Progressive Upset Wins Mask a Deeper Story About Fundraising and Fervor

The past month has seen a string of progressive Senate candidates emerge victorious from their primaries despite being significantly outspent on the airwaves. In Massachusetts, 80-year-old Sen. Ed Markey comfortably fended off a challenge from 47-year-old Rep. Seth Moulton.

At first glance, these results seem to defy conventional wisdom about the importance of money in politics. However, scratch beneath the surface and you’ll find a more nuanced picture. The growing enthusiasm among Democratic voters for progressive policies is a key factor at play. Candidates like Markey, who made his support for the Green New Deal and “Medicare for All” central to his campaign, were able to tap into this fervor and mobilize their base in ways that moderates often struggle to match.

Consider Abdul El-Sayed’s upset victory over Rep. Haley Stevens in Michigan’s August primary. Despite being significantly outspent, El-Sayed won over Democratic voters with his unapologetic commitment to progressive ideals. This outcome suggests that, for some Democrats at least, ideology is taking precedence over more traditional considerations like fundraising and media coverage.

The Massachusetts Senate primary highlights the ongoing tension between moderates and progressives within the party ranks. As the primary season wears on, we’re seeing a growing divide between those who prioritize pragmatism and those who are willing to take risks in pursuit of more ambitious goals. Markey’s victory over Moulton has been hailed by some as a testament to the power of progressive politics, while others view it as a cautionary tale about prioritizing ideology over electoral viability.

As we look ahead to the general election, one thing is clear: money will continue to play a significant role in shaping the outcome. However, so too will the passions and priorities of Democratic voters themselves. Grassroots enthusiasm and ideological conviction are proving to be powerful motivators for supporters and mobilizers of resources.

The Massachusetts primary is often cited as an example of progressive success, but it’s worth noting that Markey’s campaign still faced significant fundraising challenges. Moulton and outside groups supporting him spent $7 million compared with $3.9 million from the pro-Markey side, according to AdImpact. This gap was even wider in other competitive Democratic primaries this summer.

In Michigan, Rep. Angie Craig held an ad spending advantage of $19.7 million to $4.7 million over Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, who went on to cruise to victory. These numbers highlight the limits of fundraising disadvantage as a predictor of electoral success. While money is undoubtedly important in politics, it’s not the only factor at play – and sometimes, it’s not even the most important one.

The Democratic Party will continue to be shaped by internal debates about ideology and pragmatism as we look ahead to the general election. For some, Markey’s victory will be seen as a vindication of progressive politics – proof that voters are willing to take risks in pursuit of more ambitious goals. But others will view it as a reminder that the party still has work to do when it comes to mobilizing its base and winning over independents.

The past few months have seen some remarkable upsets in Democratic primaries, and these results suggest that we may be witnessing a shift in the way primary politics work. For years, it’s been assumed that moderates would always hold an advantage over progressives because they’re more electable and better able to raise money. But as we’ve seen time and again this summer, this assumption no longer holds true.

Progressive candidates are increasingly successful at mobilizing their base and winning over voters who might have otherwise gone for a more moderate candidate. This trend is likely to continue in the months ahead – and it will be fascinating to see how the party responds to these changes. Will moderates begin to adapt their strategies, embracing more progressive policies in an effort to stay competitive? Or will they dig in their heels, arguing that their approach is still the best way forward?

Only time will tell, but one thing’s for sure: this primary season has already delivered some surprises, and there are many more to come.