Politics

#Resistance Democrats are flopping in primaries

Published

1 month ago

August 20, 2026

During President Donald Trump’s first term, they were resistance stars. During his second term, they couldn’t survive primaries.

Alexander Vindman’s Senate primary loss in Florida on Tuesday is the latest stumble for Democrats who rose to prominence during the impeachment trials and accountability protests of Trump’s first term. Vindman, a former National Security Council aide who testified during the 2019 House impeachment inquiry, made standing up to Trump and other forms of corruption a centerpiece of his campaign.

His national profile helped haul in big money, but that wasn’t enough to stave off an upset loss to democratic socialist Angie Nixon, whose win showed the shifting politics of the Democratic base.

“Vindman is a hero, but memories fade and the focus of most folks is on the cost of living,” said longtime Democratic strategist David Axelrod. “She made those issues her focus.”

Democratic voters clearly want fighters who will stand up to the president and the GOP. But the string of losses for resistance candidates from the first Trump term illustrates a new era for the restive Democratic base, where vocal opposition to the president through official channels and public remonstrations no longer guarantees success.

The political graveyard of Trump-resistance-fighter campaigns is growing by the week.

Two of the 2021 House impeachment managers, Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) and Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), are among them: DeGette lost her reelection bid to a democratic socialist this summer, while Swalwell dropped out of the California gubernatorial primary after a string of sexual assault allegations. Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), the lead majority counsel in the first Trump impeachment inquiry, was ousted in his primary. Harry Dunn, a Capitol Police officer honored for his heroics on Jan. 6, 2021, lost a House bid in Maryland — his second unsuccessful run.

Other Democrats who built their profiles on Trump resistance flopped as well.

Tom Steyer, a prominent financier of the Trump resistance movement, failed to advance in the California gubernatorial primary. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), a member of the Oversight and Intelligence committees during the 2021 impeachment, fell short in his Senate bid. Reps. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) and Al Green (D-Texas), both of whom led impeachment pushes against Trump, were ousted by younger challengers. And George Conway, a longtime Trump critic and Lincoln Project co-founder, won just six percent of the vote in a House primary in New York City.

“‘#Resistance’ was a very Trump 1.0 mood, and now we are in a different moment of anger,” said Lanae Erickson, senior vice president at center-left think tank Third Way. “They’re mad about the war. They’re mad about costs. They’re mad about the establishment not having delivered anything for them.”

Not all the races were defined by Trump accountability politics. Swalwell dropped his bid after multiple sexual assault allegations, several incumbents lost to DSA challengers in closed primaries, and in Goldman’s case, the debate over Israel was a major factor.

A Democratic operative who worked on one of the resistance races, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said the throughline is that those candidates are “institutionalists” who argued the justice system was going to hold Trump accountable. But voters have lost faith in those institutions after he returned to office, and were sold by other candidates’ messaging that relied more on railing against those very systems.

“The prescription isn’t what they were looking for anymore,” the operative said.

If Democrats retake control of the House, they will have to confront their base’s appetite for holding Trump accountable. Republicans have long warned that Democrats will immediately move to impeach Trump should they regain a House majority in 2027, which Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) — the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee — has signaled openness to.

But some Democrats are more careful. “There are certain sections of people that definitely want Democrats to prioritize impeachment of the president. There are also other segments of people that want Democrats to prioritize bringing down the cost of living,” said Rep. Julie Johnson (D-Texas), who lost a runoff in a newly gerrymandered district. “You can’t just focus on one thing at the exclusion of the other.”

These electoral results, along with a growing list of Trump-endorsed candidates who have lost their primaries, suggest Americans are ready to move past Trump, argued Mike Madrid, who co-founded (and later disaffiliated with) the anti-Trump GOP group Lincoln Project.

“People are just tired of him, broadly. They don’t want to deal with him and the fights and the exhaustion and the never-Trump model, but also the sycophantic MAGA support model either,” Madrid said, pointing to the string of Trump-endorsed candidates who lost primaries on Tuesday, from Florida to Wyoming. “It’s Trump fatigue.’”

Some candidates are taking note — and adjusting accordingly.

David Jolly, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee in Florida and a former GOP House member, left the Republican Party in 2018 over disagreements with Trump. He was an independent after that and a regular BLN talking-head criticizing the president. He registered as a Democrat more than a year ago, before launching his bid for governor.

Despite Trump’s role in his political evolution, Jolly hasn’t made Trump central to his race for governor. “I’m not running the race about Trump. I rarely talk about him. But I am going to tie Byron to Trump’s economy,” Jolly told Blue Light News after winning the nomination on Tuesday night, referring to his Trump-endorsed opponent, GOP Rep. Byron Donalds.

Former Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.), who served on the House Jan. 6th Committee, is running for her old seat against Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-Va.). She said in a statement that she was “proud of the work I did in Congress to hold Donald Trump and his Administration accountable,” but quickly pivoted into an attack focused more on pocketbook issues.

Some of the candidates who lost primaries say their resistance bona fides did help — just not enough.

Dunn, the Capitol Police officer, earned the Presidential Citizens Medal from former President Joe Biden for his heroism on Jan. 6, 2021 and became well-known for his outspokenness about that day. He said that had little to do with his primary loss — although he acknowledged that Democratic voters’ top priority this cycle has shifted to affordability concerns.

“While name recognition got me to be a formidable challenger, it didn’t put me across the finish line,” said Dunn, who finished third in a crowded primary in Maryland’s 5th District. “I just think it’s too nuanced to just drill it down to ‘people just don’t care anymore.’” The Democratic nominee, Adrian Boafo, is “strongly about holding Donald Trump accountable,” Dunn added.

Goldman, similarly, lost to former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who often highlighted how he put his “body on the line” to push back against the administration’s immigration policies.

Steyer, the billionaire who ran for California governor, lost to Xavier Becerra — who campaigned hard on his court fights with the Trump administration as California’s attorney general, but also leaned into unrelated sections of his resume like his time as Biden’s health secretary.

Months before entering the race, Steyer reminded voters of the Need to Impeach campaign he once funded in an ad supporting last year’s Democratic gerrymander in California. But those credentials — which he later stressed on the campaign trail — were too dated and too intangible to push him over the top, according to his former campaign spokesperson Kevin Liao.

“Tom Steyer led an impeachment movement almost 10 years ago now, and I think it’s hard to expect the electorate to hold that long of a memory on anything that happened almost a decade ago,” he said.

Adam Wren, Kimberly Leonard, Riley Rogerson, Blake Jones and Madison Fernandez contributed reporting.

Politics

Farm-state Republicans are having a cow over Trump’s beef imports as Election Day approaches

Published

1 day ago

September 19, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Farm-state Republicans don’t support President Donald Trump’s move to import cheap beef — but they’re still getting grilled for it.

Trump’s plan to combat sky-high beef prices by introducing discounted, tariff-free foreign beef has been widely condemned by ag-state Republicans who are concerned it will undercut the domestic beef industry and hurt ranchers, a normally reliable constituency.

And their opponents see an opening to paint Republicans as unconcerned about voters’ pocketbook concerns.

“Our ranchers and our farmers keep getting kicked in the teeth, and we have politicians that keep telling us that everything’s great, that we’re the hottest country,” Dan Osborn, an independent running for Senate in Nebraska, said in an interview. “And to be quite frank, I’m pretty pissed off about it.”

Osborn’s state is one of the top four top cattle-producing states — along with Texas, Kansas and Iowa — all of which have more-competitive-than-expected Senate races this cycle. And Trump’s controversial plan to remove tariffs from 300,000 metric tons of imported beef, sold at 25 percent below current market prices, is doing Republicans no favors.

Osborn’s campaign went on air with a pun-filled ad this week in which he says the import plan is “selling out American farmers and ranchers,” and blasts Congress for being “too chicken to stand up to the corporations who bought them off.” The campaign says it plans to spend at least six figures airing the spot. It’s the first major spending from a campaign focused on the beef import plan. But it plays into a larger economic argument Democrats are pushing to break through with farmers and ranchers: Trump and Republicans have turned their backs on rural America, as a worsening farm crisis and spiking fuel and fertilizer prices pinch agricultural communities.

“It’s part of a wider frustration,” said an adviser to one of the farm-state GOP senators, granted anonymity to speak openly. “I don’t think it sways anyone’s vote, but it isn’t a great look. … It isn’t fun for me to read the headline. It’s frustrating.”

Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.), Osborn’s opponent, said in a statement he has a record of standing for his state’s agriculture community, “no matter who is president — from fighting Biden’s 30×30 plan to opposing this beef import plan.”

“Ranchers know the difference between a senator who delivers and a candidate reading a script his socialist ad agency wrote,” Ricketts said.

Farm-state Democrats and independents believe beef imports provide a window to speak to rural voters who have skewed red for decades but suddenly look more competitive amid Trump’s plunging political standing. A strategist working on Osborn’s campaign, granted anonymity to discuss strategy, said Osborn’s ad “codes as non-partisan in a way that running ads about taxes or healthcare doesn’t.”

Trump’s overall unpopularity is hurting Republicans across the map, but this policy could be especially problematic in a quartet of once-sleeper Senate races that could hand Democrats control of the upper chamber.

Spokespeople for the GOP nominees in Iowa and Kansas declined to discuss the issue, pointing to their candidates’ statements in August, when Trump’s plan was announced: Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-Iowa) called Trump’s plan a “bad idea,” while Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) said the priority should be growing the U.S. cattle herd, “not flooding the market with imports.”

Last week, during a debate at the Kansas State Fair, Democratic nominee Adam Hamilton slammed the import plan as “a slap in the face of all of our cattle ranchers,” earning a raucous response from fair-goers, and hit Marshall for “tepidly respond[ing] to it as opposed to shouting like hell that this is not okay.”

In Iowa’s agriculture-heavy first district, Democrats have been on the air since June with an ad hammering Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks for record-high beef prices” and other cost-of-living increases under the Trump administration. The Republicans who were already getting hammered for high prices before now are now hobbled by a proposed remedy — one that has infuriated their own base.

When asked how Republicans should message the beef plan back home, Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, acknowledged there’s “certainly a lot of concern amongst our cattle producers.”

“I think they understand what’s going on. They’re just not pleased with it,” Boozman said. “We’re in contact with the administration, a lot of members are in contact, helping them understand the unintended consequences of it. We’d like to lower prices, but again, we don’t want the unintended consequence of lowering cattle futures significantly.”

That leaves ranchers worried that the import plan will undercut their struggling industry.

“President Trump wants to lower the price of beef, I think that’s where it’s coming from,” said Ben Menges, a cattle rancher in Arizona’s battleground 6th District. “The best way that President Trump can do that is by lowering the cost of fuel, not by importing a bunch of beef.”

Some Republicans have looked to turn the conversation into a culture war issue — hitting their opponents for past stances on meat consumption or veganism.

Vice President JD Vance, during a visit to Iowa Friday — which Hinson did not attend — slammed Hamilton, the pastor-turned-Democratic nominee for Senate in Kansas, for having a “kind of a ‘gee whiz, I’m a nice pastor’ vibe” who tells his congregation to “repent for their white privilege while eating beef.”

It’s an attack Marshall made at last week’s debate, hitting Hamilton for a sermon he delivered on climate change and the impact of meat consumption.

“I think the senator needs to repent for not standing up for the beef industry,” responded Hamilton.

Politics

The Blue Light News Poll Electability Experiment

Published

1 day ago

September 19, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Respondents presented with 2 choices of candidates with various traits. Results represent the estimated impact of each trait on likelihood of selection.

Politics

‘States should have a say’: Candidates for governor race to take on AI regulation

Published

1 day ago

September 19, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Gubernatorial candidates across the country are racing to stake out positions on AI as the battle over regulating the technology intensifies.

They’re watching as sitting governors of both parties turn the rapidly evolving technology into a political priority, from Gavin Newsom in California to Ron DeSantis in Florida and Kathy Hochul in New York.

Now they’re starting to join the chorus, calling for more state-based action to put guardrails on AI — even if they don’t know what that would look like yet.

Blue Light News reached out to more than 18 Republican and Democratic gubernatorial candidates on their plans and received responses from eight. Nearly all said they want states to take the lead on AI, signaling a frustration with Washington’s inaction and acknowledgement that — if they eventually secure the governor’s mansion — they can’t dismiss the growing warnings.

Candidates said they were motivated by different concerns including fraud, job displacement and children’s safety. Their lack of detail on just how to address AI also reveals a tricky pivot these gubernatorial candidates are facing: To date, much of their campaign messaging on AI or the technology race with China has focused on data centers’ impact on energy prices.

Now, with less than six weeks until Election Day, they’re attempting to talk about AI in a more existential — and more far-reaching — manner.

“The federal government has failed to lead on this issue, and we cannot trust the billionaires profiting off of AI to self-regulate,” said Gina Hinojosa, Texas’ Democratic nominee for governor, in a statement. “State government has the most direct impact on our day-to-day lives, and at a time when Texans are more uncertain and concerned about AI than ever, it’s critical that we put the needs of Texans before corporate profits.” (GOP Gov. Greg Abbott, Hinojosa’s opponent, did not respond to a list of questions.)

Former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, a Democrat who’s heavily favored to succeed Newsom in California, is in conversations with tech industry leaders and economists on the path forward. He will “work to set firm guardrails to prevent the threat of real harms to workers, to children, to our privacy rights, to public safety,” spokesperson Jonathan Underland said in a statement. “California is the birthplace of modern AI, and California will lead the way in making it safe.”

Becerra’s longshot Republican opponent, Steve Hilton, told Blue Light News that there’s a place for narrow regulation on AI — even though he thinks some of the warnings are overblown and “preposterous.”

“California should lead on this because we are leading on the technology, and therefore we should lead on the regulation,” Hilton said. “I would prefer to see both the Congress and politicians in other states back off and stop talking about something they don’t understand.”

Recent warnings from top AI leaders about the technology’s potential apocalyptic trajectory roiled Democrats and Republicans both in Washington and on the campaign trail. According to a new POLITICO Poll, a majority of voters now think that AI poses an existential threat to humanity and a plurality want to see a pause in development of advanced models.

“There is a lot of education that’s needed here, and people are navigating an issue that they weren’t even really thinking about six months ago beyond the beyond ‘Should we have data centers’?” said Alyssa Cass, a Democratic strategist who has worked with Alex Bores, a New York state lawmaker who gained national attention in his failed campaign for Congress for opposition to unchecked AI.

“They’re talking about it,” she added. “That’s a meaningful difference.”

The National Governors Association, which convened a working group on AI’s impact on the workforce earlier this year, plans to release a policy roadmap for governors in November on how states can take action.

“We have 39 gubernatorial elections happening in November, and at least 21 new governors will be sworn in in January,” said Sophia Yager, the NGA’s policy director for workforce development and economic policy. “So we wanted to have a resource available not only for incumbent governors who are thinking and working on this issue, but for all of the new governors coming in, wanting to have something available for them from the jump in November.”

So far, Democrats have taken the sharpest aim at the Republican-controlled federal government for its inaction on establishing safeguards against AI.

“While regulation is strongest and most effective at the federal level, President [Donald] Trump dismisses the need for even the most basic guardrails, and we know it can take time for Congress to act,” said Federico Araujo, a spokesperson for Oregon’s Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek, who’s locked in a tightening battle for reelection. “States, in the meantime, must act with more urgency and do everything possible to manage how AI impacts our economies, energy prices and natural resources.”

David Crowley, the Democratic nominee in Wisconsin, told Blue Light News in a statement that AI safety is “an issue Wisconsin can address” but “we need strong leadership and partners in Washington who are looking out for us at home.” Still, he didn’t offer specifics, and much of his battle with GOP nominee Tom Tiffany — and even the Democratic primary — has been focused on data centers’ proliferation in Wisconsin.

Tiffany did not respond to a request for comment.

The calls for action on state-based regulation have not been limited to Democrats alone. Republicans — including some Trump allies — signaled a willingness to create safe buffers for the technology at the state level, following the lead of governors like DeSantis and Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, who have long advocated for states’ abilities to install guardrails amid federal inaction.

“States should have a say in how AI is regulated,” said Dan Capodilupo, spokesperson for Iowa GOP gubernatorial nominee Zach Lahn. “Zach is committed to protecting states rights.” State Auditor Rob Sand, his Democratic opponent, did not respond to a request for comment.

In Georgia, Garrison Douglas, a spokesperson for GOP nominee Rick Jackson, stopped short of calling for local regulations but said that the health care executive “supports efforts to ensure that new models are tested for risks and that safety standards are established. He added that Jackson is “committed” to working with the state legislature on protecting consumers from AI-driven scams.

Georgia’s Democratic nominee Keisha Lance Bottoms did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump has labeled concerns about AI’s existential threat a “HOAX” and derided efforts to regulate the technology, and his White House has pushed preemption of state-level regulation. In February, the White House urged Utah legislators to abandon an AI transparency bill; the administration has similarly gone after state-level legislation in Colorado and in California.

A POLITICO review of state-level legislation found 18 laws in 13 states, led by both Republicans and Democrats, that contradict the White House’s preemption framework.

These candidates’ calls for state-based action mirror some early actions that both red and blue state executives are taking from their statehouse perches, explicitly defying Trump’s hands-off approach to regulating the nascent but powerful industry.

This week, Cox urged Washington to “establish a consistent national framework for the development of frontier AI,” and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, in a speech at an AI-focused conference in Pittsburgh, called for the “federal government to step up and regulate the AI industry just like they do for nearly every other industry that significantly impacts our lives.”

Shapiro — who’s up for reelection in the battleground state this year and is considered a 2028 presidential contender — outlined what he sees as the stakes of slow-walking protective measures.

“By the time Congress comes back into session after the election, we could be dealing with a whole new generation of generative AI, and more scary examples of AI agents going rogue,” he said.

Lisa Kashinsky contributed to this report.