he’s a registered Dem. I think we need him. The most effective way to reach young voters is to first demonstrate we respect them. Putting Hogg in a leadership position - not head of, but assistant head of the DNC - is a way to do that. We have got to do a better job of raising young leaders. Whining that they don’t have experience is nuts because a) you get experience by doing the job, and b) our experienced leaders have failed us dramatically.

What’s the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Time to try something different.

Time will tell.

You replied to me, but immediately deleted it.

Last edited Mon Jan 13, 2025, 03:06 PM - Edit history (1)

when she was either a freshman in college or a senior in high school. Obviously, by the time she graduated college she was a very active Democrat especially on women and children's issues.

Should we have held her 1964 support of Goldwater against her years later?

With Hogg, he has been incredibly public especially on gun issues. Even if his parents were Republicans, he clearly has not been since high school.

Leadership - led high profile protests. Spokesperson and leader of gun control movement.

Communications - Tons of experience dealing with media, including RW media harrassment. Can reach people, especially young people.

Organizational skills - organized March for Our Lives.

Book - published bestseller titled Never Again: A New Generation Draws the Line.

Time Magazine listed Hogg among its 100 most influential people in 2018.

Has met with over 30 US lawmakers to discuss and negotiate issues.

Experience in the trenches dealing with RW extremists like MTG and conspiracy theories.

Commitment and tenacity. Does not give up in the face of vicious threats and harassment. Fights back.

Harvard graduate.

I would still prefer someone with elected legislative experience in terms of being in congress etc.

And his parents' affiliation has no impact on his.

He has been nothing but a strong progressive in his political work.

I seriously am no longer baffled at the ways in which people find to shit on this guy.

why you have come to your conclusion. I’m not even saying your reservations are not valid, I’m saying you should delete misinformation.

He had never voted or registered to vote at that time.

but I believe the Stoneman massacre has adequately formed his political opinons. I'm really not going to worry about what political influence his parents gave him in his childhood.

He is brilliant and a rising star. What he has done at his age is amazing. Let's benefit from his young passion and drive and give him the experience to rise into Democratic leadership. We need people like him, he is motivated and dedicated.

has endorsed him.

With Hogg's gun control mission, he sure as hell is not going to become a MAGA or Libertarian.

He was 17 years old.

Ah well

I did not support M. I didn’t even know who he was until the first reign of terror and voiced my not good opinion of him numerous times. F I did support at the time he ran because others thought he was good. Neither was elected in my state.

It’s for Dems who thought they were going to be of any use

I don't care if he was a 17 year old Republican. I was too at that age.

We don't need to be in a school shooting. Events
can change us forever, at any age.

Have you been tracking what he has done at a very young age?
I would put this in the category of "Don't support Jack Kennedy because he's too inexperienced and too young" and "Lincoln and Obama don't have enough years in Congress." True, but try to replace their genius. We need the best talent and we need to support it and develop it right away.

....... world they will mold. We had our chance and now let's give them their chance. In less than two weeks from now a CONVICTED FELON will be sitting in the White House.

We can keep telling them the OLD guard knows what needs to be down. How is that been working out. Not well IMHO. One or two more SCOTUS (R) will lock THEM out for the next 40 years.

Hogg, AOC and others of that generation have my support. They should have a chance to mold it their way.

Last edited Tue Jan 21, 2025, 01:36 AM - Edit history (1)

Frankly my daughter, David Hogg's age, wants to bury her head in the sand. Not because she's irresponsiboe but beause she didnt ask for this:
F'ng climate in decline. Who deservse that greeting on colllege graduation? Isn't it enough to figure out how to make your way in the world without having to save it? She just want's to fall in love. I give David Hogg credit for being up to the job.

He's also no genius. He needs to learn how to focus his anger rather than scatter shot. He's seeks to blame rather than solve... and he's blaming and alienating the wrong people. Enough already.

then we lose Lincoln, Kennedy, and Obama. And yes, I consider all of them genius. I consider David Hogg talented, don't know enough yet to evaluate genius. I certainly wouldn't want to evaluate Lincoln, Kennedy, and Obama's careers based on what they had done at David Hogg's age.

Building coalitions and campaigning. So, I strongly disagree with this assessment assumption.

I worry for you almost every time I read one of your posts. I hope you don't have high blood pressure.



❤️

Great idea coach

...not a past rife with now useless political connections.

He has a lot of.ecperience as an activist.

Fortunately, the party leaders who endorsed him (Ted Kennedy) and the people who voted for him were able to recognize and embrace his talent, ability, and leadership.

Hogg is not running for President of the US. He is not running for the top leadership position in the Dem party. He is running for a secondary position where he can contribute his intelligence, communications skills and contacts, and ability to recruit younger people while simultaneously gaining more experience.

You do not know how the 2008 election, and subsequent elections, would have turned out if Hillary had won the primaries in 2008.

I remember noticing that, in the primaries, Hillary was more uncomfortable about dealing with sexist propaganda than Obama was about dealing with racism. If that was a problem in the primaries, how would it have played out in the general election?

Hillary, through no fault of her own, had been demonized by the right long before she ran for president. She went into the 2008 election with both the demonization negative and sexism working against her. Her vote in support of invading Iraq also worked against her among several Dem voters.

I liked Hillary. I met her and briefly talked with her during her first run for Senator in NY. I voted for her then and in her re-election. i also voted for her in the 2016 primary and general election.

But, although I am a woman, and supported Hillary's Senatorial elections here in NY, I voted for Obama in the 2008 primaries and general election because I believed that he had a better chance of winning the general and because I saw confidence and strong leadership qualities the first time I heard him speak. I read up on him, bought his book, The Audacity of Hope, and volunteered on his campaign doing phone banking and door to door visits in PA (my home state and not far from me in NY).

I strongly supported Hillary in 2016. If not for election interference from Russia and from Comey, she would have won. She would have been an excellent president.

But your scenario of how 2008 and subsequent elections would have turned out if she had been the Dem candidate in the 2008 general election is just fantasy speculation.

I am a big believer in Democratic and Republican year cycles. While others look past it, I don't. 2008 was a huge Democratic cycle, and in our timeline, 2016 was a huge Republican one. I think either would have been won by their respective Parties no matter which candidate was chosen.

In 2008, especially with Bush's approval in the toilet, nearly any Democrat could have won. This would be especially true given that John McCain and Sarah Palin were not generational candidates.

In our timeline, 2016 a heavy Republican year, after 8 years of one-Party rule. However, Trump was so bad that he almost lost anyway. Jeb Bush or another Republican would have won by much wider margins.

But of course you are right, there's no way to tell. Maybe I'm wrong and we would have had President Romney in 2012. Still better than what we have now I guess.

Republicans were unlikely to win in 2008 just as Democrats were unlikely to do so in 2016

I think she would have won because, by the time of the general election, the economy not Iraq was the main issue. Even if Iraq remained the top issue, the tide was turning on that and I doubt McCain would adopt a less prowar position. It may be that 2008 was the most likely for Democrats to win since 1996.

It's impossible to even guess what that term would be like. But you need to go back to FDR to have a party win 4 times in a row.

But I do still think we would have eventually gotten 8 years of Obama, with him being a generational candidate. Even if he waited until 2020 or 2024 that would have been ok. He's still far younger than the two Presidents that followed him.

And we would be preparing for Nikki Haley or Gavin Newsom to take office.

and get some leadership willing to take bold steps to move this party forward. This guy's got it. He could not possibly be worse than the leadership we've had at the DNC.

for being in leadership? 70? 80? Older?

Clearly the coach sees something promising in him.

I'd like to know more about Ken Martin...

I'm 74 and I believe the party needs young talented people. Too many politicians have turned six year terms in office into life-long careers and have made the party stagnate. Time to get into the 21st century.

.....for their constituents and focus on getting rich or richer.

I watched him being interviewed, and was not impressed in the least. He wasn’t well spoken and definitely couldn’t think on his feet. Maybe he was just having a bad day?

Seems to me it was last summer. Based on my viewing habits it was more than likely on one of the big 3, Sunday morning shows. All I can remember for sure is, I was curious because I had heard the name. It seemed he was being pushed as a rising star. I remember looking him up on Wikipedia and it confirmed my memory of him being a survivor of a school shooting. I think that is correct. Anyway. My opinion was (and remains). That incident opened a lot of doors for him, and ended up putting him in shoes he didn’t fill. At least on that day. Just because someone is paddling in the same direction as I am, doesn’t mean they earn my deference.

Rec

But my preference is for Martin O'Malley!

David is a good candidate, but needs a bit more seasoning, IMO.

Then, I agree. This would be great experience for him!

the position under O'Malley.

Another poster already pointed that out to me!

It's my own fault for not reading beyond the headline!

Hogg would be great as vice-chair, IMO!

...and Thank You again, Governor Walz, you're one of our better moderate Democrats.

Damn shame we don't have Walz as our VP.

These are the types of changes the Democrats desperately needs.

Sounds like a great chance for him to be mentored for future endeavors.

impressive advocate against gun violence and can connect to the younger generation.

He's very intelligent and has common sense. He would be able to pull in more young people into the democratic party. That's what we need. 👍💙💙💙

"Vice chair" is only junior to chair. Come on, you know that and you know what I meant.

Someone else will be the chair and leader of the party. Hogg would contribute good skills in reaching and recruiting young people, which the party needs. He has media and organizing skills. As vice chair, he would contribute in areas where we need to strengthen support and at the same time gain more experience which would make him a future leader.

...professional meaning.

Last edited Mon Jan 13, 2025, 05:17 PM - Edit history (1)

...meant

People like him tend to divide and disrupt with no clear purpose in mind, or with lofty unrealistic goals that would put things into a tailspin. Or just spinning wheels, going nowhere, and making zero progress and zero improvements. Hogg is the type of person who can create a laundry list of "everything that's wrong with the party" but can't put together a plan to "fix" everything that he thinks is wrong. His angry temperament, and his ageism and insults only only serve to alienate people. He fosters resentment rather than cooperation. I don't like him. His talents (such as they are) would be put to better use elsewhere.

two different people with the same name.

Hogg is intelligent, well educated (Harvard) committed to principles, experienced at dealing with harassment by RW nut jobs (MTG) and remaining cool and controlled in the process.
.
Regarding plans, he has well-developed plans on gun control and follows through on them by organizing and leading people, especially young people, on political awareness of gun issues, voting records of politicians. He has met with lawmakers to discuss and negotiate on issues. He is aligned with Dem values.

He continues his work in the face of numerous death threats. He shows courage.

Hogg has the leadership skills and experience in recruiting and organizing young people that we need. As vice chair he would contribute his existing skills while gaining experience to add to them and give back to the party in the future.

We need to mentor principled young people like Hogg to lead us in the future.

I appreciate your advocacy for David Hogg, particularly his dedication to the cause of gun control. While his commitment is admirable, the role of Vice-Chair demands a comprehensive understanding of diverse issues and effective leadership across a broad spectrum of viewpoints.

It's crucial for a Vice-Chair to possess a well-rounded skill set and temperament that extends beyond a singular focus. Perhaps Hogg could benefit from gaining experience and showcasing his capabilities in other capacities before assuming such a significant position. It might be prudent for him to refine his approach and demonstrate a more comprehensive leadership style in other roles before assuming a role of this magnitude.

While his courage in confronting death threats and harassment is commendable, it is essential to recognize that possessing such qualities does not automatically translate into the requisite leadership skills and demeanor needed for success in the role of DNC Vice Chair.

Conrad, Michelle Deatrick, Aisha Dew, Kalyn Free, Adam Frisch, David Hogg, Chris Jones, Malcolm Kenyatta, Joe Paolino, Jeanna Repass and James Zogby

https://www.demlist.com/demdaily-dnc-leadership-race-the-contenders/

Waikinya Clanton
Michelle Deatrick
David Hogg
Malcolm Kenyatta
James Zogby

But really they are all good choices

I have hopes for a directional change for the DNC but the Chair is going to matter greatly. James Skoufis made the most vocal criticisms of the party and how things have been done previously which makes him interesting but probably controversial. With Schumer backing Winkler and Walz backing Ken Martin we will have to see…

We need the new blood.

He has good energy on social media and is one of the bright young minds of his generation. We lost a lot of energy and votes in that demographic. We need to think about why and I think having him as one of the vice chairs would be a good strategic move.

Like they have every fucking election? Yeah, OK. Next argument?

to turn the stove off.

There's plenty of room for Hogg, but that's a role he's not ready for yet. Find something else for him and develop.

especially from Ben Wickler. New blood is good.

to find a way to get more young people involved in the Party if we are going to win in the future.

A majority of people under 40 vote heavily Democratic, those 40 to 60 it's about equal, and those above 60 heavily Republican. But even more than that is Boomers numbers are declining every year and Millennials and Gen X is growing mainly through immigration and naturalization.

If we are to ever turn this train around we have to get young people to the polls. To do that the party has to be more progressive - we have to focus on the priorities that affect the next generation - Inequality, Climate Change, Meaningless wars, Housing, Quality Education, Job market disruption due to automation.

IMO, the reason the GOP has been successful of late is they have captured the public with the culture wars and phony religious BS not by fixing anything but by grievance.

Get young people to the polls and we will win every election - it is almost a 50-50 split of late, just imagine if young people voted at higher rates.

Our party is plenty progressive. What we're battling is gerrymandering, voter intimidation, corrupt election officials, and people like ones I see often online who take great pleasure in shitting on the Democratic party and doing their own little bit of voter suppression by pretending that the Democrats do not care about climate change, women's issues, lgbtq issues, civil rights (clearly never having actually read the Democratic platform or actually paid attention to the record of our party's nominees.)

Just imagine if people were willing to vote for the BEST candidate rather than sitting at home and twiddling their thumbs and pouting because they couldn't have what they fantasize to be the PERFECT candidate. Just imagine.

Education? Self-interest? Younger candidates? Any idea? We can't control the media as voters.

To people like me and you and most people on DU the choice is clear, but that does not represent the folks that don't take make the effort to vote. This last election is devastating because the person who clearly is a pathological liar, a serial adulterer who bragged about sexual assaults, was an outspoken racist won - they beat us.

What is the answer?

It still bows before corporate donors, it supports Israel with arms against Palestinians, it doesn’t fight when Repukes steal our SCOTUS seats and elections, not even when an insurrection happens. We are too polite to be progressive. Courts are failing us. And leadership is 60+ - the demographic that mostly votes Republican. There needs to be a radical shift in the party, and a good place to start is with young progressives.

Spare me that bullshit, please.

Nobody is claiming that the Democratic party is perfect, but it serves no good purpose to ignore the party's record on progressive issues and "throw the baby out with the bathwater" for some fantasy of getting rid of "the old folks" and replacing everyone with fresh-faced and inexperienced folks who have NEVER run for or been elected to a partisan public office. It would be a bloodbath of lambs going to the GOP slaughterhouse.

In the real world, you must learn to take the bad with the good, and the imperfect with the good-enough-for-now (as long as we're making progress).

I hear many complaints, but never any solutions. In addition to the "all or nothing" political philosophy (which always ends up with our side getting NOTHING) we must contend with the "burn it all down and start over" folks who are more intent in destroying and sabotaging the party rather than making it better. I get the feeling that the internet complainers all attended the Nina Turner School of Politics and Diplomacy.

I'll close by repeating my hope that things would improve if people were willing to vote for the BEST candidate rather than sitting at home and twiddling their thumbs and pouting and "protesting" because they couldn't have what they fantasize to be the PERFECT candidate.

I’m a Boomer who’s not obsessed with my own generation. And I see room for growth in the party by moving TRULY left, and raising up young leaders. What was it Einstein said? You can’t solve problems with the same mindset that created them. It’s past time to stop the mindset that the only effective way to lead is to be old and have years of experience with the processes that have caused voters to reject us. It’s madness. It’s holding onto entrenched authority as if Democracy was inflexible and passé. In order to survive, we need to stop this ageist thinking that the only good leaders are old leaders. I mean, weren’t Boomers famous for saying never trust anyone over 30? Now it seems there’s a whole swath of Boomers whose motto is never trust anyone under 50.

Hogg has shown that he simply does not have the temperament for such an important, high level, high visibility job. He has never won an elected office (much less RUN for one). He spends his time shitting on Democrats and blaming Democrats for every one of his medley of issue. Rather than attacking and laying the blame where it belongs and where it's deserved.

Feel free to chat all you want about age issues, new-guard vs old-guard, etc etc. That's a different argument and this isn't about that. It's foolish to allow someone like Hogg to be swept into a party leadership and "gifted" the role simply because a group of malcontents thing that the party is "too old" and that "youth will be our savior" (ie: loving youth for its own sake, with no regard to one's suitability, experience, demeanor, coalition building skills, listening skills, etc.) It's irresponsible to shield his shortcomings, inexperience and personality flaws by continually "blaming his youth" or accusing his detractors of not liking him simply because he's young.

No, that's not it at all. I don't like him because he's a jerk and an asshole. We don't need people with acidic personalities like that in party party leadership roles. We certainly do not need someone to be instantly elevated to such a lofty position IN SPITE of his shortcomings rather than because of anything worthy he brings to the table (aside from "youth" and little else).

Let him prove his mettle elsewhere. I'm sure his fan club and other acolytes would be delighted to help him to run for public office so that he can earn his stripes and prove his worth. He may discover that being a good leader involves more than just reciting a laundry list of complaints without offering any sort of realistic solutions. And burning it all down is not a solution.

Obama, Biden, Harris administrations not diverse, dynamic, courageous, all old out-of-touch elites ignoring Americans? What planet are people living on? Push that propaganda! Pretend it's constructive criticism when it's fiction only used to bash Democrats.

Upon banning, please be sure to complete our quick survey to let us know how we're doing.

I don't know what you get out of coming here to write posts, just to have them deleted in less than 5 minutes.

* angry and divisive demeanor. For several years, I've been hearing "oh, he'll grow out of it" and "oh, he's young" and "oh, he just lost friends in a shooting" and "oh, he'll learn how to focus his anger" and "oh, eventually he'll learn how to build teams and partnerships rather than being divisive and alienating/insulting everyone that he needs to be successful" --- but none of those things have happened.

The negative traits that his fan-club were trying to excuse by blaming his age have not diminished or softened. He has not smoothed off the rough edges. He's no "diamond in the rough". This is who he is.

I believe his future will probably be as a youtube pundit or some podcaster who snipes at Democrats and never misses an opportunity to shit on the Democratic party and insult Democratic leadership (rather than attacking the Republicans who actually deserve it.)

He can use his constitutional right to free speech to try and inflict as much damage as he wants to (upon Democrats, since he does indeed see Democrats as his "enemy&quot but let him engage in that destructive behavior from the OUTSIDE. There's no need to allow him to come inside to do his damage.

I mean, on what planet does Trump get elected a second time with nearly unbeatable support of the other two branches? That would be the planet in which Democrats have told progressives to stfu and sit down because the grownups are talking. For 30 years.

Democrats and 'progressives' are often viewed as interconnected or aligned in many contexts. These terms are closely intertwined or aligned within the political landscape. While Democrats constitute a political party with a broad spectrum of ideologies and members, 'progressives' typically represent a subset within the party.

I can assure you that the "progressive" politics of Vermont will not win elections in the midwest. Democrats are NOT a homogeneous group or political party. Blaming our party's shortcomings and failures on the ineffectiveness of "progressives" to rule the roost is a mistake. Blaming it on the age of our experienced politicians and statesmen/women is also a mistake.

It takes a village. The "progressive" wing of the Democratic party is not going to "take over" the party and they're not going to be gifted positions which they have not earned. If it were a homogeneous Vermont-style political party, we would lose even more elections. That's not what you want, is it?

>> Seems to me we've damaged ourselves pretty badly internally.
Gee. Then why support someone who's only going to create more division? Weird, that.

That's what I hear when I read these kinds of posts.

However, I believe there may be a misinterpretation. It seems that a more thorough review, and paying closer attention to the actual message might be beneficial in this context.

telling younger voters--including the largest bloc of potential voters, Millennials--that "Now is not the time" when it comes to progressive goals. As of 2022, the median age in the US was 38.5 years; the Democratic party will hemorrhage younger voters until its senior leaders somehow rid themselves of their gerontocracy fetish.

Hmmmm, and what do we have here?

co-sign. Excellent position for him to learn and grow, and then later lead. Go David!!🎉🤞🏾