this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
584 points (97.6% liked)
United States | News & Politics
2857 readers
1124 users here now
Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
People will never learn if they can't make it to the second paragraph:
The old DNC ran a ahitty vice election that broke its own rules.
The current DNC decided via comitte the best way to handle it was to redo the vote. Which is not a big deal for the DNC.
Like, what would you prefer the current DNC do in this scenario?
It's a matter of interpretation as to whether any rules were actually broken. The DNC has four VPs, two are women and two are men. Given the current controversy and the current crisis of confidence in Democratic leadership, the damage this will do to both the party and public opinion of DEI policies should be weighed against whatever "damage" this procedural issue allegedly did.
The fact that this issue started moving months ago is irrelevant. The decision is being made now, and nobody with a brain is going to believe that this isn't being done, at least in part, to protect useless incumbents that don't belong in the Democratic party.
I mean it's clearly just a pretext. We don't have to pretend to believe their bullshit reasoning.
Bro the Dallas Mavs had a 1.8% chance to win the draft last night.
1.8%.
I’d cut my own dick off if it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the draft wasn’t fixed in some way.
Same smell of bullshit here.
I am completely ignorant to the draft. What does "win the draft" mean?
And the chosen pope had an 0.3% chance. Some times, things with a chance of happening, happen.
That was a wild ride of an analogy, but I'm here for it.
It might be technically valid, but it's literally being used as an excuse to get rid of him.
Ken Martin(DNC chair) has been whining about Hogg for a while. Being real upset that he's trying to oust incumbents who refuse to do anything.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/david-hogg-disrupts-democratic-party-rcna202202
And he doubled down a few days ago: Giving Hogg an ultimatum to take a "neutrality pledge" or step down.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/10/hogg-dnc-chair-ultimatum-00340272
Hogg refused, so now they're pulling this one out.
They knew about it last week, before they gave him an ultimatum. Meaning they were holding it back and waiting for his response. They're not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts and wanting to follow the rules. If that was the case, they would have gone ahead right away.
What you are saying sounds bad. But when I read your actual link, it does not sound bad at all.
["Let me be unequivocal: No DNC officer should ever attempt to influence the outcome of a primary election, whether on behalf of an incumbent or a challenger," DNC Chair Ken Martin said on a media call. "Voters should decide who our primary nominees are, not DNC leadership.]
I don't like Ken Martin and I think Hogg is great, but what Martin is saying here are the precise words that every DNC chairman should be saying. I would not want Martin to change one single word of that statement.
It's literally valid...
The old DNC was outright corrupt if we're being honest. Completely inept if we're giving them the best plausible view.
The vice chair election didn't follow DNC rules, it's like 450 people, redoing it isn't a big deal.
This process was started almost immediately after the vice chair election, before Hogg had made any public comments as vice chair.
What result would you prefer though?
Do you want the results to stand even though it was a flawed primary ran by the same people who saved Hillary/Biden/Kamala down our throats the last 3 elections?
The same people that abandoned Obama when he beat Hillary?
You think that now that they're finally out of power, we should get mad at the new leadership who literally hadn't even won their elections yet when this shit was going on?
Just please, tell me the better path than what the DNC is taking right now I'd love to hear it.
Edit:
It...
It had to go thru committees, it hasn't been a secret this was happening...
Please don't be like trump and act like because you just heard of something that it just happened out of nowhere.
Ken Martin could have made a unilateral decision, he could throw out elections altogether and appoint people, he can do whatever he wanted.
He deferred to the committee, who suggested a redo vote that follows rules...
And Ken has personally encouraged both the vice chairs (because it literally isn't just Hogg) to run again.
If that's not enough for you, you don't like democracy.
.you want a trump party that you agree with
Based on your lack of reading comprehension from that alone, I'm literally not going to bother reading the rest of your comment. Since it's either intentional and you're a troll, or you do not understand basic english. There is no point try to argue the political game with either type in a written context without getting into essay territory.
EDIT: For those who want to know: The phrase "It might be technically valid, but ...", does not mean it could potentially be true. It means it is true, but there are other factors involved.
So ..
Rather than stick your fingers in your ears, you had to announce to everyone that you're refusing to listen so we knew?
Looks like I was right,
They can redo their little procedural vote. But, if Hogg doesn't win, we will have our list of every member that thinks the DNC exists to serve it's members and not the public. Every one of them should be tarred and feathered, and I'm not sure I mean that as a metaphor.
I'm personally going to be throwing a little party in my head every time one of them is arrested, thrown into concentration camps or executed by God King Trump.