Tuesday’s primaries delivered a split verdict in the Democratic Party’s increasingly bitter fight over socialism.
Moderate David Crowley narrowly defeated Democratic socialist Francesca Hong in Wisconsin’s gubernatorial primary. But in Minnesota, progressive Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan defeated centrist Rep. Angie Craig for the Democratic Senate nomination.
One week earlier, democratic socialist Abdul El-Sayed defeated moderate Rep. Haley Stevens in Michigan’s Senate primary.
The socialist wing is not winning everywhere, but it is winning often enough that James Carville believes Democrats may need to stop treating the fight as a polite family disagreement. The veteran Democratic strategist is now suggesting party leaders consider denying certain far-left members entry into the Democratic caucus—and potentially withholding committee assignments if Democrats regain the House. That would mark a dramatic escalation from grumbling on cable television to an institutional divorce. Carville’s message to the socialist insurgents was blunt:
“Why do you want the name Democratic? Call yourself something else. You’re not a Democrat! These people are not Democrats.”
Carville made the comments during an appearance on The Sharpe Exchange podcast after host Wyatt Sharpe asked whether anti-establishment candidates were becoming a permanent force in Democratic politics.
“Well, it’s certainly getting more common. I mean, you can’t deny that,” Carville said. “They’re very aggressive. The country overwhelmingly rejects their agenda.”
The country may reject the label, but Democratic primary voters have repeatedly shown interest in candidates associated with the Democratic Socialists of America. That has presented party leaders with an uncomfortable arrangement: DSA candidates frequently challenge sitting Democrats in primaries, denounce the party establishment and then expect to join the Democratic caucus after winning. Carville compared that to hijacking a brand someone else built.
“Why not get your own name? Why do you have to appropriate our name?”
He then placed the question directly at the feet of House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
“I think that Hakeem and other people are going to have to consider some of these people who run against Democrats: Should they be allowed in the Democratic caucus? Should they be assigned committees, assuming that we win the House?”
Carville continued:
“At some point, political parties—you can say, ‘Hey, I feel like I’m a Republican. I feel like a Democrat. I feel like I’m an independent.’ But there are people that are actually appropriating the name of the Democratic Party while they’re running against the Democratic Party.”
His conclusion:
“The party should be able to take some measures to protect its brand.”
Carville is not proposing that elected socialists be denied their seats in Congress. Voters decide who serves in the House. He is talking about whether those members should enjoy the organizational benefits of belonging to the Democratic caucus, including influence over leadership and access to committee assignments.
Committee work is where much of Congress’s actual legislating, investigating and oversight occurs. A representative without a meaningful assignment may still vote on the House floor, but he or she has substantially less power.
The House Democratic Caucus acknowledges that it approves committee assignments, writes its own rules and enforces party discipline. So Carville’s proposed wall is not entirely theoretical.
Whether Democrats would ever summon the nerve to build it is another matter.
Third Way, a center-left group that frequently warns Democrats against drifting too far left, rejected Carville’s proposed exclusion. Jim Kessler, the organization’s executive vice president for policy, argued that candidates elected as democratic socialists should still be permitted to caucus with Democrats.
“If someone gets elected as a Democratic Socialist and wants to caucus as a Democrat in the House and the Senate, they should be able to do so.”
Kessler cited the most famous example:
“Let’s not forget, Bernie Sanders has never been a registered Democrat in his life, and he’s caucused as a Democrat in both the House and the Senate for more than three decades.”
That is true. Sanders has served as an independent while caucusing with Democrats, seeking their presidential nomination twice and holding important committee positions. But Carville might respond that Sanders is precisely how Democrats arrived at their current predicament. The party allowed an independent socialist into the tent, nearly nominated him for president twice and watched his movement establish a permanent beachhead inside Democratic politics. Kessler said expulsion should be reserved for far more serious conduct.
“Is there a line that could get you tossed out of the tent? Yes, but it has to be truly abhorrent personal behavior or taking a political position that is deeply offensive to a segment of the population.”
He nevertheless admitted that some DSA figures appear less interested in joining a coalition than destroying and replacing it.
“My issue with the DSA members potentially coming to the caucus is whether they are trying to hold a place in the tent or trying to burn the tent to the ground.”
Kessler added:
“Listening to some DSA members, they seem to be armed with a torch.”
Nonetheless, his conclusion differed sharply from Carville’s:
“If they get elected fair and square, they should have their place. But only their place.”
That sounds reasonable until somebody asks who decides where “their place” ends.
Carville can point to Wisconsin as evidence that Democrats still possess a survival instinct. Hong had been leading polls and appeared positioned to become the nation’s first democratic socialist governor. Her campaign advocated a $20 minimum wage, guaranteed paid leave and a moratorium on new AI data centers. She was also haunted by old calls to “cancel Thanksgiving” and defund or abolish the police. Although Hong attempted to moderate those positions, outgoing Democratic Gov. Tony Evers backed Crowley and warned that Hong could jeopardize the party’s hold on the governor’s office. Crowley defeated her by roughly half a percentage point.
Yet progressives enjoyed a major victory in Minnesota, where Flanagan defeated Craig for the Senate nomination. Flanagan had support from Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and retiring Sen. Tina Smith. El-Sayed’s Michigan victory the previous week gave the socialist wing another Senate nominee in a crucial battleground. The movement therefore remains strong enough to defeat Democratic incumbents and establishment-backed candidates, even if it did not sweep every race. That creates Carville’s nightmare scenario, Socialists need the Democratic ballot line and infrastructure to reach Congress, but their ultimate objective may be to replace the party Carville has spent decades trying to elect.
Jeffries has generally chosen unity over confrontation. After DSA-aligned candidates defeated establishment Democrats in New York primaries, he supported the nominees rather than inviting a public civil war. That approach makes sense if his immediate goal is to assemble the largest possible voting bloc against Republicans. But it also allows the far left to acquire power inside the caucus without giving up its separate organization, agenda or identity. If Jeffries rejects them, he risks alienating young voters and activists who provide energy, volunteers and money. If he welcomes them, Republicans will make every vulnerable Democrat answer for the most radical DSA proposals—whether those moderates support them or not.
A suburban Democrat in a competitive district may want to campaign on prescription-drug prices and road repairs. Republicans will ask whether the candidate belongs to the same caucus as members advocating abolished prisons, dismantled immigration enforcement and government ownership of major industries. That is the brand problem Carville is trying to prevent.
Democrats have long celebrated themselves as a coalition broad enough to contain centrists, liberals, progressives and democratic socialists. But every big tent eventually encounters a structural problem. What happens when one group arrives carrying gasoline and declaring that the old tent must be replaced?
Carville believes the answer is to keep that group outside. Third Way argues that anyone elected fairly deserves entry unless the person engages in truly abhorrent behavior or adopts a deeply offensive position. Both approaches carry risks. Exclusion could split the Democratic vote and hand elections to Republicans. Inclusion could allow a disciplined socialist faction to pull the entire party leftward while using the Democratic name, money and congressional machinery.
The 2026 primaries demonstrate that this is no longer a seminar-room debate. The candidates Carville fears are winning nominations, entering general elections and, in some districts, virtually guaranteeing themselves seats in Congress. Democrats will eventually have to decide whether the DSA is a faction within their party, a coalition partner—or a hostile takeover wearing a blue campaign button.
Carville wants the locks changed before somebody strikes a match.
WIRE SOURCES
- Fox News: Carville warns Democrats may need to block far-left candidates from joining caucus
- The Sharpe Exchange: James Carville discusses the socialist rise inside the Democratic Party
- Fox News: Carville calls for a formal Democratic Party ‘schism’
- Fox News: Jeffries confronts Democratic Party divide after socialist victories
- Fox News: Democratic establishment defeats Francesca Hong in Wisconsin
- Reuters: Wisconsin moderate wins as progressive Flanagan advances in Minnesota
- Axios: Seven House Democrats have now lost primary races in 2026
- House Democrats: Role and authority of the Democratic Caucus
