Beyond the favorite legacy-media, conflict-driven, click-bait coverage (Progressives vs. centrists! Dems in disarray!), Democrats would do well to focus on two aspects of the primary season.
A time to unite against a common foe
Losing Democratic candidates have demonstrated restraint, humility, and patriotism, rallying to embrace their opponents, some of whom bitterly debated hot-button policy issues. Contrary to the “Democrats are at each other’s throats” patter, Rep. Haley Stevens in Michigan, Rep. Angie Craig in Minnesota, and Francesca Hong in Wisconsin were among those who after their defeats swiftly adopted a unity message in service of cementing the pro-democracy coalition. Likewise, winning candidates (who had been viciously attacked in some cases by the losers’ backers and by partisan pundits) have been remarkably gracious in forging solidarity after tough fights.
Hong, after a razor-thin defeat to Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley for the Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial nomination, declared: “This campaign was not about getting one person into office. It is about building a movement for permanent affordability and a government that puts working people first. Our movement is strong, and the work isn’t done.” She added, “I fully support him and look forward to working with him to defeat Congressman Tiffany in November.” Crowley responded in kind: “We may not agree on every policy, we may not use the same labels, but we all want safe communities, strong schools, affordable health care, good-paying jobs and a brighter future for all of our children.”
Magnanimity was evident in Minnesota as well, as Minnesota Reformer reported on the aftermath of the Senate primary won easily by Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan:
In her victory speech, Flanagan looked to swiftly repair the fissures from the costly and acrimonious primary. She reminded her supporters that she and Craig are both proud Democrats despite their differences, and told Craig’s supporters she will work hard to earn their vote.
Craig likewise stressed her “top priority” was winning in November. Even before election day, when the electoral handwriting was plainly on the wall, Craig said during the last debate, “We have an existential crisis in our nation with Trump and Republicans, and so I would be right by the lieutenant governor’s side asking my supporters to support her.” Craig continued, “The most important thing in this election is that we beat Republicans. That’s what matters.”
And in Michigan, Stevens trumpeted calls for unity, telling Meet the Press NOW, there was “no drama” following the primary. She reiterated on CNN, “I’ll do whatever they want!” Stevens stressed she had not given up her values (nor need her voters) but nevertheless was fully committed to making certain the “big tent” held together. Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed meanwhile continues his appeal to voters who opposed him in the primaries.
In sum, facing general election Republican opponents who rank as the most morally objectionable, extreme, and blatantly racist characters ever to run for office, responsible Democrats are linking arms to capitalize on an election environment in which Donald Trump’s approval is cratering. Under such circumstances, Democrats and pro-democracy independents and Republicans should applaud those who prioritize defeating a fascist movement before it can do more damage.
Frequent Contrarian contributor Simon Rosenberg, noting that “every flavor of Democrat had victories in the last few months,” observed recently:
You’re seeing the Democratic Party in all of its glory and its diversity, what I call embracing the rainbow…. And in a change election, it’s really important that it looks to the public like we’re changing and we’re not just doing the same old, same old…. We needed to change. We needed to evolve and grow. We didn’t win the last election. And I think you’re seeing our party evolve and grow.
That bodes well for the party’s chances in November.
A time to move on
Democrats (voters, donors, operatives, candidates) should understand that age, not just abstract “generational change,” will increasingly be an issue in national politics. Americans have watched two presidents suffering from glaringly age-related deterioration. They have witnessed the infirm former Senate majority leader’s long absence as the public had reason to doubt whether he remained sentient.
Despite a batch of retirements, we are left with a Congress among the oldest by median age, with nearly a quarter 70 or older. Since 2023, “10 sitting members of Congress have died, all 65 or older, and a number of others have spent weeks and even months off the job in the hospital.” And voters keep telling us they are tired of geriatric rule. A recent NPR/PBS/Marist poll found: “80% strongly support or support imposing a maximum age limit for candidates” and 83% “strongly support or support limiting the number of times candidates can run for congressional office.”
The waning patience with candidates who have hung around too long was evident in last Tuesday’s Democratic primary in Connecticut’s 1st Congressional District. Fourteen-term incumbent Rep. John Larson, 78, who had a seizure on the House floor this year, lost his primary race to younger moderate Democrat, Luke Bronin. Bronin bluntly argued that “this race is about energy and effectiveness and building a Democratic Party that is strong enough to defeat Donald Trump.” While praising those who served “for decades,” he emphasized that “we would be so much stronger as a Democratic Party if we had more leaders that recognized that part of leadership is knowing when to pass the torch.” Voters agreed.
Other Democrats should pay attention. As The Connecticut Mirror reported, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) will find it hard “to dodge questions about age and the calls for generational change that are sure to play a role in future campaigns.” (Blumenthal, shrugging off age as merely “a state of mind,” irresponsibly denies hard truths about aging.) He and senior colleagues in both the House and Senate should consider leaving on their own volition and decline to seek reelection in 2028.
The age issue is most acute for Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY), who is nearing nearly 30 years in office. With his stooped posture and glasses sliding down his nose, he hardly projects the image of a vibrant party ready to turn the page. Criticism targeting his lackluster rhetoric, inconsistent record in confronting Trump, recruitment of mediocre candidates, identification with the corporate wing of the party, and rigid AIPAC dogma will fuel demands for a leadership makeover.
The prospect of a leadership fight after the midterms or a strong 2028 challenger may force his hand. But he could decide to avoid messy fights, as did his longtime ally (and milquetoast Senate Judiciary Chairman) Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), who declined to run in 2026, allowing a talented African American woman, Juliana Stratton, to emerge as his successor.
In sum, robust pluralistic democracy demands a flow of fresh faces. Voters ultimately decide when “enough is enough,” as they did with Larson. But, by announcing they are serving their last term, aging candidates could spare themselves and the party unneeded angst and give promising newcomers time to prepare campaigns. If they do, they will earn their party’s gratitude.
