March, 14 2024, 12:06pm EDT

Medicare Advantage Myth-Busting
This year, the majority of Americans eligible for Medicare coverage chose to enroll in private Medicare Advantage (MA) plans rather than Traditional Medicare. Insurance companies that run these MA plans spend significant sums of money to blanket seniors with marketing that highlights the supposed advantages of MA like low upfront costs, supplemental coverage, and other unique perks like subsidizing gym memberships. However, the ads leave seniors in the dark on the downsides of MA like heavily restricted networks that damage one’s choice of provider along with dangerous delays and denials of necessary care. At the same time, both the Biden Administration and many members of Congress from both parties have voiced support for the further privatization of Medicare through growing Medicare Advantage.
In this article, we will debunk several pervasive myths about MA that proponents and insurance giant owners push in their effort to continue privatizing Medicare at the expense of patients.
Myth #1: Medicare Advantage Is Medicare
The inclusion of the term Medicare in Medicare Advantage — otherwise known as Medicare Part C — is incredibly misleading, as the program is de facto government-subsidized private insurance.
Traditional Medicare is public insurance, where tax revenues are directly used to cover healthcare for seniors and some disabled people. It employs a fee-for-service (FFS) payment model, where the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) directly pays for each covered service by a healthcare provider.
In contrast, MA consists of thousands of different plans mostly provided by health insurance giants like UnitedHealthcare and Humana. Seven large insurance companies accounted for 84% of MA plan enrollment in 2023. Rather than directly covering care as needed, the federal government pays lump sum Medicare dollars, known as capitated payments, to these private insurers for each patient. MA plans make money by spending as little as possible on patient care in order to keep as much of the leftover taxpayer money as possible.
In other words, MA is private insurance supported by government subsidies, and it is a form of managed care by health insurance companies. MA is not a government-managed public health insurance program like Traditional Medicare.
Myth #2: Medicare Advantage Saves Money
Medicare Advantage has never saved taxpayers money as a substitute for Traditional Medicare. In fact, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), taxpayers have spent more on financing MA than they would have if everyone was covered under Traditional Medicare.
In fact, Congress and CMS have been working to try to stop MA companies from gaming the system to steal taxpayer money. A 2023 study by the Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) estimates that CMS overpaid MA plans between $88-$140 billion in 2022 alone through various practices like pretending patients were sicker than they were along with targeting healthier, less costly seniors to enroll in their plans. Overpayments have also caused all Medicare beneficiaries to pay billions in higher Medicare Part B premiums.
Through taking taxpayer subsidies, MA has been significantly more profitable for insurance companies than the private plans offered to the rest of Americans. In 2021, MA companies had a gross profit margin of $1,730 per enrollee, which is more than double their profit margin on the individual market ($745). In 2023, Humana ended its entire commercial insurance business in order to entirely focus on government-funded programs like MA.
Some who claim MA saves money point to how MA spending is growing at a slower rate than Traditional Medicare. However, their point assumes that people enrolled in MA and Traditional Medicare share the same characteristics, which is false. MA targets and enrolls people who are healthier, less likely to use medical services, and, thus, less expensive to cover than those in Traditional Medicare.
Myth #3: Medicare Advantage Is Necessary To Save Beneficiaries Out-of-Pocket Spending
One of the primary appeals of Medicare Advantage is the idea that it saves beneficiaries money. However, this is highly dependent on how much care someone needs. The extent to which MA does save money for patients is not a natural result of its supposed superiority; it is due to intentional political sabotage and decision making.
Patients in both MA and Traditional Medicare have to pay a monthly premium for Medicare Part B ($174.40 in 2024). Then, Traditional Medicare covers 80% of costs for outpatient services. Beneficiaries are responsible for paying the remaining 20%, with no limit on out-of-pocket (OOP) payments. However, Traditional Medicare fully covers inpatient services such as hospitalization after a patient meets a deductible ($1,632 in 2024). For prescription drug coverage, Traditional Medicare beneficiaries pay a monthly premium for a Medicare Part D plan run by a private insurer ($40 average in 2023).
Traditional Medicare beneficiaries can purchase a supplemental Medigap insurance plan to cover most OOP spending (average monthly premium of $139 in 2023), which a plurality (41%) did in 2021. Eighty-nine percent of people in Traditional Medicare had some form of supplemental coverage in 2023, such as through Medicaid (19%) or their employer/union (31%).
In MA, premiums, coinsurance rates, and deductibles vary across the thousands of different plans. However, the average monthly premium is very low ($18.50 estimate for 2024), and many plans have $0 premiums. Additionally, CMS mandates that MA plans have an OOP spending limit. The average limit for in-network services was $4,835 in 2023; when accounting for both in- and out-of-network services, the average limit was $8,659. Ninety-seven percent of MA beneficiaries are in plans that incorporate drug coverage, and the average premium is $10 per month (73% of enrollees had no premiums for drug coverage).
For healthy individuals without need of expensive healthcare services and products, MA saves money due to its low premiums. However, while Traditional Medicare users with a Medigap plan spend more money upfront due to higher premiums, they can save thousands of dollars for expensive care that would reach their OOP limit if they were enrolled in MA.
However, many seniors simply cannot afford purchasing a Medigap plan, so they have little choice but to enroll in MA. In 2023, 52% of MA beneficiaries earned annual incomes around $25,000. Income limitations disproportionately lead Blacks (65%) and Latinos (69%) to choose MA compared to Whites (48%), as 78% and 81% of Black and Latino MA beneficiaries earn less than 200% of the federal poverty level, respectively.
Traditional Medicare beneficiaries without any form of supplemental coverage (11% of Traditional Medicare users in 2021) most certainly have to pay more for healthcare due to Part A deductible and the lack of any OOP cap. However, the lack of an OOP cap in Traditional Medicare is entirely a result of politics and can be changed. While CMS requires MA plans to have an OOP cap, policymakers have elected not to create one for Traditional Medicare. Congress could legislate a $5,000 OOP cap for Traditional Medicare; this would cost just $39 billion annually or just 28-44% of the overpayments made to MA plans in 2022.
Considering the fact that MA has never saved taxpayer money, the history of billions of dollars in overpayments to MA plans, and the fact that Congress could cost-efficiently lower costs for those in Traditional Medicare, it is a myth that MA is necessary to save patients money.
Myth #4: Medicare Advantage Improves Health Outcomes
Through incentivizing the use of preventative care, Medicare Advantage’s capitated payment model should supposedly increase the health of its beneficiaries. However, there is not sufficient evidence to prove this. Additionally, the sickest patients opt for Traditional Medicare and low reimbursement rates decrease the willingness of healthcares providers to accept MA patients.
The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) reviewed existing studies and found that there is not strong evidence of widespread significant differences in health outcomes between Americans enrolled in MA versus Traditional Medicare. MA plans push patients to more preventative care visits, and they also incentivize beneficiaries to take on healthy habits like getting and using a gym membership. In contrast, Traditional Medicare is more likely to send its beneficiaries to higher-rated cancer facilities, nursing facilities, and home health agencies. Issues with data quality and differences in the populations who choose MA versus Traditional Medicare also render direct comparisons between the two programs quite weak.
Incentivized to spend as little as possible, MA plans pay healthcare providers less than Traditional Medicare. As a result, an increasing number of doctors and providers are declining to accept MA patients, further restricting MA networks and access to care. Additionally, lower payments can prevent doctors from providing the best quality care. In comparison, around 99% of non-pediatric physicians accept Traditional Medicare.
Medicare Advantage is a great option for relatively healthy beneficiaries who do not expect to need intensive care for serious illnesses and injuries. Capitated payments do incentivize MA insurance companies to save money by investing in healthy, preventative care and programs. At the same time, the model also incentivizes MA plans to avoid covering the highest quality care for the people most in need.
To restrict care that beneficiaries would otherwise receive in Traditional Medicare, MA companies delay and deny care through prior authorizations (PAs) and payment denials. In 2021, patients and their providers had to file 35 million PA requests in order to receive medical care. MA companies denied 2 million of these requests. People only bothered to appeal 11% of the time; however, those that did had a 82% success rate. In 2022, 94% of physicians surveyed by the American Medical Association reported experiencing PAs which caused delays to necessary care; 56% reported this occurring always or often. Eighty percent reported that PAs caused the abandonment of recommended treatment, and 33% reported that they caused a serious adverse event for their patients.
There are many reasons for poor health outcomes in the United State: lack of healthcare access, high costs, low income, poor diet, and lack of exercise to name a few. The strategy of giving lump sums of money — mostly to insurance giants — and incentivizing them to spend as little as possible is not supported with evidence of improved health outcomes and does not directly tackle these greater issues.
Myth #5: Medicare Advantage Offers Benefits That Traditional Medicare Simply Cannot Match
A primary selling point of MA plans is that they offer supplemental benefits — mainly coverage for dental, vision, and hearing care — that Traditional Medicare does not provide. While this is true, it is misleading because it does not reveal the quality of this coverage.
While the vast majority of MA plans offer supplemental benefit coverage, there isn’t evidence that their beneficiaries actually utilize dental, hearing, and vision services much more than people enrolled in Traditional Medicare. In fact, there is some evidence to the contrary regarding dental care. This is because MA supplemental “coverage” does not protect patients from having to spend significant sums of money out of their own pockets.
Most MA plans have high coinsurance rates along with low annual caps on how much insurance will cover. So, MA coverage predominantly doesn’t help patients with expensive dental, hearing, or vision treatments. This prevents many seniors from being able to afford care even though they technically have coverage. Ultimately, MA plans constantly advertise that they offer supplemental coverage, but they leave Americans in the dark on how little financial help they will actually receive.
Additionally, taxpayers and Traditional Medicare beneficiaries are effectively subsidizing these additional benefits. Not only has MA never saved taxpayer money, it is further depleting the Medicare Trust Fund and raising Part B premiums for all Medicare beneficiaries. These higher premiums and taxpayer overpayments allow MA companies to market supplemental benefits along with the aforementioned low premiums which attract healthier and lower-income seniors.
Instead of enriching MA companies, Traditional Medicare could provide dental, hearing, and vision benefits for less than $42 billion in 2025, which is 30-48% of the overpayments taxpayers made to MA in 2022. Unlike in MA, this coverage would not be limited to restricted provider networks.
Myth #6: Medicare Advantage Is Necessary To Lower Healthcare Spending
Healthcare spending overall and Medicare spending specifically increase every year more than inflation. The United States spends more money per capita than any other country on healthcare. The average cost of healthcare per person in other wealthy nations is roughly half as much as the United States.
To lower Medicare spending, proponents of Medicare Advantage tout the benefits of “value-based” care compared to Traditional Medicare’s FFS model. Critics claim that FFS incentivizes wasteful spending and opportunities for doctors to become rich by billing Medicare for services unnecessary to patient health.
In contrast, “value-based” care involves CMS giving lump sums of money (capitated payments) to MA companies for each patient, supposedly incentivising efficient healthcare spending on preventative care. Through spending less and, ideally, keeping patients healthier, MA companies get to keep more money.
While there are case studies of mission-driven organizations succeeding with capitated payments, this does not hold true for the large, for-profit insurance giants that dominate MA. Rather, the major MA companies’ primary goal is to maximize profit. Therefore, they typically take as much taxpayer money as feasible by gaming the system while restricting care in order to spend less and keep as much as possible.
However, the entire premise that reducing healthcare usage with a more restrictive insurance policy is the best means to lower healthcare spending is baseless. The United States does not use healthcare services more than the other countries who spend far less, and the same is true for Medicare compared to similar foreign populations.
Then why is healthcare so expensive in the United States? Prices. Healthcare prices in the United States are significantly higher than other countries. This reality is a result of factors like market consolidation (lack of competition), patents, administrative waste, and more.
Rather than combat the large hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, private equity companies, insurance giants, and other powerful private interests who control armies of lobbyists and excesses of campaign cash, MA proponents provide a simple solution: make people get less care. This is a convenient solution which happens to also further enrich and get the blessing of dominant insurers like UnitedHealth Group.
All in All, Medicare Advantage Is a Scam
Congress created Medicare Advantage with the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act (MMA). After signing the bill into law, President George W. Bush boasted how MA would lower costs, expand benefits, afford seniors more choices, and improve quality of care. However, this supposed modernization of Medicare was really a scheme to privatize, gifting billions of dollars to insurance companies while seeking to end Traditional Medicare.
In reality, MA has never saved taxpayer money. Through gaming the system of capitated payments, MA insurance companies have reaped billions in overpayments — which have also increased the amount all Medicare beneficiaries pay in Part B premiums.
Through restricting care and taxpayer subsidies, MA plans do offer a lower cost alternative to Traditional Medicare, especially for beneficiaries who cannot afford a supplemental Medigap plan. Additionally, it can offer supplemental benefit coverage unavailable under Traditional Medicare, even if the quality of such coverage is poor and provides limited financial support. However, this reality is not because of its inherent design; it is a result of the political sabotage of Traditional Medicare. Congress can cap OOP expenses and provide supplemental coverage for Traditional Medicare with the same money it overpays to MA insurance giants lining their profit margins.
The only choices MA afforded seniors has been which private plan they want to choose. The program destroys beneficiaries’ choice of doctor due to restricted networks. Additionally, there is not sufficient evidence that MA significantly improves health outcomes while health providers are increasingly dropping MA plans due to low reimbursements, further limiting the number of providers MA patients can see. At the same time, current comparisons between MA and Traditional Medicare are unfair as long as policy makers refuse to fix the cost gaps in the latter.
Within both the Medicare and entire American populations, healthcare costs are rising at the same time as health outcomes are worsening, especially in comparison to peer nations. While MA is a convenient solution for insurance companies, it neither addresses the causes of high prices nor poor health outcomes.
MA proponents consistently point to the increasing share of beneficiaries who choose MA over Traditional Medicare as evidence of success. Along with millions of dollars spent on deceptive advertising by insurance companies, this is the consequence of policymaker’s failure to update Traditional Medicare.
It’s past time Medicare beneficiaries are given a real choice. Instead of overpaying insurance giants to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, Congress can cap OOP expenses at $5,000 annually and provide supplemental benefits in Traditional Medicare.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. In order for citizens to effectively exercise their voices in a democracy, they should be informed about the problems and choices that they face. CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options.
(202) 293-5380LATEST NEWS
At Least 95 Palestinians Killed in Israeli Attacks Including Massacres at Beach Café, Aid Points
"I saw body parts flying everywhere, and bodies cut and burned," said one eyewitness to a strike on the popular al-Baqa Café.
Jun 30, 2025
Israeli forces ramped up their genocidal assault on the Gaza Strip Monday, killing at least 95 Palestinians in attacks including massacres at a seaside café and a humanitarian aid distribution center and bombings of five school shelters housing displaced families and a hospital where refugees were sheltering in tents.
An Israeli strike targeted the al-Baqa Café in western Gaza City, one of the few operating businesses remaining after 633 days of Israel's obliteration of the coastal strip and a popular gathering place for journalists, university students, artists, and others seeking reliable internet service and a respite from nearly 21 months of near-relentless attacks.
Medical sources said at least 33 civilians were killed and nearly 50 others wounded in the massacre, including footballer Mustafa Abu Amira, photojournalist Ismail Abu Hatab—who survived an earlier Israeli airstrike and is reportedly the 227th journalists killed by Israel since October 2023—and prominent artist Frans Al-Salmi, whose final painting depicting a young Palestinian woman killed by Israeli forces resembles photographs of its slain creator posted on social media after her killing.
Warning: Photos shows image of death
Survivor Ali Abu Ateila toldThe Associated Press that the café was crowded with women and children at the time of the attack.
"Without a warning, all of a sudden, a warplane hit the place, shaking it like an earthquake," he said.
Another survivor of the massacre told Britain's Sky News: "All I see is blood... Unbelievable. People come here to take a break from what they see inside Gaza. They come westward to breathe."
Eyewitness Ahmed Al-Nayrab toldAgence France-Presse that a "huge explosion shook the area."
"I saw body parts flying everywhere, and bodies cut and burned," he said. "It was a scene that made your skin crawl."
Witnesses and officials said Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) troops opened fire on Palestinians seeking food and other humanitarian aid from a U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation distribution point in southern Gaza, killing 15 people amid near-daily massacres of aid-seekers.
"We were targeted by artillery," survivor Monzer Hisham Ismail told The Associated Press. Another survivor, Yousef Mahmoud Mokheimar, told the AP that Israeli troops "fired at us indiscriminately." Mokheimar was shot in the leg, another man who tried to rescue him was also shot.
IDF troops have killed nearly 600 Palestinian aid-seekers and wounded more than 4,000 others over the past month, with Israeli military officers and soldiers saying they were ordered to deliberately fire on civilians in search of food and other necessities amid Israel's weaponized starvation of Gaza.
Another 13 people were reportedly killed Monday when IDF warplanes bombed an aid warehouse in the Zeitoun quarter of southern Gaza City, according to al-Ahli Baptist Hospital officials cited by The Palestine Chronicle. IDF warplanes also reportedly bombed five schools housing displaced families, three of them in Zeitoun. Israeli forces also bombed the courtyard of al-Aqsa Hospital in Deir al-Balah in central Gaza, where thousands of forcibly displaced Palestinian families are sheltering in tents. It was reportedly the 12th time the hospital has been bombed since the start of the war.
The World Health Organization has documented more than 700 attacks on Gaza healthcare facilities since October 2023. Most of Gaza's hospitals are out of service due to Israeli attacks, some of which have been called genocidal by United Nations experts.
Israel's overall behavior in the war is the subject of an ongoing International Court of Justice genocide case, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including murder and using starvation as a weapon of war.
Since October 2023, Israeli forces have killed or wounded more than 204,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including over 14,000 people who are missing and presumed dead and buried under rubble, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, whose casualty figures have been found to be generally accurate and even a likely undercount by peer-reviewed studies.
The intensified IDF attacks follow Israel's issuance of new forced evacuation orders amid the ongoing Operation Gideon's Chariots, an ongoing offensive which aims to conquer and indefinitely occupy all of Gaza and ethnically cleanse much of its population, possibly to make way for Jewish recolonization as advocated by many right-wing Israelis.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Cannot Be Silent': Tlaib Leads 19 US Lawmakers Demanding Israel Stop Starving Gaza
"This current blockade is starving Palestinian civilians in violation of international law, and the militarization of food will not help."
Jun 30, 2025
As the death toll from Israel's forced starvation of Palestinians continues to rise amid the ongoing U.S.-backed genocidal assault and siege of the Gaza Strip, Rep. Rashida Tlaib on Monday led 18 congressional colleagues in a letter demanding that the Trump administration push for an immediate cease-fire, an end to the Israeli blockade, and a resumption of humanitarian aid into the embattled coastal enclave.
"We are outraged at the weaponization of humanitarian aid and escalating use of starvation as a weapon of war by the Israeli government against the Palestinian people in Gaza," Tlaib (D-Mich.)—the only Palestinian American member of Congress—and the other lawmakers wrote in their letter to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. "For over three months, Israeli authorities have blocked nearly all humanitarian aid from entering Gaza, fueling mass starvation and suffering among over 2 million people. This follows over 600 days of bombardment, destruction, and forced displacement, and nearly two decades of siege."
"According to experts, 100% of the population is now at risk of famine, and nearly half a million civilians, most of them children, are facing 'catastrophic' conditions of 'starvation, death, destitution, and extremely critical acute malnutrition levels,'" the legislators noted. "These actions are a direct violation of both U.S. and international humanitarian law, with devastating human consequences."
Gaza officials have reported that hundreds of Palestinians—including at least 66 children—have died in Gaza from malnutrition and lack of medicine since Israel ratcheted up its siege in early March. Earlier this month, the United Nations Children's Fund warned that childhood malnutrition was "rising at an alarming rate," with 5,119 children under the age of 5 treated for the life-threatening condition in May alone. Of those treated children, 636 were diagnosed with severe acute malnutrition, the most lethal form of the condition.
Meanwhile, nearly 600 Palestinians have been killed and more than 4,000 others have been injured as Israeli occupation forces carry out near-daily massacres of desperate people seeking food and other humanitarian aid at or near distribution sites run by the U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). Israel Defense Forces officers and troops have said that they were ordered to shoot and shell aid-seeking Gazans, even when they posed no threat.
"This is not aid," the lawmakers' letter argues. "UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini has warned that, under the GHF, 'aid distribution has become a death trap.' We cannot allow this to continue."
"We strongly oppose any efforts to dismantle the existing U.N.-led humanitarian coordination system in Gaza, which is ready to resume operations immediately once the blockade is lifted," the legislators wrote. "Replacing this system with the GHF further restricts lifesaving aid and undermines the work of long-standing, trusted humanitarian organizations. The result of this policy will be continued starvation and famine."
"We cannot be silent. This current blockade is starving Palestinian civilians in violation of international law, and the militarization of food will not help," the lawmakers added. "We demand an immediate end to the blockade, an immediate resumption of unfettered humanitarian aid entry into Gaza, the restoration of U.S. funding to UNRWA, and an immediate and lasting cease-fire. Any other path forward is a path toward greater hunger, famine, and death."
Since launching the retaliatory annihilation of Gaza in response to the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, Israeli forces have killed at least 56,531 Palestinians and wounded more than 133,600 others, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, which also says over 14,000 people are missing and presumed dead and buried beneath rubble. Upward of 2 million Gazans have been forcibly displaced, often more than once.
On Sunday, U.S. President Donald Trump reiterated a call for a cease-fire deal that would secure the release of the remaining 22 living Israeli and other hostages held by Hamas.
In addition to Tlaib, the letter to Rubio was signed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Democratic Reps. Greg Casar (Texas), Jesús "Chuy" García (Ill.), Al Green (Texas), Jonathan Jackson (Ill.), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), Henry "Hank"Johnson (Ga.), Summer Lee (Pa.), Jim McGovern (Mass.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Chellie Pingree (Maine), Mark Pocan (Wisc.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.), Paul Tonko (N.Y.), Nydia Velázquez (N.Y.), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.).
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden National Security Adviser Among Those Crafting 'Project 2029' Policy Agenda for Democrats
"Jake Sullivan's been a critical decision-maker in every Democratic catastrophe of the last decade," said one observer. "Why is he still in the inner circle?"
Jun 30, 2025
Amid the latest battle over the direction the Democratic Party should move in, a number of strategists and political advisers from across the center-left's ideological spectrum are assembling a committee to determine the policy agenda they hope will be taken up by a Democratic successor to President Donald Trump.
Some of the names on the list of people crafting the agenda—named Project 2029, an echo of the far-right Project 2025 blueprint Trump is currently enacting—left progressives with deepened concerns that party insiders have "learnt nothing" and "forgotten nothing" from the president's electoral victories against centrist Democratic candidates over the past decade, as one economist said.
The project is being assembled by former Democratic speechwriter Andrei Cherny, now co-founder of the policy journal Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, and includes Jake Sullivan, a former national security adviser under the Biden administration; Jim Kessler, founder of the centrist think tank Third Way; and Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress and longtime adviser to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Progressives on the advisory board for the project include economist Justin Wolfers and former Roosevelt Institute president Felicia Wong, but antitrust expert Hal Singer said any policy agenda aimed at securing a Democratic victory in the 2028 election "needs way more progressives."
As The New York Times noted in its reporting on Project 2029, the panel is being convened amid extensive infighting regarding how the Democratic Party can win back control of the White House and Congress.
After democratic socialist and state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani's (D-36) surprise win against former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo last week in New York City's mayoral primary election—following a campaign with a clear-eyed focus on making childcare, rent, public transit, and groceries more affordable—New York City has emerged as a battleground in the fight. Influential Democrats including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) have so far refused to endorse him and attacked him for his unequivocal support for Palestinian rights.
Progressives have called on party leaders to back Mamdani, pointing to his popularity with young voters, and accept that his clear message about making life more affordable for working families resonated with Democratic constituents.
But speaking to the Times, Democratic pollster Celinda Lake exemplified how many of the party's strategists have insisted that candidates only need to package their messages to voters differently—not change the messages to match the political priorities of Mamdani and other popular progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
"We didn't lack policies," Lake told the Times of recent national elections. "But we lacked a functioning narrative to communicate those policies."
Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have drawn crowds of thousands in red districts this year at Sanders' Fighting Oligarchy rallies—another sign, progressives say, that voters are responding to politicians who focus on billionaires' outsized control over the U.S. political system and on economic justice.
Project 2029's inclusion of strategists like Kessler, who declared economic populism "a dead end for Democrats" in 2013, demonstrates "the whole problem [with Democratic leadership] in a nutshell," said Jonathan Cohn of Progressive Mass—as does Sullivan's seat on the advisory board.
As national security adviser to President Joe Biden, Sullivan played a key role in the administration's defense and funding of Israel's assault on Gaza, which international experts and human rights groups have said is a genocide.
"Jake Sullivan's been a critical decision-maker in every Democratic catastrophe of the last decade: Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Israel/Gaza War, and the 2024 Joe Biden campaign," said Nick Field of the Pennsylvania Capital-Star. "Why is he still in the inner circle?"
"Jake Sullivan is shaping domestic policy for the next Democratic administration," he added. "Who is happy with the Biden foreign policy legacy?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular