In a fiery segment on his Fox News show Gutfeld!, host Greg Gutfeld unleashed a scathing critique of Democratic centrists, declaring their political influence is crumbling as “real women have left the conversation.” The provocative statement, aired on June 20, 2025, has ignited a firestorm of debate, with Gutfeld pointing to a Washington Post article praising female centrists within the Democratic Party as the spark for his commentary. His bold assertion suggests a seismic shift in voter dynamics, with women—once a cornerstone of Democratic support—allegedly turning their backs on the party’s moderate wing. But what’s driving this exodus, and is Gutfeld’s claim rooted in reality or just late-night hyperbole designed to rile up his audience?

Gutfeld’s remarks come at a time when the Democratic Party is grappling with internal fractures and a broader identity crisis. The party, long seen as a champion of progressive ideals and women’s rights, has faced growing criticism for its inability to connect with key voter demographics. Gutfeld’s jab at the “shrinking group chat” metaphorically captures a perceived decline in the centrists’ relevance, suggesting that their message no longer resonates with women who prioritize practical solutions over ideological posturing. His reference to “real women” implies a disconnect between the party’s elite, often urban and affluent, and everyday women grappling with economic pressures, cultural shifts, and policy failures.

To understand this phenomenon, it’s worth exploring the broader context. Recent analyses indicate that the Democratic Party has struggled to maintain its grip on female voters, particularly those outside the coastal liberal strongholds. Economic concerns, such as inflation and rising costs, have hit women hard, especially working-class and single mothers who feel the pinch of stagnant wages and childcare shortages. Meanwhile, cultural debates—ranging from education policies to gender identity—have alienated some women who once reliably voted blue. Gutfeld’s commentary taps into this discontent, framing it as a rejection of the centrists’ tepid, fence-sitting approach that fails to address these pressing issues head-on.

The Washington Post article Gutfeld referenced highlighted a group of female Democratic centrists who advocate for pragmatic, bipartisan solutions. These women, often positioned as the party’s reasonable voices, argue for policies that bridge the gap between progressive ideals and conservative realities. Yet, Gutfeld and his panel on Gutfeld!—which included regulars like Kat Timpf and Tyrus—mocked this portrayal, suggesting that centrism is a weak compromise that lacks the conviction to inspire loyalty. Gutfeld argued that voters, particularly women, “smell cowardice” in the centrists’ reluctance to take bold stands, likening their dwindling support to a group chat losing members as the conversation fizzles out.

This narrative aligns with broader trends in American politics. Data from recent elections shows a noticeable shift among female voters. While women historically leaned Democratic, especially after high-profile campaigns like Hillary Clinton’s 2016 run, the gap has narrowed. In the 2024 election, exit polls revealed that women’s support for Democrats dropped significantly in key swing states, with economic concerns and dissatisfaction with party leadership cited as major factors. Rural and suburban women, in particular, have gravitated toward Republican candidates who promise economic relief and a return to traditional values—a trend Gutfeld’s “real women” comment seems to amplify.

But Gutfeld’s critique isn’t without its critics. Some argue his rhetoric oversimplifies a complex issue, painting Democratic centrists as spineless while ignoring the structural challenges they face. The Democratic Party operates in a polarized landscape where moderates must navigate the demands of a progressive base while appealing to swing voters. Female centrists, in particular, often face scrutiny from both sides—accused of being too liberal by conservatives and not liberal enough by progressives. This tightrope walk can make their positions seem vague or uninspiring, but it’s a reflection of the party’s broader struggle to unify its coalition.

Moreover, Gutfeld’s focus on “real women” raises questions about who exactly he’s addressing. The term, loaded with cultural baggage, suggests a specific demographic—perhaps working-class, socially conservative women who feel ignored by the Democratic elite. Yet, this framing risks alienating other women, including those who remain loyal to the party’s progressive wing or who reject the idea of “realness” as a litmus test for political legitimacy. Gutfeld’s satirical style, honed through years of blending pop culture with political commentary, thrives on such provocations, but it can obscure the nuances of voter behavior.

Digging deeper, the erosion of support among women may tie back to the Democratic Party’s messaging failures. Over the past decade, the party has leaned heavily into identity politics, emphasizing issues like reproductive rights and gender equity. While these resonate with many women, they’ve also created blind spots. For instance, the party’s focus on urban, college-educated women has sometimes come at the expense of rural and working-class women, who face different realities. Policies perceived as out-of-touch—such as aggressive climate initiatives or complex healthcare reforms—have fueled perceptions that Democrats prioritize ideology over practicality.

Gutfeld’s show, known for its irreverent take on the day’s headlines, thrives on exposing these disconnects. His panel discussion on June 20 delved into the Democratic Party’s financial woes, noting that donors are “avoiding them like Hunter Biden avoids child support.” This quip, while biting, underscores a real issue: the party’s fundraising has taken a hit, with some attributing it to disillusionment among moderate donors who see centrists as ineffective. Gutfeld’s broader point is that the party’s obsession with appeasing its progressive wing has alienated not just women but a wider swath of voters who crave authenticity and results.

The cultural landscape adds another layer to this story. Women, like men, are not a monolith, and their priorities vary widely. For some, the Democratic Party’s stance on social issues—such as supporting transgender rights or defunding the police—feels like a betrayal of common-sense values. Others, particularly younger women, remain energized by the party’s progressive agenda but are frustrated by its inability to deliver tangible change. Gutfeld’s “shrinking group chat” metaphor captures this fragmentation, suggesting that the centrists’ attempt to please everyone has left them with no one.

On the flip side, Republicans have capitalized on this discontent by tailoring their messaging to women’s concerns. Campaigns emphasizing economic stability, school choice, and community safety have resonated with mothers and working women who feel neglected by Democrats. High-profile female Republican figures, like Kristi Noem or Kari Lake, project strength and relatability, appealing to women who might have once voted Democratic but now see the GOP as a better fit. Gutfeld’s commentary implicitly nods to this shift, framing the Republican Party as the new home for “real women” who prioritize family, security, and opportunity.

Yet, the story isn’t as simple as a mass defection. Many women remain committed to the Democratic Party, particularly on issues like reproductive rights, which have gained urgency post-Roe v. Wade. The party’s ability to mobilize women in the 2026 midterms will depend on its capacity to bridge the gap between its progressive and centrist wings while addressing economic anxieties. Gutfeld’s critique, while sharp, overlooks the resilience of this voter base and the potential for Democrats to adapt.

In the end, Gutfeld’s provocative claim is less about predicting the future than exposing a current truth: the Democratic centrists are losing ground, and women are at the heart of this shift. Whether it’s due to economic frustration, cultural disconnect, or the allure of a bolder Republican platform, the “shrinking group chat” is a warning sign for a party at a crossroads. As the political landscape evolves, the question remains: can Democrats win back the women who’ve left the conversation, or will Gutfeld’s taunt prove prophetic?