"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.
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.
technically the challenge started before the PAC announcement
But this is just a way to disenfranchise someone they aren’t comfortable with.
Yes, this is the purpose of democratic party leadership.
What don't you agree with Hogg about? Just curious.
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.
Is he only supporting gun control candidates to primary incumbents? I don't know and am just looking to be informed.
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.
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.
Chuck can just sit the fuck down and wait till hes voted out.
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.
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.
STAR voting now!
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".
age limits are a much better way to limit it than term limits
Pretty sure this would be unconstitutional.
,,, you see, there's something called an "amendment."
Also, I'm pretty sure the qualifications are mostly up for the states
People do seem to support this, and there are plenty of recent examples why it would be good. An amendment would not be bad.
Compare how they're treating Hogg to how they treated Dick Cheney.
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.
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)
Are they being paid for by Trump's funders to just keep any opposition unhappy and unorganized?
God damn, controlled opposition.
No. Hogg is too left for the DNC, they don't want him anymore.
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.
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.
find some centrist corpodem woman to run again
Somehow, Hillary Clinton returned
Reagan is too left for the DNC.
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.
If they do so, they'll cut off an entire generation from ever voting Democratic again
If it prevents progressive ideas from ever being implemented, they'll think it's worth it.
That's not a problem for centrist democrats. They don't care if they win; they just want to shut out progressives.
Establishment is terrified. Good.
Ha, the DNC thinks they're helping Hogg out by being associated with him instead of the other way around
Get rid of a solution so they can keep losing elections.
https://leaderswedeserve.com/ donate here to tell the Schumer boomer dems to go fuck themselves
DNC is dead
Time for something new
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).
How do you plan to succeed with the DNC???
Replacing them internally and in the primaries, like David Hogg is trying to do.
That's the thing-- they're fighting him tooth and nail. I hope he succeeds but we know this party is happy to subvert democratic processes whenever inconvenient to the leadership
Then our resolve has to be stronger than theirs.
I don't really know what that means in this context
Show up to vote in primaries as often as they do (primaries have incredibly low turnout compared to the general). Join your local/state party so you can vote in the internal elections for party leadership. And don't stop, ever, even if you think the tide is turning. And also sign petitions and write to state legislators to try and get ranked choice/approval/etc voting in your state, as that's the only thing that will break the stranglehold of the two parties.
How do you plan to succeed when the two current mainstream parties are no longer representational?
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?
How do you plan to succeed with a Democratic Party that polls lower than the least popular President ever?
Replacing them internally and in the primaries, like David Hogg is trying to do.
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.
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.
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.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News