Though the original complaint which was filed was by the woman who didn’t get a chance to run because the process wasn’t followed. And it was filed in February- before Hogg started saying anything about primaries while he was on the DNC. Hogg had fewer votes than Kenyatta. Which I think means he would have been eliminated from that next round of voting.
It wasn’t directed at him or his actions to not follow the DNC no primary pledge.
The solution to make them run against each other again later this year seems odd though. Like maybe they just want him out. Either way he’s no AOC, that’s for sure.
It sounds like a Boomer trying to sound hip while being ageist.
It’s Michael Harriot. I believe he’s GenX.
In case someone needs an alternative, less “racial” I guess, take on the Hogg/Clyburn beef… from Splinter…
https://www.splinter.com/democratic-gerontocrats-plan-to-keep-their-death-grip-on-power
80-year-old Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver said he is undecided, but he provided a compelling quote explaining why so many aging Democrats are clinging on to their spot: “If it appears that we’re going to win the majority back, some people … thinking about [retirement] might stay just for that one more session.”
Cleaver is my Representative. I’ve met him. I believe him to be a sincere person who wants to make things better. But he’s also a Clinton neoliberal, in terms of his politics. He’s been a Representative so long there’s a boulevard in Kansas City named after him. Of course it’s up to him, but if a progressive challenged him, I would vote for the challenger.
Why focus on just democrats? There are more republicans over that age?
And does 13% qualify as a “gerontocracy”?
Yes, that was pointed out above…but that’s what it SOUNDS like.
I agree that it’s a bit disingenuous to focus on just the Dems, but that’s what the media loves to do, just assume that the only party that has any agency is the Democratic party…
For myself, I do not care about the age of politician. I care about their ability to do their job and whether they’ll act to protect marginalized people, as well as if they’ll pursue progressive programs that will help all of us… So, Bernie yes, Schumer no. It’s not that Schumer is older, but that he’s unwilling to push for a truly progressive agenda…
My problem with Hogg was his willingness to throw marginalized people under the bus… as for his position, if the vote needs to be re-run, because it ran afoul of party rules, well, then good. I just wish they’d throw him out, not because he was threatening to support incumbent challenges and his election was questionable, but because he doesn’t seem to give a shit about those of us who are not white men.
Harriot is honestly right on about that in American society, that white supremacy underpins an awful lot of our problems. It shores up capitalism, other kinds of bigotry (misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, etc, etc). And far too many white people who might otherwise be progressive seem unable to see that intersectional tangle that ultimately will oppress them too.
Maybe I’m missing something (like, perhaps, the spread being 9.5 years? as opposed to 2 or 4?), but isn’t this usually the case, anywhere? New hires tend to be younger than those who’ve worked there a while, no?
ETA: I get the comparison between the 2 parties, I’m confused about the graphs headline. I mean, was there an era when first-time reps were typically older than incumbents?
The problem wasn’t that the take was “racial”, it’s that it read as someone who simply can’t stand young whippersnappers. So now this is a take from someone who simply can’t stand old fuddyduddies, and of course it sees it the exact opposite way. I sure hope this was all about their ages because anything else is getting squished out of the story by them. 
Exactly. It’s not like I think “oh don’t bring race into this.” Clearly race is part of this because it just is. It feels like there’s a faction of the Democratic party that thinks the answer is just to find a quota of young white men and then purge all the ugly others from the party. This is a terrible strategy. The worst, really, because the Republicans are already doing this and have done it well at all levels of government now.
But some of the assumptions and statements in that article are also confusing and conflicted too.
That we’re not losing to Republicans because our reps are older.
So, he’s saying that we should be talking about poverty, homelessness, unemployment and violence trans people face?
Step right up!
Alternately- sexual offender says what?
Also, democrats didn’t talk about bathrooms or sports in the 2024 elections, that was republicans
Yeah, I would argue that if Democrats had talked about those issues, especially in the context of defending trans people, they might have actually won.
Democrats are still allowing Republicans to define the narrative on almost every issue, including what the issues are. They’ve done this for nearly 50 years, and it just doesn’t work.