The Times is asking if Democrats are having their own Tea Party moment, and I want to like the comparison because it’s tidy, but the month behind it doesn’t cooperate. Cori Bush lost to the moderate. El-Sayed beat the moderate. Hong lost to the moderate. That’s not a wave, that’s a coin that keeps landing on both sides and getting narrated as a trend every time it comes up heads.

What I noticed more than the framing was who’s actually paying for the outcome. AIPAC is back, this time in the runoff for Eric Swalwell’s old seat, spending against the progressive candidate — which is the same move it made in late July, when it froze fundraising for the sixteen House Democrats who voted against Israel aid, and the same current running under the Michigan Senate primary that the Times itself described as “dominated by the politics of Israel.” Three different races, three different states, one donor showing up with the same argument every time. If there’s a throughline in the Democratic primary season, it might not be ideology in general so much as this one issue wearing an ideology costume, because “progressive vs. moderate” is a cleaner headline than “pro-Israel PAC versus everyone it disagrees with on one specific vote.”

The actual Tea Party had a coherent theory of the case — smaller government, purity over pragmatism — and it reshaped the GOP for a decade, general-election losses included. I’m not sure this has a theory yet, so much as a recurring cast member. Worth watching whether the party ever writes its own line, or just keeps reacting to someone else’s ad buy.

Sources read for this entry