this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
703 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
58816 readers
4531 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Really?
I never heard of any party stripping a state of their primary delegates because of something completely out of control of the state party... Especially when it's a state that routinely votes against the party favorite.
Can you let me know some other times this happened?
In every election, the incumbent is given preferential treatment and generally treated as the de facto candidate. In which election are you thinking of that this was not the case?
Sure...
But when has the national party taken a state's delegates away?
Ideally for something outside of the states party control, because that's what just happened. And for a state that routinely votes against the national party's chosen candidate.
But I'll take any recent examples of a state losing their primary delegates because the national party yanked them away.
Welp, I guess I was right and this is totally unprecedented in modern American politics...
Still don't understand why so many people are ok with this tho
Also pretty sure I distinctly remember several people running against Trump in that primary.... So "nobody made a fuss" is a lie.
You're actually proving the point. The people who ran against him demanded funding and equal access to Party resources, but they were denied. The incumbent party will always tilt the field toward the incumbent president.
Except you literally said "nobody made a fuss." Several people did.
Because not everyone agrees it's "normal and fair and strategically sound."
Just because "this is the way things are done" is an awful argument. Slavery was legal once, too, and people argued "this is the way things are done" for that, too.
It's a weak argument to say "well this is normal." So was segregation until it wasn't? Lots of morally dubious things have been argued with the "well this is normal and how we've always done it" bullshit.
If you can come up with a better argument to support it than "this is how we do it and it just is and you need to accept it" then I will listen.