[kelipso]

> If you care about Dem ideology etc enough to follow their primaries

I don’t. I follow both primaries because that’s where almost all of the democratic process in the Presidential election happens. Once you have two candidates (third parties are obviously jokes), you get to choose between the two.

So, the primary process is very important to make sure democracy happens and I put a lot of importance in it. As should everyone.

And so, if a candidate does not win through that primary process, that candidate is illegitimate.

[zzrrt]

What is the point of a presidential ballot with only one viable and legitimate candidate? You're just throwing away your choice, because an old man tried to run and then backed out, and his party made possibly the least-impact change they could.

If Biden won and died on day 1 in the office, you'd still end up with "a president who never won the primary" but it wouldn't be the party's fault. Biden stepping down is approximately the same endpoint without dying; is it really logical to blackball the party over a possibility that could have happened accidentally?

Even supposing they legally could have done what you want, they were also legally permitted to do what they did. Harris was a candidate produced by the party following laws and its own procedures. You didn't like the outcome, but that doesn't mean it was not legitimate. Call it undemocratic if you want (though I'm not sure the normal primary process is democratic anyway), but it's legitimate.

[shadowgovt]

> though I'm not sure the normal primary process is democratic anyway

That's a great point, and one I wish more voters understood. The primaries are very undemocratic, both of them. In most states, you can't even vote in both primaries because you can only have one party affiliation.

How much real choice do Americans have when the primaries determine, practically, the candidates and they can only lend their voice to one party's choice of candidate?