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.”
We absolutely should be promoting safe seats and not primary them. That makes perfect sense to me. It also makes sense that the DNC picks who runs on the DNC ticket, at least as long as first past the post still exists.
As far as “influence” you keep talking about it but the only evidence you provide is people just don’t vote the way you want them to.
Why? That is anti democratic.
This is about the primary, not the candidacy.
These were not my words. I was quoting from the article.
Because splitting our voter base in parts makes us less likely to win seats in congress. It’s called the Spoiler Effect.
If a person’s primary candidate loses they’re less likely to vote for the primary winner in the general election.
I see you using them not arguing against them.
Fair primaries have nothing to do with the Spoiler Effect.
Absolute horseshit. Anyone participating in the Democrat’s primary vote will hold their nose and vote Democrat on election day.
Why would I argue against the article? You’re just butthurt that your usual “no evidence” gambit failed.