Democratic National Committee vice chair David Hogg’s plan to spend $20 million to primary older Democratic incumbents in Congress has sparked intense anger from some lawmakers.

  • Kühlschrank@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 days ago

    What the FUCK did they think would happen after the most catastrophic election loss in a generation? The DNC and Democratic leadership should have enough of a sense of the gravity of the situation we’re in to resign in shame. Instead they have the audacity to complain?? Seriously, understand how big of a failure you’ve been a part of and actually DO SOMETHING to help solve it.

    • freshcow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      24 days ago

      This is the same Democratic party leadership that ran Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’s campaigns. The same Democratic party leadership that cares more about stopping Bernie Sanders than about stopping Donald Trump. They know who’s side they are on, and it’s not the same side as you and me. The Democratic party is unfortunately rotten to the core, and it’s all about the money. Imagine the concept of regulatory capture applied to politicians broadly and you will understand the modern Democratic party and the state of our government. We need a party built from the ground up to represent the working class, whether it be from the ashes of the Democratic party or otherwise. Primary them at every turn or run independent campaigns where feasible. The other challenge is that mainstream media is owned by the same corporate masters, so it will be an uphill battle regardless.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        23 days ago

        This is the same Democratic party leadership that ran Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’s campaigns.

        Hogg has been vice chair of the DNC for like two months…

        How is he responsible for what the old guard did when almost all of them got the boot months ago?

        • freshcow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          23 days ago

          I should have been more clear. The post I’m replying to said “what the fuck did THEY think would happen”… which I took to mean the (presumably older establishment) dems that are whining about Hogg’s call for primaries. That’s who I’m talking about.

    • crusa187@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      24 days ago

      They literally think if they sit back, do nothing, and let the Trump regime destroy our government from within, that we will be forced to come crawling back to them next election.

      Fuck that, fuck the Dems, we deserve much better than these selfish pricks.

  • BertramDitore@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 days ago

    I think it’s safe to say that the ancient Democrats who’ve been holding onto their seats by sheer force of incumbent political influence, contributed to turning Hogg into a school-shooting survivor. Obviously Republicans bear more responsibility thanks to their gun/violence fetish, but these Dems wouldn’t be so angry if he hadn’t touched a nerve. They’re clearly afraid of young people with new and rational ideas.

    I hope these young’uns keep at it, their passion and drive is inspirational. Since the geriatrics in power clearly can’t smell their own bullshit anymore, fuck em. No one is entitled to power, you have to earn it like Hogg has through his dedicated activism. His organization has helped pass more than 250 gun safety laws, for example. He’s actually doing shit.

    • atmorous@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      23 days ago

      Not only that they’re afraid of both the real left and real right of young who can vastly transform the country for the better if they worked together

      Which they are doing already. But if they do it even more on every level then that will be HUGE transformations every day not weeks or months or years or decades

      The greatest strength the younger generations have is adaptability and having a clearer mind of what to focus on as a collective

      They strength themselves, and even more so with others

      • BertramDitore@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        23 days ago

        That’s a great point. The party is only hurting itself in the short and long term by not welcoming younger candidates and trying to elect people who are actually willing to wield their power by trying shit out, rather than just further entrenching themselves by wielding their political influence. That’s the difference, the younger generations are willing to try out new policies and see if they work. That’s how this whole fucking system is supposed to function. Try something out, if it doesn’t work then too bad, you lose the next election and continue working on your ideas while the other party tries their shit out to see if their ideas work. We’ve strayed so far from that, that everyone is just accustomed to the government not trying big things, and nobody trusts that the other side would ever govern or compromise in good faith.

        That’s why their anger is so frustrating to me. They’ve been there forever and done jack shit, and whine like children when someone young comes along and acts more mature by offering to fix the shit the elders have refused to.

  • crusa187@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    24 days ago

    If it has to be democrats instead of a new party, this is literally the only way to make it work.

    Good Job David Hogg and Leaders We Deserve, hope you oust a ton of these ancient shitbirds.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      23 days ago

      The neoliberals no longer have the chair…

      Ken Martin does…

      And the same DNC voters who elected him, elected David Hogg as a vice chair…

      Like, this is the party.

      Why would we push for a new one, when we just got control of the old one after decades?

      • VasovagalSyncope@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        23 days ago

        We’re not doing another 2016

        We can have leftist leadership or admit we want a fascist dictatorship.

        The DNC have had over 50 years to choose to force their rich doners to make concessions. They’ve shown they aren’t interested.

        The Neoliberals don’t get to be in charge anymore.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          23 days ago

          The Neoliberals don’t get to be in charge anymore.

          They’re literally not tho…

          Like, the battles were fought, the war was won…

          You just don’t seem to be politically engaged enough to have noticed.

          • Pumpkin Escobar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            23 days ago

            So in your view, the current makeup of democratic leadership, representatives and senators is what “fixed” should look like?

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              23 days ago

              democratic leadership, representatives and senators

              The DNC is the party…

              The DNC is saying we need to primary those elected politicians because they no longer reflect the values of the Dem voter base.

              The neoliberals are no longer running the party (which again, is the DNC)

              But I applaud you for asking when you weren’t sure

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              21 days ago

              You’re blaming the people elected to DNC leadership of February 2025 for things done in November of 2024 and earlier…

              Why?

      • kreskin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        23 days ago

        Martin has been making the same AIPAC-slave moves as the last dem corporation leader. The time you spent learning his name was completely wasted. He might as well be the last guy.

  • TomMasz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    edit-2
    24 days ago

    The “intense anger” tells you this is absolutely the right thing to do.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    24 days ago

    “What a disappointment from leadership. I can think of a million better things to do with twenty million dollars right now,” swing-district Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-Mich.) told Axios.

    “Fighting Democrats might get likes online, but it’s not what restores majorities,” she added.

    The issue is we get majorities and then nothing gets done with depresses turnout.

    We don’t want to primary these old conservatives, we’d much rather them represent their constituents, but they’ve shown time and time again they won’t.

    We’d rather they get out of the way and resign, but they won’t put the future of the party over their own personal power.

    So fuck em.

    • paultimate14@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      24 days ago

      I agree about “fuck em”, let’s get out with the old and in with the new.

      But what majorities are you talking about? I keep seeing this repeated all over the internet- the sentiment that Democrats get nothing done when they have control. The problem is that I’m 33 years old and the Dems have only had control of the federal government for a few months of my life, and that’s when they passed the ACA. I can’t really make a judgement on what the Dems do when they’re in power because they largely have not been.

      • eldavi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        24 days ago

        you owe it yourself to read up on american political history and; if you did; you would learn that every time they’ve had control of all 3 branches of government; they’ve squandered it by letting a one or 2 democrats derail all of their plans, meanwhile republicans steamroll over their own dissenters every time they’re in control.

        you’d start to see that this pattern keeps happening again and again.

        • paultimate14@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          24 days ago

          What times are these?

          As I said, they have only had control for 4 months in my lifetime. Before that you need to go back to 1961-1969 with Kennedy and Johnson. I would actually need to do more research to find out whether they had a Supermajority or not, but it’s not even worth looking up because going that far back in time shifts the politics of the parties significantly and is not very relevant to today. The Democratic Party still has plenty of Southern Conservatives all the way into the Carter years.

          So I would love to know what pattern you are seeing.

          • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            23 days ago

            I think they’re including technical majorities that failed to effect meaningful change because of DINO shitbags like Manchin and Sinema.

            • paultimate14@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              23 days ago

              Even without those DINOs they still didn’t have a Supermajority. Honestly I think most people just don’t understand the difference between a majority and Supermajority and mistakenly believe 50 is enough in the Senate.

              • eldavi@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                22 days ago

                have you ever wondered why republicans don’t need a super-majorities or why dems give a rats ass about dino where republicans dont every-single-time?

          • eldavi@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            22 days ago

            democrats had full control from 1993–1995, 2009–2011, 2021–2023 and majority control from 2011-2015 & 2023-2024. in other words: 12 years of complete or majority control out of the last 33 years.

            every single time their agenda was thwarted by one or two lone dissenters within their caucuses; where republicans completely steamrolled over their own dissenters.

            • paultimate14@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              22 days ago

              You should looked up how Congress works. They need a Supermajority to pass most legislation, and the Dems only had that for about 4 months from 2009-2010. The last time they had that control was under Kennedy/Johnson in the 60’s.

        • paultimate14@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          24 days ago

          They had control of the Presidency and the House of Representatives. I never said they didn’t have that- I said they didn’t have control of the Federal Government.

          The Senate was tenuous. Just having 50 Dem Senators (well, that’s not true either because you need to include Independents to get to 50) isn’t good enough- you need 60 votes to have a filibuster-ptoof majority. The Dems just barely scraped that together in 2009, complicated in part by Ted Kennedy’s seizure and eventual death and Al Franken delayed in getting seated due to recounts. They only had 60 votes (still including Independents) from September 24th 2009 - February 4th, 2010. 4 months of controlling the federal government.

          That is why when the 2008 financial crisis happened and the Dems wanted to pas a stimulus package in 2009, they had to get Snowe, Collins, and Spectre (who would leater switch parties to get them to 60) from the Republican side in order to get that passed.

          They absolutely did not have control of the Supreme Court at any point in the Biden administration and the Republican SCOTUS shut down a lot of what the Biden administration tried to do. I remember checking every day for months to see how they would rule on Student Loan forgiveness, for example.

          This is why they have the perception of being powerless- because they’ve pretty much never had the power. The Republicans love people who say the Democrats are useless. They love saying Biden didn’t do what he promised when he DID and the GOP-dominated Supreme Court reversed it. They love being able to stall Democrat legislation and blaming a Democrat president. Everything the Dems have done outside of those 4 months have required careful compromises and negotiation with the GOP to pass.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            24 days ago

            They had control of the Presidency and the House of Representatives. I never said they didn’t have that- I said they didn’t have control of the Federal Government

            They also had 50 D senators and Harris as the tiebreaker…

            They had the whole federal government for two years but didn’t get shit done because suddenly the guy who campaigned on being a literal “senate whisper” who said he could get R votes wasn’t able to get every D vote.

            If you can’t understand 2021-2023, stop trying to cover earlier too.

            • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              24 days ago

              You’re skipping the whole “fillibuster” thing. You need 60 to even have a vote on a lot of issues.

            • mpa92643@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              24 days ago

              We don’t have a parliamentary system where a party can kick out an elected member for not supporting the party’s agenda and replace them with someone else. Each member is individually elected to represent their state or district. For better or for worse, they get to decide what is best for their constituents and their constituents get to respond in the next election.

              Joe Manchin was the major impediment in 2021-2023. He mostly supported the party’s agenda but had some sticking points. He had to be onboard with whatever passed given the razor thin majority.

              I saw all these screeds about how he should be kicked out of the party, but the objective reality is there is very little you can do to pressure a centrist Democrat from a state that voted for Trump by 50 points. The only option available was to placate him and come to a compromise (which he ultimately agreed to for major climate change reduction investment).

              The reality is that the Democratic Party is not monolithic, it has some centrists who don’t support some of the more ambitious goals of the party. If you want bigger action, you have to have a bigger majority. Slim majorities give small wings of the party outsized influence on policy.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                24 days ago

                We don’t have a parliamentary system where a party can kick out an elected member for not supporting the party’s agenda and replace them with someone else.

                1. That doesn’t mean no pressure can be applied, if it does then Biden is a liar and ignorant of how our system works… Why didn’t you speak up when he kept claiming he could apply pressure to get Republican votes? But regardless of if it could have worked, Biden refused to try public pressure

                2. The fact that we can’t kick them out of the party is why the new DNC is advocating to primary them out.

  • GroundedGator@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 days ago

    Every Democrat seat should face a primary. Every year. No party funds should be spent until after the primary or all people on the ballot should get the same party stipend.

  • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    23 days ago

    Frankly this is a good idea in the long term despite a possible short term loss.

    The Tea Party hurt the Republicans in the short term, but they took over the party and purged the liberal elements. They replaced Eric Cantor with a speaker who does everything they want. They’re a monolithic block now and have been winning out on their strategies ever since.

    AOC ousted 10-term congressman Joe Crowley in a primary by a huge margin. A few more of those couldn’t hurt.

  • TemplaerDude@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    23 days ago

    Any other job where you fail as hard and as often as those old fossils do, you get the fucking boot. Why do they think they’re entitled to their fucking seat? You fucked up and have been responsible for having the world’s worst person elected twice now. Time to go.

  • kreskin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    23 days ago

    Hogg is 100% right and they are just whining like babies when they should be doing their effing jobs.

  • Gates9@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    23 days ago

    Mistake for who? Not a mistake for me, not a mistake tactically considering the policy and popularity polling, not a mistake when you consider that these people have been suppressing popular and well polling progressive policies and candidates for decades and still managed to lose the presidency and both houses to a goddamn moron…

    All of this shit, all of these “reasons” they list in opposition to Hogg’s initiative, they are all bullshit. Bullshit and deflections and distractions from the fact that they are concerned exclusively about the bottom line for their wealthy benefactors, and about their own as well. The irony that is not lost on anyone is that they are the assholes who did this to us in the first place, and would you look at that, Donald Trump is about to hand them a tax cut.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      23 days ago

      They’re really upset about losing their expense accounts. Sure they get a salary, but every single one of them has an expense account that dwarfs their salary.

    • KittyCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 days ago

      Both sides, the old guard is useless but he’s massively anti 2A, which is also not helpful right now.

      • TronBronson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        23 days ago

        Na the fascists are also going to need to get rid of the 2A soon. They don’t need headlines like “ICE impersonator shot by citizen while conducting an extra judicial abduction”

        • KittyCat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          23 days ago

          You can’t put that genie back in the bottle on any reasonable time scale, there’s more guns than people in the US, and half of them are basically invisible to authorities.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        23 days ago

        Both sides, the old guard is useless but

        but here comes the excuse…

        he’s massively anti 2A, which is also not helpful right now.

        How convenient!

          • futatorius@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            20 days ago

            Only a fool would be relying on registered firearms with fascists trying to take absolute power.

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            23 days ago

            Sure. It’s not because he’s trying to push the party to the left. It’s because the party has suddenly come around to being single-issue voters who agree with republicans on yet another issue, this time guns.

            Before that, it was genocide, immigration, and trans people. What will we agree with republicans on next?

  • BigBenis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    24 days ago

    If you were confident that you’ve done right by the people you represent then surely you wouldn’t be threatened by challenges to your incumbency.