Democrats successfully argued in court that they do not have to run honest primaries.
Actually, what they argued is that the court and outside groups have no legal standing to dictate how the Democrats select their candidates.
Why go through the lengthy trouble of proving a primary was fair, when you can just point out that there is no law that says they have to be. That’s the result of hiring a good lawyer.
Edit: The same is true for the republican party, the green party, and any other political party in the US.
They argued that it was their party and they could anoint whoever party leadership wanted (the phrase “smoke filled room” actually came up) without input from the voters, and you like the results so you’re making excuses.
I notice how you ignored the rest of my comment which establishes this as part of a larger pattern of behavior.
Edit: The same is true for the republican party,
I love how we can’t act like republicans under circumstances where doing so might help constituents, but when the party wants to put its thumb on the scale against progressives, everyone does it so it’s ok.
I didn’t actually like the result of the 2016 primary…
But I can also tell when one number is bigger than the other, and I know that rule number one is keep trump out of office and rule number two is vote for your best candidate in the primary, and the least worse candidate in the general.
I notice how you ignored the rest of my comment which establishes this as part of a larger pattern of behavior.
Gotta love you saying this, and then immediately taking part of my comment out of context to create a “gotcha” moment I’d expect to see on Fox News.
I didn’t actually like the result of the 2016 primary…
I’m sorry no one was running to the right of Clinton in the primary.
I know that rule number one is keep trump out of office
Rule 0 is keep progressives out of office, and it takes precedence over rule 1.
Gotta love you saying this, and then immediately taking part of my comment out of context
If you’re going to ignore most of my comment to pretend that democrats run honest primaries after an election cycle in which they denied the voters primaries entirely, don’t expect greater courtesy than you offer.
Actually, what they argued is that the court and outside groups have no legal standing to dictate how the Democrats select their candidates.
Why go through the lengthy trouble of proving a primary was fair, when you can just point out that there is no law that says they have to be. That’s the result of hiring a good lawyer.
Edit: The same is true for the republican party, the green party, and any other political party in the US.
They argued that it was their party and they could anoint whoever party leadership wanted (the phrase “smoke filled room” actually came up) without input from the voters, and you like the results so you’re making excuses.
I notice how you ignored the rest of my comment which establishes this as part of a larger pattern of behavior.
I love how we can’t act like republicans under circumstances where doing so might help constituents, but when the party wants to put its thumb on the scale against progressives, everyone does it so it’s ok.
I didn’t actually like the result of the 2016 primary… But I can also tell when one number is bigger than the other, and I know that rule number one is keep trump out of office and rule number two is vote for your best candidate in the primary, and the least worse candidate in the general.
Gotta love you saying this, and then immediately taking part of my comment out of context to create a “gotcha” moment I’d expect to see on Fox News.
I’m sorry no one was running to the right of Clinton in the primary.
Rule 0 is keep progressives out of office, and it takes precedence over rule 1.
If you’re going to ignore most of my comment to pretend that democrats run honest primaries after an election cycle in which they denied the voters primaries entirely, don’t expect greater courtesy than you offer.