Gretchen Whitmer responds to calls by some Democrats to vote ā€˜uncommittedā€™ in Michiganā€™s primary on Tuesday

Gretchen Whitmer responds to calls by some Democrats to vote ā€˜uncommittedā€™ in Michiganā€™s primary on Tuesday

Gretchen Whitmer, the Michigan governor, pushed back on calls to not vote for Joe Biden over his handling of the Israel-Gaza conflict, saying on Sunday that could help Trump get re-elected.

ā€œItā€™s important not to lose sight of the fact that any vote thatā€™s not cast for Joe Biden supports a second Trump term,ā€ she said on Sunday during an interview on CNNā€™s State of the Union. ā€œA second Trump term would be devastating. Not just on fundamental rights, not just on our democracy here at home, but also when it comes to foreign policy. This was a man who promoted a Muslim ban.ā€

Whitmer, who is a co-chair of Bidenā€™s 2024 campaign, also said she wasnā€™t sure what to expect when it came to the protest vote.

Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat who is the only Palestinian-American serving in Congress, urged Democrats last week to vote ā€œuncommittedā€ in Michiganā€™s 27 February primary.

  • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
    21Ā·
    9 months ago

    I think you are misunderstanding my position here. Again, I voted for Bernie twice, donated thousands of dollars to him, and put in many full time weeks volunteering for his campaign. I understood going into it how primaries worked, which is why I understood it was going to be a long shot. Which is why I went so hard.

    The issue isnā€™t a contentious primary, itā€™s the division and discontent sown by sore losers after the fact which is literally still happening in this thread (and all over the Internet) that Iā€™m talking about. This is not an abstraction. This sour grapes behavior literally contributed to Trumpā€™s win whether you want to admit it or not. So yes, the ongoing temper tantrum absolutely creates moral liability for those who insist on picking that scab a decade later.

    In my mind, a good faith participant in this conversation would have moved on long ago. Take the lumps, work to change things, but donā€™t fucking go around sabotaging democratic engagement. This is why I view this continued relitigating of 2016, in a year where none of those participants are even running, with extreme skepticism. And yes, even prejudice.

    • Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
      2Ā·
      9 months ago

      The issue isnā€™t a contentious primary, itā€™s the division and discontent sown by sore losers after the fact

      That would be fine, except it ignores important context.

      • This is still the Democratic primary that is being discussed. Nobody disputes that Biden is going to win, but that doesnā€™t mean people are being somehow disloyal to vote for their candidate of choice, or for ā€œuncommittedā€ to send a message to the party.

      • Bernie voters overwhelmingly supported both Hillary and then Biden. Those that didnā€™t were almost entirely right-wing voters who either mistakenly thought Bernie was a sabotage candidate, or were primarily motivated by getting an outsider candidate. There is no universe in which right wing anti-establishment voters are going to flock to someone like Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. All of this is backed up in the exit polls.

      • Hillary disingenuously scapegoated Bernie supporters for her loss to Trump, and continues to do so today. If you really feel the need to scold somebody for destroying party unity, that is where you should start. Thanks to Hillaryā€™s bullshit, the left wing of the party is understandably a bit hypersensitive to accusations of party disloyalty, and the line that you are taking is only going to exacerbate that issue.

      • Right wing troll farms are all over the place trying to drive a wedge into this issue. I donā€™t know what percentage of the loudmouthed ā€œthird partyā€ advocates are right wing trolls, but I think itā€™s pretty high. Feeding the trolls usually just makes it worse, but itā€™s reasonable with reasoned arguments about that being a terrible strategy. Whatā€™s not reasonable is to assume those arguments are representative of a large segment of leftists, then assume that to be the position of people discussing an ongoing primary.

      This sour grapes behavior literally contributed to Trumpā€™s win whether you want to admit it or not.

      I certainly donā€™t ā€œadmit itā€. Exit polling showed no significant tendency for leftists to vote against the Democratic nominee. Bernie voters voted for Hillary in greater numbers than Hillary voters voting for Obama, even including the right wing Bernie voters I mentioned above that were not a real factor for Obama. Obama also didnā€™t piss on the left after winning the way Hillary did.

      So yes, the ongoing temper tantrum

      Lets talk about your language. Using terms like ā€œsore losersā€, ā€œsour grapesā€, ā€œtemper tantrumā€, and even ā€œadmit itā€, and also accusing people of ā€œsabotaging democratic engagementā€ for literally engaging in and discussing a Democratic primary is not an effective strategy to achieve a Democratic victory. All you are doing is driving potential voters away.

      This is why I view this continued relitigating of 2016, in a year where none of those participants are even running, with extreme skepticism.

      Nobody in either this post or the thread leading up to this comment has mentioned the 2016 election at all. Itā€™s mentioned in other threads, but why would you bring it up here? I never said anything of the kind. However, I will say that the Democratic primary process is extremely undemocratic because it is designed to be easily manipulated by the Democratic establishment and their allies in establishment media. As long as it remains as fucked up as it is, the 2016 primary, and every other fucked up primary, will continue to be relevant.