August 12, 2026
Why does Francesca Hong’s loss on Wednesday remind me of the sacrifice of Iphigeneia in Aulis? It's as if the ships of change need winds to sail, and the Oracle ordered Hong to be sacrificed because Troy can't wait. All the evidence points to this tragedy called politics: being sacrificed for the greater good.
The two main actors here, Bernie Sanders and AOC, who, had they rallied once on her behalf, would have seen her win in a landslide, never really backed her campaign; yet, I would not interpret her non-endorsement primarily as an ideological break with her. The evidence so far points much more toward electoral strategy, candidate vetting, and protecting their broader coalition.
Let me tell you what I think. When asked about Hong, Bernie gave a fairly mundane explanation. Sanders said essentially that he didn't know enough about the Wisconsin governor's race and that he generally doesn't get deeply involved in gubernatorial contests, with Maine being an exception. So, controversial Maine was more important to Sanders than Wisconsin. For some reason, Sanders kept his distance from Hong despite actually being ideologically close to her. She is a DSA member, has campaigned against AI data centers, emphasizes working-class economics and unions, and has positions that overlap substantially with Sanders and AOC. So, an ideological disagreement doesn't really explain the decision very well.
Then, AOC's reasoning is even more revealing. AOC has said that her priority is winning back Congress, rather than getting involved in this particular Wisconsin gubernatorial primary. Recent reporting also notes that she never endorsed Hong, while simultaneously talking about the need for Democrats to unify around working people and the November elections. That suggests something broader: maybe AOC is thinking nationally now. The recent polls suggest it. She isn't merely an ideological activist endorsing every progressive candidate. She is increasingly behaving like a potential national Democratic leader who has to maintain relationships across the Democratic coalition. Was Hong an issue in this respect?
Well, yes. Hong carries an unusually large amount of general-election baggage, and this was probably the biggest practical consideration for both Sanders and AOC. Hong's earlier rhetoric — including positions associated with defunding the police, abolishing the Senate, and controversial comments about Thanksgiving — gave Republicans extremely potent material if she became the Democratic nominee. She has subsequently moderated or distanced herself from some of those positions, but the damage was done, and both Sanders and AOC noticed it. So, my thought is that they calculated the risks: had they endorsed Hong, they would personally have become part of the Republican attack narrative. If Hong had lost the primary, they'd have spent political capital for nothing. If she had won and Republicans successfully defined her through those old statements, AOC and Bernie would inherit some of that baggage going into November. That is a very different political calculation from whether they agree with her ideologically.
It is that same calculation that has convinced me that Bernie and AOC have big plans for November. They've seen a big change coming, and they are calculating the risks, trying to avoid any political gaffes. And although they do not fundamentally disagree ideologically with Hong, they are not deliberately abandoning the DSA/Hong wing by staying out of that race. In my opinion, they did not interfere in a state gubernatorial primary, partly because they don't want to be attached to potentially damaging baggage and, most likely, because they want to preserve relationships with moderates for November.
Additionally, because of the Platner case, Bernie and AOC may be trying to distinguish now between supporting the progressive movement and personally owning every progressive candidate. That's an important evolution. By supporting the general agenda — like Medicare/healthcare expansion, unions, taxing the wealthy, anti-oligarchy politics, working-class economic policies, and progressive candidates in congressional races — and not necessarily saying, "Francesca Hong represents us," that gives them considerably more flexibility in November.
And there's a strategic reason for that. If the Democratic Party is heading toward a progressive-versus-moderate coalition battle, AOC's long-term ambitions in particular require her to be able to say to moderates: "I can lead the entire Democratic coalition, not just the left."
So, I wouldn't call this "AOC and Bernie rejecting Hong." I'd call it selective distance. And a sacrifice of one of our own for the greater good.
Well, this is not socialism; it's politics.
The really revealing question is what happens after the Wisconsin primary. If Hong had won, I would have been very curious to see whether Sanders and AOC immediately rallied behind her against the Republican nominee. If they did, that would strongly confirm that the non-endorsement was about the primary and political risk, rather than opposition to Hong herself.
And now that Hong has actually lost the primary, we have an even more interesting test: whether AOC and Sanders rapidly unify behind Crowley for November. If they do so, my hunch — "don't burn coalition capital during the primary; unite for November" — will become considerably more persuasive.
No comments:
Post a Comment