After working a Massachusetts primary, Cheryl Elkins saw what voters actually want—and why corporate Democrats attacking progressives are missing the point.
Summary
PDR Posse member Cheryl Elkins brought a perspective Democratic consultants and television strategists too often miss: the view from the polling place. After working a Massachusetts primary for 14 hours, she described newly naturalized citizens, first-time voters, immigrant communities, and working people determined to participate despite the pressures of everyday life. Her conclusion was unmistakable: Democrats who caricature progressives and democratic socialists as advocates of chaos are disconnected from the voters they claim to understand.
- Elkins said her diverse precinct saw people actively seeking help to understand the primary process, including newly naturalized citizens and first-time voters who insisted on casting ballots.
- She argued that working the polls exposes what ordinary Americans actually want: enough economic security to support their families, enjoy their communities, and live decent lives.
- She rejected Rahm Emanuel’s attacks on democratic socialists as fearmongering and division rather than serious engagement with progressive policy.
- The discussion challenged corporate Democrats who repeat Republican frames about crime, immigration, and the left rather than debating what progressive candidates actually propose.
- Elkins contrasted establishment rhetoric with that of Massachusetts leaders such as Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren, whom she described as politicians who listen to and respond to constituents.
Democrats do not build durable majorities by insulting their own coalition. They build them by listening to voters, defending working people, rejecting manufactured fear, and organizing around policies that materially improve people’s lives.
PLEASE BECOME A PAID SUBSCRIBER TODAY
Countering billionaires—and soon trillionaires—is hard, probing work. They flood the zone with propaganda, policy distortions, and economic fallacies rooted in the Powell Memo and financed by concentrated wealth. We work every day to answer that machinery with truth, context, and critical thinking. But independent media cannot survive on conviction alone. It needs support from people who understand the stakes. Please become a paid subscriber today. Your support keeps this work alive, expands its reach, and helps build a media ecosystem that serves people, not plutocrats. This is not charity. It is an investment in truth, democracy, and the public good.
Premium Content (Complimentary)
Corporate Democrats Cannot Lecture Their Way Back to Power
There is something clarifying about spending 14 hours at a polling place. Political consultants can study focus groups. Cable-news personalities can debate messaging. Donors can attend expensive retreats. But a poll worker sees democracy at ground level.
That is the perspective Cheryl Elkins brought to Politics Done Right after working the Massachusetts primary. She described a diverse community where newly naturalized citizens arrived unsure of the mechanics but absolutely certain that they wanted to vote. First-time voters waited, asked questions, learned the process, and participated. Her precinct drew roughly twice the turnout she had expected.
That reality matters because it exposes the emptiness of a certain kind of establishment Democratic politics.
Rahm Emanuel recently declared that he does not consider democratic socialists part of the Democratic Party and accused them broadly of supporting defunding police, releasing prisoners, opening borders, and eliminating the Pentagon. Those claims deserve scrutiny rather than repetition, particularly when prominent Establishment Democrats use the same emotionally loaded frames Republicans deploy against the entire Democratic coalition.
The strategic argument behind Emanuel’s position deserves fair consideration. He argues that Democrats must win competitive districts and cannot allow unpopular left-associated positions to distract from attacks on Trump-era corruption and economic failures. That is a legitimate electoral concern.
But strategy becomes malpractice when it substitutes caricature for persuasion.
Elkins identified the problem clearly. She called the rhetoric fearmongering and said it treats politics like a game won through division. Worse, Democrats who borrow Republican language teach voters to accept Republican premises. If Democratic leaders tell the public that progressives represent lawlessness, open borders, and social disorder, Republicans will happily ask voters why they should settle for the imitation.
The electorate itself is more complicated than Emanuel’s framing suggests. A 2026 Pew Research Center survey found that 52% of liberal Democrats viewed leaders who identify as democratic socialists favorably, while moderate and conservative Democrats were much more skeptical. A Washington Post-Ipsos poll likewise found that about three-quarters of Democrats were open to supporting a democratic socialist for president, even though support dropped below half among Americans overall.
That does not prove every DSA position can win nationally. It proves something more useful: the Democratic coalition contains real ideological diversity, and sweeping declarations about who belongs are politically reckless.
Massachusetts offered another instructive data point. Progressive Sen. Ed Markey defeated the more moderate Seth Moulton in the September 1 Democratic primary. Reuters and AP reported that Markey ran openly on his progressive record and defeated a challenger whose campaign stressed generational change and moderation. No single primary settles the national ideological debate, but it certainly undermines the idea that voters automatically reject unapologetic progressivism.
The larger lesson from Elkins’ account is simpler.
People want functioning communities. They want wages that cover the bills, affordable healthcare, safe neighborhoods, good schools, dignity at work, and enough time and security to enjoy their families. She saw those voters firsthand and concluded that establishment Democrats sound disconnected when they reduce politics to ideological policing rather than material needs.
Democrats should argue about policy. They should challenge bad ideas wherever they arise. But they should stop doing Republicans’ rhetorical work for them.
A winning coalition does not require ideological uniformity. It requires solidarity around democracy, economic fairness, civil rights, accountable government, and policies that allow working people to thrive.
The path forward runs through the voters standing in those polling-place lines—not through consultants telling them which members of their own coalition deserve contempt.
