Poll: AOC leads Schumer in head-to-head New York primary matchup by double digits

[u/politico]

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/04/schumer-aoc-poll-primary-new-york-030621

[u/Independent-Bug-9352]

If Democrats could feel the pulse of the zeitgeist, they'd put Sanders in as Senate minority leader and AOC in as House minority leader.

But no. I guess we'd rather have wet cardboard for charisma in leadership roles right now...

[u/mightcommentsometime → u/Independent-Bug-9352]

Why would the Dems put someone into leadership who isn’t even willing to call himself a democrat?

Sanders hasn’t made strong enough coalitions with the other senators who could be his allies to ever be put in the minority leader position.

Politics isn’t just about being loud. It’s also about building coalitions and relationships with your fellow lawmakers. Sanders doesn’t do that. He has spurned the Dems enough to basically forfeit any chance of being put into a senate party leadership position

[u/Independent-Bug-9352 → u/mightcommentsometime]

What good are coalitions if you're continuously getting fucked by letting the blind lead the blind? When the Overton Window has gone so far right that center-right for-profit media corporations are perceived as being "leftist"?

It is clear to me that the Democratic party's attempt to be Republican-Lite is self-defeating and I think we should try embracing a little bit more progressive economic populism.

The reality is Democrats need someone with a backbone and a capacity to lead from the front. An inspirational visionary with a proven track record of being on the right side of history. It doesn't necessarily have to be Bernie Sanders, but he's an obvious example who has the vision, wit, and authenticity people are drawn to.

[u/mightcommentsometime → u/Independent-Bug-9352]

What good comes from alienating all of your allies so that you can’t actually get legislation passed to further your agenda?

Like it or not, passing legislation through the Senate requires a majority of Senators to actually vote yes on your bills.

You can’t do that if you constantly alienate your allies, and never build coalitions.

Bernie’s opinions may be on the correct side in your opinion, but that hasn’t helped him shift the Overton window, or make tangible gains in passing legislation.

[u/Independent-Bug-9352 → u/mightcommentsometime]

Who is alienating allies? Why do you believe Sanders is alienating anyone?

It's pretty cut-and-dry: Either you agree that this is the objectively best path forward based on a mixture of science and empathy within the purview of equality and justice, or you don't.

Why do you believe it's a good idea to water down our policy positions, simply to cater to ignorance?

How about instead after so many losses from these enlightened Third Way centrists the burden falls on them to change their way of thinking instead of repeating the definition of insanity?

I'm all for building coalitions, but I don't think we should water down our rocket fuel so weakly that it no longer breaches the atmosphere. That's only one step removed from saying, "we should build a coalition with Republicans, themselves!" which begs the question amidst the chasm in values which divide us: with what, exactly?

Out of all this, there is raised another point: what exactly has Jeffries or Schumer done to improve our position as Democrats now have the lowest approval rating ever?

[u/mightcommentsometime → u/Independent-Bug-9352]

Because it doesn’t win enough votes to pass anything.

A recent example of Sanders alienating allies is how he said to run independent instead of running as a dem. He disparages the Dems, then they don’t work with him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/20/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democrats-independents.html

Progressives aren’t winning national elections or winning outside of safe districts.

Until that happens, progressives have to work with moderates to win elections and to get policy passed.

You’re pretending the US is just waiting for someone like Sanders to run for president and turn the country into a utopia, but that isn’t what the electorate has been voting for in the past 60 years.

You talk about the definition of insanity, but why do you believe progressives are magically going to just start winning elections all over when they haven’t been able to for decades?

[u/Independent-Bug-9352 → u/mightcommentsometime]

What, explicitly, is wrong with the message Sanders sends in that article? Has it not been made abundantly obvious given the outcome of this past election that the Democratic party has become tone-deaf to the needs of the working class while being utterly incapable of honest introspection as to how to move forward from here?

What is wrong with running as an Independent if the values you promote still often caucus with Democrats? Isn't that what you're advocating in the first place about building coalitions?

What's hilarious is how AOC out-performed with split-ticket voters who voted for both Trump at the top of the ticket, and AOC as their House Representative. When she reached out to these voters, it boiled down to trust and authenticity. Something the likes of Schumer and Jeffries woefully lack.

And as I said: The approval ratings prove it.

Which on that note, I can't but notice the dodged response to: Out of all this, there is raised another point: what exactly has Jeffries or Schumer done to improve our position as Democrats now have the lowest approval rating ever?

What's amusing in all of this is that a similar sentiment was often raised about Trump's right-wing brand of populism and how that would certainly be doomed to fail; yet he's now 2 for 3. Perhaps we should take a page out of the Tea Party / MAGA playbook and embrace our own brand of progressive left economic populism that resonates with working class voters in solidarity as opposed to conformity of the right?

[u/mightcommentsometime → u/Independent-Bug-9352]

This conversation is about making Sanders minority leader specifically. You seem to be getting carried away and going on tangents here.

 What is wrong with running as an Independent if the values you promote still often caucus with Democrats? Isn't that what you're advocating in the first place about building coalitions?

Duverger’s law our electoral system is designed to force two parties. Running third party not only alienates all other Dems (by essentially saying they’re not good enough for you) but it also splits the ticket. How is that going to help Sanders pass policy exactly?

 What's hilarious is how AOC out-performed with split-ticket voters who voted for both Trump at the top of the ticket, and AOC as their House Representative. When she reached out to these voters, it boiled down to trust and authenticity. Something the likes of Schumer and Jeffries woefully lack.

And she also had abysmal voter turnout. It isn’t like her voters were champing at the bit to vote for her.

Jeffries had higher turnout in his district than AOC had. Her split ticket voters still left Jeffries ahead by about 1/4th the votes.

 Which on that note, I can't but notice the dodged response to: Out of all this, there is raised another point: what exactly has Jeffries or Schumer done to improve our position as Democrats now have the lowest approval rating ever?

What has Sanders done to help improve the approval rating of the Dems? You know, the people you want to elect him minority leader.

 What's amusing in all of this is that a similar sentiment was often raised about Trump's right-wing brand of populism and how that would certainly be doomed to fail; yet he's now 2 for 3. Perhaps we should take a page out of the Tea Party / MAGA playbook and embrace our own brand of progressive left economic populism that resonates with working class voters in solidarity as opposed to conformity of the right?

That worked because Tea Party and MAGA voters show up to vote with religious fervor. They’ve solidified their hold over the party by being the majority and voting like the majority to prove it.

If progressives actually did this, they may be able to take over (it’s not actually clear that progressives actually have the numbers to be the majority). But until progressive voters start showing up and fervently and consistently as MAGAts, they shouldn’t demand or assume they are the most important coalition in the Democratic Party (voting wise).

That playbook requires election results showing progressive victories and massive progressive electoral support. Currently, there’s no actual election results which show that. Progressives either don’t show up to vote in large enough numbers, or they don’t have the numbers to actually be the majority.

[u/Independent-Bug-9352 → u/mightcommentsometime]

I hope one recognizes that Duverger’s Law specifically applies to running for the Presidency and moreover that the context in the very article you cite, Sanders is clearly referring to running for positions other than the Presidency. A point made all the more clear when he himself ran twice as a Democrat in order to not be a spoiler.

I'm not necessarily all-in on Sander's plan, but I think electing non-party members to the House isn't in itself a bad thing; especially coming from your perspective who was themselves advocating for building broader coalitions to begin with. Call this providing a banner to those members of the Democratic coalition who have continuously been marginalized beneath their banner and told to stay in line and know their place.

And she also had abysmal voter turnout.

Irrelevant to the topic at hand. She had perfectly fine voter turn-out, relatve to how strongly blue and non-competitive her district is. You should know this.

Between the two points -- higher turnout in a non-swing district versus higher proportion of split-ticket voters in a Trump election — I'll take the latter every time.

As deflective as one wants to be, it is proof-positive that the message of progressive economic populism resonates with working class voters across both sides of the political spectrum.

What has Sanders done to help improve the approval rating of the Dems? You know, the people you want to elect him minority leader.

Well, as a member of their coalition, he has certainly mustered more enthusiasm and positive news while carrying a far higher approval rating than the collective approval rating of the Democratic party in Congress through his recent rallies and media spotlights, so there is that?

That worked because Tea Party and MAGA voters show up to vote with religious fervor.

Not exactly. What matters is a DNC that doesn't stonewall grassroots organic efforts when the kindling is ripe for ignition. The moderate wing of the GOP was open to and ultimately capitulated to the far-right demands; the Third Way Democrats of the DNC ultimately stonewall and suppress such movements at every turn. Alas Chuck Schumer is in a safe district and gets paid well, so he has much to lose and little to gain by ceding power. I do believe if AOC doesn't run for president that she will challenge him, rightfully.

We cannot continue to engage in the definition of insanity. I have not seen an alternative, substantive, tangible solution to actual policy positions that will resonate with working class Trump voters so far.

I should know: I was once a rural Appalachian Republican.

Following this line of reasoning I'm surprised one is not simply saying we should run Hillary and Harris back except this time move to the right of Republicans, politically. That'll do the trick, right?

[u/mightcommentsometime → u/Independent-Bug-9352]

 I hope one recognizes that Duverger’s Law specifically applies to running for the Presidency

No, it doesn’t. It applies to any FPTP system. Which is the case in many state elections. Most states don’t have RCV for most offices (especially federal ones). That’s where it applies. The article I posted literally shows the game theory behind why it applies to FPTP. Did you even read it?

 I'm not necessarily all-in on Sander's plan, but I think electing non-party members to the House isn't in itself a bad thing; especially coming from your perspective who was themselves advocating for building broader coalitions to begin with. 

How does snubbing the Dems build a larger coalition? You seem to be missing the big picture here. Moderate Dems win elections in a majority of the races where Dems win by a lot. You need them to pass legislation. You shouldn’t expect them to support you when you won’t even support the dem political party. Why would you expect support from people you’re actively scorning?

 Irrelevant to the topic at hand. She had perfectly fine voter turn-out, relatve to how strongly blue and non-competitive her district is. You should know this.

It’s absolutely relevant. Low turnout is what makes Dems lose. AOC isn’t driving turnout. How does that bode well for victories outside of her D+27 district?

 Not exactly. What matters is a DNC that doesn't stonewall grassroots organic efforts when the kindling is ripe for ignition.

The tea part was manufactured and backed by the Koch brothers. It wasn’t some “grassroots organic effort”. It was a billionaire backed movement that looked like grassroots organization.

 The moderate wing of the GOP was open to and ultimately capitulated to the far-right demands; the Third Way Democrats of the DNC ultimately stonewall and suppress such movements at every turn.

Progressive voters don’t show up to vote. The Dems aren’t stopping them from voting or throwing out their votes. The GOP voters do show up.

That’s the difference. You seem to want to ignore the elephant in the room which is: showing up to vote in force.

 We cannot continue to engage in the definition of insanity. I have not seen an alternative, substantive, tangible solution to actual policy positions that will resonate with working class Trump voters so far.

You mean like pretending progressives will magically win this time around when they haven’t shown any indication or evidence that they can? That type of insanity?

Why is it so wrong to suggest that progressives need to show up and vote in force and be the majority if they want to control the party?

 Following this line of reasoning I'm surprised one is not simply saying we should run Hillary and Harris back except this time move to the right of Republicans, politically. That'll do the trick, right?

That would be the line of reasoning you’re using. I’m saying that progressives need to actually win elections before they can be the majority.

I’m also saying that Sanders needs allies to become minority leader, and he doesn’t get them by alienating moderates.

Why do you keep insisting someone who doesn’t have majority support of the party should be the leader of the party?

[u/bootlegvader → u/Independent-Bug-9352]

What's hilarious is how AOC out-performed with split-ticket voters who voted for both Trump at the top of the ticket, and AOC as their House Representative. When she reached out to these voters, it boiled down to trust and authenticity. Something the likes of Schumer and Jeffries woefully lack.

In 2022, Schumer outperformed AOC in her district. In 2024, within her district AOC and Gillibrand performed on the exact same level. In 2018, Gillibrand outperformed AOC in her district. Jeffries has outperfomed AOC's numbers in every election they have shared.

[u/Independent-Bug-9352 → u/bootlegvader]

Schumer didn't outperform her this time, did he? Why would we raise dated data when the latest data paints a very different story? So, my apologies if I'm missing your point. By this argument, one would think that AOC should have never won the primary against Crowley in 2018.

And right now, in this very submission by OP, who has greater support?

Now here's the funny part with respect to comparing Jeffries to AOC — you ready?

• Jeffries is in an entirely different district, so already not starting off 1-to-1.
• His Republican opponent literally didn't spend any money in his challenge.
• Jeffries raised money from wealthy donors and a sizable chunk from the likes of AIPAC.
• AOC's fundraising was less but the majority of it was from individual small donors (more grassroots; more Democratic).
• AOC's opponent actually spent $1.8 million in opposition.

AOC thus as a more "extreme" candidate won with ease while facing a stronger opposition and having needed to spend far less money to do so, all the while earning split-ticketing Trump voters in the process. That more than explains the disparity in their comparative district performances.

[u/bootlegvader → u/Independent-Bug-9352]

Schumer didn't outperform her this time, did he?

He didn't run for reelection in 2024, so it makes sense to look at last when both were running.

Now here's the funny part with respect to comparing Jeffries to AOC — you ready?

You are the one that started the comparison by trying to bring up that AOC had split-ticket supporters. Only Jeffries likely had the same seeing how he did better than AOC in voting percentages. Simply, AOC secured nothing impressive.

[u/ItsAlwaysSegsFault → u/Independent-Bug-9352]

I love Sanders but we need someone younger there. I don't fully agree with Cory Booker on everything but he's got the energy and the passion for the job.

[u/Independent-Bug-9352 → u/ItsAlwaysSegsFault]

I'd be content with him! I just figure despite his age, Sanders has proven to have both a fighting spirit and energy along with knowing what the root of the problem is, and so while I wouldn't want him to run for President again, being Senate minority leader isn't a role so vital that should he suffer medical ailments he couldn't be replaced.

Still, he's not even a Democrat in reality but Independent, so that probably bars him from being able to assume the role in the first place I assume?

[u/ItsAlwaysSegsFault → u/Independent-Bug-9352]

I don't know that it bars him but it's certainly the biggest barrier.

[u/Independent_Tie_4984 → u/Independent-Bug-9352]

Agree completely

Their complete failure to respond in any meaningful way to Trump's full on constitutional assault is 100% a leadership failure that Schumer owns and will be his only legacy.

[u/dred1367 → u/Independent_Tie_4984]

The dem leadership would rather have the economy burn to the ground than have actual progressives in positions of power. It’s always been the rich against the poor, progressives are just tolerated to help divide the poor and sequester their power.