Top Democrats Are Trapped in a Catch 22

An insurgent wave is crushing the Democratic Party establishment this primary season and startling the old guard. Left-wing voters are increasingly turning to progressives and socialists over anybody with ties to Congress. One of the most notable upsets happened last Tuesday when Melat Kiros, a 29-year-old democratic socialist, defeated 15-term incumbent Rep. Diana DeGette in Colorado. The week before, a slate of candidates endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America won New York primaries for the state legislature and Congress; two incumbent congressional Democrats, Dan Goldman and Adriano Espaillat, lost their seats. The trend is not subtle. More incumbent Democrats are staring down challengers in tough races, too, and some will likely fall. The base apparently views its party as toxic and wants a total transformation. Their efforts, however, may cause it more harm than good.

Insurgents Put Democrats on Notice

What makes the losses in New York even more significant is that they happened in the backyards of top Democrats: Representative Hakeem Jeffries and Senator Chuck Schumer, both minority leaders in their respective chambers. Jeffries backed Espaillat and Goldman, and after Jeffries appeared on a screen at an election-night party during last week’s socialist sweep of New York’s Democratic primaries, the crowd reportedly started chanting: “You’re next.” Schumer, on the other hand, has endorsed several moderate candidates nationwide, including Representative Haley Stevens of Michigan in her August Senate primary against progressive frontrunner Abdul El-Sayed, a former public health official backed by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. But seeing how New Yorkers booed Schumer at a recent Pride March, his endorsements might not carry much weight. Even socialism is more popular than Schumer right now, according to the latest New York Times/Siena College poll.

When all is said and done, many of these upsets will mostly affect the lower chamber. The Senate remains a long shot for Democrats to retake, but if you squint and ignore the numerous things that need to go right for them, it’s within reach. Many estimates, however, suggest they will have a majority in the House next year. If that happens, several progressive House candidates have said they wouldn’t vote for Jeffries as speaker. Kiros told Politico before her victory that “if the day comes to vote and he continues taking corporate PAC money, I won’t be voting for him.” Of course, much of what happens would depend on the size of the majority and whether the current “squad” – Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib – felt emboldened by their newly elected comrades.

Altogether, the anti-Jeffries faction could total up to a dozen members, explained The Wall Street Journal, “more than enough to cause the kind of vote-whipping mischief that made Republican Kevin McCarthy’s life miserable during his 10 months as speaker in 2023.” However, if they do win back the House, it’s not only Jeffries’ ascent to speaker that might be in jeopardy but also the party’s ability to govern, especially if their majority is narrow. Plus, infighting could torch the party’s chances of getting much done in 2027 – more so than usual. Nothing is certain, of course, and for that majority to happen, some of these far-left candidates will have to win November match-ups outside of deep-blue districts, a tough task when considering the past.

Good Luck in November

The Democratic Party establishment knows its chances of taking back power in Congress are at risk with these extreme candidates. History has proven time and again that moderates do better in general elections, predominantly in swing states. In a much-debated article from The New York Times last year, the paper’s editorial board published an analysis of the 2024 election and found “moving to the center is the way to win.” Part of the reason is that moderates more accurately represent their constituents’ views; far-right and -left candidates are usually out of step with many Americans, especially persuadable voters who aren’t rigidly partisan – the people who routinely sway election outcomes.

Of the 17 Democrats in 2024 who won in places that Trump also won, moderation dominated their campaign messages. Yet “many progressives have tried to wish away these warning signs,” explained the Times, “and insist that they can win by quietly retaining all their unpopular positions and emphasizing economic issues. But they cannot point to a single member of Congress or governor from swing districts or states who has pursued this strategy and won.” In other words, advocating for abolishing borders and destroying Western civilization, as several socialist candidates have done, probably won’t be a winning message outside progressive strongholds in the fall.

With that said, earlier studies suggest a shift could be underway. In 2020, political scientist Stephen Utych published a paper in The Journal of Politics and said that “while moderates have historically enjoyed an advantage over ideologically extreme candidates in Congressional elections, this gap has disappeared in recent years.” That didn’t seem to be the case in 2024, but “ideologically extreme candidates are becoming more successful in primaries, and, at least among partisan individuals, the public is becoming more ideologically polarized.” Be that as it may, primaries are not entirely representative of general elections.

Fewer people vote in primaries than in general elections; it’s often the more politically engaged who get involved in primaries – people more likely to vote for extreme candidates. But in the fall, we’ll see more people casting ballots, many who didn’t turn out for primaries and have no interest in far-left ideas. Regardless of outcomes, one thing is clear: The hardcore Democratic Party’s base won’t accept the status quo any longer.

Tug-of-War

Though much of the attention surrounding these insurgents has focused on ideology, many of the votes they have received are likely in protest of the Democratic Party and not in support of socialism or progressivism. The base wants fighters in DC, and these progressive candidates are putting on a good show, energizing leftists nationwide to the point that it seems many have not considered the potential consequences of electing radicals.

Party leaders, on the other hand, appear stuck between competing forces: As they push for moderate candidates who might be more competitive in tough races this November, primary voters across the country are moving in the opposite direction. The two sides are in a tug-of-war, pulling each other away from their goals while creating havoc. One side wants a transformation, while the other seems averse to change. Perhaps that’s why they’re in the current situation, threatened by the people they’re supposed to represent. Now, their only possible outcomes are to remain the minority party or to regain power and contend with a slew of socialists who have openly expressed their distaste for the Democratic Party and for America. In the end, the left’s revolt might be less of a reckoning and more of a slow-motion collapse.