Politics

Many of Trump’s own voters didn’t want to attack Iran. Now he has to win them over.

Published

8 months ago

March 1, 2026

President Donald Trump’s overnight strikes are forcing a hypothetical debate into reality.

And a president with extraordinary control over his party’s base will test how far his supporters will follow him on an issue that polling showed divided his coalition.

Just half of 2024 Trump voters, 50 percent, supported military action in a Blue Light News poll last month — but 30 percent opposed it. Those fractures, combined with largely unified opposition from Democrats, meant Americans broadly did not want an attack on Iran.

In the January POLITICO poll, nearly half of Americans, 45 percent, said the United States should not take military action in Iran; fewer than one-third, 31 percent, said it should. An Economist/YouGov poll conducted last weekend similarly found broad public opposition to military action in Iran.

The stakes are particularly high for a Republican Party already staring down a difficult midterm landscape, where even small defections from their winning 2024 coalition could carry outsized consequences.

Part of the challenge for Trump is that support for military intervention in Iran was strongest among Trump’s base — and far weaker outside of it. A 61 percent majority of Trump voters who self-identified as “MAGA Republicans” said they support military action, according to The Blue Light News Poll conducted Jan. 16 to 19, when Trump was ramping up his rhetoric against Iran but an outright attack remained hypothetical. That’s much higher than the 42 percent of Trump voters who do not identify as “MAGA” who said the same.

That leaves Trump navigating an evolving issue where support within his coalition — at least before the strikes — was real but not overwhelming and where overall public opposition outweighed support.

Democrats were largely unified. Two-thirds of voters who backed former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 said the U.S. should not intervene in Iran, while just 18 percent said it should, the Blue Light News survey conducted by Public First found. The Economist/YouGov found 76 percent of Democrats opposed an attack. That Democratic unity is a warning sign for the GOP: It means that before the strikes, there were not enough pro-intervention Democrats to offset the anti-intervention Republicans.

Trump has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to reshape Republican public opinion, bringing his voters along on issues including trade and foreign policy. Whether that pattern holds here may depend on how the conflict unfolds.

“The political risk depends on the outcome,” Michigan-based Republican strategist Jason Roe told Blue Light News. “If we break Iran without terrorist attacks coming to America or harm coming to allies in the region, it will be a political win for Trump. … If this expands into a protracted conflict, or ends up with troops on the ground, it will be a liability.”

That dynamic underscores the broader tension inside the modern GOP — a party base deeply loyal to the president and largely unified around an “America First” prerogative, now being tested by his own foreign policy decisions.

The divide also illustrates the longtime debate within the Republican Party between the hawks favoring a more aggressive posture on the world stage and those skeptical of intervention.

Mercedes Schlapp, a senior fellow at the Conservative Political Action Conference, said the length and severity of conflict could determine how Trump’s MAGA base responds.

“I think that the MAGA base will make it very loud and clear to the President that they will not necessarily agree, if it becomes a situation that it becomes a prolonged war,” she said on C-SPAN’s Ceasefire earlier this week.

Polling was already showing early signs of skepticism about overseas entanglements, including among Republicans. A February POLITICO Poll found that 47 percent of Americans said the U.S. government is too focused on international issues and not focused enough on domestic ones, while roughly one-quarter said it is striking the right balance.

The question did not reference Trump directly. Even so, 41 percent of his 2024 voters said the U.S. government is too focused on international issues, including about half — 49 percent — of Trump voters who do not consider themselves MAGA Republicans.

Those non-MAGA Trump voters are especially important for the GOP heading into November, and the president’s ability to overcome their initial opposition could prove crucial to maintaining control of Congress. Otherwise, if they swing back to Democrats — or sit out the midterms — Trump’s base alone is not enough to carry his party to midterm successes.

Politics

Democrats eye state supreme court races — this year and beyond

Published

5 hours ago

November 1, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Liberal groups have spent millions in a handful of battleground state supreme court races ahead of Tuesday’s elections, looking to lay the groundwork for Democrats to win control of more courts ahead of a crucial redistricting cycle.

At the center of the fight are races for Republican-majority state supreme courts in North Carolina and Ohio, where this year’s results could set the stage for Democrats to flip the makeup of the benches in 2028. National groups are also spending to defend the liberal majority on Michigan’s court and on an open seat in Montana, where voters will also decide whether judicial elections remain nonpartisan.

The investments are yet another reflection of how state supreme court elections have become national political battlegrounds. The high court justices have become arbiters of major disputes, from abortion rights to election integrity and redistricting. Those who win in the coming cycles will likely preside over challenges to congressional and legislative maps that are drawn in a handful of states after the midterm election — and then nationwide after the 2030 census.

Nowhere are the contests more heated than in North Carolina.

Democrats’ defense of a seat currently held by Anita Earls is “step No. 2” to flip the North Carolina Supreme Court, said Anderson Clayton, the state’s Democratic Party chair. “In 2028, we’re looking at being able to take three Republican seats on that court.”

Democrats lost four seats on the state supreme court in the 2020 and 2022 elections, and the Republican majority cleared the way for a Republican-led gerrymandering in 2023.

Clayton said her group has spent more than $1 million on the state supreme court race. Earls has also drawn support from national Democrats like Pete Buttigieg and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore.

“If we had won a state Supreme Court race then in 2020 in our state, Hakeem Jeffries would be speaker of the House right now,” said Clayton, adding that her group is trying to build the foundation for congressional majorities “in 2032 and beyond.”

The ACLU is among the groups making long-term investments in state supreme court races. It has poured $8 million into state supreme court races in North Carolina, Michigan and Montana this year, in addition to Georgia and Wisconsin races earlier this year, said Deirdre Schifeling, the group’s chief political and advocacy officer, making it one of the top spenders in these contests.

The ACLU’s multi-cycle strategy to build “pro-civil rights, civil liberties majorities” is also targeting Arizona, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Ohio, Schifeling said. The group already set aside resources for supreme court races in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in 2027 and will begin fundraising for the 2028 races early next year.

More than $14 million has been spent on television ads in North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio and Montana, most of it benefiting Democratic and liberal-leaning candidates, according to estimates from the liberal-leaning Brennan Center for Justice. Most of the liberal candidates have also outraised their conservative competitors.

Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh, foreground center, and Justice Noah Hood, left, walk together during the Michigan Democratic Party State Endorsement Convention on April 19 in Detroit.

By contrast, the electoral headwinds have forced Republicans to defend statewide offices and state legislatures they currently control, leaving fewer resources for the judicial races.

Republican-aligned groups like the Republican State Leadership Committee — the party’s chief downballot campaign organization — have largely stayed on the sidelines this cycle after warning for months they were being swamped by Democrats. The organization’s judicial affiliate reported more than $5 million in expenditures across 2024 and 2025.

“Democrats understand what is at stake, and have dumped massive amounts of resources into these contests,” said RSLC President Edith Jorge-Tuñón in a statement. “The RSLC is fighting back with smart and targeted spending because the investments we make today will determine whether we are positioned to protect our majorities, compete in the next redistricting cycle, and secure Republican victories for years to come.”

The National Democratic Redistricting Committee — the party’s main redistricting-focused group — declined to discuss this year’s total spending in judicial races this year, but NDRC President John Bisognano said in a statement that “the upcoming 2026 and 2028 state supreme court elections are critical to the long-term fight to protect democracy.”

And those involved in supreme court fights said they believed spending will only increase down the road, particularly from major industry players.

“I think that the money flowing into those races from external interests tells the tale of what big money, big pharma, big data recognize about the next areas that they can seek to leverage and control to their benefit,” said Tish Gotell Faulks, the state courts director at the liberal Alliance for Justice Action. “Those interests are now turning to the state courts and seeking to capture those courts as well.”

Politics

Democratic Rep. Haley Stevens endorses Republican Mike Rogers for Michigan Senate

Published

8 hours ago

November 1, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democratic Rep. Haley Stevens endorsed Republican Mike Rogers in the Michigan Senate race on Sunday — a stunning break with her party that derails Democrats’ attempts to create a united front for Abdul El-Sayed.

Her endorsement comes just a few days after she said she was going to vote for El-Sayed.

The two former primary rivals have been locked in a public, escalating feud over El-Sayed’s and his allies’ criticism of Israel.

“Abdul said that I was no longer welcome in his campaign and that I should stay away. And he’s right,” Stevens said in a video posted to social media on Sunday after she appeared at a Detroit church alongside Rogers.

“And that’s why I am endorsing Mike Rogers for the United States Senate today,” she said. “I don’t belong in Abdul’s campaign.”