378

Just over a year ago, David Hogg, then the newly-minted vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, found himself unceremoniously pushed out after he called on the party to back primary challengers to unseat members of a moribund establishment.

Now, as progressives notch victory after victory against the party’s conservative old guard and are once again galvanizing young voters thought to have been lost, the 26-year-old reformer says it proves he was right all along.

top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

kick fetterman out for the same reason

[-] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Nah, Fetterman is the kind of Democrat that leadership wants.

[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

not for dems. hes a closet repug

[-] SippyCup@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago
[-] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 99 points 3 days ago

The neo libs don't care if you're right. They don't support your ideals and they want you to have no voice.

Fuck the neo libs. Fuck the fascists. They can rot together in hell. Maybe the Socialists can show them how governing is supposed to fuckin work.

We’ll see if they can along long enough to do that.

[-] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 31 points 2 days ago

I wish moderate libs would understand that the demsocs are helping to move the Overton window further left, which is a good thing because it's moved way too far to the right due to the ratchet effect. I mean, Jesus, do libs not know how to negotiate? You know compromise will be necessary, so start left of the position you want to end up at. You start at democratic socialism but you end up at a relatively modest, European style social democracy. If that's too far left for you, well, you might as well just cut the crap and join the Republican party now.

[-] nickiwest@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago

2020s Democrats are mostly 1980s Republicans that are more okay with diversity.

[-] Snapz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

*certain diversity

The second half of this statement is debatable

[-] MJKee9@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

As someone who lived in the 80s, it isn't debatable. A gay person outside of highly liberal cities, had to hide being gay or they were at a severe disadvantage. That is now true in much fewer locations.

The party is lead by people who would be Republicans if they happened to live in a red state. They don't actually believe in anything. They just seek power. People like this become Republicans in red states and Democrats in blue states. Centrist wafflers in purple states.

[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 days ago

Why would moderate libs car about "going left." They want to support the "just world" they grew up in and ensure they are never made uncomfortable.

[-] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 days ago

EEU social democracy is dying quickly too. It did not work. There is no left. Ever since the Reagan and the fall of the USSR and the "third way", the so called left does not believe in anything any more. Only power for themselves and taking certain positions to get elected.

History is full of examples of democratic socialists getting slaughtered, literally. The US is responsible for much of it. The plutocrats are definitely going to try to kill them or put them in camps.

[-] Malyca@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago

Left is incompatible with capitalism

[-] mcv@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

Everything decent is incompatible with capitalism.

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 days ago

Does it make more sense if you view the Democratic Party as controlled opposition?

[-] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

HELL YEAH BROTHER CRANK THE HOGG!!!!

[-] baronvonj@piefed.social 11 points 3 days ago

Shouldn't we want for the DNC to not prop up some primary candidates over others? I don't think Hogg should have been procedurally yeated out like he was, but I do feel like the DNC playing favorites is something that we as voters have historically objected to.

[-] billwashere@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

The DNC should not be a king maker for sure. But pointing out inconsistencies or irregularities is a particular candidates stances with some national policy seems ok I guess. We all aren’t gonna agree on everything so a very specific national policy seems like a bad idea as well. But in the end the people should be defining what they want the party to be not the other way around.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Fucking bullshit...

The prior DNC fucked up the vice chair election Hogg won.

The new DNC chair, said the ethical thing to do, was to re-run the vice elections, this time according to the rules.

Hogg would have 100% won that, but he declined to run in the election despite being virtually guaranteed to win

Hogg's problem should be with Jamie Harrison for fucking up the first one that Hogg won.

But my problem is Hogg refused to run for the re-election, and it seems he never wanted to win in the first place. It seems like his plan was to lose and pivot to a super PAC which is what he said he was going to do when he denied to run, but I don't even think he's done that.

All he's done is try to get people to disengage from the Dem party, and he started almost exactly as soon as neoliberals lost power.

I don't know if he's corrupt or just fucking stupid.

Edit:

So to be perfectly clear:

  1. DNC voting members elected Hogg

  2. Due to a technical error about woman/minority candidates, the DNC chair said it was ethical to run the election over instead of accept the results of a fraudulent election

  3. Hogg refused to run, even though the same voting members who elected him were gonna vote again.

  4. Hogg spends a year shit talking the very people that elected him to be a vice chair. And claims that a wave of progress that happened without him, somehow proves that that the party isn't progressive even tho they've elected Hogg personally in 100% of positions he's run for. And that means we shouldn't trust the people who elected him and ushered in a wave of progress.

If anything, this proves the DNC made a mistake when they elected him the first time.

Dude should not be involved in a party if he doesn't even understand how this works.

Especially since he didn't get loud again till after primaries and right before the general.

[-] Malyca@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago

Ah yes, he didn't really want to win, that makes sense 😑

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

I mean...

He ran thinking he would never win...

Won...

And the refused to run in the re-election he was guaranteed to win...

So yeah, any rational person should be able to figure this one out chief.

[-] kreskin@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

all you ever see you do with your comments is attack the left, givesomefucks. You run interference for Ken Martin ignoring Gaza in the last thread I saw you in, and here you attack Hogg. You are as rabidly conservative a "democrat" as they come.

Theres nothing but fascism down the road that your opinions live on.

[-] Killer57@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 days ago

I agree wholeheartedly with your comment, I've seen givesomefuck spew conservative talking points non-stop since I joined Lemmy.

I've followed them since before the Biden Harris shift.

I'd say you're way wrong.

I didn't at all agree with them before then but they have convictions and data to back it up. I'm OK with what they post honestly.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

It [Hogg's PAC] has also backed a number of progressive challengers who’ve gone on to defeat well-funded, establishment-backed candidates this cycle, including community activist Donavan McKinney in Michigan, labor organizer Claire Valdez in New York, and professor Randy Villegas in California, who’ve each claimed Democratic nominations for the US House.

Cool, but that's like playing on "Easy" mode. Run somebody in Missouri! Iowa. Idaho ffs. Progressives are winning in deep-blue states? Well, that's good, but in this fascist environment I'd expect voters would even go with Clinton-level Dems to win there. That they had more progressive options to choose is excellent, but don't mistake that for a nationwide movement. Because It's not showing up in the red states (yet).

The DNC needs to jettison the consultants who want to buy TV ads. They need a core social media organization and an understanding of why to have that. They don't. Therefore, they're flying blind. These wins help nudge them in the right direction but until they can get some new leadership they're going to continue to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory unless people get out and vote for them in the unexpected areas.

[-] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 days ago

Michigan is certainly not a deep blue state

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Fine, it's purple.

Point still stands.

Honestly winning in red states are much harder than winning in deep blue states. We can win in most of the swing states

this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2026
378 points (99.0% liked)

politics

30712 readers
1739 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS