ATLANTA, Georgia –  CNN data analyst Harry Enten delivered a blunt take on the early 2028 Democratic presidential primary. On air, he called the field a “downright clown car” and a “total mess.”

Early polling shows a tight pack, with no one breaking 25% and several names sitting within the margin of error. That sparked a lively discussion about whether Democrats are sliding into a fight between progressives and moderates, and what the rise of figures like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and New York State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani could mean for the party’s next era.

All of this lands at an uneasy moment for Democrats. The party is still dealing with the fallout from the 2024 losses, and many voters see no clear next leader. At the same time, Democrats are preparing for the 2026 midterms while facing a Republican Party energized under President Donald Trump. As a result, these early signs of a fractured primary could make unity harder when it matters most.

Polls Show a Crowded Race With No Breakout

Recent surveys suggest Democratic voters are spread out across the field. A Yahoo/YouGov poll from February 2025 showed a close contest among likely contenders:

• California Gov. Gavin Newsom leads at 19%, helped by his national profile and messaging on issues like climate change and abortion rights.
• Former Vice President Kamala Harris sits at 18%, backed by experience but followed by doubts tied to 2024.
• Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg pulls 13%, with support from many moderates drawn to his pragmatic style.
• Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) gets 12%, reflecting continued strength among progressives focused on economic justice and climate policy.

None of these candidates clears 25%, a level Enten pointed to as a common marker for an early front-runner. Because many polls carry a margin of error of around 3 to 4 points, the top tier looks more like a statistical tie than a settled race. In other words, Democratic voters haven’t rallied around a single option.

Other polling and commentary reinforce the same theme. CNN’s data team has also highlighted how unusual it is to see an open primary with no dominant figure at this stage. In past cycles, such as 2000, 2008, and 2016, big names like Al Gore and Hillary Clinton had built clearer leads by this point. This time, name recognition and money may not translate into early momentum.

Enten’s On-Air Take: “Total Mess”

On “CNN News Central” with host John Berman, Enten walked through the numbers and used sharp language to describe what he saw. “Yeah, they’re all running and this is just a downright clown car at this point on the Democratic side,” he said, pointing to how tightly packed the field is.

He also stressed how rare it is for no one to top 25% two years out. While Newsom held a small edge, Enten argued that Newsom also carries a “flailing” image, tied to California’s struggles with homelessness and high taxes. He added that Harris has “baggage” from her time as vice president, while Buttigieg and AOC signal very different paths for the party that could keep the base split.

Enten summed it up with another jab: “This is just a total clown car. It is a total mess. There is no clear frontrunner at this particular point on the Democratic side. Who the heck knows who the nominee is going to be in two years?”

The moment moved fast online. Clips spread on X (formerly Twitter), where both critics and supporters of the party debated what it said about Democratic strength. A post from a conservative account picked up traction, using the segment to mock Democratic disarray.

Panel Response: Jokes, Then Real Worry

The panel’s reaction mixed laughter with concern. Berman chuckled at the “clown car” line, then pushed the group to look at what the numbers might mean. Other guests offered different reads on the same data.

One panelist sounded upbeat, arguing that a wide-open field can boost interest and turnout. They framed it as normal competition that could pull in different groups of voters. Another guest saw danger ahead, warning that a long, bitter primary could drain money and time, while also turning off independents.

Soon, the conversation shifted to the party’s internal split. Moderates defended figures like Newsom and Buttigieg as safer bets in swing areas. Progressives pointed to AOC’s strength with younger voters and many voters of color. Even when the room laughed, the tension underneath was hard to miss.

Progressive vs. Moderate Split, and Why It Feels Bigger Now

Democrats have dealt with factions for decades, but the current divide looks sharper. Progressives want bigger moves on climate, health care, and wealth gaps. Moderates prefer smaller steps, arguing that bold messaging can backfire in close races.

Several pressure points keep coming up:

• Policy fights: Progressives push for major programs like Medicare for All, while moderates tend to support narrower changes.
• Electability arguments: Supporters of Buttigieg and other centrists say they can win swing voters. Critics say that the approach can fall flat with the base.
• 2026 primary battles: Progressive challengers are stepping into key races, which puts party splits on display. For example, Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s bid in Texas has drawn GOP attention, with Republicans claiming Democrats are “in shambles.”

Gallup has also tracked movement in Democratic attitudes. One recent Gallup poll found 45% of Democrats want the party to become more moderate, up from 34% in 2021. That shift shows the tug-of-war inside the coalition. If leaders can’t calm it down, the party could lose ground in 2026 and enter 2028 even weaker.

In a podcast episode titled “Can Liberals, Progressives & Moderates Unite to Beat Republicans in November , and 2028?”, guests discussed how fragile the coalition feels. Many agreed that costs and affordability unite Democrats, yet they disagree on the fix. Sen. Bernie Sanders, for instance, has argued for a class-first message focused on jobs, wages, and everyday costs, rather than culture fights.

Rising Names: AOC and Zohran Mamdani Point to a Shift

The growing profile of younger progressives like AOC and Zohran Mamdani signals a possible change in who drives the party’s future. AOC, now 38, has grown from a 2018 upset winner into a major national figure, boosted by strong media skills and a clear message on economics and climate.

Mamdani, a 34-year-old New York State Assembly member and democratic socialist, represents the next wave. First elected in 2020, he has backed policies like rent control, police reform, and Palestinian rights, and he has often challenged establishment Democrats. His rise also highlights the expanding influence of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in some areas.

Together, they represent a bigger progressive push:

• Stronger pull with younger voters: They focus on issues such as student debt relief and environmental justice.
• More direct attacks on party power: Mamdani’s critiques of corporate influence echo themes AOC has used for years.
• More presence in the national talk: Their inclusion in polls shows progressives aren’t on the sidelines.

Still, critics argue this trend could push away swing voters. After the 2024 losses, some Democrats blamed progressive positions on topics like immigration and crime. Supporters answer that progressive candidates keep winning in many blue districts, and they see that as proof that the message works where turnout matters.

A Familiar Story, Even if the Stakes Feel New

Today’s clash fits a long pattern. Democrats have housed competing groups since the New Deal, with shifting alliances between liberals, moderates, and conservatives. The civil rights era broke the party’s old Southern power base, and later decades elevated more centrist leaders such as Bill Clinton.

More recently, the Obama years ended with a party split between Clinton-style pragmatism and Sanders-style populism. Democrats united behind Joe Biden in 2020, but that unity didn’t erase the underlying strain. After 2024, the arguments returned louder, and the lack of an incumbent for 2028 makes the power struggle even clearer.

A FiveThirtyEight analysis has noted that House Democrats now include roughly similar numbers of moderates and progressives. That balance could swing either way, depending on the next few elections. History also offers cautionary tales. For some Democrats, the 1972 McGovern campaign still stands as a warning about moving too far left and paying for it later.

What a Wide-Open Field Means for Party Leadership

A messy primary creates real risks. Without a clear leader, donors and endorsements can scatter. That can stretch the race out and leave the eventual nominee bruised. Party leaders, including DNC Chair Jaime Harrison, could face pressure to keep the contest from turning into a damaging brawl. Some also talk about changes like superdelegate rules or stronger party platforms, although those debates come with their own baggage.

At the same time, an open contest can help the party. A stronger nominee can emerge after real testing. Some Democrats see figures like Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro or Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly as possible unifiers. Progressives, on the other hand, argue Democrats need bolder economic plans to compete with Trump’s populist appeal, including an “abundance agenda” tied to housing and energy.

Some analysts, including voices at the American Enterprise Institute, warn the internal split could hurt Democrats in 2028 if it stays unresolved. One strategist summed up the moderate case this way: being moderate means taking popular positions and breaking with party habits when needed.

What Comes Next for Democrats

With the 2026 midterms approaching, Democrats need a clearer message and fewer internal fights. They also need to rebuild support with working-class voters, especially on costs, wages, and housing. The rise of AOC and Mamdani hints at a stronger leftward pull, while moderates keep warning that swing voters decide national elections.

Enten’s “clown car” line may stick because it captures the mood. Democrats face a hard reality: they can’t afford years of public infighting while Trump’s coalition stays energized. A truce, even a fragile one, may be the price of staying competitive.

Related News:

CNN’s Abby Phillip Ignites Outrage for Comparing Medals for Vets to a Game Show

CNN senior data analyst and chief data reporter Harry Enten is spotlighting a clear demographic shift: the fastest-growing states so far this decade are the ones Donald Trump carried in the 2024 presidential election.

Using fresh U.S. Census Bureau population estimates, Enten described it as a “red state boom” alongside a “blue state slump.” In his view, this wave of internal migration could bring major political effects that last well beyond one election cycle.

Enten walked through the numbers on CNN Newsroom in early February 2026. He focused on mid-decade changes, comparing the 2020 Census baseline with mid-2025 estimates. His main point was simple: the states posting the biggest gains, both by percent and by raw numbers, largely sit in Trump’s 2024 column.

He highlighted five standouts since 2020: Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona.

Top Growth States: All Trump-Won in 2024

Based on Census Bureau Vintage 2025 data and Enten’s review:

• Texas and Florida lead the country in overall population gains, adding a large share of the national increase.
• North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona also show strong growth, including solid percentage jumps.
• Beyond those, other red-leaning states such as South Carolina, Idaho, and Utah have posted high growth rates in 2024 and 2025.

As Enten put it, the biggest population growth this decade has come from five states, and all five backed Trump in 2024. He also stressed that the gains are not only about births or international arrivals. A big driver is domestic migration, with Americans relocating from one state to another.

The Other Side of the Trend: “Blue State Slump” and Out-Migration

On the other hand, Enten contrasted those gains with slower growth, or even losses, in several long-time Democratic strongholds. He described a “blue state slump,” pointing to places where more residents leave than arrive.

Among the states he flagged for net domestic out-migration:

• California, Vice President Kamala Harris’s home state, has posted the largest net loss, with hundreds of thousands leaving each year.
• New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Massachusetts also rank among the biggest domestic migration losers.

In Enten’s summary, Americans are “voting with their feet.” He linked the movement to common quality-of-life and cost concerns, including lower taxes, cheaper housing, fewer business hurdles, and warmer weather, factors many people associate with Republican-led states.

While this pattern has existed for years, he suggested it picked up speed after 2020. Remote work made moving easier, pandemic-era shifts changed where people wanted to live, and rising costs in major coastal metros pushed more families to look elsewhere. Policy differences also play a role for some movers, including views on crime, schools, and regulation.

What’s Pushing People Out of Blue States

People and analysts often point to a mix of pressures behind the move away from some blue states:

• High living costs: Home prices and taxes in places like California and New York can put ownership out of reach.
• Policy frustrations: Some residents cite concerns about public safety, school performance, and heavy regulation in large cities.
• Lifestyle changes: Many want more space, less density, and fewer day-to-day restrictions.
• Job opportunities: States such as Texas and Florida continue to attract workers in fields like tech, energy, finance, and manufacturing.

At the same time, red states offer clear pull factors. For example, Florida and Texas have no state income tax. Many of these states also promote business growth and market themselves as easier places to build a life, whether you’re raising a family or planning retirement.

Political Stakes: Reapportionment and the Electoral College

Enten warned that if these trends hold through the 2030 Census, the impact could show up in congressional seats and presidential elections. House seats shift after each census, based on population. Because the Electoral College ties to House seats (plus two senators per state), changes in representation can change the math for winning the White House.

Analysts reviewing Census trends have suggested:

• Red states could pick up 8 to 13 House seats after the 2030 reapportionment.
• Blue states, especially California, New York, and Illinois, could lose a similar number.
• As a result, Electoral College votes could move more toward the South and West, which would often help Republican-leaning states.

Enten called the pattern a warning sign for Democrats and good news for Republicans. He also noted that familiar Democratic paths, including relying on the “blue wall” states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, could get harder if population-weighted advantages shrink elsewhere.

In one simulation based on mid-2025 estimates, Enten said Trump would have had more electoral votes in a hypothetical 2024 rerun, which could reduce the need for razor-thin swing-state wins.

A Bigger Picture: Migration, Polarization, and Power

These population shifts also reflect a deeper split in where Americans choose to live. When people move, they bring their values, habits, and political views with them. Over time, that can change states in both directions. Some observers point to new arrivals in places like Texas and Florida as a reason those states could become more competitive.

Still, Enten focused on the near-term imbalance. Growing states gain more political weight. Shrinking states lose it.

In other words, this “red state boom” and “blue state slump” show how choices about housing, jobs, and lifestyle can change American politics almost as much as campaigns do. The 2030 Census will give the clearest answer. Until then, Enten’s takeaway is straightforward: demographics can redraw the map, even before a single vote is cast.

Related News:

Supreme Court Orders CNN to Respond in High-Stakes Defamation Case

WASHINGTON D.C.– U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) is again pushing the federal government to act on what he describes as secretive “dark money” networks. He says these groups help drive division, protests, and possible fraud across the United States.

During a recent Senate hearing, he led, Hawley pointed to operations he tied to billionaire-linked networks connected to George Soros and Neville Roy Singham. He urged the Department of Justice to open wide-ranging investigations and bring charges if the evidence supports it.

Hawley made the remarks during a Homeland Security subcommittee hearing that focused on fraud in state and federal programs, along with foreign influence inside the country. He described nonprofit groups and funding pipelines that he says operate with limited public visibility. In his view, those networks help finance what he called radical political activity on U.S. streets.

What Hawley Said in the Hearing

At the February 10, 2026, hearing, titled “Examining Fraud and Foreign Influence in State and Federal Programs,” Hawley pressed witnesses about large funding structures tied to nonprofit grants. He leaned on testimony from Seamus Bruner, vice president of the Government Accountability Institute, who tracks nonprofit money flows.

According to Hawley, researchers compiled a large database with “hundreds of thousands of rows” of grant information. He said the data includes funding connected to:

• the Soros network
• The Arabella funding network
• The Neville Roy Singham funding network
• other similar organizations

When Hawley asked about the size of these operations, Bruner pointed to what he called massive NGOs with billions available for organized activity. He described spending tied to coordinated protests and, in some cases, riot activity.

Hawley argued that the money often moves through multiple layers of groups. He claimed that structure can make it hard to track who pays for what. He also pointed to protests in Minnesota, saying reports show more than $60 million went to about 14 groups, including national and local organizations. He tied that to broader claims of state-level fraud involving hundreds of millions in public funds.

Hawley said he sees the same patterns again and again, with funding routed through similar channels and then appearing around protests and unrest. He also said prosecutions should follow where investigators find criminal conduct.

Near the end of the hearing, Hawley repeated his request to the Justice Department. He asked prosecutors to investigate the groups, map out the funding web, and pursue charges when possible. He said Americans should be able to trust that their government is not being shaped by hidden money.

The People and Networks Hawley Named

George Soros, a Hungarian-American billionaire and philanthropist, has long drawn criticism from conservative lawmakers and commentators. His Open Society Foundations and related organizations support progressive causes. Critics often point to the way 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) nonprofit structures can allow donors to remain anonymous. They argue this can hide major political spending behind legal nonprofit activity.

Neville Roy Singham, a U.S.-born tech entrepreneur who now lives in Shanghai, has also faced increased scrutiny. Reports have raised concerns about his alleged ties to Chinese Communist Party propaganda efforts. Those reports claim his money supports groups that promote left-wing causes in several countries, including organizations accused of repeating Beijing-aligned messaging. Hawley referenced Singham in the context of foreign influence and protest support inside the United States.

During the hearing, Hawley and witnesses suggested that some of these networks may overlap at times. They also described similar methods, such as sending money through intermediary groups to make the source harder to see.

Part of a Bigger Fight Over “Dark Money”

Hawley’s latest push follows earlier steps this month. In early February 2026, he sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi asking for investigations into left-leaning dark money groups tied to anti-ICE protests across the country. Organizers described those demonstrations as grassroots, but Hawley argued that large donors, routed through less transparent channels, helped fund them.

He also connected the issue to larger cases, which he says show deep problems in public spending oversight. That includes allegations of major fraud in Minnesota tied to taxpayer dollars and pandemic-related programs. He also raised broader concerns about foreign actors taking advantage of U.S. systems.

In Hawley’s framing, the problem goes beyond politics and into public safety and national security. He argued that taxpayers lose huge sums to fraud, while foreign-linked efforts can help stir conflict and disorder at home. He said federal authorities should focus on shutting down illegal funding pipelines and stopping foreign influence where it crosses legal lines.

How People Are Responding and What Could Happen Next

Reactions to Hawley’s statements have split along familiar lines. Supporters say he is calling attention to hidden funding and demanding accountability from powerful networks. Critics respond that he focuses on left-leaning donors while downplaying conservative dark money, and they add that much nonprofit political spending remains legal and protected under free speech rules.

As of this reporting, the Department of Justice has not publicly responded to Hawley’s specific requests involving networks tied to Soros or Singham. If federal investigators move forward, they would likely review a mix of issues. That could include tax compliance, foreign agent registration rules, and possible criminal violations tied to fraud or money laundering.

Meanwhile, Hawley’s subcommittee continues its oversight work, and he has suggested that more hearings are coming. He also pointed back to the database of grant records referenced at the hearing, signaling that additional research could lead to more claims about funding links and organizational relationships.

Why This Story Matters in US Politics

Dark money, meaning political spending tied to donors who are not publicly disclosed, has concerned lawmakers and voters on both sides for years. The debate intensified after the 2010 Citizens United decision. Since then, Democrats and Republicans have traded accusations about nonprofits being used to influence elections, policy, and public opinion while shielding donors from view.

Hawley’s campaign fits with a broader Republican message about elite power and foreign influence. By naming Soros and Singham, he is trying to put faces on a larger argument about secrecy in political funding. He also hopes that public pressure will push federal agencies toward stronger enforcement and more transparency.

Hawley closed his argument with a familiar point: Americans should be able to control their own government. Whether the DOJ acts on his renewed call remains unclear, but Hawley’s continued focus keeps dark money, protest funding, and foreign influence in the spotlight.

Trending News:

Supreme Court Orders CNN to Respond in High-Stakes Defamation Case