Hogg is channeling the frustration many in "the base" feel about the ineffectiveness of Congressional Democrats. Fact check: the Democrats are in the minority in both chambers. Perhaps, just perhaps, that's the reason the Democrats are "ineffective" ... wait for it ... THEY HAVE NO POWER in D.C. The best they can hope for is that fissures emerge in the Republican caucus when the budget bill reaches the floor for a vote, then the Dems, then, if they remain unified, they can flex. While I have full sympathy for those who want a younger generation to attain office in D.C. there's a reason why some of the codger-geezers win election after election, they know their districts and THEY KNOW HOW TO WIN in their districts. Right now winning to take back the House and close the gap in the Senate is THE PRIORITY for Democrats. Remember the Republican Tea Party insurgents of a decade ago? They primaried, they ran and they LOST, thus preserving Democratic power in Congress. Let's hope that Hogg isn't leading Democrats down an identical primrose path.
Im of a certain age and know ppl that vote for both parties, and i dont think anyone has reservations about the elder members of congress leaving. I do think there is a fear of new officials but bc of things they advocate for, not bc of age. And nothing about ppls actions bc of lack of due process is a distraction. The democratic party are the only ppl that should be concerned about party. That ppl have allowed themselves to adopt concerns about party, either party, is the reason such division exists in the country.
David Hogg is selectively looking to challenge some leaders. But I wonder if another use for the same funds is to support and get more people to run for the many uncontested positions at all levels of government.
An additional way to manage the party is for someone like Schumer to no longer be minority leader - he lacks the savvy and energy to really help the party do the best it can in the Senate. Compared to McConnell when he was in a similar role, Schumer lacks the cleverness to use the rules to be used in creative ways - and lacks the willingness to gut punch. There are hard Democratic fighters in both the Senate and House but they need to be empowered to play more leadership roles. In addition the party as a whole needs to play a much bigger, loud and persistent role in the mass media. MAGA has Fox News. The Democrats need a a propaganda voice that constantly attacks and contradicts the other side and which utilizes a range of spokespersons to tell the story. This means a new voice coming out of the Democratic headquarters.
I'm 67 and I agree that it is past time for all of these Democratic old geezers to take their gold watches & start enjoying "Murder She Wrote" on their home sofas via DVD. Jim Clymer, Richard Neal, Steny Hoyer, Gerry Connolly, and YES Nancy Pelosi, Marcy Kaptur, etc., all need to step up to the mirror and realize the obvious fact that they're NOT going to inspire confidence or a gram of the storm-the-Bastille energy we're gonna need in '26 and beyond. The RBG example & recent deaths ought to shake their complacency BUT they're apparently too prideful & arrogant to see how they're now a shambling, arthritic "part of the problem" now.
Before we hand over the reins to these young and enthusiastic people. We need to make sure that they understand the consequences of their actions In regards to the rest of the country. Another thing that we need to make sure of is that they understand how to read a map. The strong blue areas that they are talking about focusing on have little or no resemblance to the purple or slightly red parts of the country. There are two words the encapsulate my thoughts on this Ron Johnson. His seat was up for grabs and instead of going for the win the party decided to try and prove a point? It really doesn't matter how good your ideas and plans are if you don't have the votes to make them happen.
Jason Crow says the Dems just need to do the right thing, and they will be rewarded. Sounds nice. But the Republicans have constantly flouted that and been rewarded big time. No one has ignored the "right thing" more than Trump, and look where he is. This doesn't mean the Dems should emulate Trump in style, but just don't be so darn sanctimonious.
I agree old thinking needs to be changed but just because someone is a certain age doesn't mean they can't be realistic about about today's world. Look at the people not necessarily they're age and look at what everyone brings to the table. And for heavens sake we don't need to keep shooting ourselves in the foot with infighting. Keep your eye on the threat.
"...party has a long way to go to figure out an effective way to communicate on the issue." How about this: if innocent, law-abiding people (citizen or not) can be basically kidnapped and sent to a gulag, how long before anyone -- anyone who crosses Trump -- is in like danger? If 'due process' means nothing to the American people, we are already lost.
So in reading a bunch of the comments, people want the old ones to go because they are useless . . . yet they want these useless folk who they think shouldn't be in Congress because they are past their sell by date, don't know how to fight, don't understand the issues, etc etc etc to mentor and pass on their knowledge (huh, I didn't think they had any?) to the deep bench of younger Dems we already have.
Got it.
As for why they all shouldn't face a primary challenge, be careful what you wish for. Many of those Dems live in areas where they need republican and independent votes. They got in because some of these voters crossed party lines because they like the incumbent. Throw in a firebrand Dem who wins the primary—who these voters don't know—and you expect that'll get all those young people out to the polls to make up the difference. As if. Young voters are the very same people who adored Obama and when he didn't give them the public option soured on him and stayed home in 2010, giving the GOP Congress. Brilliant strategy! That showed Obama and the rest of those lame ass Dems!
My party is supposed to be the smart people. Instead, it's filled with too many voters who pull the lever or pick a candidate on pure emotion and irrationality. Just because someone is young doesn't mean they understand an issue or the history surrounding it, know how to get support for it, or how to communicate it. I used to like David H. but shitting on fellow Democrats, while quite the fashion, leaves a very bad taste.
It's always enlightening reading comments in which older people trash other older people. Many the same people who wonder how women can dump on other women and do things like vote for Trump and the GOP.
I agree with Travis, below. Why can't we create some form of 'elder counsel and council' that would take advantage of the wisdom gained in years of service to the country? I'm 75 and know the value of Pelosi's experience. Why not give them some sort of respected position that would allow them to continue to contribute -- not just kick them out for the, yes, much needed new generation of Democrats.
It's fine to have primary challenges. No one benefits from a complacent representative or senator. But when the general election comes around what we need is solidarity.
But I do think the party should be fighting these deportations and renditions - because most of them are renditions. People are being removed from our country to a third country with zero due process. People who are here working legally are being held in Louisiana prisons - with zero due process. Disappearing people off the streets should be abhorrent to every American. Not just Democrats.
I'm a 72 year old white man...hungry for young, fresh, diverse thinking. The Dems have lost touch...they are not strategic or forward planning...time to look for new blood...in my humble opinion.
I am in the same boat (although a bit younger and female). There is no reason these older leaders cannot continue to do important and impactful work outside of being in the legislature. They really need to retire and pass the baton. I have let my rep, Nancy Pelosi, know how I feel about this. There are amazing people who have been waiting in the wings for years to take her place.
I’m in whole Hogg on the primary challenges. And especially where the incumbent is my age (71) or older and has been warming the bench in a safe seat—doing little for far too long. I know you can afford to retire. I need people in office who will actively and loudly work to save my social security and paltry savings.
51 year old who has been basically a life long moderate democrat and has donated to a lot of moderate democrats. The current democratic leadership is so poll-brained and feckless that I am with David on this. If safe seat democrats won't vote for effective leadership they all need to go bye-bye.
47 and also a life long Dem - but I switched to the Working Families Party after this last election. I do not agree with throwing support of LGBTQ, and especially trans rights, or support of our constitutional rights under the bus just because the right's propaganda machine may make it a losing issue. In the words of Captain Mal, "May have been on the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one." We need to counter the right's propaganda, not bow to it.
I mean the other option is for the senior citizens brigade to turn over leadership roles and remain as members with experience who can offer guidance as back-benchers. Kind of like how the military does it: pairs a young decision maker (a 2nd lieutenant fresh out of college) with a seasoned staff sergeant to offer their experience and guidance in a counseling role. Of course this clashes with the ego and sense of entitlement of the senior citizens brigade, so they probably wouldn't do it anyway because congressional Boomers refuse to step away from leadership until they're 6 feet under these days (Nancy being the one exception).
The same is true of Liz Cheney and she was featured prominently in Harris campaign stops. Democrats have to decide if they want to be closer aligned to progressives or never-Trump Republicans. I am not sure what the best answer to that choice is from a tactical viewpoint, but I am doubtful that there is a center path between them that generates enough enthusiasm to win elections at scale. Extremes generate more excitement and engagement in modern politics.
I traditionally haven’t been a Bernie guy, but there is something to be said for his decades of experience bashing billionaires and the billionaires running the administration that need to be bashed. Maybe it is time for a populist backlash against billionaires.
Liz Cheney aligned herself with Democrats because of her fear that Trump would be elected. She moved to OUR camp, not vice versa. I am really, really tired of criticism leveled at Dems for 'aligning with Cheney or never-Trumpers' when the REALITY is, these never-Trumpers are trying to save our country and have sacrificed a lot to do so.
I have no problem with her endorsing Democrats and working against Trump. But at the same time, she spent Trump's first term voting with him over 90% of the time and saying "she liked his policies, but not the man." And if she was still in congress, she would still be voting with him 90% of the time. She would be thrilled at a chance to slash Medicaid. (Remember her calling his first impeachment a total sham? At least Kinzinger now regrets that vote. She still thinks Trump trying to blackmail Zelensky into attacking Biden was cool.)
She was an active enabler that helped create him, much like Mitch McConnell. I'm OK accepting her endorsement and putting her in some targeted ads. That's very different than putting her front stage at a swing state rally when you need to mobilize a Democratic base.
If you think Democrats should turn into the Republican-light party, that's a choice. And it might be the right choice for this moment in history, but let's not pretend that won't alienate long term Democrats. I'm old enough to remember the way Reagan handled HIV and the way Dick Cheney got us to invade Iraq. For some us, this has been a long, long fight that didn't just start in 2016 with Trump popping out of nowhere. He is the destination that the GOP and right wing media and Federalist Society wanted and enabled.
Hogg is channeling the frustration many in "the base" feel about the ineffectiveness of Congressional Democrats. Fact check: the Democrats are in the minority in both chambers. Perhaps, just perhaps, that's the reason the Democrats are "ineffective" ... wait for it ... THEY HAVE NO POWER in D.C. The best they can hope for is that fissures emerge in the Republican caucus when the budget bill reaches the floor for a vote, then the Dems, then, if they remain unified, they can flex. While I have full sympathy for those who want a younger generation to attain office in D.C. there's a reason why some of the codger-geezers win election after election, they know their districts and THEY KNOW HOW TO WIN in their districts. Right now winning to take back the House and close the gap in the Senate is THE PRIORITY for Democrats. Remember the Republican Tea Party insurgents of a decade ago? They primaried, they ran and they LOST, thus preserving Democratic power in Congress. Let's hope that Hogg isn't leading Democrats down an identical primrose path.
Im of a certain age and know ppl that vote for both parties, and i dont think anyone has reservations about the elder members of congress leaving. I do think there is a fear of new officials but bc of things they advocate for, not bc of age. And nothing about ppls actions bc of lack of due process is a distraction. The democratic party are the only ppl that should be concerned about party. That ppl have allowed themselves to adopt concerns about party, either party, is the reason such division exists in the country.
David Hogg is selectively looking to challenge some leaders. But I wonder if another use for the same funds is to support and get more people to run for the many uncontested positions at all levels of government.
An additional way to manage the party is for someone like Schumer to no longer be minority leader - he lacks the savvy and energy to really help the party do the best it can in the Senate. Compared to McConnell when he was in a similar role, Schumer lacks the cleverness to use the rules to be used in creative ways - and lacks the willingness to gut punch. There are hard Democratic fighters in both the Senate and House but they need to be empowered to play more leadership roles. In addition the party as a whole needs to play a much bigger, loud and persistent role in the mass media. MAGA has Fox News. The Democrats need a a propaganda voice that constantly attacks and contradicts the other side and which utilizes a range of spokespersons to tell the story. This means a new voice coming out of the Democratic headquarters.
I'm 67 and I agree that it is past time for all of these Democratic old geezers to take their gold watches & start enjoying "Murder She Wrote" on their home sofas via DVD. Jim Clymer, Richard Neal, Steny Hoyer, Gerry Connolly, and YES Nancy Pelosi, Marcy Kaptur, etc., all need to step up to the mirror and realize the obvious fact that they're NOT going to inspire confidence or a gram of the storm-the-Bastille energy we're gonna need in '26 and beyond. The RBG example & recent deaths ought to shake their complacency BUT they're apparently too prideful & arrogant to see how they're now a shambling, arthritic "part of the problem" now.
Before we hand over the reins to these young and enthusiastic people. We need to make sure that they understand the consequences of their actions In regards to the rest of the country. Another thing that we need to make sure of is that they understand how to read a map. The strong blue areas that they are talking about focusing on have little or no resemblance to the purple or slightly red parts of the country. There are two words the encapsulate my thoughts on this Ron Johnson. His seat was up for grabs and instead of going for the win the party decided to try and prove a point? It really doesn't matter how good your ideas and plans are if you don't have the votes to make them happen.
Jason Crow says the Dems just need to do the right thing, and they will be rewarded. Sounds nice. But the Republicans have constantly flouted that and been rewarded big time. No one has ignored the "right thing" more than Trump, and look where he is. This doesn't mean the Dems should emulate Trump in style, but just don't be so darn sanctimonious.
I agree old thinking needs to be changed but just because someone is a certain age doesn't mean they can't be realistic about about today's world. Look at the people not necessarily they're age and look at what everyone brings to the table. And for heavens sake we don't need to keep shooting ourselves in the foot with infighting. Keep your eye on the threat.
"...party has a long way to go to figure out an effective way to communicate on the issue." How about this: if innocent, law-abiding people (citizen or not) can be basically kidnapped and sent to a gulag, how long before anyone -- anyone who crosses Trump -- is in like danger? If 'due process' means nothing to the American people, we are already lost.
So in reading a bunch of the comments, people want the old ones to go because they are useless . . . yet they want these useless folk who they think shouldn't be in Congress because they are past their sell by date, don't know how to fight, don't understand the issues, etc etc etc to mentor and pass on their knowledge (huh, I didn't think they had any?) to the deep bench of younger Dems we already have.
Got it.
As for why they all shouldn't face a primary challenge, be careful what you wish for. Many of those Dems live in areas where they need republican and independent votes. They got in because some of these voters crossed party lines because they like the incumbent. Throw in a firebrand Dem who wins the primary—who these voters don't know—and you expect that'll get all those young people out to the polls to make up the difference. As if. Young voters are the very same people who adored Obama and when he didn't give them the public option soured on him and stayed home in 2010, giving the GOP Congress. Brilliant strategy! That showed Obama and the rest of those lame ass Dems!
My party is supposed to be the smart people. Instead, it's filled with too many voters who pull the lever or pick a candidate on pure emotion and irrationality. Just because someone is young doesn't mean they understand an issue or the history surrounding it, know how to get support for it, or how to communicate it. I used to like David H. but shitting on fellow Democrats, while quite the fashion, leaves a very bad taste.
It's always enlightening reading comments in which older people trash other older people. Many the same people who wonder how women can dump on other women and do things like vote for Trump and the GOP.
I agree with Travis, below. Why can't we create some form of 'elder counsel and council' that would take advantage of the wisdom gained in years of service to the country? I'm 75 and know the value of Pelosi's experience. Why not give them some sort of respected position that would allow them to continue to contribute -- not just kick them out for the, yes, much needed new generation of Democrats.
It's fine to have primary challenges. No one benefits from a complacent representative or senator. But when the general election comes around what we need is solidarity.
But I do think the party should be fighting these deportations and renditions - because most of them are renditions. People are being removed from our country to a third country with zero due process. People who are here working legally are being held in Louisiana prisons - with zero due process. Disappearing people off the streets should be abhorrent to every American. Not just Democrats.
How long before US citizens are "disappeared?"
I'm a 72 year old white man...hungry for young, fresh, diverse thinking. The Dems have lost touch...they are not strategic or forward planning...time to look for new blood...in my humble opinion.
I am in the same boat (although a bit younger and female). There is no reason these older leaders cannot continue to do important and impactful work outside of being in the legislature. They really need to retire and pass the baton. I have let my rep, Nancy Pelosi, know how I feel about this. There are amazing people who have been waiting in the wings for years to take her place.
I’m in whole Hogg on the primary challenges. And especially where the incumbent is my age (71) or older and has been warming the bench in a safe seat—doing little for far too long. I know you can afford to retire. I need people in office who will actively and loudly work to save my social security and paltry savings.
51 year old who has been basically a life long moderate democrat and has donated to a lot of moderate democrats. The current democratic leadership is so poll-brained and feckless that I am with David on this. If safe seat democrats won't vote for effective leadership they all need to go bye-bye.
47 and also a life long Dem - but I switched to the Working Families Party after this last election. I do not agree with throwing support of LGBTQ, and especially trans rights, or support of our constitutional rights under the bus just because the right's propaganda machine may make it a losing issue. In the words of Captain Mal, "May have been on the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one." We need to counter the right's propaganda, not bow to it.
I mean the other option is for the senior citizens brigade to turn over leadership roles and remain as members with experience who can offer guidance as back-benchers. Kind of like how the military does it: pairs a young decision maker (a 2nd lieutenant fresh out of college) with a seasoned staff sergeant to offer their experience and guidance in a counseling role. Of course this clashes with the ego and sense of entitlement of the senior citizens brigade, so they probably wouldn't do it anyway because congressional Boomers refuse to step away from leadership until they're 6 feet under these days (Nancy being the one exception).
Let's all repeat this together "Bernie Sanders is not now and never has been a member of the Democratic Party."
Not a criticism, just a fact.
The same is true of Liz Cheney and she was featured prominently in Harris campaign stops. Democrats have to decide if they want to be closer aligned to progressives or never-Trump Republicans. I am not sure what the best answer to that choice is from a tactical viewpoint, but I am doubtful that there is a center path between them that generates enough enthusiasm to win elections at scale. Extremes generate more excitement and engagement in modern politics.
I traditionally haven’t been a Bernie guy, but there is something to be said for his decades of experience bashing billionaires and the billionaires running the administration that need to be bashed. Maybe it is time for a populist backlash against billionaires.
Liz Cheney aligned herself with Democrats because of her fear that Trump would be elected. She moved to OUR camp, not vice versa. I am really, really tired of criticism leveled at Dems for 'aligning with Cheney or never-Trumpers' when the REALITY is, these never-Trumpers are trying to save our country and have sacrificed a lot to do so.
I have no problem with her endorsing Democrats and working against Trump. But at the same time, she spent Trump's first term voting with him over 90% of the time and saying "she liked his policies, but not the man." And if she was still in congress, she would still be voting with him 90% of the time. She would be thrilled at a chance to slash Medicaid. (Remember her calling his first impeachment a total sham? At least Kinzinger now regrets that vote. She still thinks Trump trying to blackmail Zelensky into attacking Biden was cool.)
She was an active enabler that helped create him, much like Mitch McConnell. I'm OK accepting her endorsement and putting her in some targeted ads. That's very different than putting her front stage at a swing state rally when you need to mobilize a Democratic base.
If you think Democrats should turn into the Republican-light party, that's a choice. And it might be the right choice for this moment in history, but let's not pretend that won't alienate long term Democrats. I'm old enough to remember the way Reagan handled HIV and the way Dick Cheney got us to invade Iraq. For some us, this has been a long, long fight that didn't just start in 2016 with Trump popping out of nowhere. He is the destination that the GOP and right wing media and Federalist Society wanted and enabled.