And the new Vice chair of the DNC is...drumroll... Activist David Hogg

[ThatRobGuy]

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/04/david-hogg-dnc-election-00202496

MSN

I guess with all of the other stuff happening in the political world, this quietly snuck in with little to no attention.

But could this be yet another blunder?

Is getting a young activist (who was a polarizing figure a few years ago) a case of Democrats doing "more of the same" thing that caused them to fall out of favor between 2022 and 2024?

This piece by politico seems to indicate that there's some who feel this move was a "high risk/low reward" move.

 

[Yttrium]

Is getting a young activist (who was a polarizing figure a few years ago) a case of Democrats doing "more of the same" thing that caused them to fall out of favor between 2022 and 2024?

His background seems to be a bit too focused on gun control, but I need to hear him say things before I start to form an opinion of him. I don't recall ever hearing about him before now.

 

[rambot]

Huh. He seems really young to be a vice chair.

He's been very outspoken on a single issue. I'm not sure why Dems would choose him other than what...popularity? Known figure?

I wouldn't go so far as to call this a "blunder".

Besides, I don't mind a blunder if the other options is poor policy and decisions.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

His background seems to be a bit too focused on gun control,

Gosh. I wonder why that is...

but I need to hear him say things before I start to form an opinion of him. I don't recall ever hearing about him before now.

I personally find this hard to believe, especially since you peruse the politics and news forums here on CF.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Huh. He seems really young to be a vice chair.

He's been very outspoken on a single issue. I'm not sure why Dems would choose him other than what...popularity? Known figure?

I wouldn't go so far as to call this a "blunder".

Besides, I don't mind a blunder if the other options is poor policy and decisions.

Not only is he still, as you said, quite young (he's only 24) and very single-threaded in terms of issue focus... but I don't know that the popularity angle even works that well anymore to be honest.

I could see the popularity angle if this was a few years ago, but his "15 minutes of fame" were largely over pre-Covid. (the event he was known for happened in 2018, and by the end of 2019, he was largely out of the media spotlight)

The analogy I'd use:
It'd be like getting the "Gangham Style" guy to perform his song at a Superbowl 6 years later.

The people who found that song super annoying still remember it (and not in a good way)

And the people who actually did like the "Gangham Style" fad have largely moved on to something else.


Sort of like the Politico article mentioned, it's risky, and with not much upside potential.

Republicans are going to pounce all over it.

And for the Democrats who liked what he had to say on the gun issue back then...they're off on other social crusades at the moment.

 

[Chesterton]

Hello, this is the suicide hotline. How can I help you?

Hello, this is the Democratic Party...

 

[stevil]

His background seems to be a bit too focused on gun control,

Is it possible to be too focused on gun control given all the gun deaths, mass shootings, school shootings etc going on in USA and nowhere else in the world.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Is it possible to be too focused on gun control given all the gun deaths, mass shootings, school shootings etc going on in USA and nowhere else in the world.

In a pragmatic public safety sense...no

But in a political strategy sense...yes

If guns have been supplanted as the "hot button topic" by other things, having a staunch anti-gun advocate (who the opposing team can dunk on anytime they please for cheap points) is a liability with very limited upside.

If you'll notice in the 2024 election, the topic of guns was rarely brought up. (and the few times it was, it was either Donald saying he'd defend them, or Kamala saying she'd shoot a home intruder with her Glock). Gun control just isn't a central focal point right now in the political sphere.

 

[stevil]

If guns have been supplanted as the "hot button topic" by other things, having a staunch anti-gun advocate (who the opposing team can dunk on anytime they please for cheap points) is a liability with very limited upside.

I don't know this guy nor his stances on things.
Is he "a staunch anti-gun advocate" or does he just want more gun control standards and safety standards than there are today in USA?

What would you consider "staunch anti-gun"?

Really I don't think it matters who the Dems pick for positions, the right wing are going to do a smear campaign on them, be it painting them as a Socialist or an anti gun person or a pro choice, or whatever. You are never going to get anyone that the right won't come up with something.

Being painted as a person who wants some gun control to try and reduce mass shootings and deaths by shooting in general, isn't actually a bad thing to be painted as.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't know this guy nor his stances on things.
Is he "a staunch anti-gun advocate" or does he just want more gun control standards and safety standards than there are today in USA?

What would you consider "staunch anti-gun"?

Really I don't think it matters who the Dems pick for positions, the right wing are going to do a smear campaign on them, be it painting them as a Socialist or an anti gun person or a pro choice, or whatever. You are never going to get anyone that the right won't come up with something.

Being painted as a person who wants some gun control to try and reduce mass shootings and deaths by shooting in general, isn't actually a bad thing to be painted as.

He was that (at the time) kid who was at the school during the Parkland shooting, and became the figurehead of "March for our Lives"

Some of their demands at the time were forming a national gun registry, instituting a national "gun buy-back" program, and having the Public health agencies designate gun violence as a "public health issue" so that they could have expanded powers to reduce gun circulation via "emergency orders"


To be fair, I don't think all of those ideas were his (nor the ideas of other high school kids that were part of that group), I would venture a guess and suggest that they were being "coached" by adults as far as what to "demand".


But nevertheless, he was a polarizing figure.



Where it's a strategic blunder (IMO) is in the aspect of, if the thing that turned people off to democrats was "they're kowtowing to the whims of a bunch of young college activists and just going with whatever they want", putting in a "young college activist" in a #2 spot in the organization seems like shooting themselves in the foot.


To use an inverse hypothetical, if Republicans had just gotten their clock cleaned in the polls in 2024, and everyone knew the reason was because "people are fed up with a bunch of uptight, fast-talking, corporatists talking over people", if the RNC selected Ben Shapiro to be their #2, any political strategist worth their salt would be raising their eyebrows at that selection and saying "hmmm...you really want to do more of the thing that's making people find you insufferable???"

 

[ozso]

 

[stevil]

To use an inverse hypothetical, if Republicans had just gotten their clock cleaned in the polls in 2024, and everyone knew the reason was because "people are fed up with a bunch of uptight, fast-talking, corporatists talking over people", if the RNC selected Ben Shapiro to be their #2, any political strategist worth their salt would be raising their eyebrows at that selection and saying "hmmm...you really want to do more of the thing that's making people find you insufferable???"

That's exactly what the Republicans (under Trump's leadership do).
In Trump's first term they appointed an oil lobbiest as the leader of the EPA, a lady who has never used public schooling and is promoting private schooling as the leader of the public education system. A white supremacist as the leader of immigration.

This time around they are appointing and anti vaxxer and the leader of the Health system, Trump nominated a guy that was alledged to have had sex with minors, done sex trafficing and drugs as the head of the DoJ.
This is just the tip of the iceberg.

I don't think the Democrats should be worried about supporting someone who has survived a school massacre and wants more gun control. Dems need to stand up for their values and stop worrying about offending the USA right. No matter who Dems pick, a smear will be done on that person. If they have some dirt it will be played up to be 100 times worse than it is, if they don't have dirt, they will just spread rumours, like Obama's birth certificate. Dems just need to not worry about things. One of Biden's failings is that he tried way too hard to work with the Republicans. If he took Trump's approach of just writting endless executive orders then he would have got much more done.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's exactly what the Republicans (under Trump's leadership do).
In Trump's first term they appointed an oil lobbiest as the leader of the EPA, a lady who has never used public schooling and is promoting private schooling as the leader of the public education system. A white supremacist as the leader of immigration.

This time around they are appointing and anti vaxxer and the leader of the Health system, Trump nominated a guy that was alledged to have had sex with minors, done sex trafficing and drugs as the head of the DoJ.
This is just the tip of the iceberg.

I don't think the Democrats should be worried about supporting someone who has survived a school massacre and wants more gun control.

Right, but my operative preface on that was "if Republicans had just gotten their clock cleaned in the polls in 2024"...

If republicans had just lost the last election by 90 electoral votes (and a couple million in the popular vote), and lost 4 Senate seats and had a couple of state governments flip back from blue to red... then it'd be perfectly valid to say "why are they trying the same thing that didn't work?"

The election results would indicate that there's a larger number of people put-off by the excesses of the left than by the excesses of the right at the current juncture.

And one of those excesses has been "let's listen to the kids and do whatever they think is cool"

Putting a 24 year old who survived a school shooting in 2018 in a "party strategist" position is doing exactly that, and making two key mistakes...

1) Conflating victimhood for expertise
2) Conflating passion for expertise


The same way I wouldn't put a member of D.A.R.E or MADD in change of marijuana or alcohol policy. They may be quite passionate about the subjects, but that doesn't confer any inherent expertise on the issues or lend itself to pragmatic policy making, as they're essentially echo chambers with tunnel vision.

Activism and political strategy are two different skillsets.

 

[stevil]

Right, but my operative preface on that was "if Republicans had just gotten their clock cleaned in the polls in 2024"...

If republicans had just lost the last election by 90 electoral votes (and a couple million in the popular vote), and lost 4 Senate seats and had a couple of state governments flip back from blue to red... then it'd be perfectly valid to say "why are they trying the same thing that didn't work?"

The election results would indicate that there's a larger number of people put-off by the excesses of the left than by the excesses of the right at the current juncture.

You're jumping to conclusions.
You don't know why the Dems lost the election.
I've heard part of it is because of the suppression initiatives the Republicans put in place between this election and the last.
I've also seen that many progressives didn't vote this time around. Like Ana Kasparian, she has said that she didn't vote for Kamala.

I think many people didn't vote for Dems because they were upset that USA was funding Israel in its demolition of Gaza, never mind that Trump is even worse for the Palestinians. Also many progressives were upset that the Dems didn't do a primary and just appointed Kamala. (the right wing campaign complaining about this worked). Also many left wing folk were feeling despondent about inflation and crime, even though the Dems had got control of inflation better than most countries and even though crime has gone very low. These people again listened to the propaganda of the right wing and believed the nonsense that it was spouting. And so they didn't feel enthusiastic to go to the election booths.

It wasn't because the left was going too far. That's just right wing nonsense.
They blame men in women sports globally, on the Dems, when in fact it is sporting bodies that decide who gets to compete, not the USA government. They blame Dems on post birth "abortions", which isn't a thing. They blame Dems for having a person of colour play the mermaid character in a Disney film, which is absurd.

The Democratic party are having a very tough time trying to get their message across to the public because the right wing media and social media are full of nonsense propaganda, and Democrat voters are much more likely to listen to the right and try to compromise than what right wing voters are. Right wing voters love attacks on the left, love them getting triggered. They don't seem to care if the messages are true or not, they just like the left getting all triggered. Where as the left are trying really hard to please the right. Trying really hard to see what the point of view of the right is and then to try and compromise and find some middle ground.

It was stupidity of the left voters that lost the Dems the election. Feeling that the Dems aren't doing enough rather than feeling that the left is going too far.

I also suspect that many USA folk are very opposed to having a woman as president. It seems Black in USA is a bit more palatable than Female.

And one of those excesses has been "let's listen to the kids and do whatever they think is cool"

LOL, kids saying they don't want school shootings no more equates to "whatever they think is cool"

 

[BPPLEE]

That should disqualify him

 

[stevil]

That should disqualify him

Yeah, he forgot to smile for the camera. Silly mistake there.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You're jumping to conclusions.
You don't know why the Dems lost the election.
I've heard part of it is because of the suppression initiatives the Republicans put in place between this election and the last.

Such as? (btw, the GOP made gains in almost every demographic that are normally DNC strongholds)

I think many people didn't vote for Dems because they were upset that USA was funding Israel in its demolition of Gaza, never mind that Trump is even worse for the Palestinians. Also many progressives were upset that the Dems didn't do a primary and just appointed Kamala. (the right wing campaign complaining about this worked). Also many left wing folk were feeling despondent about inflation and crime, even though the Dems had got control of inflation better than most countries and even though crime has gone very low. These people again listened to the propaganda of the right wing and believed the nonsense that it was spouting. And so they didn't feel enthusiastic to go to the election booths.

It wasn't because the left was going too far. That's just right wing nonsense.

There's a simple math exercise we can do to shed some light on that hypothesis...

If you had to give a ballpark estimate, which group has more people, farther-left progressives? or centrists?

A pew research poll indicated that only 12% of US voters consider themselves to be "Progressive Left".

Meanwhile, there's 38% identify as centrist/moderate.

So, if you look at the social issues and foreign policy and economic initiatives that are popular with each respective group.

Does trying to appeal to that 12% make sense if it comes with the potential risk of alienating a big chunk of that 38%?

The Democratic party are having a very tough time trying to get their message across to the public because the right wing media and social media are full of nonsense propaganda, and Democrat voters are much more likely to listen to the right and try to compromise than what right wing voters are.

That sounds like denial and scapegoating.

"The right wing media is causing it". That's a stretch.

If we look at the top 8 news outlets in the US

CNN
Fox News
MSNBC
CBS
ABC
NBC
Washington Post
New York Times


....so your theory is that because right wing news has 1/8th of the market share in the world of major-market news media, that's what did it?

So Democrats have 80% of the news media, most of academia and entertainment, in 2021-2023 run-up to election season, every social media outlet except one, and had tech companies helping censor right-wing viewpoints on their behalf.

....but they just "couldn't get their message across".

Sounds like a "them problem"

Seems like they have tool in the toolkit for getting across their message just fine, and maybe...just maybe, people have heard their message loud and clear and just really didn't like certain parts of it.

Are you even willing to admit at all that there's a possibility that there are certain aspects/policies within "progressivism" that simply just aren't that popular among 2/3 of the country?

 

[stevil]

Such as? (btw, the GOP made gains in almost every demographic that are normally DNC strongholds)

Trump got about 3 million votes more than last time.
The Dems got 6 million less than last time, less people were able to or were bothered to vote. 6 million is a small percentage (less than 10%) but was enough to lose the election.

There's a simple math exercise we can do to shed some light on that hypothesis...

If you had to give a ballpark estimate, which group has more people, farther-left progressives? or centrists?

A pew research poll indicated that only 12% of US voters consider themselves to be "Progressive Left".

The Dems got less than 10% less votes than last time.

Does trying to appeal to that 12% make sense if it comes with the potential risk of alienating a big chunk of that 38%?

Yes, they need to appeal to that group. There are lots of voters that don't swing, they already have them, but the ones that either swing or feel despondent and don't bother, they decide who wins the election.

That sounds like denial and scapegoating.

"The right wing media is causing it". That's a stretch.

That's not what I said.
I said people that were upset about Biden giving support to Israel in destroying Gaza.
People that bought into right-wing propaganda about inflation and crime.

I do think the right wing media is more aligned and more politically biased than mainstream media. More willing to spread unsubstantiated propaganda to influence the election. MSM just report on the news.

....so your theory is that because right wing news has 1/8th of the market share in the world of major-market news media, that's what did it?

That's not what I said.
It doesn't matter what market share there is.
Right wing voters are more focused on having a Republican in office, even if they don't like some of the things Trump does.
Left wing are more picky, and listen more to rightwing that what ringwing voters listen to mainstream media.

....but they just "couldn't get their message across".

While right wing media promote Republicans and put down Democrats at every chance.
Mainstream media don't do that. They don't promote that inflation was beaten under Biden, they don't promote that crime was down. They might mention it when its news worthy, but they don't promote and they don't lie like right wing politically biased media does.

Sounds like a "them problem"

The problem is that there were many Dem voters that were despondent, not because the Dems were going too far left, but because they weren't being left enough.

Are you even willing to admit at all that there's a possibility that there are certain aspects/policies within "progressivism" that simply just aren't that popular among 2/3 of the country?

Of course. I'm not a progressive, I don't follow to the nth degree what USA policies are, but of course not everyone in USA likes progressive policies.

 

[BPPLEE]

Trump got about 3 million votes more than last time.
The Dems got 6 million less than last time, less people were able to or were bothered to vote. 6 million is a small percentage (less than 10%) but was enough to lose the election.


The Dems got less than 10% less votes than last time.


Yes, they need to appeal to that group. There are lots of voters that don't swing, they already have them, but the ones that either swing or feel despondent and don't bother, they decide who wins the election.

That's not what I said.
I said people that were upset about Biden giving support to Israel in destroying Gaza.
People that bought into right-wing propaganda about inflation and crime.

I do think the right wing media is more aligned and more politically biased than mainstream media. More willing to spread unsubstantiated propaganda to influence the election. MSM just report on the news.


That's not what I said.
It doesn't matter what market share there is.
Right wing voters are more focused on having a Republican in office, even if they don't like some of the things Trump does.
Left wing are more picky, and listen more to rightwing that what ringwing voters listen to mainstream media.


While right wing media promote Republicans and put down Democrats at every chance.
Mainstream media don't do that. They don't promote that inflation was beaten under Biden, they don't promote that crime was down. They might mention it when its news worthy, but they don't promote and they don't lie like right wing politically biased media does.

The problem is that there were many Dem voters that were despondent, not because the Dems were going too far left, but because they weren't being left enough.

Of course. I'm not a progressive, I don't follow to the nth degree what USA policies are, but of course not everyone in USA likes progressive policies.

You've got a lot of misconceptions about the mainstream media. These are the people who tried to cover up the fact that Biden had cognitive issues for almost 4 years

 

[JSRG]

They blame Dems on post birth "abortions", which isn't a thing.

While the phrasing "post birth abortion" is perhaps not fully accurate, what they are talking about is. As was pointed out here (in a footnote)...

If I were Donald Trump, I would not have brought up that stuff about after-birth abortion in the debate last night, because nobody would believe me, because it’s just too unbelievable.

Nevertheless, Trump was telling the truth about this. The clip of Gov. Northam he referred to is here (defended here, criticized here). I wrote about abortion providers discussing it here. Democrats are absolutely united in their staunch opposition to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which Bill Clinton vetoed twice and which they tried very hard to get struck down at the Supreme Court (and which was saved by the conservative justices on a 5-4 vote). As a state senator, Barack Obama fought hard to prevent an Illinois bill to ensure that infants born alive were not left in closets to die of exposure, then lied about it a ton. California and Maryland have both proposed bills to roll back existing protections, ensuring that infants can be killed of exposure in hospital closets, as the progressive Moloch demands.