‘They got us into this': Indiana Democrat says party leaders cannot lead fightback
When George Hornedo, 34, was still deciding whether to run in the Democratic primary for Indiana's seventh congressional district against longtime incumbent André Carson, a party elder looked him in the eyes and said: 'You are gonna get hurt.'
Hornedo went home that day and posted a TikTok video recounting the encounter. According to him, it highlighted the reality of the Democratic party.
'The people in charge don't just fight Republicans, they fight anybody who challenges them,' Hornedo said. 'That's not democracy, that's machine politics.'
Hornedo is one of many young insurgents challenging the party's status quo across the country. With months to go before primaries take place for the 2026 midterms, even some within the party hierarchy have backed efforts to disrupt the political lineup after Democrats lost the presidency and both chambers in Congress in November.
In February 2025, the Democratic National Committee, the party's executive leadership board, elected David Hogg, 25, as one of its vice-chairs. Hogg pledged to use his position to unseat incumbents in safe districts. On Real Time with Bill Maher, he said: 'I do not care if you have been there for decades or for one term: that seat is not yours, it is your constituents.' (Hogg has since left the committee after months of internal debate.)
In Indianapolis, at the end of April, Hornedo was busy trying to appeal to constituents and show them he can be an alternative to the party's old-guard. Dressed in sweatpants and a black hoodie, he had just finished cutting weeds at a community event by Fall Creek in Indianapolis when he spoke about the challenges facing the Democratic party.
'We're just trying to go where people are civically engaged, because they're probably voters,' Hornedo said. And if they're not, they can be. But right now, most voters aren't active in Democratic politics anywhere. So how do we help people see themselves in our party? I think that's important.'
Raised in Laredo and San Antonio, Texas, before moving to Indianapolis because of his dad's job, Hornedo calls himself a 'Hoosier by way of Texas'. His candidacy, Hornedo said, is not about him or about Carson, but about 'whether the government can work for people that need it the most.'.
'The real divide in the party is not left versus center and not even young versus old,' Hornedo said. 'The reality is that, with Trump and Musk dismantling things day in and day out, when Democrats come back in power, we are not walking back into a government that resembles that of which we knew. And I just don't think that the leaders that got us into this are the ones that are going to get us out of it.'
Hornedo criticizes Carson as one of the least effective lawmakers in Congress, pointing to the ranking of the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University's Center for Effective Lawmaking, that sees Carson ranked 197th out of 220 Democrats in the 118th Congress for effectiveness. The center defines that using 15 metrics, including the number of bills sponsored, their progress, and their substantive significance.
Carson, 50, has held his seat for 17 years. He never had a competitive primary since he took over the seat of his grandmother, Julia Carson, in 2008. He has a strong base of support and has already held a town hall with House Democratic Whip, Katherine Clark on 2 May.
Sign up to Headlines US
Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning
after newsletter promotion
Carson responded to Hornedo's criticism that Clark showing up to the event was a sign that the party worried about Carson's race. At a press conference after the event, Carson scoffed at Hornedo's comments. 'I have to remind folks that we had Speaker Pelosi in town, President Barack Obama, President Biden,' Carson said. 'These were official events, not campaigning events. He probably does not remember because he was not living here.'
Before launching his grassroots campaign, Hornedo, a lawyer, spent years inside the Democratic party machine. He worked on Obama's 2012 inaugural committee, handled press for Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch and advised Pete Buttigieg's 2020 presidential campaign.
'I came up with this idea of radical proportionality. In one phrase: how do we align the scale of our solutions to the scale of our challenges?' Hornedo said. 'I don't care if a solution is up into the left, up into the center, up into the right. I just care that we're moving up and actually doing a better job of trying to meet people's needs in solving these challenges.'
When asked if the party has an internal ideological struggle and which side he's eventually on, Hornedo dismissed the framing.
'I've been called a dem socialist, I've been called a moderate. My answer to that is: 'Call me whatever you want, just call me effective.''
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Trump attack on Left-wing bias on TV sparks ‘constitutional crisis'
Elon Musk may have stepped aside, but Donald Trump still has a Doge problem. The US president's plan to run a scythe through up to $425bn (£316bn) of government spending could be gutted or even vetoed in the Senate, where just a few rebel Republicans could scupper the cuts. But Trump and Russell Vought, his budget tsar, have hatched a scheme, called a 'pocket rescission', that might keep the Doge (department of government efficiency) dream on track. And it could even shift the constitutional balance of power between president and Congress towards a testy Trump. It's a high-risk, high-stakes strategy. The outcome will determine whether the Doge spending reductions can go ahead, helping to pay for Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax cuts without blowing out the budget and rattling the bond markets. But the unprecedented procedure takes the White House and Capitol Hill into uncharted legal waters. So it is likely to end up in the courts – joining a raft of litigation that will either reinforce the institutional checks on the president's power or unleash him. 'It's a challenge to Congress,' says Sarah Binder, a political scientist at the Brookings Institution and George Washington University. 'I don't like to throw around the term 'constitutional crisis', but it's not a great position for lawmakers and institutions.' Under the constitution, Congress has the so-called power of the purse, meaning that lawmakers, not the president, are the final arbiter of what the government spends or does not spend. If the president wants to cut funding or programmes that Congress has already authorised, his only option is to launch a rescission procedure – a formal request for the cuts, which both houses of Congress must approve. The rescission process was introduced in a law called the Impoundment Control Act, which had the overall aim of making it hard for Richard Nixon, the then-president, and his successors from delaying or withholding funds once Congress had green-lighted them. Rescission has seldom been used. Ronald Reagan used it to secure $15.2bn of spending cuts as president in the early 1980s, but later in the decade, Congress tended to ignore or refuse his rescission messages. Trump tried it on with a $15bn-plus request in his first term, but was stymied in the Senate. The Democrats then got control of Congress in the midterms and pushed back another $27bn salvo. Now Trump is trying again. The initial proposal – Vought says it will be 'the first of many' – is to scuttle $9.4bn of spending on public broadcasters and international aid programmes. This rescission was flagged back in March but formally put to Congress only this month. In an executive order early last month, Trump said he wanted to terminate all public funding of National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), which accounts for about $1bn of this first rescission package. 'Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate or unbiased portrayal of current events to tax-paying citizens,' Trump said. 'Today the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options. Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.' The White House has until July 18 to persuade Congress. The rescission scraped through the House of Representatives by 214 votes to 212, but the Senate is the real test. If just four Republicans in the 100-seat upper house swap sides, the spending stays in place. It's not looking promising for Trump. Several Republicans have already voiced concern about at least some of the cuts. The dissenters include Senator Susan Collins, who chairs an influential Senate finance committee that will consider the cuts at a session on June 25. There could be fireworks. Vought will appear before the committee and, in recent weeks, he has started airing the possibility of bypassing Congress altogether through an untested and almost unknown variant of rescission: the so-called pocket rescission. 'It's a provision that has been rarely used, but it is there,' Vought told CNN. 'And we intend to use all of these tools.' The trick with the pocket rescission is to make the request to Congress right before the end of the fiscal year, which runs to Sept 30. The White House reckons that the Impoundment Control Act's wording creates a loophole: if Congress does not act on the request before Sept 30, then even if the window is well short of 45 days the spending approval will lapse automatically on that date. The case for pocket rescissions was made recently by Wade Miller, of the Center for Renewing America (CRA), a Right-wing think tank. 'A rescission is a viable tool for carrying out the broader political mandate to curb unnecessary spending,' he wrote in a briefing paper. 'If the executive branch decides to use this process, the deployment of a rescission with fewer than 45 days remaining in the fiscal year is a statutorily and constitutionally valid strategy.' The CRA was set up by Vought himself, after he served as director of the Office of Management and Budget in the final six months of Trump's first term. He returned to the White House with the president this January, in the same role. But other Washington think tanks trenchantly oppose the CRA's position. 'Calling it a pocket rescission implies that it's like an actual functional tool under the law, in a way that it's actually not. It is a strategy that the person who is running the Office of Management and Budget has articulated to evade the law,' says Cerin Lindgrensavage, a lawyer at Protect Democracy. She says the whole purpose of the Impoundment Control Act was to stop any presidential ploy to skirt its strictures. 'One of the reasons why they might want to do this is because they're afraid they don't have the votes to actually make the cuts the legal way.' Binder, from Brookings, says that the Act doesn't explicitly deal with what happens if a president makes the request right before the end of the fiscal year. 'There's certainly room here for an aggressive Office of Management and Budget and an aggressive administration to try to stretch – others might say manipulate – the silence in the budget law,' she says. 'But the logic of the matter suggests that pocket rescissions are not legal under the Act and I would imagine there's a strong argument that they are unconstitutional under Congress's power of the purse.' Binder suspects Vought is looking to get a test case into the courts. Given there could be a constitutional principle at stake, it could go all the way to the Supreme Court, where a majority of judges are Republican appointees. In the meantime, litigants could get restraining orders or injunctions to prevent the Doge cuts. But they can't necessarily get the White House to respect these. The stage is set for a constitutional showdown. The question is whether Trump and Vought will really pull the trigger. And then, whether the weapon will actually work.
New Statesman
4 hours ago
- New Statesman
Where have all the anti-war Democrats gone?
To bomb or not to bomb? President Trump treats waging war with the same gravity he might deploy when deciding whether to play golf. He said this week that 'I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do'. Call it strategic ambiguity, or flagrant honesty. You get the sense that the president doesn't know himself whether he will give the order. The White House line right now is that the president will decide over the next two weeks. Cue chatter that this is a ruse to discombobulate the Iranians before an imminent American strike. Whatever he decides, Trump's attempt to save face after Netanyahu ignored his plea to leave the negotiations with Iran alone has exposed fissures between the neo-cons in his administration and the Maga isolationists. The Maga activist Laura Loomer has started a list of those who criticised the president, presumably for a future purge. What, then, are the Democrats doing to exploit this chink in the normally preternaturally cultish Maga movement which rarely turns on itself? Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, issued an milquetoast statement when Israel first struck Iran. Hakeem Jeffries, his counterpart in the House of Representatives, issued a similar statement but called for American troops not to be put 'in harm's way'. As Peter Beinart wrote in the New York Times, neither Democratic leader instructed the President that the authority to go to war resides with Congress. (Schumer later did, but took no action to that effect.) There is a tendency within the party to treat war as a non-partisan issue, as if bombing another country in the name of national security is a foregone conclusion. A rally-around-our-troops effect takes hold. This might be a missed opportunity for the Democrats to become the anti-war party, a position Trump has dominated since he won in 2016. A YouGov/Economist poll found that 60 per cent of Americans don't think Trump should get involved in the war, including over half of Republican voters, with only 16 per cent supporting action. Yet, the anti-war Democrats are confined to the party's populist left, or what you could more generously call the left who wants to be popular. Bernie Sanders has introduced a No War Against Iran bill in the Senate. Ro Khanna, the progressive Democratic representative, has emerged as the party's leading anti-war figure. Khanna opposed the Iraq war in 2003 and sees interventionism in the Middle East as yet another example – alongside globalisation and a pro-rich tax policy – of how communities in states such as Pennsylvania were shunted to the bottom of Washington's priorities. It's a message Trump has put to good use for over a decade. Democrats' pitch to voters could now include both opposition to Trump's militarism at home and abroad. Challenging Trump's potential strikes could become a chance for the Democrats to tap into that populist anger which Trump has so deftly mined for so long. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe [See also: Is Trump the last neoconservative?] Related
The Herald Scotland
6 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump approval rating tanks as Americans oppose GOP agenda
It's summer now, and the report card has arrived. Americans give Trump a failing grade on the budget, trade and immigration. That's tough to swallow for a politician who gauges everything on public perception. Trump, being Trump, is now pivoting to distractions, touting a military parade that flopped as an expensive boondoggle and then flipping from diplomacy with Iran to potentially ordering air strikes on that country. Take our poll: Should US go to war with Iran or support Israel from afar? | Opinion Americans disapprove of budget bill slashing Medicaid Let's start with Trump's budget, which Republican leaders in Congress call the "one big, beautiful bill" in honor of their continuing deference to whatever he wants and the dereliction of their duty to serve as a coequal branch of our government. The version that narrowly passed the House slashed federal safety net programs to boost tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Some senators, seeking to make things even better for the rich at the expense of the poor, want bigger cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and other programs. Opinion: Trump lied about the LA protests so you wouldn't see what he's really doing A batch of recent polls shows Americans reject that: A June 11 Quinnipiac University poll found that 53% of American voters oppose the budget bill, while 27% approve it. Nearly half of the voters polled said funding for Medicaid should go up, not down, while 40% said it should stay the same and just 10% wanted it cut. A June 16 Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that 50% of Americans think we spend too little on Medicaid, while 31% say we spend enough and just 18% say we spend too much. Forty-five percent of Americans think we should spend more on food and nutrition assistance, while 30% say we spend enough and 24% say we spend too much. A June 17 KFF Health Tracking Poll found that 64% of Americans hold an unfavorable view of Trump's budget bill, while 83% of them hold a favorable view of Medicaid. Republican support for the bill came in strong at 61% at first, but then dropped by 20 points when the Republicans polled heard details about how the legislation would force millions off their health care plans. Polling finds Americans disagree with Trump on immigration, economy, border security This much seems clear: The more Americans learn about Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the more they find it small-minded and ugly. That explains the artificial deadlines. Opinion newsletter: Sign up for our newsletter on people, power and policies in the time of Trump from columnist Chris Brennan. Get it delivered to your inbox. Trump and his Republican allies in Congress want to wrap this up by July 4. But Republican infighting - moderates who fear it goes too far, far-righters who complain it doesn't go far enough - will make for a contentious Congress for at least the next two weeks. While we wait, Trump is seeing his support on immigration - once his strongest issue - melt away in the summer of Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. The Quinnipiac University poll found 54% of the registered voters surveyed opposed his approach to immigration, while 43% approve and 3% had no opinion. Trump campaigned in 2024 on reviving America's economy. But his trade wars, which have hit our country's international allies just as hard or harder than our geopolitical foes, are unpopular. Quinnipiac found that just 38% approve of Trump's trade policy, while 57% disapprove and 6% had no opinion. The AP-NORC poll found that 32% of Americans think we spend too much on border security, while 37% think we spend the right amount and 29% think we spend too little. Trump's approval rating continues to tank. Does it matter? In this time of divisiveness, a majority of Americans can agree on one thing: Trump is disappointing them as president. Just 38% of the votes surveyed by Quinnipiac approve of Trump's job performance, while 54% disapprove. Opinion: Threats against judges nearly doubled under Trump. Republicans blame the victim. That tracks with a Pew Research Center poll released June 17, which found that 41% of those polled approve of Trump's performance while 58% disapprove. Pew noted that Trump has lost ground in his approval rating since he was sworn into office again on Jan. 20. Don't expect Trump to spend too much time worrying about what Americans tell pollsters. He has a long history of touting polls when they hold good news for him and dismissing them when they don't. He also suggested just before the 2024 election that releasing poll results he didn't like "should be illegal." Here's what you can expect: more distractions from Trump as the Republicans fights it out on which version of his budget bill passes or fails in Congress. If they listened to Americans, they would kill the bill and start from scratch. Follow USA TODAY columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan. Sign up for his weekly newsletter, Translating Politics, here.
