Last interview I heard with Hogg, he said that wasn't the plan. Only primarying Dems in safe Dem seats that don't more progressive or are ineffective. Like Scott in Georgia, for example. Trying to get "better Dems" and also generally younger Dems.
Last interview I heard with Hogg, he said that wasn't the plan. Only primarying Dems in safe Dem seats that don't more progressive or are ineffective. Like Scott in Georgia, for example. Trying to get "better Dems" and also generally younger Dems.
Exactly. The debate here is should he be doing that while serving as a vice chair for the DNC. I agree with what Hogg is going for but I also agree with Martin's call for neutrality in the DNC. But at the same time, it's really the DCCC and DSCC that should be pressured to stay neutral in primaries in open races. Both men are right to degrees in their arguments but it's a matter of technicalities. Now Hogg was the vice chair that didn't sign the pledge to stay neutral and the rules votes are coming up in August so my guess is Hogg is trying to make his case more public and demand the party really put pressure on all of it's members to be on Team Fight. However, I don't know yet what he hopes to achieve when it comes to the rules change votes. Martin also said he doesn't want to push Hogg out but he has to decide if he wants to run the Super PAC or stay on as vice chair. Under the current rules, what Hogg is doing doesn't violate anything as vice chair but that's ahead of any potential rules changes that take place in August. So he has a window of time to use it and he might just be doing that to raise money, field candidates and potentially find someone to run the Super PAC for him if he is faced with the decision to have to choose between one or the other. Personally, I think he should stay with the DNC and put someone in charge he can trust to run the PAC but maybe his PAC is only effective when he is the face of it.
I mean, why don't we have competitive primaries in every safe seat every cycle? I'm absolutely against legislative term limits, but you should have to actually prove yourself at the ballot box.
Yes, absolutely, no one should be guaranteed office, they need to earn it. On the flip side, that faction of the party should stop kicking and screaming and declaring everything "rigged" every time the voters reject them.
I agree. My impression of AOC and Pressley wasn't that they were whining about the establishment (yes, that's always part of running against an incumbent) as much as making a proactive case for themselves. If Hogg is capable of finding candidates like that, I'm ok with it.
I do think AOC and Pressley have handled themselves much better than others. The old man, not so much at times. Hogg needs to step down if he wants to play favorites.
That could also apply to primaries for Congress, or other offices. (And MAGAts of course do that every time voters reject them in the general election.)
Sure, but the argument is that the DNC shouldn't be the organization that tries to primary people out. Do members of Congress pay dues to the DNC or only the DCCC?
Last interview I heard with Hogg, he said that wasn't the plan. Only primarying Dems in safe Dem seats that don't more progressive or are ineffective. Like Scott in Georgia, for example. Trying to get "better Dems" and also generally younger Dems.
Exactly. The debate here is should he be doing that while serving as a vice chair for the DNC. I agree with what Hogg is going for but I also agree with Martin's call for neutrality in the DNC. But at the same time, it's really the DCCC and DSCC that should be pressured to stay neutral in primaries in open races. Both men are right to degrees in their arguments but it's a matter of technicalities. Now Hogg was the vice chair that didn't sign the pledge to stay neutral and the rules votes are coming up in August so my guess is Hogg is trying to make his case more public and demand the party really put pressure on all of it's members to be on Team Fight. However, I don't know yet what he hopes to achieve when it comes to the rules change votes. Martin also said he doesn't want to push Hogg out but he has to decide if he wants to run the Super PAC or stay on as vice chair. Under the current rules, what Hogg is doing doesn't violate anything as vice chair but that's ahead of any potential rules changes that take place in August. So he has a window of time to use it and he might just be doing that to raise money, field candidates and potentially find someone to run the Super PAC for him if he is faced with the decision to have to choose between one or the other. Personally, I think he should stay with the DNC and put someone in charge he can trust to run the PAC but maybe his PAC is only effective when he is the face of it.
I mean, why don't we have competitive primaries in every safe seat every cycle? I'm absolutely against legislative term limits, but you should have to actually prove yourself at the ballot box.
Yes, absolutely, no one should be guaranteed office, they need to earn it. On the flip side, that faction of the party should stop kicking and screaming and declaring everything "rigged" every time the voters reject them.
I agree. My impression of AOC and Pressley wasn't that they were whining about the establishment (yes, that's always part of running against an incumbent) as much as making a proactive case for themselves. If Hogg is capable of finding candidates like that, I'm ok with it.
I do think AOC and Pressley have handled themselves much better than others. The old man, not so much at times. Hogg needs to step down if he wants to play favorites.
Do you mean old men in Congress in general (I'd agree in some very notable cases), or was there someone in particular you were thinking of?
You're leaning into discussing the presidential primaries forbidden in this Substack.
That could also apply to primaries for Congress, or other offices. (And MAGAts of course do that every time voters reject them in the general election.)
"The old man, not so much at times."
That's an unclear reference. It could be a typo for "the old men."
Sure, but the argument is that the DNC shouldn't be the organization that tries to primary people out. Do members of Congress pay dues to the DNC or only the DCCC?