-
You are correct that there was a legitimate argument not to have one, as well as an argument to have one - these things are never completely black and white.
And the fact that they went for the controlling, top-down option illustrates that that is the type of people they are. In the same way they kept telling voters that the election was about the first woman president, preserving democracy (ironically!) and whatever else, when voters kept telling them it was about the economy and inflation.
They are just non-democratic people who think they know best and don't listen.
frank9755-
And the fact that they went for the controlling, top-down option illustrates that that is the type of people they are.
Does it or was it situational? I'm not sure of the answer. The situation was that a weak incumbent wanted to stand and the party was powerless to stop him entering a primary. As an incumbent who has already beaten the likely opponent it would be hard to see him losing the primary. His weaknesses would be really exposed in the primary, causing problems in the election therefore you avoid the problems and skip the primary.
It's a pretty unique position they found themselves in.
dst2
I think there was a legitimate argument to not have a primary in that time frame. It could have been messy with no time for the winner to shake off any damage done. If you don't have a primary then KH was the only realistic choice. In the game of shudda wudda then biden should have done one term. Even better, Obama should not have roasted Trump all those years ago. Or even just done a better job of turning hope into something tangible.
Biden fucked it, KH fucked it, Obama fucked it, the Dems fucked it all to the backdrop of Ukraine, Israel, COVID and the coming climate disaster. Not sure you can point to one thing.