The New Central Axis of Democratic Primary Politics
BONUS Briefing on American Economic Aspirations
Some of the most heated Democratic primaries of the modern era have pitted progressives against moderate Democrats: from Clinton-Sanders to AOC-Crowley to Bowman-Engel, the main axis of these primaries has been ideological.
However, our new nationwide poll of 2,142 registered voters, conducted March 18-25, suggests that early in the second Trump term, ideology is less important to primary voters than willingness to fight. Change Research asked Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents about two separate primary matchups: a moderate fighter vs. a quiet progressive, and a quiet moderate vs. a progressive fighter.
We found that in both matchups, Democrats and Democratic-leaners would overwhelmingly prefer the fighter: 90% prefer a moderate fighter over a quiet progressive, while 95% prefer a progressive fighter over a quiet moderate. These strong preferences are consistent across all age groups, races and ethnicities, and degrees of partisanship, from the strongest Democrats to the most independent-leaning ones.
In other words, the central axis on which likely Democratic primary voters are assessing candidates is not ideological; it’s whether they’ll fight.
This helps provide color to a recent Data for Progress poll that found Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez leading Chuck Schumer by 19 points in a hypothetical Senate primary. New York voters’ preference for Ocasio-Cortez is likely due not to her progressiveness, but to her ferocity.
We can expect this dynamic to play out across the country in the 2026 primaries. It will help determine the types of challengers who are likely to gain traction and the types of incumbents likely to be challenged–and, of course, it will help determine who will prevail. We can expect to see both moderate and progressive incumbents fall to fiery challengers–challengers who may come from their right or from their left. And we can expect the discourse to center on how to fight, not just on what policies to govern.
As elected leaders work through how to respond to the current political moment and as they prepare for their next elections, all members of the Democratic political ecosystem would be well-served to keep in mind that there is little appetite on the Democratic side for timidity. Nearly everyone wants a fighter.
Ben Greenfield, Lead Analyst, Independent Expenditure
Ben Greenfield was part of the founding team at Change Research in 2017, and since then has conducted hundreds of polls for forward-thinking candidates, organizations, and causes. Prior to joining Change Research, he worked in various technical and analytical roles in Silicon Valley, in children's publishing, and earned a Master's in screenwriting from USC's film school. Ben received his BA from Columbia University. He lives in Glendale, California, with his wife and two children.
Is Abundance a Politically Viable Answer?
Join us this Friday, April 18, at 9 am CT/12 pm ET for a data-driven briefing on the political paradox of economic abundance.
The Disconnect: While voters across the spectrum face economic pressures, many—especially Democrats and independents—resist the regulatory reforms needed to address these very challenges.
What You'll Learn:
Why voters who want government solutions often oppose efficiency-focused reforms
How partisan identity—not economic reality—shapes economic perceptions
Where abundance policies face resistance and potential breakthrough strategies
Exclusive Research: Attendees receive two comprehensive research memos from national surveys of 4,000+ voters, revealing:
69% feel their income falling behind the cost of living
Democratic voters want housing action, but 60% oppose regulatory relief
67% of urban Democrats prioritize inclusive processes over construction speed
Republicans report greater economic optimism despite similar challenges
REGISTER NOW for this essential briefing on bridging policy goals with political realities.