“You guys better do what we say or we’ll vote for you again.” is a heck of a threat there little buddy. How do you expect to actually ‘push back’ against the establishment wing of the party?
Answer the question. The DNC has and will again simply stop people from running in the democratic primaries. There is no law to stop them from just refusing entry to the party or revoking the party affiliation.
So primaries do not work for this. As history shows. So how, exactly, are you going to threaten someone if the party says they’re the only blue candidate?
What if the DNC just stops having primaries? There’s no law that says they have to have primaries, or have to have public primaries. It’s all convention.
Abdul El-Sayed won his primary then became Senator. Primaries work, focus your energy on getting people to vote in them. DNC isn’t getting rid of primaries, that’s a completely baseless claim.
In the case Wilding vs DNC in 2016 the DNC argued that they have no duty at all to run a fair primary. DNC attorneys argued that the organization is a private political corporation with the right to select its nominees internally and that statements of neutrality were general political or aspirational remarks rather than legally binding contracts.
Spiva (DNC lawyer) stated in court: “We could have voluntarily decided that, ‘Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.’ That’s not the way it was done. But they could have.”
The DNC won that case. The judge said, “To the extent Plaintiffs wish to air their general grievances with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their redress is through the ballot box, the DNC’s internal workings, or their right of free speech — not through the judiciary.”
The Dems had a primary for some states right. The DNC arbitrarily decided to nullify the New Hampshire Dem primary because they didnt follow the schedule change the DNC preferred, in putting right-leaning South Carolina first so a centrist would have a leg up in the Dem selection process. What kind of party just declares that the votes of a whole state just dont matter? what kind of fair election process changes the rules so a more rightwing group has first say?
It’s a fair point. We don’t have much leverage in a two party system. Letters to reps aren’t going to cut it, protesting against the “good” guys just as hard as we did against the fascists is basically the only option at this point.
Voting in primaries is for voting with your feelings. Voting in the generals is for voting with your head. Basically vote in primaries if you don’t like how the dems did and vote blue no matter who in the generals.
I’m saying that we need to properly pressure them instead of expecting them to save us willingly. Waiting for the next round of primaries isn’t enough, they simply won’t make the needed choices if they don’t have to.
Well that’s entirely the point then, isn’t it? Tell them that if they don’t do their job properly, then they’ll be fired. I don’t get why that’s such a crazy hard to understand concept, but whatever makes it so hard to understand is probably what got people like Trump into office in the first place
If you mean during the primaries, yes. If you mean when it’s Democrats vs Republicans, then it’s an empty threat because not voting is monumentally stupid and hurts us more than it hurts them.
No, it’s not a fair point. You seem to either not fully understand what voting is or how elections work. The ‘leverage’ is that if they don’t do what we want them to do, they lose their jobs. I wish there were more severe consequences to abandoning the voters, but we don’t have those yet and the only way to get there is to vote
No, you people don’t get to say ‘shut the fuck up’ any more. Your dancing monkeys are in office. When they fail to deliver, what excuse are you going to use? What plan of action are you going to take that is different from the last 100 years?
I’m keeping a record of everything my elected officials do right, and everything that they do wrong. And every time I call them, I tell them that we’re keeping track of whether they’re listening to their constituents, we will organize accordingly when they’re up for re-election.
It sounds like an empty threat, but for those of us who actually care, we’re making shit happen.
In my district, we just got rid of an establishment dem representative, and got our first progressive representative in decades.
And when the DNC just stops allowing people to run as democrats if they don’t accept AIPAC? The DNC has pulled funding from candidates before for progressive ideology.
Then we run as our own party. But until that point, the way to most effectively move the needle to the left is to shift an already-existing dominant party to the left.
I hope we eventually overthrow the two party system entirely, that’s the dream.
You’re being down voted by people that cheerfully vote for politicians they know don’t represent them. To be fair, they’re still going through waves of ecstasy over voting in “bad” over “worse,” and that really is probably pretty good harm reduction, if Schumer and Jeffries don’t just give Trump everything he wants in the name of “bipartisanship” and an alignment of donors.
“You guys better do what we say or we’ll vote for you again.” is a heck of a threat there little buddy. How do you expect to actually ‘push back’ against the establishment wing of the party?
Uh oh someone doesn’t know the difference between a primary and the general election
Why would someone in St. Petersburg understand how primary elections work in the US?
Why do you believe primaries are open?
Take your unhelpful intentional misinterpretations and propaganda somewhere else there, little buddy.
Answer the question. The DNC has and will again simply stop people from running in the democratic primaries. There is no law to stop them from just refusing entry to the party or revoking the party affiliation.
So primaries do not work for this. As history shows. So how, exactly, are you going to threaten someone if the party says they’re the only blue candidate?
What if the DNC just stops having primaries? There’s no law that says they have to have primaries, or have to have public primaries. It’s all convention.
Abdul El-Sayed won his primary then became Senator. Primaries work, focus your energy on getting people to vote in them. DNC isn’t getting rid of primaries, that’s a completely baseless claim.
https://ivn.us/dnc-to-court-we-are-a-private-corporation-with-no-obligation-to-follow-our-rules/
In the case Wilding vs DNC in 2016 the DNC argued that they have no duty at all to run a fair primary. DNC attorneys argued that the organization is a private political corporation with the right to select its nominees internally and that statements of neutrality were general political or aspirational remarks rather than legally binding contracts.
Spiva (DNC lawyer) stated in court: “We could have voluntarily decided that, ‘Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.’ That’s not the way it was done. But they could have.”
The DNC won that case. The judge said, “To the extent Plaintiffs wish to air their general grievances with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their redress is through the ballot box, the DNC’s internal workings, or their right of free speech — not through the judiciary.”
Yes, a completely baseless claim from the party that didn’t have a presidential primary.
What are you talking about? The Democratic party had a presidential primary in 2024. Biden won them.
There’s lots of things to complain about the Democratic party, you don’t need to make up things.
The Dems had a primary for some states right. The DNC arbitrarily decided to nullify the New Hampshire Dem primary because they didnt follow the schedule change the DNC preferred, in putting right-leaning South Carolina first so a centrist would have a leg up in the Dem selection process. What kind of party just declares that the votes of a whole state just dont matter? what kind of fair election process changes the rules so a more rightwing group has first say?
It’s a fair point. We don’t have much leverage in a two party system. Letters to reps aren’t going to cut it, protesting against the “good” guys just as hard as we did against the fascists is basically the only option at this point.
Primaries. Vote for who the party doesn’t want. It’s actually really simple.
Voting in primaries is for voting with your feelings. Voting in the generals is for voting with your head. Basically vote in primaries if you don’t like how the dems did and vote blue no matter who in the generals.
I’m saying that we need to properly pressure them instead of expecting them to save us willingly. Waiting for the next round of primaries isn’t enough, they simply won’t make the needed choices if they don’t have to.
Well that’s entirely the point then, isn’t it? Tell them that if they don’t do their job properly, then they’ll be fired. I don’t get why that’s such a crazy hard to understand concept, but whatever makes it so hard to understand is probably what got people like Trump into office in the first place
If you mean during the primaries, yes. If you mean when it’s Democrats vs Republicans, then it’s an empty threat because not voting is monumentally stupid and hurts us more than it hurts them.
Good thing that there’s primaries between now and the next general election
Exactly that’s what got Trump in office, was firing democrats.
So… again what do you expect people to do?
Again: take your purposeful misinterpretations back to Russia or Israel or wherever you’re being paid to post from
Reddit is that way -> Le epic gentleman
We’re doing the work right now. Climb onboard or get out of the way. We have a long way to go without dragging any deadweight behind us
No, it’s not a fair point. You seem to either not fully understand what voting is or how elections work. The ‘leverage’ is that if they don’t do what we want them to do, they lose their jobs. I wish there were more severe consequences to abandoning the voters, but we don’t have those yet and the only way to get there is to vote
…You can’t do that if you ‘vote blue no matter who.’
Jfc either you’re a fucking idiot or your deliberately being obtuse. Either way, you need to shut the fuck up
Methinks it’s deliberate obtusity
No, you people don’t get to say ‘shut the fuck up’ any more. Your dancing monkeys are in office. When they fail to deliver, what excuse are you going to use? What plan of action are you going to take that is different from the last 100 years?
Do you address people as “little buddy” in real life? Do you find it motivates them to consider your views with an open mind?
Open mind? That’s a myth that liberals tell themselves to feel better about their locked down conclusions they’ll fit the facts around.
You still didn’t answer. The question. How do we pressure them?
I’m keeping a record of everything my elected officials do right, and everything that they do wrong. And every time I call them, I tell them that we’re keeping track of whether they’re listening to their constituents, we will organize accordingly when they’re up for re-election.
It sounds like an empty threat, but for those of us who actually care, we’re making shit happen.
In my district, we just got rid of an establishment dem representative, and got our first progressive representative in decades.
We can, and are, moving the needle left.
And when the DNC just stops allowing people to run as democrats if they don’t accept AIPAC? The DNC has pulled funding from candidates before for progressive ideology.
Then we run as our own party. But until that point, the way to most effectively move the needle to the left is to shift an already-existing dominant party to the left.
I hope we eventually overthrow the two party system entirely, that’s the dream.
Booo bad faith argument booooo
What a takeaway to get out of all this. I’m sure you’re being totally-not-disingenuous, so I’ll treat it with the utmost gravity it deserves.
Shifts weight onto one ass cheek and let’s out a great big fart.
God, that felt good.
Feel free to tell me an alternative solution.
You’re being down voted by people that cheerfully vote for politicians they know don’t represent them. To be fair, they’re still going through waves of ecstasy over voting in “bad” over “worse,” and that really is probably pretty good harm reduction, if Schumer and Jeffries don’t just give Trump everything he wants in the name of “bipartisanship” and an alignment of donors.