All posts tagged "democrats"

Exclusive: Republicans get staggering boost from mystery donors as 'arms race' heats up

The main super PAC supporting Senate Republicans saw a “huge spike” in dark money contributions in 2025, a sign of the massive arsenal the GOP is building to protect its hold on Congress in November’s midterm elections, according to a new report from political reform group Issue One first reported by Raw Story.

As Democrats aim to capitalize on the growing unpopularity of President Donald Trump and his Republican party and regain control of Congress, the Republican-aligned Senate Leadership Fund skyrocketed dark money contributions by 581 percent in 2025 compared to 2023.

Michael Beckel, money in politics reform director at Issue One, said: “When you see an infusion of money like this, that usually means that these big money groups want to make sure that they have all of the resources they can muster to defend seats, to defend candidates, to defend their majority.”

At the same time, Senate Democrats saw a drop in dark money donations, Issue One said.

‘Arms race’

Dark money is money donated to political groups without disclosure of the source, as enabled by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a controversial Supreme Court decision from 2010.

According to Issue One's analysis of campaign finance reports, in 2025 the Republican-aligned Senate Leadership Fund super PAC brought in $35 million from its affiliated dark money group, One Nation, representing $1 out of every $3 raised.

In 2023, that number was $5.18 million, Beckel said.

Dark money graphic Four major super PACs increased 2025 dark money contributions by 65 percent, according to a new report. Graphic: Issue One)

This indicates “just a surge of dark money coming into the main super PAC supporting Senate Republicans at a time when, clearly, there's a lot of political winds blowing that say Democrats have a fighting chance to win the U.S. House of Representatives and maybe even pick up seats in the Senate,” Beckel said.

The four main super PACs focused on electing Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate raised a combined $71 million from dark money sources in 2025: up 65 percent on the same point in the 2022 and 2024 election cycles, Issue One said.

“Both sides see this as an arms race where they don't want to put down any weapon, and when you see just huge sums of money coming in to influence elections from unknown donors, that raises serious questions about who's trying to buy access and influence in Washington,” Beckel said.

Republican and Democratic super PACs focused on the House maintained steady growth in dark money contributions, while the Senate Majority PAC, benefitting Democrats, received fewer dark money contributions in 2025, according to the report.

For every $4 raised for the Republican-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund, nearly $1 came from dark money group American Action Network, which totaled $17 million in 2025, according to Issue One.

On the Democratic side, about $1 of every $6 raised by the House Majority PAC and about $1 out of every $7 raised for Senate Majority PAC came from dark money group Majority Forward, totaling $11 million and $8 million in 2025.

“We continue to see this escalating arms race, and it's deeply concerning when you've got so much money from unknown donors coming in on both sides of the aisle,” Beckel said.

All four super PACs did not respond to Raw Story’s interview requests or declined to comment.

‘Massive war chest’

Beckel said he anticipates seeing significant amounts of dark money continuing to flow into these super PACs, especially around Senate races.

“There's going to be a huge battle over control of not just the House but the Senate, and wealthy donors who are evading the spotlight are helping Senate Republicans raise a massive war chest through their super PAC to defend those seats,” Beckel said.

Dark money graphic. Super PACs received massive dark money contributions ahead of 2024 election. Graphic: Issue One.

Among Senate seats not up for re-election this year, Democrats hold 34 and Republicans 31.

Two Democratic seats, held by Sen. Jon Ossoff in Georgia and in Michigan by retiring Sen. Gary Peters, and two Republican seats, held by Sen. Susan Collins in Maine and the North Carolina seat held by retiring Sen. Thom Tillis, are true toss-ups, according to the Cook Political Report.

Democrats’ narrow path to regain the Senate majority would require picking up seats in Alaska, North Carolina, Ohio and Maine, according to Cook.

During the 2023-24 election cycle, the four super PACs raised about $1 of every $5 from dark money groups. Dark money accounted for 21 percent of contributions to both parties’ Senate-focused PACs for the 2024 election, according to Issue One.

Issue One supports the DISCLOSE Act, legislation focused on increasing transparency and curbing the influence of dark money, which House and Senate Democrats reintroduced on Wednesday.

But with such a deeply divided Congress, Beckel said Issue One is focused on state-level reforms to reel in unlimited spending on elections by corporations and outside groups enabled by Citizens United.

“The warning here is that money from anonymous sources continues to play a major role in our elections, and I think voters all across the political spectrum are … deeply concerned and fed up about the amount of dark money that they're seeing in elections,” Beckel said.

Congress has stopped presidents from waging wars — so it can stop Trump now

By Sarah Burns, Associate Professor of Political Science, Rochester Institute of Technology.

Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, not the president. But most modern presidents and their legal counsel have asserted that Article 2 allows the president to use the military in certain situations without prior congressional approval — and have acted on that, sending troops into conflicts from Panama to Libya with no regard for Congress’ will.

Congress has for the most part registered only feeble and ineffective opposition. The current move in Congress to deny President Donald Trump the ability to continue the war with Iran — led by Democrats but with some Republican support — failed, as have efforts during other conflicts.

But there was a time when Americans saw Congress stand up to a president who unilaterally took the country to war.

It was at the tail end of the Vietnam War, when Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, asserting that it was legislators — not the president — who had the power to declare war.

Once it passed both houses, President Richard Nixon vetoed it, claiming it was unconstitutional.

In response, the legislative branch overturned the veto with the two-thirds majority vote needed.

Compared to Congress’ limp response to Trump’s actions in Iran, and its similar failure to assert itself during Trump’s military action in Venezuela, it was a breathtaking act of legislative assertion.

Congress asserts itself

When they debated the War Powers Resolution, members of Congress were seeing the erosion of their control over the decision to engage in military operations large and small. With a strong bipartisan consensus, they determined they had to collectively use their powers, including the power of the purse, to thwart executive overreach.

Congress’ actions came in response to the growing protests against the Vietnam War in general and Nixon’s decision to expand the war by sending U.S. troops to invade the neutral country of Cambodia, to disrupt the supply lines of the Viet Cong, the communist guerrilla force that accounted for a large number of the 58,000 Americans killed in the war.

Nixon had begun covert carpet bombing of Cambodia in 1969, and then announced in 1970 that he would send ground troops into the country the next year.

Congress — and the country — reacted extremely negatively. Members of Congress collaborated across party lines to draft legislation in an attempt to assert their power. It was a slow process, however, involving long periods of deliberation.

They used many different methods to attempt to constrain the president. Within months of the introduction of troops to Cambodia, Congress attempted to pass amendments that would restrict his ability to invade neighboring countries. Prompted by protesting and the illegal actions in Cambodia, Congress began crafting legislation that would draw down troops in Vietnam.

With these moves, lawmakers placed immense pressure on the president. This eventually led to the drafting and eventual signing of the peace agreement ending the Vietnam war in 1973.

This was not enough for Congress, however.

Rules — and flexibility

Congress wanted to create a document ensuring presidents could not unilaterally make war. They wanted legislative consultation.

They intended the War Powers Resolution to act as a permanent constraint. So, in the resolution they spelled out the specific actions in which presidents can start a conflict:

First, if there is an invasion of the United States, the president can respond. In this instance, the president can act prior to congressional authorization.
Second, if Congress provides an “Authorization for the Use of Military Force,” the president can assume he has authorization — but only as long as it is in effect.
Finally, if Congress declares war, the president can act.

Lawmakers did, however, provide some flexibility. In the War Powers Resolution, they said a president can initiate and carry out hostilities for 60 days and has a further 30 days to draw down the troops. Once the executive has initiated hostilities, Congress must receive information about that action within 48 hours.

This opens the door for presidents to engage in smaller-scale or short operations without stepping outside the lines set in the law.

Presidents from both parties have availed themselves of this flexibility. As far back as 1975, when President Gerald Ford rescued the SS Mayaguez, the merchant ship captured by Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge, presidents have acknowledged the law and dutifully reported their military actions to Congress.

Like his predecessors, Trump sent a letter to Congress after his June 2025 missile attacks against Iran, as well as at the start of the currently open-ended conflict.

Presidents since the passage of the War Powers Resolution have not, however, acknowledged that they have to get congressional approval of their actions, with few exceptions. Predominantly, without congressional approval, they limit their actions to the 60-to-90-day window.

President Barack Obama attempted to circumvent the window when his bombing campaign in Libya in 2011 dragged on, as well as when he bombed the Islamic State group in 2014. In the first instance, he claimed the War Powers Resolution did not apply. In the second, he claimed each bombing campaign was discrete, rather than part of a larger campaign.

Exploiting authorizations

The balance of power between the legislative and executive branches changed considerably with the passage of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force related to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force that gave legislative permission for President George W. Bush to invade Iraq.

Because Congress did not put sunset dates into these authorizations, subsequent presidents Obama, Trump and Joe Biden used those same authorizations for a host of military actions in the Middle East and elsewhere.

And legislators were deeply divided in the current discussions about demanding the cessation of hostilities against Iran.

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said that limiting the president at this time was “dangerous.” Former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene — who has fallen out of favor with Trump’s MAGA base and the president himself — took the opposing view, posting on social media, “Now, America is going to be force fed and gas lighted all the ‘noble’ reasons the American ‘Peace’ President and Pro-Peace administration had to go to war once again this year, after being in power for only a year.”

Has the U.S. entered a moment when members of Congress reassert themselves the way they did at the tail end of the Vietnam war?

It is possible that they will follow James Madison’s advice about the power relationship between Congress and the president. Writing in the Federalist Papers, Madison said that “ambition” has “to counter ambition.” He continued, “The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.”

As I explain in my book about congressional war powers, the constitutional system creates an invitation to struggle. Now, as the U.S. wages war on Iran, Congress must decide whether it wants to struggle, as it did during the Vietnam War, or remain compliant and in the president’s shadow.

Sarah Burns is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Rochester Institute of Technology. Her research examines the intersection of political liberalization and American constitutional development with an eye toward policy implications for democratization across the globe. She has written on war powers, American foreign policy, democratic peace theory, elections, and Montesquieu’s constitutionalism. Her book, The Politics of War Powers, examines the theoretical and historical development of war powers. She demonstrates how the constitutional system creates an invitation to struggle that the political branches increasingly ignore. Her forthcoming book, Losing the Good War (with Rob Haswell), examines Obama's decision making in the Afghanistan war.

Fed-up Republicans may soon ‘punish’ another Trump Cabinet member: report

The firing of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem could spell problems for Attorney General Pam Bondi, whose future has come into question following President Donald Trump's decision to cut a member of his Cabinet after Republican lawmakers expressed concerns, Politico reported Friday.

Bondi has come under fire for her handling of the Epstein files, as congressional leaders have questioned her leadership of the Department of Justice over the last several weeks.

"As many as 20 Republicans might be prepared to back an effort to render punishment against the nation’s top prosecutor for slowwalking the materials’ release, according to the Democrat helping lead the charge," according to Politico.

The move comes as five Republicans sided with Democrats this week to subpoena Bondi, who will soon be forced to testify before a House committee.

And for now, the White House has said it's behind its attorney general. During a public event with Inter Miami on Thursday, Trump even praised Bondi.

"She's proving how tough she is, and I think the next three years she's gonna really prove it, right?" Trump said.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson had a similar sentiment in a statement for Politico.

“Attorney General Pam Bondi has worked tirelessly to successfully implement the President’s law and order agenda,” Jackson said. “The President has full faith in the Attorney General.”

Now that Noem has been demoted to Special Envoy for The Shield of the Americas, Democrats could be ready to focus their energy on Bondi next, "now that Noem is no longer a top political target."

It's unclear whether Bondi will maintain the same influence and support among GOP lawmakers, said Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN), who voted for Bondi to be subpoenaed.

“She’s in the batter’s box. I’d say … let her hit," Burchett said.

Republicans flee for the exits as Trump steers GOP into 'disaster': 'Easier to walk away'

President Donald Trump and his Republican Party faced a serious battle as another GOP lawmaker decided to end his bid for reelection, according to reports Friday.

Facing a growing number of Republican exits, a low approval rating, uncertainty around U.S. military strikes in Iran and a looming conflict in the Middle East, Trump now has a bigger problem ahead of the midterm elections, The Daily Beast reported.

Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX), who admitted to an affair with a staffer who died in a gruesome suicide last year, announced Thursday he would drop out of the runoff against right-wing influencer Brandon Herrera.

Gonzales is among three other Republican representatives who announced they would not seek reelection just this week, including Reps. Ryan Zinke (R-MT) and Burgess Owens (R-UT).

Gonzales's departure comes as 34 Republicans have planned to retire this year as Democrats eye taking back the majority of the House and Senate this fall.

"Regardless of what they say in public, plenty of GOP lawmakers are getting internal polling that suggests Trump has steered them into a disaster," Democratic strategist Max Burns told The Beast.

“Even GOP lawmakers don’t feel like they can exert enough influence on the White House to course correct, so it’s easier to just walk away,” Burns said.

'Whining' Republicans secretly trash Trump's Iran war behind his back: lawmaker

WASHINGTON — Republicans are happy to criticize President Donald Trump’s war on Iran behind closed doors but “willing to give up congressional power” when given chances to actually rein him in, a prominent Democrat charged, shortly before the House of Representatives rejected a bipartisan attempt to assert its constitutional powers.

“There is an incredible sense in the Congress in the last year that so many Republicans have been willing to give up congressional power,” Rep. Becca Balint (D-VT) told Raw Story at the Capitol.

Republicans, Balint said, “all tell you behind closed doors a whole variety of things they don't like about what's happening.

“If you pick your head up and all of a sudden your power is gone, don't whine about it because you gave it away.”

‘I’m not stupid’

Under Article One of the U.S. Constitution — and the 1973 War Powers Resolution — only Congress can declare war.

In reality, presidents have long ignored such strictures.

Balint was speaking shortly before the House considered a war powers resolution that would have forced the Trump administration to pause strikes on Iran.

“I'm not stupid,” Balint, a member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, said.

“I can count. I don't think we're going to have the votes, but I think in every opportunity we have to assert our Article I powers, we have to keep doing these actions that show that we understand that every time we don't stand up to [Trump], legislative powers are slipping away.”

Another Democrat, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA), said such votes were important, to “get people on the record.”

The record for the ensuing vote showed the resolution was rejected 219-212, with Republican Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Warren Davidson (R-OH) voting yes, while four Democrats voted no.

Massie co-sponsored the resolution with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), his partner in pressuring the Trump administration over the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his links to powerful figures, prominently including the president himself.

Davidson, a former military officer, is usually a loyal supporter of the Republican line.

On the floor of the House, he said, “Make no mistake, Iran is an enemy of the United States. As our military engages them, they do so justly. Unfortunately, they are not yet doing so constitutionally.

“For some, this debate will be about whether we should even be fighting in Iran. For me, the debate is more fundamental: is the president of the United States, regardless of the person holding the office, empowered to do whatever he wants?

“That’s not what our constitution says.”

‘Whatever it takes to win’

Amid continued confusion over Trump’s aims in attacking Iran — currently by air and at sea and at the cost of six American lives and more than 1,000 Iranians killed — it was reported on Thursday that strikes could extend until September.

Raw Story asked one senior Republican if that bothered him.

“Not worried at all,”Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) replied “Trump knows what he’s doing.”

Raw Story pressed: Was Norman really saying he would be okay with such a lengthy campaign, with all its attendant dangers for wider conflict through the Middle East and the world?

“Whatever it takes to win,” Norman said.

'Spiraling out of control'

Balint considered another pressing issue: Republicans’ reluctance to even say Trump has taken America to war, despite the president’s own use of the word.

“You can't call it a ‘military action,’ that it has a very short timeline, when this is the chatter,” Balint said, of the reports of a possible September end date.

“We knew that it's spiraling out of control … and again, like, where's the opposition within his own party?”

These spineless cowards must act before Trump's madness spirals out of control

NATO is now involved. It has shot down an Iranian missile heading into Turkish airspace. Turkey is a NATO member housing a major U.S. military base where the U.S. has nuclear weapons, including B-61 thermonuclear bombs. NATO’s Article 5 says an attack on one member of the alliance is considered an attack on all.

The United Kingdom has granted the U.S. access to its military bases for strikes on Iran. France is building a coalition to protect commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, the Red Sea, and the Suez Canal. The Netherlands is weighing France’s request to help secure these shipping routes. The White House says Spain will cooperate with the U.S. military (Spain disputes this). Greece is sending planes and warships to its neighbor Cyprus. Lebanon is ordering a mass evacuation in the country’s south.

Meanwhile, Russia, which has a strategic partnership treaty with Iran, is accusing the U.S. of using an “imaginary threat” from Iran as a pretext for overthrowing its constitutional order. Putin calls the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei a “cynical violation of all norms of human morals and the international law.”

Russia, Iran, and Venezuela are the world’s top producers of heavy crude oil that’s exported to dozens of nations to be processed by their refineries. This means that, with the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed and much of Iran’s oil-producing capacity under attack, China — which had been the largest buyer of Iranian oil — will almost surely become more dependent on Russian oil, drawing the two superpowers closer.

Iran reports that more than 1,000 people have been killed by Israeli and American strikes. So far, 11 people have died in Israel as Iran has fired back. Six U.S. service members have been killed. We don’t have reports on the numbers injured.

Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu’s war is rapidly escalating into a global conflict.

What about you and me and every other American? Who is representing our interests? Let me remind you, the U.S. Congress has not declared war, even though Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution expressly grants this power to Congress — not to the president.

It is part of what are known as “Enumerated Powers” — powers reserved to Congress, to the people’s representatives. Only Congress is authorized to “declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

So why are we at the precipice of World War III? What is our reason for committing so many troops at such great cost and risk? What is America’s interest?

Trump isn’t saying, except to talk in vague generalities about Iran’s nuclear capacities — which experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency and in our own intelligence community say have been grossly exaggerated by Trump.

Where are the progressive voices warning of how a war like this can so easily escalate out of control? Where are the historians telling us how other such calamities have begun? Where are voices explaining all the domestic needs we are sacrificing to finance the U.S. military machine?

I’m no isolationist. I believe America has responsibilities around the world. But I’m not even hearing much from the “America First” gang on the right reminding Trump’s MAGA base that the war he is pulling us into violates a basic tenet of why he was elected.

Trump has launched a war in the Middle East that is already killing and wounding large numbers of men, women, and children. But he’s done it without our consent, without a plan, without a strategy, and without any clear idea about where it leads or how it ends.

***

On Wednesday afternoon, Senate Republicans voted to block a measure from advancing that would limit Trump’s power to continue waging war against Iran without congressional authorization, turning back an effort by Democrats to insist that Congress weigh in on a sweeping and open-ended military campaign.

The 53-to-47 vote against taking up the measure was largely along party lines. (Democratic Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania voted with Republicans against the measure, while GOP Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky was the sole Republican who voted with Democrats in favor if it.)

Today’s vote was just the latest in a series of failed war powers resolution efforts in both the House and Senate as Democrats have tried, but repeatedly failed, to rein in Trump’s ability to act without consulting with Congress.

It is still important to call on your members of Congress to use their power to put a stop to this deadly war. Contact them now at: (202) 224-3121.

Robert Reich is an emeritus professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/. His new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org

This Trump ghoul is shocked to learn taxpayers turned her jet into a love nest

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi “KKKristi” Noem is so bad at her job that congressional Republicans this week joined Democrats in demanding her resignation, under threat of impeachment, during fiery hearings in which Noem perjured herself multiple times. And not for the first time, for those of you at home, trying to keep score.

The former South Dakota Governor and Worst Pet Parent Ever could only glare back at her questioners, while trying to justify the murders of Alex Pretti and Renee Good at the hands of ICE agents on the streets of Minneapolis.

As a woman, writing about Republican women, I do what I can to sidestep the low-hanging fruit. I make it a policy to never body shame or comment on their appearances … unless they do something so glaringly egregious that it would be irresponsible to not call attention to it. We don’t have the space here to get into why women have been socialized to please the male gaze, nor enough bandwidth to get into why so many women have fully altered themselves on the Trump Plastic Surgery Plan. Once you decide to commit treason for Epstein’s Wingman, I guess you’re contractually required to get a Mar-a-Lago Makeover.

Whatever happens to Noem now, she will be stuck with Alina Habba’s Ivanka Face forever.

I mean, come on.

I also don’t know why any men would prefer a fully fake face to a real one, but also I do, because I’m a woman in the modern age. Again, we don’t have the time to get into this now, but we do have time to wonder about KKKristi and her close “advisor,” former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.

Full disclosure: Corey blocked me on Twitter all the way back in 2016, because I kept doing this annoying thing called “telling the truth about Trump” and he didn’t like it, just like Trump didn’t. Such snowflakes, I swear. I’m my own MAGA-valanche of Twitter blocks, open to suggestions on how to better monetize this power I have over the worst people this country has ever produced.

Anyway, Kristi and Corey’s alleged affair is said to have begun all the way back in 2019 and is probably the worst-kept secret in Washington besides the Epstein Files and their contents.

The widely reported relationship was a big topic of discussion during Kristi’s Senate Judiciary hearing. She stuck to “We’re just good friends” … while being shown photos of a luxury bedroom on one of her government jets. You might have missed it, but our tax dollars were spent to turn a multimillion-dollar private plane (one of two) into a private getaway up in the sky.

Here’s Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) asking a basic question, with a visual aid. Noem seems incapable of understanding that other people know about her not-at-all-secret relationship.

That woman blankly stared at her own sky bedroom and pretended she didn’t know what it was. But we know she knows. There was a recent story about her leaving her woobie behind during a flight change, and Corey firing a Coast Guard pilot instead of telling Kristi she’s an alleged adult and doesn’t need a special blanket.

Yes, I call him that. I’ve been calling him that since the rumors about him and Kristi began. I’ve posted it so many times that whenever I start a word with “won-”, my predictive text does the rest.

In the same hearing, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) fully unloaded on Kristi during questioning, which also touched on the famous puppy killing incident.

While it’s great to see this from a Republican, keep in mind that Tillis is retiring at the end of the year and so has nothing to lose. I’m going to play amateur psychiatrist for a moment and say there’s some misdirected anger here. Tillis rightfully dragged Noem to filth, but I’m guessing a lot of that was for Trump and the embarrassment he’s caused the party and our country on the global stage.

Noem was being grilled by the House Judiciary Committee while I was writing this. She perjured herself multiple times again. It was also fun watching Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) do what he was born to do, which is own Republicans.

However, Noem had much more support from the House GOP than from their Senate counterparts, many tossing obtuse softball questions about Democrats refusing to fund DHS while Coast Guard ships are being targeted overseas.

Of course, everyone in both hearings knew the truth, which is that Noem is spectacularly underqualified for her job, like everyone else in the Trump regime. And that’s part of their plan to destroy our democracy.

When you have the worst person possible sitting behind the Resolute Desk, and he surrounds himself with unqualified yes men and women as close as possible to being as bad as he is, there’s clearly an intention to implode all political norms.

From the destruction of the East Wing (Did anyone preserve any of our historical artifacts? Has anyone ever even thought to ask besides me? It’s fine, I don’t know all that much about politics) to the bombing of Iran because Trump’s name is all over the Epstein Files, to the deliberate ignorance of the Constitution, no one connected to Trump has even once put America first.

Tara Dublin is a political writer/commentator based in Portland, OR, who has been blocked by Donald Trump on Twitter since August 2015 and can occasionally be heard as a fill-in host on SiriusXM Progress. She is also the author of The Sound of Settling, a rock ‘n’ roll love story available at taradublinrocks.com

One Texas voting bloc may reveal major midterm prediction: 'Very good sign for Democrats'

An analyst Tuesday suggested that the Texas primaries could signal a major shift nationally among key voting blocs in the Democratic Party.

Jim Messina, former White House deputy chief of staff for operations, described in his new Substack piece what Democrats should keep in mind heading into the midterms and the next presidential election. Messina argued on MS NOW Tuesday morning that Democrats need to build a stronger relationship with young men in an effort to stop losing their votes in elections, advocating that progressive strategists should look at TikTok, streaming, cryptocurrency, sports, betting and prediction markets as paths to reaching this group.

"If you look at the issues, you know, Dems bled young voters in historic numbers in the last presidential [election]," Messina said. "And I think there's a view in my party that we just need to get on a couple Joe Rogan podcasts or we need to hang out with tech bros and it will all be fine. It's really just about, you know, figuring out social media. And I think it's deeper than that. Right now we're the party saying 'No' to a bunch of things that young male voters like and do every day, like video games, like sports betting, like prediction markets, like crypto, and they look at this and say, 'You're saying no, to all these things, maybe you're saying no to me, too.'"

Messina argued that it's not just about culture — it's about Democrats taking a look at their overall strategy.

"And I think best when we go back to the Clinton days or the Obama days of being pro-innovation, pro-new things, pro-things getting better and right now we're starting to be in this kind of, you know, being perceived by these voters as a nanny state," Messina said. "And someone who's saying, 'No, you can't do these things.' And I think that's a really dangerous place to be. And so, we need to stop talking, and listen to these young voters, and meet them where they are, not where we want them to be."

Democrats could have an opportunity, with the Texas primary as the first test, to see how Democrats and Republicans perform among young men, along with another key voting bloc: Latinos. Both groups broke support for Vice President Kamala Harris, voting instead for Trump. What comes next in Texas could reveal more about what could happen in November — and how Democrats reach these voters.

"Yeah, this is the most exciting primary we've had so far," Messina said. "What I'm going to be looking at, two things: are the young men coming back? Are they voting at all? Because that's a really important number, but more importantly in Texas, where are the Latinos going? When you look at some of these special elections Dems are getting back the young voters and back the Latino voters that Donald Trump rented in 2024. This will be a really interesting night because you have both like really hotly contested, Republican primary and a Democratic primary, and so when you and I look at the numbers tomorrow, we're going to look and see where the Latinos are going. And if the Latinos are starting to come back to the Democratic Party in Texas of all places, that is a very good sign for the Democrats in the midterm elections."

Dem ignites firestorm within his own party over Iran remarks: 'You sure did fool us'

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) said he was "baffled" Monday that his Senate colleagues weren't supporting President Donald Trump's decision to begin military strikes in Iran — and Democrats were furious at his comments.

The Pennsylvania Democrat's loyalty has increasingly been called into question as he has shown he was breaking with Democrats over the war in Iran, Politico reported.

"Every member in the U.S. Senate agrees we cannot allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. I’m baffled why so many are unwilling to support the only action to achieve that. Empty sloganeering vs. commitment to global security — which is it?" Fetterman wrote on X.

Other Democrats and commentators had strong responses to Fetterman's statement.

“Well, John Fetterman knows better,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told CNN. “Article I of the Constitution explicitly provides Congress with the authority to declare war. Period, full stop.”

"A man who has never seen war and never will, cheering this on from a comfortable perch in Washington. Every Senator who fails to stop this war should lose their seat, starting with @SenSusanCollins and @SenFettermanPA," Democratic Senate candidate and veteran Graham Platner wrote on X.

"Any politician who votes to start another endless war in the Middle East should lose their seat in 2026," California state congressional candidate and co-founder of Justice Democrats Saikat Chakrabarti wrote on X.

"'The only action?' Bombing a school and slaughtering young children is 'the only action?' The President committing acts of war without Congressional approval and lying to the American people is 'the only action?' Deploying our loved ones into another forever war is 'the only action?' Resign," Charles Booker, Kentucky Senate candidate and former Kentucky state representative, wrote on X.

"You sure did fool us all," media and communications specialist Louw Breytenbach wrote on X.

"The only action? 1) Iran was not working on a nuclear weapon, as confirmed by US intelligence. 2) There was a nuclear agreement with Iran that was keeping its enrichment levels low. Trump left that agreement, and then Iran responded by increasing enrichment. Every sabotage and attack since has caused Iran to increase enrichment further. 3) Military strikes to stop the program worked so well that after 'obliterating' their nuclear program eight months ago, we are already concerned about it again. You are a warmonger. It is that simple," Navy veteran and independent writer Jared Ryan Sears wrote on X.

'MAGA lost its luster': MTG’s old seat may flip as Trump and GOP 'made a lot of enemies'

When Republican firebrand Marjorie Taylor Greene resigned from Congress in January, as many as 22 candidates lined up to vie for her U.S. House seat in Georgia’s 14th District.

The vast majority were Republican. As of Monday, 12 remained in the March 10 special election race, giving Democrats hope that a split Republican vote might mean the seat can actually be flipped — despite its solid red rating and Greene’s definitive victories since 2020, when the high-profile, hard-right, conspiracy-theory-espousing politician was first elected.

Raw Story spoke with the three Democrats competing for the seat. With poor Republican polling under President Donald Trump and recent wins for Democrats in other red states, they presented different paths to victory.

Shawn Harris, a retired brigadier general and cattle producer, lost to Greene in 2024 and declared his 2026 candidacy prior to Greene’s surprise resignation announcement in November.

A Democratic win “is 100 percent realistic because this race here is completely switched,” Harris told Raw Story.

“Gotta keep in mind, whoever wins this race has never served in Congress before. Period.

“So now it goes back to people are actually looking at our résumés and looking at our background. They [are] looking at what we did before, and if I put my background up against anybody … people understand that, ‘Hey, this is the right guy.’”

Shawn Harris on his cattle farm in Rockmart, Ga. (Photo by Alexandria Jacobson/Raw Story)

Democrats have been chipping away at Greene’s domination in GA-14 since 2020, when she won with 75 percent of the vote.

In 2022, after two years of Greene’s far-right antics on Capitol Hill, Democrat Marcus Flowers cut her share of votes by nearly 10 percent, capturing more than 88,000 of his own.

While Greene won about 64 percent of the vote against Harris in 2024, nearly 135,000 voters, a record, picked the Democrat.

“We're taking everything that we learned from the last race and brought it to this race,” Harris said.

“I just want to make sure that everybody in northwest Georgia understands that Shawn Harris is going to go to Washington, D.C., and the people that I'm working for, the hardworking people here in northwest Georgia … I don't care if you're a Democrat or Republican, my focus is you.”

Harris is far-and-away the biggest fundraiser in the race, having raised more than $2.2 million through the end of 2025, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings.

He has brought in more than $2.4 million in 2026, Renee Schaeffer, his campaign manager, told Raw Story.

The next closest fundraiser is Republican Clay Fuller, endorsed by President Trump, who raised more than $786,000 as of Feb. 18, according to FEC filings.

‘Anything can happen’

Clarence Blalock, a Democratic consultant running for Georgia commissioner of labor, faced Harris in a runoff in the 2024 primary.

Withdrawing his 2026 candidacy, Blalock endorsed Harris.

“Shawn has a chance to clear,” Blalock told Raw Story.

“At some point all that spending matters. He's going to be able to reach more people, reach low propensity voters.

“If he can resonate with some Republicans, or just basically get out every Democrat — because it's a special election, because it's going to be low turnout — if you turn out a higher percentage of your people, you can close that gap.”

Clarence Blalock in front of a restaurant in Rockmart, Ga. (Photo by Alexandria Jacobson/Raw Story)

That happened in Georgia last year when Democrat Eric Gisler flipped a state House seat in a special election.

The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) counts Gisler’s victory in a Trump 12-point advantage seat as one of its biggest wins among the 26 seats the party has flipped since Trump’s re-election, said Sam Paisley, a spokesperson for the DLCC.

In Texas in February, Democrat Taylor Rehmet flipped a Republican state Senate district that favored Trump by 17 points — the DLCC’s first flip of 2026, a startling success that made national headlines.

“There actually probably are enough votes to win in these types of things, and in these specials, there's always a high level of chaoticness where anything can happen, too,” Blalock said.

In another state-level race, Blalock worked with Peter Hubbard, one of two Democrats to upset incumbent Republicans to win seats on the Georgia Public Service Commission, the first non-federal statewide wins for Democrats in Georgia in 19 years.

Even Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) celebrated the victories, calling them “a rejection of Trump-era policies.”

Towards the end of her time in Congress, Greene did the same — turning particularly fiercely against Trump over his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Now, Democrats in GA-14 are hopeful that frustration with Trump and his party, particularly around hardline federal immigration enforcement and the Epstein files, will result in more switched votes.

“MAGA’s lost a lot of luster,” Blalock said.

“Who wants to be associated with pedophilia? I don't. I just think people are getting tired of it.”

Harris said 5 percent of GA-14 voters who backed Trump in 2024 also voted for him.

He is distributing “Republicans for Shawn” signs and said he expects many more to back him this time.

“We're very confident that we're going to be able to get our Democrats out, the independents out and those Republicans that feel that the Republican Party has left them,” Harris said.

“They [are] still Republicans, but the current Republican Party has left them with MAGA, and they're going to come out and vote for me.”

‘Times change’

Harris said he has resonated with some conservatives who consider themselves Ronald Reagan or Bush-era Republicans, focused on the economy.

Another Democratic candidate, patent lawyer Jonathan Hobbs, said the working-class district leaned Democratic in the 1970s and 1980s, so voters fed up with the GOP could flip back.

Jonathan Hobbs (provided photo)

“History tells us the future,” Hobbs said.

“Times change, and Trump [and] Republicans have made a lot of enemies … Everything changes, and especially with the handling of the immigration issue, where people are getting shot, that's not good. This is totally mishandled.”

Jim Davis, an author and political scientist who worked on Ross Perot’s independent 1992 presidential campaign, is also running as a Democrat — and is less confident of success.

Jim Davis (provided photo)

He created a computer model that showed a path to victory if only two Democrats were in the race and Republicans split their votes.

But Davis said Democrats were “very, very unfriendly toward my candidacy,” and with three candidates, “I don't think there's as much hope for any of us as there once was.”

While all three Democrats agreed affordability is one of the largest issues in GA-14, Davis said Democrats have lacked “winning issues” and clear messaging about “What do you stand for?”

“Welfare is very hard for people to accept down here in our district, because their backs are already to the wall,” he said. “They feel like they don't want to contribute to anybody else.

“They're hard people because they've had a hard time, and until Democrats get something in front of that, they're not going anywhere. They've lost all the people. They've lost their voting base.”

To win, Democrats need to demonstrate their stances in a concrete way, such as proposing subsidized daycare, Davis said.

“You've got to do something to break out,” he said.