

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

While the abundance debate thrives on podcasts and social media, the voters want candidates who address corporate power and working class concerns
Demand Progress commissioned a national poll of 1,200 registered voters to test the resonance of the “abundance agenda” being promoted as a potential policy and political refocus for the Democratic party. The objective of the poll was to compare support for abundance arguments to a prominent competing framework: populist arguments and policy objectives.
The results of the poll clearly showed that, while there was some support for elements of the abundance arguments, a focus on populist economic concerns – corporate and monopoly power, money in politics, and corruption – consistently resonated significantly more broadly and deeply, while fomenting less opposition, than abundance arguments. This was particularly true of Democratic voters — and, crucially, was also true of self-identified moderate and independent voters.
“To get out of the political wilderness, and win over not just Democrats but also independent and moderate voters, policymakers need to loudly state their case for helping middle- and working-class Americans. What these voters want is clear: a populist agenda that takes on corporate power and corruption,” said Emily Peterson-Cassin, corporate power director at Demand Progress. “The stakes are too high for Democrats to fixate on a message that only appeals to a minority of independent and Democratic voters.”
In one tranche of questions respondents were presented with one argument labeled the “abundance” argument and one labeled the “populist” argument. Respondents could choose to indicate a favorable or unfavorable response to either, both, or neither of the arguments.
The poll showed that 55.6% of voters said they would be more (26.3% much more) likely to vote for a candidate for Congress or President who made the populist argument. Meanwhile 43.5% said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate (12.6% much more) who made the “abundance” argument.
Republicans were much more likely to react positively to a candidate making the abundance argument (58.8% more likely to vote for candidate), while Democrats and independents were less moved to support such an argument (32.6% and 40.6% respectively). Democrats and independents reacted more positively to a candidate making the populist argument (72.5% of 55.4% respectively) compared to 39.6% of Republicans.
The poll went on to ask respondents to choose whether they agreed more with the populist argument or the abundance argument and found that a plurality of 42.8% said they agreed more with the populist argument while 29.2% chose the abundance argument. Once again, Democrats and independents particularly favored the populist argument (59.0% to 16.8% among Democrats and 44.3% to 28.4% among independents) while Republicans favored the abundance argument (43.7% to 25.0%).
Even more striking were the results to a separate tranche of questions wherein the poll asked how different ways of a candidate addressing how best to “make the government and economy do a better job serving working and middle-class Americans” would affect voting choices. (Unlike in the above set of questions, these arguments were not actively described to respondents as “populism” or “abundance.”)
A significant majority (81.6%) of respondents responded positively to a populism-aligned argument, “get money out of politics, break up corporate monopolies, and fight corruption,” while only 8.4% said it would make them less likely to vote for such a candidate. Among independents those numbers were even stronger with 84.8% responding positively and 8.5% reacting negatively. Even self-described moderates and conservatives had strong net positive responses to the populist-aligned argument (81.5%-8.3% for moderates and 74.3%-13.6% for conservatives).
When presented with a candidate offering an abundance-aligned argument, “reduce regulations that hold back the government and private sector from taking action,” only 47.3% of respondents said that would make them more likely to vote for such a candidate while 33.8% said they would be less likely. Even among Republicans, the abundance-aligned argument performs somewhat less favorably than the populist-aligned argument — while Democrats and independents respond much less favorably to the abundance argument than to the populist-aligned argument.
A synthesis of the two arguments had a level of support that fell between those of “populism” and “abundance” — with 72.2% reacting positively and 13.5% reacting negatively to a synthesis.
Longtime pollster Dan Cohen, an advisor on the project noted, “the voters are demonstrating that they understand the problem with quite a traditional view of American politics and economics: that there is too much power and influence in corporate hands and everyday Americans aren’t getting their fair share. Democrats would be wise to listen to the voters and respond directly to those views with their rhetoric and actions.”
The poll of 1,200 registered voters across the US, was conducted on the YouGov platform over the dates of May 8 and May 13, 2025. It has a margin of error of +/- 3.09%.
Demand Progress amplifies the voice of the people -- and wields it to make government accountable and contest concentrated corporate power. Our mission is to protect the democratic character of the internet -- and wield it to contest concentrated corporate power and hold government accountable.
"The United States cannot continue to be complicit in abuses abroad. There must be accountability," said Rep. Chuy García, who co-led a letter to the Pentagon.
Backed by anti-war and human rights organizations, 20 "deeply concerned" progressives in the US House of Representatives sent a letter to the Pentagon on Wednesday demanding answers about "reports of serious human rights violations and the bombing of what appear to have been civilian facilities during joint US-Ecuador military operations conducted in northern Ecuador."
While bombing Iran and boats allegedly running illegal drugs through the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, President Donald Trump deployed US troops to Ecuador in March for a joint campaign combating "narco-terrorists" in the South American country.
Led by Democratic Reps. Greg Casar (Texas), Jesús "Chuy" García (Ill.), and Sara Jacobs (Calif.), the lawmakers called for "an explanation of the administration's legal justification for the involvement of US armed forces in these operations, which have not been authorized by Congress," as well as their immediate suspension "until these incidents are fully investigated."
The Democrats' letter to US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth cites reporting that one target "appears to have been a civilian dairy and cattle farm with no known links to armed groups or drug trafficking," where witnesses said "Ecuadorian military personnel interrogated and assaulted unarmed civilians, burned homes and infrastructure, and subjected detainees to torture."
"Beyond these recent incidents, we are concerned that our military is deepening its ties with the government of Ecuador, even as it undergoes an alarming authoritarian and anti-democratic drift," the Democrats wrote, pointing out that "President Daniel Noboa has overseen the violent repression of Indigenous-led protests, publicly threatened the Constitutional Court, and frozen the bank accounts of civil society organizations."
Noboa's allies "have also pursued questionable cases against his political opponents," as "Ecuadorians have endured more than two years of a prolonged state of emergency, marked by the military's domestic deployment to combat so-called 'narco-terrorists," the letter continues. "With investigative reporting now linking President Noboa's family business to drug trafficking and the same illicit networks he claims to be fighting, an independent and transparent investigation into these allegations is warranted."
The letter stresses that "if US forces provide new or continued security assistance to units that engaged in acts such as torture, extrajudicial killings, or enforced disappearances, and there is no credible investigation or prosecution underway, this would constitute a violation of the Leahy Laws, which prohibit assistance to foreign security forces credibly implicated in gross human rights violations without effective steps to bring those responsible to justice."
The Democrats—supported by Amnesty International USA, Center for Civilians in Conflict, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Human Rights First, Latin American Working Group, Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, StoptheDrugWar.org, Washington Office on Latin America, and Win Without War—demanded "a prompt and complete response" to their list of questions by May 22.
"The United States cannot continue to be complicit in abuses abroad. There must be accountability," García said on social media.
As El País reported Wednesday, the letter was made public as Noboa began a two-day trip to Washington, DC, during which he is set to meeting with US Vice President JD Vance and Organization of American States Secretary General Albert Ramdin.
"To weaponize the term 'blood libel' to dismiss Kristof's thorough reporting is dangerous. It's insulting to the term's violent history and hinders our community's ability to call out actual blood libels when they occur."
A Jewish-led organization dedicated to fighting antisemitism was among the groups and individuals who on Tuesday condemned attacks on The New York Times and one of its most prominent columnists, who published accounts by alleged Palestinian victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by Israeli soldiers and settlers.
Nicholas Kristof's column, "The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians," combines interviews with 14 former Palestinian detainees and information from reports published by United Nations experts and human rights groups to highlight documented rape and other systemic sexual abuse of Palestinians jailed by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops, as well as sexual assaults and other abuses allegedly committed by Israeli settler-colonists. The column features the controversial claim by one former prisoner that he was raped by a dog unleashed upon him by Israeli soldiers.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry responded to the column in a social media post alleging that the Times "chose to publish one of the worst blood libels ever to appear in the modern press."
"In an unfathomable inversion of reality, and through an endless stream of baseless lies, propagandist Nicholas Kristof turns the victim into the accused," the ministry said.
Responding to the ministry's post, the Nexus Project—a group "made up of individuals deeply committed to the fight against antisemitism"—said on Bluesky: "To weaponize the term 'blood libel' to dismiss Kristof's thorough reporting is dangerous. It's insulting to the term's violent history and hinders our community's ability to call out actual blood libels when they occur."
"Kristof's article is a challenging and important read," the group added. "It takes courage and care to expose sexual violence."
On Tuesday, the Israeli Foreign Ministry accused the Times of serving "a Hamas-driven narrative," claiming the newspaper "deliberately timed its piece to undermine today’s horrific Civil Commission report documenting Hamas’ preplanned, systematic sexual atrocities on October 7, [2023] and against hostages thereafter—attempting to create false equivalence and belittle documented crimes."
The Times refuted a claim by the ministry that the newspaper "said it was not interested" in reporting on Hamas sexual violence on and after the October 7 attack. In fact, the Times updated its earlier reporting on Hamas sex crimes after Israeli investigator called said critical details were "false."
Critics of the column also cast aspersions upon the alleged Palestinian victims and rights groups that documented the sexual violence they suffered, linking them to Hamas. The Times and other US media have been accused of accepting Israeli claims at their word but treating Palestinian testimonies with skepticism or outright dismissal.
Numerous other pro-Israel accounts, including the American Jewish Committee and EndJewHatred, have either repeated the "blood libel" accusation against Kristof or amplified social media posts that did so.
Many—including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee—denied or questioned the veracity of Kristof, his sources, and the Times.
Well documented reporting about abuses committed by a particular nation-state is not a “blood libel,” and misusing Jewish history to protect the state of Israel from criticism like this is ultimately going to make people take all of Jewish history less seriously.
[image or embed]
— Joel S. (@joelhs.bsky.social) May 12, 2026 at 1:21 PM
This, despite numerous reports by United Nations experts, as well as Israeli and international human rights groups, of Israeli rape and sexual violence against Palestinian men, women, and children in both Gaza and the illegally occupied West Bank—a pattern that goes back to the Nakba ethnic cleansing of Palestine during the establishment of the modern state of Israel.
Senior Israeli officials including Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir have defended soldiers accused of gang-raping a Palestinian prisoner in an attack caught on camera at the notorious Sde Teiman prison. The IDF is investigating the deaths of dozens of Palestinians at Sde Teiman, including one man who died after allegedly being sodomized with an electric baton.
Right-wing Israeli politicians, pundits, and others publicly argued that IDF troops should have free rein to rape, torture, and murder Palestinians as revenge for the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel.
An August 2025 investigation by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation featured Palestinian boys kidnapped by Israeli occupation forces in Gaza who said they suffered or witnessed sexual torture committed by their jailers.
Last year, Israel blocked a request from UN sex crimes experts to probe alleged sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas fighters during the October 7, 2023 attack, reportedly to avoid attendant scrutiny of rapes and other abuses allegedly committed by Israeli forces against imprisoned Palestinians.
Other Israelis and their defenders expressed incredulity or proclaimed the impossibility of dogs being trained to rape people.
"My brain does not know how to process the fact that The New York Times—the paper I grew up worshiping and hoping to work for one day—published, on the front page, that Israelis are training dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners," tech entrepreneur and anti-progressive commentator Michelle Tandler said Monday on X.
However, in addition to repeated Palestinian claims of such abuse, female Holocaust survivors have said they were assaulted by dogs specially trained by Nazi SS officer Klaus Barbie. Later, Ingrid Oderock, a Chilean raised in a Nazi colony in the South American country, became one of the most feared torturers during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. Her specialty, as noted in the Academy Award-nominated animated short film Bestia, was training dogs to rape jailed female dissidents.
Israel has repeatedly attempted to neutralize criticism of its crimes during the Gaza onslaught—from the deadly famine that's claimed at least hundreds of lives, to the apparently deliberate shooting of children, to attacks on aid workers and civilian "safe zones," to the torture of Palestinian prisoners—by smearing those who expose them with accusations of blood libel.
Responding to the common Israeli smear, socialist author Owen Jones said on Bluesky: "Israel's crimes are not a 'blood libel.' They are documented truth."
"We will not sit back and watch while Gov. Kemp takes orders from a felon-in-chief to turn Dr. King's dream into a nightmare," said the head of Common Cause Georgia.
Republican state leaders are forging ahead with President Donald Trump's campaign to rig congressional districts for the GOP, with Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp on Wednesday signing a proclamation for a special legislative session and South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster expected to make a similar announcement soon.
While GOP policymakers facing pressure from Trump have pursued mid-decade redistricting in several states ahead of the November midterm elections—in which Democrats aim to reclaim majorities in both chambers of Congress—Kemp's proclamation explicitly states that any changes in Georgia would be for 2028, which is the next presidential cycle.
Kemp's proclamation cites the US Supreme Court's decision last month that a Louisiana map predating Trump's redistricting push was "an unconstitutional racial gerrymander," which gutted the remnants of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965.
In a statement condemning the proclamation, Common Cause Georgia director Rosario Palacios pointed to the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., a key figure in the movement that led to the VRA as well as the Civil Rights Act the previous year.
"We will not sit back and watch while Gov. Kemp takes orders from a felon-in-chief to turn Dr. King's dream into a nightmare. Too many civil rights leaders have done work in our state for us [to] take this sitting down," Palacios declared. "Common Cause is mobilizing thousands of people to stop state lawmakers from passing any new maps before 2030 that destroy Black voters' power for political gain. Voters should not have to rely on lawsuits to protect their right to fair representation. Congress must end this abuse once and for all so every voter can cast a ballot in free and fair elections, no matter their political party."
US Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), who is up for reelection in 2028, similarly ripped the Georgia redistricting effort on social media Wednesday: "There is an extreme movement in this country that will stop at nothing to hold on to power, even if it means stripping representation away from millions. I will fight this with everything I have."
Republicans in various states have moved to "shamelessly capitalize" on the April ruling from the high court's right-wing supermajority. On Monday, as the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Alabama GOP to rescind the creation of its second Black-majority district, Memphis voters sued over a new map targeting Tennessee's only majority-Black congressional district.
On Tuesday, as the Missouri Supreme Court declined to strike down a new congressional map that state voters are working to challenge with a referendum, five Republican South Carolina senators joined Democrats in blocking a GOP effort to advance Trump's gerrymandering campaign in their state.
However, The Post and Courier's Nick Reynolds reported Wednesday that South Carolina Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey (R-25) believes the governor "will call legislators back into a special session amid the redistricting fight."
Also reporting on the anticipated move Wednesday, Politico's Andrew Howard and Alec Hernandez noted that "McMaster's plan—confirmed by four people familiar with the decision, who were granted anonymity to share private details—is a reversal of his position earlier this month and follows pressure" from the president and his allies.
A redistricting push in South Carolina is expected to target the seat held by Democratic Congressman Jim Clyburn—who last month warned that the Supreme Court ruling on Louisiana's map and the VRA "threatens to send our country deeper into the thicket of never-ending redistricting fights, with repeated aggressive map redraws, protracted legal battles, and relentless partisan tugs-of-war, all of which are destined to result in more regressive court decisions."