Politics

The state of the Democratic Party is … split

Published

8 months ago

February 25, 2026

Democratic leadership’s choice to have Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger deliver the State of the Union rebuttal was a strategic move to keep the party’s focus on affordability. But she was just one Democrat jockeying to pave the way forward for the party.

Various Democratic factions hosting numerous competing events Tuesday night diverged on the best way to challenge President Donald Trump. Throughout the speeches, universal calls to bring down costs and crack down on ICE mixed in with more forceful and sometimes vulgar rebukes of his administration — laying bare the ideological and stylistic divides that are driving the party’s identity crisis.

Spanberger — a one-time battleground House Democrat who joined Congress during the party’s last wave election — was the headliner, calling from Williamsburg, Virgina, for Trump to focus on the needs of American families while also condemning the president for doing “what he always does: he lied, he scapegoated, and he distracted.”

But she was far from alone, with a group of Democratic-aligned organizations holding their own State of the Union events in an effort to harness rising furor against Trump.

Dozens of lawmakers spoke across several counter-programming events, including a rally hosted by MoveOn and the left-leaning media outlet MeidasTouch on the National Mall, or at another in downtown D.C. hosted by the anti-Trump activist networks Defiance and the Portland Frog Brigade along with the Courier Newsroom.

On the Mall, Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) called to impeach Attorney General Pam Bondi over the Epstein files and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) accused Trump of “rigging” the midterms by pushing voting restrictions to “save his authoritarian control and turn the presidency into a kingship.” Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) called herself a “bareknuckled brawler with a heart” and declared “that’s what we need right now.”

The dueling rallies, both timed to overlap with Trump’s speech, were accompanied by a Working Families Party rebuttal also delivered by Lee.

Some party strategists said the events — which also hosted high-profile Democrats like Robert De Niro, Joy Reid and New York congressional candidate George Conway — splintered the party’s response in a high-profile moment.

“A uniform response is much better than a cacophony of responses,” said Matt Bennett, an executive with the center-left think tank Third Way. “One narrative is better than many, and Spanberger is very talented at articulating a message that resonates broadly.”

Dueling State of the Union responses are not a new phenomenon. While the party out of power typically greenlights an English- and Spanish-language rebuttal — Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) gave Democrats’ response in Spanish this year, vowing his party would lower costs, make voting more accessible and rein in ICE — different wings have long looked to get in on the action, from Tea Party Republicans during Barack Obama’s presidency to the progressive groups on Tuesday night.

But the lack of a unified response on Tuesday comes as the Democratic Party still searches — and fights over — the best way to beat Trump, even as party members agree overall that centering the Trump administration’s struggles to boost the economy gives them the best chance in November.

Democrats were already divided in their approach to Trump’s address to Congress. Dozens of members across both chambers skipped the speech to protest the president while others said they were attending out of constitutional duty — a schism that stretched all the way up through party leadership.

Despite calls from Democratic leadership to refrain from protests inside the House chamber, Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) was escorted out of the room minutes into Trump’s speech after brandishing a sign reading “Black people aren’t apes,” a likely reference to a racist video Trump reposted earlier in the month.

Progressive Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) also heckled Trump at multiple points during Trump’s speech, including in response to Trump touting his aggressive immigration enforcement.

At multiple moments during his speech, Trump appeared to relish opportunities to draw Democrats in attendance into heated exchanges.

“You people are crazy,” he said at one point, prompting some Democrats in the room to heckle him in return.

Spanberger’s aides were cognizant of the volume of competing Democratic rebuttals and built a “war room” team to boost the governor’s response on social media. And while her team insisted that she isn’t competing with other counter-programming events, her aides believed heading into Tuesday evening that Spanberger’s successful affordability-focused campaign last year gave her credibility on how to best respond to Trump.

Spanberger, whose campaign last year is viewed by some party strategists as a blueprint for Democrats to score victories in November, focused on her proposals to lower costs for Virginians, while also criticizing the president for aggressive immigration policies and blaming rising costs on Trump’s tariffs.

“Americans deserve to know that their leaders are focused on addressing the problems that keep them up at night, problems that dictate where you live, whether you can afford to start a business, or whether you have to skip a prescription in order to buy groceries,” she said in her live rebuttal. “Is the president working to make life more affordable for you and your family? We all know the answer is no.”

Several of the lawmakers who spoke at competing events echoed that affordability template, including some Democrats with possible presidential ambitions, like Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).

Gallego, who warned in his speech that Trump was making Americans “sicker and poorer,” told Blue Light News beforehand that “it’s fine that we have different people talking, provided the message is all the same: [that Democrats] are here to fight for everyday Americans.”

Some of those behind Democrats’ various response events Tuesday said they aimed to better capture the degree of frustration voters feel towards Trump.

“These are not the times for an institutionalist to say, ‘Well, let’s just give him his moment, and if you want to protest, protest by sitting there silently.’ That’s bullshit,” said Miles Taylor, a co-founder of Defiance and former Trump administration official-turned-Trump critic. “And I think that Hakeem Jeffries knows that his caucus feels like that doesn’t meet the moment, which is why so many of them are literally just not showing up.”

Taylor added that the plethora of Democratic responses also reflected the current political media environment, where both voters and candidates can easily find forums that align with their preferences.

Lee, who railed against Trump’s “authoritarianism” and cast his speech as an “obituary for the country working people built” in her Working Families Party rebuttal, said Democrats are at a “crossroads” and won’t win control of Congress “by electing more of the same” — which she cast as those who “speak boldly but deliver cautiously or sometimes even vote with MAGA.”

In an interview on Monday, Lee said it was critical for Democrats to promote a bigger tent after progressives scored major wins of their own in recent elections, from Zohran Mamdani being elected mayor of New York City to Analilia Mejia’s victory this month in the Democratic primary to replace moderate now-Gov. Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey.

Progressives “are always accepting of moderate places being represented well,” Lee said. But “it feels like there’s a wing of this party fighting back more against us trying to represent our own communities just as hard as somebody who is trying to represent their community in a swing district.”

Politics

Democrats eye state supreme court races — this year and beyond

Published

7 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

11 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.”