[arrosenberg]

> And as far as I'm aware, that process was followed following Biden's announcement.

This is exactly the problem. The Democratic Party excuse is always "we're following the process". The results suck and then they wring their hands wondering how they lost the election. The goal should be to get power, and getting power requires nominating someone popular. Anyone who has paid attention to US politics for the last decade could have explained just how unpopular Kamala Harris would be.

[shadowgovt]

Pushing too far in that direction results in a Trump wearing a different hat.

The Democrats do follow process. That's one of the key things that makes them Democrats in contrast to the demagoguery and power-at-any-cost approach that seems to have co-opted their colleagues across the aisle. I don't think the kind of people who would vote for a Democratic candidate at all actually want a rule-breaker (and if they do, we got one in the Oval Office right now).

[arrosenberg]

Wrong. We do want someone who will break rules when the rules are there to stop the government from serving its' constituents. So glad they kept the filibuster; so glad they listened to the Senate Parliamentarian; so glad they followed the process and anointed Kamala. Look at where worshipping the process lead.

[pseudalopex]

> Wrong. We do want someone who will break rules when the rules are there to stop the government from serving its' constituents.

Some of you do. Some of you don't. Most of you want of you presidents to obey courts at least.[1]

> So glad they kept the filibuster

In 2013 Democrats eliminated the 60 vote requirement for most nominations. In 2022 all but 2 Democrats voted to eliminate it for some legislation. Who kept it was 100% of Republicans, Sinema, and Manchin.

Some people who sounded like you said Democrats could have and should have blackmailed Sinema and Manchin to get 50 votes. They couldn't explain what would have stopped Sinema or Manchin from defecting to the Republicans.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/majority-americans-believe-...

[arrosenberg]

Courts, sure. Your story is an perfect example of where half-measures led the party, so I’m not sure why you brought that up.

[shadowgovt]

Because once you start breaking rules you don't get to control when it stops.

If we're blackmailing Senators, what do we do when the courts step in to stop it?

Breaking the process leads to a pyrrhic victory. It's France going from guillotining the king to guillotining feminists. If that's one's goal, rejoice! The man in charge right now is the best opportunity since the adoption of America's Constitution in the first place to get there.

ETA: As a side question on this topic: let's assume the Democrats, upon finding that Biden wouldn't be willing to serve, found some way to re-run the primary. We'll magically ignore the massive cost to do so and the fact that it would be illegal to use the voting apparatus of most states in a surprise out-of-band second primary, and we'll magically assume they could organize and pull it off in time for the general election. Who would have come out of that process that would have beaten Trump?

[arrosenberg]

We didn't get to control where it stops by following the process either, at least we could have had a hand on the wheel. You are advocating for bringing a knife to a gun fight.

For what its' worth, by the time Biden was elected, the party was already dead. It would have realized that in 2020 if Trump hadn't messed up COVID so badly. The best example of what I am talking about is Obama not seating Merrick Garland on the court and daring the Senate to stop him.