Another on point analysis about the Democratic Party as a whole. I've evolved a lot after the last general election by moving further to the left. We must make bold change. It tells me everything I need to know about the establishment Dems when they refuse to release their 2024 Election autopsy. I'm on board with David Hogg, and yes, Hasan Piker.
Good article. I don't have a full grasp of the intra-party factions and their disagreements. However, I will say this about that. It is absolutely false that internal dissension is always bad. I question anyone who asserts that. Whether dissension strengthens or weakens the party depends on how, why and what is being disputed. First off, it is impossible to have complete ideological lockstep. Look at the Republicans. They are currently tearing each other to shreds over ideological purity. So, let's not go down that road. Second, we can be adversarial without being personal. Think of it like the scientific method or a trial by jury. The best ideas are made better and stronger when they are challenged in good faith. You are forced to address weaknesses in your case. By making a case for your ideas using facts, logic and good insights you gain clarity. Better to find out you were wrong or sort of wrong in the primary than in the general election.
I think of a scene from an old movie starring George Clooney called "The Descendants". His character had grown apart from his wife over the years yet they never fought. He busted in on his good friends/neighbors one day and they were upstairs shouting at each other. They yelled down to him "come on in we're just arguing". The lesson there is the neighbors had a close, loving relationship and they hashed things out. The Clooney character had a perfectly peaceful, yet unloving marriage because they didn't have the arguments.
As to the issue of progressive v. static (I find static more descriptive than centrist because tell me how "centrist" isn't just another way to say "do nothing".), I like to think I know when push hard for progress and when to hold tight to a good thing already in place. So, for instance, let's push for Medicare for All. Then should we get it, let's do everything we can to preserve it and protect it from Republican depredations, i.e. be static. An effective party strategy should analyze the issue at hand and the facts on the ground and adjust accordingly. One size will never fit all. The standard should be the best interest of the people, not the best interest of those with a vested interest in a particular outcome. Thus, Medicare for All should be judged by whether it helps people rather than corporations. Ideology is fine for setting up your standards. But ideology must be applied in real situations.
I think Talarico does a really good job of translating progressive ideas into concrete examples that win hearts and minds. Let's not forget that talented candidates can make all the difference to election outcomes. Therefore, we don't necessarily have to engineer every single idea to death beforehand. We can set some broad parameters and give our candidates the room to reflect their districts or the entire electorate in the case of Talarico.
I have always said we need people on the extreme to move the middle. Otherwise there will never be any movement. On the other hand it is counterproductive and a bit juvenile to say if everything doesn't go my way then I am taking my ball and going home. Do we want to be a big tent party or not? I was heart broken in 2024 when people said the presidential candidate policies are the same in the Middle East so I am voting for neither. Maybe they did not think Trump would be Trump or that things here would always remain the same but we need to be ever vigilant and so much more.
I don’t like talking/hearing about antisemitism. I learned from a friend that the word Semitism stands for languages of that area of the world. So, she said that, when a Muslim is called a antisemite he is speaking ill of his own area. (Maybe that should be a question?)
I also feel that it’s a fight about religion. Based on our constitution the USA has freedom of religion. Accept all religions if you live in the USA! Full Stop. I’m a Catholic. I’m taught to love all people because they are made in the image of God! Full stop. That means; don’t hate someone because of their religion, color of their skin, culture, etc. Everyone should be equal, full stop. We should judge someone based on their character. I don’t like hearing someone talk ill of someone because of their religion. I do feel we can dislike a person behavior (Character) and I am not a fan of Netanyahu or Trump! We need to talk more about behaviors, character, and attitudes. Words matter.
Michelle, as usual you wrote a great article.
I have a few friends I might lose because they want to use the word Socialist as a derogatory term. I keep fighting that. It’s like when I thought that the word liberal was a derogatory term. 😑
Maybe I'm too old, too cynical, or too analytical but this "class vs. Identity" debate within the Democratic party is utterly pointless. In my opinion, we can walk and chew gum at the same time and cover both areas simultaneously. If anything, we should be savvy enough to explain that the issues of this debate tightly integrate with each other.
It may be worthwhile to review the research of Ian Haney Lopez a political scientist who covered the race (identity)/class divide. He essentially said that when you explicitly point out to potential voters that politicians exploit identity as a wedge against class issues, that most voters agree and
see through that scam. If enough Democratic operatives and politicians can get their heads wrapped around the merging this two areas together into a strong and cohesive framework, we should be able to defeat the gop massively in upcoming elections. I believe that's what helped FDR win so decisively from 1932 forward.
I lean toward agreeing with you. And I do feel like this is an old fight that has been discussed and debated many times before. We need to wrap it all into one. But in order to get there, policy-wise, we have to get voters to elect people who will push policies that will appease everyone on both sides of the debate.
Well, the national DNC feel likes Dallas county. The consultants $ controls everything. Until they lost. Badly. The consultant only know how to fight Democrats not Republicans and then they loose. I am not going to go into more. You know you and I need to have a long lunch in person, cause everyone will be off the record. But everything is about $ always. And it is very hard.
"...how much damage establishment, centrists, and Conservative Democrats have done to Texas by capitulating with fascist Republicans on policies that harm working-class Texans." Amen, sister.
As a younger boomer, I feel obligated to point out that the policies Michelle categorizes as "progressive" are just the normal policies of the mainstream Democratic national party in the 1970-2000. The party left us. The major way they left us was to start using identity politics as a distraction from economic policy issues that their corporate donors did not want to see being debated, because fixing drastic income inequality would cut into their profit margins. Michelle makes the point correctly that economic opportunity and civil rights for all are two sides of the same coin. By severing them, the national Dems collaborated in undermining the middle class. The establishment national Dem party is not in the business of constituent representation any more than MAGA. They're in the corporate influence peddling and agent of a foreign government business. We all need to elevate country over party, and vote for those who work for the American people, not corporate donors. As long as dark money controls policy, the democratic republic will be under threat. Great video on Booker, BTW.
I want to agree with you on everything but I do have to point out, as an older Boomer, that the much of the mainstream Democratic Party was supporting Lloyd Bentsen but along came a person of the people named Jimmy Carter. There was a lot of infighting by the Kennedy wing because they were affronted by the fact that they weren't in charge. In other words the 1970s were no picnic.
Agreed. It should not be hard to convince Texans to support progressive policies right now because progressive policies aren't radical anymore. Republicans haven't been calling us socialists lately. Probably because their own voters didn't react as they wanted them to to that term. Americans like New Deal programs. They want more of them.
"That means investing in public education, expanding healthcare access, protecting workers, and confronting corporate power."
What a wonderful second sentence this would make to the State Party Platform.
Preceded by "Texas Democrats believe that individual rights supersede all other considerations" and followed by 1 or 2 pages TOPS of "planks" listing our priorities.
You want to peacefully more the party left. I do to.
You define the battle as between an establishment who want to consolidate supporters and the left who want to mobilize new voters.
We need both to garner any chance to govern at either the state or national level.
Until party leadership stops using money to shape the party and the "insurgents" - for lack of a better word - agree that "Blue no matter who" is necessary come the general elections, Democrats may win an election season, but lose the ability to govern effectively.
For godsake please stop him. Cory Booker is not the fucking person to attend for the convention. This repulses me in so many levels but he doesnt fucking care about a economic populism message. He made that clear with his voting record. I still cannot forget the fact that this fucking bastard voted in Jared Kushner Convicted Father in Law as a trump nominee.
I got a message this morning saying there will be 4-6 national speakers, and Booker won't be the only one. But it also repulses me. I really don't know who was in charge of that decision and why.
Get the two women from the Podcast I’have had it” they are two white left leaning women from Oklahoma who interviewed Cory Booker and practically grilled him for his stances such as with Israel. He was so terrible it was cringe. If you havent heard of them, they are pretty cool. But sigh i just cannot stand the fact that they wont change at this point.
Thanks for an informative article. You have stated,” In the El Syed vs. McMorrow race in Michigan. “ May I know who you consider as a better progressive?
Also when you refer to class and identity, are you referring to economic income group by the former and race by the latter?
It behooves all Democrats to unite after the primaries and vote blue all the way through irrespective of whether our preferred candidates lost in the primary. The Republicans and the billionaires backing them will definitely try to sow division amongst us. While we fight amongst ourselves, the billionaires and corporations, such as the Oil and Gas ones, funding the Republicans will be laughing their way to the bank.
Talarico is right in this respect that this is not a fight between left and right but between the top and bottom from income and wealth perspective.
El Syed is far better and far more progressive. McMorrow is more of a liberal, and AIPAC- and establishment-aligned.
Yes, and class and identity, you are right. (i.e., "It's not left vs right, it's up vs down." is a perfect example.) The danger is when identity gets weaponized to keep working people fighting each other instead of the systems that are actually squeezing them.
Hi Michelle: I have immense respect for your judgment but respectfully disagree with you on this subject. Based on my research, McMorrow is a better candidate than El Sayed for the US Senate race in Michigan , though the latter has good credentials too.
In general, I feel that before running for state wide elections such as Governor or US Senator, one should run in local or state elections for the House of Representative or Senate. This gives the candidates an opportunity to demonstrate their ability to serve the public good before seeking higher office and for voters to make an informed decision when they do so. McMorrow has followed that path. So on her campaign website, after her detailed agenda on various issues, which are her campaign promises, she also appends her track record in those areas as State Senator for voters to assess.
Though El-Sayed has an impressive resume and did well as Health Director of Detroit, he was appointed to that position by the Mayor. He ran for Governor six years ago and lost in the Democratic primary. He is now running for US Senate. So we don’t know how well, he will perform as a legislator.
Also according to the article below, “In the 2024 presidential primary, El-Sayed supported the Uncommitted Movement, which criticized the Biden administration and Democratic Party’s complicity in Israel’s war on Gaza, but he ultimately endorsed Kamala Harris in the general election. Trump ended up winning 42 percent of the vote in the Arab-majority city of Dearborn, Michigan; Harris trailed behind by about 6 percentage points. Jill Stein — who took a firm pro-Palestine stance in her campaign — received a whopping 18 percent, compared to 0.8 percent statewide.”
El-Sayed showed poor judgment in being a part of that Uncommitted movement. He should have realized that Kamala has limited powers as VP and could not be critical of Biden in public on this issue but she gave several indications that she is not supportive of Netanyahu and his brutal campaign in Gaza. Though Sayed endorsed Kamala later, the damage was already done by sowing the seed of division by encouraging so many to be single issue voters.
I agree that President Biden should have done more to rein in Netanyahu and stop his reign of terror in Gaza. Or that Kamala should have allowed a Palestinian American to speak at her convention. Probably she didn’t do so because she didn’t want the platform to be used to criticize Biden’s policies in Gaza. However, voters need to realize that in terms of executive power, a VP has hardly any and is just an adviser, who represents the President at various forums.
When stakes were so high, El-Sayed did not play the role of a statesman unifying the Democrats and allowed those misguided Arab Americans to just shoot themselves, and other Democrats sympathetic to their cause, in the foot. In view of these facts, I feel that McMorrow is a better candidate.
Oh, Shekhar, thanks for the long and thoughtful answer. I didn’t know you wanted a full analysis. Otherwise, I would have gotten more into it. Truth be told, I try really hard to mind my Texas business, but this race landed on my radar when I was getting PAC fundraising emails for McMorrow from the same PAC that was fundraising for Colin Allred, I think I wrote about that a while back. Unironically, I saw El-Sayed (spelled correctly) on YouTube that same week.
I think your argument is fair, and I’m not even saying McMorrow is a bad candidate. I’m saying El-Sayed is clearly further left. I think those are two different arguments.
McMorrow is a liberal reformer. El-Sayed is running as an actual progressive populist. He launched with Bernie’s endorsement, backs Medicare for All, says he won’t take corporate PAC money, and has taken positions such as abolishing ICE that McMorrow has not. McMorrow, by contrast, is running on a public option, institutional reform, and a more conventional foreign-policy frame.
So if someone prefers McMorrow because they think she’s more electable or more proven legislatively, okay. But that still doesn’t make her the more progressive candidate.
And I'll be honest, I didn’t realize El-Sayed had been involved in the Uncommitted movement. But my feelings on that aren’t exactly cut and dry. I ALWAYS vote. I ALWAYS tell my readers to vote. I’ve been very clear about the stakes in a general election, to the point where I joked how Colin Allred would be our “dead blue armadillo” over a Republican if that’s what it came down to. Because at that stage, it’s about harm reduction. Period.
I think it’s fair to debate how much the uncommitted movement ultimately hurt us. But I don’t think it’s fair to use it to argue El-Sayed is less progressive.
If anything, it's probably that alignment is part of why people see him as more progressive in the first place. People everywhere want REAL, meaningful, tangible change.
To me, the distinction is still ideological. Whether someone prefers one or the other is a separate question.
Another on point analysis about the Democratic Party as a whole. I've evolved a lot after the last general election by moving further to the left. We must make bold change. It tells me everything I need to know about the establishment Dems when they refuse to release their 2024 Election autopsy. I'm on board with David Hogg, and yes, Hasan Piker.
Good article. I don't have a full grasp of the intra-party factions and their disagreements. However, I will say this about that. It is absolutely false that internal dissension is always bad. I question anyone who asserts that. Whether dissension strengthens or weakens the party depends on how, why and what is being disputed. First off, it is impossible to have complete ideological lockstep. Look at the Republicans. They are currently tearing each other to shreds over ideological purity. So, let's not go down that road. Second, we can be adversarial without being personal. Think of it like the scientific method or a trial by jury. The best ideas are made better and stronger when they are challenged in good faith. You are forced to address weaknesses in your case. By making a case for your ideas using facts, logic and good insights you gain clarity. Better to find out you were wrong or sort of wrong in the primary than in the general election.
I think of a scene from an old movie starring George Clooney called "The Descendants". His character had grown apart from his wife over the years yet they never fought. He busted in on his good friends/neighbors one day and they were upstairs shouting at each other. They yelled down to him "come on in we're just arguing". The lesson there is the neighbors had a close, loving relationship and they hashed things out. The Clooney character had a perfectly peaceful, yet unloving marriage because they didn't have the arguments.
As to the issue of progressive v. static (I find static more descriptive than centrist because tell me how "centrist" isn't just another way to say "do nothing".), I like to think I know when push hard for progress and when to hold tight to a good thing already in place. So, for instance, let's push for Medicare for All. Then should we get it, let's do everything we can to preserve it and protect it from Republican depredations, i.e. be static. An effective party strategy should analyze the issue at hand and the facts on the ground and adjust accordingly. One size will never fit all. The standard should be the best interest of the people, not the best interest of those with a vested interest in a particular outcome. Thus, Medicare for All should be judged by whether it helps people rather than corporations. Ideology is fine for setting up your standards. But ideology must be applied in real situations.
I think Talarico does a really good job of translating progressive ideas into concrete examples that win hearts and minds. Let's not forget that talented candidates can make all the difference to election outcomes. Therefore, we don't necessarily have to engineer every single idea to death beforehand. We can set some broad parameters and give our candidates the room to reflect their districts or the entire electorate in the case of Talarico.
You have argued your case well and I tend to agree.
I have always said we need people on the extreme to move the middle. Otherwise there will never be any movement. On the other hand it is counterproductive and a bit juvenile to say if everything doesn't go my way then I am taking my ball and going home. Do we want to be a big tent party or not? I was heart broken in 2024 when people said the presidential candidate policies are the same in the Middle East so I am voting for neither. Maybe they did not think Trump would be Trump or that things here would always remain the same but we need to be ever vigilant and so much more.
Your last 2 sentences! I feel the same! OMGOSH! 😢🙃 I’m with you.
I don’t like talking/hearing about antisemitism. I learned from a friend that the word Semitism stands for languages of that area of the world. So, she said that, when a Muslim is called a antisemite he is speaking ill of his own area. (Maybe that should be a question?)
I also feel that it’s a fight about religion. Based on our constitution the USA has freedom of religion. Accept all religions if you live in the USA! Full Stop. I’m a Catholic. I’m taught to love all people because they are made in the image of God! Full stop. That means; don’t hate someone because of their religion, color of their skin, culture, etc. Everyone should be equal, full stop. We should judge someone based on their character. I don’t like hearing someone talk ill of someone because of their religion. I do feel we can dislike a person behavior (Character) and I am not a fan of Netanyahu or Trump! We need to talk more about behaviors, character, and attitudes. Words matter.
Michelle, as usual you wrote a great article.
I have a few friends I might lose because they want to use the word Socialist as a derogatory term. I keep fighting that. It’s like when I thought that the word liberal was a derogatory term. 😑
Maybe I'm too old, too cynical, or too analytical but this "class vs. Identity" debate within the Democratic party is utterly pointless. In my opinion, we can walk and chew gum at the same time and cover both areas simultaneously. If anything, we should be savvy enough to explain that the issues of this debate tightly integrate with each other.
It may be worthwhile to review the research of Ian Haney Lopez a political scientist who covered the race (identity)/class divide. He essentially said that when you explicitly point out to potential voters that politicians exploit identity as a wedge against class issues, that most voters agree and
see through that scam. If enough Democratic operatives and politicians can get their heads wrapped around the merging this two areas together into a strong and cohesive framework, we should be able to defeat the gop massively in upcoming elections. I believe that's what helped FDR win so decisively from 1932 forward.
I lean toward agreeing with you. And I do feel like this is an old fight that has been discussed and debated many times before. We need to wrap it all into one. But in order to get there, policy-wise, we have to get voters to elect people who will push policies that will appease everyone on both sides of the debate.
Well, the national DNC feel likes Dallas county. The consultants $ controls everything. Until they lost. Badly. The consultant only know how to fight Democrats not Republicans and then they loose. I am not going to go into more. You know you and I need to have a long lunch in person, cause everyone will be off the record. But everything is about $ always. And it is very hard.
We need to get money out of politics, but that goes without saying.
Amen to that.
"...how much damage establishment, centrists, and Conservative Democrats have done to Texas by capitulating with fascist Republicans on policies that harm working-class Texans." Amen, sister.
As a younger boomer, I feel obligated to point out that the policies Michelle categorizes as "progressive" are just the normal policies of the mainstream Democratic national party in the 1970-2000. The party left us. The major way they left us was to start using identity politics as a distraction from economic policy issues that their corporate donors did not want to see being debated, because fixing drastic income inequality would cut into their profit margins. Michelle makes the point correctly that economic opportunity and civil rights for all are two sides of the same coin. By severing them, the national Dems collaborated in undermining the middle class. The establishment national Dem party is not in the business of constituent representation any more than MAGA. They're in the corporate influence peddling and agent of a foreign government business. We all need to elevate country over party, and vote for those who work for the American people, not corporate donors. As long as dark money controls policy, the democratic republic will be under threat. Great video on Booker, BTW.
Yeah, I think Bill Clinton steered us toward a more centrist path in the 90s, and we just never strayed.
I want to agree with you on everything but I do have to point out, as an older Boomer, that the much of the mainstream Democratic Party was supporting Lloyd Bentsen but along came a person of the people named Jimmy Carter. There was a lot of infighting by the Kennedy wing because they were affronted by the fact that they weren't in charge. In other words the 1970s were no picnic.
This is in answer to Yankee. I myself grew up a Yankee of sorts.
Agreed. It should not be hard to convince Texans to support progressive policies right now because progressive policies aren't radical anymore. Republicans haven't been calling us socialists lately. Probably because their own voters didn't react as they wanted them to to that term. Americans like New Deal programs. They want more of them.
You read my mind, Michelle! Thank you!!! Already shared on bsky
"That means investing in public education, expanding healthcare access, protecting workers, and confronting corporate power."
What a wonderful second sentence this would make to the State Party Platform.
Preceded by "Texas Democrats believe that individual rights supersede all other considerations" and followed by 1 or 2 pages TOPS of "planks" listing our priorities.
You want to peacefully more the party left. I do to.
You define the battle as between an establishment who want to consolidate supporters and the left who want to mobilize new voters.
We need both to garner any chance to govern at either the state or national level.
Until party leadership stops using money to shape the party and the "insurgents" - for lack of a better word - agree that "Blue no matter who" is necessary come the general elections, Democrats may win an election season, but lose the ability to govern effectively.
Maybe it can go in the "Executive Summary." 😜
It would be like a book’s preface. No one reads those, either.😉
For godsake please stop him. Cory Booker is not the fucking person to attend for the convention. This repulses me in so many levels but he doesnt fucking care about a economic populism message. He made that clear with his voting record. I still cannot forget the fact that this fucking bastard voted in Jared Kushner Convicted Father in Law as a trump nominee.
I got a message this morning saying there will be 4-6 national speakers, and Booker won't be the only one. But it also repulses me. I really don't know who was in charge of that decision and why.
Get the two women from the Podcast I’have had it” they are two white left leaning women from Oklahoma who interviewed Cory Booker and practically grilled him for his stances such as with Israel. He was so terrible it was cringe. If you havent heard of them, they are pretty cool. But sigh i just cannot stand the fact that they wont change at this point.
I think the party needs to go full progressive. The establishment does not attract anyone.
I 100% agree.
Thanks for an informative article. You have stated,” In the El Syed vs. McMorrow race in Michigan. “ May I know who you consider as a better progressive?
Also when you refer to class and identity, are you referring to economic income group by the former and race by the latter?
It behooves all Democrats to unite after the primaries and vote blue all the way through irrespective of whether our preferred candidates lost in the primary. The Republicans and the billionaires backing them will definitely try to sow division amongst us. While we fight amongst ourselves, the billionaires and corporations, such as the Oil and Gas ones, funding the Republicans will be laughing their way to the bank.
Talarico is right in this respect that this is not a fight between left and right but between the top and bottom from income and wealth perspective.
El Syed is far better and far more progressive. McMorrow is more of a liberal, and AIPAC- and establishment-aligned.
Yes, and class and identity, you are right. (i.e., "It's not left vs right, it's up vs down." is a perfect example.) The danger is when identity gets weaponized to keep working people fighting each other instead of the systems that are actually squeezing them.
Hi Michelle: I have immense respect for your judgment but respectfully disagree with you on this subject. Based on my research, McMorrow is a better candidate than El Sayed for the US Senate race in Michigan , though the latter has good credentials too.
In general, I feel that before running for state wide elections such as Governor or US Senator, one should run in local or state elections for the House of Representative or Senate. This gives the candidates an opportunity to demonstrate their ability to serve the public good before seeking higher office and for voters to make an informed decision when they do so. McMorrow has followed that path. So on her campaign website, after her detailed agenda on various issues, which are her campaign promises, she also appends her track record in those areas as State Senator for voters to assess.
Though El-Sayed has an impressive resume and did well as Health Director of Detroit, he was appointed to that position by the Mayor. He ran for Governor six years ago and lost in the Democratic primary. He is now running for US Senate. So we don’t know how well, he will perform as a legislator.
Also according to the article below, “In the 2024 presidential primary, El-Sayed supported the Uncommitted Movement, which criticized the Biden administration and Democratic Party’s complicity in Israel’s war on Gaza, but he ultimately endorsed Kamala Harris in the general election. Trump ended up winning 42 percent of the vote in the Arab-majority city of Dearborn, Michigan; Harris trailed behind by about 6 percentage points. Jill Stein — who took a firm pro-Palestine stance in her campaign — received a whopping 18 percent, compared to 0.8 percent statewide.”
El-Sayed showed poor judgment in being a part of that Uncommitted movement. He should have realized that Kamala has limited powers as VP and could not be critical of Biden in public on this issue but she gave several indications that she is not supportive of Netanyahu and his brutal campaign in Gaza. Though Sayed endorsed Kamala later, the damage was already done by sowing the seed of division by encouraging so many to be single issue voters.
I agree that President Biden should have done more to rein in Netanyahu and stop his reign of terror in Gaza. Or that Kamala should have allowed a Palestinian American to speak at her convention. Probably she didn’t do so because she didn’t want the platform to be used to criticize Biden’s policies in Gaza. However, voters need to realize that in terms of executive power, a VP has hardly any and is just an adviser, who represents the President at various forums.
When stakes were so high, El-Sayed did not play the role of a statesman unifying the Democrats and allowed those misguided Arab Americans to just shoot themselves, and other Democrats sympathetic to their cause, in the foot. In view of these facts, I feel that McMorrow is a better candidate.
https://theintercept.com/2025/11/20/abdul-el-sayed-michigan-senate-israel-gaza/
Oh, Shekhar, thanks for the long and thoughtful answer. I didn’t know you wanted a full analysis. Otherwise, I would have gotten more into it. Truth be told, I try really hard to mind my Texas business, but this race landed on my radar when I was getting PAC fundraising emails for McMorrow from the same PAC that was fundraising for Colin Allred, I think I wrote about that a while back. Unironically, I saw El-Sayed (spelled correctly) on YouTube that same week.
I think your argument is fair, and I’m not even saying McMorrow is a bad candidate. I’m saying El-Sayed is clearly further left. I think those are two different arguments.
McMorrow is a liberal reformer. El-Sayed is running as an actual progressive populist. He launched with Bernie’s endorsement, backs Medicare for All, says he won’t take corporate PAC money, and has taken positions such as abolishing ICE that McMorrow has not. McMorrow, by contrast, is running on a public option, institutional reform, and a more conventional foreign-policy frame.
So if someone prefers McMorrow because they think she’s more electable or more proven legislatively, okay. But that still doesn’t make her the more progressive candidate.
And I'll be honest, I didn’t realize El-Sayed had been involved in the Uncommitted movement. But my feelings on that aren’t exactly cut and dry. I ALWAYS vote. I ALWAYS tell my readers to vote. I’ve been very clear about the stakes in a general election, to the point where I joked how Colin Allred would be our “dead blue armadillo” over a Republican if that’s what it came down to. Because at that stage, it’s about harm reduction. Period.
I think it’s fair to debate how much the uncommitted movement ultimately hurt us. But I don’t think it’s fair to use it to argue El-Sayed is less progressive.
If anything, it's probably that alignment is part of why people see him as more progressive in the first place. People everywhere want REAL, meaningful, tangible change.
To me, the distinction is still ideological. Whether someone prefers one or the other is a separate question.