XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics
XPost: talk.politics.misc

Ask Democratic National Committee Vice Chair David Hogg why Democratic lawmakers are heading toward the exits. It is because people like him
want to widen the generational and ideological rifts growing within their party.

Their goal is to remake the Democratic Party in their own narrow,
extremist image — even if it means driving everyone else out and Americans away.

Hogg recently put out a call to arms … against his own party.

“Leaders We Deserve is launching a $20 million investment to usher in the
next generation of Democrats who will go to the mat every day for the
American people and use every tactic and tool to stop Trump’s radical right-wing, economically illiterate agenda.”

Note well the phrase “use every tactic and tool.” Their plan is to primary Democrats who don’t meet the group’s extremist agenda. Despite a belated repudiation from his boss, the DNC chair, Hogg’s move threatens to drive a pecuniary wedge into an already widening party fissure that might be felt
in November 2026.

On paper, the 2026 midterms should be favorable for Democrats. They need
only to pick up four Senate seats to retake the majority. And hey have
nine fewer seats at stake (13 Democrats versus 22 Republicans). Also, historically, the party not holding the White House usually gains seats in midterms.

Despite these advantages, Democrats are well on their way to turning
lemonade back into lemons.

In reality, their position was always weaker than it appeared on paper. Democrats are defending two states (Georgia and Michigan) that Trump won
in 2024. Republicans are defending only one, Maine (Trump lost by a 7-
point margin), where incumbent Sen. Susan Collins (R) is always predicted
to face a close election but always ends up winning by a larger-than-
expected margin.

In contrast, Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) faces his first reelection after
squeaking out a close win in his initial race, and in a state Trump won by
2 percentage points last year. The other place where Democrats are on
defense is in Michigan for an open seat.

Next are seats in states only narrowly won in 2024. Democrats are
defending three of these in Virginia (5.7 percentage points), New Jersey
(5.9 percentage points), and New Mexico (6.1 percentage points). Yes,
Democrats have incumbents defending all three, but a mere swing of 3
points of the vote would have swung each to Trump. These can hardly be
taken for granted.

Republicans have only one such seat, in North Carolina, which Trump won by
3.3 percentage points. Republican incumbent Sen. Thom Tillis is running
for re-election there.

The biggest 2026 Senate disparity is in the number of open seats each
party must defend. Because incumbents overwhelmingly win their races,
contests without incumbents are more of a crapshoot.

In 2026, Democrats must defend five open seats: Michigan, Colorado,
Illinois, New Hampshire and Minnesota. Trump won Michigan by 1.6
percentage points; he lost Colorado by 11 points, Minnesota by 4 points,
New Hampshire by 3 points, and Illinois by 11 points.

Republicans have only one open seat to defend: Sen. Mitch McConnell’s in Kentucky, a state Trump won by more than 30 points.

To recap, despite their 2026 advantage on paper, Democrats have five open seats, three seats Kamala Harris won only narrowly in 2024 and two seats (Georgia and Michigan) in states Trump won. That’s nine states in the
“concern column.” In contrast, Republicans have just three: Kentucky (2026 open), North Carolina (Trump 2024 narrow) and Maine (Trump 2024 loss).

Democrats will need to spend disproportionately on their nine “concern
column” states. That means less money for their only two plausible pickup targets in Maine and North Carolina.

All of this concern is premised only on what Democrats will face from Republicans. When Hogg’s internecine “primarying proposal” is added,
things get worse still.

Primaried Democratic incumbents will be forced to run to the left to win
their party’s nomination against more extreme challengers. Such primary positioning will force them to take positions that will be hard to defend
in a general election. Even worse, radical challengers could win some primaries, leaving Democrats with nominees too radical to win a general election.

And the elections in the “concern column” states are swing states — not
safe, deep-blue bastions — where the general electorate won’t be
predisposed to a Democratic extremist.

Though less manifest now, the danger is no less in House races. These
races are lower profile. For this reason, incumbents considering not
seeking reelection don’t feel the same pressure to announce early their decision and give potential replacements the longer lead time needed to
raise large sums and prepare statewide campaigns.

But rest assured, if Senate incumbents are feeling the pressure, House
Dems are too. Already, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is being primaried.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) just announced she is retiring in the face of
a progressive primary challenge.

In fact, such an extremist uprising could be more dangerous to Democrats
in the House than in the Senate. House elections are smaller affairs with
less media coverage and can more easily turn on a single issue — just the
sort of bad position a member could be forced to take in order to survive
a primary against an extreme challenger.

Hogg and his fellow extremists are in a hurry to drive out their older,
less extreme, and more establishment members for a more confrontational
cadre of activist members. For Hogg and his extremists, theirs is a no-
lose proposition; for Democrats trying to pull the party back from the
brink, it’s a no-win proposition.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/5283093-democrats-primary-remake/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)