Democratic voters overwhelmingly want a leader who will fight the superrich and corporate America, and they believe Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the person to do it, according to a poll released this week.

While Democrats are often portrayed as squabbling and directionless, the poll conducted last month by the New Republic with Embold Research demonstrated a remarkable unity among the more than 2,400 Democratic voters it surveyed.

This was true with respect to policy: More than 9 in 10 want to raise taxes on corporations and on the wealthiest Americans, while more than three-quarters want to break up tech monopolies and believe the government should conduct stronger oversight of business.

But it was also reflected in sentiments that a more confrontational governing philosophy should prevail and general agreement that the party in its current form is not doing enough to take on its enemies.

Three-quarters said they wanted Democrats to “be more aggressive in calling out Republicans,” while nearly 7 in 10 said it was appropriate to describe their party as “weak.”

This appears to have translated to support for a more muscular view of government. Where the label once helped to sink Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) two runs for president, nearly three-quarters of Democrats now say they are either unconcerned with the label of “socialist” or view it as an asset.

Meanwhile, 46% said they want to see a “progressive” at the top of the Democratic ticket in 2028, higher than the number who said they wanted a “liberal” or a “moderate.”

It’s an environment that appears to be fertile ground for Ocasio-Cortez, who pitched her vision for a “working-class-centered politics” at this week’s Munich summit in what many suspected was a soft-launch of her presidential candidacy in 2028.

With 85% favorability, Bronx congresswoman had the highest approval rating of any Democratic figure in the country among the voters surveyed.

It’s a higher mark than either of the figures who head-to-head polls have shown to be presumptive favorites for the nomination: Former Vice President Kamala Harris and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Early polls show AOC lagging considerably behind these top two. However, there are signs in the New Republic’s poll that may give her supporters cause for hope.

While Harris is also well-liked, 66% of Democrats surveyed said they believe she’s “had her shot” at the presidency and should not run again after losing to President Donald Trump in 2024.

Newsom does not have a similar electoral history holding him back and is riding high from the passage of Proposition 50, which will allow Democrats to add potentially five more US House seats this November.

But his policy approach may prove an ill fit at a time when Democrats overwhelmingly say their party is “too timid” about taxing the rich and corporations and taking on tech oligarchs.

As labor unions in California have pushed for a popular proposal to introduce a billionaire’s tax, Newsom has made himself the chiseled face of the resistance to this idea, joining with right-wing Silicon Valley barons in an aggressive campaign to kill it.

While polls can tell us little two years out about what voters will do in 2028, New Republic editorial director Emily Cooke said her magazine’s survey shows an unmistakable pattern.

“It’s impossible to come away from these results without concluding that economic populism is a winning message for loyal Democrats,” she wrote. “This was true across those who identify as liberals, moderates, or progressives: An unmistakable majority wants a party that will fight harder against the corporations and rich people they see as responsible for keeping them down.”


From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.

  • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    8 hours ago

    The democrat donors are going to push for Newsom. The american libs on the internet have already bought his rhetoric hook like and sinker and are already screaming about purity tests and “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good” and other moronic slogans fed to them by the machine. This will be enough for the democrat party to manufacture the consent they need to put Newsom or whatever other corporatist they choose forward. And then those libs will blame the left for not voting for actively evil candidates when they lose the next election to whatever republican fascist hes running against. Its all so stupid.

    • baronvonj@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      26 minutes ago

      If more people would fucking go to vote in the primaries then it wouldn’t fucking matter what the DNC/donors want. The DNC didn’t give us House Reps AOC and the rest of The Squad, they didn’t give us Senator Sanders (he won the Democratic primary for Senate in 2008 before running as an Independent in the general), they didn’t give us Mayor Mamdani. The voters came out and told the DNC who the nominee was going to be. We have to abandon the defeatist mentality of what the DNC and Donors will allow. Just fucking rise up and vote. And if there is no primary candidate you like, leave it blank or write in uncommitted. Only 4% of Dem primary votes in 2024 we’re enough to fuel a movement that ended with a sitting president dropping out of the race after securing the presumptive nominee. Our voices have power if we use them.

      • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Its crazy. Liberals absolutely refuse to learn any lessons, and its incredibly frustrating.

      • hesh@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        6 hours ago

        We’d rather have a candidate that represents the people instead of the establishment. You can’t get one of those if you promise “blue no matter who” to the Dems.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          5 hours ago

          It’s time for liberals to “vote blue no matter who” for a progressive candidate.

        • DagwoodIII@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 hours ago

          That doesn’t answer the question.

          People stayed away from Harris because they wanted ‘something better.’

          Look how wonderfully well that worked out for everybody.

          • RedWizardMA
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            14 minutes ago

            The data actually disproves the “people stayed home because they wanted something better” theory.

            According to Blue Rose Research (which conducted 26 million voter interviews), roughly 70% of the Democratic vote share drop was due to people changing their minds and voting for Trump, not staying home. Only 30% was due to turnout.

            Catalist (the Democratic party’s own data firm) found something even more damning: For the first time in their dataset, new voters broke for the Republican. Harris only won 48.5% of first-time voters. These weren’t leftists demanding a purity test-they were mostly young, diverse, and working-class people who decided Trump’s message on the economy resonated more.

            The voters who did stay home? They weren’t hardcore progressives. They were “politically disengaged and ideologically heterodox”, aka low-information voters who didn’t feel motivated by either candidate. That’s a persuasion failure!

            It was a campaign that failed to differentiate itself from Biden, chased Liz Cheney Republicans instead of union workers, and watched 79% of economy-first voters go to Trump.

            Harris lost because she couldn’t convince people she’d change anything. That’s on the campaign, not on voters for wanting “something better.”

            Vox had a whole write up on it: https://web.archive.org/web/20260131102617/https://www.vox.com/politics/414370/2024-election-results-exit-polls-catalist

    • ObtuseDoorFrame@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Naw, AOC for senate majority leader. If she’s president she’s out in 8 years. If she’s a senator she can stay in for as long as she lives.

      She should replace Chuck Schumer.

        • ObtuseDoorFrame@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Good question! I hadn’t thought about this before. I just googled it, and apparently ex presidents can run for Congress. They just usually don’t do anything political after being president.

          If she’s willing to do both… shit, might as well, eh? I do worry about burnout. She might end up sick of public office after 8 years of that shit show.