

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.
"JD Vance has a lot of nerve showing up in Texas to shake down wealthy donors... while Texans are paying through the nose at the pump and can’t get through the airport his party broke,” said one Democratic state lawmaker.
Vice President JD Vance's scheduled attendance at three $100,000-per-couple fundraisers has raised eyebrows and ire as Americans struggle to make ends meet due to the Trump administration economic policies and experts warn that the US-Israeli war on Iran could cause tens of millions of people in the Global South to suffer acute hunger.
Vance—who is widely expected to run for president in 2028—is in Texas this week for Republican National Committee fundraisers in Austin on Monday and Dallas on Tuesday. The vice president is also scheduled to attend another similar fundraising event in Nashville, Tennessee on March 30.
According to the Houston Chronicle, Joe Lonsdale, the billionaire founder of the controversial data analytics company Palantir, is hosting the Austin event. Billionaire investor and real estate developer Ray Washburne will co-host the Dallas fundraiser along with Chris Buskirk, founder of the venture capital firm where Donald Trump Jr. works. Buskirk openly advocates for an American "aristocracy" that "takes care of the country and governs it well so that everyone prospers.”
Also set to co-host the Dallas event is David Hininger, the former CEO of CoreCivic, a leading private prison firm in an industry that has gloated about the "unprecedented" profit potential of Trump's mass arrest and deportation campaign against undocumented immigrants.
Donors were reportedly asked to pay $250,000 to host one of the fundraisers.
"While Vance dines with billionaire donors, Americans are struggling to get by in the Trump-Vance economy as prices on everything from gas to groceries soar and working families dip into their savings to make ends meet," the Democratic National Committee said in a statement Monday.
"Trump and Vance’s war with Iran has already claimed the lives of 13 US service members and injured over 230, while driving up global oil prices and gas prices for Americans back home," the DNC added, without mentioning the thousands of Iranians killed or wounded by the illegal war of choice. "According to [the American Automobile Association], the average price for a gallon of gas is $3.96 nationwide, up from $2.94 just one month ago."
Trump campaigned on promises of no new wars and lower consumer prices, including gas, on "day one." Since returning to office, he has ordered the bombing of seven countries. Gas prices are up around 30% since Trump returned to the White House in January 2020.
“Prices on everything from gas to groceries to rent are soaring because of the Trump-Vance agenda, and what is JD Vance up to? He’s rubbing elbows with billionaires and special interests while working families struggle to make ends meet," DNC Chair Ken Martin said Monday. "Everyday Americans are stretching every dollar just to get by, and Vance is worried about lining his own pockets.”
Texas House Democratic Campaign Committee Chair Rep. Christina Morales (D-145) told the Houston Chronicle Monday that "JD Vance has a lot of nerve showing up in Texas to shake down wealthy donors for a quarter of a million dollars a head while Texans are paying through the nose at the pump and can’t get through the airport his party broke."
The war on Iran and its cascading global economic impacts could also fuel a sharp rise in acute hunger around the world, the United Nations World Food Program warned last week. WFP said the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is driving higher energy and fertilizer prices, which in turn can result in more expensive food.
“If this conflict continues, it will send shockwaves across the globe, and families who already cannot afford their next meal will be hit the hardest," Carl Skau, WFP’s deputy executive director and chief operating officer, said. “Without an adequately funded humanitarian response, it could spell catastrophe for millions already on the edge.”
"Fake news is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped," said the speaker of the Iranian Parliament.
As the Iranian government denied President Donald Trump's claim on Monday that "productive" talks are taking place between the US and the Middle Eastern country, which the White House has joined Israel in attacking for close to a month, a top Iranian lawmaker accused the president of attempting to manipulate global markets with his claim.
"No negotiations have been held with the US, and fake news is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped," said Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of the Iranian Parliament, in a post on X.
Ghalibaf's theory appeared to be supported by developments in the financial markets shortly after Trump's seemingly significant announcement Monday morning.
As the market analysis and commentary website The Kobeissi Letter reported, by 7:10 am Eastern—six minutes after Trump appeared to allude to diplomatic strides toward ending his unprovoked war—the S&P 500 surged by more than 240 points, adding more than $2 trillion in market capitalization.
Iran's Foreign Ministry denied Trump's claim 27 minutes later, and by 8:00 AM Eastern the S&P 500 had fallen by 120 points, erasing nearly $1 trillion in market value.
"That's a $3 TRILLION swing market cap in 56 minutes, just in the S&P 500," said The Kobeissi Letter. "What is happening here?"
Ahead of Ghalibaf's remarks, The New Republic also posited that Trump's "news" of productive discussions was "just a ploy at market manipulation."
The quick denial of talks from the Foreign Ministry raised "serious doubts as to whether the president is telling the truth or just saying whatever he can to stop gas prices from rising more and more as Iran locks down the Strait of Hormuz."
Since the US and Israel began its assault on Iran on February 28, Iran has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of the world's oil supply flows, and sent gas prices soaring to nearly $4 per gallon, up from $2.91 before the war.
The war, which has killed more than 3,200 Iranians and exploded into a larger conflict, with more than 1,000 people killed in Lebanon and at least 60 killed in Iraq, has appeared politically toxic for Trump, who campaigned on "no new wars" and making life more affordable for Americans.
Nearly 80% of people who voted for Trump in 2024 said last week that they hope for a quick end to the war.
Some observers noted that even the president's five-day deadline for negotiations to conclude—after which he suggested the US could launch strikes against Iran's energy infrastructure—appeared to revolve around the week's closing of energy markets on Friday.
"Every week, when markets open, Trump makes these kinds of statements to drive down oil prices," said Iranian academic Seyed Mohammad Marandi. "Even his five-day deadline aligns with the closure of the energy market. But in reality, there are no negotiations underway, nor does Trump have the capability to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Iran's firm threat has once again forced Trump to back down."
On Saturday, Trump had threatened to "obliterate" Iran's power plants if it didn't reopen the Strait of Hormuz by Monday. Iran responded with a threat to target energy infrastructure across the region, including in Israel.
A senior Iranian official told Drop Site News that "no new developments have occurred” diplomatically between the US and Iran.
Iran's conditions for ending the war, the official said, include a simultaneous ceasefire in Iran, Lebanon, and Iraq. The government is also demanding an end to US sanctions on Iran's procurement of defensive weapons and equipment.
“The fact that he publicly responds to [Iran’s position] by posting a tweet," the official said, "is solely intended to manage the financial markets—nothing more."
"The most corrupt presidency ever—and it's not even close," said one critic.
Critics slammed the Trump administration on Monday after it announced a deal to pay almost $1 billion to a French energy company to cancel its plans to construct wind farms across the eastern US.
As reported by The New York Times, French firm TotalEnergies has agreed to forfeit its leases in federal waters off the coasts of New York and North Carolina, and will instead invest the money it received from the Trump administration into oil and gas projects in the US, "including a facility in Texas that would export liquefied natural gas to global markets."
TotalEnergies paid nearly $928 million for the rights to access federal waters during former President Joe Biden's administration.
The Times described the agreement as "an extraordinary transfer of taxpayer dollars to a foreign company for the purposes of boosting the production of fossil fuels, a main driver of climate change, while throttling offshore wind power."
Patrick Pouyanné, the chief executive of TotalEnergies, said that the firm decided to abandon its US wind farm plans due to "practical" considerations, while emphasizing that the firm wasn't giving up on wind power all together.
"When the Trump administration came to power and began setting US energy policy, we said that we’ll have to reconsider, clearly, these offshore wind project developments," explained Pouyanné, adding that "we continue to invest in onshore solar, onshore wind, batteries."
Many critics expressed disbelief that the Trump administration would go to such extraordinary lengths to kill a clean energy project, especially after the president sent oil and gasoline prices soaring earlier this month when he launched an unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
"Let’s call this what it is: a taxpayer-funded bribe to kill homegrown clean energy and hand the money straight to oil and gas executives," wrote climate advocacy organization Evergreen Action in a social media post. "Trump is once again making Americans pay more for energy so his Big Oil donors can rake in even more profits."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, expressed a similar sentiment.
"$1 billion of our tax dollars to kill a clean energy program that creates jobs, just so Trump's Big Oil donors can make more profit," D'Arrigo wrote. "The most corrupt presidency ever—and it's not even close."
Matt Gertz, senior fellow at press watchdog Media Matters for America, argued that the agreement was a corrupt bargain aimed at hurting the president's political foes, including the Democratic leaders of New York and North Carolina.
"Climate/renewables arguments aside, this is the president's administration paying a foreign company to invest in states where Republicans are in charge rather than ones where Democrats are in charge," Gertz wrote, "using tax dollars to punish people who didn't vote for his party."
US Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) said that the deal to kill the planned wind farms was yet another example of the Trump administration making life in the US less affordable.
"This administration just spent $1 BILLION of your money to make sure wind farms don't get built," Blunt Rochester wrote. "You''ll have them to thank for higher electric bills each month."