609
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
609 points (94.8% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
3543 readers
106 users here now
Rules:
- Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
- No spam or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If that was the case, they would have done it sooner. Kamala stepping in was definitely an unplanned, and unprecedented, move. It's a huge risk to drop the incumbent in favor of somebody else.
i think it was perfectly timed
a) after the primary was informally settled
b) a couple weeks before the candidate was formally sworn in
sooner and there may have been a real primary contest. too risky. they did it with just enough time to sort of "zerg rush" Kamala into the primary without giving anyone time to mount a meaningful attempt at the primary
unprecedented, yes. it's the first time in US history since we've been using the primary system that a candidate got the party nomination without a single vote being cast for them
risky, also yes. but they (I think correctly) determined that Biden was a lost cause.
so it was either a) go with the guy you know you're gonna lose or b) go with someone you will probably lose with
b is the logical choice