politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I don't think I follow the logic on this, most probably because I'm not sure which funds / fund pools you're referring to.
Could you explain what you mean a bit more ELI5 level?
The national Democratic fundraising org basically controlled the purse strings that the state levels orga relied on for the last few decades. If the state level wasn't playing ball, they weren't getting the funding. This caused a huge loss of Dem seats in state legislatures across the country, which lead to a big gerrymandering push by Republicans to solidify these seats for them.
Leadership changed recently and this devastating policy has been reversed
Yeah, but like, its gonna come with some assumptions that we agree on stuff, and even a simplified version goes back 20 years. So this will be long, but as simple as I can make it.
2007 primary was mostly fair, there was a lot of finger on the scales and implied threats of ending careers for working with Obama. But the neoliberals didn't take him serious enough to really fuck with it.
That lead to Obama winning the primary, and the neoliberals from Bill's days who running the DNC to shit themselves. Because if Obama won, he'd name a DNC chair and that was the party.
So the DNC actively worked against Obama even in the general in 2007
Obama, rightfully pissed off made a stupid decision and allowed the neoliberals to hang onto the DNC. However he ran everything thru his own PACs and organizations. Which did a few things:
Bankrupt the DNC
Leave state dem parties to fend for themselves.
Leave the voting members of the DNC nowhere to turn, except double down on neoliberals and corpo. support.
So by the time 2015 runs around, the party is still broke, however the prior chair just gaslights everyone else at the DNC and keeps telling them it's fine.
In order to fund the DNC enough for the primary, a deal is reached with the Clinton campaign, where they funded the DNC in exchange for final say on anything the DNC said or did, essentially Hillary Clinton cut a check to buy the DNC
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/
But, instead of just cashing a check, Hillary also set up a system of "bundling" where you could (in one donation) write a check for the max to a candidate, max to the DNC, and max to all 50 state parties.
"To make it easy" just one single check, you could give to Hillary.
That money became the "Hillary Victory Fund":
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-leak-clinton-team-deflected-state-cash-concerns-226191
That money was then supposed to be broken down and distributed, which would have been very easy since they were maxing stuff out.
But neoliberals gonna neoliberal, so:
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670
So anyone that would have given to state parties because they maxed at the DNC or candidate, gave to the victory fund which the DNC and candidate appropriated and used as a single bag of money.
This got passed to Biden, then to Kamala.
The only way your state party could get some crumbs, was appeasing that group of neoliberals. Go against them, and they'd give you start nothing. They didn't care if Republicans won, because the goal of neoliberalism is to never have enough power to do what voters want.
Now that the goal is "as many seats as possible" and the money is going where it was always supposed to, we're going to see massive swings like this election.
So like I said, it's long. But thats honestly as short as it could be and I had to leave a lot out
Makes sense, but couple clarifying questions:
By "ending careers for working with Obama", you mean the people mostly left over from Bill Clinton's time as president were threatening people within the Democratic party to not work with Obama?
Wait so, he was so mad at them that he.....let them keep power? That doesn't make sense. Can you shed any light on why he'd do that?
Man, that Victory Fund sounds corrupt as hell. Thanks for explaining things I was too immature/politically ignorant to pay attention to back in the day.
They would blackball anyone who worked on a campaign for a progressive.
Like not even in secret backroom deals, they were very upfront about it, if you worked on a primary to challenge a neoliberal incumbent, none of the neoliberals would hire you, it worked for a long time.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/blacklisted-political-consultants-profit-democrats-civil-war-n1026496
The most gracious interpretation is he thought the party would wither and die and something would organically replace it...
But I think he was just a petty dick.
What he should have done was hand the keys to someone who would at least try to fix it, do the stuff Martin is now. Instead it cost us a decade of progress.