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.”
“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 thumbing the scales is why we ended up with Trump twice. cause they kept insisting on running candidates no one wanted.
DNC: “Fuck Bernie, it’s her turn.”
Thumb on the scale…? The vote records are public, the primary races haven’t even been close for many decades.
Primary races haven’t been fair for decades.
So is the lawsuit in which democrats successfully argued that they didn’t have to hold honest primaries.
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.
1968? There were literally riots
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.
Good examples. Both from ~six years ago and not the original claim of “decades” but good examples.
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.
Oh, the primary that gave us Obama was biased as hell. For Clinton.
It wasn’t enough. The party learned, though. Which is why they’ve been moving towards not even having primaries when they can just shove a centrist at us and order us to vote like they want.
I haven’t seen any evidence that Bernie should have won the 2016 primary. He was close by like 12% margin, but he still lost by millions of votes.
Bernie’s loss is seen as a direct result of DWS’s committee fuckery by most people on here. Which is not the same as it being true, it just gets a lot more attention.
It’s the case that he didn’t win enough votes. But I think it was the first time he got such good exposure for a national contest.
deleted by creator
I still remember the DNC talking points, along with the media going along with the bullshit superdelegate fuckery to custom the story at the time, radically changing the race. Bernie was absolutely rat fucked by the DNC. I guess people can argue He Isn’T eVeN a ReAL DemoCrat, true, but that just plays into the fuckery.
I mean, to me that isn’t fuckery. They let an independent run on their primary tickets and he only lost by about 12% margin despite not being perfectly aligned with their platform. Hillary might have had a lot of advertisement money to play with but we also know that outside influences were promoting Bernie on social media to create a spoiler effect.
Inside influences were promoting Hillary on mainstream media to create a spoiler effect.