The Sunday Shows Are Still Pushing Fake ‘Moderate vs. Progressive’ Narrative

Jorge Bonilla
August 16th, 2026 6:23 PM

Text to Speech

00:00 00:00
Font Size

The Democratic Party is in the throes of an attempted takeover and hollowing out by the Democratic Socialists of America. The Elitist Media are still attempting to explain this away by labeling the sides with anodyne descriptors, falsely framing the primary battle as “moderates vs. progressives.”

Here’s how Martha Raddatz framed the primary debate while recapping a last week’s Midwestern primaries on ABC’s This Week:

 

 

MARTHA RADDATZ: Dissatisfaction with the economy is one reason Democrats are bullish on their chances to take back control of Congress. But the party itself is in a fight for its future. The moderate and progressive wings each scoring wins at the ballot box this week. But another divide was on full display as well. This week we traveled to New England, days ahead of a key primary, where a senator who has been in politics since the 1970s is in a tight battle to keep his seat. 

The fight for the future of the Democratic Party was on overdrive this week, a week that ended with a rather muddled message. Moderates scoring a big win in Wisconsin.

DAVID CROWLEY: Together, we will build the broad coalition that this moment absolutely demands.

RADDATZ: David Crowley defeating the fiery frontrunner in the polls, Democratic Socialist Francesca Hong in the gubernatorial primary, a major upset in the high-stakes battleground test for progressives. But in Minnesota:

PEGGY FLANAGAN: This campaign was about The Many versus The Money.

RADDATZ: It was the progressive lieutenant governor Peggy Flanagan who carried the day, beating moderate congresswoman Angie Craig in the primary battle to replace retiring Senator Tina Smith. 

There are no specific definitions as to what defines a “moderate” or progressive” here. There are certainly no stated policy preferences. There is only the label. An opaque label that leaves viewers to define for themselves what these labels mean, or if they even matter.

It was no different on NBC, as Kristen Welker introduces Meet the Press:

 

 

KRISTEN WELKER: Good Sunday morning. We are just 79 days until the midterm elections and both parties are facing a test. Democrats are racing to unite a party pulled between its progressive and moderate wings, while Republicans face rising gas prices and an Iran war that is getting harder to control.  

Here Welker talked policy but only to tie Republicans to Iran and gas prices. Where is the comparable tie-in for defunding the police, abolishing Thanksgiving, abolishing the Senate or allowing men to compete in women’s sports? You don’t see one. 

The only bit of intellectual honesty across the Sunday dial comes from CBS’s Ed O’Keefe, sitting in for Margaret Brennan, who makes the distinction on Face the Nation that “socialist-backed” is synonymous with “progressive:”

 

 

ED O’KEEFE: Good morning and welcome to Face the Nation. Margaret is out today. After weeks of high-stakes primaries that pitted moderates versus progressive or socialist-backed Democratic candidates, and raised questions about the future of the (Democratic) Party…

But the truth is that these labels mean nothing. “Moderate” is used here as an implied synonym of “conservative.” But what does an actual “moderate” sound like, if allowed to speak for any length of time? Here’s “Moderate” Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a potential 2028 presidential candidate, sounding like a DSA member and calling for the abolition of the Electoral College:

 

 

ANDY BESHEAR: But I tell you what: people also think this government is broken. So fix the darn government constitutional amendment, it is time. It should outlaw partisan redistricting and enshrine part of the Voting Rights Act right there in the constitution. It should create term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court. No more gaming those appointments. It should also overturn Citizens United and I think call for direct elections of the President and the Vice President. That could actually make things work. A big idea that would, yes, change government but in a way enshrined in the Constitution where people know it’s going to get better.

ED O’KEEFE: I didn't realize you support abolishing the Electoral College if you’re saying direct election of the President and Vice President.

BESHEAR: Yeah, I've said it a number of times. It’s because in Kentucky, we will never see a candidate for President or Vice President unless they’re from here. Why? Because people just expect that it’ll go one way or the other. It's the idea that someone would get elected not just knowing about seven states but having to earn votes all over the United States. I certainly think it’s time.

Even O’Keefe was shocked to hear "moderate" Beshear calling for the end of the Electoral College. O’Keefe didn’t follow up afterwards, which was unfortunate given Beshear's rationale for ending the Electoral College: that such a move would force candidates to campaign everywhere. The practical effect of the end of the EC would be to park candidates in New York City, Miami, Chicago, Houston, and Dallas, with your margin of victory coming exclusively from Los Angeles. A follow-up would have been nice.

Moreover, what this Beshear segment really illustrates is that there are no “moderates” in the Democrat Party. There is only far-left and extreme left. And if the Elite Media don’t necessarily frame it that way, it’s because they’re also in on the joke.

Donor Privacy Policy