Are Democrats Actually “on the verge of a Tea Party-style, intra-party revolt?” Are Comparisons to Eric Cantor’s Shocking Primary Loss (in June 2014) Appropriate? Not Really and…Probably Not.

As we know, the U.S. political media loves nothing more than “both sides” false equivalence (also, “DEMOCRATS IN DISARRAY” narratives!), even as the Republican Party goes off the far-right/anti-democracy deep end and Democrats are the only remaining pro-democracy, pro-science, pro-reality, etc. major party left in America at this point.

The latest iteration: numerous U.S. political media “hot takes” like this one in Politico and this Axios piece, arguing that Democratic incumbents could face a wave of serious primary challenges in 2026, that “Democrats are on the verge of a Tea Party-style, intra-party revolt,” and that “The closest partisan parallel to the level of anger currently gripping Democratic voters would be roughly a decade ago, when Republican political unknown Dave Brat toppled House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a shocking 2014 primary upset.” In short, these arguments go, anger and frustration among grassroots Democrats at the Democratic Party’s apparent inability to push back effectively on Trump, Musk, DOGE, etc. represent a phenomenon that is very similar to, if not jUsT lIkE tHe TeA pArTy!! Uh huh.

In addition to epitomizing mindless, lazy “both sides-ism”/false equivalence, the problem with this argument is that it’s mostly just not accurate (yes, we’re seeing anger, sometimes expressed at town hall meetings, but it’s vastly different quantitatively, qualitatively, substantively, etc. from what we saw in 2009, 2010, etc with the “Tea Party”). For instance, on that Politico article and this Axios piece (“‘They hate us’: Democrats confront their own Tea Party”), here are several quick (in part because they’re glaringly obvious, except to the “mainstream media” apparently!) rebuttals:

1. First of all, let’s quickly recap what the “Tea Party” movement was all about: this was a right-wing reaction to the election of Barack Obama (the country’s first Black president),  to the push for health care reform, to a supposed desire to “stop the spending,” all in the context of the “Great Recession” that began during George W. Bush’s presidency. Oh, and if you went to any “Tea Party” rallies, you’ll recall that the signs were a toxic brew of virulent anti-government sentiment, nasty racism (e.g., depicting the Obamas as savages or apes, emphasizing Barack Obama’s Kenyan ancestry, you name it), etc. Now, obviously, there is NOTHING like this going on right now with people pushing back against “DOGE,” etc.
2. Also note that “a major force behind the [Tea Party] movement was Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a conservative political advocacy group founded by businessman and political activist David Koch.” Plus, ” the Contract from America…was a legislative agenda created by conservative activist Ryan Hecker with the assistance of [former House Majority Leader] Dick Armey of FreedomWorks.” So while there undoubtedly was grassroots energy behind the “Tea Party,” it certainly wasn’t a purely organic, grassroots, bottom-up movement. Yet again, there is ZERO comparison to what’s going on now, as people showing up at anti-Trump/anti-DOGE protests and at town halls are clearly NOT being funded, but are simply regular citizens upset (for good reason!) at the direction of the country.
3. The “Tea Party”‘s “Contract from America“ laid out 10 agenda items that were hard right all the way: attacking efforts to reduce carbon pollution and deal with the climate crisis; repealing the Affordable Care Act; cut taxes, mostly for the wealthy and corporations; get rid of progressive taxation; shrink the federal government dramatically; etc. In short, this was a highly ideological, far-right list of agenda items that sounds pretty familiar to “Project 2025,” which the Trump administration is now implementing – with disastrous results. Again, there is *absolutely no comparison* to what’s going on today with people upset at Trump’s/Musk’s assault on the federal government, workforce, the constitution, rule of law, etc.
4. While in both cases, one party (the Democrats in 2009-2010; the Republicans today) had a “trifecta” (the White House, US Senate, US House), and in both cases grassroots activists were/are frustrated at their party leaders’ relatively lack of power, the similarities really end there. Because in 2009-2010, what the “Tea Party” wanted was for Republicans to block anything/everything Democrats wanted to do, even if those things would have benefitted “Tea Party” voters, even if those things were 100% legal and constitutional, etc. Also note that in 2009-2010, Republicans *did* have a significant amount of success in derailing/slowing/watering down what Democrats wanted to do, including killing a “cap-and-trade” effort to combat the climate crisis, coming very close to killing “Obamacare” (while sucking up huge amounts of Obama’s “political capital,” making sure that it didn’t include stronger measures like a “public option” or “Medicare for All” or whatever), shrinking the size and skewing the shape of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, etc, etc. And that was with MUCH larger Democratic House and Senate majorities in 2009-2010 than Republicans have today. Yet today, so far, we’ve seen House Republicans ram through legislation despite their bare majority, and Senate Democratic leadership caving on the House’s nearly all-Republican “continuing resolution.” So again, there’s really little if any comparison between 2009-2010 and what’s happening today.
5.  As for comparisons to Eric Cantor, those seem seriously flawed if you actually look at what happened to Cantor. First of all, if you’re comparing where we’re at now in 2025 to where we were in 2009, note that Eric Cantor actually won reelection EASILY in the first elections after the rise of the “Tea Party” in 2009: by a 59%-34% margin in November 2010; and with 58% of the vote in November 2012 (after crushing his primary oppponent, 79%-21% in June 2012). As for the loss to Dave Brat in June 2014, that was a whopping *five years* after the rise of the “Tea Party” in 2009 (and nearly two years after Barack Obama was reelected in November 2012).  So if there’s a parallel today to Eric Cantor being ousted by a far-right challenger, we’re looking at, what, 2030 for something like that to happen to a top Congressional Democrat? LOL
6.  As for why Eric Cantor lost, there are a bunch of explanations, including: that he lost “because he lost touch with his Virginia district”; “by saying conciliatory things about an immigration bill and about finding ways to broaden the base of the party among working-class voters — including minorities”; that he “let his guard down by focusing on the intrigues of the Capitol and neglecting the demands of district service, constituent contact and visible fealty to local priorities”; that “in the relatively small turnout of a primary, a determined cadre could overpower the less committed”; etc. Or as Rachel Levy wrote back in June 2014, Cantor was “not accessible to his constituents and he doesn’t much care about them. He takes them for granted, treating them like a rich uncle you have to have dinner with occasionally if you want to keep receiving the checks, only in this case it’s votes.” In contrast, Levy wrote, “Brat is accessible and he hit the pavement during this campaign.”
7. I’d add that Cantor, while certainly very conservative, was challenged from his FAR-right, borderline fascist, by Brat, so the equivalent today would be to see a FAR-*left* (not AOC, who is a pretty normal liberal, but someone closer to being an actual socialist or even further left – Marxist?) challenge to a Hakeem Jeffries or Chuck Schumer or any Democratic incumbent, really (Mark Warner in 2026?). Can anyone really see someone as crazy, extreme, etc. as Brat actually winning a Democratic primary against an incumbent US House or Senate Democrat – in leadership or anyone else? I find that VERY hard to imagine, in large part because that’s NOT where the vast majority of Democratic voters’ heads are at – in the least bit. Instead, what Democratic voters want is for representatives who will defend our democracy, constitution, rule of law, federal workers/agencies, etc. against the “Project 2025″/Trump/DOGE assault – and to do so effectively. Again, that’s completely different from the motivations that led to Eric Cantor’s defeat in 2014, or really to the rise of the “Tea Party” in general.
8. Finally, there’s this article by Axios (which notoriously just makes stuff up/flat-out lies – and is most definitely NOT a friend of Democrats!), claiming that Democratic members of Congress have been “encountering a level of anger and hostility that some see as reminiscent of the 2010 Tea Party wave.” The major (fatal!) problem with this article is that, in fact, the VAST majority of “anger and hostility” we’ve been seeing at town hall meetings, held by both Democratic and Republican members of Congress, has been directed *against Trump, DOGE, Musk, etc.* – NOT against Democrats. We’ve posted about a bunch of those town halls here in Virginia, so see for yourself: Video of Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA10)’s “PACKED” Warrenton Town Hall in a “conservative part of northern Virginia”; Rep. Eugene Vindman notes that he had 7,000 on his tele-townhall last night, an indication “the American people are waking up to this threat”; Video: Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA08) Says “We may not be too far” from “Civil Disobedience, a la Nelson Mandela or Gandhi”; Video: In Munich, Sen. Mark Warner Says His Telephone Townhall with Sen. Tim Kaine Had 71k Listeners (vs. 3k-5k Normally), Highlighting How Trump/DOGE Are Creating “Huge Concern” Among Virginians; Audio: Rep. Jennifer McClellan (D-VA04) Holds Telephone Town Hall with 10,000 Concerned Citizens, Says “We have seen an unprecedented attempt to really take away powers of Congress.” (One caller asks if Trump, Musk etc. could “rescind the Emancipation Proclamation and reenact slavery”); Audio: In Town Hall, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA03) Asks If Trump Might Refuse to “relinquish power,” “cancel the [2028] election”; Wonders If There are 5 SCOTUS Justices Who “have the backbone to rule that we have a democracy and we’re not giving it away”; etc.
9.  Having said all that, of *course* Democrats are frustrated and angry right now, including with top Democratic leadership in Congress (particularly VA Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, who voted for – and encouraged his Democratic caucus members to vote for – the US House’s Republican-only “CR” the other day. And yes, Democratic leadership should listen to that feedback, consider whether they’re doing enough to combat Trump, whether they are correctly diagnosing the problems (and possible remedies), etc. If not, could we see some serious primaries of Democratic incumbents in 2026? Possibly. But is this comparable to the “Tea Party” in 2009-2010 (and beyond) or to Eric Cantor in 2014? That’s really hard to see, unless you’re motivated to see it, as the “mainstream media” most certainly is (because they love conflict, both-sidesism, false equivalence, bashing Democrats, etc, etc.).

Bottom line: in this case, history definitely isn’t repeating itself, and to the extent it’s even “rhyming” (as the saying goes), I’d argue that there are a lot more differences than similarities to what happened in 2009-2010, or with Eric Cantor in 2014. That’s NOT to argue that Chuck Schumer, to take a top example, might not be in serious danger of losing a primary in 2028 (the next time he’s scheduled to be on the ballot), or that other Democratic incumbents might not face serious primary challenges for a variety of reasons, but to date at least, there’s no sign of any of this morphing into a “Democratic ‘Tea Party'” (which could never really be a “thing” anyway, for a bunch of reasons) now or in the foreseeable future.  Not that this will stop the “hot takes” in Politico and other “mainstream media” outlets, because let’s face it, they LOVE this sh**.

P.S. One more point: if you look at Virginia Republican U.S. House primaries in 2010, 2012 and 2014 – the high points of the “Tea Party” movement – nothing obvious jumps out in terms of “Tea Party” candidates defeating non-“Tea Party” candidates; if anything, Cantor looks like an aberration/”one-off,” at least here in Virginia…