The DNC's David Hogg Lesson: Why the GOP Needs Better Candidates
How Hogg's Ouster Reveals a Lesson in Candidate Discipline
The Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) ouster of political activist David Hogg as Vice Chair of the organization didn’t come as a shock, as there have been rumblings for weeks that the DNC is unhappy with him. While the DNC claims that the move is due to procedural issues with his election, it’s clear that the real reason for his ouster is because he wanted to spend upwards of 20 million dollars on primarying Democrats in deep blue districts whom he saw as not liberal enough. The DNC viewed this as a colossal waste of resources, but there’s a deeper lesson that Republicans can learn from his ouster: when firebrands from safe districts gain too much influence, the party risks empowering voices that could ultimately cost them winnable elections. In other words, pick your candidates wisely.
In recent years, both parties have had problems with the rise of fringe, extreme candidates who become national figures and drive their party’s discourse. Democrats have “the squad”—AOC, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib—while Republicans have had Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, and Lauren Boebert. But, unlike the Democrats, the Republicans have repeatedly pushed for these members, or people of a similar ideological ilk, to run for statewide or national office. By pushing against Hogg, the DNC is preventing future extreme members of their party from gaining outsized influence over the party’s direction—and risking losing winnable elections in the future.
Hogg believes that the Democrats are losing ground among younger generations because they aren’t liberal enough. He believes that elevating more progressives like those in the squad would strengthen Democrat power in Congress and improve their chances in presidential elections. The DNC, however, recognizes the risks in this approach and has pushed back against Hogg’s strategy. They only need to point to recent Republican losses as proof: when candidates perceived as ‘extreme’ win primaries and run in larger elections, the party often pays a steep electoral price.
Republicans have a recent, troubling history of running candidates in winnable elections who are perceived as staunch ‘MAGA’ adherents—and then losing. In Arizona, Republicans nominated Kari Lake, a prominent MAGA figure, for governor in 2022. She lost to Democrat Katie Hobbs, even though Arizona had not elected a Democratic governor since 2002. Lake then ran for the U.S. Senate in 2024 and lost to Democrat Ruben Gallego, who is widely seen as a very far-left member of the Senate. In Pennsylvania, Republicans nominated TV personality Mehmet Oz for Senate. He lost that election to John Fetterman, who suffered a stroke during the campaign and could barely talk at the time of his election. Herschel Walker, a Trump-backed candidate and Georgia football legend, lost the Georgia Senate race to Raphael Warnock. In the same election cycle, Democrat Jon Ossoff won the Georgia Senate special election over a more moderate David Perdue by tying Perdue to the MAGA brand. These losses illustrate a clear pattern: when Republicans elevate the most extreme candidates from their base to statewide contests, they often forfeit otherwise winnable races.
I bring this up because the Jon Ossoff’s seat in the Senate, a seat that should already be held by a Republican, is up for reelection in 2026. The GOP has spent months debating who should challenge Ossoff. Many wanted Governor Brian Kemp to run, who would almost certainly win the election. His popularity in Georgia, and his public disagreement with Trump, would ease concerns over his extremism. However, Kemp recently announced that he will not enter the race. For a time, there was also speculation that Marjorie Taylor Greene might run, given her national profile and strong support in her deeply conservative district. But Greene, too, has now declined to run, leaving the field open to other Republicans.
It is good for the GOP that Greene decided not to run. History suggests that nominating a hardline MAGA candidate, like Greene, would be a major risk for the GOP. David Perdue, who was not an ardent MAGA personality, still lost his Senate seat after Ossoff effectively tied him to Trump and the MAGA brand in 2021. If Republicans were to nominate someone as polarizing as Marjorie Taylor Greene, the result could be another defeat—even in a state that voted for Trump in 2024. The lesson is clear: candidate quality and broad appeal matter, especially in a purple state like Georgia.
But how does keeping extremists out of deeply held seats help the party? It prevents future scenarios where polarizing figures, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, leverage their safe-seat popularity into statewide campaigns, risking otherwise winnable elections. Instead, when a more moderate, mainstream Republican holds a safe seat, they have the opportunity to build experience, credibility, and a positive reputation over time. This creates a pipeline of strong, electable candidates who are well-positioned to win statewide or national office later in their careers. These candidates will have already earned the trust of a broader electorate, not just the party’s most fervent base.
By ousting David Hogg as Vice Chair, the Democrats have shown that they understand the importance of candidate quality. While they do have their own headline-grabbing extremists, they’ve consistently managed to produce quality candidates who can win statewide elections—rather than elevating their most polarizing members to an election they can’t win. With Marjorie Taylor Greene officially out of the Senate race in Georgia, Republicans have an opportunity to learn from both past mistakes and the wisdom of the Democrats.
Don’t recruit a celebrity for the seat. Find someone who can appeal to the voters of Atlanta. Find someone who doesn’t have the reputation of being a party extremist. Find someone with a good background, whose personal baggage won’t become easy fodder for Ossoff and the Democrats to attack. In short: if you want to win, nominate a candidate who can actually win.
