DNC pushes back on David Hogg’s plans to support primary challenges against Democratic incumbents | CNN Politics
DNC pushes back on David Hogg’s plans to support primary challenges against Democratic incumbents | CNN Politics
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.”
No DNC officer should ever attempt to influence the outcome of a primary election
Yeah, the DNC would never do that.
Yeah I would second the view, if it weren't for decades of the opposite of the DNC bending over backwards for it's incumbants. If they had a history of staying neutral and not regularly backing the incumbents. But as they do... then the opposite needs to happen.
Yeah I would second the view, if it weren’t for decades of the opposite of the DNC bending over backwards for it’s incumbants.
For centrist incumbents. Henry Cuellar gets protection. Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman do not.
Debbie NEVER Could’ve
Pretty sure they got the memo
They did not get the memo; they saw a credible effort to threaten their chokehold on national politics and want to shut it down on a technicality. There's literally no reason to believe this is an act of good faith; if it was they wouldn't have elected Hoggs to the position of DNC vice chair in the first place.
This is the same DNC fucks that did this?
Fuck off with you request for 'Neutrality Now'.
I hope this kid haunts their fucking nightmares. Cunts.
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.
That’s a lot of accusing there. And Hogg is going to help through his PAC anyway.
And Hogg is going to help through his PAC anyway.
And he'll probably be stripped of his position in the DNC for it.
“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?
DNC: "Fuck Bernie, it's her turn."
DNC thumbing the scales is why we ended up with Trump twice. cause they kept insisting on running candidates no one wanted.
Given that you've got about 100 years to play with - who else besides HRC did they put their thumb on the scale for?
Please show your work.
It's probably easier to count the ones where the DNC didn't have their thumb on the scale. First, it's been way less than 100 years since voters even determined who the candidate was; before 1976, primaries were basically just opinion polls, and delegates picked who they wanted regardless of voter input. Also, after the Carter team blamed Ted Kennedy for their loss, the DNC started ostracizing candidates that made primary challenges, so they definitely put their thumb on the scale for incumbents. So off the bat, we're looking at less than 50 years of primaries, and only in non-incumbent years.
Then the party definitely put its thumb in the scale for Clinton in 2016, Biden in 2020, and they literally just picked Harris in 2024. So, that means that the unbiased primaries would be Carter in '76, Mondale in "84, Dukakis in 88, Clinton in 92, Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004 (though personally I think they kinda did a hit-job on Howard Dean) and Obama in 2008. Out of 12 primaries in over 48 years, 7 have been open and fair contests. About 58% successful in keeping their thumb off the scale.
1968? There were literally riots
The loss was perceived to be the result of Johnson and Daley influencing behind the scenes. Humphrey, who had not entered any of the thirteen state primary elections, won the Democratic nomination shortly after midnight, and many delegates shouted, "No! No!" when his victory was announced
If you look at Alexandria Ocacia Cortez's primary, when the DNC realized what was happening they tried desperately to undo her primary win. Going so far as to endorse the incumbent Democrat who stayed on the ballot due to a technicality.
These people are not trustworthy at all.
Another example would be Biden's primary win in 2020. The DNC used the pandemic as an excuse to end the primary process early and just declare Biden the winner. And even before that they were heavily pushing Biden on everyone and doing their best to lock Bernie out of just about every poll they conducted, pretending like had no chance even though he was pulling numbers that were equalling, and even surpassing in places, Biden at the time.
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.
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.
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.
“Let me be clear, this is not about shielding incumbents or boosting challengers,” Martin said.
Liar liar pants on fire. These people are so steeped in their own bullshit that they can't even recognize how full of crap they truly are. I'd be willing to bet if this guy could reverse AOC's win in the primary in her district in New York he would do so.
They say the DNC shouldn’t be choosing candidates, but that’s exactly what they want. The system is designed put establishment candidates in place, and keep them there.
"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?
“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.
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.
See? They can push back on something.
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 ✨🏳️🌈"
Heres' the one that I saw:
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.
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. :/
I believe Hogg would quit rather be neutered.
Why? He's been back stabbing and sidelining since he got to be a victim and his pro-cop cause sucks a lot. If Bloomberg paid his PAC a few million to endorse the political equivalent of Pelosi, you bet your ass he'll do that.
Dems have a 23% approval rating for voters under 30. As those voters age the dems better turn that around of they are just doomed. They seem to be changing nothing at all and counting on trump to shoot himself in the foot, but they keep mistaking disapproval of trump with approval of the DNC. Thats not how any of that works. They are well on their way to more losing. Idiots.
They need to do something major to win voters back. Primarying every single Democrat is what is necessary. Make them all earn it.
Primary every dem who doesn't support ranked-choice-style voting, then primary every future dem that doesn't work to implement ranked-choice-style voting. Until we abolish the two party system, the choice will always be between a "ruling class" boot licker vs. a worse "ruling class" boot licker.
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
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.
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.
Primary EVERYONE!
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?
No DNC officer should ever attempt to influence the outcome of a primary election, whether on behalf of an incumbent or a challenger
I'll believe it when someone gets kicked off the DNC for helping incumbents.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As a registered democrat (though only because my state requires it to vote in primaries for democrats and I'm certainly not voting republican): pound sand, DNC.
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.
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.
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?
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.
