This stupid topic again

But sure

  • half_fiction@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    4 months ago

    Saying a month is “plenty” of time to plan and run any kind of election on a national level is so ridiculously out-of-touch I read it back like five times thinking maybe it was sarcastic. Off the top of my head there’s booking polling places, securing & training staff, voting machines, ballots that need to make their way through the entire supply chain starting all the way back at pre-production. Mail in ballots alone usually go out like a month ahead of time to compensate for issues with the mail.

    At this point in time, there’s a higher probability of Superman flying around the world backwards to rewind time and correct the gunman’s aim to actually hit Trump at that rally than there is of the Democrats being able to successfully pull off a second primary in a month. And that’s not even to touch the “coming out stronger” piece of it, which again, no chance in hell that happens with the kind of chaos a second primary would cause.

    • Fecundpossum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      People live in their fantasies, where national primary elections are just a cut and paste affair that takes two days to set up.

      • Bilb!@lem.monster
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        You know, they could be. But I agree right now they aren’t.

        Personally, I don’t think it matters in this case. It’s not like we had a robust primary from the Dems this time around.

    • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      The idea that elections take years is an artifact of our broken news cycle. England can call for snap elections and install a new government just 25 days later, and that’s England.