Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin will call for DNC officials’ neutrality to be codified in the party’s official rules and bylaws, two Democratic sources tell CNN. Martin has already been telling DNC members of his plans and will explain more in a call with members Thursday afternoon.
. . . “No DNC officer should ever attempt to influence the outcome of a primary election, whether on behalf of an incumbent or a challenger,” Martin told reporters on a call Thursday. “Voters should decide who our primary nominees are, not DNC leadership.”
The DNC’s Rules & Bylaws committee is expected to vote on Martin’s proposal next month in a virtual meeting. If the committee approves the proposal it will advance to a full vote of the DNC membership in August.
The push for the new rule comes days after Hogg, who beat out a crowded field to become one of three DNC at-large vice chairs in February, announced his plan to help primary incumbent Democrats in safe districts through his group Leaders We Deserve. The organization plans to spend a total of $20 million in next year’s midterms supporting young people running for office.
Hogg stressed that his effort would not target Democrats in competitive districts or use any DNC resources, including voter files or donor lists. He told CNN in an interview last week that he would not endorse in the presidential primaries if he is still a DNC leader.
“I don’t take it personally,” Hogg said of the criticism of his primary challenge. “There’s a difference in strategy here, and the way that we think things need to be done.”
Fascinating stuff.
I am not American (have previously lived in North America for a decade and travelled extensively in the region), but based on my experiences this is a very good example of how the US centre-right opposition is completely unqualified for any kind of real action. They clearly lack the risk tolerance and gumption to deal with current internal challenges in their country.
They clearly lack the risk tolerance and gumption to deal with current internal challenges in their country.
I didn’t get that from the article. I thought the article was showcasing some real gumption to change things, something the RNC would never dream of in a million years (or need to).
Respect to David Hogg. I meant this in a more broader perspective.
I am comparing to global examples. One would be Hong Kong. They failed, but they actually were able to shut down the local airport for a short period.
Or say the initial phase of the Syrian revolution. The population openly protested against a brutal regime that was in power for many decades and there were many examples of their brutality.
I specifically chose failed or highly controversial situations (to highlight how a fight for freedom involves scary and painful choices, this is not a movie). From my experience living in the US, I thought local risk tolerance was low. On a certain level, the US is too well off to have the motivation for resistance (be it mass scale ptotest, 10% of pop or more, weekly protest or violent rebellion).
I don’t know how to say it diplomatically, but true fight for freedom doesn’t seem like the American way.
Things will get progressively worse for more Americans soon enough. Those who are hip to the scene already probably can’t accelerate the process of awakening that will come. We are all Cassandra here. It hella sucks.
Economic doldrums if not depression, pandemics and a fragmented response in the coming autumn if not sooner.
Accelerating assaults on due process.
New public enemy groups generated at will.
All them that know can do is build capacity to organize as the general realization emerges. It won’t happen soon enough for my taste. We are trying to redirect a high mass object and even in politics, the physics here is clear.
My plan is to be as social as I know how to be this summer. It’s not escapism. I’m building my network.
Hopefully also getting laid.
The first rule of the rebellion is to be sure that at least the sex is good.
Yep! As an American who has been active in local Dem party activity, they need to be rooted out and replaced. It’s really our best hope.
The DNC’s Rules & Bylaws committee is expected to vote on Martin’s proposal next month in a virtual meeting.
That’s what the lawyers are supposed to argue. That prevents Jill Stein from saying she’s a Democrat and then suing because they didn’t give her the presidential nomination.
It may be what lawyers do, but it is not what a democratic system is supposed to do.
If voters decide Jill Stein is what a democrat stands for, she is a Democrat. It’s not up to whoever controls the DNC to decide that she shouldn’t be a candidate.
I mean - no? But it’s kind of a moot point - if voters rally around Jill Stein at that level, they can just write her in.
The point is that the DNC shouldn’t write her out (or show bias, change rules etc.)
It’s technically right, but the problem is there’s just one DNC and no other viable party. If you had dozens of viable parties like other western countries, then it would no longer matter that one of them has opaque nomination processes, because there would still be competition on political positions.
It’s a shit sandwich.
But changes to the rules to say no more shit sandwichs will just be ignored.
I’m in agreement, honestly, we need to be reducing Republican seats as the singular most important goal. Challenging incumbents isn’t going to do that.
And we do that by promoting progressives that will actually make people want to vote.
Okay but the majority of seats are red in both chambers so theres plenty of room to do that without removing the progressives we have.
I’m in agreement, honestly, we need to be reducing Republican seats as the singular most important goal. Challenging incumbents isn’t going to do that.
Where were you when AIPAC was buying candidates against Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman? I didn’t see your desire to protect incumbents then.
It was the will of the people then duh.
There’s a reason Republicans gained so many seats in the first place, and it’s because nobody was satisfied with the Democrat program. If your society has a Trump-shaped hole, a Trump will emerge to fill that hole. You can’t remove the Trump without doing something about the hole.
But instead of removing the hole
you’re chiseling at the sides, making the hole bigger? Why no just fill the hole? Why are we trying to fix this problem from the wrong contiguous color region?
you’re chiseling at the sides, making the hole bigger? Why no just fill the hole? Why are we trying to fix this problem from the wrong contiguous color region?
Did you not get the analogy or are you being disingenuous? Because dude that’s obviously not how I meant that. To rephrase: Providing a good political program is a prerequisite for any kind of sustainable change in Washington. When you’re fighting fascism, you’re fighting for the hearts and minds of the people, not for electoral seats. Hogg is going after the former here.
Vote for the young guns in 2028 and get these fuckers out of there
young guns
He wants to get rid of guns of every age. That’s like, his whole deal.
/s
“No DNC officer should ever attempt to influence the outcome of a primary election, whether on behalf of an incumbent or a challenger,” Martin told reporters on a call Thursday. “Voters should decide who our primary nominees are, not DNC leadership.”… “Let me be clear, this is not about shielding incumbents or boosting challengers,” Martin said. “It’s about voters’ trust in the party, and when we uphold a clear policy of neutrality, we guard against the perception or reality of bias.”
The trust they lost when they argued in court the party has no obligation to keep promises made to constituents? The trust lost when HRC decided propping up djt as the opposition candidate because he’s easy to beat? The trust lost when Joe said, "Nothing will fundamentally change?” The trust lost when Kamala not only shut out Palestinian voices but also backtracked on campaign promises?
Zero. Irony.
The DNC version of neutrality is blocking progressives. Sure they’ll happily codify a rule that Hogg cannot help young progressives primary incumbents election while pretending it’s about actually neutrality and letting the voters choose. But they’ll be just as happy to throw that rule out when they want to support some Republican in sheep’s clothing to kick out a progressive next time around.
Hogg isn’t looking for young progressives. He idolizes Pelosi, Clinton, Jeffries. The do-nothing incumbents he wants to replace are useless, true. But he wants to replace them with younger versions of centrist corporatists, not progressives.
The guillotine party needs to remove him along with the rest of the DNC leadership.
I’m sorry where are you getting this information from? Everything I’ve read about him says he’s progressive and looking for progressive candidates. He’s a very staunch gun control advocate (I think you’d be shocked at how many corporate Democrats are not). Which is understandable because he was a survivor of a school gun massacre.
I’m sorry where are you getting this information from?
From his own statements about various prominent Democrats. When I talk about useless Democratic fossils, I’m referring to people like Nancy Pelosi, yet he calls her “effective” and a “fighter”. She’s not. She hasn’t been “progressive” in over 40 years. The centrist, corporatist leaders he supports should tell you he wants a younger version of the same corporatist party.
Disarming in the face of fascism is ludicrous. Gun control is not a progressive issue. Go far enough to the left, and we want our guns again.
I think you’d be shocked at how many corporate Democrats are not.
Every corporate democrat supports gun control. Gun control is keeping the party locked in the center. Every time we start gaining traction on progressive issues like universal healthcare, punitive marginal tax rates, wealth/securities taxes, or anything else to wrestle power away from oligarchy, the old-guard corporate lapdogs trot out gun control to stall any leftward movement and drive the party right back to the center.
I’m sure that’s why centrists are suddenly freaking out.
That’s a lot of accusing there. And Hogg is going to help through his PAC anyway.
Martin told reporters on a call Thursday “Voters should decide who our primary nominees are, not DNC leadership.”
So they’re doing away with superdelegates? Ope wait, nope, Martin is just full of hot air.
Superdelegates don’t vote in the primaries. And it’s presidential only. And they only comprise 15% of the delegates.
Funny. The corporate press counted them at the start of 2016 when Clinton needed a boost.
And Hogg is going to help through his PAC anyway.
And he’ll probably be stripped of his position in the DNC for it.
The single most important job of the DNC is keeping corporate candidates in office and keeping the money flowing. These fuckos have never been impartial. Anyone else still pissed at fucking Hoyer and the DCCC trying to get the progressive candidate to drop out of a primary?
From the above recording, Tellemann to Hoyer: “So before we, before we go any further on that, Crow is the favorite, in no small part Congressman Hoyer, because the DCCC not only put its finger on the scale, but started jumping on the scale very early on…I mean, it’s undemocratic to have a small elite select someone and then try to rig the primary against the other people running. And that is basically what’s been happening”
This was after the DNC had rat fucked Bernie, foisted Hillary on everyone, and lost to the serial failure, Fuckhead.
For what it’s worth: I just copied this from my response on the other thread with the same article.
Lol they want to lose so badly if we have an honest election.
Please Bernie and AOC start your own party with this young fellow, he is showing what people have been saying.
Hogg has always had that option. Instead he wants the party to endorse replacements of their own at the risk of splitting votes and losing even more seats to Republicans.
Instead he wants the party to endorse replacements of their own
Oh, if any of Hogg’s people win their primaries, the party will do everything it can to sabotage them in the general. centrists prefer republicans to progressives under all circumstances.
Stuff like this is why I left the dem party, they’re only strong opponents to progressives, not conservatives. The best summary I ever saw of them was: GOP: “fascism” DNC: “fascism ✨🏳️🌈”
So the party you went to was what? Is it better?
I just went with independent, which removes me from the “primaries”, but also removed me from all the non-stop text messages and phone calls begging for money to support a party that does little more than shrug non-committaly.
So, no? I’m from the US, I don’t really get a choice in ISP, phone network, or political representative, but boy I sure do get to pick from a number of different cereals.I am more active at the very local level, though, which seems to be the only place an individual can have impact.
Fair enough then. Probably not a good national strategy but personally it sounds ok.
Heres’ the one that I saw:
Is it about the railroad workers strike? Because the Biden Admin did get them their sick days during his term.
Oh look. The Dems rolling out the same shit since 2015 thinking it’ll work. They are corporate controlled opposition and nothing more. We need a new party ideally, but Hogg needs support from other members who also are tired of the party being The Washington Generals of well, Washington.
I think the article is saying they’re not doing the same shit. Not doing it in two different ways, even.
And I’m all for electing the best people to get what we want, but Deez Nutz and Jill Stein ain’t gonna get it. Reforming the DNC is our best shot.
Reforming the DNC is our best shot.
Primarying all the useless centrists is the best way to do that. Which is why democrats are losing their shit over this, but were happy to vote for trump’s continuing resolution a few weeks back.
centrists oppose the left and work with the right.
Jill Stein should be nowhere near even the idea of a reform coalition.
100% agree. So what’s the plan?
Literally none of this is based off what voters want.
How would the DNC know to put into elections if they aren’t available during the primary?? Do they operate off of vibes and random phone polls?
If voters want to risk losing even more seats to Republicans then you deserve the hell you’re building.
He’s going end up killed when he gets “robbed” while jogging some night soon
Breitbart
Well, it was kind of a joke, but maybe not.
If there’s a single issue the left can get behind this its school shootings, and apparently we can’t.
I think we’re all there on “school shootings bad” so what’s the specifics you’d like to see? That’s where the hot takes die because something concrete has to be supported.
Banning all guns from school property? Stronger gun buying restrictions? What?
I find it fascinating (as well as frustrating, frightening, and depressing) that even during the rise of a literal dictatorship, most of the left clings to a misguided phobia of arms, as well as their continual push to tighten restrictions of on legal arms.
So to answer the original question, the idea that “the left can’t get together on school shootings” - what’s your answer then?
More guns? Better . . . guns? I’m asking.
If you’re talking about actual ‘leftists’ on a true scale, not the center and right wing dems and reps, most support gun ownership for all of the proletariat. Democrats talk about qualifications for gun ownership or more restrictions but all the leftists I’ve personally known would agree with the maxim from Marx:
Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary
From the Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League
You think maybe the DNC should use “proletariat” more in their campaign ads? That’d get them the red wall states?
Do “red states” not have a proletariat?
Yes and no
I think it would help teach people the term, and that could increase class consciousness among average people, which would probably cause more people to see both parties as the shams they are. If they used more explicit leftist language like that though it could trick some into thinking they are truly a left-wing party.
I think you’d see a lot of people unhappy with it. The “teaching people the term” isn’t as straighforward as learning the A B Cs. You’d be putting a big roadblock in front of you for little practical gain.
Well yeah it’s probably not actually useful right now for establishment dems to use it. Occupy Wall Street helped popularize the idea of the 99% vs the 1%, I think that sort of language is more useful for encouraging unity among the working class.
Like describing workers vs the owner class or something along those lines, there are many ways to explain marxist/socialist concepts with simple, easy to grasp language that isn’t stained with the connotations of ‘communism’ that many Americans are instinctively opposed to due to decades of red scare propaganda.
Restrictions on ammunition purchases and storage.
Buy your gun but ammo is purchased and used on site of the firing range. Have a separate license or multiple for home storage that requires proof of purchase of a storage spot for it and has a limit on what can be purchased in a year with random checks for those with the license.
People can have their guns and even a full round or clip but it limits the extent of firing they can do. It’s basically a tweak of what several other countries already do.
“Neutrality” is just (very thin) cover for supporting the status quo, when what we need is a complete change.
Neutrality is the opposite of what they always get accused of by the people who love to shit on the Dems. So it’s not the status quo. Or it is. But it can’t be both.
People need to make up their minds why they’re mad about it.
Neutrality for thee but not for me. They want neutrality from Hogg, but were delighted with partiality in the opposite direction for decades.
But it can’t be both.
Have you considered: People, and especially groups of people, can do more than one thing at once?
I like how they think of codifying shit when something happens around them or to them.
But don’t ever think to codify things everyone else needed to be codified.
Agree. The Biden Administration (Harris too) could have codified many protections against what Trump said he would do and the things in Project 2025.
They.Did.Nothing.
This is the same DNC fucks that did this?
Fuck off with you request for ‘Neutrality Now’.