Every election cycle, base Republican voters complain about “the establishment.”
Democrats rely on theirs.
That simple difference helps explain why ruling Democrats so often prevail in their internal fights while ruling Republicans frequently lose control of their own.
The Democratic Party is hardly monolithic. It is deeply divided over ideology, Israel, the economy, and who should carry the party’s standard in 2028. Yet when the stakes become high enough, those divisions often give way to institutional discipline. Donors, elected officials, labor unions, and influential activists have a habit of moving in the same direction.
The past week offered two revealing examples.
In Michigan, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow entered the Democratic Senate primary hoping to chart a middle course between Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI), a relative normie, and radical leftist candidate Abdul El-Sayed.
Instead, she found herself squeezed with no viable path to replacing retiring Democratic Sen. Gary Peters.
Her decision to suspend her campaign was notable not because she withdrew, but because she did so after absentee voting had begun. Her name will remain on the Aug. 4 ballot, which is notable because most voters, particularly Democrats, are expected to cast absentee or early ballots.
McMorrow’s withdrawal was about more than polling. It reflected the reality that modern campaigns are fueled by money. Once it became clear that much of the Democratic establishment had settled on Stevens while the party’s ascendant far-left base rallied around El-Sayed, her path narrowed to almost nothing.
Then came Maine.
Graham Platner, who stunned many Democrats by forcing Gov. Janet Mills (D-ME) from the race to challenge Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), appeared untouchable. Then, days before Maine’s deadline for him to remove his name from the ballot and allow Democrats to choose a replacement nominee, Politico published allegations accusing him of rape.
Within hours, prominent Democrats, including the party’s leadership in Maine, were publicly urging him to withdraw.
The lesson is how Democrats exercise influence.
They understand that political parties exist to win elections. When major donors and influential party figures determine that a candidate threatens that objective, they rarely remain on the sidelines.
Republicans, by contrast, often seem incapable of wielding power within the party.
When candidates emerge whom party leaders believe will jeopardize winnable races, Republicans are often unable to persuade them to withdraw or unite behind an alternative. Todd Akin, Sharron Angle, Roy Moore, Christine O’Donnell, and Herschel Walker all come to mind.
To be sure, Democrats remain locked in a fierce struggle over the party’s future. The hard Left and normies disagree over messaging and the kind of nominee they want in 2028. But they have not rendered the party institutionally ineffective.
Republicans should pay attention.
Politics has always been about acquiring and exercising power. Whatever else may be said about today’s Democratic Party, it has not forgotten that basic truth.
Republicans may dislike how Democrats wield institutional influence, but they would be wise to understand that winning elections requires more than passionate activists and viral moments.
Dennis Lennox is a political commentator and public affairs consultant. Follow @dennislennox on X.