Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
b) a couple weeks before the candidate was formally sworn in
If that was the case, they would have done it sooner
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
and unprecedented, move. It’s a huge risk to drop the incumbent in favor of somebody else.
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
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