Thank you for watching! In the face of unrelenting disinformation and authoritarian actions, clear truth-telling and independent media are a necessity. If you value pro-democracy journalism, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to my newsletter. Paid subscribers empower this work and gain access to exclusive benefits. Your support makes a difference.
The Democratic Party is in the middle of a debate about who it is and who it is for. That debate is not happening in think tanks or cable news panels. It is happening in primaries across the country, in door-knocking operations in Texas, Chicago, and Maine, and in conversations like this one. The generational and ideological fights are real, they are happening now, and they are going to tell us a lot about where Democrats are headed.
Charles runs Common Power, one of the most serious grassroots organizing operations in the country. He, his team, and volunteers from across the country knock on doors in nearly every state. That ground-level view shaped everything in this conversation, and it is worth paying attention to.
I want to be clear about something going into this write-up. We are not talking about older people generally. We are talking about the people in power who are refusing to give it up. Many of the people who have been in this fight the longest are of that generation, but they also know when to pass the baton. The conversation is about the ones who are not. I often think this conversation can veer into ageism, and we tried our best not to do that here.
As I said in the Live, everyone in the chat and those of you reading this now, who engage, who show up every week, get it. This is for the people who need to hear it within the Democratic Party, because these conversations need to be had.
This conversation was really great and showed what happens when you have necessary, difficult conversations. It’s ok to disagree while knowing you’re ultimately on the same pro-democracy side.
You can watch our full conversation above and read key takeaways below.
The Generational Backlog Is Real & It Is Reshaping Democratic Primaries
The generational fight inside the Democratic Party is playing out in races across the country. But it is bigger than age. It is about whether the party can create a bridge to the future before it runs out of time.
Charles laid out the structural reality plainly. Gen Xers have not had their seats yet. Millennials are right behind them. Gen Zers are already taking positions in Congress. There is a backlog, and it is not moving because the people at the top are not moving. He pointed to specific races like the Al Green and Christian Menifee primary in Texas, where a 37-year-old pushed a 78-year-old to a runoff, as evidence that voters are ready for this shift even when party infrastructure is not.
I raised the Biden example because it is the clearest and most consequential version of this argument. In hindsight, most people recognize that an earlier transition, whether a one-term commitment or an open primary in 2022, would have changed the outcome. That is the conversation we should have had years earlier, but did not.
Charles made a distinction I thought was important. Stepping aside does not mean disappearing. Nancy Pelosi is not gone. She is quietly mentoring her successor, aligning fundraisers, and building the infrastructure for the next generation of leadership. That is what passing the baton with dignity looks like. Charles named Clyburn as someone who should be doing the same thing, using his power to lift the person who shares his values, rather than occupying the seat until he cannot anymore.
The Ideological Shift That Comes With Generational Change
The generational fight and the ideological fight are not separate. They are the same fight. Younger candidates are more likely to reject corporate PAC money, more likely to come from working-class communities, and more likely to understand the technologies that are reshaping the economy and the country. Charles connected these dots directly from his door-knocking experience.
Charles argued that wealth inequality is breaking across generational lines, which means younger candidates naturally arrive with more populist politics. They are not performing progressivism. They are living the economic reality that older establishment Democrats are increasingly insulated from. That insulation, he said, shows up in how they vote, who they take money from, and who they actually represent when they get to Washington.
I raised the technology point because it is underrated in this conversation. If Trump had not flattened the political debate, one of the central issues of this era would be AI, autonomous weapons, mass surveillance, and the displacement of the workforce. We need people in Congress who understand these things from the inside.
Charles was honest about the limits of ideological purity as a governing strategy. He talked about knocking on doors in El Paso and being corrected by Hispanic voters who do not want to be called Latinx. He talked about backing candidates in red-leaning districts who would never win in Seattle but can win where they are. The point is not to export Seattle liberalism to other states. The point is to read what the voters in each district actually want and back the candidate who can win there and hold the seat.
The Coalition Question: Who Are We Willing To Negotiate With?
This is where the chat ran into disagreements, and I think it is the most important part of the conversation. Building a coalition large enough to win means including people you do not fully agree with. That is uncomfortable. It is also unavoidable.
Charles used the example of a Democratic House member in southern Washington state who has voted for legislation that runs contrary to Dem positions. The question is not whether her votes are good. They are not. The question is whether losing her seat to a hard-right Republican who votes with Republicans 100 percent of the time is better.
I raised the Manchin and Sinema comparison because it is the version of this argument most people remember. My take is that they are not the same case. Manchin was holding a seat in a state that was going to elect a Republican otherwise. He passed the Inflation Reduction Act as part of the deal. Sinema was in Arizona, had no excuse, and was performing for donors. The distinction matters when you are deciding who to tolerate and who to primary.
Charles’s broader framework is one I think the left needs to take seriously. He said the reason Democrats win close elections is not because liberals suddenly turned out in massive numbers. It is because people who voted for Trump multiple times switched sides. If the party cannot offer those voters a candidate with wide appeal, and cannot offer a path back to people who have made mistakes, the coalition will not be large enough to win. That is not a values argument. It is a math argument.
What These Primaries Are Actually Telling Us
The specific races Charles and his volunteers are working on this cycle are not random. They are a map of where the generational and ideological debate is actually being decided, on the ground, by real voters.
Charles named a series of races that Common Power is backing or watching. Each of these races involves a younger challenger taking on an older establishment figure. Each involves a question about ideology, electability, and what the party is willing to become.
I noted that AOC is the best example of how this can work. She came in as a disruptor. She later became one of the most effective members of Congress and built her power by collaborating with Pelosi rather than just fighting her. The generational shift does not require burning the party down. It requires building something new alongside what already exists.
Charles closed with the point that I think deserves to be the takeaway from the whole conversation. The House was designed to be representative of regular people. Two-year terms, cycling through farmers and teachers and engineers and working people. It became a career ladder for professional politicians and a revenue stream for grifters. What these primaries represent, at their best, is regular people deciding they are outraged enough to run.
Bottom Line
The Democratic Party’s generational and ideological debate is not coming. It is here.
Charles and I do not agree on everything. We said so on the Live. That is fine. What we agree on is that these conversations need to happen, that the left cannot win by talking only to itself, and that the primaries this cycle are going to tell us whether the party is serious about change or just performing it.
Ahmed Baba News is now one of the top 100 rising Substack publications in U.S. Politics. If you’re not already a paid subscriber, I hope you consider it. Independent pro-democracy journalism only works if people back it. Subscribe below:
