this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
205 points (99.5% liked)

politics

23703 readers
2594 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
 

A Democratic National Committee subcommittee on Monday recommended that the organization invalidate one of its February vice-chair votes over claims that it unfairly disadvantaged female candidates.

The move, which won't be official unless the entire DNC votes to approve it, could open up new races for the positions held by David Hogg, a Florida activist, and Malcolm Kenyatta, a Pennsylvania state legislator.

The challenge by Oklahoma Democratic Committeewoman Kalyn Free, who unsuccessfully ran against Hogg and Kenyatta in the February race for vice chair, is not related to the ongoing tension between Hogg and the national party over his push to support primary challenges against incumbent Democrats.

Instead, it was based off Free's claim that the handling of the vice-chair vote gave the two men an unfair advantage amid the national party's requirements that its executive committee achieve gender balance.

top 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 102 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

"is not related to the ongoing tension between Hogg and the national party"

Yeah, imma call bullshit on that statement. I don't agree with Hogg although I totally get where he is coming from. But this is just a way to disenfranchise someone they aren't comfortable with.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 42 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They have a story that the challenge started before the "tension", but there's no way both this vote and the revote (assuming it goes through) are not being driven by it. There're probably too clever by half strategists thinking they're being sneaky by using an "unrelated" vote to take him out, but no one except the shill types on Twitter is going to parse the process in that way.

People get that the vibe is hostile to Hogg and young activists in general and someone saying "technically the challenge started before the PAC announcement" doesn't mean jack shit when it's obvious a lot more is going on. Hell, even if it were all on the up and up, the vibe is still there and no one that matters cares about the minutiae of voting processes and challenges. Voters aren't robots.

[–] UnculturedSwine@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 weeks ago

technically the challenge started before the PAC announcement

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 35 points 2 weeks ago

But this is just a way to disenfranchise someone they aren’t comfortable with.

Yes, this is the purpose of democratic party leadership.

[–] xyzzy@lemm.ee 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What don't you agree with Hogg about? Just curious.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Hogg is a single issue politician, for him it's all about guns and ONLY about guns, for understandable reasons.

I get it given his experience, but politics is bigger than that, and if you want to primary people, you can't limit yourself that way if you want to win a general election.

[–] xyzzy@lemm.ee 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Is he only supporting gun control candidates to primary incumbents? I don't know and am just looking to be informed.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

His stated purpose is that he wants to primary "do nothing Democrats", but on closer inspection, his issue is they are doing nothing on guns.

[–] KbSez@piefed.social 80 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Total bullsh!t.

He's doing what needs to be done: he is challenging the old guard because they are failing and that's what we need.

We need more David Hogg and less Chuck "write a strongly worded letter" Schumer. We need a dozen AOC's and Jasmine Crockett's.

[–] Breezy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Chuck can just sit the fuck down and wait till hes voted out.

[–] benny@reddthat.com 65 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

If the DNC doesn't like what David Hogg is doing, they should have real primaries and shouldn't be against term limits, the lack of which prevents younger people from learning how to succeed in politics.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They'll never have an honest primary, anything but FPTP, and support term limits. They get in the way of being rich while feigning support of minorities.

[–] benny@reddthat.com 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)
[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago

STAR voting is the best, IMO. I use it online for whenever I have to do something that requires a lot of community involvement, as FPTP can be negative, an sometimes a simple rating system works best for "who gets to be on this mod team more".

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

age limits are a much better way to limit it than term limits

[–] benny@reddthat.com 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Pretty sure this would be unconstitutional.

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

,,, you see, there's something called an "amendment."

Also, I'm pretty sure the qualifications are mostly up for the states

[–] benny@reddthat.com 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

People do seem to support this, and there are plenty of recent examples why it would be good. An amendment would not be bad.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 59 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Compare how they're treating Hogg to how they treated Dick Cheney.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Dick Chaney, the architect of the war on Tower helping to enable the fascism that Trump has started, welcomed with loving arms claiming that this will somehow magically, mythically enable anti-trump Republicans to for Democrats.

Person with a plan to stop Republicans? The DNC hates them.

I think at this point we have two fascist parties. One just pretends to put up a fight.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 51 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Are they being paid for by Trump's funders to just keep any opposition unhappy and unorganized?

God damn, controlled opposition.

[–] SippyCup@feddit.nl 33 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

No. Hogg is too left for the DNC, they don't want him anymore.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 31 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Well, Sanders is suddenly too old (again) because we no longer have to pretend biden is lucid.

And AOC can't run because a woman suddenly can't win, which will be the case until we find some centrist corpodem woman to run again.

Their excuse for Hogg has been that they suddenly like school shootings now that a gun control advocate wants to primary the corpo/genocide wing.

[–] SippyCup@feddit.nl 13 points 2 weeks ago

Maybe removing the mask will help push more young people further left. 20 years ago if you'd told me the DNC was just a mouthpiece for weakly resisting whatever the Republicans wanted to do I would have called you crazy. Now, every day it's becoming more clear that the Dems actually DO want the corpo fascist state the Republicans are so desperately trying to build. They just have to pretend not to.

Maybe we have a house of Fettermens.

[–] Archer@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

find some centrist corpodem woman to run again

Somehow, Hillary Clinton returned

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemm.ee 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Reagan is too left for the DNC.

[–] SippyCup@feddit.nl 5 points 2 weeks ago

Old white swinger couple that consults psychics... Yeah not conservative enough. Definitely unelectable.

We need a milquetoast woman who thinks abortion is great but also that putting brown people in prison is a great idea.

[–] PunkRockSportsFan@fanaticus.social 50 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Can I have serious third party I’ll vote for that kid and Bernie and aoc

The old parties suck

Can we start calling the dnc the LOP (little old party)

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 45 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

If they do so, they'll cut off an entire generation from ever voting Democratic again

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 42 points 2 weeks ago

If it prevents progressive ideas from ever being implemented, they'll think it's worth it.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 37 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

That's not a problem for centrist democrats. They don't care if they win; they just want to shut out progressives.

[–] chase_what_matters@lemmy.world 41 points 2 weeks ago

Establishment is terrified. Good.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 37 points 2 weeks ago

Ha, the DNC thinks they're helping Hogg out by being associated with him instead of the other way around

[–] Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world 30 points 2 weeks ago

Get rid of a solution so they can keep losing elections.

[–] MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world 25 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

https://leaderswedeserve.com/ donate here to tell the Schumer boomer dems to go fuck themselves

[–] KbSez@piefed.social 1 points 2 weeks ago

THANKS for posting the link, I forgot to do that.

I've donated a lot to them, it's a great organization. I refuse to donate one penny directly to the DNC till they start fighting. I'll donate directly to orgs like this and to NATIONAL GROUND GAME https://www.nationalgroundgame.com/ and their 'Unf*ck America Tour" but not to the DNC.

All these people raising money for the mid-terms can get bent, by then it's too late.

[–] HappySkullsplitter@lemmy.world 23 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

DNC is dead

Time for something new

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

How do you plan to succeed with a third party when the last 60+ years have.secured fewer than 1% of state and federal legislative seats and zero Electoral College votes (since 1968, and Perot even won just shy of 20% of the national popular vote)? Only 26 states have direct voter-initiated ballot initiatives (or forcing electoral reform to replace first past the post).

[–] HappySkullsplitter@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

How do you plan to succeed when the two current mainstream parties are no longer representational?

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think the only viable pathway is taking over the parties thru the primaries like the Tea Party movement. Just like Hogg is doing from inside the party. If you have the resources to work on/for a third party, those could be more effective embedding in your local/state Democratic party.

So, what's your plan for 3rd party success?

[–] HappySkullsplitter@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

Things become tainted and typecast in this country as a byproduct of everyone having the memory of a goldfish

I couldn't even call myself an independent without it being assumed that it meant I must be a Bernie supporter

Hogg taking control of the DNC will still come with unwanted baggage

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

How do you plan to succeed with a Democratic Party that polls lower than the least popular President ever?

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

Replacing them internally and in the primaries, like David Hogg is trying to do.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't think the challenge is bullshit, but it's also not clear that the result was definitely impacted or in any way planned. Seems like a situation of "whoops, let's be more careful in the future" (the position held by Christine Pelosi of all people) rather than inviting a party schism by using this to try to eject Hogg. Because there will definitely be people lobbying voters to explicitly do that.

[–] MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world 23 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Let’s go ahead and call bullshit. I’m going to guess the vote “unfairly” disadvantaged female candidates in the same way anyone who disagrees with Israel killing 100,000 Palestinians is antisemitic.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 weeks ago

There were two positions remaining, and one of them had to be male. From the description, I think everyone had 2 votes and one had to be for a man, so if votes were split evenly and no one voted for both men, the men would each get 50% and the three women would get 33%. A real vote isn't going to be perfectly split, but it puts the neutral expectation for the male candidates much higher than the women. If the men went head to head and then there was a separate vote with the second place and the women, there wouldn't be the same bias.