AOC Knows a Lemon When She Sees One, But What Does It Mean for the Left?

The defeat of Francesca Hong in Wisconsin’s Democratic primary has been hailed as a victory for American democracy. While her energetic campaign and devoted fanbase were certainly appealing, her inability to distance herself from toxic rhetoric ultimately proved to be her downfall.

Two prominent progressive leaders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders, chose not to endorse or publicly support Hong’s candidacy. This suggests that they recognized the flaws in her campaign: a lack of nuance, reliance on divisive language, and tone-deafness when it comes to building broad coalitions.

Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders have built their careers on pushing the boundaries of what is possible in American politics, but they also know when to fold. They likely understood that Hong’s views were too far outside the mainstream for even many progressive voters.

In contrast, Hong’s campaign was marked by an inability to move beyond its own ideological purity tests. Her Twitter feed, left unscrubbed and unchanged throughout her campaign, was filled with language that would have been recognizable as extreme in 2020. She criticized Thanksgiving and Christmas, and took a hardline stance on immigration and corporate power.

The problem for Hong wasn’t just that she couldn’t distance herself from these views; it’s that she seemed to genuinely believe they were the only way forward. This lack of flexibility, combined with her speaking style, made it difficult for her to connect with voters beyond the hardcore left-wing base.

Abdul El-Sayed, another left-wing candidate who has faced similar criticisms, takes a different approach. Despite his own baggage and controversies, he comes across as confident, eloquent, and focused – able to connect with voters on issues from healthcare to economic policy.

El-Sayed’s campaign boils down its message into simple, memorable slogans. He uses these to build a broad coalition of support, whereas Hong’s campaign was marked by ideological inflexibility and a refusal to compromise or adapt to the needs of a broader electorate.

As we move forward into an election season that promises to be pivotal, it’s worth asking whether this is really the model that the left wants to follow – and whether Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders are truly willing to challenge their own assumptions about building a winning coalition.

Hong’s defeat should serve as a wake-up call for progressives of all stripes. We may not have to agree on everything, but we do need to be able to talk to each other – and to the broader American public – in a way that is respectful, inclusive, and genuinely persuasive. Anything less risks leaving us stuck in our own ideological silos, unable to build the broad coalitions that we so desperately need to succeed.

Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders have some serious soul-searching to do – not just about their endorsements, but also about the broader implications of Hong’s defeat. Will they continue to push the boundaries of what is possible in American politics, even if it means risking occasional losses? Or will they begin to focus more on building a winning coalition, even if that means making tough compromises along the way?

Ultimately, the left needs to be willing to ask itself these kinds of questions – and confront its own limitations – if we are truly going to build a movement that can succeed in the long run.