General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDNC gives David Hogg an ultimatum
The Democratic National Committee is going to force David Hogg to decide: Get out of the primary game or lose his DNC post.
During a member call on Thursday, DNC Chair Ken Martin is expected to announce a proposal to change the party’s rules to mandate all DNC officers stay neutral in all Democratic primaries, according to a person directly familiar with the plan and granted anonymity to describe private discussions. The move comes after Hogg pledged last week to spend millions of dollars funding challenges to “asleep-at-the-wheel” Democrats in primaries, igniting a firestorm inside the DNC.
The proposal, if passed at the DNC’s August meeting, would effectively force Hogg to decide whether to step away from his DNC vice chair position or wall himself off from the group he co-founded, Leaders We Deserve, which has pledged to spend $20 million on challenging Democratic incumbents in safe blue seats.
It’s an escalation in the fight between Hogg and other DNC leaders and House Democrats, many of whom were enraged by Hogg’s announcement. Hogg, who rose to national prominence as a gun safety activist after he survived a school shooting in Parkland, Fla., said last week that he planned to back candidates who would challenge “ineffective” safe-seat Democrats. But House members and Democratic leaders vented that he was touching off a “circular firing squad” inside the party.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/23/dnc-gives-david-hogg-an-ultimatum-00307113
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DFW
(57,868 posts)But I agree with Martin. We do not hold a 250-185 majority in the House. We are down by about 4 seats before a midterm next year in which our chances of retaking the House are, as things now stand, good. Anything that jeopardizes even one seat of that potential majority could return the Speaker's gavel to His Holiness, Mike Johnson, on January 3rd, 2027. Since either Trump or Vance will be in the Oval Office until Jan. 20, 2029, NOTHING we do should hinder our chances of dislodging Johnson from the Speaker's seat. Just because you are armed, that doesn't mean a circular firing squad is a good idea, especially if the other side isn't doing it.
Hekate
(97,459 posts)
sheshe2
(91,684 posts)Sounds like David planned to decide who is effective and who is not. I guess now he is the one that has to make a choice.
SheltieLover
(67,249 posts)
lostnfound
(16,938 posts)If the DNC pulled in David Hogg thinking it would help the youth vote, this move is backfire.
If his desire to primary was motivated by anti-gun stance…well, i don’t know.
But I do know that one always needs to ask the question of leaders who hire people they later chase away, why should we trust your judgment on anything?
brush
(59,719 posts)get us to a majority in the House. It's not that complicated. Hogg has to learn that. He's already learned how to feather his own nest with a hefty salary from his PAC.
Katnip.
(19 posts)He is not irreplaceable and he needs to learn that lesson.
roscoeroscoe
(1,733 posts)No explanation for that nonsense
Again I say, the DNC is hidebound. instead of recognizing energy and enthusiasm of voters they designate mediocre candidates. if the DNC had recognized and honored the enthusiasm of voters in 2015 for Bernie we would not have had trump one or two. I think Hillary is and was a great pol, good for Bill, good for New York and good as the Sec of State but there was very little enthusiasm for her compared with Bernie. if David's org. Leaders we deserve, with it's youth and vigor stand up and say "look here, this is where we can win" Have you not been watching Bernie and AOC and the crowds?
I say more power to them. too long we have listened to DNC people who have backed not the most winnable but those whose "turn" it is........look where it has gotten us.
I say, Go David, speak truth to power...............and for the rest of you............stop listening to Carville and Schumer, bah humbug!!
wryter2000
(47,812 posts)But if you're in the minority, you are powerless.
LudwigPastorius
(12,331 posts)...or old candidates instead of younger ones?
You can't see that he is engaging in precisely what you are railing against, DNC members actively promoting their own agendas over the voters?
Just because you think you'll happen to like the candidates he promotes, it's OK?
Indykatie
(3,856 posts)There is not one example of a far left candidate flipping a seat from Red to Blue. Dems have a great opportunity to win a lot of purple and even some red districts in 2026 because of Independents. Now is not the time to kick out elected Dems for a more liberal candidate that Hogg and others like him would prefer. And yes I have been watching Bernie and AOC's crowds. Bernie always had tremendous crowds but that didn't seem to translate into votes on election day.
karynnj
(60,221 posts)He wins very very easily in Vermont. In 2016 and 2020, he did get significant numbers of votes, but nowhere near enough.
You could argue that while he can not get enough supporters in many states to win a primary, the portion of his supporters who are extremely strong supporters is high. Note that in 2020, even with a large field, he couldn't win big enough or generate the momuntum to get the nomination.
electric_blue68
(21,221 posts)
ShazzieB
(20,449 posts)
yankee87
(2,506 posts)I 100% agree with you. The older generation needs to step aside and let new ideas take over. Running scared is a guarantee loss.
I believe in always charging, always.
karynnj
(60,221 posts)Bernie was never seen as a threat to the Republicans, so he never was exposed to the character assassination the Republicans always employs against us. I do think that the Republicans likely did opposition research during the primaries.
While it is true that Bernie might have held some progressive libertarians who either voted for Trump or didn't vote, there were probably as many centrists who were ok with HRC who would have not voted for Bernie.
As to no one being excited by HRC, as someone not very excited by her, in both 2008 and 2016, I knew MANY people extremely excited, some because she would be the first female President and some because they had been impressed by her since 1992.
LetMyPeopleVote
(162,429 posts)I know that county and state parties are generally prohibited from getting involved in primary contests and that all of the members of the DNC other than Mr. Hogg have signed a pledge not to get involved in primaries. If Mr. Hogg wants to do this, he should resign from the DNC
Link to tweet
“Officers of the DNC have signed a neutrality pledge. David did not sign…”
“My position as many of these so-called safe blue seats are seats that women and minorities finally had an opportunity to come and sit in because there were no seats at the table for us. So before you start wiping clean the menu and the plates and the seats, be very careful because many of those seats are in seats where we are.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/04/15/dnc-leader-democrats-primary/
“In order to ensure we are as effective as possible at electing Democrats to office, it is the DNC’s longstanding position that primary voters — not the national party — determine their Democratic candidates for the general election,” Martin continued.
All DNC officers have been asked to avoid activities in their party or personal capacity that would raise questions about their impartiality, but Hogg was the one DNC leader who did not sign the “neutrality policy.”
Link to tweet
Cha
(310,183 posts)
brush
(59,719 posts)Seems to me Hogg is overstepping boundaries and is a bit full of himself. Who is his 25-year-old, unproven self to decide what Dem incumbents, who have proven they can win against republicans, who is he to judge who to primary with an unproven candidate who hasn't beaten a republican?
True Blue American
(18,502 posts)But we need the full fledged support of our party, not a decision who to fight with in the party, not now. Truth is we lost too many good Democrats thanks to the flood of money in this last election. Sherrod Brown comes to mind, one of our best fighters, swept out nt lies and money.
Skittles
(163,850 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 25, 2025, 02:49 AM - Edit history (1)
after the results of the last election and considering their approval rating, SOMETHING HAS TO CHANGE
H2O Man
(76,711 posts)electric_blue68
(21,221 posts)Not trying to be porovicative...
But what do you think is "business as usual" is. There might be some variance in opinions.
uponit7771
(92,801 posts)DFW
(57,868 posts)I thought a member of the Senate would have an eye on the world scene as well as the local scene and the interests of the state's constituents. I explained about the issue of double taxation and how it not only hurt us Democrats Abroad, but also curtailed to potential donor pool for him and other Senators to the tune of tens or maybe even hundred of millions. I asked Senator Brown if he even know how many Americans Abroad there were. When he answered, I understood why he didn't understand at all. He guessed 250,000 to 300,000. There are probably that many Americans Abroad from Ohio alone. There are NINE MILLION of us, and probably a third of those are potential donors to Democratic candidates and causes, and Brown's estimate of our strength was off by a factor of about thirty. How could he NOT know that? 300,000 vs. 9,000,000? I was shocked. We are a population the size of just about the median of all states.
But does David Hogg know that? I surely wouldn't expect him to. It's something a national member of Congress should know, not necessarily a newly minted DNC member. But that doesn't give him the right to pretend to know who our next national candidates should be, either. It is not enough to say, "lookit me, I'm progressive!" To know who a national candidate should be, one has to know a broad ranges of issues those candidates will be voting on as well. THEN an informed decision can be made on whom to back.
betsuni
(27,846 posts)I'm smarter than everyone else and I'm right, I'm right, you KNOW I'm right, you old corrupt geezers!" No, it's not good enough.
DFW
(57,868 posts)Get to talk to enough real life Senators and House members, and you learn VERY quickly that the whole “government” thing is more complex than we imagine or want it to be. You can do your homework and try to understand its hundreds of complexities and nuances, or you can give a few “lookit me!” interviews and grab a few headlnes.
electric_blue68
(21,221 posts)how much more complex than we think it is, is.
DFW
(57,868 posts)What is effective is drawing up legislation, often with a member of the opposing party, and wording it so that is acceptable enough to both to give it a chance to survive committee scrutiny, and then the full Congress. McCain-Feingold, e.g. That involves a lot of jawboning, backroom meetings with no prying press eyes, then running it by members of Congress with differing/opposing views, and convincing them of the bill's merits. It's often dreary, exhausting, and, above all, unspectacular work. There are plenty in Congress today whose motto is "I don't do unspectacular." But it IS how legislative progress is made. My dad covered that stuff in DC for fifty years. It was often enough he had to gnash his teeth and keep a promise to keep something he was told in confidence "off the record," so as not to harm delicate backroom negotiations between legislators of both parties if they were seen to be getting somewhere. The headlines on the real accomplishments came after the work was finished, not to kickstart it. If an idea is given no chance by the very people who have the power to make it reality, then that's how much chance it will have. No one snapped their fingers to make the ACA law, and no one snapped their fingers in an unsuccessful attempt to make it go away. If you think that both procedures were simple, I envy your free time.
Haggard Celine
(17,174 posts)could cause major disruptions in our economy as well as other things. Fucking around with our system has to be done carefully. You shouldn't use a chainsaw to perform surgery.
DFW
(57,868 posts)Seeing as how we know how the surgery will come out.
betsuni
(27,846 posts)I just saw mention of Henry Waxman, that he brought the tobacco industry to its knees, paved the way for less expensive generic drugs, expanded Medicaid to include children and pregnant women, strengthened the Clean Air and Safe Drinking Water acts, wrote most of the ACA, nursing home reform, food safety reform, AIDS research. A Republican says: "Fifty percent of the social safety net was created by Henry Waxman when no one was looking."
Waxman didn't go on TV, too busy.
DFW
(57,868 posts)n/t
True Blue American
(18,502 posts)And I shared many emails over the years. Sherrod was for the Union, the worker. He fought long and hard to save Union jobs in Ohio..
Buckeyes do not realize how lucky they were to have him. He beat DeWine but this time money won. Now we have a crooked car dealer.
aggiesal
(9,984 posts)I don't believe that an incumbent should automatically receive the nomination.
We should be arriving for the best candidate possible. Sometimes that's not always the incumbent.
pnwmom
(109,836 posts)twice as easy.
aggiesal
(9,984 posts)If we applied your logic, she would have never been able to run, unless the current sitting (D) representative either decided to retire or is defeated by a (R), so that she COULD challenge the (R).
There are others, but she is the most obvious example.
Asking for a friend.
pnwmom
(109,836 posts)Nowadays Carter has huge respect among Democrats, but Kennedy managed to knock him down a couple pegs, and smooth the way for Reagan.
That's just one example. AOC was the exception, not the rule.
Chemical Bill
(2,758 posts)Examples of Republican cheating are not hard to find.
aggiesal
(9,984 posts)Multiple issues caused the downfall of Jimmy Carter.
1) High inflation. It was in double digits at the time. (You think Biden's inflation was high, Carter's was higher 10% to 12%)
2) The Oil Embargo (Voters didn't forget)
3) The Iran Hostage situation (Reagan backdoor'd Carter and asked Iran not to release hostages until after our elections).
Here is a list of (D) Incumbents that lost to a (D) Challenger, during the Primaries. (There are more)
Bold are significant names.
2024
Wesley Bell (D) defeated Cori Bush
George Latimer (D) defeated Jamaal Bowman
2022
Jamie McLeod-Skinner (D) defeated Kurt Schrader
Sean Casten (D) defeated Marie Newman
Jerry Nadler (D) defeated Carolyn Maloney
Haley Stevens (D) defeated Andy Levin
Dan Goldman (D) defeated Mondaire Jones
Lucy McBath (D) defeated Carolyn Bourdeaux
2012
Bill Pascrell (D) defeated Steve Rothman
Beto O'Rourke (D) defeated Silvestre Reyes
Marcy Kaptur (D) defeated Dennis Kucinich
Matt Cartwright (D) defeated Tim Holden
Gary Peters (D) defeated Hansen Clarke
Lacy Clay (D) defeated Russ Carnahan
Mark Critz (D) defeated Jason Altmire
pnwmom
(109,836 posts)to withstand Kennedy's attacks on the issues you listed. And Kennedy kept fighting up to and including the convention, which left Carter weaker for the general.
Carter lost the support of many Ted Kennedy followers as a result of that primary fight. Kennedy's lame endorsement wasn't enough to compensate for the damage he'd done.
aggiesal
(9,984 posts)
pnwmom
(109,836 posts)so that Carter had had to endure that whole primary season of attacks before the general election.
And we do know how half-hearted Kennedy's endorsement was. He bears his share of the responsibility for Carter's loss, whatever it was.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,102 posts)There's no way a Republican was going to win that district, no matter who was on the D ticket. If we spend Dem dollars supporting her or opposing her, it doesn't help the Dem totals in the House, because the Dem will win the primary.
Hogg would waste Dem dollars on races that are not competitive, when he should be trying to defeat Republicans, not "purifying" the Democratic body.
aggiesal
(9,984 posts)By pnwmom's logic, she should have waited until the (D) incumbent either retired or lost to a (R), where she could then challenge a (R) instead of a (D).
My belief is that (D)'s should be challenged by any other (D). If the incumbent is that good, they would win anyway. But to say no, we can't have a (D) challenger, when the challenger might be a better Representative, means we are settling for second best because of incumbency.
electric_blue68
(21,221 posts)I'm 72 and would like some younger candidates, but they have to have proven themselves in lower govt positions, other good non government jobs that are relevant to being a good elected official, perhaps pro bono if a lawyer, volunteer work in causes relevant to Democrats, etc
Schumer may still be effective in some ways, but not as much anymore in others.
I like AOC, Maxwell Frost.
The absolutely Critical Thing is to take back Congress, then the Presidency!
Going to be hard enough.
We also absolutely need the highest level White Hats as well to monitor any special 2025 elections, then 2026!
In general right now primarying elected Dems is not a good idea. We get our Congress back, then we can debate all that, and have Primary challenges.
Is it possible a rare challenge is needed in 2026? I would need a very serious review of that option.
aggiesal
(9,984 posts)electric_blue68
(21,221 posts)Me:
Is it possible a rare challenge is needed in 2026? I would need a very serious review of that option.
So I made point of not entirely closing the door on a rare primary challenge next year
JV team? Junior varsity? If so that's quite an insult.
Next year is beyond crucial it's existential for our country. I'm not convinced in this case the energy of fighting in a primary is a good thing.
We need to be checking, and protecting every Democratic voter [including whatever old or new voter disenfranchisement tatics are thrown up!], boost voter registration(!), convincing Independents, trying to peel off some dissatisfied enough Republicans - also just might make a difference.
aggiesal
(9,984 posts)So if you're not the best candidate, you're on the JV team.
I agree with your last paragraph, but "Next year ..." every incumbent (R) or (D) should be challenged.
Every election, the incumbent should be challenged.
J-9
(75 posts)Sounds like repubs when there's a mass shooting.
Dems: Let's do gun control.
Repubs: Now is not the time.
Notice the time never comes.
The dem party supporters want change now. We cover our ears to our peril.
I stand with David Hogg. Get all the Sinemas, Manchins, Fettermans out and bring in the AOCs, Bernies and Crocketts.
aggiesal
(9,984 posts)electric_blue68
(21,221 posts)aggiesal
(9,984 posts)brush
(59,719 posts)republicans in purple and red districts. Those are the ones the DNC should help with their support so we can take back the majority in the House.
aggiesal
(9,984 posts)In fact since with a safe seat, those are the ones we should challenge the most, because it's a win/win situation.
Blue will win, regardless of which candidate makes it through the Primary.
brush
(59,719 posts)Pushing incumbents out for someone who hasn't proven that is chancy, wouldn't you agree?
aggiesal
(9,984 posts)There is no way I would agree that the incumbent could beat all (R)'s, just because they beat one.
brush
(59,719 posts)Last edited Sun May 4, 2025, 02:03 AM - Edit history (1)
Ridiculous. Hogg has proven he can feather his own nest though. He pays himself a hefty six-figure salary from his PAC, on top of his DNC pay.
He knows how to do that for sure.
aggiesal
(9,984 posts)I've been saying this for the last 20 years, after attending (D) County Central Committee meetings.
The local (D)'s only pick the ones that can raise money, regardless how qualified they are.
While the better candidate can't raise money because the (D)'s threw their hat in the one that raised money (Some times funded by 1 backer).
I've seen it time & time again. A candidate wants the endorsement of the party, the first thing they hear is go raise $1 million, then come talk to us. The incumbent has all the levers at this point.
brush
(59,719 posts)and raise money for the party to help Dems in all the states. But Hogg is picking candidates he prefers to oust sitting Dems he doesn't like, and he says he will back pregered candidates with his PAC money.
That's not neutrality...and then there's also the fact he's making sure he's getting well compensated by his PAC and his DNC salary.
Something is yery foul.
aggiesal
(9,984 posts)Every incumbent should be challenged, period.
No freebies in my book. This will produce the best people every time.
brush
(59,719 posts)aggiesal
(9,984 posts)Enjoy the day.
brush
(59,719 posts)Very smart.
aggiesal
(9,984 posts)I want one that will beat a (R) and get things accomplished during their term.
I'm a very smart person.
brush
(59,719 posts)from installing fascism. You know...save our democracy.
But I guess on the local level, backing winners is a no go?
aggiesal
(9,984 posts)I also said, "Enjoy the day".
But it's obvious you don't want me to enjoy the day, unless you get me to agree with you.
I have my opinions you have yours.
Please stop responding.
brush
(59,719 posts)aggiesal
(9,984 posts)
W_HAMILTON
(8,941 posts)JohnSJ
(98,506 posts)
whopis01
(3,824 posts)In the 2024 House election, 47% of incumbents seeking re-election faced no primary challengers.
Out of the 411 incumbents that sought re-election, 196 of them had no primary challenger.
That number was even higher in previous elections. 60% in 2022 and 53% in 2020.
The Democratic party has had a strong downward trend in contested primaries since 2018. It dropped from 241 contested primaries in 2018 to 137 contested primaries in 2024. Those numbers include primaries for both incumbents and new candidates. (The numbers above were strictly incumbents).
Saying that "candidates do challenge them in every election" is just not accurate.
They could be challenged - there is nothing to stop someone challenging them - but it does not happen in many cases.
https://ballotpedia.org/Annual_Congressional_Competitiveness_Report%2C_2024
JohnSJ
(98,506 posts)they sure do here in California jungle primaries all the time.
This is just for the Green Party
https://www.gp.org/green_party_candidates_in_state_and_local_races_in_2024
But there are also parties such as peace an freedom and three miscellaneous parties.
whopis01
(3,824 posts)What I said was that in Congressional House races, 47% of incumbents who ran for re-election faced no challengers in the primaries.
It was in response to a statement about Democratic primaries that claimed "candidates do challenge them in every election" (emphasis added).
Any primary that involved a third party candidate would not fall into the 47% that I was talking about.
H2O Man
(76,711 posts)was very clear what you were saying. It's in a discussion about primaries. You were talking about the Democratic Party. That has nothing to do with third parties.
Got in by challenging an incumbent. It does happen.
Mossfern
(3,745 posts)of the DNC in her challenge?
wryter2000
(47,812 posts)they were neutral, I believe
She did not. One should look at who Crowley was, and his position within the party. Early on, the party did not think AOC was to be taken seriously.
In boxing -- and we all know that all of life imitates boxing -- the top fighters benefit by having a warm-up before a bigger fight. Kind of like a primary before a general election. The only ones that don't are those that are over-confident. The only potential negative with a primary is if the losers are, well, sore losers. Other than that, it should be "let the best candidate win."
whopis01
(3,824 posts)Someone else said it happened in "every election". I was making the point that 53% of elections is a far cry from every election.
JustAnotherGen
(34,804 posts)Would fall flat in my district. She's used as a boogeyman by the GOP in House races out here.
Kean Jr received 23K more votes than Altman in our district last year.
Andy Kim - a Moderate Dem lost in Hunterdon County by 5K votes.
Kean Jr. won by 9K more than Malinowski in 2022.
The 7th was sacrificed for the 11th (Mikie Sherrill) during redistricting.
Malinowski beat Kean by 5K in 2020. (Look at Andy Kim's loss - 5 K)
Gerrymandered + Big Time Progressive doesn't win. Altman is now a top Aide for Senator Kim.
I've stated before - they need to focus Hogg's attention in a District like Cuellar's in TX. Show us you can get a Progressive Candidate across the finish line in a District where the Democrats Rep leans right anyways. But purple Districts where shrill hyenas like Kean Jr scream about cultural issues while claiming to be fiscal.conservatives? Nope.
I believe if Mean doesn't get the SALT Cap lifted back to where it was for the middle class for almost 100 years - then we can hammer him out of office. Altman won't be able to overcome her Working Families Party Past.
whopis01
(3,824 posts)In 2024 there were 196 incumbents who faced no challenger in the primary election. Roughly 47% of all incumbents.
aggiesal
(9,984 posts)to stop their campaign & dropout, because they will not get their endorsement, even if the challenging candidate is a better option, that's an automatic nomination.
I see it every election season.
We end up with a representative (Senate, House) that never does anything but collect a paycheck and vote the party line. They never write or introduce a bill, they just become a party vote with no conviction. I see this more in the House than in the Senate.
MichMan
(15,044 posts)They are expected to STFU and do what they are told by party leadership.
aggiesal
(9,984 posts)not only vote with the party or just collect a paycheck.
There are Representatives that have been in the house for years, that have never gotten any legislation through to a law. They only sign on to legislation that some other Representative created and collect their paycheck. They are not in any committees or a part of any hearings, and do pretty much nothing. But, they vote the party line & collect their paycheck..
brush
(59,719 posts)You think it's wise to force them out with someone who hasn't proven they can beat a republican?
Nixie
(17,635 posts)own arrogance. What a disaster in the making. This negative primary messaging is the last thing our party needs at this time. Tone deaf and unnecessary.
LostOne4Ever
(9,652 posts)But not now…
This only further proves Hogg is on point.
If the DNC cuts ties with him they can expect no donations from me or other progressives ever again. We will donate to pro democratic organizations that support people like Hogg and progressive primary challengers or directly to the candidates themselves.
RandySF
(73,807 posts)In what way?
LostOne4Ever
(9,652 posts)This implies (whether true or not) that it was okay to be biased before now.
WDLAL
(69 posts)to use his personal organization to attempt to replace sitting Democrats. I’m not sure of that, though. At least it only involves safe seats.
W_HAMILTON
(8,941 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,652 posts)I also phone banked for them desperately trying to get Harris votes.
I know because I had to say “Thank you for your time. This call was paid for the DNC” after every call.
Want me to post a time stamped receipt from one of my donations made last year?
JohnSJ
(98,506 posts)"this call was paid for by the DNC", of course the call banking I was doing was to get the vote out from Democrats, not to solicit money.
LostOne4Ever
(9,652 posts)Harris vs Trump.
We never solicited money. Just votes or gave reminders to vote early!
We were told we were required by law to say it so it was important not to forget it.
JohnSJ
(98,506 posts)election, or was it just a list of people we were just registered voters?
I had a list from voters who were registered as Democrats from the previous election.
I had a script, but I didn't have to say that it was funded by the DNC, only that I was a volunteer for the Harris campaign, (or whatever candidate I was calling for at the time), campaign, and if we could count on your vote, or something to that effect.
I guess different phone banking groups are given different scripts.
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements-political-party/party-phone-banks/
LostOne4Ever
(9,652 posts)A few of the people I called said they were republicans voting for Trump.
One day, though, we made calls to voice mails and were told these were people who had already been contacted and that we were just leaving voice mails reminding them to go vote (or early vote).
JohnSJ
(98,506 posts)phone banking is a good number of people are irritated because they get so many solicitations from different campaigns to get out the vote, that I wonder to myself if sometimes the phone banking can actually be counter-productive.
Just speaking for myself as a voter, because of all the spam calls out there, I no longer answer calls from numbers I do not recognize. It has led me to wonder how pollsters account for those who don't answer calls, and how significant that number is.
LostOne4Ever
(9,652 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 24, 2025, 01:51 PM - Edit history (1)
And it was especially hard on me due to my social anxiety disorder.
Every call made me physically ill fearing a bad reaction. Luckily the worst I got was hung up on (a lot).
G’night!
JohnSJ
(98,506 posts)electric_blue68
(21,221 posts)did phone calls in 2022.
It did get easier the more I did it ..and my nervousness disappeared.
Mossfern
(3,745 posts)Often after hours on a phone bank, I would have only a few commitments and a lot of disinterested people - some annoyed, it was mostly no answer though. I have been able to switch a person or two from undecided to the Democratic candidate. That was a high!
Closer to the election, we did leave voice mail messages to those who were marked supporting the Dem candidate reminding them to vote.
JohnSJ
(98,506 posts)JohnSJ
(98,506 posts)it was obvious that there was only ONE SIDE that actually wanted and worked for gun legislation.
I am glad they are getting out ahead of this.
Some of Mr. Hoggs ideas such as "defund the police", is NOT a good slogan:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dnc-vice-chair-s-posts-calling-to-abolish-ice-and-defund-police/ar-AA1ypfYq?ocid=EMMX
I question why he was even made vice chairman. His only credentials are that he survived a terrible mass shooting.
We need to campaign against republicans, not Democrats, and leave challenges to incumbents up to the people in that state, not to someone who is supposed to NOT TAKE SIDES against Democrats.
If he wants to do that, then I suggest he should run as a candidate.
dalton99a
(88,401 posts)
Oopsie Daisy
(5,672 posts)electric_blue68
(21,221 posts)JI7
(91,823 posts)Nixie
(17,635 posts)elected Democrats.
Patton French
(1,622 posts)It’s easier to finger point and do the TV circuit.
Polybius
(19,840 posts)He just turned 25, so now he can run for the House, but he couldn't in November 2024.
MichMan
(15,044 posts)Sorry you don't see those as being meaningful
But we don't know Hogg's reasons for not running for one of those offices or his future plans.. In 2018, he expressed a desire to run for Congress when he reached the age of 25. Maybe he decided to bide his time and wait for that while continuing to work on his other activism efforts.
I am NOT a fan of his plans to primary large numbers of Democratic House members, but attacking him for not running for anything himself by now is only tangentially related and seems unfair to me.
JI7
(91,823 posts)ShazzieB
(20,449 posts)But it's not a necessity. Lots of people run for Congress without holding another office first. AOC comes to mind, and I'm sure there are loads of other examples, both good and bad (MTG *COUGH*). There's no rule that says you have to run for and/or hold a state or local office before running for Congress.
In Hogg's case, he jumped into gun control activism when he was still a teenager and has been heavily involved in that ever since. I can easily imagine how continuing with that may have felt more worthwhile to him than taking time out to run for state or local office. He was also attending Harvard for 4 of those years, so it's not like he's just been sitting around twiddling his thumbs all this time.
I don't like his plan for primarying Dems, and I hope he can be persuaded to drop it. But whether he's ever run for office himself seems completely beside the point to me. If you have to have run for office to be allowed to have opinions on politics, then most of DU would have to sit down and shut up, including me. 
JI7
(91,823 posts)The one where he wants to target others . I'm asking why doesn't he run himself in that
ShazzieB
(20,449 posts)It's early days yet for announcing a run. He did say a few years ago that he was interested in running for Congess once he turned 25. Either way, he's still allowed to have opinions, including ones we don't agree with. 
True Blue American
(18,502 posts)Running against a Democrat. I understand how he feels, but we have an experienced leader. He needs to be backed 100%. Now is not the time for petty kinfoghting.
Polybius
(19,840 posts)But for the record, some of those offices have age minimums as well.
electric_blue68
(21,221 posts)betsuni
(27,846 posts)Response to JI7 (Reply #12)
ShazzieB This message was self-deleted by its author.
ShazzieB
(20,449 posts)You have to be 25 to run for Congress. He turned 25 on April 12, 2025. In 2018, he expressed a desire to run when he reached the age of 25. Maybe he plans to run next year?
Granted, there are other things he could have run for in the meantime, but Congress hasn't been a possibility for him before.
flor-de-jasmim
(2,209 posts)Outting money into a presumed safe race in the hopes of getting a better candidate is like fertilizing a lawn that is already green to get a stronger green. I’d be more satisfied with the DNC making sure that EVERY race is contested, with money being put into training materials that help get our message across in the ways that our best speakers (like Pete Buttigieg) do.
yorkster
(3,012 posts)bucolic_frolic
(50,089 posts)Not elitists.
DFW
(57,868 posts)They were so used to their former candidate that they hardly paid attention to the primary, and stayed home, probably figuring it was a foregone conclusion. If only 5% of a district's Democrats catapulting AOC into her candidacy was enough, is that elite? If 95% of the district's Democrats did not vote, then how was the primary "the people's choice?" It seems that Bernie Sanders has held some kind of office since the Battle of Hastings. Is he an elitist, too?
betsuni
(27,846 posts)Patton French
(1,622 posts)He is not being helpful with the primary threats against anyone he doesn’t like. That’s not the role of DNC leadership.
Meowmee
(8,906 posts)Blue Full Moon
(2,100 posts)betsuni
(27,846 posts)will be upset and touchy and probably busy making new CTs right now about how everybody's out to get them. 
And thar is just what we DON'T need! 
Nanjeanne
(6,060 posts)Dems just love looking like the party of nothing to see here. Just vote for us because we won before and don’t need to win your support ever again.
Way to activate those voters who are looking for Dems to represent their ideals, Ken!
Phoenix61
(18,318 posts)Why wouldn’t we want reps who actually do the work they were elected to do! How many of us wish Ginsburg, as much as we loved her, had stepped down. Look at what AOC is doing. What could we do if we had 5 more of her?
Oopsie Daisy
(5,672 posts)It's unclear to me what "5 more of her" would actually do for as long as the the GOP is in charge? Maybe I'm overlooking something, what exactly do you believe 5 AOC's could do that would allow the Democrats to do those things that the majority is always able to do... such as:
✔️ Setting the legislative agenda
✔️ Assigning committee chairs and members
✔️ Passing legislation
✔️ Controlling resources
✔️ Investigative powers, etc etc
While the Democrats (the minority party in the House of Representatives) still has a role to play in the legislative process, we have less influence over the agenda. We are at a disadvantage in terms of passing legislation and shaping the direction of policy. The GOP is calling all the shots, right?
I think it's more important to have actual and meaningful CONTROL rather than grandstanding with 5 AOC's and STILL not being able to do anything with the GOP in control.
alarimer
(17,146 posts)They can't help but put their thumbs on the scale when it comes to actual progressives running for office. So maybe the best thing for Hogg is to challenge them from the outside. You are not changing the staid, boring, corporate-donation driven organization (and thus not progressive at all) from the inside. What needs to change is a party driven BY THE PEOPLE and not by lobbyists and donors.
betsuni
(27,846 posts)Otherwise, provide proof of these accusations. This is a forum for supporters of the Democratic Party.
IcyPeas
(23,508 posts)They all do take money from lobbyists. Unless I'm misreading your post.
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-recipients
betsuni
(27,846 posts)"Campaign contributions don't buy votes. They buy access. It's why lobbyists write campaign checks. They're not bribes, they're grease. They enable those lobbyists to come to fund-raisers, where they get to talk to you while you're trying to remember their names. Gross, right? And it is! I hear from a lot of lobbyists. And yes, some of them are every bit as transactional as you're imagining. But others, often the more effective ones, are actually passionate about the issue they're representing. And while lobbying -- and all the money associated with it -- offers lots of opportunities for corruption, lobbying itself isn't inherently corrupt.
"Many lobbyists represent good causes, like solar energy or Alzheimer's research or a woman's reproductive rights. They may have donated to you not to buy your support going forward, but because you've been supporting their good cause all along. And often more than not, you're not meeting with them because of a check they wrote, but because you're on the same team. You're strategizing together on how to move the ball forward, and trading useful information about how to achieve a shared goal."
I guess the everyone's-corrupt-except-the-populist-savior fantasy is that all politicians begin as Lefty progressive liberals but lobbyists, wealthy donors, elites, billionaires, oligarchs force a few thousand dollars of campaign contributions into their pocket and then they have to be Republicans.
electric_blue68
(21,221 posts)
comradebillyboy
(10,663 posts)Scrivener7
(55,551 posts)deciding which reps he thinks are worthy and which are not.
It would be great if the DNC, and Hogg, used their energy and influence on messaging and on coordinating our actions to make us a more effective voice of opposition to this disaster.
Oopsie Daisy
(5,672 posts)When the balance of power is so close, and when the stakes are so high... why would anyone want to do ANYTHING to jeopardize incumbent Democrats??
The smart thing would be to go after vulnerable Republicans. The smart thing would be to target and weaken Republicans so that they can be more easily defeated by a Democratic challenger. The smart thing would be to spend the money on Democratic candidates vying for OPEN seats.
Sadly, I think that pride and anger and other emotions cause rookie politicians and activists to make mistakes that end up hurting our party more than helping it. Culling incumbent Democrats in the name of purity does nothing to knock the GOP out of power. Isn't that the main objective here?
Well, it should be. That would be the smart thing to do.
This is why EXPERIENCE MATTERS! We need people in the DNC who understand the importance on focusing on a winning strategy that prioritizes defeating our opponents and advancing our party's goals.
GusBob
(7,899 posts)It sounds like the DNC is preventing the waste of money and time on unnecessary sparring matches they need for bigger bouts
IL Dem
(873 posts)Like mine. In my district there was NO Democratic candidate for House of Representatives in 2024 election. We have the awful Mary Miller. No Dem opponent!!!!! 
LetMyPeopleVote
(162,429 posts)I am glad that Ken Martin is doing the right thing. Members of the DNC and each state and local party cannot be taking sides in primary fights. Hogg wants to primary democrats he dislikes. That is NOT what a member of the party leadership should be doing.
DNC leadership is planning to expand its non-endorsement policy to all elections. Members will hear from the chair, Ken Martin, on Thursday afternoon, as many remain furious with vice chair David Hogg’s plan to support primary challenges.
Link to tweet
https://www.notus.org/democrats/david-hogg-irate-democrats-end-primary-gambit-or-gone
These Democratic critics say their fury at Hogg has grown amid what they see as his ill-conceived and insufficient efforts to make amends for his planned primary campaign — a campaign that, they say, threatens the DNC’s neutrality and its capacity to fight back against President Donald Trump.
Some Democrats have even said the DNC should consider changing its rules to force Hogg to either abandon the campaign or resign as vice chair.
The tension is expected to spill over during a regularly scheduled Thursday call for DNC members — a meeting that, some Democratic officials suggest, might turn into a forum for airing grievances about Hogg’s anti-incumbent pledge.
During that call, the DNC’s chair, Ken Martin, is also expected to unveil a multipoint agenda that would include a proposal mandating all DNC officers stay neutral in all primaries, according to a senior DNC official. The proposal would expand on the current neutrality pledge, which now only includes the presidential race.
If adopted, the proposal would effectively force Hogg to choose between staying in his role at the DNC and backing primary challenges against incumbent Democratic lawmakers.
wryter2000
(47,812 posts)n/t
ibegurpard
(17,050 posts)People have been screaming they want Democrats to do ANYTHING they can to throw sand in the gears of the Trump machine. Some have risen to the occasion. Some have chosen to play footsie with fascists.
This will simply add to the perception many have that Democrats are unwilling to fight.
Ping Tung
(2,266 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(162,429 posts)Hogg's pac raised $11.9 million and $10.7 million went to operating expenses including his salary
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Meowmee
(8,906 posts)I can’t find what his salary at dnc is.
Bonx
(2,324 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(162,429 posts)That is a very low percentage of funds going to candidates
Celerity
(49,630 posts)
MichMan
(15,044 posts)Celerity
(49,630 posts)
Rob H.
(5,645 posts)It would be nice if we could see the DNC exhibit this kind of passion for fighting fascism...
(Disclaimer: Not all Dems, blah blah...)
ms liberty
(10,163 posts)We would not be working to defeat (yet again) the awful Senator Thom Tillis. Or the even more awful Senator Ted Budd.
I'm sorry, but I've seen them put their thumb on the scales here in NC twice now to prevent Jeff Jackson from being the nominee, first for Cal Cunningham, then for Cheri Beasley, both times to our detriment.
Then the GOP redistricted him out of his House seat, and now he's our AG, but he would gave been a great Senator dammit.
Sky Jewels
(9,148 posts) FarPoint
(13,944 posts)They need to support him... We need more youth leadership.
MichMan
(15,044 posts)
MineralMan
(148,976 posts)Then, after his first term, he could come back and work in the DNC. He would benefit from learning the job of a House member.
I think he is not doing that because he doesn't believe he'd be elected in his own district.
Yet, he's ready to call out Democrats who have won their districts and challenge them.
I'm sorry, but I don't get it...
Passages
(2,710 posts)Making it clear to Hogg, the young generation, the status quo is more important.
Sympthsical
(10,502 posts)Bless.
betsuni
(27,846 posts)Skittles
(163,850 posts)they want to ensure everything stays the same, with likely the same results
Celerity
(49,630 posts)https://www.notus.org/democrats/young-americans-study-harvard
Most Americans under the age of 30 don’t approve of President Donald Trump or either party in Congress, according to a new poll released Wednesday. But Democratic officials and strategists told NOTUS they believe the party can win over disengaged young people.
A poll of 18- to 29-year-olds released Wednesday by the Institute of Politics at Harvard Kennedy School found that only 15% of respondents believed the country was headed in the right direction, with less than 30% approving of the president or either party in Congress. The poll, known as the Harvard Youth Poll, also found that congressional Democrats’ approval rating has halved (from 42% in 2017 to 23% this year), while support for congressional Republicans has hovered around 29%. The survey shows just how much Democrats need to do to win over the young people they lost to President Donald Trump and those who skipped voting entirely.
Democratic operatives say the party is working on its messaging to better appeal to people under 30. “The way that we do it is by showing at a local level, a state level and congressional level, how we are fighting to address issues that everybody, no matter their age, cares about,” David Hogg, a Democratic National Committee vice chair, told NOTUS. “We need to make it more real in how we talk about it and highlight the real stories of how young people are struggling.”
Although a majority of young voters supported Kamala Harris for president, she underperformed past winning Democratic candidates, according to exit polling. Those polls indicated that the economy and jobs were the top considerations for voters under 30. More than 40% of Americans under 30 said they were struggling to get by financially, according to the new Harvard Youth Poll.
snip
Sympthsical
(10,502 posts)They really and truly don’t get it. They sound like they’re trying to find the best way to trick voters. No one wants messaging. They want actual reform.
Until actual change is offered - not just slicker words - the cynicism will remain.
I’m just amused by how amazingly ham-fisted they’re being right now. Guys, the Sun is up. The public can see you.
electric_blue68
(21,221 posts)I want the most liberal to progressive policies, but it's not not always going to happen- though we keep pushing on for it.
Right now, we have to save our Democracy, and oust The Republicans majorities, then win back The Presidency.
How difficult is it to understand something so bleeping basic!
Sympthsical
(10,502 posts)Frankly, I think the party has veered way too far away from where the average voter is on a variety of issues.
That said. Look where we are. The people in power got us here. Expecting that they will dig us out after their own failed politics helped get us here is madness.
It's sheer madness to believe that the people who status quo'd for the past twenty years until the country broke are suddenly going to find the gumption to roll up their sleeves and start swinging hammers.
They just ain't that kind of people.
We need new blood, new ideas, and new energy. And after my entire adult life of being told, "Now's not the time! This election's too important!" every. single. election.
No. I'm done. D-O-N-E. The people whose fecklessness got us here are done for me. Sometimes you have to start firing people. And doing it in safe blue districts where there is virtually no risk is a good start.
We deserve a better party than we currently have. Full stop. How much failure does it take to go, "Fuck it. We're doing something else. Thanks for your service, but we're taking your position in a different direction."
Anyone who can look at this shit crater and think, "What if we put the exact same people into power?" and think that's Mission One is frankly baffling to me. "A Republic, if you can keep it." They just proved they couldn't. There's the door. Next, please.
electric_blue68
(21,221 posts)I agree we should get some new, younger people in there, too. Mixing older, and newer approaches.
electric_blue68
(21,221 posts)if younger people don't see the existential differences right now between Democrats and Magat Republicans......
They're ignorant! Looks like Democrats will have to do more outreach.
Now it can be life circumstances currently not paying more attention for some. Not much excuse for the rest, especially in the age of the Internet!
It's all out there in the bleeping news what drumphf and Republicans are doing!
LetMyPeopleVote
(162,429 posts)I have been active in state and county party politics for a long time. I have worked hard in the party and was elected as a Clinton Delegate to the 2016 National Convention. I agree with Ken Martin on his suggestions. Party leaders are supposed to be neutral and not take sides in primary contests. I am also in favor of changing the role of super delegates.
Again, the efforts of David Hogg to violate the role of the party are wrong.
https://bsky.app/profile/realtuckfrumper.bsky.social/post/3lnleihbvuu24
Link to tweet
https://time.com/7280045/voters-should-pick-their-candidates-not-party-bosses/
Truth be told, I'm a reformer, too. That's why I've spent the past decade making sure our party cannot ever again be perceived as having a thumb on the scale for one candidate. And also why, as DNC Chair, I am determined to make sure we don’t repeat the same errors of the past.
Let me explain.
Eight years ago, the Democratic Party was at one of the lowest points in its history. Not only did we fail to stop Donald Trump’s election, but we had lost the faith of Democratic voters. The DNC was besieged by accusations that it had favored one candidate over another during the presidential primary process. The controversy alienated even our party’s most loyal supporters who felt that party bosses, not Democratic primary voters, were deciding which candidate would emerge in the general election as the Democratic nominee. They threatened to leave the party for good. .....
First, the 2016 primary had brought new attention to the role of “superdelegates” in our process. At a contested convention like the one in 2016, they could potentially cast the deciding votes in a close race. I put forward a solution that dramatically changed, and reduced, the role of superdelegates, ensuring that the will of the voters, and not party insiders, would prevail in choosing the party’s nominee in the general election.
Second, along with my fellow Minnesotan, then-Rep. Keith Ellison, I advocated for a wide-reaching neutrality policy that would eliminate even the appearance of favoritism towards one candidate or another in the day-to-day work of the DNC. In my new position as Chair, I believe it is time this is cemented in our bylaws......
In the coming days, I’ll introduce a new slate of structural reforms that codify these principles of neutrality and fairness into our official party rules, requiring all party officers—myself included—to remain neutral in all Democratic primaries. A clear neutrality policy protects against the misuse or abuse of power by those in official positions.
The Democratic Party’s Charter puts it best: “a party which asks for the people's trust must prove that it trusts the people.”
LetMyPeopleVote
(162,429 posts)Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Raised $11.9m
Spent $10.9m
Salaries: $608k (w 2/founders)
Consultants: $3m
Donations to House Candidates: $12.6k
Since Hogg's election to the DNC, I have been getting a good number of emails from Hogg and his pac. I am not the only one
Link to tweet
I had never received any emails from Hogg prior to his election to the DNC.
It is wrong for Hogg to use the DNC contact list to raise money to pay his salary and to challenge democratic incumbent candidates
wildflowergardener
(1,005 posts)I believe DNC leaders should be neutral and help beat republican seats. If he wants to advocate for his candidates to go against other democrats he should resign from the DNC.
SSJVegeta
(457 posts)A lot of people want to see real change within the party. I can see the effort failing.
Sneederbunk
(16,109 posts)but it's ultimatum to Hogg is not one of them.
LetMyPeopleVote
(162,429 posts)I got an email from the Justice Democrats announcing that they are primarying a regular democrat. This is from the email:
XXXX just launched his grassroots campaign against a self-funded multimillionaire incumbent, and we need to show he’s got people power behind him in these crucial first 24 hours.
Will you become a Day 1 founding donor by pitching in any amount now? 100% of your donation will go directly to supporting XXXX’s campaign.
This is Justice Democrats’ first new primary candidate in a few years, and it’s a race that embodies our fight to transform the future of the Democratic Party
I have been following the Justice Democrats and its predecessor for a while including the "brand new congress group" and other groups created by Cenk, Kyle Kulinksi, Zack Exley, Saikat Chakrabarti, and their ilk. I am on the Justice Democrat email list and I have even listened once or twice to the Justice Democrat podcast which is amusingly called "Just Us" democrats. The Justice Democrats emails are fun to laugh at and I love the hatred this group shows to the Democratic Party, establishment Democrats and best of all corporate democrats (I am a corporate lawyer).
The Justice Democrat group want to take over the Democratic party and remake into their image. I also do not want the Democratic Party to be taken over by the Justice Democrat group.
I am not the only person who has issues with the concept that the Justice Democrats want to take over the Democratic Party
Link to tweet
Again, the above posts are consistent with the hatred of the Democratic Party that I see on the almost daily emails that I get from the Justice Democrats. I admit that I enjoy the Just Us Democrat whines about AIPAC and Jews being mean.
The Just Us Democrats seem to be drawing a distinction between their group and David Hogg's pac with respect to how much money will go to the candidate. Hogg's pac gave only 2.3% of the amount raised last cycle to candidates.
A fight between the Justice Democrat group and Hogg's pac will be fun to watch
LexVegas
(6,688 posts)
marble falls
(65,037 posts)JustAnotherGen
(34,804 posts)Agrees - then that's that.
If they don't agree - he continues as is.
After the national fury triggered by the Andy Kim campaign about 'Party Bosses Picking the Candidates in the midterms' you'd think the Party Boss would know better.