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

politics

23115 readers
3553 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
[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 53 points 21 hours ago

I hope this kid haunts their fucking nightmares. Cunts.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 20 points 18 hours ago

See? They can push back on something.

[–] Skiluros@sh.itjust.works 40 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 30 points 21 hours ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Allonzee@lemmy.world 6 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 13 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.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 21 points 20 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.

[–] aramis87@fedia.io 23 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Asafum 15 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. :/

[–] mdd@lemm.ee 4 points 13 hours ago

I believe Hogg would quit rather be neutered.

[–] Gregg@lemm.ee 18 points 20 hours ago (4 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Wilco@lemm.ee 9 points 18 hours ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] miguel@fedia.io 13 points 21 hours ago (4 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 ✨🏳️‍🌈"

[–] piefood@feddit.online 5 points 16 hours ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 9 points 20 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.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 12 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 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.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 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.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 3 points 19 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.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world -3 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.

[–] Nyticus@kbin.melroy.org 9 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CMLVI@lemmy.world 9 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

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?

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -1 points 11 hours ago

If voters want to risk losing even more seats to Republicans then you deserve the hell you're building.

[–] not_that_guy05@lemmy.world 7 points 20 hours ago (1 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.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Donjuanme@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 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?

[–] AngrySquirrel@lemm.ee 2 points 13 hours ago (3 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 (3 replies)
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -4 points 11 hours ago (6 children)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›