The DNC Is Considering The Idea of a Fair and Neutral Primary

Arkain2K

Si vis pacem, para bellum
@Steel
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
33,422
Reaction score
5,683
Thread Index:


Tom Perez and Keith Ellison think the DNC should stay neutral in the Primary
South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Jaime Harrison disagrees
By Ben Kamisar - 02/22/17​

ellison_perez.jpg

Both frontrunners to lead the Democratic National Committee, Keith Ellison and Tom Perez, agreed to stay neutral in party primaries.

As the dust settles on a 2016 presidential primary where evidence of favoritism within the DNC drove a wedge into the party and cost it its chair, both candidates preached a hands-off approach on primaries.

But South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Jaime Harrison bucked that idea, arguing that brutal primaries hurt Democrats' chances at winning races.

It's an easier pitch for Ellison, who is the favorite of the progressive wing that is restless about potential primary challenges against establishment Democrats who are backing some of President Trump's priorities. But it's a tougher spot for Perez, who has more support among the establishment wing that worries tough primaries could hurt the party's chances in general elections.

"The role of the DNC chair is let the process run its course and we move forward when the general election moves ahead," Perez said.

Ellison, a former top surrogate for Bernie Sanders's presidential bid, went a step further.

“The role of the DNC is to be neutral and fair to all primary contestants," he said.

"I will make a personal call and say, ‘Let’s not kill each other off guys,’ but I will not publicly shame any Democrat in a primary."


But while both Perez and Ellison said they'd support neutral primaries, Harrison took another route. Noting that Republicans need just seven more Senate seats in 2018's tough map for Democrats to reach a filibuster-proof majority, and control of one more state to call a constitutional convention, he argued that effort spent on primaries will only hurt the party in the fall.

“If Democrats want to be in a permanent minority, let’s spend all the time fighting each other. But if we want to fight against Donald Trump, then fight against Ted Cruz, fight against the Republicans who are up," he said.

"We don’t have the time or energy and all the people we are fighting for don’t have time for this purity test."

Leaked DNC emails from 2016 showed some party staffers supportive of Hillary Clinton's presidential bid while others went as far suggesting that news organizations look into potentially damaging stories for Sanders's campaign.

That led to resignations within the DNC, including then-Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a congresswoman from Florida.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...-agree-on-dnc-playing-neutral-role-in-primary
 
Last edited:
these politicians.....fight against? Why do we need to "fight" each other?
 
Like that's something that even requires discussion.
 
I had a recent thought on why head of the DNC is important.

Imagine if you will, that donor rolls painted a picture of a criminal organization.

Would be important to control who has access to those donor rolls, and amounts given.
 
Also, thank you Arkain2k for creating quality threads.

This place is shit right now.

New tranny or Milo thread in 3,2,1........
 
Let's call it what it is- a concession to populism. Parties have never been this weak. This is only going to make things crazier. Don't say I didn't warn you.
 
Good. I hope it's actually practiced and not just preached.

With the DNC lawyers actually arguing that "a fair and neutral Democratic Primary is merely a political promise" and its leadership should not have been held liable for breaking that neutrality, I guess we'll have to wait for the final verdict from Wikileaks' 2020 Election monitors.

Also, thank you Arkain2k for creating quality threads.

If we're all gonna pass the time in our offices by debating with random strangers around the world, might as well make those discussions worth our while, right? :cool:
 
Last edited:
If you were a democrat, wouldn't you want, oh, say, DEMOCRATS to decide who the democratic nominee is?

Open primaries seem peculiar to me. If you're not a member of a club, don't expect club privileges.
 
If you were a democrat, wouldn't you want, oh, say, DEMOCRATS to decide who the democratic nominee is?

Open primaries seem peculiar to me. If you're not a member of a club, don't expect club privileges.

So where do the 40% of people who call themselves independents go?

Stay home?
 
Let's call it what it is- a concession to populism. Parties have never been this weak. This is only going to make things crazier. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

If my choice is the status quo, or anarchy, I choose anarchy. Hopefully there is a third option.
 
Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

If my choice is the status quo, or anarchy, I choose anarchy. Hopefully there is a third option.
I would have rather kept a strong party, but it's becoming unavoidable that parties will now mold themselves around charismatic people, and lose their platforms. This isn't going to have the effect you desire, imo. But best of luck.
 
Did anyone else hear the tetris theme music while reading this?

All I see is a dirty troll trying to derail the topic of the DNC considering the possibility of being fair to all Democratic contestants.
 
Let's call it what it is- a concession to populism. Parties have never been this weak. This is only going to make things crazier. Don't say I didn't warn you.
Could you expound please? What's going to make things crazier?
 
So where do the 40% of people who call themselves independents go?

Stay home?

Like I said, not a member of a club, don't expect club privileges.

Either become a member of the party you wish to affect, or sit on the sidelines until the general election. Republicans should nominate the Republican nominee, and Democrats should nominate the Democratic nominee. What is wrong with that logic?
 
Back
Top