It was beyond absurd that the Democratic National Committee believed it was a good idea, having just lost to Trump, to make David Hogg its vice chair. That they believed they were losing the youth vote was understandable. That they believed Hogg was the solution was nuts. Who was this kid, whose only claim to fame was surviving a school shooting? His public utterances, primarily on twitter, consisted almost entirely of infantile rantings that were roundly ridiculed by anyone with a basic knowledge of history and governance. And he was going to save the Democrats?

Hogg then did the unthinkable, putting together a PAC for the purpose of challenging Democratic incumbents who he decided were too old or too institutional to meet his radical vision.

David Hogg, the young vice chair of the Democratic National Committee who divided the party over his plans to intervene in primary races against sitting Democratic lawmakers, said that he would step aside from his prominent post after the party voted to force him to run again on Wednesday.

Mr. Hogg, 25, became a lightning rod for criticism within the party after he told The New York Times two months ago that he planned to spend millions of dollars on primaries through a separate group, Leaders We Deserve, that he leads. He said he was raising as much as $20 million to help bring generational change to the Democratic Party.

Is the Democratic Party in desperate need of change, whether it be generational or ideological? You bet. Its inability to mount a candidate capable of winning over Trump was damning for a great many reasons, and the fact was that Trump won and the Dems lost. While the cries of the MAGA faithful that 77 million Americans support Trump’s chaos fail to grasp the fundamental reality that many voted against Kamala Harris and the Democrats because of its embrace of progressive ideology rather than for Trump, whom they considered the lesser of evils, he won the election and winning has consequences, even if the winner turns out far worse than expected.

And yet, there was Hogg, as if he were going to save the Dems. In his letter explaining why he wouldn’t run again for chair, Hogg explained what he thought the Dems needed to do.

“I came into this role to play a positive role in creating the change our party needs,” he wrote. “It is clear that there is a fundamental disagreement about the role of a Vice Chair — and it’s OK to have disagreements. What isn’t OK is allowing this to remain our focus when there is so much more we need to be focused on.”

Mr. Hogg added, “Ultimately, I have decided to not run in this upcoming election so the party can focus on what really matters.”

Hogg said nothing of substance, which pretty much sums up Hogg. The Dems need change? Well, that clears it up. While Hogg’s being vice chair while actively trying to oust incumbent Dems in favor of anyone young was divisive and destructive, he wasn’t wrong that change was needed. It was just that Hogg wasn’t the change agent the Dems needed.

And who would give a damn that Hogg was out anyway? As it turns out, that would be DNC board member and the president of American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten.

In her resignation letter, dated June 5 and obtained on Sunday evening, Ms. Weingarten wrote that she would decline Mr. Martin’s offer to reappoint her to the broader national committee, on which she has served since 2002. She had been on the Rules and Bylaws committee since 2009.

“While I am proud to be a Democrat, I appear to be out of step with the leadership you are forging, and I do not want to be the one who keeps questioning why we are not enlarging our tent and actively trying to engage more and more of our communities,” Ms. Weingarten wrote in her resignation letter to Mr. Martin.

Unlike 25-year-old David Hogg, Weingarten (a classmate of mine at Cornell ILR) was no dopy kid with no portfolio. She brought with her the teachers’ union, which not only brings a lot of votes but a lot of influence over young minds. And she took Hogg’s side.

Notably, Ms. Weingarten had endorsed Mr. Hogg’s efforts, saying it was necessary to “ruffle some feathers.”

Weingarten claimed she stood for a bigger tent for the Democrats, suggesting that the party should not only embrace liberals as it traditionally had, but progressives, the far more radical left wing of the party. The problem with her “big tent” is that the far left wanted nothing to do with the core of the party, hating them as much if not more than it hated the MAGA right.

Hogg’s demise as vice-chair of the DNC, standing alone, was likely insignificant. Hogg just didn’t matter that much. But Weingarten’s split from the DNC signals a more serious problem, far more than the 1.8 million votes she brought to the party. The schism between liberals and progressives has been obvious for quite a while now, the radical left wing sharing little to nothing with the majority of the party.

But with only moderate liberals, can the Democrats muster enough votes to win? And with the radical left wing, can the Democrats hold the moderates, the political middle of America, who want nothing to do with its progressives? With the loss of Randi Weingarten, it’s beginning to look like there might not be a functional opposition to Trump’s MAGA party, as the Democrats are split and can’t bring themselves to decide what they need to change.