Connect with us

Politics

The 5 Democratic primary battles that’ll test the party’s future identity

Published

on

Gov. Janet Mills’ entrance into the Maine Senate primary on Tuesday reignited the familiar progressive-versus-establishment battle lines. A three-way clash in Michigan has exposed the ongoing divisions within the party over Israel-Gaza. And a wave of generational challenges to elderly House members have flared across the country.

Democratic primaries — already crowded, often messy and frequently retreading well-worn ideological fault lines within the party — are finally taking shape as top candidates jump in and filing deadlines approach.

Who wins these primary races will give early clues for how the party might emerge from the political wilderness in the wake of 2024 losses, as it looks to retake levers of power in Washington next fall. But they also present challenges for Democratic Party officials, often looking to control the primary process by pushing their preferred candidates and avoiding expensive intra-party clashes.

Mills, for example, was heavily recruited by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to enter the race, but she’ll now face well-funded primary opponent Graham Platner, an oyster farmer with the backing of Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

“The Democratic Party is undergoing a robust discussion with itself about how to win again. That means a lot of viewpoints, a lot of energy — and a lot of candidates,” said Ian Russell, a Democratic strategist who served as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s political director in 2016. “Candidates will have to prove whether their views, profiles and approach fit their districts or states. This process will be messy and unpredictable but is often unavoidable.”

Blue Light News compiled a list of the top Democratic primaries that will offer clues for how the party moves forward.

FILE - Democratic Gov. Janet Mills delivers her State of the State address, Tuesday, Jan. 30, 2024, at the State House in Augusta, Maine. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty, File)

Maine Senate primary

Hours after Mills joined the race, her campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee formed a joint fundraising committee, making it clear who Washington Democrats prefer and providing a resource boon.

But it’s not clear whether the two-time governor’s establishment connections will help her in the primary — a familiar challenge in Democratic primaries.

Platner, who is in his early 40s and backed by a constellation of younger, progressive organizations, has already raised $4 million for his bid — a large sum for a first-time candidate. Jordan Wood, a 36-year-old former congressional aide whose campaign said he’s raised $3 million, is also running. Dan Kleban, a co-founder of the Maine Beer Company, dropped out on Tuesday and endorsed Mills.

Platner previewed some of the attack lines against Mills in The New York Times, saying that “going with someone who is very much of the establishment, going with someone who is very much of the party that has built the world we live in now, I think that runs a massive risk.”

There are also generational themes underpinning the race, as Mills, who is 77, is the oldest candidate in the race and would be the oldest freshman senator should she win. She has said that she only planned to serve one term, should she be elected.

Michigan Democratic gubernatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed addresses supporters during a rally, Sunday, Aug. 5, 2018, in Detroit. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)

Michigan Senate primary

The United States’ role in Israel is poised to take center stage again in the Michigan Senate race, where a trio of candidates, all with differing stances on the issue, are competing to replace retiring Michigan Sen. Gary Peters in a crucial battleground.

Earlier this month, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow called the conflict in Gaza a genocide, joining Abdul El-Sayed, a former Michigan health official, who has taken an even firmer stance against Israel’s actions. McMorrow’s comments represent not only the Democratic Party’s evolving views on Israel, but also how candidates hope to use the issue to differentiate themselves within the primary.

In contrast, Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) is backed by AIPAC, the pro-Israel group. AIPAC’s super PAC already dropped millions to boost Stevens in 2022, when she beat then-Rep. Andy Levin in a member-on-member primary. Democrats in the state expect AIPAC to spend heavily on behalf of Stevens again, which could also test Democratic primary voters’ willingness to accept big money interventions.

The state, home to a significant Arab-American population, saw the rise of the “uncommitted” movement to pressure then-President Joe Biden to take a stronger stance against Israel last year amid the war.

Tennessee State Rep. Justin Pearson, D-Memphis talks during a speech at the

Tennessee’s 9th District primary

A handful of young, insurgent candidates have popped up across the country, challenging older, tenured House members, whom they have deemed generationally out-of-step in standing up to President Donald Trump.

Tennessee state Rep. Justin Pearson, the “Tennessee Three” member who announced his primary bid against 10-term Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) last week, best represents this dynamic. Pearson, who is 30, instantly picked up support from David Hogg’s group, Leaders We Deserve, which pledged to spend $1 million against the 76-year-old Cohen.

The complaints are often stylistic rather than ideological, which could shed new light on primary voters’ preferences ahead of the 2028 presidential primary.

FILE - U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif., takes questions from reporters after a televised debate for candidates in the senate race to succeed the late California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, on Monday, Jan. 22, 2024, in Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes, File)

California gubernatorial primary

Voters in the biggest blue state, in picking its next governor, will confront what matters more: A candidate focused on standing up to Trump or dealing with the state’s non-Trump-related problems.

But, so far, there is no clear frontrunner answering that question. Former Rep. Katie Porter, who lost a 2022 bid for Senate, held a slight polling advantage before a recent contentious interview went viral. But several other Democrats are vying for a spot: former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former state comptroller Betty Yee and state superintendent Tony Thurmond.

And other high-profile candidates may still enter the race. Los Angeles businessman and former mayoral candidate Rick Caruso is often name-checked, as is Sen. Alex Padilla. It’s not clear if either will ultimately make the jump.

Another dynamic for Democrats could come in the general election, should the Republican candidates, Riverside County sheriff Chad Bianco and Fox News personality Steve Hilton, get locked out. If it’s a Democrat-versus-Democrat in November 2026, voters can deliver an even more clear answer on what it means to be a California Democrat, particularly on issues around crime and housing.

U.S. Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., speaks at a town hall, Sunday, May 4, 2025, in Somers, N.Y. (AP Photo/Jessica Hill)

New York’s 17th District primary

This upstate New York district is one of only three House districts Kamala Harris won in 2024 that’s also held by a Republican, making it one of the most tantalizing pickup opportunities for Democrats in 2026. National Democrats are closely watching who might emerge from the unsurprisingly crowded primary, where eight candidates have jumped in to take on Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) — with party leaders betting that more moderate candidates would be enticing to swing district voters.

Cait Conley, a former National Security Council official, and Beth Davidson, a Rockland County legislator, were both mentioned by national Democrats as potential swing seat stars, should they emerge from the primary.

“In 2018 Democratic primaries set the stage to win the House, [and] moderates with records of service won the day,” said Dan Sena, who served as the DCCC’s executive director in 2018. “One of the big questions for 2026 will be if the Democrats can again replicate that strategy and success.”

Melanie Mason contributed reporting. 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Abigail Spanberger faces a national test with Virginia redistricting

Published

on

Virginia Democrats are putting pressure on Gov. Abigail Spanberger to get their redistricting campaign across the finish line as they grow increasingly worried about losing their April special election — and hurting their chances for flipping the House this November.

The aggressive effort to redraw the state’s congressional maps, if voters approve the referendum, could deliver Democrats a 10-to-1 seat advantage in Virginia, giving them four more seats than they would likely win under the current map. But despite Democrats’ having a fundraising advantage ten times that of the Republican side, the GOP is seeing strong early voting turnout.

With less than one month to go, nearly a dozen Democratic state lawmakers, strategists and candidates say Spanberger — Virginia’s popular Democratic governor who cruised to victory by double-digits last November — needs to step up more assertively to sell the referendum to voters. And they’re warning that she’ll bear the brunt of the blame if the effort fails.

It’s not that she’s doing nothing: Spanberger has endorsed the referendum and launched an ad supporting it this week, her first of the campaign, as Blue Light News first reported. But critics say it’s the bare minimum for an effort that is supposed to be a top Democratic priority as the party works to counter GOP-led states that are redrawing their own maps.

“We Democrats gotta stop bringing a spork to a knife fight. If the Democrats are putting all their stock in this, like, let’s bring our A game,” said Democrat Beth Macy, who is running for Congress in one of the five House districts currently held by the GOP. She added that it would be “helpful” for Spanberger “to be the spokesperson on redistricting because she did so well and won by so much” in 2025.

Prior to her inauguration, Spanberger, who campaigned as a moderate focused on affordability for Virginians, stopped short of fully embracing the drastic redistricting plan the Democratic-led legislature eventually approved. Once in office, she began towing the party line and signed legislation enabling the referendum to go before voters. But she hasn’t been nearly as outspoken on the issue as other leading Democrats in the state — or other Democratic governors who have pushed for gerrymanders in their states, like California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The stakes are high for Spanberger: A loss on redistricting could impact her rising star status on the national stage.

“How could she watch what Gavin Newsom just did and do the exact opposite?” asked a Democratic activist in Virginia who has worked closely with the pro-redistricting campaign and was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Out in the field, we really don’t know whether she is for or against this thing.”

Spanberger’s team argues she’s been fighting hard for the new map.

“There isn’t a Democrat in Virginia who has done more to encourage voters to support this referendum than Governor Spanberger,” Libby Wiet, a spokesperson for Spanberger, said in a statement. “She’s a particularly effective messenger because she’s meeting voters where many of them are — Virginians who supported the bipartisan commission in 2020 but understand that the ballgame changed when the President claimed he’s ‘entitled’ to more Republican seats in Congress, and states got to work to give them to him.”

Virginia is not nearly as deeply blue as California is, and many of the state’s Democrats view wooing voters to the polls in April, rather than November, as a gargantuan undertaking. Spanberger is also a brand-new governor with other legislative priorities she wants to spend her political juice on more than helping Democrats take control of the House. And the “yes” campaign is running the risk of turning off Virginians who in 2020 approved a constitutional amendment creating a bipartisan redistricting commission by a two-to-one margin.

Adding confusion to the Democrats’ push is the Virginia Supreme Court, which has reserved the right to potentially nullify the redistricting push after the April election.

Polling on the issue has not been a slam dunk for Democrats. Nearly two-thirds of Virginians support the current method of drawing Congressional districts, while slightly more than half said they would vote to keep the current process in place, according to a Roanoke College survey last month. A separate survey from January found a slight majority, 51 percent, supported the Democratic-backed push to redraw lines.

Spanberger’s defenders push back on the need for the governor to step in as a central figure of the “yes” campaign. It’s a collective effort, they argue, and is supported by towering Democrats in the state, including the lieutenant governor, attorney general and Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine and Mark Warner.

“There’s no one person that has to carry the weight alone,” said Kéren Charles Dongo, the campaign manager Virginia for Fair Elections, which has amassed more than $33 million in donations and is working to mobilize voters.

Virginia House Speaker Don Scott, one of the architects of the redistricting push, has vehemently rejected the comparisons of Spanberger to Newsom — and the need for her to hold more rallies or meet and greets around the state.

“She’s only been on a job freaking 70 days,” he said. “We’re gonna be fine. I feel very confident that we’re gonna win.”

The governor’s seven-figure ad buy this week featured her speaking directly to camera about her party’s “temporary” effort to redraw lines and slamming “Trump’s Redistricting War.” Dongo’s group has also been blanketing the airwaves and social media with ads, including one featuring former President Barack Obama telling Virginians they have a “chance to level the playing field” in the face of unchecked power in Washington. Those close to the campaign also note that more voting sites are opening up in Democratic strongholds in population-rich Northern Virginia, and they anticipate a surge in “yes” voters closer to Election Day.

Privately, some Democrats anticipate Spanberger will ramp up her involvement in the closing weeks of the campaign, after being tied up with reviewing the bills the Virginia legislature passed.

“I think it’s easier if there’s somebody who’s a central person,” said Sarah Pendergraph, chair of the Roanoke City Democratic Committee, who suggested a jolt from a prominent figure like Spanberger may spur more volunteers and voters into action.

Meanwhile, Virginia conservatives have been lambasting Spanberger on social media, essentially making her the face of their anti-redistricting campaign. They’ve slammed her for reversing her stance on redistricting and caving to pressure from state and national Democrats.

“Abigail Spanberger seems to be intent on trying to turn Virginia into California east, so she probably will welcome Gavin Newsom,” said Jason Miyares, the former GOP Virginia Attorney General who is serving as co-chair of Virginians for Fair Maps, which is working to defeat the ballot measure and has raised roughly $3 million.

A small group of cameras followed Spanberger as she cast her ballot last Friday and held an impromptu gaggle from the parking lot of the Richmond City Elections office, where the governor pushed back on Republican critiques that she’s a flip-flopper on the gerrymander issue.

“Had they spoken in opposition to [Trump’s] efforts, I would perhaps take their level of consternation with a bit more seriousness,” Spanberger said. “It wasn’t until their individual House seats seemed in doubt … that they decided to have any opposition to redistricting.”

That retort was insufficient for some Virginia Democrats, who were frustrated that Spanberger didn’t hit back even harder — or use the opportunity, on the heels of casting her “yes” ballot, to forcefully rebuke the misleading mailers Republican-aligned groups have circulated that suggest she is a “no” vote on redistricting.

“She is certainly not 1,000 percent on board,” said a Democratic official granted anonymity to speak candidly about how they view the governor’s involvement. The person suggested the Democratic-led “yes” campaign should work on luring other big-name surrogates to rev up excitement for the base, including Obama, Newsom, Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), to ensure the redistricting effort doesn’t fail.

“If it goes down,” the official said, “[Spanberger] is gonna own it [so she] might as well go out there.”

Continue Reading

Politics

No plan B: Trump is flailing to find an off-ramp for the Iran war

Published

on

This is an adapted excerpt from the March 24 episode of “All In with Chris Hayes.”

Donald Trump’s war on Iran is in its fourth week. Gas prices are up $1 a gallon in much of the country. Stocks continue to fall on fears of global supply shortages.

The death toll is growing. Thirteen American service members have lost their livesand more than 1,200 Iranians have been killed, along with upward of 1,000 people in Lebanonmore than 150 in the surrounding Gulf states and 17 Israelis. That’s not accounting for the millions who are displaced and the thousands who have been injured, including hundreds of U.S. troops.

But according to the president who launched the war, it’s all over.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Trump expected a fast and easy win.

“We’ve won this. This war has been won,” he told reporters Tuesday in the Oval Office. “The only one that likes to keep it going is the fake news.”

However, during those same remarks, Trump was all over the place — talking about an epic victory, ongoing peace negotiations and personal gifts.

It was all completely counter to his posture over the weekend, when he threatened to “obliterate” Iranian civilian power plants — essentially teasing a war crime — if Iran did not stop blocking oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuzsomething Iran was not doing before Trump attacked them.

But now, he has supposedly pressed pause on that bombing plan for five days because, he said, the negotiations are going well.

When he first announced that in a social media post Monday, it sent oil prices down 10% and boosted stocks.

However, those markets reversed themselves Tuesday after the Iranians said they have not engaged in any serious high-level negotiations with the Americans, and they claimed Trump was making things up to help oil prices. The Israelis said the same thing. (That’s not to say you should take Iran’s word for it, or Israel’s, but you shouldn’t take the White House’s word, either.)

It is becoming increasingly clear that Trump expected a fast and easy win. He had no plan B, and now he is flailing to find some kind of fallback position.

On Monday, sources from the administration told Politico that they have their eyes on a future U.S.-backed leader of Iran: Mohammad ⁠Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament.

“He’s a hot option,” one unnamed U.S. source — who seems to really wants a deal — told Blue Light News. “He’s one of the highest. … But we got to test them, and we can’t rush into it.”

But on Tuesday, that “hot option” trolled Trump for what he called a “jawboning campaign” to stabilize oil prices. In a social media postGhalibaf wrote: “[L]et’s see if they can turn that into ‘actual fuel’ at the pump — or maybe even print gas molecules!”

Call it the fog of Trumpian war: a million contradictory messages flying around, constantly wildly pinging bits of news that don’t make sense together.

Right now, we have reports that Trump’s negotiators, including his envoy Steve Witkoff and Vice President JD Vance, are traveling to Pakistan for informal talks with an Iranian official.

At the same time, unnamed U.S. officials have told The New York Times that the Saudi crown prince is pushing Trump to continue the war until Iran’s government collapses — something the Saudis publicly deny.

In fact, The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Saudi officials are holding talks in Riyadh with their Arab counterparts to find a diplomatic off-ramp from the war.

On Tuesday evening, U.S. officials said the Pentagon was poised to deploy 3,000 troops of the 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East. That is in addition to two Marine expeditionary units on their way to the region and the 50,000 U.S. troops already stationed there.

Also on Tuesday, Iranian-backed militias in Iraq are claiming that U.S. strikes there killed 30 of their members.

But, according to Trump, the peace talks are going great, right?

All eyes everywhere have been on the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran responded to the U.S. attack by striking oil tankers and shutting down 20% of the world’s supply of oil and liquefied natural gas. It is now essentially running a toll operation in the strait.

Some countries, such as China, Japan and India, are negotiating deals with Iran to get its oil out. Which is to say, Iran is shipping more oil and making more money than it was under the U.S. sanctions in place before Trump attacked it.

It’s clear the president sees what’s happening, so now he is trying to share control of the strait with Iran. Trump told reporters the strait would be “jointly controlled” by “maybe” him and “the next ayatollah.”

The administration really thought this was going to be another Venezuela. They told themselves that, and they were egged on to believe it by the staunchest advocates of the war, such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sen. Lindsey GrahamR-S.C.

But in Iran, a decapitation strike did not lead to mass uprisings. It did not lead to regime change. It led to the situation in which Iran’s regime is intact, even if militarily degraded, and they now have explicit control of the Strait of Hormuz — a huge pressure point.

It really looks like the U.S. is backed into a corner: It can sue for peace because of the oil tanker situation, but they do not have much leverage, or it can escalate the war. That may be why we’re seeing all these contradictory developments.

In Iran, a decapitation strike did not lead to mass uprisings. It did not lead to regime change. It led to the situation in which Iran’s regime is intact.

Trump issued an ultimatum he had to walk back from because he said there were deep peace negotiations, which then later proved to be completely fabricated.

Now, more U.S. troops are set to be deployed for a possible ground invasion in the Middle East, despite reports that the U.S. has supposedly sent a 15-point plan to Iran through Pakistan to end the war.

It almost looks as if Trump is trying to wave the peace card to keep a lid on oil futures and financial marketsjust long enough to have ground troops in position — and just in time for the markets to close for the weekend on Friday, when Trump’s “pause” on bombing Iranian power plants is set to end.

That could be the plan Trump now settles on, weeks into a deadly war where there was obviously, very clearly, no real plan at all.

Allison Detzel contributed.

Chris Hayes hosts “All In with Chris Hayes” at 8 p.m. ET Tuesday through Friday on MS NOW. He is the editor-at-large at The Nation. A former fellow at Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics, Hayes was a Bernard Schwartz Fellow at the New America Foundation. His latest book is “The Sirens’ Call: How Attention Became the World’s Most Endangered Resource” (Penguin Press).

Read More

Continue Reading

Politics

Arrington: Fraud cuts for war funding

Published

on

House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington is making clear he will push for the “fraud prevention” spending cuts he wants across state and social safety net programs in order to pay for any Iran war funding in a second GOP reconciliation bill. The Texas Republican is meeting soon this afternoon with Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in Graham’s office to discuss plans…
Read More

Continue Reading

Trending