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.”

  • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    22 hours ago

    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).

    • Skiluros@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      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.

      • meyotch@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Things will get progressively worse for more Americans soon enough. Those who are hip to the scene already probably can’t accelerate the process of awakening that will come. We are all Cassandra here. It hella sucks.

        Economic doldrums if not depression, pandemics and a fragmented response in the coming autumn if not sooner.

        Accelerating assaults on due process.

        New public enemy groups generated at will.

        All them that know can do is build capacity to organize as the general realization emerges. It won’t happen soon enough for my taste. We are trying to redirect a high mass object and even in politics, the physics here is clear.

        My plan is to be as social as I know how to be this summer. It’s not escapism. I’m building my network.

        Hopefully also getting laid.

        The first rule of the rebellion is to be sure that at least the sex is good.