this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
219 points (100.0% liked)

politics

23571 readers
3032 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A Democratic National Committee subcommittee on Monday recommended that the organization invalidate one of its February vice-chair votes over claims that it unfairly disadvantaged female candidates.

The move, which won't be official unless the entire DNC votes to approve it, could open up new races for the positions held by David Hogg, a Florida activist, and Malcolm Kenyatta, a Pennsylvania state legislator.

The challenge by Oklahoma Democratic Committeewoman Kalyn Free, who unsuccessfully ran against Hogg and Kenyatta in the February race for vice chair, is not related to the ongoing tension between Hogg and the national party over his push to support primary challenges against incumbent Democrats.

Instead, it was based off Free's claim that the handling of the vice-chair vote gave the two men an unfair advantage amid the national party's requirements that its executive committee achieve gender balance.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 109 points 1 week ago (3 children)

"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.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

technically the challenge started before the PAC announcement

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 week ago

But this is just a way to disenfranchise someone they aren’t comfortable with.

Yes, this is the purpose of democratic party leadership.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What don't you agree with Hogg about? Just curious.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Is he only supporting gun control candidates to primary incumbents? I don't know and am just looking to be informed.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

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.