Reported for an editorialized headline, please correct it or we’ll have to remove it:
“Hakeem Jeffries makes it clear he’ll stand by incumbent House Dems”
Nothing there about “progressives”. Subtitle makes it clear he’s opposing David Hogg’s single agenda candidates.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on Sunday pushed back on David Hogg’s effort to fund primary challengers against select Democrats in deep blue seats, arguing in favor of a more efficient allocation of party resources.
I mean this is the first line of the article where he’s saying he’s against progress
He can do whatever he wants. We have primaries for this very reason.
Progressives basically won control of the DNC. Did the old guard really think they were just going to get to sit there & do nothing?
Great, one more name on the list of “Dipshits who need to be voted out of power”. What a shame /s.
Primary Jeffries lol
Ah, yes. The corporate Democrat plan of doing absolutely nothing.
I saw David Hogg on one of the political shows this morning, and watched him defend himself from attacks by both Democrat (and ex-DNC chair) Donna Brazile and Republican Rinse & Repeat, and he came out on top. He wasn’t taking any shit from Rep traitors or weak-ass Dem weenies.
If they thought they were going to humiliate or intimidate him, they figured wrong. He’s not afraid of these old losers from either party. This guy survived a school massacre, and immediately started standing up for governmental change, all while he was a teenager. He’s got more courage than everyone on that stage combined.
He gained a LOT of supporters with that appearance. He needs to be on a lot more shows, and he should be touring with AOC and Bernie.
he will have to drop his gun control stances if he wants any chance of winning.
Uh, no? He’s already been elected to vice chair. In other words, means he won, dumbass.
No he won’t.
I love how weirdos on reddit and Lemmy act like gun control is an unpopular stance, when poll after poll shows that’s completely false. Whether you like it or not, most Americans in swing states want stronger gun control laws.
8 states didn’t adopt liberal concealed carry licensing policies since the early 00s. 42 states did.
Outside of those 8 states, 30 million people obtained licenses. The overwhelming majority in populous swing states. Their children grew up with armed parents. Their children are now of voting age.
The polls you’re talking about oversample the 8 blue states that didn’t adopt those policies. The DNC has utterly failed to recognize that the nation’s attitude on guns has shifted drastically over the past 25 years, especially in the swing states.
Which is exactly why states like Ohio and Florida have shifted from swing states to reliably red.
Ohio is reliably red because of stupid, easily influenced racists.
Source: Experience. I have co-workers who legitimately believe people were eating cats and dogs.
There’s no reason for guns to be treated with less scrutiny than cars.
Your conclusion doesn’t make much sense, does it? You’re saying that voters in Ohio and Florida are single issue voters, and that one issue is guns? I just don’t believe it. But if you have some data to support your claim, by all means.
Sanders? Too old now that biden is no longer in office.
AOC? Women suddenly can’t win because she’s seizing the moment.
Hogg? Not pro-school shooting enough.
There is always some excuse for why we can’t move to the left.
Hogg idolizes Pelosi and Clinton. He’s not progressive. He’s trying to turn an old corporatist party into a young corporatist party.
I don’t care. It’s time for the oldsters to go out to pasture, and let new blood flow through the party. The oldsters value smugness over winning, and all its done is allow the Nazis to rise again.
Replacing an “oldster” with a younger version of the same “oldster” is not an improvement. We’ll win one election cycle with that approach, and then it’s back to the Nazis.
We need actual progressives in office, not people who say “Yeah, that progressive policy would be nice, and you should vote for us because we agree that you think it’s nice, but we’re not going to actually do it.”
It is a huge improvement over entrenched fixtures who have been bought & paid for for decades.
And who says he isn’t progressive? I haven’t seen anything to indicate that he’s a corporatist neo-lib that currently controls the party.
Entrenching a new permanent fixture is not an improvement.
And who says he isn’t progressive?
He calls Nancy Pelosi a “fighter who is delivering”, rather than an architect of Democratic failures.
We don’t need a bunch of Nancy Juniors drawing on the walls of the Capitol.
I’m no big fan of Pelosi, but she was effective in blunting much of HitlerPig’s agenda in his first term, and she was a good partner with Obama. She did a better job than Jeffries is doing, and isn’t nearly as much to blame for Democratic ineffectiveness as that insipid scumbag Chuck Schumer. Its long past time for that backstabbing bitch to STFU & GTFO.
And one cautiously positive statement about an elder statesperson could easily be just a respectful nod, as would be expected from the vice-chair of the party. That’s called politics.
The reason that we have been taken over by Nazis is because Democrats are so willing to entirely reject those who could help the most, based on one phrase that they dont like. People aren’t perfect, and our candidates don’t have to be perfect. They just have to be better than Nazis. That should be easy, but Dems serm to prefer full-blown Nazis over a Dem candidate that is 90% of what they want. It makes no sense at all.
So you have exactly the same attitude and strategy as pelosi, you make excuses for her failures and the greater failures of the DNC, but we’re supposed to believe that you’re somehow different and that you’re actually winning against the Nazis?
How fucking stupid do you think we are? Trump beat you DNC lovers TWICE. You are garbage and we’re done with your weak, lying, fascist-enabling bullshit. If you want to chase fascists over progressives then go join the GOP. We’re done with being the scapegoats for YOUR failures.
You just have to listen to his “status quo” interviews to see where Jeffries falls. The one he did with Jon Stewart on his Weekly Show podcast … I was just disgusted. And disgusted Jon didn’t come down on him like a sack of hammers. I love Jon but that was sad.
All the interviews Stewart has done were so good and that one infuriated me the most. He really did try and push on him a little but the guy repeatedly avoided saying anything that wasn’t on message and totally useless. Just really pathetic.
I liked pretty much all the guests he has had on but I genuinely came away hating Jeffries. Dude either doesn’t get it or just doesn’t care. Just absolutely infuriating.
Idk, he comes off as too conciliatory so often. He had a guy on a few weeks ago, deep libertarian, and Jon really didn’t do much but agree with his points.
I don’t expect him to be a table-thumping communist in these interviews, but he has an audience that are there because of his views, and letting guests off the hook is something he should save for the TV show, this podcast promises to be (and usually is) more serious about being a political outlet.
When he gets someone on that he agrees with, like Ezra Klein, they get all fired up together and I really enjoy those discussions. I wish he’d get fired up with these Democrats that push the status quo and rip them new assholes.
Yeah, I was quite literally shouting in the car by myself listening to that one. Felt like he was saying the quiet part out loud, they just want people to feel like they’re doing something good, and whatever they actually accomplish doesn’t matter.
Republicans: Democrats are all radical leftists!
Democrats: Fuck the left, we’re all centrist Republicans!
The left: well fuck me I guess. No representation but all the blame…
No representation but all the blame…
Great way of putting it.
Clearly the answer to the dems problems is to push out progressives, bring republicans into the party, and continue supporting genocide. Why has no one thought of this before? Lets try it and see what happens.
I think most Democratic voters are going to associate Israel with Trump, given who their regime has been very vocally supporting. Democratic politicians need to get serious about this issue. Not that I actually expect them to.
Democratic politicians need to get serious about this issue.
Oh they have. They have been serious all along. In favor of netanyahu.
I knew he was just doing the fillibuster for fame…
It wasn’t even a filibuster. There was no bill on the floor to be delayed by him. He was just running his mouth to hear his own voice.
That’s not Booker. Also the house doesn’t do filibusters, it operates on straight majorities.
We deserve whatever is coming to us…. The iceberg is right there and we are full steam into it while we can clearly see it.
Choose another path… Nah. It’ll be fine…. 🤞
“We cannot just be the party that is against Donald Trump,” Hogg said. “We have to be a party that doesn’t have a 27 percent approval rating from our own base. That is not a survivable future. And the way that we change that is making sure that we have some different characters.”
Please do!
He’s not much better of a leader than Schumer, might even be worse in some ways - for one, he’s miserable at communicating to the public. We need a lot better from dem leadership.
At least chuck has the excuse of age, even though he’s always been awful.
Jeffrey wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for Nancy
We’ve tried nothing and we’re fresh out of ideas, he says while defunding new ideas.
The title is not supported by the article at all. Here’s the entirety of its quote from Jeffries:
“Here’s the thing,” Jeffries told Jonathan Karl on ABC’s “This Week.” “I’m gonna really focus on trying to defeat Republican incumbents so we can take back control of the House of Representatives and begin the process of ending this national nightmare that’s being visited upon us by far-right extremism.”
It’s at best dodging the question. I assume Jeffries will support his incumbents and isn’t a friend to progressives in general, but this statement isn’t making clear anything.
He just opposed a plan to put money behind progressive candidates.
Progressive candidates in safe seats would allow them a platform to spread progressive messaging, showing americans that the Dems can offer a platform to get excited about, without sacrificing their ability to tack right in specific electorates where that’s tactically sound.
There are seats where the realistic choice is a fascist or a conservative dem. Focusing funds to those battles ensures the democratic party stays conservative, fails to offer a meaningful alternative, and fails to avert fascism.
There are seats where the realistic choice is a fascist or a conservative dem.
To hear centrists talk about it, this is all seats.
“He opposed” as in subtly redirecting the conversation to the preferred narrative of the opposition. He didn’t even say that money shouldn’t be spent, just that he was focused on the battleground seats. Which is barely a bullet point in a daily political activity summary, but became a whole story with a clickbait headline because news is about clicks, not importance.
