Harris secures enough delegate endorsements to win the Democratic presidential nomination | CNN Politics
www.cnn.com
Kamala Harris has the support of enough Democratic delegates to win the party’s nomination for president, according to CNN’s delegate estimate.

Kamala Harris has the support of enough Democratic delegates to win the party’s nomination for president, according to CNN’s delegate estimate.

While endorsements from delegates continue to come in, the vice president has now been backed by well more than the 1,976 pledged delegates she’ll need to win the nomination on the first ballot.

Harris crossed the threshold amid a wave of endorsements from state delegations Monday evening.

    • Carrolade@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      Probably not. Dean was running to the right of Biden and unlikely to appeal to current day dems, and Williamson has no political experience.

      • Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
        1·
        3 months ago

        If the Biden that debated Trump showed up to debate Williamson, she would hand him his ass. If she’s inexperienced then let her make a fool out of herself. I’m not outraged that I didn’t get my choice, but I am outraged that the establishment can just shut opponents out of the public discourse and subvert the primary. You don’t get to decide all by yourself who is qualified to be President.

        • Carrolade@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          3 months ago

          Making a requirement that a certain amount of support is necessary before wasting time and money on debates is reasonable. Williamson has no experience, and debate performance has minimal value in deciding who wins an election or how good of a president they would be. Hilary won debates, lost the election.

          This hanging onto debates as some sort of important thing is foolish. In 2020, the DNC set a record of 20 million people watching their most viewed debate. Out of 330 million citizens. Almost two dozen people participated in the debates. People just don’t really give a shit about debates, they’re not a particularly good medium, and are unnecessary to understand a candidates positions in the era of wikipedia.

          • Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
            1·
            3 months ago

            You are ignoring or rewriting every argument I make into something unrecognizable. I never said there should be no threshold for inclusion. Blackballing every potential candidate before they even declare is another thing entirely. No candidate is “serious” when the media won’t put it Tennessee n the air. Remember when MSNBC put Trump’s empty podium on the air instead of covering Bernie’s announcement? They even had a reporter there, but staton management got a call from the Hillary campaign and it was shut down.

            You can quit lecturing me on the process and it’s rationalizations. I guarantee that I’m more familiar with them than you are, so quit being condescending.

            I believe it was you who brought up debates. All I want is the Democrats to stop muscling progressives off mainstream media, give them a podium for a convention speech (since the primary is over) then let the chips fall where they may. Is that so unreasonable? I don’t even think anyone but Harris has a real shot, but messaging candidates are important.

            Ultimately the message here is, progressives, sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, and tow the party line. All I want is the appearance of a contest, but even that is considered radical.

            How many voters do you think read up on candidates on Wikipedia? Come on, pretend to be at least a little savvy.

            • Carrolade@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              3 months ago

              All I’ve done is try to understand your positions and try to support my own. If I’ve mischaracterized yours I apologize and encourage you to correct me. Really though, I think your position becomes very weak when any other framing except your conspiratorial one is used.

              Politics is hardball, no question about it. Especially nowadays. The media is its own thing though, they can put whatever they want on the air, for whatever reason. Our first amendment allows this freedom of the press, for better or for worse. Though I do agree some of the behavior of the Hilary campaign was unethical.

              What progressive candidates have been recently blackballed? This reeks of conspiracy theory. I think the real reason we do not see more progressive candidates is that most democratic voters are not really all that progressive, unfortunately. It sometimes seems to me the party is held up mainly by soccer moms. Everyone knew Bernie was running, announcement speech on MSNBC or no. But he lost the popular vote to Hilary, 13.2 million to 16.9 million. I don’t think any change in MSNBC’s behavior could have swung it his way, with its viewership of about 1 million.

              Sorry if I’ve offended you, but your guarantees of your own knowledge do not impress me. Your arguments and evidence in support of your own positions are what I’m paying attention to.

              I think vastly, vastly more people look to wikipedia than any debate or interview watching. For one thing, it’s much more time efficient. For another, you get more than just pre-packaged sound bites and prepared lines of attack. To be fair though, I suppose we should include candidate websites as well.