General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHere is David Hogg version of what took place at the DNC. Word for word his letter.
I am no longer a DNC Vice Chair.
The DNC Vote to have a new election comes after weeks of contention about our work here at Leaders We Deserve, especially our plan to challenge ineffective Democrats in the primaries.
I started Leaders We Deserve for a simple purpose: to be the EMILY's List for progressive young Democrats. We’ve sought to find the best of the best of our generation and do everything we can to help them run the best campaigns possible and get the financial support they need to win.
We spent millions last year fighting to elect incredible young people: Molly Cook, Mo Jenkins, Averie Bishop and Kristian Carranza in Texas; Bryce Berry and Ashwin Ramaswami in Georgia; Dante Pittman in North Carolina, Nadarius Clark in Virginia, Christine Cockley in Ohio, Sarah McBride in Delaware, Nate Douglas in Florida, Oscar De Los Santos in Arizona and others. We focused on open blue seats and defeating incumbent Republicans, hoping that these open seats would be space enough to achieve what we wanted.
After seeing a serious lack of vision from Democratic leaders, too many of them asleep at the wheel, and Democrats dying in office that have helped to hand Republicans an expanded majority, it became clear that Leaders We Deserve had to start primarying incumbents and directly challenging the culture of seniority politics that brought our party to this place to help get our party into fighting shape again.
We have a real challenge ahead of us. We lost voting share with almost every demographic across the board, and despite all that Trump has done, our approvals remain at 27%.
If we don’t show our country how we are dramatically changing and provide an alternative vision for the future as a party, we will continue to lose. Not because we don't have money, but because we don’t have a compelling vision for the future and we lack the courage we used to have to take on massive policy fights that have helped millions like the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, the first Assault Weapons ban and more.
Even if we had gained a three seat Congressional majority, the three deaths this session would have once again put millions of Americans on the line.
Let me be clear: this is not solely an issue of age — it's an issue of effectiveness that at times is compounded by age.
This is not a call for every older person to leave government. There are lots of great older people who we need, there’s lots of terrible younger people we don’t.
But it’s clear this culture of staying in power until you die or simply fail to do a good job but don’t need to worry about a challenge because you are in a safe seat has become an existential threat to the future of this party and nation that must be addressed.
This crisis of competence and complacency has already cost us an election and millions of Americans their rights. Let's not let it cost us the country.
This culture simply will not change by only focusing on open seats or just throwing half a billion dollars into 30 competitive House seats. We must change the culture of our party that has brought us here and if there is anything activism or history teaches us it's that comfortable people, especially comfortable people with power, do not change. In this moment of crisis, comfort is not an option.
The American people are looking for an answer for how to revive the American Dream that they feel has become more of a fiction than a possibility. We have a crisis of faith in this country, in our elected leaders and in our parties. So far Donald Trump has convinced many people that the answer is to look backward instead of forward. At this moment of darkness we have a sacred obligation not to this party, but to this country as a party.
In his 1960 acceptance speech to the DNC to accept the Democratic nomination to become president, John F. Kennedy said:
“The times are too grave, the challenge too urgent, and the stakes too high — to permit the customary passions of political debate. We are not here to curse the darkness; we are here to light the candle that can guide us through that darkness to a safe and sane future.”
We relight that candle by providing a new vision for the future and leaders to bring us there. That new vision will come from new leaders. Building a future where voters vote for us not because of who we aren’t but because of who we are. That is why it is important we not only defeat Republicans but we use a healthy competitive primary process to make us a stronger party.
The alternative is a continuation of the politics that brought our party to this place. That is unacceptable. We must embrace a healthy culture of competitive primaries to build the strongest party possible.
Being a Democrat means believing in the politics of the possible like we did after Parkland. It's about believing in who we could be not only as a party but as a country. If we put our minds to it and we work hard enough, we can do anything, no matter what stands in our way. That’s why I’m a Democrat.
I came into this role to play a positive role in creating the change our party needs. It is clear that there is a fundamental disagreement about the role of a Vice Chair — and it's okay to have disagreements. What isn’t okay is allowing this to remain our focus when there is so much more we need to be focused on.
Ultimately, I have decided to not run in this upcoming election so the party can focus on what really matters. I need to do this work with Leaders We Deserve, and it is going to remain my number one mission to build the strongest party possible.
I’m thankful to everyone who has supported me in this role. I’m proud to have travelled to 10 states to do 30+ events, raising money for state parties, organizing with young Democrats, and getting out the vote for special elections in Wisconsin and Florida.
I have nothing but admiration and respect for my fellow officers. Even though we have disagreements, we all are here to build the strongest party possible.
Let me be extremely clear: Yes, we need to defeat Republicans. Leaders We Deserve will have many candidates challenging Republican incumbents. But we also need to build a party not defined by not being the less bad of two options in voters' eyes. We need to be the best option period at every level of government.
That change can only come through a full embrace of Democracy not only to defeat Republicans but to elect new Democrats to show voters how we are changing and regain their trust by listening to them, doing all we can to give them the best representation possible. Leaders We Deserve exists to do just that.
We need your support to do this work. If you’re with us in the fights ahead, consider donating $3 or anything that makes sense for you today.
Thank you,
David Hogg
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Raven123
(6,735 posts)
jaymac
(19 posts)keep at it David.......you are surely a shining star. don't give up
p.s. the DNC is hidebound
Bluetus
(1,137 posts)If the DNC were doing their job, there would be no need for LWD.
Imagine if a networking company was still trying to sell 56 K "baud" phone modems. Imagine if a car company was still trying to sell the "K cars" of the 1970s. Imagine if Blackberry was still trying to sell Blackberry -- or Visicalc or Word Perfect (Actually Corel still does sell that.)
An age-old question is business is, "What is Marketing? Figuring out how to sell what you have pr figuring out what you need?" In most companies. it is some combination of both. If all you are doing is selling what you have, you are dying. And that's where the DNC has been for 2 generations.
"selling what you have" is the same as saying "seniority". There can be wisdom with age, but it is not automatic. Seniority is the opposite of wisdom with age. Seniority is the Peter Principle. You get some of that in many organizations. But that is doubly bad in politics because there is such a limited number of positions. When we have deadweight filling those slots, that blocks out the people with more energy, more relevant expertise, and better ideas.
And that is exactly the profile Hogg's organization has been seeking. It is too bad the DNC has decided to go the opposite direction, because that is a dead end. And this time, it could be the death of our democracy.
brush
(60,219 posts)I decided to stop being neutral and helping ALL Democratic candidates to get elected instead of hyping his preferred candidates with his pac money.
Many here don't seem to get that the DNC is supposed to be neutral and with Dems, the party out of power, poised to gain several seats in midterms against trumps unpopular tariffs, deportations and inflation, why endanger us regaining the House majority with newbie candidates who haven't proven they can beat rethugs like our proven incumbents. They're incumbents because they beaten primarying Dems and republicans in the general election.
Hogg should've resigned weeks ago to push his preferred candidates.
demmiblue
(38,408 posts)
JustAnotherGen
(35,306 posts)He can't beat Kenyatta in that election.
Electoral Math - having a member from PA is more advantageous than FL.
FL is an older electorate. Also - I don't believe Florida will ever be purple, let alone blue. I've been waiting since the Brooks Brothers Riot - and its not happening in my lifetime.
PA - we have a chance. Someone who is YOUNG and won his seat in the PA House YOUNG can help move that needle to the left in his purple state.
Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #3)
speak easy This message was self-deleted by its author.
W_HAMILTON
(9,091 posts)And it's comical that Hogg brings up the Democratic Party's approval rating because when you have so-called allies like him, who needs enemies?
Cuthbert Allgood
(5,262 posts)Seriously? I bet the average voter in PA, FL, or anywhere can't name one person in a power position in the DNC. Let's not act like this is a VP slot.
Samael13
(10 posts)Florida went for Obama twice and has had many close presidential contests giving up on it and declaring defeat beforehand is why we've lost so many states. The DNC has just decided to give up on so many states instead of fighting for every state.
DENVERPOPS
(12,547 posts)even after they are pummeled with hurricanes year after year and there is no FEMA by order of Trump........
They are under the rule of three tyrants: DeSantis, Trump, and Putin.
AND they even elected for U.S. Senator, a CEO of a company that defrauded Medicare out of 1.4 Billion Dollars and he was a master Criminal, never held responsible..........
They will always remain Bright Red with a few exceptions. Same, maybe even more so with TEXAS......
Colorado is being inundated with Dems from Florida and Texas coming here in droves.......Maybe all the Repubs in C.Spgs will go to Florida or Texas...
bucolic_frolic
(50,794 posts)There is always conflict between the young and the old, it's baked in. There is an agenda but there is no agenda won't bury the friction. In my view this has been overplayed. Democrats need to focus on winning. Evicting the experienced will put the inexperienced on the forefront. If you think you can lose elections with experienced candidates, try winning them with inexperienced. You get more conflict which hurts the brand more. IMHO.
JustAnotherGen
(35,306 posts)I'm over it. NJ has got to win EVERYTHING this year.
I don't need this bullshit fucking us up.
usaf-vet
(7,549 posts)I am opposed to seat warmers and benefit collectors. Some of us have been promoting term limits for years.
It's always the same argument: you will lose good people. SO WON'T THE REPUBLICANS.
People who have been watching realize that one of the best ways to get rich is to get elected to Congress AND stay there. Using benefits to improve your portfolio with legal insider trading (Or at least ignored) for Congress members.
Enter Congress as an ordinary working man, leave as a millionaire.
sop
(14,637 posts)Entrenched "experienced" politicians hang on for dear life because Congressional seats have become a path to wealth.
Farmer-Rick
(11,760 posts)Capitalism is all about kings, monopolies and gaining and holding all the wealth in a few hands. That is not compatible with democracy. But it fits perfectly in a dicktatatership, a kingdom or a despot leader. That's why psychopaths, (people with anti social personality disorder) are so common among rich capitalists.
Using government to gain wealth is built into capitalism.it's a feature not a flaw.
Magilla
(24 posts)What do you propose we change our capitalism with?
reACTIONary
(6,468 posts)... crickets.
Welcome to DU!
"dying in office" - JFC, it's becoming a thing
brush
(60,219 posts)Not just the ones he wants to push with his pack money.
He needed to resign weeks ago when he started hyping his pac candidates.
And it makes little sense to endanger Dems taking back the House majority with untested newbie candidates when most know the Party out of power usually win the most seat in the midterms.
Why screw up our chances to regain the House and at least stop trump with a House majority.
speak easy
(11,687 posts)Like Obama in 2008?
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/elections/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html?mod=article_inline
There are brilliant older politicians like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi who had nothing to fear from an upstart primary challenge. There are others past their use by dates.
EVICTING!? That is the point. Reps did not own their district. It is a privilege, not a right.
stillcool
(34,079 posts)Does the DNC still work to build the Democratic Party? Meaning finding candidates to run in every election in every state? Or are they just there to usurp the will of the people, and put in their personal favorites?
reACTIONary
(6,468 posts).... Republicans.
MorbidButterflyTat
(3,116 posts)David Hogg to President Obama??? Good lord! 
speak easy
(11,687 posts)Bluetus
(1,137 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 13, 2025, 10:58 AM - Edit history (1)
Not really any more complicated than that. The DNC, and the Party at large, values seniority over everything else. We live in a world where everything is changing quickly: demographics, technologies, world power, the nature of war (kinetic versus cyber, economic versus geographic, religious versus philosophical), power centers (nation-less tech tyrants versus well-defined nations).
A party of seniors who made their bones in the 1960s, 70s and 80s simply cannot compete. They barely understand what is happening, and the years have made them hopelessly assimilated into the corporate money, so they really can't change, even if they had any new ideas.
This is the end of the DNC. It has been dying for decades, but history will record this as one of its last gasps. Let's hope that people like Hogg can build something despite the hubris and irrelevance of the Party structure. Saving this democracy requires much more than a bunch of drunks getting together every 4 years and putting on ridiculous hats.
Midwestern Democrat
(912 posts)In January 1993, the Democratic Party's leadership was the following: President Bill Clinton (46), Vice President Al Gore (44), Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (59), Senate Majority Whip Wendell Ford (69), Speaker of the House Tom Foley (63), House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt (52), House Majority Whip David Bonior (47) - all were either young or of reasonable age. But then the 1994 disaster happened and after 12 long years in the minority, we finally win back the House, but something goes awry with the age distribution of the House leadership: it was a given that Nancy Pelosi (66) would be Speaker and Steny Hoyer (67) would be Majority Leader, but it was widely expected that Rahm Emanuel (47) would be Majority Whip - but he was told to step aside and let James Clyburn (66) have it - and then Pelosi tries to pull a failed power play to oust Hoyer but her choice to replace him was not one of the rising, ambitious, younger House Democrats but 74 YEAR OLD JACK MURTHA - and I'm watching this thinking "WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE?" and 18 years later here we are.
Bluetus
(1,137 posts)And I would point out that in that same time frame (i.e. the past 25 years when the leadership became frozen in time) we moved from 50% of the public identifying as Democrats to only about 25%.
Unfortunately, giving David Hogg and Malcolm Kenyatta the boot reinforces the "frozen in time" mindset of the DNC. Kenyatta is set to be re-elected and Hogg is not running again.. Hogg's position will probably be taken by Kalyn Free, who forced him out. As a 63-year old from a state that never votes for Democrats, that's not really sending a very strong message of a party that is ready to face the moment.
https://blavity.com/david-hogg-resigns-malcolm-kenyatta-dnc-reruns-elections
Jack Valentino
(2,286 posts)Trump was not an "experienced candidate" either,
but he has won twice with "passion", no matter how wrong-headed it was....
We have too few leaders who can speak directly to the young,
to be throwing this one under the bus---
but I think he will be more effective NOW,
shed of his DNC co-chair...
Sorry that he won't be a candidate somewhere in 2026
Conjuay
(2,471 posts)Says it all.
With a very few exceptions, a serious lack of VOICE from democratic leaders.
Kid Berwyn
(20,657 posts)…nothing comes out of the mouth.
FirstLight
(15,226 posts)Hes right on so many levels...
The idea of staying in the cushy govt job till you die is bullshit. Let our young leaders rise!!!
Chasstev365
(5,561 posts)"But we also need to build a party not defined by not being the less bad of two options in voters' eyes. We need to be the best option period at every level of government."
Why is this so hard for the Schumers, Pelosis, and other senior democrats to accept? They should be embracing this thinking, not squelching it!
LymphocyteLover
(8,145 posts)
newdeal2
(2,848 posts)But lots of people outside, especially younger folks, would not emphatically say that anymore. That’s a real problem and playing it safe is not going to solve it.
LymphocyteLover
(8,145 posts)and so we need to take advantage of that.
newdeal2
(2,848 posts)We have to give people a reason to vote for us other than the other side is worse.
We need signature policies that are memorable.
We need to show that we are willing to use power to make meaningful changes, not just keep the status quo.
Trump has done both of those and we keep losing.
LymphocyteLover
(8,145 posts)Also Kamala proposed many great policies.
We have policies. We will showcase our policies in the midterms too.
lonely bird
(2,356 posts)Sadly, I must disagree. Far too many young men are going to the right.
LymphocyteLover
(8,145 posts)lonely bird
(2,356 posts)As a guesstimate I would say that they are not monolithic but too many are into the Techbros macho crap and are pleased because they can’t think past 2 hours from now.
LymphocyteLover
(8,145 posts)robbob
(3,708 posts)But I would imagine a lot of them bought into the hatred and are now very happy to see it being unleashed on “the other”. Whatever propaganda sources they are plugged into are definitely NOT telling them that tRump is doing a bad job.
Samael13
(10 posts)Younger voters are going to the GOP. We have to find an answer as to why and to get the democratic parties message out
W_HAMILTON
(9,091 posts)How dumb is this guy?
Cuthbert Allgood
(5,262 posts)Should we just do the same thing and hope it works next time?
Just_Vote_Dem
(3,278 posts)?
W_HAMILTON
(9,091 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 12, 2025, 07:10 PM - Edit history (1)
Based on your logic, should we discontinue pursuing progressive policies because recent elections indicate that the voters don't approve of them?
Change just for the sake of change is not a smart idea because change can result in even worse outcomes. Case in point: see recent elections, where many voters now regret their vote because they thought """change""" would improve their lives and fix all that was wrong with our country and instead it only made everything worse.
JI7
(92,045 posts)I never had a problem with them but they were and are regularly attacked for not moving left enough.
The next president will more likely be like them.
MorbidButterflyTat
(3,116 posts)Nancy Pelosi literally stood up to the POS when his own people sat around the table looking ASHAMED. Will someone please post that picture?
Some Dems apparently need reminding that Democrats ARE the best option.
You all can see Mr. Hogg standing up to the belligerent felon? Really??
et tu
(2,231 posts)mentorship? helping newbies along
the way? from my vantage point, b. sanders
has done most of that- dnc u b crazy
LymphocyteLover
(8,145 posts)I've always thought his goals were good.
littlemissmartypants
(27,911 posts) Omnipresent
(6,931 posts)If we weren’t losing ground in the polls to every demographic, it might be more of a messaging problem.
It also doesn’t help when progressives voter’s move to blue states from red states while republicans move from blue states to purple states, turning them red.
The DNC might want to look into that!
MorbidButterflyTat
(3,116 posts)running as Democrats fraudulently turning MAGAt as soon as they get elected. 
waterwatcher123
(361 posts)usaf-vet
(7,549 posts)..... leave as a millionaire. Oh, did I mention you can become a millionaire by taking advantage of INSIDER TRADING?
Nanjeanne
(6,180 posts)documents in the thread.
Salary for 2024 was a bit over $128,000 and according to open secrets Contributions to federal, state local and party campaigns was $2,448,724 or 27.08% and Administration costs were $610,980 or 6.76%. But that’s not fitting the narrative.
https://www.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?data_type=processed&committee_id=C00843110&recipient_name=hogg&two_year_transaction_period=2024]
https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/leaders-we-deserve/C00843110/expenditures/2024]
waterwatcher123
(361 posts)The FEC raw data from the most recent monthly PAC report (May 2025) listed $879,471.05 in contributions, $100,000 in political campaigns donations and $612,427.65 in operating expenses.
Nanjeanne
(6,180 posts)Nothing more than that and nothing to do with 2025.
IrishBubbaLiberal
(1,935 posts)Way too many DEMs are failing us.
The entrenched corporate DEMs have failed us.
Even though many older DEMs are indeed some of the best fighters
And still very progressive at an old age, WAY TOO MANY ELDERLY DEMS have failed to step,aside for new blood.
A prime example is Schumer, again don’t want to single him out, but I need an example too,
Schumer is merely ‘ok’,
He just doesn’t get it now.
Schumer is everything that is wrong with the entrenched cabal
Autumn
(47,959 posts)The future belongs to you and every other young person in America. Seize it.
dsc
(52,958 posts)you can either run a pac like EMILY's list or you can be a Vice Chair of the Democratic Party, you can't do both. The party is supposed to be neutral in primaries.
Prairie_Seagull
(4,245 posts)but he was not wrong. I supported his thinking generally.
Outside the box thinking of the DNC in the first place.
Need more of this.
IMO
Good luck David.
BlueTsunami2018
(4,423 posts)Perfectly said.
BoRaGard
(5,708 posts)MuirHero
(31 posts)Our current leadership is failing us.
Lonestarblue
(12,661 posts)Jaime Harrison was elected head of the DNC as a consolation after losing to Lindsey Graham and proceeded (in my opinion) to do nothing for four years. I never saw him on television promoting our causes. All I saw were emails asking for money but with no information about how it would be used.
Diane Feinstein stayed in the Senate far too long. And many here have criticized Schumer’s tepid response to Trump’s illegal actions. Nancy Pelosi has worked to prevent any sitting Democrat from being primaried and has used her influence to prevent some younger members from gaining important leadership opportunities, AOC being a prime example when she supported Connolly, who has now died in office.
We have comments here about how good Senator Murohy is, and many commenters here praise Jasmine Crockett, who represents the future of the Democratic Party, as does Hogg. We have not had a 50-state strategy for the Democratic Party since the days of John Dean. What we have had is a conservative focus on just winning a few key states without even bothering to campaign or support candidates in red states. In 2016, Hillary Clinton was told not to go to Michigan at all because it was in the bag for her. It was not. I do not see that approach as a winning strategy, but I’ve seen little from DNC Chair Martin that it has changed. I’m sorry to see Hogg leave because he was trying to force change to get the Democratic Party to move forward.
I’m sorry to see Hogg leave, but I’m sure it has been frustrating fighting a mentality of this is the only way to do things.
LittleGirl
(8,767 posts)
Clouds Passing
(5,097 posts)My Democratic senators appear to becoming gqp-lite, voting for gqp nominees and fasict crypto bills. Like Kyrsten Sinema, pretending to be progressive and turning into the opposite. I would like to see them both primary by real progressives.
Mountainguy
(2,048 posts)Then he shouldn't be in DNC leadership. Period.
The committee is a service provider, that's it. They should bot be favoring candidates in primaries and putting their fingers on the scale.
BlueKota
(4,285 posts)It's not really as much about age as it is complacency, and the refusal to accept the radical change that has been occurring in U.S. politics. It's not like the past where policy differences between the parties could be solved through compromises. One can no longer assume that though we would differ on ways to achieve it, both parties wanted the best for their fellow Americans. That's no longer truth. The modern Republicans don't give a damn about anyone but themselves and their rich donors.
Our side needs to quit the go along to get along. They don't need physical weapons to fight back. Powerful oratory can still work, if only more didn't cower from even using that method, out of fear they will be "taking the low road."
The House and the Senate Democrats, who can't accept the new reality absolutely need to be primaried . I include my two Senators in that list. None of the members primary goal should be there to make "nice," with the opposition. Their main goal should be to fight for and protect the rights of the American people period.
Scubamatt
(172 posts)If it was ok to stab President Biden in the back because he was perceived as to old/not connecting with the public, what's wrong with David Hogg trying to inject some energy and passion into the party? Yes, you have to be careful about not throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater, and he still needs to learn a bit regarding working in a big tent and not giving the Cons talking points, but I welcome his drive for accountability of leadership to the values we espouse.
Just_Vote_Dem
(3,278 posts)
Oopsie Daisy
(5,857 posts)I will never support anyone who makes it their mission to undermine Democrats or to promote the anti-Democrat philosophies of "Our Revolution" and "Justice Democrats". I'm not surprised that he ended the message asking for money. I was almost expecting "in solidarity" as his closing phrase.
Mysterian
(5,682 posts)He might believe some of the things he espouses but it seems greed is his primary motivator.
Rebl2
(16,508 posts)Interesting he is asking for money. Sorry no.
W_HAMILTON
(9,091 posts)And it's funny to see some cheering Hogg on for his "sternly worded letter" after seeing them mock Schumer and others for theirs.
Oh well, hope him and his friends really enjoy that $3 they get from those on the left fooled into thinking he and his types are the ones to lead us out of this mess when they are one of the main reasons we are here in the first place.
betsuni
(27,993 posts)the Will of the People, just as their money is grassroots and pure while old corrupt status quo Democrats only "take" bribes and sternly written letters proof of sitting on hands and doing nothing.
The Sternly Written Letter double standard should be pointed out every time it's repeated from the script.
Oopsie Daisy
(5,857 posts)Yes. Well said! Thank you very much!
MorbidButterflyTat
(3,116 posts)it's not funny to me.
It's infuriating. I can imagine the benefits of fracturing Dems for the MAGAt Republicans. Yet AGAIN.
I wonder what the next bullshit manufactured crisis meant to damage the Democratic party will be?
kerry-is-my-prez
(9,988 posts)Followed by a bunch of people saying they’re not going to vote for the people. Do people here not realize we are fighting another Hitler and his followers???? We cannot afford to be attacking and not voting for ANY Dems right now. Use all of your energy to fight Republicans. I really wonder about the people who pitch in and tell people not to support or vote for a Democrat.
Bluejeans
(110 posts)David Hogg acts constantly -- in his writings and TV appearances -- as if he is the smartest guy in the room, experience does not count and he has all the answers.
I learned years ago those who think they are the smartest in the room usually are not!
If David Hogg wants to be in politics, he needs to get some experience as a politician. Right now, while his ideas aren't all that bad, he's nothing more than a sidewalk superintendent peering in through the construction fence at the workers building the skyscraper.
He needs to run for public office, get elected and learn the political game first-hand.
Arazi
(7,909 posts)Heather Cox Richardson?
Shannon Watts?
Or any of the other numerous Democratic advisors, donors, think tank leaders who help inform policy decisions - none of them should be involved in politics if they’ve never run for office?
Seriously? Why is it only David Hogg who gets singled out for this demand when there’s literally crowds of valuable Dem voices who have never run for office (and never will)?
Bluejeans
(110 posts)I based my opinion of Hogg on his own statements and appearances in the media over the last several years; nothing else and no one else.
stopdiggin
(13,869 posts)with his and his organization's insistence that they were going to primary Democratic seat holders. In effect dragooning the party into the untenable (not to mention unwise and unsound) position of pitting 'good Democrats' against 'bad Democrats'. And, with ample reason and good sense, the committee responded with a resounding, "No." "Not what we do here!"
Hogg's vision may well have merit, and clearly has a certain degree of support. But the operation and execution of such an agenda (with its clearly divisive nature) does not belong within the national committee. Which, as we seem to find out - appears to be fairly clear to most party members.
pinkstarburst
(1,751 posts)We have a real challenge ahead of us. We lost voting share with almost every demographic across the board, and despite all that Trump has done, our approvals remain at 27%.
I absolutely agree with David Hogg. On both sides of the aisle, serving in Congress for many has become about getting rich, insider trading, and sitting back and assuming you will stay in your seat until you die, even knowing you cannot fulfill your duties in your final few terms, even if you have past the point where you are an effective leader. Dianne Feinstein. Fetterman. Schumer.
We have term limits for President. Why don't we have term limits for Congress? If we aren't going to make term limits for Congress, then I absolutely support primarying some of these democrats who are no longer able to effectively lead or who need to step aside for medical reasons in order to make room for young leaders who are ready to step up.
Oopsie Daisy
(5,857 posts)The "both sides are the same" mantra is a dangerous game to be playing. This sounds like it's a full-on Nader & Stein level of hate for Democrats.
betsuni
(27,993 posts)Apparently.
Previously there was at least a pretense it was about policy. Now it's straight to demonizing with goal of disgust, hate.
iemanja
(56,048 posts)or collaborating Democrats in safe blue seats. That so many are committed to retaining all incumbents regardless of their records shows that winning is not a priority. Now is not the time to value entitlement over resistance to fascism.
sheshe2
(92,346 posts)Is a young man, 25 years old with no political experience but lots of money is going to decide who is ineffective. That just NOT sit well with me.
Oopsie Daisy
(5,857 posts)* groups like "Justice Democrats" and "Our Revolution". Fact of the matter is that even in "safe" districts, Vermont-style politicians and philosophies are not always welcome or popular. The sensibilities will vary depending on the region. In the end, the people elect the candidate that best represents their interests and beliefs. It take a certain level of arrogance for him to proclaim that the voters who elected the Democrat of their choosing should have chosen someone else instead. It's a dangerous game he's playing. After he "bloodies" and "bankrupts" an incumbent Democrat with an unnecessary primary, that just makes it easier for the Republican challenger to win. In the end, the smartest move would be to spend ALL of our time, effort and money to replace Republicans. We will only gain the majority (and control of congress) by ELIMINATING Republicans and REPLACING them with Democrats. It's a fool's errand and a waste of limited resources to try an swap one Democrat with another Democrat for a net gain of ZERO.
sheshe2
(92,346 posts)He seems to thinks that he alone can fix this. He and his well funded supper pac are going to make the decisions on which Democratic seats to target as "ineffective". He will be the soul decision maker with his 25 years, not to be confused with 25 years in politics, of age.
walkingman
(9,360 posts)club. You either "tow the line" or they try and throw you out. I really know nothing about the DNC but I do know that they treated Bernie very badly. I think they forgot the object was to WIN.
I've seen the same thing happen in unions and at work over the years. Politics is a nasty business.
Celerity
(50,299 posts)
Martin68
(25,926 posts)electorate. No moral or ethical person would have voted for Trump unless they were totally ignorant (or in denial) of what he has done and promised to do. He was legitimately convicted of multiple felonies and impeached twice for clearly factual crimes. If the result wasn't a Democratic landslide it is because the American electorate is fucked up. What could a different leader have accomplished?
BurnDoubt
(618 posts)We need them on our side.
comradebillyboy
(10,717 posts)The moral high ground isn't much use if you can't win elections. Greta Thunberg, in particular, would be voter repellant. And David Hogg hasn't yet figured out that being virulently anti gun is a losing electoral issue.
BurnDoubt
(618 posts)We need their energy.
As a person who has personal experience with gun violence, I'm happy to have someone with visibility making noise.
Change is needed and we won't get it if we don't do something differently.
In my dark moments, I feel like we won't be able to sustain our civilization through this madness and will need to try again after the chaos agents bring it all down around us. "Good afternoon, Good Simpleton". ("A Canticle For Liebowitz"... Walter Miller)
Half-way through my seventy-fifth trip around the Sun it is deathly depressing to be living this nightmare and endure all the hatefulness.
LexVegas
(6,744 posts)
onlyadream
(2,237 posts)We need to root out the lame and install those that can get the job done. Why is the DNC so backward? Do they like losing?
Passages
(2,894 posts)flashman13
(1,278 posts)David Hogg, AOC, Bernie Sanders, Jasmine Crockett, Gavin Newsom and a small hand full of others are the future of the Democratic party. Support them. Call out those that have become comfortable. The country is desperately looking for leadership - not business as usual.
I am going to add what Hogg failed to say explicitly, but clearly implied. We Democrats short circuited the primary process in 2024 and that is how we got into this mess. I know many people don't want to hear or admit this, but that is the reality of what happened.
I'm going to take a minute for a personal aside. Thirty years ago I ran for and was elected to my first term on the City Commission. I did it because it it was obvious to me that the previous commissioners were moribund and were providing no oversight while the City Manager ran the city's finances into the ground. It was a wild ride, but in less than six months the Manager, the CFO and his assistant, the police chief, and the fire chief all went down the road. It is now obvious to anyone with eyes that city leadership is failing once again. A number of people have approached me and asked me to run for one of the three upcoming open seats. Full disclosure; I am exactly three times older than David Hogg. I am well past my sell by date. As Clint Eastwood said, "Know your limitations". I do. I couldn't fight the coming fight if I wanted to (and I don't). However, I have been supporting and pushing several much younger people to run for office. The strategy I have outlined to them is that three people running as a coalition and campaigning on a small set of issues can take the majority of seats and change the city's current downhill trajectory. My community is rapidly changing and the current incompetent regime is in no way ready for what's happening. My city and my country both need new leadership. I support David Hogg, Bernie, and the young Democrats.
stillcool
(34,079 posts)not lead an organization to build the Democratic Party, by finding candidates to win elections in every state. He's not interested in that. He's interested in his own ego.
flashman13
(1,278 posts)Just sayin'.
stillcool
(34,079 posts)talking trash about the party he wants to? re-make in his own image? Has nothing to do with the work of winning elections in every state.
flashman13
(1,278 posts)Even among Democrats I don't think very many people could tell you who David Hogg is.
Enough on this topic.
stillcool
(34,079 posts)he is. The incessant bashing of the Democratic party is wearing. I live in a blue state, have all Democrats representing me, and it seems to me like they've got bullseyes on their backs by supposed Democrats? While the entire GOP is? fine?
LAS14
(15,237 posts)Hogg excites me almost as much as Buttigieg. But nobody's got Buttigieg's unerring ability to say the right thing at the right time. Still, I'd like to know they're talking to each other.
* * * *
I don't have any direct evidence of poor performance on the part of any older elected Dems (I don't call the inability to magically win votes in this congress a failure), but it seems clear that the concept of "a safe seat" should not apply to the individual holding it. If voters want a change they should feel free to try for it. I am a believer in the benefits of seniority, both at the level of chairmanships and such and at the level of simply knowing people and how things work. But the seat needs to be earned every session.
* * * *
And finally a quibble: I wish he had been more transparent. It's good to know that they worked for all of these, but as far as I can tell, only 5 were elected. Not a criticism of the effort. Just a criticism of the transparency of the letter.
TacosUberAlles
(4 posts)I very much support what he said. He nailed it & I understand for some that will be a difficult realization to come to but the facts are our party has lost to fascism twice. We need massive change & without that change I fear we'll keep losing & then what? The country is completely toast then. You think it's bad now, wait for 5 more years if we start booting young people.
I don't understand why some folks are so against what he's doing & are upset at him primarying incumbents. It baffles me. These are safe blue district seats he's going after after all. There seems to be a problem here of "saying one thing & doing another" when it comes to democracy because what David Hogg is doing is just that - democracy.
The JFK quote he used is a banger. I've not heard that one before then again JFK is long before my time. It's really good though ❤
reACTIONary
(6,468 posts)First, it does not, by definition increase the Democratic caucus.
Second, the resources it takes could be used elsewhere, where they could be used against a republican, rather than a fellow Democrat.
Third, it risks losing a safe seat to the Republicans because the challenger is presumably
... Less experienced,
.... Has less name recognition,
.... Presumably is less ideologically moderate, and
... The primary fight exposes both to negative criticism, and from our side to boot.
So, let's fight TOGETHER against Republicans, not against each other.
TacosUberAlles
(4 posts)However I feel it's important that "safe blue districts" is highlighted.
I agree we need to fight Republicans together without any question but we also need people who will fight for us with the progressive policies poor & working class people need like single payer healthcare for instance.
reACTIONary
(6,468 posts)... my thought is that the way to achieve that is to get more democrats elected, rather than replacing democrats who already are elected.
And if the democrats who are to be replaced don't already support those goals, it's probably because their voters don't. So a replacement probably wouldn't win anyway.
TacosUberAlles
(4 posts)Never say never when it comes to politics especially in this day & age lol
I feel like someone is playing a very cruel joke on all of us & trolling hard. What a time to be alive, sheesh.
reACTIONary
(6,468 posts)....is the price we pay...
Deminpenn
(16,820 posts)I agree 💯 with Hogg
marble falls
(65,984 posts)
LostOne4Ever
(9,664 posts)But not one DIME to the DNC. I have zero confidence in them.
betsuni
(27,993 posts)MorbidButterflyTat
(3,116 posts)
Shipwack
(2,728 posts)We would never have gotten AOC.
Even after she won her, she was hobbled by the party’s leadership. She won her seat despite, not because of, them.
Despite a rough beginning, she has watched and learned. The party is the better for her being in congress. The fact that the party machinery felt the need to back a man with throat cancer (who had to retire soon after being elected) over her shows they would rather be in charge of a minority party than become a majority party with the new generation.
I hope Hogg can get more ineffective Democrats replaced. We are in a new era. Those in currently in office need to fight, follow or get out of the way.
reACTIONary
(6,468 posts).... 131 Democratic members of the House who voted for Connolly with "the party machinery"? What does that have to do with the DNC?
Shipwack
(2,728 posts)Pelosi and Jeffries lobbied hard to deny AOC the chair.
Leaders in the DNC (who don’t necessarily hold positions) are adamantly opposed to changing the way business is done.
The leadership in general (in Congress and Democrat organizations) favors seniority over results. If the party wants to win elections (which may or may not be their goal), things have to be done differently. As the saying goes, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Of course, there are other changes that need to be made, but I’ll stop here because I’m tired of typing on my phone.
reACTIONary
(6,468 posts).... If so, there may have been good reasons to do so. They convinced 131 of their colleagues. I'm not sure they were wrong. I don't see that as the operation of a "party machine". I see that as an exercise of judgement. Of course 81 or so came to a different conclusion and voted for AOC. Just because it didn't go the way you would have liked doesn't mean it was nefarious or ill considered.
As far as a "party machine" goes, a DNC that is partisan in primaries would be the very definition of a party machine. They are right to insist on neutrality. Advocating for and advancing one side or the other in a primary is what machine politics is all about.
(I can't stand typing on my phone.)
iemanja
(56,048 posts)That is why they oppose Hogg. To pretend they are neutral is absurd.
reACTIONary
(6,468 posts)I would appreciate finding out more about that.
iemanja
(56,048 posts)was because he wanted to challenge a handful of incumbents. That was unacceptable to Martin.
Martin was head of the party in my state. My nephew was a congressional aide and lost his job as soon as they discovered he was managing a campaign of someone challenging an incumbent. The commitment is to the status quo at all costs. Unfortunately, the status quo is a losing tactic. Nor is it up to the challenges we face today.
reACTIONary
(6,468 posts). .... but as far as Hogg is concerned, that just isn't on point. He is deliberately involved trying to influence primaries, and the DNC objected to his lack of neutrality. So it is not an example, it's a counter example.
wolfie001
(5,272 posts)As that stupid, racist right wing clown sign-holder once wrote decades ago, "Grow a brain, morans!" 
DownriverDem
(6,839 posts)Why did he think he could promote going against elected Dems? His group has that goal not the DNC. You can't serve 2 masters David.
iemanja
(56,048 posts)Is to protect all incumbents, not advance a winning strategy?
awesomerwb1
(4,749 posts)But this guy Hogg, I am not a fan of. If you are on Twitter, you may know what I mean.
If you're not on Twitter you probably don't. For those not on Twitter, in the past David Hogg has trashed the Democratic party in ways that to me are unacceptable. Cussing at Dems out in the open like an immature drunken complainer. (Save that energy for the other side bro)
I am not a fan of Schumer. I am not a fan of Pelosi recently. Not a fan of Jeffries either. I think they all need to go. Yes, they need to go asap.
And I am definitely not a fan of the DNC. The complete lack of vision, foresight, creativity, innovation is incredibly disappointing. Always playing catch up.
That said, I am definitely not a fan of Justice Democrats or Our Revolution or far left "progressives"
the kind that are for burning it all down and voted for trump). Some of these folks are happier bashing the Dem party than modernizing it, helping it. They can f right off.
LAS14
(15,237 posts)awesomerwb1
(4,749 posts)But thanks for generalizing based on four names I mentioned. Good job!
LAS14
(15,237 posts)Sometimes a question is just a question.
awesomerwb1
(4,749 posts)Murphy, Raskin, Swalwell, Crockett, AOC(when she' not throwing other Dems under the bus), Van Hollen to name a few.
LAS14
(15,237 posts)MorbidButterflyTat
(3,116 posts)"...we don’t have a compelling vision for the future and we lack the courage we used to have to take on massive policy fights that have helped millions like the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, the first Assault Weapons ban and more."
Where does Mr. Hogg think "...the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, the first Assault Weapons ban and more," came from? Republicans? They've been fighting against it all since their creation! And still are!
"We" lack the courage?? He can speak for himself, two minutes since he's been legal to vote, he has all the answers!
Was he watching cartoons when the Dems fought like hell to save the ACA, labeled "Obamacare" by MAGAts to alert their racist cult who established it and thus hate it? I don't appreciate his utter lack of respect for Democrats and his inability to recognize who the real enemy is.
So what are his policies and how will he implement them? I mean besides demonizing experienced Dems with ageist bullshit, with the goal of rooting them out. What's he gonna do besides be young and inexperienced while driving Dem voters away?
Oh, and grifting.
This kid needs to grow up and learn how US politics currently work, before he can revolutionize the party with his fairy tales. And grifting.
reACTIONary
(6,468 posts).... First, should the DNC be neutral towards primary candidates or should they be, or appear to be, partisan, and Second, should Democrats support primary challenges against incumbents in safe seats.
On the first, if the DNC is as status quo, stodgy and moribund as it is alleged to be, then introducing partnership could only work against the upstarts... Who does David think the majority of the stodgy old DNC would support? DNC neutrality helps his cause.
On the second, it would seem that incumbents in safe blue districts have the support of their constituents. They probably are not aching for change. So how does challenging the incumbents help?
W_HAMILTON
(9,091 posts)This is a generation that was deluded by some into thinking the DNC is some all-powerful entity solely responsible for picking and choosing candidates, so they think they can start up a PAC and do the same, without realizing it is the VOTERS that ultimately decide.
It's sort of ironic that they look so highly upon AOC and yet fail to put two and two together in that she was able to beat one of the most powerful Democratic leaders at the time, without the benefit of big PAC money, but by putting in the hard work and effort to win over the VOTERS in her district.
betsuni
(27,993 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 12, 2025, 10:35 PM - Edit history (1)
but secretly have the same neoliberal economic policies as Republicans (ignoring the working class, elites who only think about money, have no idea what inequality is, etc.), and Americans are secretly socialists yearning for revolution but just don't know it. Condescending.
msongs
(71,423 posts)
TBF
(35,134 posts)Evidence: current president is a republican with 34 felonies.
Perhaps we ought to give younger folks a chance rather than screaming "get off my yard"!
Just a thought from this 50-something who votes blue but can acknowledge we need some improvement.
kerry-is-my-prez
(9,988 posts)Right now we need to get rid of ALL Republicans and replace them with ANYONE who can be elected and will not be beholden to dictator Trump. Independents, etc. Now is not the time for us to be divided and to get rid of ANY Democrats. Incumbents tend to get re-elected.
red dog 1
(31,176 posts)imagine what they are doing to everyday people off camera."
David Hogg
......................................................................................................................................................
Link to tweet
lees1975
(6,600 posts)Getting out of the moribund, do nothing, status quo DNC is a good move. It can't be revived and it would only drag you down.
Lots of Democrats are asleep at the wheel, or saving their own asses and jobs and they don't give a damn about us. Get em out.
https://signalpress.blogspot.com/2025/06/david-hogg-exits-dnc-vice-chairmanship.html
lees1975
(6,600 posts)
Pris
(131 posts)He just puts people down a lot based on age.