Opinion - David Hogg's Democratic Party shake-up should model Ocasio-Cortez, not Trump
In 'Avengers: Age of Ultron,' Quicksilver, who moves at the speed of light, protects the powerless Hawkeye from a spray of bullets, quipping, 'You didn't see that coming,' before collapsing onto the floor.
'Democrats, you didn't see that coming,' was my initial response when I read that newly elected Democratic National Committee Vice Chair David Hogg would raise the dough to support progressives challenging failing Democrats in the primaries.
Hogg, 26, was selected by members of the Democratic Party to represent young people's voices. Those who elected Hogg believe the only way out of Donald Trump's reign, currently wreaking havoc on our democracy and government systems to benefit the few, is to fill the room with young people.
They are not wrong. But…
While Hogg viewed his rise in the DNC ranks as an opportunity to challenge those in power, remember that he also bore witness to a school shooting that left friends murdered, his community scared and lasting trauma that I'm certain he relives daily.
It's not shocking then that he may view his role as the person to sacrifice himself for a larger calling — to ensure that young people who are losing faith regain it.
Hogg argues through his actions that the party needs someone to bring those young people back, someone from within to course-correct, and history supports him. Former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton furiously wrote our founding documents in his late 20s.
In that regard, Hogg's boldness is right on time, yet old guard strategists recoil at his youthful exuberance for change.
James Carville, the architect of former President Clinton's campaign and someone who is handed a microphone every time a producer can't find Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) or Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), called Hogg a 'twerp' and then said, 'His strategy is the most insane thing I've heard.'
Honestly, Carville, you're proving Hogg's point.
What he chose to ignore when going public with his media-catching dismay at Hogg's decision to influence Democratic primaries is that Hogg is rejecting the Carvilles of the world, who remain steadfast in being gatekeepers, deciding who gets in and who stays out of the Democratic Party.
Bottom line: You don't elect fresh faces to sideline their youthful energy and ideas. Even someone like me, who has been involved in politics for 20 years and now possesses relationships across all sectors of government, sees Hogg's abandonment of DNC norms to remain neutral in primary elections for what it is: action.
Hogg isn't wrong in his assertion that young people are being ignored. Footage from the Association of State Democratic Chairs 2024 winter meeting — one month after Trump was reelected — captured a conversation between the organization's leaders, who asserted that understanding the chartered and unspoken rules of party politics takes time.
We latch onto this belief in systems, processes and experience, relegating fresh ideas to the wings instead of center stage because, you know, dues have to be paid.
I'm 43, and it's comforting to go into a DNC meeting and see the same people, who elicit my favorite political memories, but that doesn't mean I'm growing.
Growth is critical, but it's about more than young people maturing into political systems. It's about the old guard being willing to let go of what they know and inviting new ideas into the mix.
Real leaders embrace a young person's growth because then everyone else will thrive. Stunt it, and you get the same.
Hogg also has something to learn from this. He orchestrated a media rollout in The New York Times for his big reveal that he would challenge the DNC practice to stay out of congressional primaries. He ran it by a few Democrats, for sure, who probably warned him against it. Instead of seeing their advice as counsel, he probably viewed the moment as something he had to do.
But the DNC members who elected Hogg weren't asking him to blow up the institution: They were asking him to fix it.
His move feels Trumpian to me: promising one thing, but going in another direction. It shows a lack of strategic acumen and paints him as someone more eager to grab a mic than to develop the meaningful relationships needed to convince party chairs, elected officials, party leaders and local organizers that his ideas are worth investing in and advocating for.
You know how I would know? I've had my moments where I put myself first, especially when a reporter called me, looking for an idea to 'shake things up.'
Been there, bruh.
My self-absorption taught me, though, that it's a lot harder to organize 57 states and territories. It takes patience to believe your work will translate into systemic changes.
Hogg is showing publicly that he is more willing to spend his time with the press, creators and donors than on the ground with those worried about paying their bills, staying in their homes or caring for their families.
Hogg experienced great tragedy, but if that moment is fueling his strategic decision-making, if he believes a national splash is better than working with others, then he needs to take a look around.
Unlike Carville, who cares only about the media attention he receives, Hogg has a community of people who believe in his move to challenge primary Democrats. But from the outside, it looks like a media move to bolster his profile.
It would behoove Hogg to look at someone like Ocasio-Cortez, a willing student who is turning her progressivism into bridge-building and working with others instead of going solo, all while landing right hooks in Republican arguments. And she's organizing.
Ocasio-Cortez is learning and leading, not blowing things up in the name of shock and awe. She's not behaving like Trump, and neither should Hogg.
Michael Ceraso is a Democratic strategist who served on four presidential campaigns, including those of President Barack Obama, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Pete Buttigieg. He is the founder of the communications firm Winning Margins, as well as Community Groundwork, a nonprofit supporting two-year students interested in civic careers.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Epoch Times
29 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
House Democrats Fall Short in Subpoenaing Elon Musk in 20–21 Vote
House Democrats on Thursday couldn't get enough votes to issue a subpoena to tech entrepreneur Elon Musk to testify before Congress. The House Oversight Committee rejected the Democrats' request for Musk, a Trump adviser and former head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), to appear before lawmakers in a 20–21 vote.

Los Angeles Times
29 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Why Paramount's efforts to settle Trump's lawsuit has drawn mounting political heat
Paramount Global's efforts to appease President Trump could carry a steep price, and not just financially. As Paramount executives struggle to win government approval for its planned sale, the legal risks and political headaches are spreading — from Washington to Sacramento. Three U.S. senators have warned Paramount's controlling shareholder Shari Redstone and other decision-makers that paying Trump to drop his $20-billion lawsuit over an October '60 Minutes' interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris could be considered a bribe. Scrutiny widened late last week when two California Democrats proposed a state Senate hearing to probe details of the drama that has roiled the media company for months. The senators invited two former CBS News executives — who both left, in large part, because of the controversy — to testify before a joint committee hearing in Sacramento to help lawmakers examine problems with a possible Trump settlement. 'I haven't seen a president act in this brazen of a manner,' state Sen. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) said in an interview. 'We're concerned about a possible chilling effect any settlement might have on investigative and political journalism. It would also send a message that politically motivated lawsuits can succeed, especially when paired with regulatory threats.' Settling the Trump lawsuit is widely seen as a prerequisite for regulators to finally clear Paramount's $8-billion sale to Skydance Media, which Redstone has been desperately counting on to save her family's fortunes. Trump contends CBS edited the '60 Minutes' interview to enhance Harris' appeal in the 2024 presidential election, which she lost. He reportedly rebuffed Paramount's recent $15-million offer to settle his lawsuit, which 1st Amendment experts have dismissed as frivolous. 'This is a really important case,' said Scott L. Cummings, a legal ethics professor at UCLA's School of Law. 'Legislators are starting to raise alarms.' But whether federal or state politicians could foil a Trump settlement is murky. Experts caution, for example, that it may be difficult, if a settlement is reached, to prove that Paramount's leaders paid a bribe. Congress has grappled with such distinctions before, Cummings said. The U.S. Senate acquitted Trump in February 2020 after the House voted to impeach him for allegedly holding up nearly $400 million in security aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate former President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Major universities and law firms offered significant concessions to the administration this year to try to carve out breathing room. 'We would have to have a lot more facts,' Cummings said. 'Bribery requires a quid pro quo ... and [Trump and his lieutenants] are always very careful not to explicitly couple the two things together. But, clearly, they are related, right? This is the challenge, legally speaking.' Even if a Paramount payoff could be proved to be a bribe, it's unclear who would prosecute such a case. No one expects the Trump-controlled FBI or others within the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate allegations of bribery. Trump also has a grip on congressional Republicans and the Federal Communications Commission is run by a Trump appointee, Brendan Carr, who in one of his first acts as chairman, opened a public inquiry into whether the '60 Minutes' edits rose to the level of news distortion. It may fall to state prosecutors to dig into the issue, Cummings said. That hasn't stopped nationally prominent progressive lawmakers from sounding alarms. U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have demanded Paramount provide information about the company's deliberations or concessions to facilitate a deal with Trump, including whether newscasts were toned down. 'It is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act,' the lawmakers wrote in their May 19 letter to Redstone. 'If Paramount officials make these concessions ... to influence President Trump ... they may be breaking the law.' Redstone and Paramount failed to respond to the senators' questions by this week's deadline, according to Warren's office. Paramount and a Redstone spokesperson declined to comment. Lawmakers often express interest in big media takeovers, and Skydance's proposed purchase of an original Hollywood movie studio and pioneering broadcaster CBS could be an industry game changer. But this time, interest is less focused on vetting the Ellison family or the deal's particulars and more about determining whether Trump inappropriately wields his power. Trump has demanded Paramount pay 'a lot' of money to settle his lawsuit. The president also has called for CBS to lose its station licenses, which are governed by the FCC. For more than a month, attorneys for Paramount and Trump have participated in mediation sessions without resolution. Paramount offered $15 million but Trump said no, according to the Wall Street Journal. Instead, the president reportedly demanded at least $25 million in cash, plus an additional $25 million in free commercials to pump his favorite causes. He also wants an apology. The latter is a red line for CBS News executives who say they have done nothing wrong, according to insiders who were not authorized to discuss the sensitive deliberations. Paramount's leaders have clashed over settlement efforts, according to the sources. The two California state senators — Becker and Thomas J. Umberg (D-Santa Ana) — hope such fractures provide an opening. Late last week, the pair invited former CBS News and Stations President Wendy McMahon and former '60 Minutes' executive producer Bill Owens to testify at a yet-unscheduled oversight hearing in Sacramento. McMahon exited CBS last month under pressure for her management decisions, including resistance to the Trump settlement, sources said. Owens resigned in April, citing a loss of editorial independence. 'You are being approached as friendly witnesses who may help our committees assess whether improper influence is being exerted in ways that threaten public trust and competition in the media sector,' Becker and Umberg wrote to the former executives. Becker is chairman of the Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications Committee; Umberg heads the Senate Judiciary Committee. California has an interest, in part, because Paramount operates in the state, including a large presence in Los Angeles, Becker told The Times. The controversy over the edits began in October after CBS aired different parts of Harris' response to a question during a '60 Minutes' interview a month before the election. Producers of the public affairs show 'Face the Nation' used a clip of Harris giving a convoluted response. The following day, '60 Minutes' aired the most forceful part of her answer, prompting conservatives to cry foul. Trump filed his federal lawsuit in Texas days before the election, alleging CBS had deceptively edited the Harris interview to boost her election chances, an allegation CBS denies. After returning to the White House, Trump doubled the damages he was seeking to $20 billion. His team claims he suffered 'mental anguish' as a result of the interview. CBS has asked the Texas judge, a Trump appointee, to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the edits were routine. Since then, the FCC's review of Paramount's Skydance deal has become bogged down. Paramount needs Carr's approval to transfer CBS television station licenses to the Ellison family. Paramount has said it is treating the proposed settlement and FCC review on the Skydance merger as separate matters. Experts doubt Trump sees such a distinction. Trump and his team 'essentially are using government processes to set up negotiations that end up benefiting Trump personally in ways that raise corruption concerns,' Cummings said. Paramount's decision could open the company to shareholder complaints. The reason Trump's CBS '60 Minutes' lawsuit has become such a lightning rod is 'because the lawsuit is so ridiculously frivolous,' said Seth Stern, advocacy director for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which owns Paramount shares and has vowed a lawsuit if the company capitulates. 'This is so transparently an abuse of power — a shakedown,' Stern said. Media analyst Richard Greenfield of LightShed Partners suggested that Trump's goal may be about more than his reported demand of nearly $50 million. 'The far bigger question is whether there is any number that Trump would want to settle the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit,' Greenfield wrote in a blog post this week. 'If Trump's goal is to weaken the press and cause persistent fear of lawsuits that could negatively impact business combinations, keeping the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit ongoing could be in the President's best interests.' UCLA's Cummings sees another deleterious outcome. A settlement could 'legitimize the narrative that Trump puts out that there's some sort of corruption within these media entities,' Cummings said. 'He could point to a settlement and say: 'I told you they did something wrong, and they now agreed because they paid me this amount of money.' ' 'Even though they would be paying to get this deal through,' Cummings said.


New York Post
30 minutes ago
- New York Post
Andrew Cuomo and Zohran Mamdani's posture reveals how Dems really felt during tense NYC mayoral debate showdown: experts
Ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo dodging an onslaught of jabs and socialist state Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani trying to snag a viral breakout moment were among the standouts from New York City's mayoral Democratic primary debate. Body language experts weighed in after the Democratic candidates sparred against each other Wednesday in the first debate of the 2025 primary election — as they jostled to outshine in each other in an already overcrowded race. Here's what they had to say of the top moments: Advertisement 5 The Democratic candidates for New York City mayor participating in a debate on June 4, 2025. Pool/ABACA/Shutterstock A rapidly blinking Cuomo Despite being the front-runner, Cuomo's body language clearly shifted as the NBC-Politico debate wore on as he was relentlessly attacked by his fellow candidates over more than two hours. The former governor, 67, dramatically increased his blinking when peppered with questions about his handling of COVID nursing home deaths and the sexual harassment scandal that led to his resignation, according to Washington DC-based body language expert Christopher Ulrich. Advertisement 'Initially confident and expressive, Cuomo's posture changed over time — particularly when he was under attack,' Ulrich said. 5 Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo looked uncomfortable as the attacks from other candidates continued, body language experts told The Post. 'We also saw an increase in blink rate when asked questions about COVID-19 nursing home deaths and sexual harassment.' The behavior, the expert noted, was a clear sign of 'increased psychological discomfort.' Hand in his pocket Advertisement Cuomo was also repeatedly spotted with his hand in his pocket as the going got tough, according to experts. 'While under verbal attack from the rest of the candidates, we see Cuomo keep his hand in his pocket, a self-soothing or protective gesture that often signals discomfort,' Ulrich said. At various points, Cuomo could be seen staring down at his podium as the attacks continued. 5 Cuomo kept on putting his hand in his pocket throughout the debate. NBC / YouTube Advertisement 'These unrelenting jabs, that obviously hit his sore spots, ultimately resulted in Cuomo looking down at his podium more than he looked up at the other candidates, the hosts or the camera,' brain and body language expert and psychiatrist Carole Lieberman said. 'To remove himself from the hostility directed at him, he began writing something and concentrated on it, so as not to be disturbed.' In search of a viral moment Mamdani, the 33-year-old socialist Queens Assemblyman, repeatedly used wild hand gestures in an apparent bid to steal the spotlight from Cuomo, the experts said. '[He] employed numerous attacks, including references to Cuomo's donors and the COVID report, to try to contrast and achieve one of those viral moments,' Ulrich said, adding that he often gestured toward Cuomo when delivering the attacks. 5 Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani used wild hand gestures to stand out during his clashes with Cuomo, experts say. Lieberman noted that Mamdani — who has zeroed in on young, white, ultra-left New Yorkers during his campaign — often used 'sensational, dramatic language' on stage at 30 Rockefeller Center. 'He is the wild card in the race, as his hand gestures, pointing in all directions, underscored,' she said. 'He was the most animated and determined to outshine Cuomo.' A statesmanlike performance A fired up Rev. Michael Blake came off as 'very stately' — even as the former Obama administration official consistently hammered Cuomo on stage, Lieberman said. Advertisement Ulrich added that Blake, a former Bronx Assembly member, tried to command attention with his Cuomo onslaught. 5 Rev. Michael Blake appeared 'stately' as he stood up to Cuomo. 'Mr. Blake stood out in some of the key moments by demanding Cuomo clarify several of his answers,' he said. 'Reporters often picked up on those demands and would repeat Blakes's clarifying questions. 'By interjecting assertively and keeping others quiet, Blake commanded attention. This approach mirrored techniques used by Trump in the 2016 Republican primary debates,' Ulrich said.