Connect with us

Politics

Poll Suggests a Possible Path Forward for Democrats

Published

on

Poll Suggests a Possible Path Forward for Democrats

Ever since Kamala Harris’s defeat in 2024, Democratic politicians, activists and policy wonks have argued about whether the party should move toward the left or the center.

But in this week’s New York Times/Siena poll, there’s a lot more common ground than one might expect within the Democratic coalition — a group defined here as Democrats, Democratic-leaning independents and independents who voted for Ms. Harris.

A surprisingly clear majority of the Democratic coalition is mostly fine with where the party stands on the issues overall. Only 20 percent say it’s “too far” to the left; only 17 percent say it’s “too far” to the right. The dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party seems less about its ideology and more about its failures to stop President Trump — whether in the last election or once in government.

With Democrats generally satisfied with the party’s ideological position, the poll arguably contains the outlines of a potential path forward for the party. Respondents offered relatively clear answers on three basic questions that have divided the party since the last election: They say Democrats should embrace economic populism, oppose aid to Israel and find modest ways to shift toward the center on the cultural issues thought to have contributed to President Trump’s victory in 2024.

This path happens to have a lot in common with the Democratic politicians who have seemed to resonate across the party’s ideological spectrum this cycle, like Graham Platner in Maine or Senator Jon Ossoff in Georgia. While Mr. Platner is more progressive and Mr. Ossoff more moderate, they’ve both earned a reputation for attacking corruption and corporate power, they’ve supported restrictions on offensive military aid to Israel, and they’ve de-emphasized the culture wars.

Advertisement

But the debate within the party hasn’t been about whether to embrace this specific mix of populist economics, moderation in the culture wars and the progressive view on Israel. Instead, the biggest argument is whether the party as a whole should move toward its left or center flanks. On that question, voters in our poll appear more divided.

Overall, 47 percent of the Democratic coalition said they would like to see the party move toward the center, while 28 percent said the party should move to the left, and 19 percent said the party shouldn’t move at all.

A slightly higher proportion — 52 percent — said the party needs to move to the center to win the next presidential election, compared with 25 percent who say it needs to move left and 18 percent who say it doesn’t need to move in either direction to win.

In each case, the centrist position may not be quite as far in the lead as it looks. If “move to the left” and “do nothing” are combined, the party is split 47-47 on whether to move to the center. When the question shifts to “in order to win” the 2028 election, moving to the center is ahead by a modest margin of 52 percent to 43 percent.

The appetite for a shift to the center also looks weaker when voters are asked about specific issues, including those often blamed for Ms. Harris’s defeat, like immigration or transgender rights. On immigration, just 46 percent said the party needed to move to the center to win, while only 38 percent said the same about transgender issues (though in each case, voters may feel that Democrats have already made some movement toward the center).

Advertisement

Perhaps even more important, the preference for shifting toward the center vanishes altogether when voters are asked about bread-and-butter issues, like the economy and health care. Most strikingly, half of the Democratic coalition wanted to see the party move toward the left on health care, compared with only 25 percent who wanted to see it move toward the center. Democratic supporters split roughly evenly on whether the party should move to the center or the left on economics, with 38 percent saying the party should move to the center and 37 percent calling for a move toward the left.

The poll found very little awareness of the so-called “abundance” movement, which calls for making it easier for the government and the private sector to build more housing and energy. More than 90 percent of the Democratic coalition said they had never heard of it. When asked whether they preferred a candidate who would pursue those goals or one who would try to lower prices by going after corporate monopolies, Democratic supporters preferred the populist by a two-to-one margin.

The party’s preference for a candidate who goes after the nation’s largest corporations — and presumably issues like wealth inequality and corruption — is underpinned by broad and deep dissatisfaction with the nation’s economic system. Overall, 88 percent of the Democratic coalition said the economic system was generally unfair to most Americans. A similarly large 83 percent said the political and economic system in America needs at least “major changes.”

And while the war in Gaza divided progressives from the party’s establishment during the Biden years, the progressive view on Israel is more like a point of consensus today. Only 15 percent of the Democratic coalition says it sympathizes with Israel more than with Palestinians, while 74 percent opposes additional military and economic support for Israel.

These examples of relatively populist and progressive policy preferences don’t necessarily mean that Democrats are always opposed to moving to the center. Two-thirds of the Democratic coalition does want to move to the center on at least one of immigration, transgender issues or crime, and nearly 70 percent say doing so is necessary to win in 2028, even if there is not a consensus on exactly which issue it should be. Of all the issues tested, “crime” is the one where Democrats are the likeliest to say the party should move to the center.

Advertisement

It’s also worth noting that respondents may want the party to move to the center in ways that do not necessitate shifting on policy. Although this was not asked in the poll, the backlash against “woke” was often less about the Democratic Party’s policy platform and more about a kind of righteous and identity-centric politics that had spread into everyday life.

Deliberately or not, the Democratic Party’s politicians have been inching toward the consensus positions found in the poll. In their own ways, many of this cycle’s most successful Democrats, like Mr. Ossoff, Mr. Platner and even Zohran Mamdani, could be said to fit the description across all three areas of consensus, even though they hail from very different parts of the ideological spectrum.

Whether this emerging solution to the party’s internal divisions would address the party’s other problems is another matter. The poll doesn’t offer insight into whether this kind of candidate would stand a much better chance of winning the general election in 2028, let alone winning by the decisive margin that Mr. Trump’s growing unpopularity could potentially allow. It also can’t foretell whether the party would succeed once in government if it enacted such an agenda. And of course, it was the party’s perceived failures in elections and governance that left Democratic voters dissatisfied and its elites searching for a new direction in the first place.

There’s no reason to assume that the preferences of the Democratic coalition offer a solution to those bigger challenges.


The detailed polling cross-tabs are available here.

Advertisement

Politics

‘Severe’ Pentagon lockdown sparks emergency response as hazmat teams sweep area

Published

on

‘Severe’ Pentagon lockdown sparks emergency response as hazmat teams sweep area

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Certain areas in the Pentagon went on lockdown Thursday morning due to an “air quality incident,” Fox News Digital has learned. 

An alert, shared with Fox News Digital, carrying a “severe” rating was sent to employees in multiple corridors of the building directing them to shelter in place. All other personnel were told to avoid the area.

“The Pentagon has sophisticated systems to ensure the safety of the building and its occupants,” chief spokesperson Sean Parnell told Fox News Digital. “Those systems have detected an air quality issue necessitating precautionary measures until we determine its significance. The Department is executing standard protection protocols, including a shelter-in-place order for the affected area.  Response teams are in place and ready to support building occupants.”

The Pentagon is seen from an airplane, Tuesday, April 7, 2026, in Washington. (Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP Photo)

Advertisement

A hazardous materials team is scrubbing several locations in the Pentagon’s A ring, the center-most location in the building, according to a Pentagon official. 

Approximately 23,000 to 27,000 people work in the Pentagon on any given day. 

Secretary Pete Hegeth’s office and chairman of the joint chiefs Gen. Dan Caine’s office are not located in the corridors placed under lockdown. 

Systems detected a problem with the air quality in that part of the building and a device picked up a biohazard scent, the Pentagon source told Fox News. Nothing has been found as of this writing.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

The Arlington, Virginia, fire department confirmed on X it sent its Hazardous Materials team to support the Pentagon Force Protection Agency’s Hazmat team with the incident.

Fox News’ Liz Friden contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Politics

Who will be the new ’60 Minutes’ correspondents?

Published

on

Who will be the new ’60 Minutes’ correspondents?

While the smoke has begun to clear at “60 Minutes” after three correspondents were fired, CBS News leadership now faces the challenge of finding journalists who can fill their shoes just three months before a new season starts.

The venerable news magazine was plunged into crisis last week as longtime correspondent Scott Pelley confronted management about the May 28 firings of his colleagues Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega along with the program’s executive producer Tanya Simon and her second-in-command Draggan Mihailovich.

Pelley, who also accused CBS News Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss of “murdering” the program, was terminated June 2 after a 37-year career at the network. He later gave an interview to The New York Times, accusing Weiss of “putting her thumb on the scale” for the Trump administration when guiding the editorial direction of stories.

(CBS News denied Pelley’s accusations. But Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison, who has given Weiss a free hand in disrupting the CBS News hierarchy, found the turbulent situation concerning enough to personally reach out to veteran “60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl, according to The New York Times. He assured Stahl that he will respect the editorial independence of the program, a message she passed along to the staff.)

Lesley Stahl in the 2022 film “Marcel the Shell With Shoes On.”

Advertisement

(A24)

The recent personnel bloodbath followed the already announced departure of Anderson Cooper, and leaves CBS News with four correspondent roles to fill and a far less experienced executive producer — former tech journalist Nick Bilton in place to keep the program on track.

Remaining staffers were encouraged that Maria Gavrilovic, a 19-year veteran of CBS News who worked closely with Pelley, was promoted to senior producer under Bilton. They are also relieved that correspondents Stahl, Jon Wertheim and Bill Whitaker chose to remain with the program rather than leave in solidarity with Pelley.

Norah O'Donnell's interview with Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman in 2021.

Norah O’Donnell’s interview with Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman in 2021.

Advertisement

But “60 Minutes” is under pressure to get a new team in place as newcomers will have little time to learn the program’s formula that gives it the comforting consistency its viewers seek. The 13-minute pieces on “60 Minutes” are filmed, written and voice-tracked in a distinctive narrative style that takes time to master, according to people who have gone through the process.

Weiss has told people internally that “60 Minutes” is the most important platform within the news division and if a major story comes from outside its corps of correspondents, it will find a place on the program.

Here are the leading contenders for full-time roles based on interviews with several sources at CBS News who were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. A CBS News representative declined comment.

Holly Williams: Williams has been a foreign correspondent working out of Istanbul since 2012. The Australian journalist has reported extensively from war zones in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Gaza and Ukraine. When covering Syria’s civil war from inside the country, she and her team gained access to a prison where alleged ISIS terrorists were being held.

Williams has contributed reports to “60 Minutes” over the years. Before joining CBS, she was a Beijing-based correspondent for Sky News.

Advertisement
CBS News foreign correspondent Holly Williams,

CBS News foreign correspondent Holly Williams,

(Michele Crowe / CBS News)

Tony Dokoupil: The anchor of “CBS Evening News” is expected to be added as a contributor to “60 Minutes,” a role also given to his predecessors at the newscast including Dan Rather, Katie Couric, Scott Pelley and Norah O’Donnell.

Dokoupil has done longer interviews and segments for “CBS Sunday Morning” over his 11 years at the network. The additional exposure to a Sunday night audience of more than 9 million who tune into “60 Minutes” could also help boost his nightly newscast. The program has struggled in the ratings since he took over in January when, during his inaugural week, he awkwardly saluted Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the close of one episode.

"CBS Evening News" anchor Tony Dokoupil and the network's chief national correspondent Matt Gutman.

“CBS Evening News” anchor Tony Dokoupil and the network’s chief national correspondent Matt Gutman.

(CBS News)

Advertisement

Matt Gutman: The network’s national correspondent was Weiss’ first significant on-air talent hire when he joined from ABC News in December. Gutman has been a frequent presence on big stories and breaking coverage for “CBS Evening News” since he arrived.

Mariana van Zeller at the Ultimate Disney Fan Event at the Anaheim Convention Center in September 2022.

Mariana van Zeller at the Ultimate Disney Fan Event at the Anaheim Convention Center in September 2022.

(Image Group LA / Walt Disney Co.)

Mariana van Zeller: The multilingual journalist is best known for her documentary series “Trafficked,” which airs on the National Geographic Channel. Van Zeller, 50, has won dozens of awards for the program that has taken her around the world to report on black market activities and human trafficking.

Advertisement

Norah O’Donnell: Currently a contributor to “60 Minutes” who already appears on the program’s trademark open, O’Donnell’s role is expected to expand. After CBS settled a $16-million lawsuit filed by President Trump against the program for what he claimed was deceptive editing of an interview, O’Donnell helped the program by stepping up to interview the president twice, subjecting him to tough questions. Her recent joint interview with three U.S. cardinals about Pope Leo XIV and his church’s opposition to the Iran war and Trump’s aggressive immigration crackdown became a major story in April.

Major Garrett: The network’s chief Washington correspondent recently appeared on “60 Minutes” to interview Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The assignment caused internal tension as Stahl was pursuing a sit-down with the leader. But Weiss handled the booking and gave Netanyahu the option to select Garrett.

While the decision faced some criticism, the program regularly agreed to former President Obama’s preference for now-retired “60 Minutes” correspondent Steve Kroft to interview him even though other journalists on the team wanted a chance.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump’s Plaques on the Presidential ‘Walk of Fame,’ Fact-Checked and Annotated by Historians

Published

on

Trump’s Plaques on the Presidential ‘Walk of Fame,’ Fact-Checked and Annotated by Historians

In a well-trafficked walkway linking the West Wing to the White House residence, President Trump has recast history with gold-lettered plaques that summarize each of the 47 U.S. presidencies.

They are peppered with falsehoods, misrepresentations, insults, praise, self-promotion and erratic capitalizations.

Advertisement

Attendees at a Rose Garden dinner mingled near the plaques in May. Doug Mills/The New York Times

Advertisement

The Times photographed each plaque and asked eight historians who have studied and written about both Democratic and Republican presidents to examine and annotate the exhibit, which spans 5,400 words.

Advertisement
  • Nicole Anslover

    Florida Atlantic University

  • Portrait of Douglas Brinkley

    Douglas Brinkley

    Rice University

  • Portrait of David Greenberg

    David Greenberg

    Rutgers University

    Advertisement
  • Portrait of Timothy Naftali

    Timothy Naftali

    Columbia University

  • Portrait of Larry Sabato

    Larry Sabato

    University of Virginia

  • Portrait of Daryl Scott

    Daryl Scott

    Morgan State University

  • Portrait of Marc Selverstone

    Marc Selverstone

    University of Virginia

  • Portrait of Sean Wilentz

    Sean Wilentz

    Princeton University

    Advertisement

The historians noted that the plaques are not a dispassionate museum display. Rather, they said, they are a skewed narrative of history by Mr. Trump, with him as the protagonist. The plaques are written in Mr. Trump’s signature hyperbolic style, as seen in his social media posts.

Asked about the plaques, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, ​said, “As a student of history, many were written directly by the president himself.” The Times shared the historians’ observations with the White House, which declined to comment on the specific points in the annotations. It also declined to provide details on the sources Mr. Trump and others used to write the plaques.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump showed the plaques to New York Times reporters in January. Doug Mills/The New York Times

Advertisement

The commentary surrounding more recent presidents — like Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Barack Obama — adopts a sharper and more partisan tone. While entries for earlier presidents are less combative, they recast history in a way that favors Mr. Trump’s priorities and the unprecedented actions of his administration. The exhibit “is not so much bad history as it is anti-historical,” said Sean Wilentz, an American history professor at Princeton University.

Tariffs are mentioned 18 times. Major scandals are left out (Teapot Dome), or not explained (Watergate). The Monroe Doctrine — which Mr. Trump has misinterpreted, historians say, and used to justify U.S. interventions in the Western Hemisphere — is repeatedly lauded.

The White House ballroom project — which is still under construction and caught in a legal battle — is described as already built. Mr. Trump himself appears in the capsules of six predecessors. And the description of the first year of his second term takes up more space than the summaries for the presidencies of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt combined.

Advertisement

Below is the full, unedited text of the plaques, along with a selection of historians’ comments that has been edited for clarity. While the annotations offer insight across the plaques, they are not meant to be comprehensive. Unannotated copy may also include falsehoods or misrepresentations.

Advertisement

Explore the plaques, with  annotations from historians

To choose a presidency, click on a numbered box or search by name. To see a historian’s annotation, click on a highlighted phrase.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending