The election that will take place at the DNC to replace the chair will decide the policy direction of the Democratic party. Let your voice be heard!
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/22077561
“I’m not interested in anyone who is moving further away from the center,” said Cindy Bass, a Pennsylvania committee member from Philadelphia. “The center is where we have to be.”
They're not going to change a thing unless people make them.
Find your local state delegate and personally tell them how you feel a centrist is only going to guarantee another Republican victory. They are listed here: https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_National_Committee
Bernie Sanders is working behind the scenes to get a progressive in there but he can't do it alone.
292
Comments80
I love how they think the best way forward is to become the embodiment of the election strategy that just failed so spectacularly for Harris. Brilliant.
2016: "We don't need to change! Look at our opponent, Trump!"
2020: "We'll pretend to be M4A. But the main thing is beating Trump! Worry about change later!"
2024: "We lost, but we did everything right. Americans are the problem. Anyways, Trump is in his last term, so why change?"
Then make sure to tell the people actually voting for the chair to give the pushback they need to see that's a mistake. Change is only going to come when we speak up
I'm more interested in mobilizing people outside of the electoral process at this point.
I will continue to vote but, on a national level, I no longer believe that lasting meaningful change will happen at the ballot box.
I have even less faith in the DNC ability to drive that change regardless of who is the chair. I think the best hope in that regard is an insurgent campaign a'la Bernie 2016/2020, and even then...idk.
There is power where there is people, the DNC seem to see this as an inconvenience. People are where I'm interested in spending my energy now.
Spending meaningful political capital on the DNC seems about as effective as that billion dollars in donations was for the Harris campaign this cycle.
Not discouraging anyone from doing it, as much as encouraging y'all to put the work in outside of the electoral process.
You do you.
And Clinton
Point me to a moment during the last campaign that Kamala promoted identity politics. The very most important thing we should do is to nit listen to pundits.
They can't. But the alternative is admitting that moving to the right has failed, and centrists will never do that.
Middle America is about 20y behind the rest of us, this is the 90s gay marriage situation all over again. If the DNC actually wants to win elections they need to stop putting narrow identity groups front and center and run on their track record of positive economic policy for everyone or they're going to lose every election for the next 20y (barring those won by voter backlash over catastrophic Republican admin fuck-ups.)
The DNC went too far down the identity politics rabbit hole and hasn't quite realized that people in the identity demographics they want to Jenga together into 270 EC votes are willing to vote for the other side because they're not happy with the DNC's corporate profit economy.
The critical flaw in the DNC's 20y old identity politics strategy is the assumption that these identity groups are monolithic. It's a prejudiced as hell position to take that "these are the interests of all women" or "these are the interests of all black people" and yet that's what the DNC has tried to do for the last three elections running. It should be painfully obvious at this point that this doesn't work: women, PoC and Muslims voted for Trump in droves (or stayed home in protest) despite the front and center spending to bring those groups on side this election. Everyone's tired of performative pandering and wants real economic and policy reform to help recover some of what was lost to the last couple of economic crashes and to inflation.
The meme is already stale but JFC they've learned nothing from the last two election losses - the Harris campaign was the 2016 Clinton campaign minus the fundraising dinners on Wall St.
The RNC did that. Democratic candidates, in their trademark panicked cowardice, parroted right wing bigotry about boys in girls' sports in their own campaign ads.
Most of the time, when Democrats mentioned trans people at all, they were making sure to let everyone know that they didn't have their backs. Add that to breaking solidarity with Muslim voters, and you have a party that broadcasted that it was eager to throw vulnerable populations under the bus.
The conservative media machine has been splitting wedges between groups basically forever, it's a convenient way to pit people against each other.
The DNC, in their infinite wisdom, took that political landscape and instead of bringing everyone together in a big tent decided to pick out specific identity groups to pander to and drove the original wedges clean through.
I'm almost convinced the DNC wants to lose at this point, they seem pretty content with the position of professional minority opposition - it's a convenient place to be if you want to fundraise endlessly.
Hear fucking hear.
It's ridiculous that these things even need to be pointed out. The DNC is packed full of highly educated high income people who have no fucking idea what the average person's life is like and it shows in their priorities.
They need to drop their focus on identity pandering and neoliberal corporate blood sucking if they want any hope in hell of an EC win. All the slick consultants in the world won't convince middle America to vote for more business as usual.
Both the DNC and RNC both operate within the framework of neoliberal ideology
SurprisePikachu.jpg
Surely no one here that y'all branded as tankies told you so.
Jesus. They’ve learned nothing:
THATS NOT WHAT FUCKING HAPPENED.
Trumps numbers barely moved.
Harris’s numbers PLUMMETED compared to Trump’s 4 years ago. Start there. That’s where you need to start this postmortem.
So, to solve the problem of the left not voting them, they are moving further to the right.
Yeah, America, I'm sorry to tell you but you are screwed. You have 4 years to either behead the dnc and turn it into a left wing party, or greate an actual left party.
Otherwise, you're going to be eating fascism fo dinner until you implode.
Well for that to happen Nancy and Chuck have to kick the bucket first
The Left keeps not voting in hopes the Dems will come to them.
It's not going to work next time either.
This is why I’m holding out hope that Sanders is working on the foundation of a new party. The DNC is clearly not the way forward, and doesn’t look like they’re going to pull themselves out of their death spiral.
Sanders is almost 90. You cant count on him to survive his term, much less create a new Party.
No 3rd party has won the Presidency in modern times.
If you want to see change, look at what's actually worked in the past.
Back in the day, a guy named Jerry Falwell made himself a power in the GOP by a simple trick.
Both Parties, Dems and GOP have local clubs that make the small scale choices that keep things moving. They pick the county clerks and sheriffs. If the local GOP club had had twenty people at the meeting that chose the country clerk, Falwell's folks would show up with fifty.
After a while, those county clerks were becoming Congresspeople.
Also consider running yourself too for those local down ballot races and or encouraging progressives you know to do the same!
https://runforsomething.net/
https://wherecanirun.org/
Thanks for the links
I humbly disagree. This seems to be an overly simplified view.
The origins of "the far left" (as I understood it) was basically promoting heavy government involvement. For example, breaking up monopolies, many government subsidied programs for it's people, which in turn needs higher taxes for it people (so the rich get taxed more, the poor get taxed less).
The origins of "the far right" was the polar opposite. No government involvement. Companies will do "what's right" in order to compete for profit, less tax on it people, as there are fewer government processes/programs (because people have more personal wealth and can afford the programs that are relevant for them).
"the center" was in the middle of these two extremes. The understanding is that there needs to be some government involvement to prevent companies from going unchecked, not all people have equal chances in life resulting in some people needing more/less government assistance, ect. Yet, also acknowledging that the Stalin form of socialism fights against the basic human desire to "work to make their lives better" and companies (when left to their own devices) cannot be absolutely trusted to do "what's right" for society.
The problem with the DNC and the 2024 election is that the media has perverted what "the far left" aka Democrats and "the far right" aka Republicans (and this has been going on for years).
Based on your line of "left vs right", I'd argue that the Republican party is "close to" my definition of "the far right" (fascism aside). Yet, the Democratic Party is actually closer to "the far right" than they are "the far left". I'd even go so far as to say, that the Democratic Party is far "right of center".
So, yeah, I totally support moving the DNC towards the center, because it'll (finally) make the Democratic Party closer to their "far left" ideals.
People on the far left were actually interested in expropriation of private property and a more egalitarian distribution of those resources and decisionmaking. They also wanted actual democracy (as in power to the people) rather than Democracy™ where it's only for a handful of the population who aren't getting actively disenfranchised.
If you nationalize industries you get to use the profits directly, rather than messing around with taxes after the fact.
nationalizing industries will kill innovation and improvements and isnt necessary. you just need to structure the system to promote worker cooperatives instead of corporations. you get the best of both worlds.
If that were true then the people in this thread arguing for the DNC to move to the left would be agreeing with the DNC themselves saying they need to move to the center. But the DNC is disagreeing about moving to the left. Clearly they think they are further left of center than they want to be, e.g. their goals are to move to the right. This is the exact opposite of what you are saying will work. Yes, the Overton window has shifted, but the DNC wants to keep shifting it towards the right, and not have it shift back leftwards at all.
The far right is also big government, just in a very different way.
I really wish they would put out a survey for voters. Some way to collect data about what people actually want. Like a huge survey, let every registered dem fill it out.
If they're talking about running some bland business-as-usual candidate then that'll lose. People want change.
Based on their track record I have no faith in progress.
From the bottom of my heart, fuck these people. They've moved so far towards neoliberal policy positions that they no longer have an economic message to give their working-class base. In the absence of a coherent economic vision for the party, they keep doubling down on, "identity politics," to keep the the Obama Coalition happy; they have nothing to unify their base, so their only option is to take up any position that is important to the demographic groups that make up the party. Now that this strategy has been thoroughly and decisively defeated, their reaction isn't to return to the progressive economic policies that won them these groups in the first place, but instead to figure which minorities are, "unpopular," so they can abandon them. What a bunch of stupid, shortsighted cowards.
Respectfully, when you wrote
It seems like you agree with
I also think that if the Dems want to win, they need to simplify their platform and messaging to focus on what will help working-class people the most. I agree that abandoning people is not the answer, but the messaging and focus needs to be more universal.
You're right, but the nuance you're discussing is not what's being discussed here. Listen to this bit:
These speakers aren't distinguishing between socially left and economically left, and reading between the lines, it is very clear that the member from Florida is talking about dropping support for trans people (in a thinly veiled and very offensive way, I might add). They lost the working class because they don't have a working class message, but they're blaming the social policies for their loss.
There is an argument to be made that the way they are approaching socially progressive issues is hurting them. Kamala Harris telling the ACLU that she supports transition surgery for migrant detainees painted a very large target on her back for a policy that would have effected a very, very small number of people. That probably should have been a, "pick your battles," moment for her.
If the argument was, "We're not going to focus on trans people in sports for now, because a lot of people still don't support that, but we're going to talk about how Medicare for All helps everyone, and we'll make sure that gender affirming care is covered," OK, there's a case to be made for that. But what they're actually saying is, "Well, the economic policy is set by the donors, so there's nothing we can do about that, but the trans stuff seems to be costing us more votes than it's winning us, let's drop that." They're trying to jettison the progressive groups they think aren't helping them instead of building an agenda for progressives to rally behind.
Please spread, cross post, share, whatever; wherever you can. People should have input into the democratic policy platform, but they're so brazen as to say the "center is where we need to be".
These people, these few hundred people, are a big problem with the democratic party.
We need to take the narrative back from centrists. It can be done by telling the DNC what to do, not the other way around.
Does the article tell us how to cast a vote? I skimmed it and couldn’t find a link to where I could at least send an email.
It's not voted on directly, you are going to want to talk to your state's party chair to try to convince them vote on the type of chair like you would a congress person on a vote for something. In the body of the post, you can find how to find your state's party chair
Here's the table copied over:
Can't find a way to contact CA guy, only a way to give him $
[email protected] or also [email protected] seemed to be listed on various California Democratic Party documents for him
If anyone else is having any issues finding the contact emails, reply to me with a state and I can try to help you find it!
Texas' Hinojosa, when asked about Democrats' willingness to stand for trans rights, said the only part out loud: "I think what the Democratic Party has to realize is that there's some things that we can support and some things that we cannot. And when we're pressed upon to take votes of these kinds that we need to be cognizant of the long term consequences of these kinds of votes."
He has since announced that he will be resigning effective March 2025, which is after the party elects a new chair. He has no incentive to listen. Not that he ever did. At least he's leaving. Good fucking riddance. It's a shame it didn't happen years ago, but he will not stand with trans people, and he absolutely will not move to the left under any circumstances.
I'm still going to do my bit and contact his office, but I harbor no illusions about him. What other avenues do Texans have?
Reading more about DNC chair elections, the state party's vice chair usually also votes for chair too (among others). For Texas, that's Shay Wyrick-Cathey ([email protected])
For what it's worth it looks like his comments about trans people are what produced a large push to get the Texas Democratic party chair to step down. He said he was stepping down the day after he gave an apology
Thank you. This is useful information.
It's not like that boat will be tallied or even looked at, If you don't have millions of bucks to give them, you don't have a voice in government.
Frankly more people were excited about Tim Walz then Kamala Harris. Let's get more MN politicians in there instead of people from the coasts. The focus on getting someone from the Midwest is the only good news I see. We need someone from Minnesota, Wisconsin or Michigan to lead the party from the inside. They might be fully progressive but understand how to organize and message to everyone. They can't just float by on politics as usual
Yeah get a progressive Minnesotan.
They described him as a moderate in the article but I say we got a progressive agenda here in MN when we had our trifecta.
I was excited qbout Kamala back when she grilled Biden, but then she got tame, and was tampered down by the Biden admin.
Its Biden's fault.
I'm sure that the same people who couldn't deliver Bernie Sanders an overwhelming win in 2020 can suddenly become savvy pols who can just put together a national third party.
If you want action, do what AOC and the others in her squad did. Work inside the Dem party.
Take a lesson from the right. Back in the 1970s Jerry Falwell decided to take control of the GOP. He did it from the ground up. If the local GOP club had had twenty people show up to the last meeting to pick the next county clerk, Falwell's people would show up with fifty people. Soon those county clerks and sheriffs were becoming Congresspeople and Senators.
Politics is a game and the left sucks at playing it.
So either we are to believe they've learned nothing and will continue to alienate their base, while remaining inept fools on the international stage, OR their idea of rebuilding a carbon copy of the previous failures is by design.
A centrist DNC is a loser. A center-right DNC is a loser. The DNC will never beat the Republicans at their own game, so either these strategists are the densest people on the planet, or they are the mouthpieces of Controlled Opposition, exactly as expected.
There is no duality in which savvy, intelligent political players arrive at "Centrism wins," without some inherent greasy, malfeasant ulterior motives.
It's difficult to even pretend that they are serious in this endeavor; their every action and utterance is an admission of planned incompetence.
Obama and Clinton were centrists. They won.
Clinton won in 1993. The late 1900s. 30+ years ago.
Obama's entire campaign was on Hope for Change. And he's the first black President ever.
Are you really trying to argue that these are equivalences?
Clinton and Obama are still alive today, they are still centrist, and they are still extremely popular.
If Trump got his way and was allowed to run for a third term in 2028, is there any doubt that Obama could defeat him?
Obama proved himself a centrist, but he ran as a progressive. That's the crucial difference.
He ran as someone who would bring together Blue America and Red America in the spirit of bipartisanship.
From the beginning, he intentionally reached out to Republicans.
His 2008 acceptance speech at the DNC mentions "Republicans" five times, and never in a disparaging manner. It does not mention labor unions even once.
I really liked Obama in 2008, but his Presidency was unbelievably disappointing and hope crushing. He didn't end the wars or give us universal healthcare, he didn't tax the rich or give us the right to unionize without fearing for our jobs... also, Republicans hated Obama so much that the party elected Trump in 2016! So Obama's "lie about being a progressive then pivot to centrist bipartisan bullshit" was absolutely a colossal failure.
You should reread his speeches. He didn't lie about being a progressive. He was openly a centrist.
He never promised single-payer health care or a public option. He promised to stop insurance companies from excluding people with preexisting conditions, which he did.
He never promised to end all the wars. He promised to withdraw troops from Iraq and send more troops to Afghanistan, which he did.
And he didn't say anything at all about taxing the rich or helping unions.
You can vote for whomever you wish but they will continue to serve the rich donor class, as usual.
They lost the election by running an essentially republican candidate. Fingers crossed for a progressive chair.
Remember when they picked Tom Perez, the croaking geezer, over Kieth Ellison. Your voice won't be heard because that's not who they're listening for.
They have their big donors who give them their marching orders. They really don't care if they win or not, so long as they are getting paid.
That's funny that you believe that your voice will be heard if you're not amongst the donor class. They only answered the money, something none of us have.
So uh, why is there an NY representative in the CA seat again? So much for local representation I guess.
Looked mine up... There's part off the problem...
Compensation
Base salary $174,000
Net worth (2012) $54,251,531.50
They must never order avocado toast. /s
They've already decided who's taking over, nothing the progressives do will shift the needle.
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is the Democrat way.
Y'all have to let the DNC go. They are never going to do what is right for the people.
It's time for a new party. How many times are we going to watch them fail us before we make a change?
Y'all are like Charlie Brown running up to kick the football right before Lucy pulls it away.
We've seen them fail us time and time again on issues that they absolutely had the power to fix.
This is the party of corporate interests. They don't care about us. They've completely abandoned any platform of universal healthcare, they don't give a flying fuck about the environment, and their border policy is worse than Trump's somehow.
By repeatedly and blindly voting blue no matter who, we are enabling them to never make any changes for the good.
Your idealist solution is impossible in the practical world that we live in since first past the post voting will always favor the two gigantic parties. It is far easier to change the DNC into what we want then to create a third party
If we don't have a state delegate should we just pick the closest state?
If you're a US citizen living abroad, there's the Democrats Abroad party chair to reach out to, there are also various US territory chairs too (Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, DC, etc.)
Lol
Side note: what happened to all the 3rd party chuds after the election? I guess they're all just going to sit on their hands and do fuck all until 4 years from now when they need to heroically arrive on the scene and convince everybody to toss away their vote for someone they just heard about because they're mad at the inevitable Dem centrist pick.
idk man, if the DNC won't run a progressive, why can't we get a grassroots movement behind one?
Honestly, I at this point wonder if progressives would be better off running as Republicans. Trump has largely, at least on messaging, distanced himself from a lot of traditional Republican economics. His base doesn't really care much about traditional Republican policies like tax cuts or even deregulation. It's mostly just driven by grievance and raw rage against vague elites. Mostly that is directed against cultural elites, but that same movement could be directed against wealth inequality. And the Republican Party has proven itself much more receptive to new ideas than the Democratic Party has. The Republican Party can be taken over by charismatic figures, while wealthy donors and special interest groups largely control the DNC. This isn't likely to change any time soon. The existing Democratic leadership has more to gain by losing as a centrist than seeing a progressive win and force through change in the DNC.
I say progressives should try running as Republicans. Call yourself a "radical Republican," hearkening back the historical radical Republicans in the post-Civil War era. Say you were going to stick it to the wealthy, give the little guy a shot, and not do any DEI. Hell, repeatedly hammer the nepotism and social advantages the wealthy have as "wealth DEI." Rail endlessly against big business and elites. Vow to not appoint anyone who went to an Ivy League school to any position in your administration. Promise not to even talk to a single Wall Street Banker.
The DNC can lick and tease my disgusting Perinium.
That's not a constructive approach. Doing nothing just means Republicans completely disasemble what remains of democracy in the US.
We need a new party that isn’t the Green Party. The Progressive party. Anyone left of center.
Why not just orchestrate a takeover of the Green Party? Then extract concessions from Democrats in exchange for not running.
Of course, this would mean that Democrats care about winning instead of donations.
I got a text message from the DNC an hour before the polls closed hitting me up for last minute money.
I think people should have to donate to a single bucket that gets split to all the candidates evenly.
If you do that, you will just split the vote, giving Republicans another win. I'm not sure if your democracy will survive thus term, but another... forget it.
My democracy? I’m not taking advice from you
If Democrats are so damned serious about making sure Republicans don't win, THEY can stay out of the race.
The DNC during their campaign to save democracy refused to compromise with their base on genocide.
To reiterate, genocide.
And after they lost, they threw trans people and the left under the bus.
So what makes you all think they're going to change their stance on anything now? They're already screaming that the DNC was too far left during this campaign, this campaign, where they unapologetically and unconditionally showed support to a fascist and his genocide.
They had Republican after Republican parade across their convention stage, but had zero Palestinian Democrats come speak despite requests from the Uncommitted Protest movement.
What's that thing all of Lemmy is always saying, "When people show you who they are, believe them?" They're showing you who they are and who they want to be, so believe them. There's no saving the DNC, it's just a slow march to fascism under them versus the speed run with the Republicans.
Here's what I wrote to my delegate's office: