- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- news
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- news
the Democratic National Committee will begin a multi-round election to choose its new chair. Former President Joe Biden’s appointee, Jamie Harrison, is on his way out, and an array of party insiders and outsiders are competing to replace him.
The DNC’s 448 voting members include hundreds of Democrats elected and selected through state parties, along with smaller numbers of appointees, elected officials, and representatives from party groups like the Young Democrats of America. They will cast ballots for a new chair at a time when the Democratic Party itself is adrift, with no clear leader and no strategy for fighting the Trump agenda or regaining power. As one DNC member told me, “The DNC is not really talking about what went wrong and what we did wrong.”
In writing this piece, I reached out to 427 of the DNC’s 448 voting members and interviewed 19 of them. Those who spoke with me came from ideologically, geographically, and racially diverse backgrounds. They included Democrats from rural and urban communities, grassroots party members, elected officials, and party insiders and critics alike. Most agreed to speak on the condition their names wouldn’t be used.
What emerged from these conversations is a picture of a DNC that is built to be an undemocratic, top-down institution, unable to truly leverage the wisdom and guidance of the DNC members who hail from local and state networks across the country. This is especially true when those local and state members disagree with the DNC’s posture or strategic choices
Members said their meetings don’t feel like a place for participation or governance. They described these gatherings as a combination of party presentations and social time, as opposed to real debates or discussions. During Covid, for instance, one member said that meetings were held via web conference, with the chat function turned off. And while the potential for real decision-making can occur at the DNC committee level, “committees are completely rigged, with the chair appointing whoever they want,” one DNC member told me.
In some ways, the race for DNC chair has itself become a microcosm of this tension between money, transparency, and winning elections. Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party Chair Ken Martin and Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler are considered the front-runners based on their declared, though likely inflated, DNC vote counts. But neither has disclosed how much money they have raised for their campaigns, who their donors are, or how much they have spent.
You must log in or register to comment.
Remember the DNC didn’t start as the left wing party. They were the pro business kkk party back in the 30s and 40s. The civil rights movement and the GOP ‘Southern Strategy’ that flipped the politics of the parties didn’t fundamenly change the structure that much.
And they bitterly regret that decision, evidently.
Wikler drew the public backing of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other big names like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
To me that’s concerning, because everything that has happened the last 20 years to empower the GOP had come at l on the watch of those two.
And I’m not sure either is willing to shake things up enough to truly bring about change.
I’d be interested to hear AOC’s thoughts.
if I am correct in the snippets I’ve read the new guy is good on civil rights issues. that won’t completely turn off the black women. and black women staying engaged is paramount.
I didn’t know too much about who endorsed wikler but seeing who endorsed him makes me feel better that he didn’t win. no offense to the guy but I feel very comfortable knowing that the key people who engineered biden’s ouster, and are perfectly okay with blocking legislation to prevent congressional insider trading, and have essentially done nothing to put brakes on citizens united (in fact I think they are embracing it which should be extremely disturbing. especially since they suck at using it) didn’t get their guy.
Yes, because if it was more open, there would be a risk of leftists gaining influence.
“But if that happened we’d lose elections!!!” - Centrists, probably
The Centrists are from the Clintons. They were the response to Reagan kicking the shit out of the Dems. Which was part Reagan, part the 80s democrats being corrupt as fuck.
Kind like the Nixon problem led to the GoP bringing in the religious right nut jobs with Reagan, the Democrats brought in the centrists after Reagan fucked them up.
If the DNC had open primaries we would have a democratic version of Trump.
Remember when Fetterman ran as progressive then turned Republican after getting elected?
Remember when Sinema ran as progressive then turned Republican after getting elected?
Why are progressives pushing to remove the vetting process the DNC has to prevent this? Are the progressives being so vocal for these changes arguing in bad faith?
I read about half of that and knew who wrote it.
…arguing in bad faith?
I love unintentional irony.
The DNC is the second half of the one party state
One class, two parties
The Duopoly has been playing good cops bad cop with the American people for 30 years now on behalf of their owners.
They’re both cops who work for the same masters, they are on the same team.
God please let this be the 4 year cycle we kill the Duopoly.
Ken Martin won: https://www.axios.com/2025/02/01/ken-martin-dnc-chair-2024
Is this bad?
Not if you’re one of the “good billionaires” he thinks exist.
Ken’s done great work here in MN. We’re an island of blue in a sea of red.
No no you’re supposed to say he hates “leftists” and is very transphobic.
If he’s a Neoliberal then nothing will change
Remaining optimistic, but he seems like one of the Dems who went alnog with whatever party leadership told him
What_Year_Is_It?.jpg
How reliable is The Intercept? That’s a general question.
The Intercept has a left-wing bias but it is quite credible and reliable. You can read more about it on the credible sources discussion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
They were the organ for Glenn Greenwald, they were founded on the back of the Snowden revelations. He (Greenwald) “somehow” drifted into MAGAland and they booted him out in 2020.
In February 2024, The Intercept laid off 16 staff members, one-third of its newsroom. In April 2024, the outlet fired William Arkin and Ken Klippenstein resigned in protest.
. . . At launch, Omidyar pledged $250 million in funding. The non-profit arm of First Look Media budgeted $26 million in both 2017 and 2018, according to public filings, much allocated to The Intercept. Top journalists received top dollar, with Greenwald being paid $500,000 in 2015.
The Intercept was awarded a grant of $3.25 million from Sam Bankman-Fried, founder of cryptocurrency exchange FTX. It had only received $500,000 when Bankman-Fried went bankrupt and the shortfall in funding “will leave The Interceptwith a significant hole in its budget” according to its editor-in-chief.
Omidyar ceased financial support in 2022. First Look Media offered a $14 million grant when The Intercept spun off. In 2023, the CEO discussed a financial pivot to small donors and major gifts. Donations doubled from $488,000 to $876,000 from 2022 to 2023, but failed to meet expenses. As of April 2024, The Intercept was burning around $300,000 a month.
I think of them as the leftist Vice to Jacobin’s Mother Jones.
I will (probably) never vote D again. This is because they will (probably) keep doing what they’ve been doing all my voting life.
Every election is an opportunity to use your tiny amount of voting influence to try to make the world a better more survivable place. Protests and direct action are the most important thing you can do, but please don’t let apathy allow candidates to power who hinder our ability to speak freely and perform direct action. Until we have ranked choice voting everywhere, the democrats give us the version of fascism with the most survivors to build a newer, better, fairer society.
To be clear. They still SUCK. They’re still fuckin’ fascists. But that’s the electoral system we have, and our fellow Americans are THOROUGHLY propagandized against real and workable solutions to all this. If you refuse to vote strategically, you will be refusing to leverage one of the tools in your arsenal for making the world better. I ask you to go around in physical meatspace and talk to the marginalized people around you because this attitude is one I only really encounter in online spaces. All the marginalized people I talk to out in the real world are organizing resistance through the ethics of care but they ALSO vote democrat because that gives us the best chance at a regime that will even allow us to march in the streets and object to their shit.
And flipping the perspective, this is a thing Republicans succeeded at.
I know Trump voters, mostly older folks or small business owners/runners, who did not like Trump… but hesitantly voted for him anyway in at least one election. They were simply too driven by perceived personal interest (or just being old in the case of old folks) to bicker about that.
There’s basically no “we hate Trump, protest vote!” within the party, especially now, even though many don’t like him.
No…no more…fuck that. I went with the party for Harris as a last gasp attempt to keep the great experiment alive. It failed. From here on out, if you still support the Ds, you are part of the problem.
It’s time for a new opposition party. It’s time to stop voting soft Rs to prevent hard Rs.
Great! . . . Which one is it?
Whoever the satanic temple runs. I really don’t care, but it’s clear the Ds are not a viable alternative. They’ve had 40 years since Regan to fix his shit, and they haven’t.
they will keep doing what they’ve been doing all my voting life.
Losing to Republicans due to apathetic voters not showing up?
Maybe Democrats could move economically LEFT for a change and garner some excitement.
They made it clear they prefer fascism to that nightmare scenario.
Yes. If it weren’t for politicians constantly jamming wedge issues down our throats, I daresay the common people of any political persuasion agree on most issues, and if dividing and conquering on the most insignificant wedge issues weren’t a factor (which is the point) we may agree out reach agreeable compromises above ourselves.
Well you’ll be happy with the next four years then. I’m envious.
TL;DR: The Democratic Party is extremely democratic. The article says so in the first five paragraphs.
The clickbait headline and firebomb premise is based on the 19 interviewees of the 500 people who make up the party saying, in part, that they feel like they’re not listened to enough.
Well no fucking shit, have you ever worked in an organization of more than 500 people? Did you feel “listened to”? No. No you didn’t. Because large organizations follow the same rules of communication they always have.
It’s not “undemocratic” you fucking pricks, it’s the nature of large organizations. Bland, inoffensive ideas are more likely to be adopted. If you want “to be heard” you’ve got to be an extrovert. You’ve got to like talking to people. You’ve got to be both LOUD and consistent.
It’s not fucking rocket surgery, and it’s NOT anti-Democratic. You know how easy it is to get someone in a medium sized business to say they don’t feel listened to?
This article isn’t bad, but the premise and the headline are complete bullshit.
