Gretchen Whitmer responds to calls by some Democrats to vote ‘uncommitted’ in Michigan’s primary on Tuesday

Gretchen Whitmer, the Michigan governor, pushed back on calls to not vote for Joe Biden over his handling of the Israel-Gaza conflict, saying on Sunday that could help Trump get re-elected.

“It’s important not to lose sight of the fact that any vote that’s not cast for Joe Biden supports a second Trump term,” she said on Sunday during an interview on CNN’s State of the Union. “A second Trump term would be devastating. Not just on fundamental rights, not just on our democracy here at home, but also when it comes to foreign policy. This was a man who promoted a Muslim ban.”

Whitmer, who is a co-chair of Biden’s 2024 campaign, also said she wasn’t sure what to expect when it came to the protest vote.

Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat who is the only Palestinian-American serving in Congress, urged Democrats last week to vote “uncommitted” in Michigan’s 27 February primary.

  • whoelectroplateuntil@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Those are who the Democratic Party represents. They are the party. If you want to pay membership dues and show up to local meetings, that’s fun and all, but the donors and senior members make all the important decisions above the local level, and local power brokers generally have party locals all sewn up, too.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Just ignoring that small donors exist and add up…

      The DNC doesn’t like them tho. Large entities giving huge amounts of money involves, dinners, fancy fundraisers, trips, and all types of situations the money spreads around where it shouldn’t.

      Small donors just want common sense politicians who are actually going to try and help Americans. Large donors want corporations to pay less taxes if were lucky. AIPAC wants billions a year and unquestioed support.

      So large so ors and small donors want opposite things, and since large donors are more likely to personally enrich the people running the party, the people running the party decided that’s who they go with.

      Even if it means Dems are less likely to win elections.

      • whoelectroplateuntil@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Right, exactly. Sure, the Dems have a bunch of formal structure, and yes, you can participate in it, and if you persuade the decision makers inside the party (who are industry tools more often than not), then yes, you can have an influence. But if you want to challenge them on something genuinely democratic, like calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, which 76% of the Democratic base is in support of, then all of a sudden the elitist liberalism comes out and we all have to get in line behind our august statespeople, who know infinitely better than us measly citizens…

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s what Bernie has been saying for decades.

          The first step is replacing neoliberals with progressives. We can’t fix anything while they’re in power, because they’re the problem

          Which is why the DNC fights harder against progressives than republicans. Losing to republicans just isn’t a big deal to them, they know in 4-8 years they’ll be in power again, and they’ll be a shit ton of donations to Dems because of it.

          If they lose to progressives…

          That could be the end of the gravy train forever.

          The more people understand that, the sooner it happens.

          That’s why the neoliberals demand absolutely loyalty to Biden.

          • whoelectroplateuntil@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            The DNC has the state infrastructure and most federal and state-level campaigns tied so deeply into their infrastructure there’s no real hope of replacing them.

            Local politics are a tiny bit more open-ended, but again, the stakes are lower and local governments are explicity subordinate to states. Cities and counties can’t do much if the state doesn’t like it.

            I have no idea how you fix this situation up, but as I see it, whatever the solution is has to look like making the DNC and its infrastructure obsolete. I don’t see this happening inside the Democratic Party.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              The DNC has the state infrastructure

              The DNC is not the state parties…

              The state parties exist independent of the DNC, but due to how funding is supposed to trickle down, the state parties do kind of have to listen to them.

              And while the state parties are in charge of their primary votes, the DNC can choose to ignore them.

              Which is what happened when NH Dems refused to break NH state law so that Biden wouldn’t have to lose the first primary after NH picked progressive over party favorite in 2016 and 2020.

              It’s confusing, but please try to learn more about our poltical system.

              I’m noticing lots of Bidens supporters are incredibly opinionated, they just don’t know what they’re talking about about. When they do, they finally start understanding how fucked up we are and that if we dont act soon it’s too late.

              It’s hard enough when one party is antidemocratic, if both are…

              • whoelectroplateuntil@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                The DNC is not the state parties…

                The state parties exist independent of the DNC, but due to how funding is supposed to trickle down, the state parties do kind of have to listen to them.

                Right, they’re formally separate, I know. The DNC intentionally uses their version of the power of the purse to control state parties. Like you said. They don’t need perfect control as long as they can starve any campaign they don’t like of funding.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        It costs more money to get ten million $1 donations than it does to get one $10,000,000 donation. You have to advertise, put up a website, collect donations, and possibly pay service fees for the charges. One giant novelty check from a billionaire means more of that money goes into their coffers.

        It’s the same reason websites have advertising rather than memberships: Ad dollars are cheaper to get.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          It costs more money to get the $10M donation, but it’s paid for by taxpayers rather than the candidate.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Lol

          You think thos 20k a plate fundraisers cost zero?

          The difference is the in person schmoozing with all those donors. The people running the party want to be paid to attend shit like that and having wealthy people suck up to them

          • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            I think getting $19,000 out of $20,000 is better than getting $0.90 out of a $1 donation, yes. It’s called cost-of-revenue.

            But you’re right about the schmoozing. The donors love that shit. But there’s also massive armies of political operatives whose livelihood depends on getting paid a ton of money to repeat facts back at the candidates.

            Advertisers, analysts, pundits, news orgs, and a ton of other people rely on elections being both as expensive and as frustrating as possible. That way they get a ton of money, and sell a ton of eyeballs.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Sure, if you’re making up random numbers anything can be justified…

              But talking to someone who does that isnt something a lot of people are going to want to do bud.

                • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  I think they understand that concept fine, it’s just that getting 97¢ out of twenty thousand $1 donations is better than getting $18k out of $20k, so if we’re making up numbers it can go either way.