Before I begin, calm your crap down, I don't mean "rig" in the same way Trumpers do, for reference. There are no random boxes of mail in ballots that guarantee the results for democrats or whatever. What I mean by "rig" is "influence the circumstances surrounding the election to guarantee a specific desired outcome". For example, in 2016, the democrats used their media influence to astroturf for Hillary Clinton and push her as the "inevitable" option that we had to vote for or else, with alternatives being buried, hidden, or subject to adverse conditions. That and how super Tuesday was front loaded with southern states that trend toward the more conservative nominee to discourage people in more progressive and swing states from supporting the more progressive option.
They did this again in 2020 with the South Carolina Primary and Super Tuesday with encouraging all of the other moderates to get out and back Joe Biden, leading to a landslide in his favorite while the primary up to that point was going in Bernie's favor.
Kyle Kulinski discussed the issue tonight for 2024. Apparently they want to replace the Iowa caucus with another state. Now, don't get me wrong, I support doing away with the current primary system. Iowa is NOT a very relevant state for politics. It's small, it leans red these days, it isn't really a good indicator of anything. New Hampshire is small but at least it's a swing state. So what are they going to replace Iowa with? South Carolina.
...
Okay, can we just get the elephant out of the room here? Here is exactly why the democrats seem to LOVE south carolina. It's full of these old (50+) black voters who are rural conservatives and support the establishment wing of the democratic party unquestioningly. The democrats love to elevate the opinions of people like these under the guise of "promoting diversity" or something, or doing this weird SJW circlejerk of "elevating black voices", but in reality, it's basically because these guys will vote for any centrist that they throw out there. They supported Clinton in 2016, Biden in 2020, and if South Carolina goes first, as Kyle points out, well, the result is going to be that it will dictate the terms of how the rest of the primary will go. Biden will win in a landslide, it will be the big news of the cycle, and the rest of the primaries will be an uphill battle of "Biden is inevitable." And if you dare question the narrative, they will call you a racist. The democrats LOVE hiding behind black voters because it allows them to play their BS little SJW rhetorical games. When they win they circlejerk about "OMG T3H BL4CK V0TE, T3H BL4CK V0T3!" and go on like "you see you WHITE progressives, you don't understand BLACK people."
Now, I want to make this clear. I'm not saying this to be racist at all. I have nothing against black people. I really don't want to make an issue out of this. But given that this is how the democratic establishment weaponizes politics, and given how the intent behind doing this is to INDUCE discomfort in discussing the subject in a critical light, it's necessary to do. The fact is, the democrats make this an issue by motivating these voters specifically on the basis of race, push politics specifically on the basis of race, and if you push back at all, boom, you must be racist. No. I'm just telling it like it is. The democrats are weaponizing this stuff in order to promote their own brand of politics and displace any challengers who want something different.
There's NO real reason, other than to promote Biden or whatever centrist replaces him if he chooses not to run as the presumptive nominee. South Carolina is not a strategically important state for democrats in the general election. They can't win South Carolina to save their lives, outside of like, LITERALLY ONE blue district that happens to contain both Charleston and Columbia (the two largest cities) and looks blatantly gerrymandered. It's not a blue state. So why should this state be first in the nation? Because the voters are black? That seems to be the logic. Iowa is "too white" so we need a "diverse" state in order to represent the TRUE democratic voter. Uh....how about yall both are wrong? I mean, I get the arguments about Iowa. it is arguably "too white", its population isnt representative of most of america, and like South Carolina, it hasnt been a swing state since the Obama era. It now swings like 6-10 points red or something.
What state should go first? Idk, maybe a larger state. Maybe something that is actually in play. Maybe my own state of Pennsylvania? It seems fairly representative of America as a whole, has a lot of diversity in it as far as race goes, and it's literally just about the swingiest of swing. We literally determined who won the election both in 2016 and 2020.
I know Michigan was floated as an early state. That's actually not bad. And it has a lot of racial diversity there too. What about Nevada? They are normally right after Iowa and New Hampshire. Also a swing state.
Hell, even GEORGIA would be a better southern state than south carolina. At least georgia is in play these days.
But oh wait, maybe if we chose another state like PA or NV or MI we would get a non establishment approved candidate. I bet that's the obvious reason they dont do that. After all, we just won with John Fetterman here in PA. In Nevada, they actually voted for Bernie last time and I remember that's where Chris Matthews had his melt down. That's the point. The democrats DON'T want the race to go in favor of an anti establishment progressive. They want to stop another Bernie run, or because Bernie is getting too old, whomever his replacement may eventually be. It's a machine. They're playing machine politics. They control the machine, so they can tilt the field in favor of their preferred outcome.
It's frustrating. This is why I voted third party in 2016 and 2020. I could tell that it was obvious what they were doing, and when they do crap like this, I just wanna vote third party. Sadly, I'm cooling on third parties too as Forward has gone in a weirdly conservative direction, and the greens are full on socialists with unworkable plans and a fetishization for large scale jobs programs. So I really don't know how I'm voting come 2024.
The sad thing is, this seems unnecessary too. If Biden runs again, he's going to be the favorite, he has the incumbency, and any insurgent campaign against him will likely fail. Are they really that scared for Biden's numbers? I know he's unpopular, his net approval rating is negative, and there was real talk of a progressive challenger in 2024, but after the 2022 mid terms, I think that if anything made a case for Joe Biden being the nominee, it would be that. I mean, the dems won, all things considered. We actually gained ground in the senate given the runoff tomorrow runs well. We only narrowly lost the house. All things considered, that is a win.
Are they really that scared that someone can challenge him, and that he could actually lose? Really, I say this AS a more insurgent progressive type, but I really dont think my side of the aisle has their crap together for 2024. Any campaign we mount against Biden will likely be ineffective anyway, and no one will pay much attention to it. And given Bernie will be like a bazillion years old, I actually DON'T want him to run again. I would prefer someone who isn't literally in their 80s. Because that dude will probably die in office and we're really voting for their VP. And I really don't think someone like Nina Turner or Marianne Williamson has the chops to beat Biden in the current environment. So why stack it?
Honestly, you could even argue Biden is the most electable candidate and replacing him means certain doom for the democrats. Any attempt to replace Biden with anyone else, whether it Bernie, or Harris, or Buttigieg, seems to imply that democrats will lose support relative to Biden. And given how I expect 2024 to be a nail biter, you could argue Biden is the only one who can pull it off.
Of course, the democrats are doing what they always seem to find a way to do. Alienate people and screw up while the opposition runs full speed toward fascism. It's like they wanna piss people off and lose. Really, way to destroy any good will you have with voters. Here I've been somewhat warming up to democrats but between this and the railroad strike, they seem to be quickly destroying any good will they've gained with me.
We'll see what happens come 2024. I will not, at this time, guarantee my vote for democrats. Because they need to earn it. And the best way to get on my bad side is to stack the process in your favor. We should have fair and open primaries. That's one thing Andrew yang gets right. Ranked choice voting, open primaries, ending the duopoly. I might not make it my core concern, but if the democrats are going to go into 2024 not wanting to do anything on my major concerns but insisting I must support them or else, I MIGHT just end up going back to Forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment