It was a simple line, but it came with no explanation of how those labels were being defined.
That same question appeared to go unanswered across the major Sunday political shows. NBC’s Kristen Welker and CBS’s Ed O’Keefe presented similar narratives about competing Democratic factions, yet viewers were given little indication of where the supposed ideological dividing lines actually stand.
The result was a familiar media storyline: Democrats positioned toward the left are described as moderates, while candidates even further left receive the “progressive” label.
But defeating a self-described socialist does not automatically transform someone into a centrist.
The New Definition of “Moderate”
Wisconsin’s David Crowley was among the Democrats receiving the moderate label following this week’s elections. Minnesota Democrat Angie Craig was framed similarly.
Yet critics argue that those descriptions obscure their broader political records and voting positions.
Crowley’s victory over a candidate who openly identified as a democratic socialist was treated as evidence of a moderate triumph. But the more obvious question received far less attention: Moderate compared to whom?
If the alternative is a candidate running openly under the socialist banner, defeating that candidate does not necessarily place the winner in the political center.
The same issue is now emerging around Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, who has increasingly been discussed as a potential Democratic contender for the White House in 2028.
Beshear has become one of the party’s most frequently mentioned “moderate” figures. Yet he has also supported major changes to America’s political system, including abolishing the Electoral College.
That position stands in sharp contrast with the traditional meaning of political moderation.
A conventional moderate might favor incremental reform, compromise, fiscal restraint, or a middle-ground approach between competing ideological factions. Calling for the elimination of a foundational part of the presidential election system is something entirely different.
Beshear has also advocated for congressional and Supreme Court term limits, adding further weight to the argument that the “moderate” label is increasingly being applied based on comparison rather than on a candidate’s actual positions.
In other words, a Democrat may now be called moderate simply because another Democrat is even further to the left.
The Political Spectrum Keeps Moving
That distinction matters because language shapes how voters understand politics.
Minnesota’s recent Democratic primary offered another example. Peggy Flanagan defeated Angie Craig while campaigning from Craig’s left.
The outcome was presented as a victory for progressives, while Craig had already been placed in the moderate category.
But that framework can create a misleading impression. If one candidate is labeled progressive, the candidate standing slightly to the right may suddenly appear moderate—even when both remain well outside what previous generations would have considered the political center.
The labels have not necessarily become more precise.
The political spectrum inside the Democratic Party has simply shifted.
Critics have long argued that the party learned to rely on softer ideological terminology after words such as “socialist” proved politically problematic with portions of the electorate.
“Progressive” became a more marketable alternative.
And once “progressive” became the label for the party’s left flank, Democrats positioned somewhat to the right of that faction could increasingly be described as moderates.
The strategy is particularly noticeable in coverage of candidates such as Zohran Mamdani, who has openly identified as a democratic socialist but has frequently been described in broader political coverage using the less politically charged term “progressive.”
The distinction may appear minor, but it has consequences.
Call a democratic socialist a progressive, then call a hard-left Democrat a moderate, and the entire ideological spectrum begins to look more centrist than it actually is.
The Power of the “Moderate” Brand
New Jersey’s Mikie Sherrill demonstrates why the label has become so valuable.
A Naval Academy graduate, former Navy helicopter pilot, and four-term member of Congress, Sherrill ran for governor while presenting herself as a moderate Democrat and won by a substantial margin.
Her biography undoubtedly helped build that image. But political branding and political positions are not always the same thing.
Many news reports pointed to her victory as evidence that moderate Democrats remain especially competitive with voters. Yet the deeper question—what specific positions separate her from the rest of her party—received far less attention.
That is precisely why the label works.
“Moderate” sounds reassuring to independents and swing voters. It suggests restraint, pragmatism, and a willingness to resist ideological extremes.
Democrats are now investing heavily in protecting that brand. One Democratic organization has committed millions of dollars to primary battles against candidates who openly embrace the socialist label.
That suggests a party concerned not only with winning arguments, but with managing how those arguments are presented to voters.
And the media plays an important role in that process when ideological labels are repeated without being examined.
Voters consistently say they want candidates who are reasonable, pragmatic, and somewhere near the political center. But if “moderate” is applied to virtually anyone standing to the right of a self-described socialist, voters may not be receiving the full picture.
The real issue is not whether Democrats should have a progressive wing, a socialist wing, or a moderate wing. Every political party has internal ideological divisions.
The issue is whether the labels being presented to viewers still mean what voters reasonably think they mean.
This weekend, three major networks highlighted the supposed success of Democratic moderates and progressives.
What viewers did not get was a serious explanation of where one category ends and the other begins.
That omission may be the most important part of the story.
Because in modern political coverage, the battle is no longer just over which candidates win elections.
It is also over who gets to decide what those candidates are called.
