• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    Because the DNC is emptying out the “victory fund” that neoliberals were stealing from state parties and hoarding to use to convince us to settle for neoliberals in the presidential…

    The only reason Republicans are competitive for House/Senate majorities is for decades neoliberals sandbagged the party, and if you didn’t play ball they bankrupted your entire state and let Republicans take it to punish you and set an example to get there states.

    That’s how Jeffries and Schumer got elected as majority leaders, going against them would hurt your constituents and the politicians. Whether you were ethical or not there wasn’t really a choice.

    That’s been over for a year now

    We’re literally a year deep in the largest reinvesture of funds from DNC to state parties, which has let them all run at campaign pevels.

    We keep “over performing” because for the first time in 30 years the goal is as many seats as possible instead of a very slim majority so nothing would get done.

    Which is why billionaire owned media keeps pretending this is “over performing” and not just what would normally happen if the oligarchs weren’t holding us back by shoving neoliberals down our throats.

    But this is gonna keep happening, because it’s a fundamental change to the party that caused it.

    • Matty Roses@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      for the first time in 30 years

      Dean had the 50 state strategy in 2006. Which paid off in 2008, with the largest Dem win in generations.

      That of course was quickly squandered.

    • DahGangalang@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 hours ago

      if you didn’t play ball they bankrupted your entire state and let Republicans take it to punish you and set an example to get there states.

      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?

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        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:

        1. Bankrupt the DNC

        2. Leave state dem parties to fend for themselves.

        3. 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:

        The victory fund has transferred $3.8 million to the state parties, but almost all of that cash ($3.3 million, or 88 percent) was quickly transferred to the DNC, usually within a day or two, by the Clinton staffer who controls the committee, POLITICO’s analysis of the FEC records found.

        By contrast, the victory fund has transferred $15.4 million to Clinton’s campaign and $5.7 million to the DNC, which will work closely with Clinton’s campaign if and when she becomes the party’s nominee.

        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

        • DahGangalang@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          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?

          Obama, rightfully pissed off made a stupid decision and allowed the neoliberals to hang onto the DNC.

          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.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 hours ago

            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?

            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

            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?

            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.