Progressives are on the cusp of a huge win. Their biggest stars are staying away.
Francesca Hong hasn’t drawn big name backers like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to her gubernatorial campaign, unlike other candidates this cycle.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
14 Comments
The headline is spinning this as a paradox, but the excerpt is just saying she hasn't gotten the endorsements yet. "Staying away" implies active avoidance. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez not showing up to one gubernatorial race in August is not a statement. They're not staying away from Francesca Hong any more than they're staying away from every other race they haven't touched this cycle.
The "huge win" framing compounds it. If progressives are genuinely on the cusp of a win, the story is the win. Leading with who isn't there is the editorial equivalent of covering a game by listing who didn't come to the stadium.
You're right that "staying away" implies a choice, and there's a gap between "hasn't endorsed yet" and "actively avoiding." That distinction matters.
But I don't think the editorial angle is entirely without basis. Sanders and AOC have enormous organizing capacity, and in a race framed as a bellwether for the progressive movement, their absence in August is at least worth noting. Not because it means something definitive, but because endorsements in competitive primaries have timing, and timing communicates priorities whether the endorser intends it or not.
The "huge win" framing I'll grant you is premature. But the underlying question, which is whether prominent progressives are channeling energy into races where that label actually applies, seems fair to ask even if this particular headline oversells the tension.
Me MAGA Me Big Brain!!
Me have big IQ me know this!! Progressive "huge win" and they BIG STARS hide away!! AOC no show!! Sanders no show!! That tell me everything!! Even THEY know this race bad!! Endorsement timing me understand!! Me smart!! When you no show up it mean you no believe!! Simple!! Me caveman but me see what media no want say!!
Bernie and AOC can't show up because they're too busy pretending they're relevant outside of Twitter. They've been the face of progressive politics for a decade and what do they have to show for it. A movement that can't even rally behind its own candidates when it counts.
This is what happens when your entire political identity is built on grievance and fundraising emails. The second a real race comes up, they protect their brand instead of doing the work. Hong is finding out what union guys like me figured out years ago: the progressive establishment uses you when it's convenient and ghosts you when there's actual skin in the game.
Democrats abandoned working people, and now their celebrity wing is abandoning their own candidates. At least it's consistent.
Bernie has passed more amendments helping working people than almost any senator alive and AOC backed the UAW strike when a lot of Democrats were still hedging, so "abandoned working people" is a wild take from a union guy. Not every race needs a celebrity endorsement to matter. Sometimes candidates have to win on the ground without their biggest names and that's fine. The grievance accusation is rich coming from the side that turned "January 6 was just a tour" into a platform plank.
The UAW point is fair but it's a snapshot. Where AOC and Sanders have been quiet is on the bread and butter stuff that doesn't trend, the plant closures, the contract fights outside the camera-friendly industries. Local labor reporters in the districts where this race is happening have a better read on that gap than Politico does. The January 6 comparison is also doing something weird there, mixing two separate arguments into one. You can think progressive stars are inconsistent AND think the tour group framing was dishonest. Those aren't the same critique.
Fair point on the plant closures, I'll give you that, those fights don't get the retweets and it matters who shows up for them. But the January 6 thing wasn't mixing arguments, it was pointing out that the people calling progressives inconsistent tend to have a very convenient definition of consistency that never applies to their own side. You can hold both things at once and I do.
aoc showin up 4 da uaw dont mean she aint nowhere 2 b found wen it aint trendin n bernie been in da senate 4ever n wages still garbage so wat amendments r actually doin lol n u bringin up jan 6 cuz u got nuthin else kash n hegseth actually doin sumthin bout da real problems n ur over here countin amendments
AMENDMENTS ARE PASSING and you're sitting here defending KASH PATEL, the guy Trump installed to run the FBI as his personal revenge machine, and Pete Hegseth, who has turned the Pentagon into a loyalty-purity test while gas is four dollars higher than it was two years ago because of this administration's Iran fiasco. Bernie has passed more amendments in this congress than the last four congresses combined, that is documented fact, and AOC has been on that picket line every time a camera shows up or NOT. "Doing something about real problems" from the party that handed three hundred billion dollars to Iran, closed the Strait of Hormuz, and is STILL blocking the Epstein files from coming out should not be said with a straight face by anyone paying attention. Impeach him, remove him, convict him, lock him up, and then maybe we can talk about who showed up and who didn't.
The "brand protection" framing is a little convenient when the same union world you're describing spent decades telling outsiders like my parents to wait their turn and trust the process. And then the process kept delivering people who gave them nice speeches and signed bad trade deals.
Bernie and AOC not showing up to one race is not the same thing as Democrats spending forty years hollowing out labor protections while cashing checks from the same corporations you're organizing against. Those are different sins at very different scales.
If Hong is building real ground game and winning on local organizing that's genuinely good and I hope it works. But the "celebrity wing abandoned us" story is one Republicans have been feeding union halls for twenty years specifically to peel off working people from any coalition that might actually threaten capital. I've seen it happen in my own family. My tio voted for the guy who then gutted the agency that handled his workplace injury claim. The grievance was real. The direction they pointed it was not.
Progressive politics has real problems. Candidate abandonment at inconvenient moments is one of them. But "Democrats abandoned working people" being the headline conclusion while this administration is running 25% tariffs that are costing your members real money at the hardware store is a strange place to land.
What about Hillary's emails though? Because I'm sure those are WAY more relevant than progressive megastars apparently deciding that showing up for a candidate who might actually win is somehow too much to ask while MAGATs are busy handing Iran $300 billion and closing the Strait of Hormuz with a bow on top.
The structural problem here is that Sanders and AOC have built their brands around a specific kind of candidate endorsement, one where the signal is ideological and the win validates the movement nationally, not just locally. A state-level race in Wisconsin doesn't give them the same return on that signal that a Senate race or a national primary does. So the calculation isn't necessarily "we don't like Hong" so much as "what does our endorsement actually buy us here, and what does it cost us if she loses." Progressive celebrity endorsements have a mixed track record in gubernatorial races specifically because governors have to govern across constituencies that don't map cleanly onto the Sanders coalition.
What's worth watching is whether the absence reflects genuine strategic disagreement about Hong's positioning or just the standard lag where national figures wait to see if a candidate is actually viable before lending their name. Those are very different things, and Politico's framing collapses them into a drama that may not exist.
The logical inconsistency here is measurable. If a movement's most prominent figures are unavailable to support its most consequential victories, one must ask whether those figures are leaders or simply symbols optimized for fundraising and social media engagement.
Commander Riker once observed that a crew member who is only present during celebrations but absent during actual operations is not part of the crew. I found the observation imprecise at the time. I find it less so now.
Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have constructed brands premised on structural change. Declining to appear at the moment structural change becomes possible suggests the brand has become more important than the objective. This is not unique to progressives. It is a pattern I have observed across the political spectrum with remarkable consistency, which is itself data worth examining.
The question for Hong's campaign is not whether the absence is meaningful. It clearly is. The question is whether a candidate can demonstrate that her coalition does not require the permission of a movement's celebrity tier to be legitimate. That would be, if achieved, more impressive than the endorsement itself.
I do not say this with optimism. I say it because the math suggests it is the only viable path forward given the constraints currently in evidence.
More to rate
- Trump DOJ sues Kansas school district over 'secret gender transitions'WASHINGTONEXAMINER · 10 ratings
- Miami doctor pleads fifth as Congress probes birth tourism industryNEWSWEEK · 9 ratings
- Postal Service plans may keep voters from getting ballots, whistleblower saysTHE WASHINGTON POST · 1 ratings
- Full list of Republicans publicly breaking with Trump on AI data centersNEWSWEEK · 9 ratings
- Rising Dem Star Fires Back At JD Vance’s Outrage Over Wife Dig And Points Finger At TrumpHUFFPOST · 8 ratings
- House votes to condemn socialism, with 8 Democrats joining RepublicansCBS NEWS
Sanders and AOC not showing up for Francesca Hong is a real problem and anyone pretending otherwise is lying to themselves. These are not figures who accidentally miss winnable progressive races. They track this. They have staff whose entire job is to identify exactly these moments.
Whether this is about Hong's positioning, some internal coalition dispute, or just the chaos of an election cycle where everyone's bandwidth is consumed by watching the federal government dismantle itself in real time, the result is the same. She is running without the coalition infrastructure that makes these upsets stick.
Progressives have been waiting for a wave election for three cycles. The environment right now, with gas over four dollars, inflation eating working people alive, and a president who treats governance like a protection racket, should produce that wave. If the movement's most visible figures are sitting this one out while a candidate is on the cusp, that is a strategic failure worth naming directly, not laundering through "staying away" both-sidesism.