Progressive Candidates Are Winning For a Very Simple Reason

I am probably the last person anyone expected to make this argument.

As a fairly centrist Democrat, I don’t agree with the Democratic Socialists of America on a lot of policy. I’ve got real concerns about some of the things DSA-backed candidates have said, some of the positions they’ve taken, and how some of those ideas would play in a general election outside of deep-blue districts.

But if Democrats look at the recent success of DSA-backed and DSA-aligned candidates and conclude that the only lesson is that the party is moving left, we’re going to miss the most important point.

Yes, ideology plays a role in Democratic primaries. These candidates are running in districts where progressive politics can travel farther than they can in a lot of other places. But the deeper reason they keep finding openings has less to do with where they fall on a left-right spectrum and more to do with whether voters believe them.

Last week in New York, Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s slate of progressive, DSA-backed candidates had a huge night. Darializa Avila Chevalier defeated incumbent Rep. Adriano Espaillat. Brad Lander defeated incumbent Rep. Dan Goldman. Claire Valdez won her primary against the preferred successor of Rep. Nydia Velázquez. And just this week, longtime Colorado Democratic Congresswoman Diana DeGette lost her primary to a DSA-backed challenger, Melat Kiros. Those results are being treated by some Republicans as proof that Democrats have become socialists, and by some Democrats as proof that the party is being hijacked by the left. The reality is much more nuanced than that.

A lot of these races are really about believable candidates beating unbelievable institutions.

Most Democratic primary candidates agree on the broad goals. Lower costs. More affordable housing. Better health care. Standing up to Trump. Supporting working people. The bigger difference is that some candidates sound like they believe what they’re saying because they’ve lived it. Others sound like they discovered the issue through a poll.

That difference is enormous right now.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn’t beat Joe Crowley in 2018 because she had more money, more institutional backing, or a safer résumé. She beat a 10 term incumbent because when she spoke about the problems, her voters actually believed her because they believed she had experienced them firsthand.

I disagree with AOC on plenty. But I don’t wonder whether she believes what she says.

This might surprise some people, but if AOC or a more progressive Democrat had challenged President Biden in 2024, I would have seriously considered voting for them. It’s not because I suddenly agree with their platform. But when AOC or other progressives talk about rent, groceries, wages, health care, and corruption, I believe that they believe it. I may question the solution. I don’t question whether the concern is real.

Too many Democrats have the opposite problem.

They told voters the border wasn’t really a problem until it became politically impossible to deny. They told voters the economy was great until the cost of living showed up in every poll. And Democratic voters remember the lies they were told about President Biden. They were told he was fit to serve another four years when both science and reality suggested otherwise. When concerns about his age reached a boil, Democratic politicians told voters not to worry, that Biden would just go to bed sooner and start work later, as if that would remedy the situation.

The arrogance of those who chose Biden over their party, and certainly over the country, has bred contempt among voters who are now reluctant to trust the “Democratic establishment.” That contempt has morphed into an appetite for something new, or anyone new, if they are even halfway believable. And race by race, that appetite is being fed at the expense of politicians that have put their careers first.

That’s why these challengers keep getting traction. They don’t sound like they’re borrowing concern from a memo. They sound like they’re running because they’re actually angry about something, actually connected to something, and actually trying to fix something.

Too many people run for office because they want to be somebody. Voters are hungry for people who run because they want to do something.

That’s the divide currently facing the Democratic Party.

This also helps explain Jermaine Johnson’s win in the South Carolina Democratic primary for governor. Jermaine isn’t a DSA candidate, and South Carolina sure isn’t New York City. But the lesson is similar. He beat more conventional and better-funded candidates in a race where a lot of people assumed money, endorsements, and “electability” would carry the day. Jermaine won because Democratic voters believed he was fighting for something.

His main opponent, Billy Webster, had a very clear case. He represented stability, experience, a steady hand, and a safer general-election profile. He had millions of dollars and high-profile endorsements. There are years when that works. This was not that year.

Democratic voters are angry right now. They’re angry at Trump. They’re angry about prices. They’re angry at politics-as-usual. They’re angry at the people in their own party who aren’t as angry as they are.They desire candidates who sound like they cared long before the consultants told them what to care about.

That’s the real warning for the Democratic establishment.

If voters don’t believe you, money will only take you so far. Endorsements will only take you so far. A safe message will only take you so far.

Eventually, voters ask a more basic question: do I believe this person?

Increasingly, the answer for a lot of establishment Democrats is no.

That doesn’t mean I believe these DSA-backed candidates are right on policy. Nor does it mean Democrats should confuse deep-blue primary energy with a national mandate. That would be a serious mistake.

But dismissing these wins as a left-wing fad is lazy.

A lot of Democratic primary voters are making a unique calculation. They’re willing to support someone they may not agree with on policy if they believe that person is honest, rooted, and willing to fight. They’re less willing to support someone who may sound closer to them on paper but feels stale, managed, or self-interested.

The establishment’s problem isn’t that it’s too moderate. Some of the most popular Democrats in the country are moderates. The problem is that too many establishment Democrats don’t sound believable anymore. They sound cautious when voters want candor.

Republicans will keep trying to turn every DSA win into an ad about socialism. Fine. They’ll do what they do. Democrats need to look deeper. Primary voters aren’t asking for a different ideology. They are asking for a different kind of politician.

Candidates who are bold. Candidates with a little fight. Candidates who talk about the cost of living because they’ve felt it or have seen it up close. Candidates who say what they believe before the polling says it is safe.

The Democratic Party needs more believable people.

That applies to progressives. It applies to moderates. It applies to anyone who wants to win.

If establishment Democrats want fewer surprises in primaries, the answer cannot simply be attacking the left. The answer is producing candidates that voters can trust again. Candidates who are authentic. Candidates who are connected to the communities they want to represent. Candidates who have a reason to run beyond the next rung on the ladder.

Until that changes, we should expect more upsets.

Democratic voters are tired of being told to stay in line by people they don’t believe.

And honestly, I don’t blame them.