Better to Lose as Leftists Than Lose as Corporatists

People who follow the news are familiar by now with the general dynamic of the civil war within the Democratic Party that has been raging with greater intensity since 2016. Most of the party's voters lean progressive, which is to say significantly to the left of its ruling elites, members of the Democratic National Committee, and the most powerful Democratic members of Congress.

The battle between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton for the 2016 presidential nomination has largely defined this struggle. Tracking polls consistently found that Sanders would have defeated Donald Trump in the general election. Trump himself, and his internal pollsters, believed Sanders, who had pushed for change within his party for decades, would have beaten him.

Party elites ignored and denied the evidence, cheated to make sure Sanders was unable to overcome the institutional barriers the party had created through its antidemocratic superdelegate scheme, and we all know what happened that November.

The DNC got its way. We got Trump. And the DNC never apologized. To the contrary, they followed the same playbook against Bernie in 2020.

Corporate Democrats have always claimed, as an article of faith with little support in the form of statistical evidence, that moderate/centrist/corporatist Democrats are more electable against Republicans than left-populist progressives.

That argument was tested in 2016, 2020 and 2024, twice with disastrous results. (Biden's 2020 victory must be considered as a deferred defeat that culminated in his late withdrawal in 2024, hobbling his successor, Kamala Harris.) While it is true that such catastrophic defeats are always tragically neglected unclaimed orphans, progressives concluded that corporate Democrats would rather lose as moderates than win as progressives.

Now, however, there is concern, even among some left-leaning Democrats, that -- at least when it comes to evenly balanced swing states in the postindustrial Midwest -- corporate Democrats may enjoy an advantage, albeit a small one, over progressives when it comes to going up against the GOP in general elections. Electability concerns seem to have been the main cause of the surprise defeat of progressive Francesca Hong in Wisconsin's gubernatorial primary, and the fact that Abdul El-Sayed barely eked out a victory in Michigan's senatorial race, which he had been expected to win by double digits.

Neither Hong nor El-Sayed enjoyed endorsements from mainline Democrats.

Some recent analysis finds that, in very tight races, corporate Democrats may have slightly better odds.

Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, progressives confronted with the possibility that the "Bernie would have defeated Trump" line either might no longer apply, or might be limited to discrete sets of circumstances, are largely replying with their own version of the stance of the DNC Democrats, who refuse to share power: Even if this is true, we would still prefer to vote for left populists in Democratic primaries over corporate centrists like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who opposes Medicare for All despite the fact that most actual Americans would love it.

Progressives, it appears now, want the Democratic Party their way or no way at all. They too would rather lose to the Republicans than allow the corporate center to (continue to) control the party.

Electability is nice, their thinking goes, but what's the point of getting a Democrat elected if they not only fail to fight the Republicans but share many of the same policy positions on issues you really care about, like Israel's genocidal war against the people of Gaza, and universal health care? Former Congressman Cori Bush, defeated in a recent comeback attempt, exclaims: "I am not down, sad, worn out, tired out, beat up, sat down, or silenced. ... I don't need a title to continue fighting."

Corporate Democrats aren't watered-down progressives. They're something else entirely -- a strain of neoliberalism that has far more in common with Ronald Reagan than Bernie Sanders.

Better to take over the Democratic Party from within, expel the corporate wing, and then go after the Republicans later.

The new view is substantially informed by the rapid revival and insurgency of the long-moribund Democratic Socialists of America as an organizing force for leftist Democrats capable of organizing and providing a discrete platform for an ideology more sharply defined and disciplined than the 2016-2024 progressive blob symbolized by Bernie, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Squad.

It's also the logical culmination of the reflexive impulses of the controlling corporate Democrats against anyone who threatens their control, particularly younger candidates and voters, especially those who aren't white. New York progressives won't soon forget the not-so-subtle racism, as Democrats joined or remained silent, used in the unsuccessful attempt to derail the mayoral campaign of Zohran Mamdani; everyone saw the same nefariousness at work against El-Sayed. Centrists constantly repeat that democratic socialists are not real members of the Democratic Party. If the gatekeepers won't welcome you into their big tent, and you have a shot at bum-rushing the stage, the next logical move is to attempt a coup and eject the people who kept you out all those years.

========

Ted Rall, the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, is the author of the brand-new "What's Left: Radical Solutions for Radical Problems." He co-hosts the left-vs-right DMZ America podcast with fellow cartoonist Scott Stantis and The TMI Show with political analyst Manila Chan. Subscribe: tedrall.Substack.com.

----