Is Rahm Emanuel right to publicly attack the DSA as a threat to Democratic electability?
Chris Hayes acknowledges a kernel of truth in Rahm Emanuel's concern: Democratic primary electorates can select candidates who are poorly optimized for a general election. But publicly amplifying that argument in the Wall Street Journal is counterproductive. It raises the salience of divisive issues without doing anything to dissuade DSA activists from running or winning primaries.
Hayes draws on the UK Labour Party as a cautionary example. Picking high-profile, public fights with the left flank on issues like immigration and trans rights "didn't work," because constantly waging those battles in the press keeps the very issues you want to downplay front and center in the news cycle. The practical effect is the opposite of what Emanuel intends: the fight itself becomes the story, crowding out any message discipline the party might otherwise achieve.
The underlying tension Hayes identifies is real. The Michigan Democratic Senate primary illustrated the gap vividly: Abdul El-Sayed, a candidate who had previously lost a gubernatorial primary to Gretchen Whitmer by 20 points, emerged this cycle in a very different environment — one where, as Hayes puts it, "something is obviously happening among the Democratic primary electorate, which is a different electorate than the general electorate." That shift is what Emanuel is reacting to. But Hayes argues the response of going to the Wall Street Journal is the wrong lever to pull. You can explore this episode in full via the Pod Save America page on Listenly.
"There is no universe in which he would have emerged victorious two, four, six years ago. Like something is obviously happening among the Democratic primary electorate, which is a different electorate than the general electorate."
— Chris Hayes, Pod Save America · "Is the Progressive Takeover Real?"
About Chris Hayes
Chris Hayes is a prominent anchor and host at MSNOW (MSNBC), one of the most recognizable voices in American political media. He is brought onto this episode of Pod Save America by host Alex Wagner, who describes him as someone "wise, but also just ballsy enough to say what they really think" — a framing that signals Hayes is valued precisely for cutting through conventional wisdom rather than restating party-line talking points.
His role on this episode is analytical: unpacking the results of the Michigan Democratic Senate primary, situating the DSA's growing influence within the broader Democratic Party, and stress-testing the strategic assumptions that figures like Emanuel are publicly advocating. Hayes's position at MSNOW (MSNBC) gives him sustained, day-to-day proximity to both the data and the personalities shaping Democratic primary politics — which is precisely what makes his read on the Emanuel-versus-DSA debate worth scrutinizing.
See also
Why did progressive leaders like Bernie Sanders not endorse Francesca Hong in the Wisconsin Senate primary?
Hayes points to several factors: a "comedy of errors" among Wisconsin Democrats — Mandela Barnes dropping out, Sarah Rodriguez dropping out after her finance troubles — that left the progressive lane without a consensus candidate early enough for major national figures to coalesce around Hong.
What explains the rise of candidates like Abdul El-Sayed and Zohra Mamdani despite not following traditional political pathways?
Hayes argues that candidates who bypass traditional establishment gatekeeping — constituency relationships, endorsements, coalition navigation — must compensate through outsized grassroots energy, compelling personal narratives, and a primary electorate that now rewards ideological clarity over conventional credential-building.
What is the progressive left's theory of the case for winning swing state elections in 2026?
Chris Hayes explains that the progressive theory rests on a cluster of cross-pressured voter issues: anger at the economic status quo, opposition to foreign policy decisions seen as unpopular, and a belief that running boldly left on kitchen-table economics can outperform cautious centrist positioning in a high-turnout environment.