"In unprecedented move, DNC official [David Hogg] to spend big to take down fellow Democrats"

[LauraInLA]

May have been posted before, but I think it’s worthy of more attention and discussion.

“David Hogg, a controversial Democratic National Committee vice chair, is pledging to upend Democratic primaries by funding candidates who will challenge “ineffective, asleep-at-the-wheel” Democrats.

The move puts Hogg, the now 25-year-old who first gained national stature as an outspoken survivor of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, on a collision course with his own party and some Democratic House members.

Leaders We Deserve, which Hogg co-founded in 2023, announced plans on Tuesday to spend $20 million in safe-blue Democratic primaries against sitting House members by supporting younger opponents. In an interview with POLITICO, Hogg said the group will not back primary challenges in battleground districts because “I want us to win the majority,” nor will it target members solely based on their age.
“We have a culture of seniority politics that has created a litmus test of who deserves to be here,” Hogg said. “We need people, regardless of their age, that are here to fight.” < snip>

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/15/david-hogg-dnc-vice-chair-to-spend-big-to-take-down-safe-democratic-incumbents-00292535

[SSJVegeta]

1. It means Democrats take ending corruption within their party very seriously.

Democratic incumbents in deep blue districts would do well for themselves to give up all corporate/ foreign government PAC and lobbyist money immediately and vow to never take a penny in special interest donations again. If not, they should brace for a primary challenge supported by the DNC.

I support the Democratic party efforts to rid corruption.

[LauraInLA]

2. While I think PACs, etc., should be illegal, I don't favor unilaterally disavowing all PAC money while the other side

makes bank and wins elections with it.

[SSJVegeta]

8. Nobody is really advocating for that.

There's a big difference between taking money from a SEIU PAC and a PAC representing the state of Israel (AIPAC) or United Healthcare directly. Nobody should be allowed to take money from companies or orgs that literally kill people for profit or desire. But unions and social justice orgs generally represent the best of societal interest. Taking that money is not corrupt. But quite the opposite.

Hundreds of lawmakers have vowed successfully to disavow all corporate and foreign PAC money. Nearly all have continued to have safe seats. It is realistic and it is the right think to do.

[LauraInLA]

11. Sorry, I thought that's what you were advocating with this quote:

“give up all corporate/ foreign government PAC and lobbyist money immediately and vow to never take a penny in special interest donations again”

Your examples make sense to me, but lobbyists include SEIU, etc., and corporate PACs include those that favor Democratic causes.

I do think we need to look critically at whose money we’re taking.

[SSJVegeta]

15. Good point about the union lobbyist money!!

I might want to stew on that a bit. It is truly never so cut and dry for stuff like this.

I'm wondering about the corporate PAC money that favors Democratic causes though. What kind of examples do you have for that?


That being said: your last statement is key:

I do think we need to look critically at whose money we’re taking.

On an individual politician basis, I think this should be mandatory.

[bottomofthehill]

40. Union Money like the Teamsters and the UAW

who are now in Trumps camp. That is what unilateral disarmament looks like.

Overthrow citizens united through legislation or amendment and get all the big money out of politics. create total disclosure, no dark money groups. if corporations are people too for campaigns, then tax them at the people rate.

[LauraInLA]

14. P.S. Goods Unite Us documents companies and their political giving.

[SSJVegeta]

17. Thanks!!Have you looked at opensecrets?

I use that one primarily. Have you ever compared the two to see which is more helpful?

[Nixie]

9. Yes, Letting Republicans have every single advantage

seems like a really dumb idea.

[SSJVegeta]

36. Corruption by beholdening yourself to special interests is an impediment

Not an advantage.

[Nixie]

43. Republicans are running the government.

The purity tests don’t change that reality and they helped them gain majorities. All that was unnecessary and bad politics.

[SSJVegeta]

54. We are not republicans.

We are better. And can and should demonstrate that through actions. Republicans have far worse problems which they have to solve on their own internally. Democrats are now taking the initiative to give our party a squeaky clean look.

It is a moral strategy but also a superior strategy: one that provides an even more clear contrast to the rotten core of evil festering with Republicans from the inside out.

If somebody wants corruption they can become a Republican. But Democrats are proving we are better.

Being anti corruption is a strength in all ways. Especially if we want to win. And credibly running as the anti corruption party by getting rid of as much as those elements as possible, is a surefire way to earn a supermajority.

[Nixie]

60. Your post isn't really about politics. It's more a quasi-religious

wish list, and a lot of personal dreaming, but it’s not politics. Have a great day.

[SSJVegeta]

61. The post is about what Democrats are doing on a material level

And why I support it. It is in contrast with posts that suggest what Democrats are doing is wrong.


If you care about doing the right thing, then do it. It's actually very straightforward. If you want to support candidates that are corrupt, the door is to your far right.

[Nixie]

62. Politics isn't about gospel and you deciding who is or isn't

corrupt. Election results did show that voters rejected “woke.” Voters didn’t like the preaching.

[SSJVegeta]

64. It's literally about whether the people you elect represent you

If they are taking bribes (not a hard thing to know), they clearly aren't. And it isn't terribly hard to vote them out. That's basically the definition of politics in a republic. I'm very glad to see my party is going full throttle anti-corruption. Corruption in politics is hands down one of, if not the primary reason we have fallen so deep towards autocracy. You can't change that if you try to copy the more corrupt opposition because you think it's how you stay "competitive."

[Nixie]

66. But personal tangents about morals and corruption isn't

how you get people elected, considering those screeds are being used against Democrats.

[SSJVegeta]

69. Perhaps you havent noticed the groundswell of support for the "fight the oligarchy" tour

They are becoming the most attended political rallies in almost a generation attracting all walks of life. Morals and corruption is where it's centered. And it is literally how you win elections. Not sure you noticed, but every time we focus on those things as a party, we generally win.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

80. Who's taking bribes?

[betsuni]

81. Democrat "takes" a $200 campaign contribution from someone working on Wall Street or a Pharma company: BRIBED!

CORRUPTION! BEHOLDEN TO WALL STREET/BIG PHARMA/BILLIONAIRES/OLIGARCHS!

In that imaginary world, all Democrats are bribed (what they mean by status quo), thus the urgent need to spend millions on primaries to purge the party of Democrats.

[SSJVegeta]

82. That is not corruption.

Corruption is regularly taking 10,000 from Lockheed Martin's PAC and sneaking in amendments to bills that specifically benefit LM contracts.

Individual donors are not the problem. Corporate PACs are.

http://www.opensecrets.org.

[betsuni]

87. Who has changed votes or policy because of PACs (which cannot coordinate with candidates nor can they

receive money directly)?

[SSJVegeta]

92. Look it up

PACs can directly coordinate with candidates. That's been a thing for decades. You are thinking of super pacs. Look up who takes what kind of PAC money below if you are serious about wanting to know.


http://www.opensecrets.org

[betsuni]

93. Who has changed votes or policies because of PAC money?

[SSJVegeta]

95. Are you incapable of doing a search?

Again, here:


(Also stop trying to bait people into breaking rules. It is against the rules. Please don't do that.)

Boeing Co $10,000
Honeywell International $10,000
Lockheed Martin $10,000
Northrop Grumman $7,500
Rolls-Royce North America $4,000
RTX Corp $10,000
Textron Inc $10,000

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/mike-johnson/pacs?cat=D01&catlong=Defense+Aerospace&cid=N00039106&cycle=2024&seclong=Defense§or=D


Johnson does it all the time. But it's fairly common practice if you wanted to seriously know about it outside of trying to get newbies banned on DU

[betsuni]

96. That's a list of contributions. Where does it say he changed votes or policy?

For $10,000 he's going to change a vote? He's Republican. Did he run as a liberal, then got some $10,000 contributions to his campaign and became a radical right-winger? Where's the evidence?

The point is that Democrats aren't bribed or corrupted by campaign contributions to get them elected.

[SSJVegeta]

97. First you said they cant coordinate or contribute directly.

Last edited Fri Apr 18, 2025, 04:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Let's start there. Do you admit that PACs can coordinate and contribute directly? If so, they do it to far more people than Mike Johnson. If you want to see if they do it to the Democratic leader, then look up the Dem leader or any Democrats.

Also I don't know about changing votes. You added that. Again. If you care about it, you can look it up. If you just want to win dumb debates on the internet, you win.

I work for a living.

[SSJVegeta]

94. Here is somebody who has done those things. But he is far from the knly one

Boeing Co $10,000
Honeywell International $10,000
Lockheed Martin $10,000
Northrop Grumman $7,500
Rolls-Royce North America $4,000
RTX Corp $10,000
Textron Inc $10,000

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/mike-johnson/pacs?cat=D01&catlong=Defense+Aerospace&cid=N00039106&cycle=2024&seclong=Defense&sector=D

[SSJVegeta]

83. Lots of people.

http://www.opensecrets.org

[W_HAMILTON]

68. Most of those in the Democratic coalition vote with each other the vast, vast, vast majority of the time.

If a corrupt establishment neoliberal corporatist beholden to special interests blah blah blah is casting the exact same vote as Bernie Sanders 95% of the time, what makes him all those bad things and Sanders such a perfectly pure progressive?

[SSJVegeta]

70. Not how it works

The "corporate blah blahs" help ensure there isn't a vote on a bill supported by 70% of voters in the first place. So whether they vote with Bernie doesn't matter because the bills that get to the floor will never satisfy the vast needs of the general population if they don't satisfy their large donor base, since the bills get amended by the "corporate blah blahs" to the point they no longer provide what they were often intended to do. That's generally how our current system of legalized corruption works.

[W_HAMILTON]

72. Oh bullshit. If 70% of the people supported something that their elected representative refused to support...

...that person would not be their elected representative for much longer.

[SSJVegeta]

73. In that case, weed would be legal, insider trading for congresspeople would be illegal

Last edited Thu Apr 17, 2025, 10:55 PM - Edit history (2)

Citizens united would have been overturned with a constitutional amendment, bribery would be completely illegal (especially for supreme court justices), the ERA would be law, abortion would be legal in all states, the voting rights act would still be in place, toll roads would be illegal, health insurance companies wouldn't get away with murdering people, private prisons would be illegal, the rich would pay their fair share of taxes, wall street wouldn't keep ruining the country, gun reform would've passed, defense contractors would stop getting billions in subsidies, Israel and Saudi Arabia would stop getting weapons from us, credit card Interest rates would be 10% or less, voting would be a constitutional right, all teachers would make a comfortable wage, rent control would be federal law, housing would be a constitutional right, social welfare would never be cut, private funding of political campaigns would likely be illegal, people wouldn't have to worry about childcare.... should I go on?


Most of those issues have 70% if not over 70% support for the general public. But about 0% from corporations. There have been efforts to get a lot of those things done, and most of them ended in failure.

Kinda how the ACA went from a single payer medicare expansion healthcare bill to a health Insurance free for all...

[live love laugh]

27. Yet you don't mention that same need for Republicans with exponentially more dollars.

[SSJVegeta]

37. F Republicans

So far they are a lost cause. Democrats are not. That's why I'm here.

[live love laugh]

41. Bullshit.

[SSJVegeta]

55. What's bullshit?

That Democrats are not a lost cause? Or that Republicans are?

[Nixie]

63. Amen

Very noticeable.

[SSJVegeta]

65. What is?

I'm right here, you can talk to me

[Nixie]

67. Welcome to DU

[SSJVegeta]

71. Be more clear with your words.

I'm still waiting

Surely you aren't meaning to personally insult a new member 🤔

Since that would be against the rules 🙃

[brush]

78. Not smart. Primarying and winning against another Dem does not trim the rethug majority...

in the House. Best to go after and defeat vulnerable rethugs in purple districts, or rethugs in blue districts Biden won in 24'.

Guess young Mr. Hogg has yet to learn that's how we retake the House majority.

[AZJonnie]

3. I will reserve judgement until I see who is targeted and who the primary challenger is

And what their positions are. On paper probably not a bad idea but again it comes down to actual implementation.

[LauraInLA]

5. Agreed -- we have to look critically at individual races, incumbents, and challengers.

[SSJVegeta]

56. Frankly nobody in a deep blue district can justify taking corporate pac money

They simply don't need the money. Swing districts are a bit different but most Dems that win in swing districts don't take corporate pac money that don't align with their cause anyways.

The problem with corporate pac money lies largely with non competitive districts (ironically enough).

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

77. Yes, I think is called "democracy"... I thought that's supposed to be a GOOD thing!!

[helpisontheway]

4. Probably a response to what Pelosi did to AOC

She is a huge talent in our party. She deserves a chance to lead instead of propping up older members of their party. They have contributed to the party but it is time to help the young people move up.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

32. We need new blood who, like their predecessors, are unafraid to lead.

[betsuni]

35. What did Pelosi do to AOC?

[helpisontheway]

91. Lobbied against her for oversight committee..Pushed for 74 yr old man with cancer instead

https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-loses-oversight-gerry-connolly-2002263

[CBHagman]

101. I fear people think we're casting a TV show instead of dealing with policy and politics.

AOC and Bernie Sanders can electrify crowds, but the survival of our nation depends on expertise and experience as well as excitement. All of those elements matter, but I do not disparage people based on age or medical condition.

[travelingthrulife]

6. Bad mistake.My guess is he will quit in a hissy fit.

[MineralMan]

13. You could be right.

[EX500rider]

119. Since he is paying himself $16,000 a month I'd guess not, YMMV nt

[dem4decades]

7. I prefer to donate my money to take down republicans

[bottomofthehill]

42. winning answer! thank you

[Skittles]

51. getting rid of out-of-touch, ineffective Democrats help to bring down repukes

just sayin'

[dem4decades]

58. Id'd rather an ineffective Democrat that gets elected , than a hellfire one that can't. It's a tough call but

We're in the minority and absolutely must get back to being in the majority. Once we gets a solid majority, then we can be more selective. That's my opinion for what it's worth.

[Skittles]

59. who is saying they cannot get elected?

looks like the ineffective folk have the backing of old Dem money

[Arazi]

74. He's proposing this for super safe blue districts only

[live love laugh]

10. I smell bullshit. His opponents are not Democrats.

[Arazi]

12. We have 2 open seats where elderly Dem MOC died and their R gov won't call elections

Hogg has a point.

[LauraInLA]

19. I don't believe in unliterally replacing all older Dems -- precision related to effectiveness is required.

[Arazi]

34. That's the strategy he's proposing

He’s only suggesting to primary senior Dems that are elderly, in safe seats , that aren’t retiring to allow new young Dems a chance to take their shot

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

45. Makes sense to me!!

[live love laugh]

25. What does Hogg targeting Democrats have to do with the Republican governor not calling a replacement election?

[Qutzupalotl]

29. (butting in here) I think they mean it's disadvantageous to have so many older members,

since they are more likely to die in office. If it happens to be in a red state, we are at the mercy of the governor.

[Arazi]

33. Yes, that's exactly right

[W_HAMILTON]

52. No, he doesn't. The voters themselves elected those politicians.

Who the fuck is 25-year-old David Hogg from Florida to tell voters from Arizona and Texas that he knows better than they do about who should be their ELECTED representative?

[Arazi]

75. He's offering those voters a choice between two Dems

The voters will decide as always.

But now they would get an opportunity to vote for a potential different younger candidate

[W_HAMILTON]

105. He doesn't need to offer them a damn thing -- again, who made him kingmaker?

If someone wants to run in the Democratic primary, they are free to do so as is -- they do not need David Hogg's blessing or consent or endorsement. He is a nonfactor. If anything, an outsider like him trying to put his thumb on the scale of a district he has no connection or ties to is only going to result in voter backlash for whatever candidate he tries to force onto them

[SSJVegeta]

85. The vice chair of the DNC.

And spending money on elections against incumbents with 10 million dollar war chests is far from saying he knows better than anybody. It's simply evening the playing field a little more

[W_HAMILTON]

106. And he should immediately resign from that position.

As you pointed out in another thread, Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign after doing FAR less to bias the primary against an Independent candidate than Hogg is threatening to do against Democrats here.

RESIGN.

[SSJVegeta]

107. I dont think schultz should have resigned. Nor should Hogg

[W_HAMILTON]

108. LOL, everything you've posted has indicated you would have been the first calling for her head.

Hogg should resign -- which has been the precedent that has been set -- or he should be removed.

[MineralMan]

16. I will not be donating to any efforts to break up the Democratic Party.

Not a chance. Splintering is not what is needed right now. Expansion is. Anything that diminishes the number of Democrats in office and Dem0cratic voters is non-productive to the extreme.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

112. I agree

Hogg's efforts remind me of the Justice Democrat group. I am on the Just Us email list and I am getting good number emails from Hogg that look like they were written by the Just Us people

[Mike 03]

18. This idea also incentivizes mediocre Democrats to do better

Some of our leaders could do better; they might need a kick in the butt.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

47. Follow the lead of Bernie & AOC... fight with no compromise!!

[Vinca]

20. I tend to agree with him. We can't do politics as usual anymore. We can't afford seat fillers being

elected and then staying quiet when they need to be heard. Not just heard about the bad stuff going on right now, but about all the good stuff Democrats get done every time they're in office. The things they accomplish might as well be written in Braille because that's the number of people who end up knowing about them. We need a whole lot of AOCs out there.

[GusBob]

22. Throwing millions around is politics as usual in my book n/t

[Vinca]

30. It seems so, but it takes millions to run for office now. It's not like the old days, especially with Musk thrown in.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

49. "We need a whole lot of AOCs out there"... truer words were never spoken!!

[Mike 03]

21. If you are a development executive in Hollywood...

If you green light a movie that is a total failure, you will lose your job. If you never green light anything, you will keep your job and nobody will probably even notice you exist, and that is okay with a lot of film executives.

I see a similar dynamic right now in our party. There is a huge downside to doing something bold, provocative courageous--getting punished by Trump. Nobody really wants to be noticed right now. And there also isn't any reward to being courageous and bold, other than the street cred we give our leaders who we really appreciate for trying something. So only a handful of Dems are being bold, courageous and assertive. Meanwhile, there's not really any punishment for mediocrity, for just going along, just showing up and grinding through the day and praying to holy god nobody in the Trump administration notices you.

What Hogg is doing is raising the stakes of being ineffective, fearful and trying nothing bold or interesting, and I'm okay with that. There will now be a downside to that behavior.

[Fiendish Thingy]

23. Sounds revolutionary

I like it.

Take note, Problem Solvers.

[MichMan]

24. $20 million to pit Democrats against each other

At a private meeting last month, a “neutrality policy” was circulated asking the party’s top officers to refrain from any activity that would “call into question their impartiality and evenhandedness,” according to two people with knowledge of the pledge, which sought to cover officers “both in their D.N.C. capacity and in their personal capacity.”

Everyone signed it — except Mr. Hogg.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dnc-vice-chair-david-hogg-plans-to-spend-millions-against-democratic-incumbents-admits-this-is-going-to-anger-a-lot-of-people/ar-AA1D3g6j?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=ee4b751c50b94ca1bb8d7dad1f2494b1&ei=18

[live love laugh]

26. And where'd he get $20 million?

[betsuni]

38. Putting the word "grassroots" in front of $20 million purifies it. Everybody else's money is corrupt, of course.

[bottomofthehill]

46. grass roots my ass

He has raised almost a half million dollars from 1 unemployed woman in Nebraska

Contributor Occupation Date of Contribution Amount
WEITZ, BARBARA
OMAHA, NE 68114 NOT-EMPLOYED 10/08/2024 $250,000

CONWAY, RONALD C
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 SVA 10/07/2024 $200,000

WELLNESS ADVOCACY FUND
FULTON, MD 20759 07/17/2024 $200,000

CONWAY, RONALD C
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 INFORMATION REQUESTED 02/01/2024 $200,000

CHARLES, STEPHEN
BETHESDA, MD 20817 NOT-EMPLOYED 05/20/2024 $100,000

LEWIS, ADAM J
PALO ALTO, CA 94301 INVESTOR 03/06/2024 $100,000

WEITZ, BARBARA
OMAHA, NE 68114 NOT-EMPLOYED 12/29/2023 $100,000

CONWAY, RONALD C
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 INFORMATION REQUESTED 08/11/2023 $100,000

WEITZ, BARBARA
OMAHA, NE 68114 NOT-EMPLOYED 08/21/2024 $95,000

GATES, PHOBE ADELE
NEW YORK, NY 10003 NOT-EMPLOYED 06/27/2024 $75,000

DOLBY, DAGMAR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94129 NOT-EMPLOYED 10/30/2024 $50,000

HOSTETTER, AMOS
BOSTON, MA 02108 PILOT HOUSE ASSOCIATES LLC 10/15/2024 $50,000

LEEDS, JENNIFER
BOSTON, MA 02110 GIANT STEPS FOUNDATION 10/30/2024 $25,000

LANDRY, BARRIE
BOSTON, MA 02116 NOT-EMPLOYED 10/15/2024 $25,000

WISE, JUDY
CHICAGO, IL 60614 NOT-EMPLOYED 10/11/2023 $25,000

HOSTETTER, AMOS
BOSTON, MA 02108 PILOT HOUSE ASSOCIATES LLC 12/18/2023 $25,000

ROY, DEB
BELMONT, MA 02478 MIT 07/31/2024 $25,000

NGUYEN, KHANH
CUPERTINO, CA 95014 WEAVEGRID 10/08/2024 $20,000

LANDRY, BARRIE
BOSTON, MA 02196 INFORMATION REQUESTED 06/05/2024 $20,000

SEGEL, ARTHUR
BROOKLINE, MA 02445 INFORMATION REQUESTED 11/30/2023 $20,000

BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS NOW!
MIAMI, FL 33143 09/20/2023 $20,000

PALMER, ANDREW H
CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138 DBOS, INC. 07/12/2024 $20,000

MINER, RICHARD
CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138 GOOGLE 07/19/2024 $20,000

SEGEL, ARTHUR
DOVER, MA 02030 HARVARD UNIVERSITY 01/18/2024 $20,000

POORVU, WILLIAM
CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138 INVESTOR 01/18/2024 $20,000

[bottomofthehill]

48. He also managed to raise 9 million dollars in the last election cycle

And gave $12,600 dollars away split among 3 candidates

https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/C00843110/summary/2024

[JI7]

88. WTF

[LetMyPeopleVote]

111. Hogg is evidently using the Justice Democratic email list

I am on the Just Us email list and I am getting more emails from Hogg than I am from the Just Us people. These emails are really sad and weak.

[JustAnotherGen]

28. Great

If there's actually a free and fair election in 2026 - we are going to be blowing money on Primaries - ending up behind the 8 ball in the GE. Which already know won't be fair and free. It's going to be rigged so none of this shit matters anyway.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

31. Member of the DNC should NOT be taking sides in primaries

Last edited Mon Apr 21, 2025, 05:47 PM - Edit history (2)

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

Donna Brazil on David Hogg

“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/

DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a statement that “Hogg is a passionate advocate and we are grateful for his service to the Democratic Party, whether it be in his role as a DNC Vice Chair or in an outside capacity.”

“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

[betsuni]

89. Bernie: "If they went into our emails I'm sure there would be statements that would be less than flattering

about, you know, the Clinton staff." The emails were from May. What procrastinators, waiting until the election was essentially over to start the diabolical "rigging."

"In July Wikileaks had stirred up internal trouble among Democrats ... by releasing emails containing snipes against Sanders by members of the DNC. Bernie himself didn't find the statements shocking. 'If they went into our emails I'm sure there would be statement that would be less than flattering about, you know, the Clinton staff.' But his supporters weren't as sanguine, and complained loudly that the emails confirmed their suspicions that the primary had been 'rigged.'

So-called rigging: "a myth, according to Kurt Eichenwald, that vastly overestimated the power of the DNC and portrayed the party as a 'monolith that orchestrated the nomination of Hillary Clinton against the 'will of the people.' ... As Eichenwald points out, those emails were almost all from May 2016, at which point Sanders had no hope of winning the nomination, except through a massive 'flip' of superdelegates -- a rather odd strategy for someone running a campaign in the name of 'the people.'"

Susan Bordo

[W_HAMILTON]

90. So you are calling on Hogg to likewise resign, yes?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

110. I think that Hogg should sign the pledge or resign

[LetMyPeopleVote]

109. I was a Clinton Delegate to the 2016 National Convention

This material was released by Russia in order to help trump. No one in the DNC officially endorsed Hillary Clinton or campaigned for her. To do so would violate the DNC policies. Every DNC officer other that Hogg has had to sign a pledge to be neutral during the primary process. I personally 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.

I agree with Minority leader Jeffries here

Link to tweet

[PunkinPi]

98. I'm honestly seriously disappointed he was considered for DNC leadership when he posts stuff like this...

And the follow up the next day...



And when Mary Petola lost her race (this was not an easy seat for Dems to win in the first place)...

[betsuni]

39. Ah, a thumb on the scales is cool now. Thumb or other finger. And don't say "rigging" -- that's

reserved for conspiracy theories about the mean old Establishment, those, you know, "Democrats." Solidarity Not!

[W_HAMILTON]

50. I was just about to say...

I'm old enough to remember when Democrats in leadership roles weren't even supposed to express their individual support for a certain candidate because that could be taken as """rigging the system""" against the opposing candidate, even if no direct actions in their capacity as party leadership were ever actually put in place """rigging the system""" against the opposing candidate...

[betsuni]

53. "I've got news for the Democratic establishment. They can't stop us." Demonizing Dems as corrupt riggers

was such a big part of the anti-Democratic movement. Maybe it was just projection after all!

[LudwigPastorius]

79. Yeah, I bet some of the folks who were yelling about party superdelegates voting in the convention nomination...

process are totally down with this meddling in the primaries.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

44. Dem Status Quo is helping 1.0444 destroy democracy.

Let the young bloods loose.

[JohnSJ]

57. David Hogg is the shiny new idealist on the scene, whose actual experience and

credentials are that he survived a terrible mass shooting.

Hogg has made very clear the political positions he favors such as calling for ICE to be abolished and defund the police.

Link to tweet

Charles Pierce is not a fan, even in supposedly "safe" districts. Nothing is "safe" today.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a64504888/dnc-democratic-primaries-support-new-candidates/

To assume because a district is blue, the people in that district need to have a certain viewpoint, may have unintended consequences.

Hogg argues that we are in the position we are in because of the lack of new ideas, but perhaps it is because of some of those new ideas such as "defund the police" that actually put us where we are today. Ironically, most Democrats, as with the general population, do not favor "Defund the police", yet that label I suspect most people would apply it toward Democrats. In that same light, I suspect most Americans don't approve of the tactics used by ICE, but do believe there needs to be some agency to prevent undocumented people from crossing the borders. I suspect most of the public incorrectly believe Democrats want "open borders".

I think Charles Pierce said it best:

"Unfortunately, last November proved that the entire country is not the Democratic base, not by a long shot. This reeks of being an untenable shortcut to the real work that needs to be done."

I wonder how many of those supposedly "safe districts" that Hogg believes are safe, are in swing states?

"A Democratic House majority is preferable to any kind of Republican majority, now that the GOP has gone completely mad. Only then can the serious work of renovating the creaking Democratic party machinery truly begin."

In my view the real reason we have lost, and seem continue to do so, is because too many who align with the Democratic party, didn't show up to vote because it was the "all or nothing" approach on the issues, or I will take my marbles and go home.

That worked out real well for us in 2000, 2016, and 2024.

We won in 2008 in no small part to the Howard Dean "50-state strategy", which recognized differences, but would still agree on the main issues, and "compromise" on the differences.

President Biden probably did more to embrace the progressive tent of the party, from student loan forgiveness, to major environmental policies, yet that was all ignored because too many put the Israeli/Palestinian situation above everything else, instead of considering the whole spectrum of issues, in spite of the obvious fact that a trump administration with a republican majority in Congress would be the biggest threat to our democracy the country has faced since FDR.

Bernie and Ocasio-Cortez can go all over the country presenting the dangers we are facing, which is a good thing, but if that message is only preaching to the choir, which I suspect it may be at those rallies, I am skeptical that it will change the paradigm, especially if those attending those rallies in the end refuse to vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election if there are some issues they don't agree with that candidate on.

If we don't have unity, and we don't have enough independents, we won't win. It is as simple as that.

As pointed out above:

"A Democratic House majority is preferable to any kind of Republican majority, now that the GOP has gone completely mad. Only then can the serious work of renovating the creaking Democratic party machinery truly begin."

[GusBob]

100. This is right out of Putins playbook

Not saying DH a stooge, but Putin makes a killing creating discord amongst his adversaries

And by the looks of things it’s already happening. We need to be bot aware

[EX500rider]

120. "credentials are that he survived a terrible mass shooting." Like the other 3,000+ students at that campus nt

Not sure that

[dweller]

76. Could be this is just a devil's advocate initiative

Needs to be done … give it to the new guy




✌🏻

[Meowmee]

84. Although I have stopped donating to D for a long time now

and have said a few times I never will again, I plan to now make an exception. I will donate, albeit a tiny amount, to any D that DH tries to primary. I believe his tactic is going to cause harm, weaken any candidates, and could get an R elected in a safe area, if not in the current cycle in others. We can't take this risk.

I am not opposed to change and younger faces but I did not support him as a good candidate for a vice chair nor do I support what he is doing and I didn't support for the most part some of the others who also entered the party who immediately began attempting to primary good dems.

It would be a good idea imo, if someone with more experience and a lot more money than me starts a pac, if one doesn't already exist, to support these candidates who come under primary attack.

Imo, that money he plans to spend from his donors, many of whom seem to be quite wealthy, should be put into attacking R candidates, not D.

[GusBob]

99. Great idea! n/t

[Gore1FL]

102. Democracy is best when we have choices.

I'm all for clearing the milquetoast.

[SheltieLover]

103. Not a smart use of time & money imo

I'd much rather see Dems spending to unseat rethugs, but it's out of my control.

[jmbar2]

104. Sheldon Whitehouse made an important point about Dems not undermining ourselves

See approx 40:50 in this video

He warns against Dem infighting and getting into a circular firing squad.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

113. Hogg is being paid by his PAC

Hogg's pac raised $11.9 million and $10.7 million went to operating expenses including his salary

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[LauraInLA]

114. This is very interesting -- thank you for sharing! You should post this on its own!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

117. Here is the thread

https://democraticunderground.com/100220266861

[LauraInLA]

118. 👍

[LetMyPeopleVote]

115. DNC Chair Ken Martin-Voters Should Pick their Candidates, Not Party Bosses

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/

There’s been a lot of talk lately about the role of the Democratic Party, and what role the national party should play in picking our general election candidates. Recently, a DNC vice chair announced an initiative to put their thumb on the scale in democratic primaries. Let me explain why this is a mistake.

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]

116. Here is more on what Hogg is being paid by his PAC and the fact that Hogg may be using DNC mailing lists to raise money

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

I got another email from David Hogg’s PAC (Leaders We Deserve). Decided to see what’s up. IDK, looks like homeboy is making a nice six figure salary:

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