DCCC introduces No-More-AOCs rule

#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/03/23/primary-those-fuckers-2.html

16 Likes
#2

Oh, well done. Yes. Perfect. Definitely more youth and minority voter apathy. This is precisely what we need. I mean, what’s four more years, after all?

37 Likes
#3

Well look how much trouble she’s already caused! Primary challengers need to learn their place, which is, in the voting booth, obeying their betters.

14 Likes
#4

The last few years have made it amply clear that the Republicans don’t actually believe in democracy; this confirms that the Democrats don’t either.

Second observation: sometimes it seems that it isn’t so much that the Republicans win elections, it’s that the Democrats lose them. Whatever the truth of that, this new policy should help the Democrats consolidate their losing streak until the Republicans are able to gerrymander and voter-suppress their way to a permanent, unassailable ‘majority’.

In my most paranoid moments, I sometimes almost wonder if the two parties aren’t actually acting in concert to ensure that the will of the people shall in no wise be reflected in the way that the country is run. We don’t actually have a free market in democracy, so much as a single all-powerful cartel. Their shared goal is to ensure that government remains the sphere of a permanent political class that protects its vested interests (and yours too, if you can pay enough) without compunction and using every means at their disposal.

Can we just march the entire pack of them into the Potomac at the point of a pitchfork and start over?

47 Likes
#5

Isn’t that a textbook example of a secondary boycott? ISTR that secondary boycotts are illegal.

Of course, it does mean that the DCCC will sanction anyone trying to challenge AOC for her seat. Perhaps not the intent, or maybe they’re add a clause to deal with sitting Members whose districts are redrawn or whatever.

12 Likes
#6

First, I don’t like using The Intercept as a source. They are Leftist Breitbart and they are so incompetent that their “confidential” sources go to federal prison for 5+ years. (mediabiasfactcheck.com confirms: Left Bias.)

But, just for proportionality, let’s realize that, while this rule does effect AOCs, its primary effect is on vendors who work for Republicans. Plus, given the GOP’s no-holds-barred “We Go Low” attitude, they (oh, and Russians) are going to fund, or otherwise aid, underdog Democratic primary challengers.

Let’s be real. AOC was a unicorn. A glorious, graceful unicorn, but a unicorn nonetheless. Even before this rule, incumbents get reelected 90% of the time.

So, even though this rule should have had (and must have) exceptions for Democratic primary contenders, can we maybe not proceed with the ritual flagellation and the blatantly false “All Parties Are The Same” incantations?

And, if they are “the same”, please show me where, on the RNC form, they ask: if vendors are “minority-owned, woman-owned, veteran-owned, disabled-owned, lgbt-owned”; if senior staff positions are “comprised of at least 50% minority, woman, veteran, disabled, lgbt individuals”; if the firm has “demonstrated sustained commitment to promoting diversity”; if the firm “agrees to utilize unionized labor when readily available.”

19 Likes
#7

Time to dust off the ol’ Bull Moose, methinks.180px-Progressive_Moose_walking

6 Likes
#8

They absolutely benefit from splitting the country! Im unsure how coordinated the effort is, but they know how it works and how the game is played. The dirty laundry piles up on both sides so neither side is willing to talk about it… mutually assured destruction.
I was begging for my topics to be addressed in the last presidential debates: money laundering, offshore tax shelters, corporate lobbying, etc, but instead I got emails and pussy grabbing.

13 Likes
#9

I’m going to guess that the DCCC didn’t choose to support Ms. Eastman after her primary win over Mr. Ashford which might have something to do with her general election loss.

6 Likes
#10

Fuck that.
Sideways.
With a brick.

well done

9 Likes
#11

Is the Democratic Party so monolithic that the DCCC can cut off a candidate from any business with the Democratic Party, or just with the DCCC? I mean, there are all kind of Democratic fundraising groups out there, and I doubt they would all toe that line.

Anyway, I realized long ago that the Democrats were not incompetent at passing progressive legislation, but that many of them were in fact just as invested in maintaining and widening the wealth gap as the Replublicans; they were just playing the role of the good cop. But not all of them, and especially not AOC and many of her peers. I find that heartening, and will continue to work to expand the number of actual progressives elected.

25 Likes
#12

Hardly

A factual search reveals they have not failed a fact check, however in 2016 they fired Juan Thompson for fabricating quotes and establishing email accounts to trick editors. The Intercept reported: “Thompson admitted to creating fake email accounts and fabricating messages, but stood by his published work. He did not cooperate in the review,”

Overall, we rate The Intercept progressive Left Biased based on story selection that favors the left and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing. (5/18/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 12/22/2018)

A factual search reveals numerous failed fact checks by IFCN Fact Checkers. Here are just a few of many as an example:

Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right wing bias and publication of numerous false claims. (M. Huitsing 7/14/2018)

If you had just stuck with your second point about Reality Winner (which I agree with) then you wouldn’t look like a enlightened centrist hypocrite when you say

26 Likes
#13

Seems like the DCCC is actively encouraging the creation of a national “Progressive” party.

If that ever happens (in our dreams) whatever’s left of the Dems could merge with whatever’s left of what was once the merely conservative Republican party, and the deplorable right can split off and do their own thing.

Of course, this might inevitably lead to decades of a centrist Dem/Rep party in government, but there are worse things. Perhaps.

/daydream

4 Likes
#14

One could argue the Bull Moose ordeal is a pretty good case study in how splitting the progressive vote in the general election is tantamount to handing a victory to the opposing party.

13 Likes
#15

I’m a fan of the progressive party but remember they (TR) lost the general even though he got more votes than his old party. Because the vote was split. I think Bernie and AOC are smart to try and fight from within rather than without. Now if we can get ranked choice voting that’s a different story…

8 Likes
#16

Not even sure they should be classified as leftist, seeing as their most prominent writer is a regular pro-Trump voice on the Tucker Carlson White Power Hour.

5 Likes
#17

I don’t think anyone’s claiming they’re the exact same. The issue is that the DCCC is effectively far more to the right than they claim to be. While not the same as Republicans, the resemblances are many, and to those further on the left, glaring and alarming.

Edit: And both the DCCC and Repubs in general are, to put it simply, corrupt.

19 Likes
#18

A group of people can act in concert without there being a conspiracy. They are both serving capitalism and thus their interests align. This is true of most conspiracy theories. They fail to account for the emergent behavior or complex systems.

23 Likes
#19

But it’s perfectly fine for a vendor or consultant to work for Republicans?

New rule - no donations to the DCCC while they oppose Democrats.

13 Likes
#20

Not if she doesn’t have a district.

12 Likes