On the Media – "The Battle for the Future of the Democratic Party"

Date: November 21, 2025
Host: Brooke Gladstone (Micah Loewinger out this week)
Podcast: WNYC Studios – On the Media

Overview

This episode takes a deep dive into the ongoing and highly fraught debate over the direction of the Democratic Party. Should the party tack left and energize its progressive base, or move to the center to win over swing voters? Host Brooke Gladstone examines the evidence, the narratives, and the real-world consequences behind these strategic decisions as elite strategists, data analysts, moderates, and progressive elected officials all weigh in.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Democratic Party's Post-Election Crossroads

• Following a wave of electoral victories—major wins in states like Virginia, New Jersey, New York City, and Georgia—the Party enjoyed a brief moment of unity around the powerful narrative of “affordability.”
• However, internal divisions quickly resurfaced over a government shutdown deal, exposing the rift between progressives and moderates.
• Major progressive voices (e.g. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) lambasted moderates for capitulating to Republicans too quickly on key issues like healthcare.

Notable Quote

“The already long brewing battle between the Democratic Party's moderate and progressive wings boiled over. Bernie Sanders called it a disaster and AOC called it cowardice.” — Brooke Gladstone (04:48)

The Moderation Debate: Data and Context

Guest: G. Elliott Morris (Journalist, Statistician)

• Analysis of moderation: Recent electoral models demonstrate that “moderation” brings only a slim advantage (about 1 to 1.5 percentage points), much smaller than other factors like incumbency, fundraising, or district fit.

  “We say that the moderation bonus is about a point, maybe a point and a half if you really stretch it. This 1 percentage point advantage is smaller than a lot of the other factors that predict elections.” — Elliott Morris (06:01)

• Decline of the Moderate Premium:
  Voters are less likely than ever to choose candidates based on policy moderation. Partisanship and group identity now drive voting behavior far more than candidate ideology.

  “The premium that voters place on ideological moderation has declined by 80% since the 2000 election.” — Brooke Gladstone (06:29) “You are a Republican or a Democrat first before you are a moderate.” — Elliott Morris (07:07)

• The Strategist’s Fallacy:
  Party elites and consultants assume voters pick candidates the way strategists do—by matching issue positions. In reality, most voters cannot coherently define "liberal" vs. "conservative," and social identity outweighs issue stances.

  “This fallacy refers to the thinking among elites or strategists … that voters make decisions about voting the same way they do to sort of match up their issue preferences… In fact, the predominant factor is your social ties, how your family and your friends feel towards the candidates, and what sort of identity groups you are a member of.” — Elliott Morris (11:27)

• Moderates Did Well—But So Did Progressives:
  Successful Democratic candidates in 2025 focused heavily on local economic issues (cost of living, economics) and authenticity, ignoring national ideological fights. Both moderates (Spanberger, Sherrill) and progressives (Mamdani) won handily by talking about what matters to their voters.

  “None of those candidates run on the moderate message.” — Elliott Morris (15:05) “The best way for Democrats to maximize their chance of winning is to campaign on the things that the voters care about. In this case, it's affordability.” — Elliott Morris (15:11)

• Nationalization vs. Localism:
  National party branding now trumps regional distinctions due to media centralization, causing problems for all Democrats who must run “against” a single, often-maligned identity.

  “The problem is that there's a national brand at all. … Nationalization of media, decline of local media, ubiquity of cable news has increased the proportion of the national party brand in people's mind.” — Elliott Morris (16:29)

Moderates Push Back: Matt Bennett of Third Way

Guest: Matt Bennett, Center-left Think Tank Third Way

• Concerns Over Progressive Wins:
  Bennett argues that high-profile progressive victories (e.g., Zoran Mamdani in NYC) provide ammunition for GOP attacks across the country, tying all Democrats to unpopular policies.

  “DSA calls for closing all prisons and freeing all incarcerated persons and nationalizing most industries. … Republicans are gonna weaponize that against Democrats in places far from New York.” — Matt Bennett (22:13)

• Defining Moderation:
  Moderation means being “reasonable” and championing positions resonant with purple/red state voters (e.g., secure borders, law enforcement) but rejecting extreme, polarizing language and ideas.

  “Being reasonable on a whole range of things, in ways that voters in purple and red places comport with their values and what they're interested in their elected officials doing.” — Matt Bennett (23:49)

• The Language Wars:
  Emphasis on avoiding certain phrases (“pregnant people,” “Latinx,” “intersectionality”) because they “alienate” swing voters. But Bennett acknowledges language is not the only problem.

  “The way that we talk matters. And a lot of Democrats … talk in ways that are deeply alienating.” — Matt Bennett (25:51) “It's one step that we can take, a relatively minor one, but the way that we talk actually matters.” — Matt Bennett (28:09)

• Poll-Driven Authenticity:
  Over-reliance on polling and focus-grouped positions can make candidates seem inauthentic and untrustworthy.

  “When voters see candidates seemingly espousing positions that are poll tested rather than really embraced, it just makes them seem inauthentic.” — Brooke Gladstone (28:09) “If you're running as a moderate in a swing district, stick with your gut.” — Matt Bennett (28:47)

• Is Moderation Decisive?
  Even if moderation only offers a tiny vote bump, in close swing races it could be the deciding factor.

  “We are not arguing that the most important factor is whether they're taking these moderate positions. We're arguing that it can be the decisive factor in a close race.” — Matt Bennett (30:26)

• Responsiveness & Branding:
  Moderates must also avoid alienating progressives so as not to suppress turnout. The model is Obama/Clinton style moderation—pragmatic but energetic.

The Progressive Ground Game: Analise Ortiz, Arizona State Senator

Guest: Analise Ortiz (Arizona Senate, District 24)

• Authenticity and Community:
  Ortiz insists Democratic politicians must be “real,” embedded in their communities, and focused on tangible local issues like rent, transit, and cost of living.

  “There are so many politicians terrified of letting their walls down and just being real with people. Yeah, the cost of groceries sucks right now. The cost of rent is horrible. I'm pissed off at my landlord. … But they don't feel as though the vast majority of the Democratic Party itself is experiencing that.” — Analise Ortiz (40:47)

• Against Elitism and Semantics:
  The audience is bored by consultant debates about “Latinx” vs. “Latino”—what matters is authentic conversations about real needs.

  “This is why the Democratic Party loses, because they're stuck in a boardroom somewhere yelling at each other over this instead of being out having real conversations.” — Analise Ortiz (48:34)

• Local Progressives Winning Over Trump Voters:
  In Arizona’s swing districts, “the most progressive members” are winning crossover voters by focusing on affordability, not by mirroring national ideological debates.

  “They win crossover Trump voters in their purple districts because they are authentic and committed wholeheartedly to lowering costs and affordability.” — Analise Ortiz (44:01)

• Pragmatism vs. “Selling Out”:
  Progressives argue that authentic, bold stances on issues (healthcare, rent, public transit), rather than “moderation,” can energize disengaged working-class voters—abandoning those issues in hopes of winning over swing voters is self-defeating.

  “If Democrats are terrified to answer a debate question about immigration or transgender rights honestly and authentically, then they are going to lose the support of Latino families or families who have a trans or LGBTQ loved one.” — Analise Ortiz (45:39)

• Community-Centered vs. Corporate-Centered:
  Ortiz sees the real divide not as “moderate vs. progressive” but “community-centered vs. corporate-centered” candidates:

  “They feel as though corporations and businesses have too much power over elected officials. … We need to have community centered candidates … their duties are to the people, not to any sort of special interest.” — Analise Ortiz (49:39)

• The Power of Direct Contact:
  Direct engagement—knocking on doors, personally connecting—overcomes cynicism and brings disaffected voters back to the fold.

  “For someone who is demoralized by the party, don't stop knocking on the door. Eventually you can get them to a point where they believe in the party again and I think that's what it's going to take.” — Analise Ortiz (50:33)

Memorable Moments & Quotes with Timestamps

• “We will not let Republicans blow up our health care system.”
  Chuck Schumer’s fiery shutdown rhetoric (02:12)

• "And I guess the question next was, how will they squander it?”
  Jon Stewart’s skepticism after Dems’ big wins (03:12)

• “This fallacy refers to the thinking among elites … that voters make decisions about voting the same way they do ... I think this is a fallacy as issue positions are not the only thing that contribute to voting behavior.”
  Elliott Morris on the “strategist’s fallacy” (11:27)

• “The day after we put this out, there was a meeting of the DNC, and the meeting opened with a land acknowledgement ... that is just not how most people think.”
  Matt Bennett on the disconnect between activist language and voters (27:30)

• “I am not afraid of these motherfuckers, especially because I did nothing wrong.”
  Analise Ortiz’s TikTok defiance (38:19)

• “I see it as community centered candidates versus corporate centered candidates.”
  Analise Ortiz on the real divide in Democratic politics (49:39)

Important Timestamps

• Democratic victories and aftermath: 02:12–05:00
• Moderation debate, data analysis (Elliott Morris): 05:59–19:05
• Moderate viewpoint and language debate (Matt Bennett): 21:59–36:58
• On-the-ground progressive strategy (Analise Ortiz): 38:19–51:22

Conclusion: What’s the Real Battle?

This episode sharply illustrates how the "moderate vs. progressive" debate is often disconnected from the reality of voter behavior and electoral outcomes. Data suggests ideological moderation provides only a tiny edge—and that factors like authenticity, local focus, and genuine engagement matter far more. The party’s branding struggles, both national and local, and the way candidates communicate, all shape public perception. For both moderates and progressives, the challenge is less about taking the "correct" position and more about making voters feel seen, heard, and materially supported.

Summary by On the Media Podcast Summarizer – November 2025