Which also pays him a large salary. Ultimately the source is less important than the fact that he is breaking a neutrality agreement, and trying to use his position to primary dems he doesn’t approve of. If he wants to do this, he should resign and do it on his own time.

David Hogg-run group announces $20M initiative to support primary challengers to House Democrats

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/david-hogg-run-group-announces-20m-initiative-support/story?id=120861846

of a congressman. And that’s just to complain about Democrats. No wonder he’d rather grift than run for office.

Books, PACs, as long as you whip everyone up to hate Democrats and buy what you're selling!

messaging — complaining about Democrats. “They’re pissed at me.” Gawd forbid that his messaging would piss off Republicans instead.

I couldn’t block him fast enough. Not helpful, not interested.

I find these emails and texts to be sad.

absurd. Look what his generation has already lost and he doesn’t realize what’s been thrown away.

The Justice Democrats and the Hogg emails are really sad because it is clear they do not like the existing Democratic Party and to remake the party with their clones/chosen candidates. I like the existing Democratic Party and see no need to remake the party just to make some people who have not worked inside the party happy

and they have nothing to show for it except dragging our party down and it is sad to see.

For what, not the good of the country. Very very sad.

According to one link I found. I found for dnc, all have pretty high salaries.

His current was close to $600,000 from what I could tell from the tweets about his organization that have been posted here.

It was way more than a congressman’s compensation, and a glaring double standard if he wants to put himself in a position to call others corrupt.

I first researched this a while back, and then checked again recently about the pac. It looks like he is getting 200k from the pac,

his organization, which had some donors listed and some very whiny, unprofessional messaging. I think it was in a post from LetMyPeopleVote. I am curious to find it again to check that so I’ll look for it asap.

string of tweets in the OP. I’m on my phone which doesn’t show the thread authors, but I see it as I reopened this thread title.

It looks like the salaries are $608,000, but it says for “2 founders.” ?? That’s still way more than a congressman’s salary.

It looks like he is paid 200k for the salary from the pac which would make it equivalent to a cp salary. But I think it is a lot for a pac. I have read about salaries for various pacs/charities etc. but not recently, and I can't remember if this is atypical or not. For instance, one of the famous pet charities that advertises heart wrenching tv ads all the time was found to spend more money on ads and fundraising than on helping the cats/dogs etc.

Hogg has the Institutionist Dems running scared. Good for him.

Btw what’s wrong with giving Democratic voters more choice. Ultimately it comes down to the voters to decide, if they are given a choice of candidates.

Last edited Fri Apr 25, 2025, 12:02 PM - Edit history (1)

a majority in the House or Senate. What should be done is going after rethugs in purple districts, or in blue districts Biden won.

Getting the majority to be able to get bills to the floor and passed is WHAT'S IMPORTANT. Subbing one Dem for one Hogg prefers is get us nowhere.

It's not complicated.

Hogg is turning out to be a disappointment but he makes sure he feathers his own nest with nice. hefty salary.

Again, a disappointment.

which many are committed to repeating ad infinitum.

Out of power.

Why don't you get that? We have to defeat republicans, not other Dems SO WE GET THE MAJORITY and then are able get control of bills to the floor and pass them. Also we stop rethugs from controlling the House and giving trump what he wants.

Not that complicated.

That is what continues with the status quo. Why do you think keeping older Democrats in office when the public wants new blood is going to turn out better than 2024? You've given no reason as to why the status quo gets us anything better than 2024,

Defeat magat republicans, not Democrats. Not complicated. Getting the majority is the whole point.

Any Democrat will lose so why bother? That's what it sounds like. Again, you haven't given a single reason why repeating the status quo will result in anything different from 2024. You also haven't explained how introducing some new Democrats won't help, other than new Democrats won't do any better than the existing ones. How about primarying the ones who don't stand up to fascism? Is that an anathema to you too? Are you suggesting elected Democrats deserve a seat for life? I recalled these arguments being used against AOC, despite the fact it was a safe Democratic seat. People just couldn't bear a change.

I can name 2 younger senators Sinema who helped to destroy some of Bidens agenda and Fetterman who slobbers all over trump . New blood that is self serving only helps republicans. Wanting something new and shiny will not fix our problems. Only hard work and vetting the best candidate for the job no matter where they land on the age spectrum will fix our country.

While someone new isn’t of itself necessarily an improvement, if they take a seat from a Democrat who won’t stand up to fascism, it is. Elections are meant to be democratic. We do not have a House of Lords: the notion that elected representatives should serve for life uncontested is undemocratic. The claim that a primary is the same as voting for a Republican is false. Of course we will all vote for the Democrats in the GE.

Fascism is the single issue of our time. Resisting it is all that matters.

What age do you and David (25) consider old and in the way? What is the cut off, 40 50 60?

gets us closer to a majority in the House in '26 than whatever it is you're going on about.

This site is about electing Dems, not primarying sitting Dems.

Again, gaining the majoority to stop trump is the priority. There's nothing hard to understand about that.

from what is politically called useful idiots.

Look at the California senate race with Katie Porter and Adam Schiff. She attacked a well-polling, dominant, popular Democrat for over a year with absolute nonsensical gibberish about corruption and all the other cool buzzwords they think they have to attack Democrats. It was not about giving voters a “choice.” It was about pushing a losing and failed narrative against our candidates. And they want DNC money for this…

The democrats in congress now aren't standing up to Trump they way they should be. They should all be up in arms instead of doing nothing. They aren't serving their constituents by doing that. We need some strong people running the show, not people who 'may' send a slightly strongly worded letter about things.
We need some fresh blood in congress that will actually fight for us. Those who refuse need to move on.

Last edited Sun Apr 27, 2025, 02:13 AM - Edit history (1)

to fuck up the economy and our democracy.

Just a reminder: the GOP has control of both houses of Congress right now. Please tell me what Democrats are supposed to do when Republicans control everything, including which legislation even gets voted on?

I see a lot of Democrats opposing fascism in a variety of ways rightnow, including holding town halls in red districts where the sitting reps won't even show their faces to their constituents. Seems to me we could accomplish a lot more by concentrating on getting a Dem on the ballot in every one of those districts and helping them run a successful campaign. Primarying current successful Dem office holders is just putting their seats at risk of being snapped up by Repugs.

I see it as a matter of priorities, and I personally think making an effort to flip red seats to blue in districts where we know voters are unhappy with their GOP reps is a a much higher priority than than primarying Dems who already hold "safe" seats. I think we need to build on our existing successes, instead of jeopardizing them!

A democrat primary against a democrat in a blue district means a democrat wins.

What would risk the overall control of congress would be the DNC spending lots of money defending the established democrat in this case instead of spending those funds in close democrat vs republican districts.

Last edited Sun Apr 27, 2025, 04:46 AM - Edit history (1)

against REPUBLICAN candidates in purple districts or those in blue district who managed to win. If successful, it helps us get closer to taking back the majority in the House so we chair committees and control what bills get to the floor. Thqt should be the priority, not pushing out sitting Dems who have proven they can win.

Does that follow? See post 86 also.

Winning in a blue district is a low bar.

Last edited Sun Apr 27, 2025, 04:41 AM - Edit history (1)

Gaining the House majority is the point so we Dems chair the committees and what bills get to the floor. Also we get the Speakership away from that invertebrate Johnson who is just a sop for trump.

And btw, the New Jersey governor, a Democrat, replaced Melendez with a Democrat.

We hope in this case a better democrat. The same is true when we primary any democrat.

with someone a 25-year-old, unproven DNC vice-chair thinks may beat a republican is another thing all together.

That point is worth repeating again...primarying a proven, sitting Democrat with someone who might beat a republican is chancy when trump and the republicans are trying to install fascism to replace our democracy.

Call me crazy but IMO gaining back the House majority to help thwart trump and fascism is more important than following an unproven DNC vice-chair and his PAC money to unseat sitting Dems...and BTW, that vice-chair pays himself a hefty, six-figure salary with that PAC money on top of his DNC salary, and expenses of the PAC far outnumbers the money it spends on it's unproven candidates.

Seems the unproven DNC vice-chair should resign from the DNC immediately and follow his dream instead of uning the DNC's name and resources to replace sitting Dems with someone who might win against republicans.

I think I'd pass on that and concentrate on gaining the House majorty to thwart trump and looming fascism.

100%

(2) People like David Hogg have been critical in the past of even mere ALLEGATIONS of the same sort of biased influence he is now himself trying to exert as a DNC leader. It's insanely hypocritical.

(3) Who the hell is David Hogg to foist a candidate upon voters? There is nothing precluding anyone from running in Democratic primaries -- hell, given some of our recent ones, you don't even need to be a Democrat... *cough cough*

Just because David Hogg doesn't approve of the job that someone is doing doesn't mean their ACTUAL CONSTITUENTS think the same. And -- as we've seen with Sinema and now it looks like Fetterman is next -- when someone's constituents turn on them, the voters know how to get rid of them. They don't need a random 20-something-year-old telling them who they should vote for instead.

"Institutionist Dems"

Thank you in advance.

vibe that "anti-establishment" has. I don't think "Institutionist Dems" is going to happen.

Also too, Cenk and his '60s band-PAC The Super-Populist Rebellions aren't pretending to be democratic socialists anymore. They finally gave up on making that happen (now that nobody running for president has to pretend FDR/LBJ were democratic socialists so the only true Democrat must be a socialist, too). Now they're admitting to being capitalists by calling themselves progressive capitalists.

I'll wait.

Good enough evidence to replace the whole party.

What a nightmare.

Please show us this list

nm

A PAC that raised $11.9 million last election cycle, while only spending $266,000 on candidates while paying each "founder" a salary of $304,000

The man's salary was more than they distributed to candidates, but you're OK with it because "he's (not) the only one"? That really says more about you than anything else.

But since you are sure he's not the only one, please name another Super PAC where they only distributed 2.2% to candidates while paying each "founder" more they distributed to all candidates

Last edited Sun Apr 27, 2025, 02:57 AM - Edit history (1)

running for office around the country. Helping Dem candidates set up offices, get literature printed, hire staff, compiled email lists, web sites social media...the things candidates need.

Again, DNC staffers, ESPECIALLY THE VICE-CHAIR, are supposed to remain neutral, work to help all the candidates...progressives, center-left, moderates etc. Not favor ones he prefers and use Dem email lists to help his preferred candidates.

If he wants to help his preferred candidates with his PAC money, he should resign from the DNC immediately and do that. And btw, use the PAC money for candidates and not expenses and his big salary.

Do you understand?

DNC Chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz Stepping Aside in Wake of Scandal

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-conventions/democratic-national-committee-chief-stepping-aside-after-convention-n615826

Do you understand? 😂🤣😜

Last edited Sun Apr 27, 2025, 06:04 PM - Edit history (1)

I noticed you didn't mention the jobs the DNC did for Obama in '08 and '12, and two Clinton victories in the '90s.

Some of us aren't so gullible.

But carry one.

Maybe he's found his calling.

I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that it's easier for a politician to regularly and repeatedly return to the money-well if they promise to "split" the donation with some other group, cause or candidate. I guess that way, it kinda sounds altruistic. Maybe it has a psychological effect by making them appear to be less greedy since they're only keeping half for themselves. Apparently this is an effective and efficient way to encourage the donor is to loosen their purse strings, yet again. (Nice work if you can get it.)

...the knives are out for David. Guess that's what happens when you piss off those in power.

I'm sure there's a whole group of people looking for dirt on him now.

Same old circular DNC firing squad.

We're only hurting ourselves doing this.

I heard him out during several interviews on TV. His plan doesn't sound that crazy to me.

Isn't there a rule on here against disparaging fellow Dems?

Again with this shit?

And people are wondering what would be wrong with pissing off Republicans instead.

and saw that you already posted exactly what I was going to say.

Hey, Nixie

Your posts always mirror my exact thoughts, too. It’s just a very palpable misinformation campaign that we recognize, it seems. So unnecessary. Sigh.

Nice to see you!

But there are multitudes of people in higher positions than David.

anti-establishment he's anti-himself. Complicated! And no more using elite as an insult for Democrats because if he's not elite... Young, powerful, wealthy -- use it to fight the real enemy, Republicans!

Insist that it's just little tiny itty bitty $27 donations (still pure even if the legal limit is reached by donating numerous times, but if a Democrat receives the legal limit all at once it's an immoral corrupting bribe from Satan).

If he's using a DNC contact list, doesn't it have Establishment cooties?

laws regulating Wall Street. No. They gave their money to Mitt Romney next election, why Michael Moore predicted Mitt would win, because he had more money. So what? You just fundraise elsewhere. Money doesn't guarantee winning, it can't force anyone to vote a certain way.

Campaign finance reform is a Democratic issue and all candidates ran on it.

What Democrats changed policy because of campaign contributions? Who?

Democrats don't listen because of lobster and champagne.

and actually win elections?

He’s in his 70’s should we primary him, he also brings in money to help his district. Let’s try and run a clear headed campaign to get rid of trump , not some knee jerk magic potion. Young does not mean good old does not mean bad.
We need competent leadership and don’t give a fig about age.

Which you well know.

This discussion about new blood only seems to discriminate because of age and time in congress.
I would appreciate who he feels should be primaried ,list please or is it left up to him to decide who our candidates should be.

Disappointing.

Interview that I wish I knew how to pull up. Texas Towelie posted it but it’s on YouTube, too. If you watch it, I don’t believe you will walk away with the same opinion you’ve just posted here.

only $266,000 was spent on campaigns.

That is grift, pure and simple.

I haven't donated a red cent to anyone since the election.

I'm hunkering down now and trying to save money.

Good thing is that he's used to dealing with that.

The DNC neutrality policy is a direct result of the "rigged system" bullshit that Trump and his acolytes promulgated during the 2016 general election campaign. The DNC began putting the reforms in place in 2018.

The DNC remains neutral during primaries, and leadership endorses incumbents, all with the purpose of retaining seats and growing the caucuses. That's how it works, and Hogg knew it when he lobbied for and accepted his position in DNC leadership.

But primarying Dems is not dividing. It's the process.

Donald Trump's "rigged system" narrative has definitely been a problem, and Trump definitely started flogging that storyline in 2016.

Ever since, every time something does not go Trump's way, he bellows about about an apocryphal "rigged system".

Who does that?

The numbers on that organization are pure grift. Deal with it in your special way.

Maybe dig a little deeper.

These documents were filed with the FEC by Hogg's organization.

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/758/202406189649205758/202406189649205758.pdf

The link was in one of the tweets posted, but apparently you did not wish to read it.

for 2024 was a bit over $128,000 and according to open secrets Contributions to federal, state local and party campaigns was $2,448,724 or 27.08% and Administration costs were $610,980 or 6.76%. But that’s not fitting the narrative.

https://www.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?data_type=processed&committee_id=C00843110&recipient_name=hogg&two_year_transaction_period=2024]

https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/leaders-we-deserve/C00843110/expenditures/2024]

Lots of outrage based on a tweet!

I know it has only been 10 days since I filed.

When it was originally posted it was last month (May 2024)

getting David Hogg into office.

He's stated that he will run for Congress when he turns 25. I just don't know what seat he's going to try for.

I sure as hell wouldn't give them a penny and would find a better use for it like my local animal rescue group.

Good luck raising the $20 million he is proposing

And we all know if we saw a figure less sympathetic than Hogg doing this, that’s the word that would be used to describe this.

Another word to describe would be scam. Perhaps that’s harsh, so I’ll stick with grift.

Does anyone know what he is being paid by DNC? I know for sure that I and a friend both received emails from him last week asking for money. And neither of us ever signed up for the emails for that pac so they had to come from a DNC mailing list.

His PAC is named appropriately

Yes I was thinking that about the name too. 😹

In with the new? Yea right.

That's a critical question.
Also - that's unethical.

That's a pretty high overhead.