The Shadow Primary: Biden Ends Campaign, Installs Harris As Party Nominee With NO Votes To ‘Save Our Democracy’
It's so offensive when Democrats slander Republicans as a threat to democracy. They are a threat to the Left, no more
President Joe Biden delivered a rare Oval Office address on July 24 withdrawing from the 2024 presidential campaign and leaving the Democratic Party nomination to Vice President Kamala Harris, whom he has already endorsed and who appears to have secured enough support among the party’s convention delegates when they meet next month. Biden said, “I believe my record as president, my leadership in the world, my vision for America’s future, all merited a second term. But nothing, nothing can come in the way of saving our democracy. That includes personal ambition.” So, in order to “sav[e] our democracy,” and to unite the country, Biden said it was necessary to unite his party, many of whom were calling for him to be replaced as a candidate — without voters having any role whatsoever in the decision. This was a speech Biden could have delivered last year, before 14.6 million Americans voted for him in the 2024 Democratic Party primaries — who are now disenfranchised. In fact, about 35 percent of Democrats wanted Biden to stay in the race in the latest AP-NORC poll taken July 11 to July 15. Biden could have cleared the way for an open seat, but he said he wanted to run for re-election and, importantly, Democrats wanted to avoid a divisive primary that would have lowered their chances of winning the general election. So, how to remove Biden but without a primary full of in-fighting? Skip it and then, if necessary, anoint the replacement when there is little to no time to mount a credible challenge the presumptive nominee. This was a shadow primary. How democratic.
“[T]he sacred cause of this country is larger than any one of us. Those of us who cher[ish] that cause cherish it so much. The cause of American democracy itself. We must unite to protect it. In recent weeks, it has become clear to me that I need to unite my party in this critical endeavor… So, I’ve decided the best way forward is to pass the torch to a new generation. It’s the best way to unite our nation.”
That was President Joe Biden, delivering a rare Oval Office address on July 24 withdrawing from the 2024 presidential campaign and leaving the Democratic Party nomination to Vice President Kamala Harris, whom he has already endorsed and who appears to have secured enough support among the party’s convention delegates when they meet next month.
Biden added, “I believe my record as president, my leadership in the world, my vision for America’s future, all merited a second term. But nothing, nothing can come in the way of saving our democracy. That includes personal ambition.”
So, in order to “sav[e] our democracy,” and to unite the country, Biden said it was necessary to unite his party, many of whom were calling for him to be replaced as a candidate — without voters having any role whatsoever in the decision.
This was a speech Biden could have delivered last year, before 14.6 million Americans voted for him in the 2024 Democratic Party primaries — who are now disenfranchised. In fact, about 35 percent of Democrats wanted Biden to stay in the race in the latest AP-NORC poll taken July 11 to July 15. Biden could have cleared the way for an open seat, but he said he wanted to run for re-election and, importantly, Democrats wanted to avoid a divisive primary that would have lowered their chances of winning the general election.
So, how to remove Biden but without a primary full of in-fighting? Skip it and then, if necessary, anoint the replacement when there is little to no time to mount a credible challenge the presumptive nominee.
This was a shadow primary. How democratic.
**************************************************
Minor parties can save the West
‘Blame Farage for the Tory wipe-out!’ Or so went the rather limp voices in the UK, grasping for excuses following the massacre of globalist politics led by Rishi Sunak.
The desire for sensible conservative and libertarian-minded policy is on the rise, as is the renewal of cultural affection and nostalgia for decades past which appear to us now as the last flush of sunset chased over the edge of Parliament by the long night of left-wing rule.
So, why didn’t the conservatives win? Why isn’t the UK preparing for an age of economic liberalism and spiritual restoration? Why is Keir Starmer – the most radical socialist in a hundred years – strutting around Westminster preening his flock of Marxists?
Don’t blame Nigel Farage.
Blame the soggy wet Tories who valued their power above the needs of the people.
Blame the seat-warmers at the top in ‘safe seats’ who preyed on the long and grand history of the party as security against their reckless and activist politicking.
Blame a sad chain of leaders who refused to carry out Brexit because they, and their ministers, were miffed about spending five minutes standing in line to have their passports stamped instead of fighting to protect British waters from EU trawlers.
Blame the voters who stayed home, happy to watch democracy crumble while billions around the world pray that one day they may have the opportunity to vote.
And blame the voters who did show up, but lacked the courage to vote for principle and instead chose the faux safety of establishment.
If conservatives are to take one lesson from the activist Left, it’s this … we have to fight, as they do. Passionately. Relentlessly. Without fear.
Social media is full of people – nameless people – insisting that democracy is an illusion. Their message? That your vote means nothing. So don’t bother. Stay home. Keep quiet. Separate into whispering groups at the corners of the soon-to-be censored digital realm. There is no future in this approach. Certainly not with both parties cracking down on social media.
Disparaging the vote is usually an expression of despair.
Allow me to assure you of this… Your vote does count. Your vote has power. Provided it is used.
Just as a thousand people in the street can frighten a Parliament, 20 million people at the ballet box can flip a government.
Had UK conservatives voted for Reform, Nigel Farage would have the Opposition. He may even have the government. But they did not. They stayed home. The vote was split not by minor parties, but by a lack of courage.
The disparity between voting share, as raised by Reform to the fury of the Left, is valid. There is something wrong with a political system where the Liberal Democrats can win 3.5 million votes and take home 72 seats, while Reform UK wins 4 million votes but only holds 5 seats. No question, Farage has a point.
There is a similar problem where the disparity of population is such that the towering cities of our nation, where half the residents are new to this country and still finding their feet, hold policy power over the regional areas – the generational farms, growers of our food, and custodians of the natural landscape. Those who have never sown a field should not dictate the tax on a bag of wheat.
Democracy has always been a balancing act to make sure the brutal force of the majority does not overwhelm the rights of the individual and that the cities do not cannibalise the regions with their misguided virtue.
Keeping these scales balanced means the system must be reviewed. It is a review conducted when the public suspects something has gone wrong.
That said, it is interesting that the British press is full of conservatives lusting after Australia’s preferential voting. They assume, wrongly, that preferences would have saved the Tories – or boosted Reform. Neither is true – doubly so in an optional voting system where the most politically radical and enthusiastic show up to vote, which is disproportionately populated by the Left and sectarian groups who deem it a spiritual requirement rather than a democratic calling. It is a behaviour that has entrenched identity politics to the detriment of the wider community.
Australia knows from experience that preferential voting was implemented by the major parties – the uniparty – for its protection. It is a system that seeks to guarantee the supremacy of the establishment, no matter how poorly they perform or viciously they ignore their principles. Unless voters show courage…
While Nigel Farage may not have won as many seats as he would have liked, he did win seats. First-past-the-post makes it easier for minor parties to tip the balance of power and scare the heck out of conservative movements that abuse their legacy.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/07/minor-parties-can-save-the-west/
***************************************************What to expect in this weekend’s Venezuelan elections
Venezuelans will gear up to vote in what has devolved into an unfair and unfree presidential election Sunday — one that nonetheless offers its citzens the best chance in a decade to get rid of the twenty-five-year-old Chavista regime that brought the oil-rich nation to its knees.
Nicolás Maduro, the man who, among other things, caused a forty-two-place drop in Venezuela’s Press Freedom Index in ten years, will be facing Edmundo González. González, a little known diplomat who served in Algeria and Argentina, became the opposition’s unitary candidate after the government banned María Corina Machado from running. Though “inabilitated,” as Venezuelans put it, this election continues to be a Maduro versus Machado match.
Were the election to lead to Maduro’s exit, the biggest political and economic crisis in the Western Hemisphere — which caused the departure of close to 8 million citizens — would be at the beginning of its end. If not, expect the same story to continue, including the expanding — and Maduro-weaponized — migration crisis, which is affecting countries from Chile to the United States.
Three of the best trusted pollsters in Venezuela show González leading by around twenty to thirty percentage points. If democracy was a reality, the results would surprise no one. The question is: to what extent is Maduro prepared to cheat?
Over the last year, the Venezuelan autocrat has imprisoned half of Machado’s inner circle, used his security forces to harass opposition leaders, tinkered with the voter rolls and disenfranchised millions of its citizens residing outside of the country. On Friday, a flight carrying several former national leaders who were on their way to Venezuela to participate as electoral observers was prevented from taking off from Panama.
“Copa [Airlines] plane carrying [former Panamanian] president [Mireya] Moscoso and other former presidents heading to Venezuela has not been allowed to take off from [Panama’s] Tocumen while they remain on board, due to the blockade of Venezuelan airspace,” said José Raúl Mulino, the Panamanian president. Later that day, nine Spanish deputies were retained and then deported after landing in the Venezuelan port city of La Guaira.
So who’ll be observing? Democracy-loving Chinese officials, the do-nothing UN and a barebones Carter Center mission that will not even check how the votes are counted.
Though Venezuelans still have some hope left, the odds benefit Maduro. He controls the institutions, has survived international sanctions and has ample experience in quashing popular discontent. Yet it would also be foolish to completely rule out a potential transition. For the first time in decades, the opposition is firmly united behind a savvy popular leader with a clear objective. Chavismo, meanwhile, seems mired in divisions.
Maria Corina Machado, one of the most outspoken opponents of chavismo, won the opposition primaries by a 93 percent landslide in October. She toured the country and turned the Venezuelan people from a disillusioned mass into an energized and well-oiled political movement.
Machado’s charisma has been well documented, but her political prowess is also worth noting. She effectively united a fractious opposition, and when Maduro banned her from running, she outmaneuvered the regime into accepting González’s nomination.
For years, Chavismo has kept power thanks to limitless oil money and a stubborn base of supporters. Today, they have neither: Venezuela’s economic collapse eroded their support and sanctions made it harder for them to keep their cronies happy. The swift and ruthless purge of key power players earlier this year showed there’s simply not enough money to keep all leaders happy.
The 2024 election offered Maduro’s best bet to solve the problem. His regime wagered it could “win” an election against an atomized opposition and a disillusioned citizenry, allowing countries to remove sanctions and let the flood of money solve all the internal disagreements within the regime. Yet that clearly hasn’t happened.
One wing of Chavismo seems to be willing to do anything to stay in power, as they have little prospects in a post-Maduro Venezuela. Another wing seems committed to keep power, but are more open to negotiate a settlement if that includes some guarantees and impunity for them. The election is putting this coalition to the ultimate test.
So, what can observers expect? The opposition will get more votes, that we know. What we don’t know is how Maduro, the electoral council and the military react to the electoral defeat.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/07/what-to-expect-in-this-weekends-venezuelan-elections/
*******************************************Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment