It has always been a mistake for politicians and pundits to underestimate the basic moderation of the American people.
Whenever either major party goes too far to the right or the left, the rule has always been that they are soon punished for it by the electorate. But Democrats who are cheering the prospect of extremists like Graham Platner and Abdul El-Sayed to represent their party in the U.S. Senate in contests in Maine and Michigan seem to be ignoring that lesson.
If there is any real constant in the ever-changing American electoral landscape, it is that a victory in which the Republicans or Democrats take control of both houses of Congress and the White House is usually followed by them absorbing a shellacking in the next midterm elections. That is generally because of the perception that the party in power always needs to be restrained by its opponents.
Gridlock is frustrating to anyone who wants to get things done, but it is a feature—and not a bug—of the American constitutional order with its checks and balances. If history is any judge, and current polls are remotely accurate, then that may be what happens to President Donald Trump and the GOP this November.
Midterm prospects
That appears to be the conventional wisdom about 2026 among the chattering classes. They are salivating not merely for a chance for Democrats to administer a check to Trump or to force him to accept legislative compromises after his triumphant return to the White House in 2024.
Should they win back the House, they appear ready to drag the country through another series of futile attempts to impeach him or otherwise attempt more lawfare against the man who is their nemesis. And if unhappiness about rising gas prices due to the Iran war and other economic factors remains unchanged, they could get the chance to do just that.
Yet that same basic lesson about not going too far could also apply to the Democrats. More than that, it is a warning they seem determined to ignore at the peril not only of their election prospects, but also the fraying civil fabric of a nation already strained to the breaking point.
Moderation is not in fashion right now, though the Democrats’ drift to the left is, if anything, accelerating even faster than what’s happening on the right. The reaction to two U.S. Senate candidates could prove to be a test of just how far the Overton Window of acceptable discourse has shifted among the opposition to the administration.
The pro-Hamas oysterman
In Maine, oysterman and Marine veteran Graham Platner has a stranglehold on the Democratic nomination for a U.S. Senate seat. The seat is currently held by longtime Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate Republican who is believed to be among the most vulnerable incumbents up for re-election this year. The Democratic establishment had recruited Gov. Janet Mills to run. But polls that showed her trailing Platner chased her out of the race. And that presents Democrats with a problem.
In some ways, Platner is a perfect candidate for the age of Trump. He’s a populist with little political experience whose bitter experience of service in the failed American effort in Afghanistan speaks loudly to people disillusioned with Washington.
But his version of populism, which is, in part, about economics, is also one that speaks to a certain kind of toxic extremism that liberals have shunned in the past. He has a record of misogynist comments about rape (for which he has apologized) and appearances on podcasts where antisemitism was spewed, not to mention his claim that all white Americans are “racist” and denigrating the police. He is also best known for having a Nazi Totenkopf tattoo on his chest. He says he didn’t know its meaning and has covered up part of it.
He balances those liabilities by leaning into the most fashionable leftist cause of the moment: demonizing Israel, which he has falsely accused of being guilty of committing “genocide” against Palestinian Arabs in the Gaza Strip. Platner has also praised Hamas for its skills as terrorists. While he has attempted to mitigate criticisms from the Jewish community—as Jewish Democratic groups are presently keeping their distance from him—he partnered with the left-wing J Street lobby to hold a Passover seder.
To further complicate the situation, he is also the stepbrother of Jerusalem Post correspondent Seth Frantzman and has extended family members who are Jewish.
If he wins the seat, then he will not only line up with the most radical elements in the Senate like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) but also lend more weight to the growing chorus of those who seek to end the alliance with Israel.
Yet rather than turn away from Platner, the same liberal pundits and Democratic politicians who have excoriated Republicans for not disassociating themselves from the head of their party or others damned by the left as unacceptable, are rallying around Platner. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who claims to be a shomer, or “guardian,” of Israel and had backed Mills, has now jumped on the Platner bandwagon.
A zero-sum game
New York Times columnist Frank Bruni summed up what is now the consensus position of liberals on the midterms by explicitly demanding that Democrats hold their collective noses and do everything they can to help Platner defeat Collins. His rationale is simple and reflects the zero-sum game approach to politics. Platner will be a vote to impeach Trump, and Collins probably won’t be.
That’s the sort of reasoning that is now normative in American politics in 2026. Having convinced themselves that Trump is Adolf Hitler or a threat to democracy (despite the republic being in no apparent danger of being overthrown after five-and-a-half years of Trump in the White House), then anyone who opposes him—no matter how odious or extreme—must be supported even if it means defeating a Republican with whom many, if not most Democrats, have much in common.
But Bruni wasn’t satisfied with just shoving a candidate with a Nazi tattoo (something that he and everyone else at the Times would likely claim to be disqualifying if it concerned a Republican) down the throats of his liberal readers. He also said that it is just as incumbent on them to back extremist Israel-basher Abdel El-Sayed should he win a closely contested Senate primary in Michigan.
El-Sayed made a splash in recent weeks by campaigning with antisemitic podcaster Hasan Piker. He’s a doctor and former health official who has staked out the anti-Israel lane in the primary, denouncing Israel as “evil” and falsely accusing it of “genocide.” He even tried to blame Israel for a recent antisemitic attack by a Hezbollah supporter on a synagogue in West Bloomfield, Mich.
Yet to the horror of many Democrats, he currently holds a small lead over liberal state senator Mallory McMorrow and moderate pro-Israel Rep. Haley Stevens. McMorrow had thought that she would get the support of her party’s left-wing base because of her ideological commitment to their radical stands. But the momentum in the race has shifted to El-Sayed because she can’t seem to compete with his devotion to the cause of destroying the one Jewish state on the planet.
In this respect, he is feeding off the Democratic base’s embrace of intersectional false labeling of Israel as a “white” oppressor. He’s also counting on the enthusiasm of Muslim-American voters, who make up a significant minority among Michigan Democrats. That includes the more than 100,000 who turned out in February 2024 to vote against former President Joe Biden (declaring themselves “uncommitted”) because they considered him insufficiently anti-Israel.
Stevens is the only one of the three Democrats in the race who would be favored over the likely Republican candidate, former Rep. Mike Rogers. But as Bruni and other liberal pundits have made clear, most Democrats will not hesitate to support even someone as radical as El-Sayed if he wins the primary in August.
Anti-Israel is mainstream liberalism
This seems to reflect the growing impact of the influence of radical ideologies, amplified by a social-media culture in which the most extreme responses to everything seem to be the one that garners the most clicks and resonance. It has been evident since 2018 that the energy among Democrats is to be found among their most radical leaders, like the left-wing “Squad” in the U.S. House of Representatives, with ringleader Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). Accompanying her are antisemitic pals Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who would all be quite comfortable with Platner and El-Sayed.
Like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, they are the rock stars of a Democratic Party that seems increasingly willing to be a safe space for people who traffic in blood libels about Jews and who countenance mobs threatening synagogues that hold pro-Israel events.
Part of this is a result of how Democrats have talked themselves into really believing that anything is permissible in efforts to oppose Trump. Since they do believe that Trump is Hitler, they seem prepared to burn down American democracy with radicals and antisemites in order to “save” it. But, contrary to Bruni, this isn’t just about their panic about Trump. It’s a sea change in public opinion on the left that now treats antisemitism and hatred for Israel as a reasonable opinion that need not scare away supposedly enlightened liberals.
There are still some pro-Israel Democrats left in the party, such as Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) and Richie Torres (D-N.Y.). But even Jewish Democrats who once were comfortable with partnering with the pro-Israel community, like Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, seem to think he has to disavow any connection with AIPAC to sustain his dubious chances of winning the presidency in 2028. Current frontrunner California Gov. Gavin Newsom has already signaled that he is ditching his past support for the Jewish state. Even more ominous for the party is the possibility that their most unabashed supporter of Israel, Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), is considering going over to the Republicans—or more likely, switching his affiliation to Independent because of how out of step some of his views are within his party.
It is all a reflection of a general realignment in American politics, in which leading outlets are ready to platform anyone who is willing to bash Israel or condemn Trump because of his pro-Israel policies. The New York Times’ decision to give extensive space and a largely friendly profile interview to an antisemite like former Fox News host and current podcaster Tucker Carlson to vent his animus for Israel and opposition to the war on Iran heralded the way anti-Israel politics can make strange bedfellows. This makes it obvious that Democrats, who share his hostility to Jews and Israel, are ready to ditch any of their principles if they impede the creation of a coalition of those on the right and left who hate Trump and Israel.
The point is not that pro-Israel Democrats are completely extinct. Rather, it is that they are fewer and fewer in number, and are becoming outliers who are now on the margins rather than in the party center. Only a few years ago, Platner and El-Sayed would have been considered beyond the pale because of their antisemitic adjacent positions. Now, they are not merely credible candidates but powerful enough that few Democrats or liberal pundits dare to condemn them.
This may come back to haunt Democrats in November if it costs them the huge victory over Trump and the GOP they are now anticipating. Whether or not that happens, the transformation of the Democrats into the anti-Israel party is swiftly becoming an accomplished fact.
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of JNS (Jewish News Syndicate). Follow him: @jonathans_tobin.
