https://www.keranews.org/elections-...gn-james-talarico-state-convention-not-attend https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/jasmine-crockett-blasts-her-texas-153347109.html Her actions and choice of words communicate a very clear lack of respect for Talarico. If she genuinely wants to focus on down-ballot races or black-specific policy issues, that's great. But she can do that without the passive aggressive swipes.
It was private, then public. The point is that it came from Bernie, who endorsed him very early on, and Bernie is more known as an outsider to the Dem Party. Correct, it was pretty much a universal call for him to step aside. It came from his supporters as well. There was virtually no pushback that he should stay. Not even from progressive "insurgent" or grassroot. Of course, the state party has to make a plan before he formally withdraws. There was always a chance he could say "fk everyone, I'm not withdrawing," and if he did that, the party could not do anything about it. They are working on a tight schedule to meet state law deadlines, with literally 2 weeks left to find a replacement from today. It would be indefensible if they did not start the work until days later. That is a weird way to put it. If virtually everyone is pushing him aside, that already shows that rape is disqualifying. Why would a formal vote be needed to illustrate that? A similar case involved Moore in 2017. Many Republicans pushed him out, but some prominent Republicans continued to back him, so he stayed in. I am not sure what you mean with Clinton. With Biden, it was not as universal a call. He still had some people who wanted him to stay in until very late. His case was more about electability than moral character. As for Harris, there was no consensus that she should be the anointed candidate. Obama never went public or confirmed the story, but he was reportedly arguing in private for an open convention. I would have preferred an open convention. Harris, IMO, was too much of a risk at that point. I thought it should have been someone not tied to the Biden admin at all. The Biden / Harris case is very different from the Platner case. You are right that "elite" is a loaded political word and can be confusing. "Party elite appointment" or "establishment power move" is more accurate. But again, the Platner case is different in that it was a nearly universal call for him to step aside. The Biden case was more the establishment pushing out the establishment. Everyone would probably want to see a primary, but that is technically not possible in emergency cases where there is no time left to hold one. The best option in that situation is an open convention without any pledged delegates (Platner case).
I guess I prefer the Republican model where rapists can go to the electorate and pitch, 'vote for me anyway' and put the responsibility on the voter to say whether or not they will accept it. We don't have a good track record of exercising wisdom in these cases. I wanted Trump to run so we could vote no to rapists as a country, but of course it didn't work out that way. And if Platner did run, maybe we would end up reinforcing that message. But, it also would have been a small opportunity for redemption. Obviously would have been a lose-lose for the Democratic Party in Platner's case, so I'm not surprised they engaged in some self-preservation. But, it shows us what we're looking at here, an organization where its candidates are assets and not leaders. Which may be for the best and its a reminder to me to hold all parties at arm's length because ultimately it is just an organism built for perpetuating itself.
Trump is the reason why I do not. But structurally, the US has a multitude of issues with primary "voting." First, voters in the US are not the "wisdom of the crowd" (which I do not fully subscribe to, but let's set that aside). In primary elections, barely 1/4 of people show up to vote. Second, our elections are heavily shaped by money and election engineering by the very wealthy. Third, populists can be extremely dangerous. The 1/4 that show up are motivated by negativity more than anything. We are seeing the effects of all 3 in the US. It is not practical to have a near-perfect system, so a balance, to me, is that "voters" get the final call, but the party can override the primary result when enough delegates (maybe 2/3) decide to do so.
Whatever you call it, it's a clear signal that she doesn't have much respect for him, which is disappointing given that he said explicitly that he would have campaigned for her had she won. Again, she isn't obligated to campaign for him, but she can choose her words more carefully.
