this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2025
143 points (96.7% liked)
United States | News & Politics
2354 readers
527 users here now
Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh man, you just deleted the abstractum of hierarchies! Amazing job!
So when the party has a president there's leadership, and when there's no president, there are no leaders, amazing! Heisenberg's leadership!
Anyway, here is an excerpt copied from The Charter and By Laws of the Democratic Party of The United States:
ARTICLE THREE
Democratic National Committee
Section 1.
The Democratic National Committee shall have general responsibility for the affairs of the Democratic Party between National Conventions, subject to the provisions of this Charter and to the resolutions or other actions of the National Convention.
This responsibility shall include, but not be limited to:
(a) issuing the Call to the National Convention; (b) conducting the Party's Presidential campaign; (c) filling vacancies in the nominations for the office of President and Vice President; (d) formulating and disseminating statements of Party policy; (e) providing for the election or appointment of a Chairperson, five Vice Chairpersons, one of whom shall be the President of the Association of State Democratic Committees and one of whom shall be the Vice Chairperson for Civic Engagement and Voter Participation, a Treasurer, a Secretary, and a National Finance Chair, who, with the exception of the Chairperson, shall be as equally divided as practicable according to gender at the quadrennial election, as defined in the Democratic National Committee Charter, Article Nine, Section 16, and for the filling of vacancies that occur outside of the regularly scheduled elections of the President of the Association of State Democratic Committees, all in accordance with Rules of Procedure adopted by the Democratic National Committee; and other appropriate officers who shall be as equally divided as practicable according to gender; and (f) all other actions necessary or appropriate in order to carry out the provisions of this Charter and the objectives of the Democratic Party.
Nowhere in there does it say anything at all about bossing around Senators and congressmen. You just proved everything I told you to be true.
100% correct. There is no clear party leader when there is no president. The leaders of the House Democratic Caucus and Senate Democratic Caucus are each far more powerful than the DNC chairman. The House leader cannot boss the Senate leader. The Senate leader cannot boss the house leader. And neither of those 2 leaders cares the slightest shit what the chairman of the DNC thinks. Do you even know who that person is? Because I don't. He/She is not important enough for anybody to even know what their name is. Jeff Jeffries is the House Leader. Chuck Schumer is the Senate Leader. Nobody knows or gives a fuck who the DNC leader is.
Did you also think that the RNC is the head of the Republican Party? That's not the slightest bit true. Republicans aren't united because of "the RNC". The RNC is a joke. They are united because the billionaires control the entire party and calls the shots on everything they do.
So first you said they only handle primaries. Nowhere did I even see the word primary, but the list of responsibilities went far beyond handling elections. You ignored section D entirely, which I posit is a leadership role. You have no understanding that people can function as leaders and exhibit leadership skills regardless of official hierarchies, titles, and positions.
And finally, you are making my point for me. The party has laughable unity and leadership. If the DNC is responsible for the candidates that comprise the party, why shouldn't I blame them for building a headless party?
Did you not know that "issuing the Call to the National Convention" is the final result of the primary?
Did you not know that "filling vacancies in the nominations for the office of President and Vice President" would only happen if there was some problem after the primary?
Did you not know that "providing for the election or appointment of a Chairperson, five Vice Chairpersons..." all has to do with the internal private organization of the DNC and nothing at all to do with the US congress?
Did you not know that "formulating and disseminating statements of Party policy" refers to the party platform of the presidential elections and are made right before the national convention and then pretty much ignored for the next 4 years and are never used by congressmen and senators to guide their votes? I doubt that any congressmen who is not a DNC member could quote a single sentence in the party platform.
A leadership role of a private organization that holds a big event every 4 years. It is not a government leadership role for people who are work for the government, like congressmen and senators.
They are NOT responsible for the candidates that comprise the party. The VOTERS and candidate themselves are 100% responsible for that. Those same voters are ALSO responsible for electing the membership of the DNC. That is exactly why congressmen and senators couldn't care less what anybody who works at the DNC thinks about anything. It's because congressmen and senators are responsible for their own election and reelections, not the DNC.
Why would you even want a party where one guy, instead of millions of voters, decide who the candidates are? Or even way worse than that, how they vote?
You have no understanding the congressmen and senators already have completely different leaders and organizations who have infinitely more power than anybody at "the DNC". A simple way to understand reality is to know that nobody who gets a government paycheck cares about what anybody at the DNC wants.
The whole reason why I push back against the trend of using "The DNC" as a magical shorthand for "whichever Dem I don't like at the moment", is become I was worried that eventually somebody would be foolish enough to think the DNC was some super powerful monolithic static group who is like an actual person. So far you are the only person I've found in that category. Everyone else simply admits they were falsely using "The DNC" to mean some random guy they didn't like.
Powerful enough to control the primary process and thus curate the illusion of "choice." Look at how preemptively allocating super delegates impacted Bernie's progress in 2016.
The platform and policies you so brazenly discount as unimportant is the very premise on which voters decide to elect. Like what are you even talking about? It's like you only acknowledge one half of an equation.
The DNC doesn't matter because it only introduces the public to candidates? Is that your argument? And are you also arguing that the DNC cannot support primary challengers to replace Democrats that "don't give a shit" about party strategy and unity?
They wouldn't allow you to vote? I don't think so.
There was no impact at all. First of all "allocating super delegates" was a process added to the party charter in the 1980's. The number of DNC members of 2016 that had anything to do with that was zero. 2nd, Clinton had a majority of elected delegates in 2016. So super delegates made no difference. You know that Bernie was a super delegate right?
LOL. I bet you don't know one single sentence of the 2024 Party Platform. I don't any either. Unfortunately voters don't even look at the candidates real published platforms, which they definitely should be doing. Like Harris 82 page PDF of policy positions.
It doesn't even do that much. The candidates introduce themselves to the public. Their main job is to hold the primary votes. If you are someone who volunteers to work for the Democratic Party at the local level, then yes, the DNC is the ultimate boss of your volunteer organization. If you are someone who gets a paycheck from the government, like congressmen and senators, then no the DNC is not your boss. Congressmen do have leaders who can punish them by taking away their committee assignments and making them bored at their jobs. Those leaders are the Democratic Caucus leaders.
They NEVER do that. They can play a small role sometimes. They have been known to occasionally choose a candidate to fund in a congressional primary when there is no Democratic incumbent. And they shouldn't do that IMO. But once a Democratic candidate becomes an elected incumbent the DNC has no leverage whatsoever over them.
The DNC has no leverage whatsoever. It is the leadership of the House and Senates Democratic Caucuses who have both the official job and the real job of party strategy and unity. And they have some real but also limited leverage, since they give out committee assignments. It is not uncommon for the DNC chairman to be a run of the mill rank and file congressmen who takes their orders from the Caucus Leader.
My argument is that "The DNC" had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this article. The "House Leaders" cited in this article were clearly the leaders of the Democratic Caucus, not "The DNC" as you were falsely claiming.
How do the Democrats get to those positions?
Look, I get what you're saying. I think we are saying the same damn thing but talking past each other.
The DNC is worthless, doesn't do shit. Nobody cares about it.
Here is my point:
They are SUPPOSED TO BE the leadership. They are not fulfilling that role.
They are the GOVERNING BODY of the party. What rules the party follows, how it operates, is on them in my view. It's a private organization. I am nit picking how they handle their shit and finding it lacking. They've abdicated that responsibility. Possibly by design, so they can have an excuse for their lack of efficacy. Constructed opposition.
You want to put the responsibility directly on the electorate it seems, but we have a democratic republic, not a direct democracy, the parties functionally have the power in a two party FPTP system.
It runs the primaries. That is its main job and that job is indispensible. Ideally, you shouldn't care who is the chairman of the DNC. You should care who are the leaders of the congressional caucuses. Jeffries is terrible.
Only of the private organization known as the Democratic Party.
But look, this is the website of a government organization --> https://www.dems.gov/
Did you see that you had THREE results, not one? Did you see that their were 2 leaders mentioned by name, neither of whom is the DNC chairman?
Then send them your suggestions on what changes you would like to see in the DNC charter regarding how the primary elections are held. The DNC is obligated to stick to the charter, and process of how to hold primary elections can only be changed in between elections, like right now.
So you disagreed with the DNC's decision after 2016 to change the 30 year old rule regarding super delegates, so that super delegates can no longer vote in the first round of the nomination?
This article was obviously referring to the House Democratic Caucus, not the DNC, because it mentioned Jeffries. So you were incorrect when you thought this was referring to DNC leaders. And it is weird that you have never heard about the House and Senate Democratic Caucus organizations. Because both of them are way more powerful and important than "The DNC". If you are going to comment about politics on the internet, it is your responsibility to understand how things actually work and the differences between different organizations. Another good lesson I would like to point out here is that social media can distort reality just as much as the mass media can. You were a victim of this.
What is wrong with you? You are literally being obtuse and refusing to see what I'm saying. Are you trying to convince me of something while simultaneously not even understanding what I'm saying?
If you think you understand what I'm saying, explain it to me.
Are you saying the people in the article are not members of the private organization known as the Democratic party?
The people in the article are not members of the private organization controlled by the DNC and the DNC has no authority over them.
What did you just do? Why did you reword it that way? You are coming across as duplicitous now.
What do you mean, "reword it"? I didn't reword anything.
The article mentions "Members of the Steering and Policy Committee — with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) in the room "
The "Dems" referred to in the araticle is clearly talking about the House Democratic Caucus (HDC) rather than the DNC. The HDC is a completely separate (and way more powerful) organization than the DNC.
Are you illiterate? I asked you a Yes or No question, and instead of answering it, you reworded it. Scroll up and try again.