The Democratic National Committee’s decision to nullify David Hogg’s election as its youngest vice chair arguably reeks of the same elitist meddling that has plagued the party for years.
Just 101 days after Hogg, the first "Zoomer" to hold the office, was elected to help Democrats reconnect with young male voters, the DNC declared his victory void, citing broken parliamentary rules, and the move exposes the party’s hypocrisy and its obsession with control over fairness, as Hayden Ludwig writes for RealClearPolitics.
Hogg’s election was meant to signal a shift toward engaging young men, a demographic the Democrats have struggled to retain. The DNC’s nullification, announced two days after Hogg criticized the party for alienating this group, suggests a deliberate effort to silence dissent. The party’s actions reveal a deeper pattern of manipulating internal processes to maintain power.
The DNC justified its decision by pointing to rules mandating "gender parity," which prioritize female candidates over males. This excuse, however, feels flimsy when viewed against the backdrop of Hogg’s outspoken critique of the party’s failures. It’s hard to see this as anything but a calculated move to protect the status quo, Ludwig argues.
Hogg didn’t hold back, accusing party elites of defending an “indefensible status quo.” He described young men in the Democratic Party as feeling like they must “walk on eggshells” to avoid being judged or ostracized. His words struck a nerve, and the DNC’s swift response suggests they weren’t ready to hear the truth.
“The DNC has pledged to remove me,” Hogg said, calling out the party’s plan to fast-track his ouster. The timing of the nullification, just two days after his public criticism, paints a picture of a party more interested in loyalty than reform. This isn’t about rules -- it’s about punishing a young leader who dared to speak up.
Hogg’s experience echoes historical instances of DNC election meddling, such as the use of superdelegates in 2016 and 2020 to tilt the nomination process against Bernie Sanders. The Vermont senator himself called out the “oligarchs and billionaires” who cost him those races, a sentiment that resonates with Hogg’s situation. The party’s playbook hasn’t changed: control the outcome, no matter the cost.
The DNC’s actions fit into a broader pattern of Democrats questioning election legitimacy only when it suits them. Congressional Democrats haven’t accepted a Republican presidential victory as legitimate since 1988. House Democrats even tried to nullify Republican wins in 2016 and 2024, branding them illegitimate.
Yet, when allegations of a stolen election surfaced in 2020, Democrats were quick to label them “misinformation.” This double standard exposes their selective outrage -- elections are only valid when they produce the “right” result. The DNC’s nullification of Hogg’s election is just the latest example of this mindset.
In 2024, leftists went so far as to try removing Donald Trump from ballots in several states, aiming for a one-party election. Despite their efforts, Trump secured a landslide victory, including a popular vote majority. The DNC’s willingness to bend rules internally mirrors these external attempts to manipulate democratic processes.
Democrats have pushed a “national popular vote” scheme to award all Electoral College votes to the candidate with the most nationwide votes. In 2016, this would have handed Hillary Clinton all 538 electoral votes, regardless of state outcomes. Michigan Democrats quietly abandoned this bill weeks after Trump’s 2024 popular vote win, proving their commitment to “fairness” is purely opportunistic.
Kamala Harris, a product of California’s one-party machine politics, never won a primary vote despite running in two presidential elections. Her campaigns, fueled by dark money from Big Business and Wall Street donors, highlight the DNC’s reliance on elite insiders. Harris’ rise through party connections, not merit, underscores the disconnect between the party’s base and its leadership, according to Ludwig.
The Democratic Party is run by a small clique of ultra-partisan activists, lobbyists, and operatives in Washington, D.C. These insiders prioritize power over principle, as seen in their treatment of Hogg and Sanders. Their grip on the party stifles any attempt at meaningful change.
Special interests are already organizing a second Trump “Resistance” to undermine his agenda following his 2024 victory. This effort, like the DNC’s internal machinations, aims to thwart the will of voters. The party’s refusal to accept defeat gracefully shows a disdain for the democratic process.
Ludwig argues that Hogg’s nullified election is a microcosm of the Democrats’ broader approach to power: control at all costs. By sidelining a young leader who sought to bridge gaps with voters, the DNC has doubled down on its elitist tendencies. America deserves better than a party that rigs its elections while preaching about democracy. The DNC’s treatment of Hogg proves that its commitment to fairness is a sham. Traditional values of hard work, merit, and accountability have no place in a party beholden to insiders and special interests.
