I don’t mean peer-reviewing this; I mean ever.
Is “open primary” an officially defined term? Or is it one we can use more loosely, or based on technicalities?
Rep Pelosi said of VP Harris, “…she won it [because] no one else got in the race.” In that sense, it’s not much different from complaining about an uncontested primary where the rebuttal is “we had a primary, you didn’t enter anyone.” You don’t technically have a primary if there’s only one candidate, but there’s context.
It’s absolutely a manipulative, political statement. It’s not “straight-up lying.” She’s not trying to convince anyone that hundreds of thousands of people voted for Harris after President Biden’s withdrawal.
I don’t consider it a straightforward, transparent statement. It’s evasive and — as I said — manipulative and political.
But using an 8-second soundbite that then gets interpreted for you through a tweet, that you then reshare and parrot… it’s part of the problem.
I mean, would Pelosi have gotten any credit at all if she’d said, “Technically, sure, she didn’t win the nom through the people’s vote, but…”? Or would another one of your tweetmasters have cut off the “but…” and used it to invalidate Harris’ candidacy? Like the left did with “very fine people”?
