As the left looks to 2028, it waits on Ocasio-Cortez's big decision

Interviews with nearly 20 progressive Democrats about the left wing's future revealed a faction that sees the ideas Sanders has championed — reducing the power of billionaires, increasing the minimum wage, focusing more on the plight of workers — as core to the next generation of mainstream Democratic politics.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Although there is little agreement about who will emerge to guide progressives into a post-Sanders era, virtually everyone interviewed said there was one clear leader for the job: Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.
Advertisement
And it just so happened that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez spent three days last week on a 'Fighting Oligarchy' tour through Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado. In Denver, they drew 34,000 people, what Sanders aides said was the largest crowd of his career. Neither has so much as obliquely referred to the torch-passing nature of their trip, and in an interview, Sanders declined to answer questions about whether Ocasio-Cortez, 35, would inherit his mantle. But the subtext of their travels appears clear.
She is what's next — if she wants it.
'Alexandria has been doing an extraordinary job in the House,' Sanders said. 'You can't sit back. You can't wallow in despair. You've got to stand up, fight back and get involved in every way that you can. There's nobody I know who can do that better than Alexandria.'
Ocasio-Cortez, who declined an interview request, has said nothing publicly about her political plans. Several people who said they had spoken with her relayed that she was far from making any decisions.
Advertisement
But the fourth-term member of Congress has three clear options.
She could focus on the House, where she has become a well-liked and respected member of the Democratic caucus, and try to become a committee chair if Democrats win back a majority in next year's midterm elections.
She could run for the seat now held by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader. Or she could seek the presidency in 2028.
(Ocasio-Cortez has also mused about dropping out of politics altogether, the people who had spoken with her said. This seems less likely, given her lengthy admonition Thursday to a crowd in North Las Vegas, Nev., to stay involved in the fight against the Trump administration.)
Her evident frustration with Schumer after he greenlit the passage of a Republican spending bill this month heated up the long-simmering conversation about whether she might run for his seat in 2028, whether he seeks a sixth term or not.
A person who has worked with Ocasio-Cortez on campaigns, and who insisted on anonymity to discuss private outreach, recounted being inundated with calls from Democrats — and not just those on the far left — after Schumer's vote, asking about Ocasio-Cortez's future and encouraging her to consider higher office.
The question of who could assume the Sanders mantle — at least in part — is all but certain to come to a head in the next presidential election.
In some ways, the jockeying is already evident.
'I don't think there's going to be, in my view, a standard-bearer or two standard-bearers or three standard-bearers for the progressive movement,' said Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, who has had conversations to game out a potential 2028 presidential campaign of his own. 'We're going to see the beginning of a new progressive era where we're going to see successive progressive nominees.'
Advertisement
Of course, there are deep divides in the party over how far to the left Democrats should go.
But some also argue that the tensions in today's Democratic Party no longer center on the kinds of ideological clashes that characterized the 2020 primary race — left versus moderate and litmus tests on issues like single-payer health care.
At least for now, these Democrats say, the debates concern how and where to draw the line against President Trump and Elon Musk, the richest man in the world.
Several mainstream Democrats, including Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota, and Governor JB Pritzker of Illinois, himself a billionaire, have drawn attention from progressive activists because of their vigorous pushback toward the Trump administration.
'The biggest split amongst Democrats is between those who want to stand and fight and those that want to play dead,' said Representative Greg Casar, Democrat of Texas, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. 'We need more leaders from the stand-and-fight wing of the Democratic Party.'
This article originally appeared in

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Newsweek

27 minutes ago

• Newsweek

Senator Says War Powers Resolution Against Trump Will Have GOP Support

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, says that Republican lawmakers in his chamber have expressed support in voting for a War Powers Resolution following President Donald Trump's authorization to strike three Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday. Newsweek has reached out to Kaine's office via email for comment. Why It Matters Trump on Saturday evening announced what he described as a "very successful attack" against three Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The president's decision came after Israel and Iran have exchanged consistent strikes since June 13. Israel had urged the U.S. to target Iran's nuclear facilities, saying that Tehran was moving close to creating a nuclear weapon. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes—not for weapons. The strikes have sparked concerns from some Democrats and some Republicans about a wider war breaking out—with some lawmakers accusing the president of violating the U.S. Constitution with the strikes. Kaine's resolution pending in the Senate has been mimicked in the U.S. House of Representatives, where Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California introduced a resolution last Tuesday. What To Know The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted to limit the president's ability to commit U.S. armed forces to hostilities abroad without congressional consent. Kaine told Punchbowl News on Monday that he is privy to Senate GOP support of his resolution, saying that lawmakers have expressed interest in signing off on whether Congress and not just the president should have a say to attack other nations. "I know I will have Republican support. How much is unclear," Kaine said. "The day-to-day events will affect is a very evolving situation." A vote that requires a simple majority for passage is expected to happen before the chamber's July 4 recess, the senator added. Kaine's latest remarks come one day after he told Shannon Bream on Fox News Sunday that Trump's order to strike Iran went beyond traditional protocols outlined in the Constitution and gives him "grave concern." "It's unconstitutional for a president to initiate a war like this without Congress," Kaine said on Sunday. "Every member of Congress needs to vote on this." It harkens back to the politics that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Kaine added, saying the present moment mirrors two decades ago when a Republican president and administration gave "false information" about Iraq's weapons program. Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, speaks at a press conference at the U.S. Capitol on April 2 in Washington, D.C. Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, speaks at a press conference at the U.S. Capitol on April 2 in Washington, People Are Saying Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, said in a press release: "It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States. I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict." Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, said in a statement: "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution. Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk. Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation. Americans want diplomacy, not more costly wars. We need to deescalate and pursue a path of peace." Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Sunday: "I introduced a War Powers Resolution on Tuesday, while Congress was on vacation. We would have had plenty of time to debate and vote on this." What Happens Next? Along with the resolutions introduced by Kaine, and jointly by Massie and Khanna, other lawmakers are also reportedly going to introduce similar war powers legislation. Democratic Representatives Gregory Meeks of New York, Adam Smith of Washington, and Jim Himes of Connecticut—ranking members of the Foreign Affairs, Armed Services and Intelligence committees, respectively—are drafting their own War Powers resolution, according to Punchbowl. Also, 12 Democrats in the House—all military veterans—sent a letter to the White House on Monday, asserting congressional authority over war powers. In response to the U.S. strikes on Iran, the country's foreign minister said Iran reserves "all options to defend its sovereignty." The U.S. military is preemptively preparing for any attack from Tehran.

Los Angeles Times

28 minutes ago

• Los Angeles Times

GOP tax bill would ease regulations on gun silencers and some rifles and shotguns

WASHINGTON — The massive tax and spending cuts package that President Trump wants on his desk by July 4 would loosen regulations on gun silencers and certain types of rifles and shotguns, advancing a longtime priority of the gun industry as Republican leaders in the House and Senate try to win enough votes to pass the bill. The guns provision was first requested in the House by Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde, a Republican gun store owner who had initially opposed the larger tax package. The House bill would remove silencers — called 'suppressors' by the gun industry — from a 1930s law that regulates firearms that are considered the most dangerous, eliminating a $200 tax while removing a layer of background checks. The Senate kept the provision on silencers in its version of the bill and expanded upon it, adding short-barreled, or sawed-off, rifles and shotguns. Republicans who have long supported the changes, along with the gun industry, say the tax infringes on Second Amendment rights. They say silencers are mostly used by hunters and target shooters for sport. 'Burdensome regulations and unconstitutional taxes shouldn't stand in the way of protecting American gun owners' hearing,' said Clyde, who owns two gun stores in Georgia and often wears a pin shaped like an assault rifle on his suit lapel. Democrats are fighting to stop the provision, which was unveiled days after two Minnesota state legislators were shot in their homes, as the bill speeds through the Senate. They argue that loosening regulations on silencers could make it easier for criminals and active shooters to conceal their weapons. 'Parents don't want silencers on their streets, police don't want silencers on their streets,' said Senate Democratic leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y. The gun language has broad support among Republicans and has received little attention as House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., work to settle differences within the party on cuts to Medicaid and energy tax credits, among other issues. But it is just one of hundreds of policy and spending items included to entice members to vote for the legislation that could have broad implications if the bill is enacted within weeks, as Trump wants. Inclusion of the provision is also a sharp turn from the climate in Washington just three years ago when Democrats, like Republicans now, controlled Congress and the White House and pushed through bipartisan gun legislation. The bill increased background checks for some buyers under the age of 21, made it easier to take firearms from potentially dangerous people and sent millions of dollars to mental health services in schools. Passed in the summer of 2022, just weeks after the shooting of 19 children and two adults at a school in Uvalde, Texas, it was the most significant legislative response to gun violence in decades. Three years later, as they try to take advantage of their consolidated power in Washington, Republicans are packing as many of their longtime priorities as possible, including the gun legislation, into the massive, wide-ranging bill that Trump has called 'beautiful.' 'I'm glad the Senate is joining the House to stand up for the Second Amendment and our Constitution, and I will continue to fight for these priorities as the Senate works to pass President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill,' said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who was one of the lead negotiators on the bipartisan gun bill in 2022 but is now facing a primary challenge from the right in his bid for reelection next year. If the gun provisions remain in the larger legislation and it is passed, silencers and the short-barrel rifles and shotguns would lose an extra layer of regulation that they are subject to under the National Firearms Act, passed in the 1930s in response to concerns about mafia violence. They would still be subject to the same regulations that apply to most other guns — and that includes possible loopholes that allow some gun buyers to avoid background checks when guns are sold privately or online. Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, who supports the legislation, says changes are aimed at helping target shooters and hunters protect their hearing. He argues that the use of silencers in violent crimes is rare. 'All it's ever intended to do is to reduce the report of the firearm to hearing safe levels,' Keane says. Speaking on the floor before the bill passed the House, Rep. Clyde said the bill restores Second Amendment rights from 'over 90 years of draconian taxes.' Clyde said Johnson included his legislation in the larger bill 'with the purest of motive.' 'Who asked for it? I asked,' said Clyde, who ultimately voted for the bill after the gun silencer provision was added. Clyde was responding to Rep. Maxwell Frost, a 28-year-old Florida Democrat, who went to the floor and demanded to know who was responsible for the gun provision. Frost, who was a gun-control activist before being elected to Congress, called himself a member of the 'mass shooting generation' and said the bill would help 'gun manufacturers make more money off the death of children and our people.' Among other concerns, control advocates say less regulation for silencers could make it harder for law enforcement to stop an active shooter. 'There's a reason silencers have been regulated for nearly a century: They make it much harder for law enforcement and bystanders to react quickly to gunshots,' said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. Schumer and other Democrats are trying to convince the Senate parliamentarian to drop the language as she reviews the bill for policy provisions that aren't budget-related. 'Senate Democrats will fight this provision at the parliamentary level and every other level with everything we've got,' Schumer said earlier this month. Jalonick writes for the Associated Press.

Yahoo

31 minutes ago

• Yahoo

New poll in NYC mayoral race finds Mamdani beating out Cuomo

NEW YORK — Zohran Mamdani would defeat Andrew Cuomo to clinch the NYC Democratic mayoral nomination after eight rounds of ranked-choice voting, according to a new poll of this week's primary. The poll, conducted by Emerson College, PIX11 and The Hill, was released Monday, the eve of the primary election. Conducted between Wednesday and Friday, the survey marks the first major independent poll finding Mamdani overtaking Cuomo, who has otherwise consistently ranked as the favorite to win the race. Cuomo, who resigned as governor in 2021 amid sexual misconduct and pandemic mismanagement accusations he denies, still leads in the first round of voting, securing 36.4% support compared to Mamdani's 33.7%, according to the new poll. But after eight rounds of ranked-choice tabulations, the poll shows Mamdani surging past Cuomo, beating him by a 51.8%-48.2% margin. The Mamdani win comes after candidate Brad Lander — who has closely aligned himself with Mamdani – is knocked out of the running., The poll, which has a 3.4.% margin of error, quizzed a total of 833 registered Democrats, including ones who have already cast ballots in the 2025 mayoral race during early voting. A spokesman for Mamdani didn't immediately return a request for comment on the poll. Mamdani, a democratic socialist running on a platform that includes a vow to freeze rent for stabilized tenants, was set to hit the streets later Monday. Cuomo spokesman Rich Azzopardi downplayed the results of the survey, calling it an 'outlier.' 'Every other credible poll in this election — including two release last week — has shown Gov. Cuomo with a double digit lead, which is exactly where this election will end tomorrow,' Azzopardi said. It is unlikely that the primary will be called Tuesday night, as the city Board of Elections won't start tabulating ranked choices on voters' ballots until next week. The only way in which the race could be called on primary night is if a candidate claims a simple majority of support in the first round, a scenario seen as unlikely. The other candidates in the Democratic mayoral primary field only secured single digits of support in the new Emerson poll, with the exception of City Comptroller Brad Lander, who placed third with 13.3% support in the first round. In Emerson's ranked-choice voting simulation, Lander got eliminated in the seventh round with 20.1% support. Emerson's pollsters found that voters under 50 broke for Mamdani by a 2:1 margin, while Cuomo leads with older New Yorkers. The poll also found that a majority of women overall support Cuomo by a 52%-48% margin, while men back Mamdani by a 56%-44% margin. Most other polls of the mayoral race have found Cuomo holding a significant lead over Mamdani, a Queens Assembly member who was up until a few months ago a relatively unknown figure in city politics. That includes a new poll released Monday that was commissioned by Fix the City, the pro-Cuomo super PAC, that found the ex-gov beating Mamdani by a 52%-28% margin after seven rounds of ranked choice voting. The Emerson poll was conducted on the heels of a slew of major developments in the mayoral race. Less than a week earlier, Mamdani and Lander, who has consistently polled as the No. 3 candidate in the race, cross-endorsed each other. Then last week, Mamdani was endorsed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an influential figure in the Democratic Party's progressive wing, but also stoked controversy by defending the use of the phrase 'globalize the intifada' in the context of protesting Israel's war in Gaza. Cuomo and other moderate Democrats have said Mamdani is by defending such language aligning himself with antisemitic causes, an accusation Mamdani denies. Speaking to the Daily News while canvassing in Brooklyn on Friday, Mamdani, who has accused Israel of conducting a 'genocide' against Palestinians, said 'globalize the intifada' is 'not language that I use.' However, he couldn't definitely say whether he has ever used the phrase. 'I don't think so,' he said when pressed on whether he has ever used the phrase. In the final stretch of the mayoral race, Cuomo's campaign and super PAC have seized on the antisemitism issue, seeking to paint Mamdani as an extremist unfit to run the city.