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

[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."