Following the Democratic Party’s major defeat in 2024, the left finds itself scrambling for a winning strategy as their bench wears thin and Americans turn on “woke” ideology. With trust in institutional leadership at historic lows and the party fractured between its moderate and progressive factions, the question of "what’s next" has become existential.

In recent weeks, buzz has grown around a potential Bernie Sanders–Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) 2028 ticket. While the two are drawing large crowds at rallies, their partnership is billed as a defiant challenge to the party’s failed status quo.

Progressive Democrats want ideological and policy escalation. Sanders and AOC are staging a rhetorical return to anti-oligarchy populism, reviving the grassroots messaging which brought Bernie popularity in 2016. But public sentiment suggests the base is far more conflicted than the performative confidence of these rallies implies.

A Coalition of Contradictions

Sanders and AOC bring name recognition, fervent followings, and ideological force. They also embody severe contradictions regarding personal wealth, elitism, and a pattern of policy hypocrisy that undercuts their working-class message. Voters have noticed.

• 55% of Democratic voters express support for AOC, citing her media fluency and youth appeal.
• Support drops to 30% when the conversation shifts to her viability on a national ticket, especially with Sanders as her partner.

The Sanders-AOC brand is strongest among urban, younger progressives. These voters are less concerned with personal contradictions and more invested in the symbolism of generational power transfer. They argue that inconsistencies—like traveling in a private jet to Coachella while advocating for climate austerity—are the price of modern political warfare, not disqualifiers.

Progressive Theatre vs. Electoral Reality

Among Democratic voters overall, 35-45% express sustained criticism or outright rejection of a Bernie-AOC partnership. They view both Sanders and AOC as emblematic of a populist elite—figures who campaign against power while privately enjoying its perks. Sanders, a millionaire with multiple homes, and AOC, whose Earth Day jet ride sparked widespread derision, struggle to retain credibility outside their core supporters.

Social media sentiment reflects this erosion. Accusations of hypocrisy, elitism, and political performance consistently top the discourse. “Champagne socialist” and “oligarch in disguise” are frequent characterizations. Among working-class Democrats, especially union voters, skepticism centers on results, asking what the pair have delivered.

Even the excitement around rallies is checked by realism in the party. Many online describe the rallies as energizing or transformative. But an equal number call them theatrical, elitist, or performative, citing luxury travel as undermining the working-class message. The remaining few are cautiously optimistic but wary, unconvinced that turnout equals traction in a general election.

Demands for Accountability

The AOC-Sanders ticket is also tethered to unresolved questions about corruption, misuse of funds, and ethical inconsistencies. A recurring thread in Democratic conversations is the sense that progressive leaders talk about dismantling oligarchy while quietly participating in the spoils of institutional privilege.

Commenters across the ideological spectrum—especially those from lower-income backgrounds—express feelings of betrayal. For many, Bernie and AOC are only repackaging tired political ideas in revolutionary branding. Accusations against both are cultural shorthand for the Democratic Party’s broader legitimacy crisis.

The Leadership Gap Widens

Three years out from the next presidential election, Democrats are not yet coalescing around a potential Sanders-AOC ticket. Right now, the idea serves more as a litmus test: Do voters want ideological purity, or effective leadership? The answer, based on current sentiment, is likely not good news for Bernie and AOC.

The challenge is not that Sanders and AOC are too radical. It’s that they appear to many voters as ideologues without discipline. Many feel they are more effective in protest than in governance. Their base wants moral clarity, but more practical swing voters and moderates see unresolved hypocrisy.

Among Democrats still searching for leadership post-2024, the enthusiasm gap is unmistakable. Only 35% of Democratic comments express confidence that AOC could carry a presidential ticket. The rest are either uncertain or opposed, often citing electability, lack of results, and the optics of lifestyle hypocrisy.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s HHS agenda, launched under the slogan of “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA), is highlighting a realignment in how Americans view public health policy. His most recent initiative is a proposed ban on petroleum-based synthetic food dyes, especially Red 40. This has generated discussion about health versus regulation.

MIG Reports analysis of voter discussion online reveals that 57% of Americans support MAHA overall, 22% oppose it, and 21% express neutral or mixed reactions. The discourse around MAHA touches on trust in experts, populism, and using regulatory power against corporate interests.

The MAHA Mandate

The MAHA campaign, despite RFK Jr.’s controversial image, resonates with many Americans who want to eliminate dangerous toxins from the American food supply. Recent focus on banning synthetic dyes like Red 40 and Red 3 positions MAHA as a populist health reform campaign with echoes of MAGA-style rhetoric: America first, but for health.

• In discussions specifically touching on artificial dye bans, 52% express support.

Supporters, especially self-identified conservatives and family-focused voters like moms, see RFK Jr.’s efforts as long-overdue corrections to the FDA’s complacency. These dyes are already banned across Europe and people scrutinize them for links to cancer and childhood hyperactivity. Increasingly, Americans see them as hazards of a profit-driven corporate food industry. The MAHA movement frames regulations as a symbolic reclamation of institutional integrity.

Enthusiasm and Health Empowerment

Among those who support a dye ban, the most common theme is child protection. Terms like “poison,” “toxins,” and “glow-in-the-dark gummies” dominate. Many invoke European standards to highlight the perceived gap in U.S. oversight. Mothers—often called “MAHA moms” in the discourse—emerge as a vocal demographic, emphasizing clean food and regulatory action as moral imperatives.

This support base isn’t confined to health activists. It draws energy from MAGA-aligned communities and vaccine skeptics as well, coalescing around the idea that RFK Jr. is one of the few figures willing to confront corporate giants and entrenched bureaucracies. His agenda resonates with those who see health freedom as a national necessity.

Opposition Fears Overregulation

Critics argue banning ingredients like Red 40 is the start of a slippery slope toward regulatory overreach. Many among the opposition question RFK Jr.’s scientific credentials and accuse him of politicizing food safety to score political points. They raise concerns about whether proposed policies are based on sound toxicology, or are they marketing disguised as reform?

Libertarians and traditional conservatives in this group emphasize consumer choice and free market adaptation. They warn that unilateral bans may disrupt supply chains and create a precedent for broader state control over individual consumption habits.

Some are Waiting to Judge

The neutral or mixed segment offers a more observational tone. These voices report policy changes without attaching judgment, or express cautious curiosity pending implementation results. Roughly one-fifth of the discourse falls into this category. They don't dismiss MAHA but hesitate to endorse it, citing the need for measurable outcomes and transparency.

This group is politically significant. If early results from the dye ban generate visible improvements or industry shifts, these fence-sitters could swing toward active support. If the initiative falters or becomes a partisan lightning rod, they may retreat into skepticism.

Vaccine Policy and the Regulatory Umbrella

Online conversations also frequently tie it to broader distrust of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout and calls for reforming the childhood immunization schedule. Approximately 55% of vaccine-related comments support removing mRNA shots from routine use, with supporters seeing both vaccines and synthetic dyes as part of a public health system compromised by Big Pharma.

The link between vaccine skepticism and food additive bans reinforces MAHA’s potency as a political brand. For this demographic, RFK Jr. represents a rare government official willing to confront the medical-industrial complex and fight for victories in reaching institutional accountability.

MAHA, MAGA, and the Cultural Realignment

The rhetorical core of MAHA overlaps largely with MAGA. Both movements channel frustration with elite institutions and promise to dismantle captured systems from the inside. But MAHA’s focus on child health and food integrity expands the populist coalition beyond traditional political factions. It manages to unite libertarians, health reformers, concerned parents, and anti-globalists under a shared call for action.

Still, some conservative voices remain skeptical. They warn that RFK Jr.’s populism could shade into regulatory zealotry. Criticism from older conservatives and industry-aligned professionals reflects concern that MAHA may mutate into a campaign of continuous bans, each one further eroding economic freedom and scientific rigor.

Strategic Implications

Policymakers should take note that symbolic reforms—especially those involving children—carry massive political weight. The red dye ban may lack legislative drama, but it has triggered a deep emotional response from both supporters and detractors. That response suggests populist regulation is an effective mobilizer, especially when framed as a grassroots health crusade.

Conservatives should embrace MAHA’s expanded messaging. If it succeeds, it will provide a blueprint for future governance rooted in citizen-driven, institutionally disruptive reform. If it fails, it may reinforce concerns about performative politics and signal the limits of symbolic leadership.

Recently, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reported more than 9,000 antisemitic incidents in 2024—a record-setting figure amplified in publications like Axios. From defaced synagogues to aggressive campus protests, the raw data confirms a surge that policymakers, pundits, and advocacy groups are concerned about.

But beyond vague gestures toward the Trump administration and MAGA voters, news reports are not clear about why these incidents are rising. MIG Reports data on public sentiment, however, sheds light on who Americans blame for increased antisemitism.

How Voters Are Assigning Blame

Based on public discussion covering the Israel-Palestine conflict and domestic political discourse, MIG Reports data shows:

• 51% of voters blame the political left, citing AIPAC, Democratic elites, and institutional media as enablers of narrative suppression.
• 35% blame the political right, associating the rise with MAGA populism, far-right rhetoric, or conspiratorial undertones.
• 14% attribute the trend to systemic or fringe sources, including political polarization, globalist influence, or cultural rot.

While both sides generally agree that antisemitism is rising, most voters are debating why this is happening and who is to blame .

Axios Addresses the Fire, Not the Fuel

Media outlets like Axios note that 58% of antisemitic incidents were Israel-related—not restricted to Jewish Americans. The left also admits the most significant spikes of antisemitic incidents occurred on college campuses, which is up 84% year-over-year. That finding matches MIG Reports data, where voter discussions focus on universities as a hotbed for speech suppression and ideological purity tests masquerading as activism.

Mainstream media reports often suggest that conservative responses—particularly Trump’s attempt to defund universities—could “backfire,” making Jewish people more vulnerable. The implication is that crackdown efforts, like defunding liberal institutions or deporting foreign student protesters, may escalate resentment rather than resolve it.

On the surface, legacy reporting acknowledges the problem’s geography (campuses) and ideological triggers (anti-Israel rhetoric) but stops short of placing the political blame where MIG data shows voters already have—on a progressive cultural regime that created the conditions for this explosion.

Campus Chaos and Israel-Centricity

There is real common ground on both sides, however.

• Campus radicalism is central. Both sides recognize universities as a primary breeding ground for the shift from protest to hate.
• Israel is the flashpoint. Over half of all antisemitic incidents now occur in the context of Israel discourse—whether in defense of or in opposition to it.

But even here, the interpretations split. Some take a defensive posture, worried that harsh policies targeting pro-Palestinian protestors might feed the problem. Others say Trump administration policies are long overdue.

The 35% of voters in MIG Reports data who blame the right for rising antisemitism also focus on the Israel discussion. Irael supporters point out that antisemitism can come from both the pro-Palestine left and the anti-Israel right.

Strategic Messaging vs. Public Perception

The Axios report framing is institutionally cautious, focusing on incident spikes while subtly insulating the structures that voters say cultivate ideological extremism. Mainstream outlets warn about government overreach but gloss over the concerns of those who say the institutions themselves crossed boundaries by protecting terrorist sympathizers.

Many online say countermeasures to combat strains of progressive leftism which infect institutions have not gone far enough. This group fears normalizing antisemitism in the name of tolerance is exactly the kind of ideological contradiction the left is known for.

Israel specific MIG Reports data sets:

• 40% blame AIPAC and its lobbying influence
• 30% blame Democratic political and media figures
• 20% blame Trump’s Israel-first approach
• 10% point to global Zionist influence or conspiratorial control

Voters across ideological lines are alarmed by how criticism of Israel often is equated with antisemitism, effectively shutting down debate. The underlying fear is that antisemitism has become a political weapon for some on both sides.