Here we go with this shit again.
They are going after Hogg and his vice chair seat.
I guess they didn’t learn from the last time.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5297387-dnc-vice-chair-election-david-hogg-malcolm-kenyatta/
I thought the complaint happened before Hogg expressed his controversial plan.
I am wondering if it has something to do with his views on gun ownership. Kinda hard for a party to claim it is “Pro Second Amendment” when a vice chair says an individual has “no right to a gun” and supports the banning of semi-auto rifles.
The DNC strategy has, for a long time, been to depress its progressive wing, do little to enthuse the centrists, and then wonder why it comes up short.
Meh. If you want to influence who wins the primaries, then don’t be a DNC officer. If you do want to be a DNC officer, then stay out of the primaries. Those are the rules. They’re not that hard to follow.
IMO, Hogg is being a Very Special Snowflake, and the only thing the DNC has done wrong is nullifying the entire election for “procedural reasons” rather than openly firing him for not following their neutrality policy.
Are they? Why can’t the DNC have a preference? If Eric Trump wanted to run in a primary against Bernie Sanders, I’d like the DNC to pick sides
My understanding is that they have an official policy of not putting their thumb on the scale in primaries, although I think Hogg’s argument was that they have a de facto tendency to protect incumbents, so he felt justified in doing the opposite.
I think it is a good policy, and if the DNC hasn’t been upholding it as well as they should in practice, that’s something they should fix, but it doesn’t justify Hogg going rogue and ignoring the policy.
Is it official policy, or is it one of those things that everyone generally understands, with the proviso that when those people run, we gently discourage them by supporting more traditional candidates?
I thought it was the latter. This article makes it sound like that’s the case:
https://thehill.com/homenews/5265138-dnc-officers-free-to-get-involved/
If it were against the rules, they wouldn’t be trying to change the rules, I think.
That said, I’m not convinced Hogg is all on the up-and-up: he’s giving me a bit Main Character vibes here, and seeing someone he was elected with talk about Hogg’s “casual relationship with the truth” gives me pause. I just want to be sure we’re not calling him out for doing something currently within the rules.
Absurd hypothetical.
To illustrate the point. Could be Carter/Kennedy or Obama/Clinton. The party officials are allowed to have a preference
Also, dismissing potential actions by the Trump clan because they’re too absurd no longer seems like a winning game.
There is definitely room for discussion about whether it is appropriate for Hogg to sit as DNC chair while supporting the opposition for existing elected Democrats who are DNC members themselves.
But that has nothing to do with this removal, which is beyond stupid:
If you want to remove Hogg for opposing democrats, pass a rule saying a DNC vice chair cannot do that and then get rid of Hogg that way.
But this? Seems like absolute and total bullshit.
I got this fundraising message from the DNC yesterday, and (as someone who has donated generously to this organization) it pissed me off mightily.
Today, we’ll close the books on our most important FEC fundraising deadline since the last election.
When this deadline ends, we will be required to report how much money we’ve raised, along with the number of donations we’ve received.
(Here is the truth: Everyone will be looking to see our total.)
If we report a big number with lots of donations, Trump and his allies will see that there is serious opposition to their attempts to hand a giant tax cut to the ultra-wealthy at the expense of the rest of us.
If we file a weak report, then Trump and Congressional Republicans will assume there’s no meaningful resistance to their agenda.
*That’s why this FEC deadline matters. So if you’ve been looking for something meaningful to do to stop Trump, here it is:
Something meaningful to do to stop Trump??
- Send DNC a large sum of money?
- ???
- Profit!
Is this it? No plan, no strategy, no message other than “Send money so people will know you sent money even though we don’t have the foggiest idea about what we will actually do with this money, except wave it in Trump’s face and hope that it scares him into …..something…”.
I know the courts have decided that money is speech, but doesn’t there need to be some speech, like a freaking message, in there somewhere?
I get that it’s hard, I have very few suggestions other than “invent a time machine”. But that’s largely because I’m not a highly funded political organization. I expect better from professionals.
I reply to messages like that with “contact me during the next election. Right now, just do the best you can with what you have.”
ETA: I assume no one sees my email.
Since the ‘Nineties the DNC has become a fundraising machine which rewards candidates for being excellent panhandlers (especially to the corporate donor class) over having a consistent set of policy views that appeal to voters under the assumption (mostly justified) that their base will vote for them regardless of whether the they like the policies or believe they will enact them as long as they do enough promotion. The candidacy of Hillary Clinton in 2016 was the exemplar of that attitude; as a ‘rainmaker’ and someone good at inserting herself into other people’s ideas to finagle political support she was nonpareil, but she lacked any consistent set of ideals and came with a ton of toxic baggage (much of it manufactured by decades of Republican shit-fuckery but it nonetheless hung around her neck for undecided voters) and yet was the top candidate that the DNC leadership promoted over all others.
Say what you will about the hateful rhetoric, contempt for its own base, performative xenophobia, and flagrant corruption of the modern GOP, which is so morally deficient and ethically hollow that it allowed itself to be made an ‘apprentice’ to the ambitions of Donald Trump; at least it’s an ethos. Voters want to vote for something instead of just against that other thing and the DNC gives very little to stand up for (unless, again, you are a corporate donor) and goes out of its way to try to quash candidates who question that approach.
Stranger
Hogg has no business spending DNC contributors money to un-elected Democrats. The idea is that donations to the DNC will be spent on unseating REPUBLICANS, not Democrats.
This is a giant waste of funds that could be used to elect more Dems.
The DNC, by removing Hogg is doing the right thing.
If the DNC didn’t want him to campaign against sitting Democrats, so they instituted a rule saying he wasn’t allowed to do that and then got rid of him for violating that rule (assuming he refused to comply), then I’d agree with you. In fact, I’d support the DNC doing exactly that.
But that’s not why Hogg is being removed. He’s being removed because he’s male.
I think that’s really dumb.
Did I miss something? Where did that come out as the reason?
When it was originally announced that he (and Kenyatta, the other guy whose election is being challenged) were having their election reviewed?
There were three other women in the race, and nothing made it “impossible” for them to win, but here we are. Thanks, Kalyn Free!
If the DNC asked me for donations, I’d tell them “Losing coaches don’t get rewarded with salary raises or contract extensions.”
The whole purpose of the DNC - and having so many people who did donate to the DNC from 2016-2024 - was to prevent someone like Trump from being elected twice. The DNC had all that money with which to defeat Trump, and they refused to.