Former White House press secretary Jen Psaki made a striking admission during MSNOW’s coverage of the Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial primary, saying Democratic Party leaders once played a decisive role in selecting nominees rather than leaving the choice entirely to voters, as reported by the Gateway Pundit.
Psaki made the comments while discussing how the Democratic nomination process has changed over time.
Her remarks quickly drew attention online because of the contrast between the party’s emphasis on democracy and her description of how its nomination system previously operated.
“We both remember well when party leadership really selected the nominees.”
Psaki continued by saying the practice was understood inside political circles even when it was not openly described that way.
“Now, you would never say it that way exactly, but they would. Now we can [say it]. We’re free!”
She explained that party leaders could influence the outcome by directing resources and endorsements toward preferred candidates.
“They really did, because they would put money behind it. They would endorse. And now it looks very much like party leaders are not picking the nominees.”
Psaki added:
“In fact, party leaders pushing nominees is a negative.”
The comments came during discussion of the Wisconsin Democratic primary for governor, where polling had drawn attention ahead of Election Day.
Psaki also addressed polling that had projected a substantial advantage for Democratic Socialist candidate Francesca Hong.
According to the discussion on the program, many polls had shown Hong with a double-digit lead heading into the primary.
Psaki said the actual vote count was developing differently, with establishment-backed candidate David Crowley performing better than expected.
“Okay, I know we’ve been talking about this, but it’s just worth restating that most polls headed into election day show Democratic Socialist Francesca Hong with a VERY safe double-digit lead in the Wisconsin gubernatorial primary.”
“And she could certainly still win…but as you can see, with a little more than half of the vote in Francesca Hong is down to the establishment-backed candidate, David Crowley, which is, I think, not where most people expected this to sit, with 51% of the vote in…”
The race also raised questions about early voting and turnout. Psaki pointed to more than 100,000 votes cast during July, including early and mail-in voting.
“What’s interesting to me, one of the things is that there was over 100,000 people who voted in July, and during early vote and vote by mail. That was a period of time where Crowley was in and out of the…he was in and out of the race, right?”
The Wisconsin primary became a useful case study in the broader discussion about the relationship between party organizations, endorsements and voters.
Psaki’s comments specifically focused on the difference between the traditional influence of Democratic Party leadership and the current political environment, where she said party leaders increasingly face resistance when attempting to push particular candidates.
The remarks also highlighted the limitations of polling in a closely watched primary.
Hong’s reported polling advantage did not necessarily translate into the same margin once votes were counted, while Crowley’s position improved as returns came in.
The discussion comes as both major parties continue to debate the proper role of party organizations in primary elections.
Party endorsements, fundraising networks and campaign infrastructure can give candidates significant advantages, but primary voters ultimately determine nominees through the electoral process.
Psaki’s description of the Democratic Party’s past nomination practices is likely to fuel additional discussion about how much influence party leadership should have over the candidates presented to voters.
For a party that has frequently emphasized the importance of democratic participation, Psaki’s admission provided an unusually candid glimpse into how political insiders viewed the nomination process in earlier years.
The Wisconsin results also provided another reminder that election-night expectations can change quickly once voters, rather than pollsters or party strategists, have their say.
