to win with half of the money is relevant to the discussion of ‘only harris could access biden’s campaign funds.’ nonsense reasoning the dnc and media gave for why we absolutely must go with harris as the candidate?

              • Steve
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                Oh! Now I get it. You’re talking about something I wasn’t. It’s true none of that has anything to do with the rules specifically, like I thought. But instead, you want to talk about some broader point we weren’t thinking or talking about. Okay. Yes your right. It matters to the larger situation, beyond the scope of our immediate discussion. Thank you for explaining.

                • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Np. As for the campaign finance laws im also fairly certain those excuses were a load of bunk too. I dont believe anything prevented biden campaign from returning them to the donors and letting them reallocate.

    • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      4 days ago

      That’s ridiculous. No canadates steped forward.

      It’s a circular firing squad. I choose not to participate. You can if you want.

      • Steve
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        No candidates stepped forward.

        Because Biden ran.
        I said that.
        That was the whole point of what I said.

        You don’t seem to be participating anyway.

          • Steve
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            It’s not an argument. It’s an excuse.
            A post-hoc justification, given as a robotic response to my explaining how it’s false.
            In this exchange it’s literal nonsense.

              • Steve
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                3 days ago

                People don’t even take turns in a circular firing squad.
                I have no idea what you’re talking about any more.