Democrats Don't Have an Age Problem. They Have a Strategy Problem.
An op-ed originally published in The Hill on July 10, 2025
Editor’s Note: This op-ed was originally published by The Hill on July 10, 2025, under the headline “David Hogg is right — and Democratic Party leaders are wrong.”
I submitted the draft about a month earlier, on the evening of June 11 — the same day the DNC announced it would re-run David Hogg’s election as vice chair. The conflict was reaching a peak, but what concerned me most wasn’t the clash of personalities. It was the sense that Democratic Party leaders were missing the point entirely.
The deeper issue wasn’t Hogg himself (or Mamdani, in the paragraph I added later) — it was how these dramatic events framed the party’s strategic blind spots. Hogg’s effort to support young progressives through primary challenges was a deliberate attempt to shift attention, to build grassroots energy, and to compete on the narrative battlefield where modern politics is won or lost.
As the party gears up for the 2026 midterm elections, which promise once again to be one of the most consequential elections in modern history, the bigger question remains: Will Democratic leaders finally update their strategic playbook — or continue to mistake unity for effectiveness?
David Hogg is right: Democratic leaders’ strategy is obsolete
by Dana Dolan, opinion contributor - 07/10/25 8:30 AM ET
Democratic leaders aren’t failing because they’re too old. They’re failing because their political strategy is obsolete.
The recent Democratic National Committee drama proves the point. Hours after the DNC voted to void David Hogg’s vice chair election on procedural grounds, the 26-year-old activist announced he wouldn’t compete in the redo election. The DNC’s move — forcing new elections over alleged procedural violations — came after leaked audio revealed DNC Chair Ken Martin venting about conflicts with Hogg, saying, “I don’t know if I want to do this anymore” and “you essentially destroyed any chance I have to show the leadership that I need to.”
The outcome illustrates the problem. The DNC forced Hogg out for challenging party orthodoxy — specifically his plan to raise millions through his “Leaders We Deserve” PAC to support young progressives against incumbent Democrats in safe seats. Party officials said DNC officers should focus on defeating Republicans, not “sowing division.” But Hogg’s parting shot captured the real issue. He decried “a serious lack of vision from Democratic leaders, too many of them asleep at the wheel.”
Polling confirms that voters agree with Hogg’s diagnosis. A June CNN/SSRS poll found only 16 percent of Americans see Democrats as strong leaders capable of “getting things done,” compared to 40 percent for Republicans. Meanwhile, 91 percent of Democrats view Trump’s return as a threat to democracy, reinforcing the need for assertive progressive leadership.
Yet Democratic leaders consistently chooses “unity” over effectiveness. They suppress confrontational tactics instead of channeling them strategically. They draft thoughtful position papers that get buried while Republicans manufacture outrage that dominates news cycles. They rely on pollster-tested talking points instead of speaking with authentic conviction. And they treat primary challenges as party betrayals, rather than mechanisms for democratic accountability.
The irony is that Hogg got ejected for doing exactly what successful politicians do: creating attention-grabbing moments that force conversations about important issues. His strategy for primary challenges mirrors what Republicans have used effectively for years to reshape their party. Tea Party primaries moved the GOP rightward, and pro-Trump primaries completed the transformation. These weren’t accidents — they were strategic uses of competitive pressure that generated media coverage and shifted the public debate.
But when Democrats attempt similar tactics, leadership panics. Consider Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) approach: When he quietly negotiated bipartisan deals, Republicans got credit for being reasonable, whereas Democrats were blamed for lacking principles.
When progressives demand accountability through primaries, party elites worry about “division” rather than leveraging the coverage to advance Democratic goals. And when activists create controversy, they are expelled rather than strategically deployed.
This isn’t about replacing experienced leaders with younger ones. In fact, there are Democrats with nontraditional political strategies across the age range. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), 83, commands one of America’s largest political digital platforms. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), 34, is a master at using social media to advance progressive policies. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), 51, launched a PAC designed for direct grassroots mobilization rather than traditional fundraising. Age doesn’t determine strategic wisdom — results do.
The unexpected outcome of the Democratic mayoral primary in New York City reinforces the pattern — and the resistance to change. Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old state assemblyman, defeated former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the establishment favorite, despite most of the city’s Democratic House delegation endorsing Cuomo. The victory came with financial support from Hogg’s “Leaders We Deserve” PAC. Yet the party’s response was predictably cautious: while praising Mamdani’s organizing effectiveness, figures such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries avoided endorsement, and some Democrats immediately distanced themselves from the winner — exactly the kind of institutional timidity that limits Democratic effectiveness.
Democratic strategy must be updated to match current realities — and actually learning from what works. Modern political battles are fought in public, in real-time, through narrative competition. The party that controls attention controls outcomes. This means creating political moments that advance Democratic goals rather than avoiding conflict. It means treating competitive primaries as tools for generating beneficial coverage, not threats to institutional stability.
Republicans figured this out years ago. They have mastered creating controversy that generates coverage. That coverage shapes narratives and narratives determine policy outcomes. Democrats have watched this happen repeatedly while responding with carefully crafted talking points that audiences ignore.
Democrats can either adapt or keep losing winnable fights. The DNC decision suggests they’re choosing the latter. Hogg may be out, but the strategic problems that made his critique necessary remain. Until Democratic leaders update their obsolete playbook, they’ll keep being outmaneuvered by Republicans who understand that controlling the story requires a willingness to make news.
The late Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) famously urged Americans to make “good trouble, necessary trouble” in pursuit of justice. Democrats today face a choice: Embrace the kind of strategic disruption that Lewis championed, or continue playing by outdated rules while Republicans dominate the narrative battlefield.
The DNC’s response to Hogg and Democratic leadership’s cautious reaction to unexpected primary victories suggests they are choosing institutional comfort over strategic effectiveness. That’s not just bad politics — it’s a betrayal of the tradition of productive conflict that built the modern Democratic Party.
Dana Dolan teaches public policy at George Mason University. She analyzes policy and politics at her newsletter, “Views Through a Policy Prism.”
If my argument here resonates — or if you disagree — I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments. And if you think others should be thinking about this too, please consider sharing.