Democrats’ Democracy: When Votes Don’t Mean What You Think

by Jeff Childers:

As part of the mop-up operation, the New York Times ran a story yesterday headlined, “Trump Tries to Flip the Script on Democracy After Biden’s Withdrawal.” The sub-headline explained, “Donald J. Trump and his allies said President Biden’s primary voters were disenfranchised.”

The counter-narrative deployed in the Times’ article, and by hundreds of far-left operatives on social media yesterday, is that nobody has been disenfranchised because Kamala must still ‘win’ the nomination at next month’s gala Democrat National Convention in Chicago.

This is clearly not, they argue, disenfranchisement — even though 14 million democrat primary voters pulled the lever for “Joe Biden,” not Kamala Cackle.

See, it all depends on what you mean by voted. Here’s how Politico described the new narrative:

 
But Republicans are gleefully noting that the Democrat party is selecting a nominee after forcing out the nominee that voters chose. So, who’s right?

To rebut the Democrats’ silly argument, let’s begin by understanding what the Democrats are doing: equivocating. Equivocation involves using a term in multiple senses or meanings within the same argument. It’s a famous type of logical fallacy, where the meaning of a key term slyly shifts around between the premises and the conclusion.

Here’s a good example of fallacious equivocation:

Premise 1: All stars are in the sky.

Premise 2: Some famous actors are stars.

Conclusion: Therefore, some famous actors are in the sky.

Fallacious equivocation is the Democrats’ favorite trick. Yes, it IS a vaccine, because we just changed the definition of ‘vaccine.’ So there.

Now they are doing it again.

In this case, Democrat primary voters did not pull the lever for a delegate. They pulled the lever for a candidate, and that candidate was President Cabbage. His name was literally printed right on the primary ballot. They did not vote for Vice President Cackle.

Republicans rightly point out that “voting” means a democratic process where citizens indicate their preference for a particular candidate. In Florida, this often means selecting multiple candidates, folding the ballots into intersting shapes, and scribbling illegible notes on the back side. But I digress.

To conceal their anti-democratic rainbow color revolution, the Party of Saving Democracy is now desperately equivocating, claiming that “voting” actually means ‘delegating someone to choose for you.’

After all, Democrats could hold another primary, but they aren’t about to let voters choose the candidate, are they? Not when a small handful of captive delegates are around to fall right into line.

Don’t let Democrats get away with changing definitions! They can select a candidate if they want. After all, it’s in the fine print, but this current process is not voting. It’s more like how the old Soviet Union selected its next General Secretary, or how North Korea “votes” for its chubby presidents.

But wait! A twist! Not every Democrat is buying the equivocation. In another bizarre, 2024-style turnaround, yesterday Black Lives Matter tweeted its strong objection to Vice President Cackle’s presumptive selection, stressing “we do not live in a dictatorship,” “delegates are not oligarchs,” and that selecting Kamala would make “the modern Democratic Party a party of hypocrites.” I am not making this up, read it for yourself:

 
Ruh-roh! Somebody forgot to buy off Black Lives Matter! I bet I know where several million dollars of Kamala’s recent fund-raising is about to go.

As BLM cogently explained, voting involves “public participation in the nomination process,” not “just a nomination by party delegates.” You couldn’t ask for a better antidote to all this flim-flammery and equivocation than that single post from Black Lives Matter.

Please pass the popcorn.

Read more