The New York Post’s editorial board this week offered a sharply critical assessment of the Democratic Party’s recent strategy surrounding the now-historic government shutdown, which has stretched beyond the forty-day mark. According to the Post, Democrats entered the standoff without a coherent policy objective and ultimately failed to extract any concessions from the Republican majority. Instead, the editorial argues, the shutdown became a symbol of internal party dysfunction and the growing power of the activist left. “Democrats pointlessly kept the government shut down for 41 days (and still counting!), purely to satisfy their squalling left flank’s need to do something to ‘resist’ President Donald Trump,” the piece began, framing the entire saga as a theatrical display rather than a calculated effort to advance policy. The editorial insisted that rank-and-file Democrats now feel dispirited and frustrated, having watched their elected leaders embrace a tactic that brought political costs without meaningful gains. This sense of futility, the Post suggested, is rooted not only in the failure of the shutdown itself but also in the broader reality that Democrats, having lost the previous election cycle, hold little leverage in Washington—an inconvenient truth many activists refuse to accept.

The editorial further argued that Democrats attempted to retrofit a policy justification onto the shutdown only after public pressure mounted and internal polling signaled a decline in voter patience. Party leaders claimed the standoff was an effort to force Republicans to extend certain Covid-era Affordable Care Act subsidies that were nearing expiration. But as the Post pointed out, Democrats themselves set those expiration dates back in 2021, making the argument appear more like a post-hoc rationalization than a genuine strategic objective. The paper portrayed this pivot as evidence that the Democratic leadership is torn between appeasing a restive base and presenting a coherent governing philosophy to the broader electorate. According to the editorial, the true animating force behind the shutdown was anger among grassroots activists and major donors, many of whom feel increasingly powerless in the face of Republican majorities and Trump’s continued political resilience. These groups, the Post argued, demanded a dramatic gesture—any gesture—that could signal resistance, even if it risked harming the country or obstructing policies that might benefit Americans across the political spectrum. The piece claimed that, for many on the left, the rhetoric of “saving democracy” has long been less about respecting electoral outcomes and more about halting Trump and the GOP at any cost.

This internal discontent has not been limited to outside activists. The editorial noted a rising wave of dissatisfaction within the Democratic caucus itself, particularly among the most progressive lawmakers in the House, many of whom have openly blamed Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for the party’s strategic missteps. Some critics have gone so far as to question whether Schumer should remain in leadership at all. “Sen. Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced,” declared Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), capturing the tone of frustration that has been building for months. The Post connected this dissent to long-standing rumors that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been considering a primary challenge against Schumer, a prospect that has left Democratic leadership increasingly sensitive to demands from the party’s left flank. The editorial implied that Schumer’s willingness to back the prolonged shutdown may have been a political calculation aimed at avoiding a direct confrontation with Ocasio-Cortez and her allies—a calculation that, paradoxically, may have further undermined his standing among both moderates and progressives.

Recent reporting from CNN appears to validate the Post’s suggestion that Schumer is in a politically precarious position. On Tuesday, CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten presented polling data showing that Schumer’s approval rating has fallen to the lowest level recorded for any Democratic Senate leader since at least 1985. Drawing from surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center and FiveThirtyEight, Enten revealed that Schumer’s net approval among Democrats currently sits at minus four—a striking number for a party leader in an era of intense partisan loyalty. Enten explained that this erosion of support stems primarily from a perception among Democratic voters that their congressional leaders have not been aggressive enough in confronting President Trump. While Democratic voters in 2017 were divided on whether Congress was doing too little to oppose the president—only 46 percent felt insufficient resistance—recent polling shows that number has surged to 69 percent. This dramatic twenty-three-point jump suggests a deeply rooted demand for combative leadership, and Enten argued that Schumer has become the symbol of what many progressives view as institutional timidity.

Enten also emphasized that Schumer’s declining popularity is not confined to national sentiment; his standing in his home state of New York has diminished sharply as well. Recent polling from Siena College shows a notable drop in his approval rating among New York voters, including among registered Democrats. This erosion of statewide support has fueled speculation about Schumer’s vulnerability in a future primary, particularly if Ocasio-Cortez were to enter the race. Enten noted that early data indicates Ocasio-Cortez would enjoy a significant advantage, citing her strong name recognition, enthusiastic grassroots following, and growing influence within the party’s national messaging apparatus. “Look at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez running way ahead. If she decides to challenge Chuck Schumer come 2028, she’s got a real leg up on the competition,” Enten said. “I dare say, at this point, she would be the favorite to beat him.” Such an assessment underscores a profound shift in Democratic Party politics, where long-established institutional leaders now face credible threats from insurgent progressives who command national attention and online fundraising power.

Taken together, the Post’s editorial and the independent polling cited by CNN paint a portrait of a party struggling with internal fractures at a moment of heightened national stakes. The shutdown, which the Post characterized as a misguided attempt to satisfy the activist left, has instead magnified doubts about Democratic strategy, messaging, and leadership. For party members already disheartened by recent electoral losses, the spectacle of a prolonged and ultimately fruitless shutdown has deepened concerns about the Democrats’ ability to govern effectively. At the same time, the growing dissatisfaction with Schumer among both voters and fellow lawmakers suggests that the party may be approaching an inflection point. The tension between establishment pragmatists and insurgent progressives—long simmering beneath the surface—has become impossible to ignore. Whether Democrats can reconcile these competing visions for the party’s future, or whether the discord will continue to spill into public view, remains an open question. But what is clear is that the political fallout from the shutdown has left the party divided, its leadership weakened, and its internal debates more consequential than ever.