>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
In another closely watched contest, Kat Abughazaleh—a young Palestinian-American media personality backed by Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib—failed to secure victory in Illinois’ 9th District. Instead, voters turned to Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, signaling a preference for more traditional Democratic leadership.
Elsewhere, Robert Peters, another progressive candidate with endorsements from Sanders and Warren, struggled to gain traction and finished a distant third behind Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller. Meanwhile, Anthony Driver Jr., supported by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, fell short against La Shawn Ford in the 7th District.
Four races. Four defeats. Not a single win for candidates aligned with the so-called “Squad.”
For veteran Democratic strategist James Carville, the outcome was hardly surprising. He’s long argued that the progressive wing represents only a small slice of the Democratic electorate—and that its influence is often overstated.
“What momentum?” Carville told Fox News Digital on Tuesday. “About 15% of the Democratic Party identifies themselves as progressive. And what’s unique, they win about 15% in the primaries at most.”
Recent election cycles appear to support that claim. In 2024, incumbent Squad members Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush both lost their seats in primary elections—marking an unprecedented setback for the movement. Similar patterns emerged in 2022, when several progressive challengers failed to unseat establishment Democrats despite strong fundraising and media attention.
Even earlier, in 2021, socialist candidate India Walton managed to win a Democratic primary in Buffalo, only to be defeated in the general election by an incumbent Democrat running a write-in campaign.
Despite these repeated setbacks, some progressive leaders are already pointing fingers elsewhere. Following Ahmed’s defeat, Justice Democrats Executive Director Alexandra Rojas attributed the loss to a combination of AIPAC spending, artificial intelligence, and cryptocurrency-backed funding.
However, critics argue that explanation misses a fundamental point: voters—not outside groups—decide elections.
Moderate Democratic voices were quick to weigh in. Jim Kessler of Third Way described the results as a “wake-up call” for the party’s progressive flank, noting that mainstream candidates prevailed across the board. Liam Kerr of Welcome PAC echoed that sentiment, suggesting that online enthusiasm for far-left candidates often fails to translate into real-world votes.
The implications of these results extend far beyond Illinois.
As Democrats gear up for the 2026 midterm elections, the party faces mounting pressure to unify around candidates who can win competitive races. With dozens of incumbents already facing primary challengers—many of whom are running on progressive platforms—the question of electability is becoming increasingly urgent.
Even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appears to be recalibrating. In a recent interview, she signaled hesitation about challenging House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, suggesting a more cautious approach moving forward.
Behind the scenes, party leaders are also taking note. At a recent Democratic National Committee strategy gathering in South Carolina, top officials reportedly emphasized the need to avoid what some described as “toxic far-left positions”—a phrase that underscores growing tension within the party.
The bottom line is difficult to ignore: despite significant funding, high-profile endorsements, and favorable political terrain, progressive candidates once again failed to deliver electoral victories where it mattered most.
And with control of the House hanging in the balance, these losses raise serious questions about which direction the Democratic Party will ultimately choose—and which voices voters are actually willing to support when it counts.
