MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Progressive Insurgents Endorsed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Lost to Moderate Opponents In Tuesday's Primaries

The Democratic Party's socialist takeover is on hold for the moment.

The impending socialist takeover of the Democratic Party might be on hold for a while after a string of populist, left-wing primary candidates lost big against more moderate and incumbent contenders.

Leading up to Tuesday's primaries in Kansas, Ohio, Missouri, and Michigan, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a rising socialist star and the Democratic nominee for New York's Fourth Congressional District, attempted to transfer some of the momentum from her victory over 10-term Rep. Joe Crowley (D–New York) to like-minded revolutionaries outside the famously liberal bastion of New York City.

Last week, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted her support for Michigan gubernatorial candidate Adbul El-Sayed, as well as Fayrouz Saad, Kaniela Ing, and Cori Bush, running in Democratic congressional primaries in Michigan, Hawaii, and Missouri respectively.

Every single one of these candidates that had their primaries yesterday (Ing's isn't until Saturday) failed to get their party's nomination.

Sayed lost big against the more established former prosecutor and state legislator Gretchen Whitmer, earning 30 percent of the vote compared to Whitmer's 52 percent. It was a similar result for Bush, who lost by some 20 points to eight-term incumbent Rep. William Lacy Clay (D–Mo.) Saad was the only candidate to even come close to victory last night, earning 19 percent of the vote for a fourth-place finish in a crowded five-way contest, where first-place finisher Haley Stevens only managed to attract support from 26 percent of voters.

Conservative commenters were quick to rejoice at the string of defeats.

"Every Candidate Ocasio-Cortez Endorsed Lost in The Primaries" shouted the not-too-accurate original headline of a Daily Caller article. "Socialist star Ocasio-Cortez strikes out: All endorsed candidates lose Tuesday primaries" proclaimed the American Mirror. Carl Higbie, director of the pro-Trump America First Priorities Center, tweeted out similar sentiments.

Ocasio-Cortez herself was quick to point out that two candidates she endorsed actually did win their primaries, James Thompson of Kansas and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, both of whom she campaigned for.

That it was these candidates that managed to win their primaries, and not Bush, Sayeed, or Saad, is telling. It suggests the things that made Ocasio-Cortez's victory in June exciting for many on the left—a younger, explicitly socialist, woman of color, defeating a powerful, moderate, incumbent white male—was more a product of local circumstances than some national progressive wave.

Thompson, though not having held elected office before, was not a political neophyte either. He was the Democratic nominee for Kansas' Fourth Congressional District in the 2017 special election to fill the seat left vacant by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The Wichita Eagle notes that the biggest policy difference between him and primary opponent Laura Lombard, a business consultant, came down to gun control. Lombard favored a ban on "assault rifles," while Thompson did not.

Tlaib's win over main primary challenger Detroit City Council President Brenda Jones, is more impressive, but still a close affair. Tlaib pulled 33 percent of the vote compared to Jones' 29 percent. Jones did herself no favors by running a lackluster campaign that saw the candidate hold zero scheduled events or rallies in the days leading up to Tuesday's primary.

Indeed, the race that most resembled Ocasio-Cortez's own was the face-off in Missouri's First Congressional District. There, the left-wing Bush, a community organizer running on a platform of "Jobs, Justice, and Medicare-For-All" lost badly to Clay, a more moderate candidate who served as a state legislator for 15 years before taking over his father's seat in 2000.

This is not to say the Democratic Party as a whole is not moving left, because it definitely is. But last night's mixed results suggest the party is far more insulated from a grassroots socialist takeover than Ocasio-Cortez and her boosters would care to admit.

Photo Credit: JONATHAN BACHMAN/REUTERS/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    What!?! No Commie Blue-Green Wave?

    Haha. Lefties are stupid and never learn. They believe their polls until the voters prove them wrong.

    The Lefties get mad and move onto plan to try and murder all dissenting voters.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Meanwhile Americans workers flee from the Democratic Party.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You have to womder how violent they will get after the. Odterms when they don't get anything they want. Which will also mean no impeachment.

    I think democrat violence will be out of control.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Part of me wants the Lefties to get so upset they start the Civil War 2.0. The Silent Majority would squash their treasonous asses in a matter of weeks.

    Too many innocent non-Lefties would get hurt though.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    There is no conservative majority in the United States. Just not enough half-educated yahoos to get it done.

    Democratic control seems destined to increase in modern, successful communities. Republicans are positioned to continue to be kings of the declining, dwindling goober precincts.

    Over time, I expect the majority to prevail. Our system's structural amplification of yahoo voices, with some assistance from gerrymandering, may enable the stale thinkers to slow progress, but it is difficult to envision conservative victory over the medium to long term.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Maybe, but political parties change over time. The democrats were racist and for Jim Crow, a republican president is credited for freeing the slaves.

  • Tony||

    The parties' names changed around; the racists stayed in the same place.

  • Sevo||

    "The parties' names changed around; the racists stayed in the same place."

    Tell us which party supports racist hiring and college preferences, shitbag.

  • Fats of Fury||

    Many of the early National Socialists were gay including their head man. And he was gay to the very end.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Democrats stayed the racists to this day.

    its racist to think black people need white Socialists in the Democratic Party to save them.

    Republicans in 1965 didnt want government to expand into a welfare state and turn black people into serfs that give Democrats votes in exchange for welfare.

  • BYODB||


    The parties' names changed around; the racists stayed in the same place.

    The fact you believe this is intensely hilarious when those same Democrats were in the party up until, in some cases, the 90's.

  • BYODB||

    Oh, and that said, racism is inherent to humanity so trying to point at either party as 'racist' is essentially correct since everyone I've ever met was a human.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Bullshit Tony. That democrat lie was disproven years ago. There was no 'switching', ever.

    Just more democrat racism. The flavor just became more paternalistic to change with the times. Plus there have always been plenty of Uncle Toms like you perfectly willing to shill for your slaver over'prds at the DNC.

  • Paradigm||

    > The parties' names changed around; the racists stayed in the same place

    So then the Republicans can claim FDR and JFK as their own?

    That tired jibe about the parties shifting or changing names is pure unadulterated horseshit. The Democrats believed in big government then and still do. They just decided that pandering to Black people and exploiting them was more politically advantageous than lynching.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Maybe, but political parties change over time.

    Good point. I hope the Republican Party ditches the backwardness, intolerance, superstition, and ignorance. Many, perhaps most, Republicans of 40 or 50 years ago preferred science, competence, education, reason, progress, limited government, tolerance, successful communities, modernity, and foreign humility.

    The Republican Party's hard turn toward authoritarianism, bigotry (associated with political migration of southern racists welcomed to enable right-wingers to maintain a viable electoral coalition, in my judgment), superstition, incompetence, ignorance, and backwardness has been bad for America.

  • Paradigm||

    Has anyone else noticed that each and every post from Rev. Kirkland is an emotional belch of evidence-free racial twaddle?

  • Sevo||

    "Has anyone else noticed that each and every post from Rev. Kirkland is an emotional belch of evidence-free racial twaddle?"

    Pretty sure most of us posting here have found the troll to be an annoying asshole.
    I certainly have.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Good point. I hope the Republican Party ditches the backwardness, intolerance, superstition, and ignorance. Many, perhaps most, Republicans of 40 or 50 years ago preferred science, competence, education, reason, progress, limited government, tolerance, successful communities, modernity, and foreign humility.

    The Republican Party's hard turn toward authoritarianism, bigotry (associated with political migration of southern racists welcomed to enable right-wingers to maintain a viable electoral coalition, in my judgment), superstition, incompetence, ignorance, and backwardness has been bad for America

    I agree with you. This is well said.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Buy a gun and shoot yourself in the face.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The Democrats are still racist, and demanding racial discrimination. They just swapped client races.

  • Vaelyn||

    That's what they said in 1980.

  • Paradigm||

    > but it is difficult to envision conservative victory over the medium to long ter

    After every election, some court jester on either side says their party will have a permanent majority. They said it after Bill Clinton was elected, the Republicans said it after GW Bush, and ignorant single-celled organisms like Rev Kirkland and Tony said it when Soetoro took office in 2008.

    In a free country, dealing with the opposing ideology is a life sentence. To say otherwise means you hope to rule over others, which means your personality is not compatible with freedom.

  • Presskh||

    Yes sir, Rev. Arthur, Dems are in full control of Detroit, the poster child for once-great decaying cities, Chicago, murder capitol of the US, and San Francisco, where they issue "feces maps" of their downtown district. If this is your picture of "modern, successful cities", then I believe I would rather live in "old fashioned, unsuccessful" cities that don't have all of these progressive benefits.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    But, Press, those cities just don't have enough progressive progress (yet).

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I met someone who thinks Trump will steal the midterms through voter ID laws, if not outright corruption, and even thinks Trump might try to cancel the 2020 election.

    I said of all the Presidents I remember, Nixon seemed the most unhinged, and even he wasn't that deranged. I asked him under what law or theory of law could any President cancel elections mandated by the Constitution, and how he'd get 50 states and all the territories to go along with cancelling elections, not to mention all the cities and counties. Just ain't gonna happen. It's be the surest ticket to impeachment ever.

  • Flinch||

    There will be no voter ID mid-term, as congress is too close to election day to do anything but phone it in. Trump might get impeached for that very reason: dems are able to pack absentee ballots nationwide in one last herculean effort to steal the House. Also, the lag time for mr. Sessions to snap to and figure out anything is happening appears to be 18 months. So if there is an impeachment in June 2019, then no team will be assembled to deal with voter fraud until after it's too late to even guard the 2020 election. This cycle has two choices: a continuation of a useless republican controlled congress or being completely fucked.

  • Calidissident||

    What polls are you referring to? The polls had Whitmore up 20 points in Michigan, and I'm not sure if there's any public polling on the various congressional races.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So the media was outright lying that it was a close race?

  • Calidissident||

    I didn't follow that race closely so I'm not sure what the overall coverage looked like. I do know that there was some speculation that it could be close if there was a huge polling error like there was in the 2016 Dem presidential primary in Michigan (polls had Hillary up 20 points, she lost narrowly - this was by far the biggest error of that entire cycle AFAIK), I don't know whether the overall narrative was that this was likely. Whatever the case, this time around the polls were dead on. Seems like some people read too much into a single data point.

  • Fats of Fury||

    This is gonna put a damper on getting Nikita Banana to head the Libertarian ticket in 20.

  • Devastator||

    I think you're going to be disappointed in November. Both houses will be Democrat thanks to Benito Dorito.

  • Flinch||

    They are a minority. To bolster their own narrative, they poll their own then put out the press release and cross their fingers for enough traction to fake majority status. When it doesn't work, they look like complete imbeciles... I'm good with that.

  • Rich||

    "Every Candidate Ocasio-Cortez Endorsed Lost in The Primaries" shouted the not-to-accurate original headline

    Emphasis added. Oops!

    Seriously, Christian, thanks for the good news.

  • Aloysious||

    I was going to mock the same thing, but had the good sense to refresh. Thank SMOD I didn't get Fisted.

  • Christian Britschgi||

    Fixed! Thanks for pointing that out

  • Idle Hands||

    are there really any moderates left in the Dem party? Who would you even count as a moderate? Maybe it's because they are the in the minority but I honestly couldn't name one besides maybe Manchin.

  • CDRSchafer||

    Trotskyites, kulaks and wreckers.

  • Imissbuckley||

    There are several: Joe Donnelly (Indiana), Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota), Claire McCaskill (Missouri), Jon Tester (Montana), etc.

    The problem is they're are all statists who believe the government knows best. The real problem is I can't think of a single moderate among either the Democrats or Republican who isn't a statist.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Tester is a moderate in election years. The rest of the time he is a party man. McCaskill is the same. As is Donnelly. The only true moderate is arguably Heitkamp out of your list.

  • Devastator||

    Considering world politics the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans are actually both right leaning in the political spectrum. Bernie is barely a moderate.

  • Sevo||

    Devastator|8.8.18 @ 11:32PM|#
    "Considering world politics the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans are actually both right leaning in the political spectrum. Bernie is barely a moderate."

    Did you hope no one would notice your bullshit, you fucking ignoramus?

  • vek||

    There are moderates as other Democrats think of them I imagine... For instance in the Seattle election for mayor, the "moderate" won. Keep in mind she makes Bill Clinton from the 90s seem like a purist libertarian in relative terms, but she's the "moderate" one compared to the ACTUAL Socialist Party member we have on the city council.

    In real objective terms I don't think there are more than a handful of moderate Dems left. Every one I've seen of late has been pretty hard left and unhinged.

    The Republicans unfortunately have a fair number of moderates left... IMO moderate Republicans are what have ruined this country, at least fiscally. Sure we may have blown up another country or two... But if Republicans in congress voted like the base has actually wanted on fiscal stuff we'd have a lot smaller and less costly government.

    In a way the moderate Dems were kind of what helped the country from going over the deep end up through the 90s. Once they started going away was when shit started getting proper crazy.

  • Uncle Jay||

    The proggies lost because there were not enough of the masses marched off to the local gulags for their socialist re-education.
    This is what happens when you let people think for themselves and are allowed to vote for multiple parties instead of the one true political party that will benefit all the slavers and their cronies.
    The great unwashed masses never get it right and must be pointed in the right direction if we are to have a true socialist slave state.
    Maybe next time.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""The Wichita Eagle notes that the biggest policy difference between him and primary opponent Laura Lombard, a business consultant, came down to gun control. Lombard favored a ban on "assault rifles," while Thompson did not.""

    How will Cortez get her gun control passed if she backs people like Thompson?

  • LarryA||

    Lombard favored a ban on "assault rifles," while Thompson (who won) did not.

    But, but, how can this be? Everybody who is Anybody knows that 95% of everyone in the U.S. including gun owners wants to ban "assault rifles" and other "full semiautos." The Mainstream Media Sez So!

    [/sarc]

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    These Democratic Socialists remind me of Tea Party members -- enthusiastic, impractical, loud, disaffected, naive, often counterproductive.

    One difference: The Democratic Socialists seem to be less interested in the Confederacy, stale and authoritarian social polices, and general backwardness than the Tea Partiers have been.

    I hope Democrats manage the Socialists better than the Republicans handled the Tea Party.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    interested in the Confederacy, stale and authoritarian social polices

    Well, I won't comment on the "confederacy" but I will take issue with how you paint their level of interest in Stalinism, the Great Leap Forward, firing squads, the Ukranian Famine and the Cambodian Genocide.

  • Sevo||

    "One difference: The Democratic Socialists seem to be less interested in the Confederacy, stale and authoritarian social polices, and general backwardness than the Tea Partiers have been."

    And more interest in a political system which mass murdered nearly 100,000,000 people in the last century, but you tend to ignore that.
    Omelets and broken eggs, right, asshole?

  • Juice||

    The Democratic Socialists seem to be less interested in ... stale and authoritarian social polices

    They're socialists, though, right?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Socialists have no place in America, except as convicted criminals.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Your betters have been putting right-wing jerks in their place in America throughout my lifetime, making progress on issue after issue against the wishes and efforts of Republicans, conservatives, faux libertarians, and other right-wingers. I expect this to continue as America improves, making right-wingers past, present, and future losers in America's public debates and societal progress.

  • Paradigm||

    > Your betters

    Rev Kirkland repeatedly uses that phrase then has the temerity to call people he hates (conservatives and real libertarians) "authoritarians." That gives me the same chuckle that the name Anti-Fa does. "Anti"-fascists hitting people with bike locks and chasing people out of public places are the true fascists...not the phantom ones that exist only in the fever dreams of Kirkland and Tony.

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|8.8.18 @ 8:23PM|#
    "Your betters have been putting right-wing jerks in their place in America throughout my lifetime, making progress on issue after issue against the wishes and efforts of Republicans, conservatives, faux libertarians, and other right-wingers."
    Well, gee. Look at the asshole making assertions absent any evidence whatsoever and hoping that someone will buy bullshit in that rotten condition.

    "I expect this to continue as America improves, making right-wingers past, present, and future losers in America's public debates and societal progress."
    I expect you to continue to be a fucking ignoramus.

  • croaker||

    Her endorsements came up as empty as a bodega in Venezuela.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    But, wait! Come back! Toilet paper tomorrow!

  • NoVaNick||

    Too bad! Socialists are more entertaining than run of the mill progs.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's hard to believe that New York City isn't typical of the rest of the country.

    On the one hand, the elitists seem to think the rest of America is a zombie infested, post-apocalyptic wasteland, but, on the other hand, they seem to assume it's politics are just like New York City, too.

    Except for the South, where the zombies are all racist.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Would a racist zombie prefer white or dark meat?

  • Fats of Fury||

    La nuit tous les cerveaux sont gris.

  • LarryA||

    All brains are gray.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'm curious to see how far she can go once she wins. Most conversations I've seen with her paint her as a policy and intellectual lightweight, not stupid but not well versed in what she is attempting to discuss (And hey, I don't know shit either). But I will be curious if she will learn, or fade away, or if she will grow more powerful, or what.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    not stupid but not well versed in what she is attempting to discuss

    She strikes me as incredibly naive and inexperienced. I think some of the ad hominem attacks against were were mostly unfair and didn't address all the economic creation science stuff she was spouting.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yes, intellectually Ad Hominem attacks are always a negative. Ideas should be dealt with, and shit flinging does nothing but lower the discourse.

    As a purely practical matter, ad hominem attacks against a pretty, young, latina girl is probably not the best bet. People are going to side with her if her feelings are hurt. I say this as someone who is quite fond of hispanic women, but I don't think that it's just me who would think that.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Wood not.

    But her career (and looks) should track withMaxine Waters.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Yes, intellectually Ad Hominem attacks are always a negative

    I think specifically I have issue with the gripes about her background. If it turned out she was lying about her background, then I think those attacks would be warranted or at least have some merit. But there's no evidence she's really lying about anything in her backgroud- beyond maybe how she colors it, but it's pretty small potatoes.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It's important to realize that a lot of the logical fallacies are actually good heuristics.

    The difference between logic and heuristics, is that given true premises and valid logic, the conclusion in logic is always true.

    Heuristics have no such guarantee, they just tell you how you should place your bet.

    So, the guy who embezzled his last three employers isn't guaranteed the embezzle his next, But you'd still be a fool to hire him as your accountant.

  • vek||

    I would be totally down to try out some ICE cosplay with her! At the end I would actually deport her!

    She's not smokin' hot, but she's pretty okay. Too bad she's a retarded commie.

  • Dillinger||

    photos well, should never, ever speak into microphone.

  • Dillinger||

    well, i mean maybe if she reads some more and works private sector for 20 years ... maybe *then* Meet the Press

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Ambassador to Venezuela?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The Democratic Party's socialist takeover is on hold for the moment.

    It's never on hold, Britches.

  • ThomasD||

    If those candidates are your cup of borscht those numbers should actually be quite pleasing.

    Libertarians dream of receiving those kinds of percentages.

    so no, the takeover is not on hold, it's just warming up.

  • Jerryskids||

    Bad news for Trump - apparently the Dem voters aren't jumping off that cliff just yet. Bad news for the rest of us - apparently the Dem voters aren't jumping off that cliff just yet.

  • lap83||

    the truncated headline in the link says "progressive insurgents endorsed by alexa"....and I read that first after leaving the tab for awhile and forgetting what the headline really was. Is it bad that my reaction was "yeah, that sounds about right"

  • BYODB||


    The impending socialist takeover of the Democratic Party might be on hold for a while after a string of populist, left-wing primary candidates lost big against more moderate and incumbent contenders.


    Duh, McFly, the only reason this chica won is because literally no one was paying attention or cared that she was running. Like, the point where the other guy didn't even show up to a debate or two with her.


    Thinking this was some kind of major victory for the communists was always horseshit that the media desperately wanted to push for clicks (and possibly because they're communists).

  • BYODB||


    Tlaib pulled 33 percent of the vote compared to Jones' 29 percent. Jones did herself no favors by running a lackluster campaign that saw the candidate hold zero scheduled events or rallies in the days leading up to Tuesday's primary.

    This is, I think, a product of the failure of the Democrat party to bother to defend themselves from the left (or at all) in the primary process.

    I'm starting to think that at least a few bastions of Democrats are up for grabs simply because the incumbent is so comfortable and safe that they simply don't bother to show up. Thus far we appear to have Detroit and New York, so that seems to bear this out.

    Kansas, well, I'll be the first to admit I know nothing about Kansas other than witches are occasionally crushed by fast-moving homes.

  • Heedless||

    That's a code violation.

    You'll be hearing from the HOA shortly.

  • vek||

    This sucks.

    It would have been AWESOME if all these people had won. It would have scared the shit out of every sane person left in this country that still votes for Democrats sometimes. People need to understand they are not the party of 1990s Bill Clinton, or JFK or whatever anymore. Those guys wanted to do some horrible stuff, but they also were willing to do good stuff like cut taxes/welfare/etc when it seemed to make sense. Those guys are GONE.

    Maybe the Socialists didn't sweep it this go around, but it seems pretty clear that is where the Dems are going unless there is a MAJOR shift. Even if they just stay as horrible as they are now, that's bad enough. White, moderate, middle class people are basically what Trump won on, and I just see more and more of them waking up to the insanity of the left.

    Trump may be who they turn to today, but maybe someday we'll finally get our charismatic, good looking, candidate with the brain of Ron Paul...

  • Flinch||

    Pricelss photo of Cortez: a crooked frown, with a touch of scowl. By contrast, Gorbachev looked like somebody you might be able to have an intelligent conversation with, and didn't arrive at the table completely bent.

  • tlapp||

    Moderate is a relative term. Democratic socialists are just the next step for progressives/liberals or whatever the statists wish to call themselves on any given day. All just versions of a philosophy that is an enemy of individual and economic freedom.

  • Salero21||

    She's ugly, a FAKE Portorican, a COMMIE, a Con, and a CROOK like her mentor Bernie the COMMIE.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online