• FishLake@lemmygrad.ml
    ·
    4 months ago

    Ding ding ding. I believe that’s a big possibility. It’s a very neoliberal way of thinking to listen to market forces (donors) over constituents. Because what are constituents really than just molecular portions of the market? Whatever the logos, I think it’s easier to imagine democrats replacing Biden because of funding concerns rather that the direct will of voters.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      ·
      4 months ago

      I think it creates the perception of the decision being made from the direct will of the voters, though, and that would be disastrous for the Party. If voters get it into their heads that they can influence the Party it will be hard to stuff that genie back in the bottle.

      • emizeko [they/them]
        ·
        4 months ago

        that's why Harris is so perfect for this, because nobody wants Harris

        • CthulhusIntern [he/him]
          ·
          4 months ago

          I hope I'm not lathing it, but if Joe drops out, they might replace him with Harris, then Trump absolutely dominates, possibly to the point of winning all 538 electors unanimously. Then Democrats will say "See? We shouldn't listen to the voters!"

          • Egon
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            deleted by creator

      • FishLake@lemmygrad.ml
        ·
        4 months ago

        I agree. I guess we’ll see how much obfuscation of the voters’ will the Democratic Party can tolerate. If history serves as a guide, they’ll eff it up and replace Biden. Hopefully people will realize the genie’s out of the bottle then.

      • Red_Sunshine_Over_Florida [he/him]
        ·
        4 months ago

        I think it would be easy to contain any popular sentiment from the voters. They tend to be better disciplined than your average Republican primary voter. Plus, look how effortlessly they were able to stop Bernie when they put their mind to it. The donors are another story though.