WI Gov DSA Candidate Says She Never Called for Abolishing the Senate – Except She Did
“Apparently, they forgot about this post.”
The Sunday interview the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) co-chair gave to Fox News continues to cause big problems for Democratic Party candidates in high-profile races, with the exposure of the DSA’s extremist positions forcing the candidates to explain whether or not they agree.
As Legal Insurrection reported, DSA co-chair Megan Romer “confirmed nearly all of [the DSA’s positions] without qualification. The few she hedged, she hedged only on timing.”
For those who missed the interview, watch:
DSA Co-Chair Megan Romer confirms their platform includes:
– Abolishing the Senate, presidency, & Supreme Court
– Abolishing ICE, borders, & prisons
– Defunding the Pentagon
– Mass amnesty for illegals pic.twitter.com/rPQiT9HCXN— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 26, 2026
GOP Rep. Tom Tiffany (WI-07), who is the Trump-backed presumptive GOP nominee in the Wisconsin gubernatorial race, saw the exchange and proceeded to alert the state’s voters that the leading Democratic candidate in the primary, DSA-endorsed state Rep. Francesca Hong, agreed with the DSA’s stances on the issues:
This sounds a lot like DSA-backed @FrancescaHongWI.
Does she want to abolish the police? Yep.
Does she want to abolish prisons? Absolutely.
Did she call for abolishing the U.S. Senate? Yes.
Socialism is knocking on Wisconsin’s door. This November, we slam it shut. https://t.co/xEo8kKPIow
— Tom Tiffany (@TomTiffanyWI) July 26, 2026
Hong’s campaign responded by claiming she’d never said anything about abolishing the Senate. Interestingly, they confirmed her agreement with some of the other positions — but said they weren’t things she’d “pursue as governor.” They also tried to suggest the DSA didn’t hold some of the positions their co-chair said it did:
“Tom Tiffany is once again telling lies and inventing quotes, because he can’t run on his record. Rep. Hong has never called for abolishing the U.S. Senate. Tiffany cannot produce a single statement where she did, because it doesn’t exist. She has spoken about police and prison abolition in the past as an aspirational goal, but it is not her current position, and it’s not something she will pursue as governor. She does not support replacing the presidency with the Supreme Court. Eliminating national borders isn’t her position either, and it’s not even part of the official DSA platform. DSA is a membership organization, not a political party. Rep. Hong is not endorsed by DSA national, and doesn’t agree with everything in its national program,” Hong communications director Allison Geyer told Fox News Digital.
The problem here is that Tiffany had proof that Hong had indeed previously called for abolishing the Senate – and he didn’t have to look very far, finding a 2021 tweet from her where she did just that:
Direct quote from @FrancescaHongWI’s campaign to Fox News: “Rep. Hong has never called for abolishing the U.S. Senate. Tiffany cannot produce a single statement where she did, because it doesn't exist.”
Apparently, they forgot about this post. https://t.co/2QIb0AhTCG
— Tom Tiffany (@TomTiffanyWI) July 28, 2026
Hilarious. https://t.co/WZ9AoiCxyo pic.twitter.com/zsdCKPvuGX
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) July 28, 2026
Hong: “I never called to abolish the Senate.”
Also Hong: pic.twitter.com/yjgDtACx6k
— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) July 28, 2026
This is the tweet Hong was responding to at the time:
As an illustration of just how undemocratic the Senate is, the 57 Senators voting to convict represents nearly 70% of Americans.
Yet, Senators representing just over 30% got their way. smh
— Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@QasimRashid) February 13, 2021
Not surprisingly, so-called “fact checkers” are refusing to do their jobs in fact-checking Hong because of course:
🚨MEDIA BIAS: Wisconsin’s so-called “fact checkers” refuse to hold @FrancescaHongWI accountable.
Despite her literally posting “abolish the Senate,” the liberal media immediately rushes to cover for her. https://t.co/2QIb0AhTCG pic.twitter.com/hUUj796Vxc
— Tom Tiffany (@TomTiffanyWI) July 28, 2026
Hey folks, @Politifact doesn’t want to fact check Francesca Hong’s campaign saying Francesca Hong never said “Abolish the Senate” since, and I quote, “that doesn’t seem to be her position.” Kindly retweet this to expose what a pathetic leftist propaganda outfit @Politifact is. https://t.co/wXNubHB3Jh
— Dan O'Donnell (@DanODonnellShow) July 28, 2026
For the record, here’s how Hong’s campaign tried to play clean up after the revelation that she did, in fact, call for abolishing the Senate:
“The post is from February 13, 2021, the day the Senate acquitted Donald Trump for inciting January 6th,” the campaign said. “She quote tweeted an analysis of that vote showing the senators who voted to convict represented roughly 70 percent of the country. It was a frustrated reaction to that day. It is not her current position, and it is not something a governor has any role in. She’s running to lower costs, fund public schools, and make childcare affordable.”
“Not her current position.” Sure. Just like she doesn’t plan on “pursuing” abolishing prisons if elected governor. These people are confirming to us who they really are. And we should believe them.
– Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via X. –
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The communists are attempting the Jedi mind trick.
“These aren’t the droids you’re looking for”.
These aren’t the droids I’m looking for…
Hey! Stop that!
Since there are at least five running for the democrat spot, this commie has a real chance of winning the primary.
McCarthy’s still buried in Appleton, but he’s probably rotating fast enough to be detected by radar.
This isnt the 60s everything you say is saved some place.
Well, it was in the ’60s, too, but it was all in the SAME place.
These leftists seem unaware that the Senate was not created to be a “democratic” institution. I was by design a roadblock to prevent unchecked democratic rule. It made the fledgling USA a Republic. The Senate gave equal footing in government to each state, independent of size or population. The House was the democratically based institution, and the two needed to agree on any bill that hoped to become law. The Founders only trusted the “wisdom of the voters” so far…
They “forgot” ninth grade civics.
.
A lot of them didn’t enter the United States until long after the ninth grade, and so never took civics. They have no problem with taking everything else, though…
Two real evil things happened in 1913:
1) federal income tax.
2) direct election of the senate.
Long ago, far away, I took Econ 101 as a “ non technical elective”. I will never forget the first lecture. About 1963.
First lecture opening (+/-, 65 years ago)
“In 1913 three things happened. The 16th Amendment created the individual income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was created. I was born. The first two will result in the ultimate downfall of the United States. Whether the third is a net positive or negative is yet to be determined.”
Wish I had paid more attention.
You’re wrong on both counts.
1. The 16A was never about taxing earned income, which is most people’s primary or only kind of income. There was never any question that that could be taxed, and that no amendment was needed for it. If you heard that the Supreme Court struck down the income tax, you heard wrong.
What it struck down was only the tax on income derived from property, such as rent, interest, and dividends. It said Congress could tax earned income all it liked, but taxing income derived from property was the same as taxing property itself, and Congress can’t do that. So the 16A was passed to fix that.
Was that evil? Would you want a country where people who work for a living pay income tax but idle property owners don’t?! Because that’s what you’d have if the 16A were never passed, and if the Supreme Court still held as it did then.
But in fact it’s likely that today’s Court would not agree with that decision, and would hold that the base constitution does allow taxing all income, unearned as well as earned, so repealing the 16A would change literally nothing.
2. I will never understand people’s obsession with the 17A. What advantage do you seriously think there was to allowing a handful of legislators to choose someone to represent the people of the state, rather than having the people themselves choose? How does being responsible directly to the state’s voters make a senator less concerned with those voters’ interests than being responsible to a legislature which the senator can help shape by funding his supporters and campaigning against his opponents, as well as simply by bribing people?
I think a lot of opponents of the 17A have some sort of notion that before the amendment senators had to be careful of their state’s interests, because if they weren’t the legislature could recall them. But that’s just not true. Once a senator was elected he was completely free to do as he liked for the next six years. If he wanted to run again then he had to start paying attention in the sixth year — exactly like today. Or he could just stack the legislature with his supporters and not bother about the people whom he was supposed to be representing.
“There was never any question that that could be taxed, and that no amendment was needed for it. If you heard that the Supreme Court struck down the income tax, you heard wrong.”
While technically correct, you’re misrepresenting the implication. BECAUSE the federal government was not permitted to tax income derived from property without apportionment, a national income tax was impractical to implement. The 16th amendment cleared that roadblock.
So while you’re correct that it was technically constitutional to implement a tax on income without apportionment, it was never done (other than the temporary income tax enacted in the North to fund the civil war and repealed afterword) because it wasn’t deemed either practical or fair. Therefore, passage of the 16th amendment effectively cleared the roadblock to the federal income tax.
Getting lost in the technical aspects of it may be good for “gotcha” talking points, but is just semantics when evaluating the practical impacts.
“I will never understand people’s obsession with the 17A. What advantage do you seriously think there was to allowing a handful of legislators to choose someone to represent the people of the state”
Because under the founder’s vision, the Senators were not there to represent the *people* of the state, they were there to represent the *government* of the state. That’s why selection of senators was left to the state’s government in the Constitution. The nation was initially considered a federation of individual state governments with broad powers under the umbrella of a single federal government with very limited powers related primarily to international relations and ensuring equality amongst the states.
The founders were extremely disdainful of pure democracy. They recognized that the fads and foibles of popular opinion are not always in the best long term interests of a particular state and designed the Senate to be a check on that.
Direct election of the Senators opens the door to the “mob rule” that the founders so adamantly opposed.
No it wasn’t. It would simply apply only to earned income. That’s what most people’s income is anyway.
That is not true. The whole point of the constitution was that it was to be a federation of individual states, not of those states’ governments.
That’s the reason it starts, not with “we, the united states”, but with “we, the people of the united states”, to show that it was bypassing the legislatures and was being enacted directly by the people of each state, whether their legislators liked it or not.
The legislature is not the state. The people are the state, and the legislators are merely their representatives. They were to choose a senator to represent the people, not to represent themselves. The 17a was enacted because of a perception that they weren’t doing that; that they were choosing the senators to suit their own interests, not those of their constituents.
Your point about indirect election acting as a filter against “mob rule” is well taken, but that’s not the complaint I ever hear about the 17a. Instead I’m constantly told that somehow the senators now no longer represent their states’ interests, and that makes no sense. They do represent their states’ interests as well as the pre-17a senators did; they reflect not the views of the general American public, but specifically those of the public of their state. And it was the longer term, not the indirect election, that was the primary means of insulating them from the mob; and that remains in place.
“No it wasn’t. It would simply apply only to earned income. That’s what most people’s income is anyway.”
You’re confusing today’s economy and income sources with those of the early 20th century. Salaried “wage earners” were a much smaller proportion of the population back when 50% of the population lived in rural areas, compared to 20% today…and under today’s infrastructure, a good number of those rural dwellers just commute to a city for work, whereas back when the primary means of transportation could get you 30 miles a day…not so much.
You’re also missing the fact that the federal income tax was a progressive proposal, marketed as only applying to the rich and as a way to spread the wealth. The rates themselves were progressive from the inception, with the highest rates applying to the highest earners and the vast majority of the population paying nothing at all.
The problem and the reason the amendment was needed, is that a huge number of “the rich” made their income not from salaries and wages, but from property holdings. Implementing an income tax that could only apply to wage earners would necessarily defeat the purpose of “soaking the rich”.
Ignoring all that to say that the 16th amendment wasn’t actually necessary to implement an income tax, again while technically correct, is completely missing plot by ignoring the context and practical implications of the time.
“That is not true. The whole point of the constitution was that it was to be a federation of individual states, not of those states’ governments.”
So you’re saying the encyclopedia Britannica is wrong?
State, political organization of society, or the body politic, or, more narrowly, the institutions of government.
And if so, why did the founders find it necessary to mention “the states” and “the people” separately when describing the makeup of the House and the Senate?
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States” -US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1
“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.” -US Constitution, Article 2, Section 3
They even felt it necessary to mention them as separate entities when limiting the powers of the Federal government:
“”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” -US Constitution, Amendment 10
“They do represent their states’ interests as well as the pre-17a senators did; they reflect not the views of the general American public, but specifically those of the public of their state.”
But that’s not the purpose of the Senate. That’s the purpose of the House of Representatives. Even representatives don’t represent the views of the general American public, they represent the views of their constituents…i.e. the residents of their districts within the states.
The Senate’s purpose is to protect the interests of the state government against the interests of other state governments and are supposed to be outside of the vagaries of popular opinion and fads (at least as much as possible considering they’re appointed by legislatures elected by popular vote).
The interesting thing is that over half the states (29 out of 48) had already implemented some form of popular election of their Senators. If it was possible at the state level already, why was an amendment even necessary? To force the states who opposed the proposition to adopt it anyway. Why? Because it diluted the power of smaller states by reducing their Senate delegation to a different form of public representative rather than representatives of the interests of the state.
The same progressives that passed the 16th amendment so they could “soak the rich” passed the 17th amendment to dilute the power of those upstart state governments that still believed in the checks and balances created by the founders.
He always says he only registered as a Democrat to have a voice.
And now I think he might be telling the truth.
Because these are not Democrat policies he’s espousing.
They’re the same communist policies the DSA dresses up as ‘democratic socialism’.
‘Idle’ property owners? Spoken like someone who owns no property and seethes with envy at those who do.
And this communist idiocy–
What advantage do you seriously think there was to allowing a handful of legislators to choose someone to represent the people of the state, rather than having the people themselves choose? How does being responsible directly to the state’s voters make a senator less concerned with those voters’ interests than being responsible to a legislature which the senator can help shape by funding his supporters and campaigning against his opponents, as well as simply by bribing people?
First, it assumes that everyone is a corrupt as communists are. Corrupt appears to be their default state. In fact, it may be their entire playbook, destroy a nation’s internal structure and loot the corpse while inciting the next nation.
They certainly have no idea how to govern or how economies work.
But second, he pretends to not understand that electing a senator at large means that urban populations always get their way whereas a senator selected by locally elected representatives will mean that the rural voters input has just as much weight as the urban voter.
And communists NEED people driven to near insanity by being crowded together to be able to falsify even one vote
(no, noone actually votes for Democrats or communists, as noted corruption is their default state)
What makes you think they’re unaware of it? They’re very aware, and that’s precisely why they want to abolish it. They think it’s a bad thing.
Most of the more well-known and influential founders agreed that it was a bad thing; they agreed to it as a necessary compromise with their opponents, not as something they actually wanted.
But it’s served our republic well for 238 years, and now is certainly not the time to change it.
This is not true. There’s nothing in the definition of a republic that requires a bicameral legislature. Nebraska has a unicameral legislature, and no one thinks that it no longer has a republican form of government.
If you’re referring to the idea that “republic” and “democracy” are opposed concepts, and that the USA is “a republic and not a democracy”, you’re wrong. I’ll link once again to Eugene Volokh explaining that neither term means what those who repeat this slogan think it does, that the founders used both terms in ways that are completely incompatible with this alleged dichotomy, and that they explicitly referred to the USA both as a republic and as a democracy.
They are “aware of it” doesn’t mean that they understand it. Why we have it and how it functions. Many of these candidates glibly throw out the oft-repeated catch phrases: abolish X, defund X, shut down X. blah, blah, blah. They know the phrases but demonstrate only a superficial understanding of what they propose. It’s all in the hyped up lingo.
They understand it very well. They don’t want it. They want total control. Win an election, and you’re a totalitarian dictator for the next two years. Or however long you set the congressional term. That’s more or less how it is in the UK. Canada at least has a written constitution, so there’s some limit on what Parliament can do; they want more power than that.
They’re not stupid, they’re evil.
It is always sad when Eugene is wrong.
A republic is a form of government with selected rather than hereditary leadership.
That’s it. Full stop. HOW that leadership is selected is not part of the equation save that it isn’t by birth.
The US is NOT a democracy.
The US is a Republic that uses democratic processes sometimes.
Sometimes.
For instance, take Kamala Harris. She was not elected to be the Democratic party’s candidate. She was installed as the candidate by the Democratic party leadership. They did this without consulting the members. Without voting at all.
The US uses a combination of democratic processes, appointment, meritocratic reward, cronyism and pay-to-play to select it’s leadership.
To suggest that it is a ‘democratic republic’ when democratic processes are just one out of the many it uses is ludicrous.
Can we not vote for women anymore? Things will get so much better so much faster.
Politicrap is just that … crap.
Thankfully, Communists remain too stupid to understand what video recordings are
Or, for that matter that nothing ever gets truly deleted off the internet
It’s almost frightening how much the leftist wokiestas refuse to understand the ‘internet is forever’ while continuing to make false claims. What’s really unsettling are the lengths the lapdog corporate media and their advocates/surrogates will go to in trying to hide, obscure, pretend not to know, willfully ignore, downplay/minimize and excuse the lies of the leftist wokiestas when they eventually come to light.
She was pretty good in Guardians. When did she ditch the antennae?
Well, she tweeted “Abolish the Senate.” Obviously, she wasn’t referring to the U.S. Senate. Eat this, you bigots!!! 😂🤣😅
To all Democrats and sympathizers: learn Arabic, study Sharia, and cover up your women.
Leashes for the nose rings?
She already sounds like the politicians she supposedly despises and wants to replace. Just lie about everything you believe and say whatever it takes to get elected. So the DSA is really just the same as any other corrupt political group, big shocker.
The more corrupt it is, the more flies it attracts, like Reid Hoffman, “Stinky” Soros & Sons, Bill Gates, Fatty Pritzker, Bathhouse Barry, Merrick Garland, Hoopy Goldberg, Schmuck Schumer, Tim Walz, Keith Ellison, etc.
Leave a Comment