The dream of a progressive “Tea Party” movement is dead. Energized by Zohran Mamdani’s upset win in New York’s mayoral race last year, progressives envisioned similar victories across the country in 2026. Just like right-wing Republicans in 2010, many left-wing Democrats saw 2026 as a prime opportunity to capture the party’s congressional leadership positions.
With eight months to go before the midterms — and many primaries in the interim — it is already abundantly clear that the Tea Party vision will not be fully realized. Even so, progressive voters and politicians must still aim to transform their party’s leadership to the greatest extent possible.
That’s not to say progressives will end this election cycle without any wins. In March, Juliana Stratton defeated Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi in a contentious Illinois primary to replace outgoing Senator Dick Durbin. Stratton, the state’s lieutenant governor, garnered endorsements from the party’s progressive wing and supported left-wing policy proposals like Medicare for All. Despite only spending $2.8 million to Krishnamoorthi’s $23.9 million, Stratton won by a comfortable seven percent margin.
Progressive candidates in upcoming primaries for other open Senate seats have strong advantages. In Minnesota, progressive Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan has a commanding polling lead over Rep. Angie Craig. Flanagan is endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, while Craig voted for the Republican-backed Laken Riley Act (which mandates detention without bond for illegal immigrants accused of a crime) and then recently walked back her support.
Finally, Maine’s primary to challenge incumbent Sen. Susan Collins has insurgent progressive candidate Graham Platner with an overwhelming polling advantage over Gov. Janet Mills. Widely seen as the party’s best opportunity to defeat an incumbent Republican, Maine voters backing Platner — despite clear misgivings about his personal qualities — demonstrates a strong appetite to buck establishment figures, like Mills, and point the Democrats in a new direction.
These three key Senate races — Illinois, Minnesota, and Maine — might seem to suggest that a Tea Party-esque movement is gaining ground. However, other races show the left falling short. In Michigan’s primary to replace Sen. Gary Peters, progressive candidate Dr. Abdul El-Sayed has consistently trailed in third place behind two more moderate democrats. Despite the establishment being split between Rep. Haley Stevens and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, El-Sayed’s odds seem slim.
While there is certainly a great deal of energy behind progressive candidates in 2026, this movement is markedly different from the GOP’s Tea Party in 2010.
The progressive movement to reshape the Democratic Party is nothing new. The Congressional Progressive Caucus was created in 1991. It was co-founded by then-Rep. Bernie Sanders, who famously advocates for the same policy positions today as he did in the 1970s.
Unlike the Tea Party, the Democratic Party’s progressive faction was borne out of a genuine political philosophy; its policy positions are a product of a fundamental belief in government’s ability to make Americans’ lives better. The view that redistributive policies can create an egalitarian and just society forms the backbone of left-wing political thought. This philosophical thread can clearly be seen as far back as the New Deal, and arguably even further.
On the other hand, the Tea Party was simply a reaction to the political moment of 2010. The right-wing insurgency among Republicans was not a century-long movement, but rather just backlash to the Obama administration. The Tea Party’s voters, in large part, desired lower taxes for lower taxes’ sake — not because of some deep ideological principle about the merits of small, limited government. Many of their politicians were merely capitalizing on the political moment, entirely abandoning the Congressional Tea Party Caucus by 2013 — only two years after its founding.
In the classic 1835 treatise Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville distinguished between “great” and “minor” parties — aptly showing the contrast between progressive Democrats and Tea Party Republicans. He writes that great parties “cling to their principles more than to their consequences; to general, and not to special cases; to ideas, and not to men.” Minor parties, meanwhile, are “not sustained or dignified by lofty purpose,” which causes them to “display the egotism of their actions.” In this sense, the Democratic progressive movement and the Republican Tea Party could not be more different. The former was built on longstanding principles, while the latter opportunistically took advantage of the political moment.
Barring a seismic event like the Great Depression, American progressives must commit themselves to gradual political change. Being founded in genuine convictions (and not momentary passions) there is unlikely to be a single revolutionary midterm. The Democratic Party’s metamorphosis will instead come slowly, election by election — not in a moment of political upheaval like 2010.
The Zeitgeist aims to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board.
