this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2025
220 points (97.0% liked)

politics

23116 readers
3544 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.”

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 7 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Americans haven't had an honest vote on the shape or priorities of our economy in half a century.

Just the social issue wedges that economy either causes or in some way informs in order to keep us at each other's throats and not at our shared enemy in their towers and guard gated compounds.

Would you like your crony market capitalism with affirmation ribbons or scapegoats? Freedom!

Example: you know what would cause a lot fewer abortions almost immediately with absolutely no bans from getting one when the woman deems it necessary? A living wage that can support a family. But that's a non starter, as it would cost our rulers capital, and lower their quarterly ego score estimates.

The situation will continue to decline until collapse or the elevation of an actual leftwing government, and both parties conspire to prevent that from happening.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 15 hours ago (5 children)

“Voters should decide who our primary nominees are, not DNC leadership.” Since when has the DNC not put it's thumb on the scales in the past few decades, or ignored the voters entirely?

[–] [email protected] 28 points 15 hours ago

DNC: "Fuck Bernie, it's her turn."

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 44 points 18 hours ago (6 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

That’s a lot of accusing there. And Hogg is going to help through his PAC anyway.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Superdelegates don't vote in the primaries. And it's presidential only. And they only comprise 15% of the delegates.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 19 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 19 hours ago

See? They can push back on something.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 19 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 14 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

This is the perfect cover for them. They don't have to advocate for the incumbents, that's what corporate media will do for them. They get the bonus of looking like they want to be neutral while neutering Hoggs ability to rally people against the feckless dinosaur moderates in the party.

For the incumbents and DNC leadership it's a win. :/

[–] [email protected] 4 points 13 hours ago

I believe Hogg would quit rather be neutered.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

If there's a single issue the left can get behind this its school shootings, and apparently we can't.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 13 hours ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 21 hours ago

“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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

Despite the naysaying, isn't this a good thing? Seems the new chair wants impartiality and if codified then should be a wide open contest.

It's exactly what the Democratic party should want. Just not necessarily the Democrat politicians who may have overstayed their welcome.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Despite the naysaying, isn’t this a good thing? Seems the new chair wants impartiality

Centrists benefited for decades from partiality. Now that someone else is playing their game the same way they've been playing it, they decide that they want to be impartial. I have no faith whatsoever in the party's interpretation of neutrality. It just means partiality in favor of centrists.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 19 hours ago

Have you considered why they're doing this now rather than eight years ago? They're trying to give you the worst of both worlds here, and that aside Hoggs explicitly said he wouldn't use DNC resources for his project. The party has no business deciding what he does with his other organizations.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, it's what everyone has been bitching about since HRC got the nomination. But in reality they wanted their preferred candidates to get a leg up, apparently.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 18 hours ago

I think it’s a lot of hooray-lets-shit-on-the-Dems from the same people that have no idea how to get elected to national office.

The idea of neutrality is exactly what they want; and now they don’t like it, or they think it’s a lie, or it’s exactly what they want and they still can’t bring themselves to say something supportive.

At least the Democratic party is out there planning. Whatever socialist/anarchist/whatever-it-is-people-think-we-need party isn’t doing much and there’s only sixteen months until midterms.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Jill Stein should be nowhere near even the idea of a reform coalition.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 20 hours ago

100% agree. So what's the plan?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 13 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

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 ✨🏳️‍🌈"

[–] [email protected] 6 points 17 hours ago

Heres' the one that I saw: we want more sick days. reps: no. dems: no blm

[–] [email protected] -3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

So the party you went to was what? Is it better?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 20 hours ago

Fair enough then. Probably not a good national strategy but personally it sounds ok.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

"Neutrality" is just (very thin) cover for supporting the status quo, when what we need is a complete change.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 19 hours ago

Neutrality for thee but not for me. They want neutrality from Hogg, but were delighted with partiality in the opposite direction for decades.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 19 hours ago

But it can't be both.

Have you considered: People, and especially groups of people, can do more than one thing at once?

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›