AOC is the nightmarish new Donald Trump of the Left
Out with the old, in with the younger – that's the only way to explain a baffling new poll which revealed that a majority of New York Democrats would prefer to be represented by far-Left Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), who the White House has already started to call the 'Democrat Party leader', than the more moderate Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. It's a stinging rebuke of Schumer's leadership, at a moment when the Democrats are scrambling to reinvent themselves after last November's nationwide defeat.
The poll, which was commissioned by The Jewish Voters Action Network, pitted Schumer against AOC in a hypothetical Senate primary race. AOC led Schumer by an impossible-to-ignore 54 per cent to 33 per cent among likely Democrat voters – and 45 per cent to 33 per cent among Jewish Democrats. The latter figure is particularly eyebrow-raising considering AOC's long paper-trail of anti-Israel views and votes.
Back in 2021, AOC cried on the House floor when a bill providing funding for Israel's Iron Dome missile defence system passed. Then in May 2024, AOC was one of the first – and certainly one of the most influential – US politicians to brand Israel's operations in Gaza a 'genocide'. In 2019, AOC helped back a resolution put forth by fellow 'Squad' member Ilhan Omar defending boycotts, in what was widely seen to be a show of support for the anti-Israel BDS movement. And last October, AOC called upon the US to impose an arms embargo against Israel.
The disconnect between AOC's strident anti-Israel viewpoints and her popularity among Jewish Democrats is striking. It is also alarming – and not just for Schumer, who at 74 is now serving his fifth term in the Senate while contending with a 55 per cent unfavourability rate. The AOC numbers arrive as the Congresswoman makes her clearest stabs yet for national-level leadership, including a potential 2028 run for the White House.
Earlier this spring, AOC joined Bernie Sanders on a cross-country 'Fighting the Oligarchy' tour, which included a stop at the influential Coachella music festival. The tenor of their message is clear: America has 'a government of billionaires, by billionaires and for billionaires'.
Despite the duo's penchant for private jet travel to ferry them from venue to venue, AOC has emerged as a viable player for the presidency. In April, Nate Silver, considered by many as America's leading political pollster, declared AOC to be his pick for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination. A Yale Youth poll, meanwhile, placed AOC at a close second among younger voters against former vice-president Kamala Harris in a hypothetical match-up for the White House.
What's most concerning for both Schumer and the Democrats are the fundamentals behind Schumer's decline. From the Left, Schumer has faced attacks for being too centrist, too conciliatory – particularly when he agreed to advance a Republican funding bill in March to avoid a government shutdown. Nearly every House Democrat voted against the bill in an act of united anti-Trump resistance. Schumer's failure to join them led many progressives to call for his resignation. AOC bitingly described Schumer's vote as an 'acquiesce'.
Meanwhile, Jewish voters are turning against the Senator, who they believe has turned against Israel. 'The only thing Chuck Schumer knows about anti-Semitism is how to spread it,' declared a controversial column in the New York Post in March. The complaints against Schumer are myriad: failing to pass the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, reportedly advising Columbia University to 'ignore' the backlash over accusations of anti-Semitism on campus, and even suggesting Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu should be voted out of office mere months after Hamas's October 7 massacre.
And so, here we are, Schumer is sinking, AOC is surging and their party is desperate for a rebrand. Which is why AOC increasingly holds all the cards. For one thing, her favourability rating holds up well, at least compared to other Democrats. But it's the tenor of AOC 'favourability' that truly makes her a threat. Her base of socialists, minorities, students and social-justice warriors are united by a near obsession with the progressive causes – identity, climate change, economic inequality – that President Trump despises most. Schumer's centrism, on the other hand, has left him looking powerless, futilely seeking compromise with a raging White House hell-bent on dismantling everything the Democrats hold dear.
AOC must know that even she could fall victim to the Left's new purity spiral. She was heckled and branded a 'war criminal' at a Town Hall-style meeting this month for not doing enough to end the Gaza 'genocide'. Which is why, for AOC to keep on winning, she'll need to engage in even more brazen acts of #resistance. That's certainly what her base wants of her. Cult-like in their affection – small donors helped propel AOC to a record $9.6 million fund-raising haul in the first three months of the year – her fans are aggressive, score-settling and confrontational. In other words, they're a lot like Trump supporters, but in reverse – all meta and no Maga.
So does that make AOC the Trump of the Left? While Gavin Newsom, JB Pritzker and Rahm Emanuel position themselves as logical, moderate, electable 2028 players, AOC – like Trump – is doubling-down on the radicalism that has got her this far in the first place.
It's working for socialist New York mayor candidate Zohran Mamdani, who has surged to second place in polling for the upcoming election, despite an even more odious anti-Israel record than AOC. Of course succeeding in deep blue Gotham reveals little in regard to a national run. But if the Democrats ultimately decide they need their own 'Trump' to beat Trumpism, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might be the best (and only) option they have.
David Christopher Kaufman is a New York Post columnist
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
RIDE disability rights case settlement disrupts R.I. House final budget preparations
The Rhode Island Department of Education's Westminster Street entrance in Providence is shown. (Photo by Alexander Castro/Rhode Island Current) The Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) may soon have to pay $1.86 million to settle a class action lawsuit that claimed the state had failed to provide special education services for students with disabilities between the ages of 21 and 22. That news presented a last minute complication for the Rhode Island House Committee on Finance's fiscal 2026 state budget preparations Tuesday. 'We literally worked to, like, 15 minutes ago to do this budget,' House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi told reporters at a press briefing on the $14.33 billion spending plan that began after 9 p.m. Tuesday night. He cited a figure of nearly $2 million needed because of an adverse ruling against RIDE, but details were unavailable at the time. The case of K.L. v. Rhode Island Board of Education is close to a settlement, Victor Morente, a RIDE spokesperson, confirmed via email on Wednesday morning. He said officials were still drafting a 'tentative' agreement that is still subject to approval from Rhode Island District Court as well as the Council on Elementary and Secondary Education, RIDE's governing body. The settlement comes nearly seven years after a federal appeals court ruled that RIDE shortchanged students with disabilities in the 2010s. The class action suit began in 2014 with a single plaintiff: A Warwick parent filing on behalf of their daughter, a Rhode Island student on the autism spectrum who also had ADHD and severe anxiety. But the student, named K.L. in the lawsuit, aged out of state-sponsored educational accommodations at age 21, before she could finish her high school diploma — something she should have been eligible to receive until age 22 under federal disability laws, her attorneys argued. K.L. had an individualized education program (IEP), which tailors learning for students with disabilities and helps to address their needs. These support programs are the roadmaps to ensure local schools education agencies supply students with a free and 'appropriate' public education per mandates derived from the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Students 'who were over 21 and under 22 as of February 10, 2012, or turned 21 before July 1, 2019,' Morente wrote, would be eligible for relief under the draft settlement if they did not receive their high school diploma and aged out of support services under previous Rhode Island law. When the case came before the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, it ruled in favor of RIDE by determining that 'public education' under the federal law would not include adult learning for students with disabilities over age 21. The class members then took their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, which vacated the lower court's judgment. We literally worked to, like, 15 minutes ago to do this budget. – House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi during a press briefing Tuesday Senior Judge Kermit Victor Lipez wrote in the first circuit's October 2018 majority opinion that the lower court had relied on too 'narrow' a definition of public education. 'At present, if a 21-year-old student in Rhode Island does not complete high school for a non-disability related reason — say, because she was previously incarcerated — the state will provide her the services needed to attain a secondary-school level of academic proficiency and a route to obtain a high-school level degree,' Lipez wrote. 'However, if the same 21-year-old does not complete high school due to a qualifying disability, the state currently does not offer her ability-appropriate services to attain the same level of educational achievement.' That imbalance violated disability law, the First Circuit decided, and the court boomeranged the case back to the District of Rhode Island for the two parties to determine remedies for class members. Sonja Deyoe, the attorney representing class members since the suit's inception, wrote in an email Wednesday that the First Circuit ruling was pivotal for disability rights in Rhode Island. 'The law previously had limited that education until the age of 21,' Deyoe wrote. 'This was a major change for disabled individuals in Rhode Island.' The First Circuit's ruling predates current RIDE leadership, and in August 2019, then-new education Commissioner Angélica Infante-Green issued a memo instructing how state education officials should comply with the ruling. 'It is now clear that if they have not already done so, school districts … must comply with the recent First Circuit decision and should make services available and give careful consideration to the cost of prospective compliance,' Infante-Green wrote, adding that it was still unclear 'how appropriate remedies will be provided to those eligible class members.' Deyoe echoed that sentiment, saying that determining damages under the lawsuit 'did span a very long time,' with both parties trying to avoid forcing a legal decision as to whether individual class members could receive relief for damages. 'Whether individualized compensatory education damages could be awarded to the individual class members was always disputed by the RI Department of Education,' Deyoe said. The settlement also needs to be approved by the members of the class, Deyoe said. The currently draft spares class members from having to undergo individual trials to determine compensational education benefits. 'We are very hopeful the settlement will be approved, but the class members always have the opportunity to object and the Court may approve the settlement only with certain changes,' Deyoe wrote. 'We cannot predict that yet…While all of this took a long time to achieve, we do believe this is a good resolution for the class members.' The funding source to resolve the settlement was not immediately available from RIDE or the House on Wednesday. But Shekarchi detailed in a statement over email that the sudden news had cost the House some time on Tuesday. 'After the budget is posted for consideration by the House Finance Committee 48 hours in advance, there are always a number of policy decisions, options and calculations that must be finalized,' wrote the Speaker. 'The notification of a $1.86 million additional expense on the morning of the budget adoption certainly complicated the final process.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ohio Senate passes budget giving Browns $600 million, tax cut to wealthy, more public school money
Ohio Senate President Rob McColley, R-Napoleon. (Photo by Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal. Republish photo only with original article.) The Ohio Senate has passed a $60 billion state biennial operating budget, which includes a tax cut for the wealthy, some increased public education funding, and $600 million in funding to the Cleveland Browns for their new stadium. The total budget is expected to be around $200 billion once federal dollars come in. Ohio House Bill 96 was voted on mainly along party lines, 23-10. State Sen. Bill Blessing, R-Colerain Township, joined the Democrats to vote no. The senators increased the amount of money going to public schools from the Ohio House's proposal. The Senate budget gives public schools about $100 million more than the House. Although they follow most of the Ohio House's proposed budget, which only gives schools about $226 million of an increase for school funding, the Senate changed the funding 'guarantee' amount. Right now, some districts have guarantees that a portion of their funding will not be reduced, even if their enrollment goes down This $100 million added back would only go to high-performing or 'improving' districts. However, to be fully funded based on statistics from the Fair School Funding Plan (FSFP) from 2021, schools would need an additional $666-800 million, compared to the $226 million given by the House. Still, the Senate's version is closer to the FSFP than the House's. 'We're following the funding scheme that was put together in the first place,' Senate Finance Chair Jerry Cirino, R-Kirtland, said. 'Our bill is the closest way to get there.' They also raised the House proposal's cap on districts' rainy day funds to 50%, instead of 30%. This would mean that the schools would have to refund anything above that back to the taxpayer to provide property tax relief. 'The priority is not, obviously, in fully funding education, investing in our children and our future,' Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood, said. The Senate's budget proposal still includes $600 million for a new Cleveland Browns stadium in Brook Park. However, the funding structure differs from what the Browns proposed and what the House approved earlier this year. The House proposed borrowing $600 million by issuing bonds and repaying the debt, with interest, over 25 years, at a cost of about $1 billion. The Senate is proposing a $600 million grant for the stadium using unclaimed funds. That's other people's money that the state is holding, from things like forgotten bank accounts, rent, or utility deposits or uncashed insurance policies. The Ohio Department of Commerce's website states the state is sitting on $4.8 billion in unclaimed funds. Asked about the possibility of Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine vetoing that provision, Cirino noted that DeWine said publicly he did not like the debt arrangement of the House for the $600 million. DeWine himself had proposed raising gambling taxes. 'I'm pretty confident and feel good that the governor and the House will look at our approach to it,' Cirino said. Ohio Democratic lawmakers remain staunchly opposed to the project. 'If they could find that money for the Browns and their stadium's move to Brook Park, why didn't they decide to use those funds for the schools?' Antonio asked. The budget also includes a 2.75% flat income tax. There are three income tax brackets in Ohio. Those making up to $26,000 do not need to pay state income tax. Ohioans earning between $26,000 and $100,000 pay a tax of 2.75%. Those making more than $100,000 have to pay 3.5%. State data reveals that this flat tax could result in a loss of about $1.1 billion in the General Revenue Fund. 'The dollars that we're foregoing in the flat tax are already incorporated into our overall spending,' Cirino said. Funding for schools, Medicaid, libraries, lead abatement, food banks, and child care face funding decreases from the current status or from the governor's budget. Asked about these cuts these cuts to social services for lower-income people while giving a tax cut to the state's highest earners, Cirino said Republicans think it's going to be good for the economy. 'It's going to be good for attracting people,' Cirino responded. Antonio disagreed. 'It's a gift to the wealthiest among us on the backs of the poorest and lowest-income and middle-class folks in the state of Ohio,' she said. Senate Republicans propose giving $20,000 to top high school students to encourage them to stay in the state for their higher education. The Governor's Merit Scholarship was passed in the House budget. Already existing, the House language would extend the proposal that gives the top 5% of each graduating high school class $5,000 a year to attend a public or private school in Ohio. But the Senate version reduces the scholarship to the top 2% of students. The money would also have strings attached. The scholarship recipients would be required to reside in Ohio for three years after graduation. There would be an 'expectation' that the money would be returned if they leave within the three years. Now, the Senate and House leaders will enter a conference committee, a closed-door negotiation period to create a final budget. Once a decision is made, both chambers must pass the combined bill. If it passes through both sides, it will be sent to Gov. Mike DeWine for review. In the past, he issued dozens of line-item vetoes on operating budgets. Line-item vetoing is the ability for the governor to pick and choose which policies within a larger piece of legislation get to stay or must go. The deadline for the budget to be passed is July 1. Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on X and Facebook. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Newsom speech taking on Trump encourages Democrats looking for a leader
California Gov. Gavin Newsom won praise on Wednesday for his speech Tuesday night seen by a national audience, something many Democrats saw as a shot across the bow to President Donald Trump that they can fight Trump -- and one that sparked new talk of Newsom as the party's standard-bearer in 2028. "The rule of law has increasingly given way to the rule of Don," he said, blasting Trump for sending the military to quell protests in Los Angeles. "The founding fathers did not live and die to see this moment. It's time for all of us to stand up," Newsom said in his eight-minute highly produced remarks, flanked by the California and U.S. flags. Newsom's message to Californians -- and Americans listening -- was politically sobering, arguing that "Democracy is under assault before our eyes. The moment we've feared has arrived." "What Donald Trump wants most is your fealty. Your silence. To be complicit in this moment. Do not give in to him," he urged what might have been millions of viewers watching on cable news channels. MORE: Protests live updates: At least 5 criminal cases related to LA protests, DA says His rhetoric directly calling out Trump comes as Democrats are hungry for a leader to unite them as they try to rebuild from 2024 and other party losses. "We want somebody to fight, and so he's been fighting, and it's been glorious to watch," RL Miller, an environmental activist and Democratic National Committee superdelegate, told ABC News. Miller thinks Democrats have spent too much time "navel-gazing" since the November election, wasting time and resources rather than looking forward. "Newsom is going to be vaulting back into that top tier of presidential candidates with this," she said. His speech was just the latest in Newsom's verbal combat with the Trump administration. Earlier in the week, he challenged Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, after he suggested that anyone who blocked the administration's immigration crackdown should be apprehended, even Newsom, a comment he later walked back but Trump endorsed. "Come after me, arrest me. Let's just get this over with, tough guy," Newsom told NBC News. "That's the energy we need in this moment," Democratic National Committee spokesperson Hannah Muldavian said of Newsom during the party's new daily YouTube show. Other national Democrats echoed that praise. In a joint news conference Wednesday morning, top party brass, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer threw their support behind Newsom's new war with Trump. "All I add is President Trump is trying to intimidate Gavin Newsom," Schumer, D-N.Y., said. "He has shown he's not going to be intimidated, and we're all for that, all for him and proud that he is refusing to be intimidated by Donald Trump." Newsom's PAC, Campaign for Democracy, sent out fundraising texts asking supporters to donate to help Newsom "continue to fight back against the attacks and threats from the Trump administration." Rob Stutzman, a Republican strategist who worked with former California GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said Newsom with asserting authentic leadership for Democrats who have been "leaderless all year" and likely quite eager to see such a high-profile official "fighting back" to Trump. "There's resistance that often seems contrived, but these circumstances have given him an essential, authentic resistance footing," said Stutzman. Still, it remains unclear if Newsom can win on immigration, one of Trump's central campaign issues and a top concern of many Americans. As a whole, Democrats have struggled to offer a singular message and response to Trump's actions. And the White House is continuously highlighting the unrest in California as a prime example of what is says is Newsom's poor record. Trump blasted the governor on his social media platform Monday, and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday that Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass have "failed their citizens." She said Newsom "owns" the images of violent protests. Newsom, who is term-limited and has not ruled out a 2028 presidential bid, isn't the only Democratic governor pitching themselves as tough on Trump. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz recently traveled to South Carolina to recap their record to voters, though both are adamant they are not running for the White House this time around. Even still, Newsom seems to rise above the pack. In fact, some operatives in Trump's orbit see Newsom transforming into the Democratic Party's long-sought leader. Former Trump political adviser Bannon told the New York Times that Newsom's address was "a kickoff to his 2028 campaign." Newsom speech taking on Trump encourages Democrats looking for a leader originally appeared on
