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.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    121
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    9 months ago

    It’s a fucking primary.

    This is literally the only point in time we can try to drag Biden too the left, will we get him far enough that he stops being pro-genocide? Probably not, dude is all in on Israel and always has been.

    But telling people they don’t even get to vote “not committed” in a fucking meaningless primary is something so undemocratic if you told me it would happen this primary I’d have bet millions on it being republicans.

    But then again, I’d have bet billions on them being the ones to pull delegates for something the state party had zero control over.

    Not holding Dems to standards may have already fucked the country for good.

    • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      72
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s a fucking primary

      I don’t know why people don’t get this.

      Since 2000 progressives have been told to vote for who you want in the primary and then hold your nose in the general.

      Now we’re supposed to hold our nose in the primary, too?!

      I don’t have enough clothespins for this bullshit.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        9 months ago

        Since 2000 progressives have been told to vote for who you want in the primary and then hold your nose in the general.

        NH went progressive over party favorite moderate the last two primaries they had that counted…

        So this party the DNC said their votes count for nothing, then Biden withdrew and threw money at a write in campaign so the headlines would be “Biden wins even as a write in!”

        And not:

        “DNC just made NH primary meaningless for something only NH republican officials could change!”

        They know this is just a primary.

        They’re just conservatives deep down and give zero fucks lying and destroying democracy if they win. And it’s not enough to win, they demand 100% loyalty.

        Just like trumpers.

        It’s why Dem standards can’t just be “better than a Republican”.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          it’s why the democratic party is going to fracture.

          Hopely only slightly after the republican party. But both are trying to be the last one standing, so to speak.

      • FoxBJK@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        The problem is Progressives aren’t offering up any other option. Who am I supposed to vote FOR this time around? “No one” isn’t much of a rallying cry.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          9 months ago

          Why should they? the DNC will never allow a progressive to be the party candidate. which is why we didn’t have bernie in '16… like the VOTERS WANTED.

          • qprimed@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I would say 2020 was the real stinger… clyburn in south carolina playing king maker.

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              New Hampshire went for Sanders in 2020, and were punished by losing their primary representation in 2024. South Carolina proved pivotal to the Biden campaign, so they’re rewarded by going first.

              • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                9 months ago

                Yuuuup. There were plenty of better states to choose if they just wanted a less-white state. Georgia is diverse and actually in play, but instead we kick off with a state that’s deep red with an ineffectual Democratic party because they voted the way the winners liked.

          • SaltySalamander@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            If the voters wanted Bernie in '16, they could have gotten off of their collective asses and voted for him. He was on every single state ballot. The fact is, more voters voted for Hillary.

          • FoxBJK@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            Because in 2020 the progressive candidate was the front runner. 4 years later they have no one else to offer up? No wants to vote for Biden. This is the progressive caucus’s moment, and they’re failing to respond to what the voters want.

              • FoxBJK@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Then to be quite honest that’s something progressives need to focus on and work through if they want to be taken seriously going forward. Railing against Biden will only get them so far. At the end of the day, voters need something to be in favor of, to rally behind.

              • Jentu@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                Progressivism is a marble on a hill. Either they roll to the right and join the liberals because they support and believe in an unjust hierarchical system as long as it’s sufficiently pinkwashed or roll hard left because they see the issue is the system itself

            • crusa187@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              There are great progressive candidates running. You just don’t see it because the DNC is hard at work behind the scenes canceling primaries, removing candidates from the ballot, instructing the corporate media to not report on it, and sending out people like Whitmer to manufacture consent for there being no actual primary debates or competition.

              Biden’s ego demands a second term, there’s no voter choice involved here.

            • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              If progressives had put someone up against an incumbent they would have been accused of wanting Trump to win.

              Also, their candidate would be deemed unelectable and voting for them in the primary would be helping Trump to win.

              Also, America is not a progressive country and even if they won the nomination they’d probably lose.

              Why? Because America wants this shitshow. Why else would they keep choosing it? They don’t want problems solved, they want arguments and hot takes and “slams” and “bashes.”

        • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          9 months ago

          I cannot remember an election where the incumbent got primaried. And even if we tried we’d be accused of hurting the establishment candidate’s chances in the general.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        Now we’re supposed to hold our nose in the primary, too?!

        “Behave, or else you get the Orange Turd.” seems to be the message.

      • protist@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        There’s nothing in this article that indicates she’s talking about the primary vs the general election

    • protist@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Is someone telling you you don’t “get” to vote how you want? Telling someone you disagree with their choice or that they’re dumb for voting a certain way is not at all stopping that person from voting how they want and not at all undemocratic

    • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’m not trying to defend the “pro genocide” thing at all, although I’m expecting to be down voted regardless, but…

      Isn’t support for Israel over Gaza an American / western thing rather than specifically Biden?

      Like is it reasonably possible to have a POTUS that wouldn’t support Israel?

      I guess they could be more overt in their condemnation of Israel’s behaviour, but I’m not sure how meaningful that is.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Isn’t support for Israel over Gaza an American / western thing rather than specifically Biden?

        Biden has spent 50 years calling himself a Zionist and saying nothing will ever make him stop supporting Israel.

        It’s hard to think anyone believes that’s normal…

        Like is it reasonably possible to have a POTUS that wouldn’t support Israel?

        Bernie and every other progressive.

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I think part of the problem is that people are so on edge with how close we are to democracy ending. And how fine, and even eager many are to move on to full fascism. It is a primary though. And what really matters is a commitment to defeat fascism in November.

      However you don’t do yourself any favors acting like a teenage edge lord. Saying hyperbolic bs like pro-genocide etc etc etc. Biden’s actions on the front are absolutely questionable. Poor strategy wise considering Bibi isn’t going to listen to anyone. And just going to do whatever he wants. So all Biden is likely going to get out of it is a tarnished image. Even if we cut Israel off completely, something Biden can’t do himself. It wouldn’t stop Bibi the butcher. But then it’s always easier to call hyperbolic names than it is to come up with actual working solutions.