Martin Burns, Common Dreams

Dems just got an important lesson with massive Virginia win

By roughly three percentage points, voters in Virginia voted for a redistricting plan that will heavily tilt the congressional playing field toward the Democrats. With some votes still to be counted, yes took 51.5% of the vote to 48.5% for the no campaign. The new map will give the Democrats a good chance at winning 10 out of 11 Virginia congressional districts—a big shift from the current 6 Democrats, 5 Republicans in the delegation. The measure still faces legal challenges before it can go into effect.

Turnout for the referendum was roughly 89% of those who voted in the 2025 gubernatorial election. So, the overall turnout rate for the referendum was around 49%. While this is disappointing in that less than half of eligible voters went to the polls, it is a high turnout rate for a special election.

Unfortunately, there are no exit polls for the Virginia referendum, so the best we can do is look at the voting data and see what conclusions we can draw. Among the very Hispanic-Asian election districts in Northern Virginia (Fairfax, Loudoun, and Manassas Park) the pro-referendum forces did about 16 percentage points better than Kamala Harris in 2024. A strong performance among Black voters in Richmond and Hampton Roads helped put the referendum over the top. According to The Washington Post, counties that were at least 25% Black supported the measure by a 14-point margin, after backing Gov. Abigail Spanberger last November by 24 points.

The pro-referendum forces also fared well in high-income parts of the commonwealth. Opposition to the referendum was concentrated in southwestern Virginia. In many of these counties, the no campaign was able to improve on President Donald Trump’s 2024 performance.

Tuesday’s vote in Virginia will mean more Democratic representatives in Congress.

Are there lessons that the Democrats can take away from the Virginia redistricting campaign? First of all, it is important to note that a win is a win. However, there is an important lesson to be learned here and that is that there is no advantage for Democrats in not being fully anti-Trump.

When the referendum campaign began, the yes forces were portraying the vote as part of a broad effort to level the congressional playing field. The New York Times reports that:

In the first six weeks of the campaign, the “Yes” side spent $13.5 million on advertising compared with the “No” campaign’s $640,000, according to data from AdImpact, a media tracking firm. But over that time period, “Yes” did not gain ground in private polling, according to multiple people briefed on the data.

Based on the media that I saw, in the closing days of the campaign, the yes forces retooled their messaging and presented the campaign as a way to stop Trump and the MAGA forces.

Why did the pro-redistricting forces not immediately embrace a full-on anti-Trump message? We can only make educated guesses. The first is newly elected Spanberger, who had run as a middle-of-the-road Democratic centrist. Her role in the redistricting is ambiguous. Unlike Gov. Gavin Newsom in California, Spanberger did not get out in front of the campaign. This is understandable. After all, Virginia, unlike California, is a purple state. Spanberger also needs to get her legislative agenda through in Richmond.

The best symbol of Spanberger’s attitude toward the referendum is the fact that she made an ad in support of a yes vote but the ad never showed. In her statements about the referendum, the governor was uncomfortable.

Democrats also seemed to have been unprepared for the no forces’ very clever use of statements by President Barack Obama opposing gerrymandering, which created confusion in the electorate. In response, the Democrats responded with ads featuring President Obama. In an interesting twist, Obama not Trump was the president most featured in the media outreach on the referendum.

So, in the end the redistricting referendum passed by less than Spanberger won last November. While the Republicans may be able to claim some sort of a moral victory, a win is still a win. Tuesday’s vote in Virginia will mean more Democratic representatives in Congress.

Democrats have reasons to celebrate. However, they should learn the lesson from the referendum: There is nothing to gain politically by soft-pedaling their opposition to Trump.

Trump voters do the unthinkable — and prove they aren’t untouchable after all

While the media has covered extensively Democratic successes in the 2025 off-year elections, there is one story that has been dramatically undercovered. This is the fact that the 2025 Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races show that Democrats can win over Trump voters.

Granted, these are not dramatic slices of the Trump coalition, but they are enough in these hyperpolarized times to win elections.

According to CNN polling, in New Jersey, Rep. Mikie Sherrill, in her race for governor, was able to win 7 percent of those who had voted for Donald Trump in 2024. Interestingly, the Virginia exit polling data shows that Rep. Abigail Spanberger won an identical 7 percent of Trump voters.

The New York Times’ Nate Cohn is one of the few journalists who has pointed to the New Jersey and Virginia Democrats’ ability to win over Trump voters. He concludes that:

Instead, the two Democrats won so decisively because they also flipped a crucial sliver of voters who said they supported Mr. Trump in 2024. Ms. Sherrill and Ms. Spanberger both won 7 percent of Mr. Trump’s supporters, according to the exit polls. It may not seem like much to flip 7 percent of Mr. Trump’s backers, but consider: When a voter flips, it adds one voter to one party and also deducts one from the other, making it twice as significant as turning out a new voter.

Looking at the exit polling data makes it clear that while the Democrats' margins in New Jersey and Virginia were helped by increased Democratic turnout, winning over 2024 Trump voters was critically important.

One of the key parts of the Trump coalition has always been strong and even almost overwhelming support from rural voters. An analysis by Politico of the Virginia gubernatorial race shows that:

Spanberger’s victory was largely driven by massive turnout in northern and eastern Virginia’s urban areas. But she picked up support across the state’s deep-red central and western counties, where Trump’s tariffs have hit the manufacturing and agricultural industries especially hard. Even as her GOP opponent won most of those places, Spanberger posed the best performance by a statewide Democratic candidate in several cycles, according to a POLITICO analysis of voting data in the localities classified as “rural” by the federal government.

To her great credit, Spanberger targeted rural voters and consistently hammered away on how the Trump administration’s tariff policies were hurting them. In comparison with former Vice President Kamala Harris’s performance in 2024, Spanberger outperformed Harris’ margin in 48 of Virginia’s 52 rural localities. The exit polling shows that Spanberger won 46 percent of rural voters — an eight-point deficit to Republican candidate Lieutenant Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, and a 19-point swing from 2021 gubernatorial Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffe’s 27-point disadvantage.

There is also data in the exit polling data indicating that Democrats won back in 2025 Hispanic voters who backed Trump in 2024. The Washington Post reports:

This year, most Democratic statewide candidates won Latino voters by at least 30 points in exit polls, re-creating the margins their party held before 2024. In New Jersey, 18 percent of Latino voters who backed Trump last year cast their ballot for the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, exit poll data showed.

The fact that Democrats won over Trump voters in 2025 has profound implications for Democrats in both the 2026 midterms and the 2028. The message is clear: Some Trump voters will back Democrats if the candidates reach them where they are and talk to them about the issues that they care about most. To assume that all Trump voters are absolutely committed to Trump no matter what the circumstances is a mistaken assumption that only hurts Democrats. Successful politics is always about addition.

Hopefully, Democrats learn from their success in 2025 and realize that they can make some Trump voters part of their winning coalition.

Martin Burns has worked as a congressional aide, polling analyst, journalist, and lobbyist. He was on the campaign trail for Harris-Walz in Pennsylvania and North Carolina. In addition to Common Dreams, his work has been published by The Hill, Irish Central, and the Byline Times. Martin resides in Washington, DC with his wife, and regular coauthor, Mary Liz. His website is Martinburns.news.

The signs are clear: Trump's lackeys are out to destroy this key benefit

Despite U.S. President Donald Trump’s assurances that he will not touch Social Security (or Medicare or Medicaid for that matter), his war against Social Security marches on step by step.

Politico reported last week that “Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Wednesday framed the president’s new ‘Trump accounts’ as a transformative tool for long-term wealth building and a ‘backdoor for privatizing Social Security.’”

Not surprisingly, Bessent walked back his comments and Trump defenders put out statements pointing to Trump’s promises to defend Social Security.

While many are quite understandably focused on the macro level, the Trump administration is making it harder for Social Security beneficiaries to access their benefits. Last week, the Social Security Administration (SSA) announced that beneficiaries will not be able to perform simple tasks on the phone, such as change their address or check the status of their benefits. Instead, people are forced to go online to verify their identity or visit an already-overburdened Social Security field office.

All of this might seem familiar to you. Earlier this year, SSA announced similar rules only to have to back off after an uproar from Congress and advocacy groups. Guessing that this fleeting retreat offered them an opportunity, SSA put forth these similar rules in midsummer hoping that people were not paying attention.

Kathleen Romig and Devin O’Conner of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities offer some great perspective on this issue:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) is overwhelming its local offices by forcing millions more people to seek in-person service while cutting thousands of staff who provide that help. These offices, which primarily serve seniors, people with disabilities, and bereaved families, helped nearly 32 million visitors last year. But under a new policy set to take effect in August, beneficiaries will be forced to take millions of unnecessary trips to field offices, where they will face longer waits for appointments and slower processing times.

The Trump administration made no attempt to consult with members of Congress or advocacy groups. Instead, they simply put the notice in a technical note on the Office of Management and Budget website.

These proposed changes will hurt older and more vulnerable beneficiaries the hardest as they will be less likely to travel to a Social Security field office or have the internet skills and access to be able to verify their identity online. One wonders why SSA failed to send an email out to beneficiaries with these important changes, especially since the administration used email recently to tout the misleading “benefits” of the “Big Beautiful Bill.”

Like all the other changes that SSA has proposed, the rationale to limit beneficiaries’ ability to access their earned benefits is fraud. As I am sure you remember, earlier this year, the then-Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) head Elon Musk proclaimed that there was widespread fraud in the Social Security System. Elaine Kamarck of the nonpartisan Brookings Institute points out that “claims of widespread fraud in Social Security were misleading, with fraud representing just 0.00625% of the annual budget, far less than what private companies like Mastercard or Visa would accept.”

Fortunately, there have been several Democrats who have spoken out in defense of Social Security.

Among them is Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, who has asked Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano “to provide data by August 11, including on the total number of calls received; details about the calls taken by an artificial intelligence tool — including the percentage of calls dropped, transferred, or ended without resolving the issue; the same details about the calls taken by a human customer service representative.”

We are only helpless if we accept Trump’s promises that he will not touch Social Security. Now is the time to turn anger into action. Speak up for Social Security. Everyone can do something. The Social Security benefits you save may be your own.

Martin Burns was on the campaign trail for Harris-Walz in Pennsylvanian and North Carolina. He has worked as a congressional aide, journalist, and lobbyist and is a member of the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. and a member of the National Writers Union.
Mary Liz Burns is financial education consultant and content creator focusing on personal finance topics including retirement decisions, maximizing Social Security, and managing debt. She is a certified financial behavior specialist® with an MBA specializing in financial psychology, and is based in Washington, D.C.

Want to save Medicaid from GOP greed? Here's how

As members of Congress return to their districts for what is traditionally called the August congressional recess, Republican members will be working overtime to sell their constituents on the benefits of the Trump mega-bill (technically the “One Big Beautiful Bill”).

Republicans know well that this August will determine the outcome of the crucial 2026 midterm elections. In a memo from the Republican National Campaign Committee (NRCC) obtained by Politico, GOP members of Congress were advised:

While the election is still more than a year away, this August in-district work period is an opportunity to go home and sell your work to your constituents. With the One Big Beautiful Bill signed into law by President Trump just a few weeks ago, this is a critical opportunity to continue to define how this legislation will help every voter and push back on Democrat fearmongering.

The NRCC memo advises GOP members of Congress not to let Democrats define the agenda on Medicaid by stressing public support for eliminating waste and fraud and by instituting work requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries.

Polling suggests that Republicans have their work cut out for them. Research conducted for The Wall Street Journal found that:

The findings show Republicans’ challenges in selling the law’s benefits as they try to hold their slim control of the House and Senate in next year’s midterm elections, and the poll demonstrates how Democrats might be able to capitalize on voters’ skepticism to stage a comeback. Overall, the law drew 42 percent support and 52 percent opposition, performing slightly worse than Trump himself in the poll. It generated negative marks from 94 percent of Democrats, 12 percent of Republicans, and 54 percent of independents.

On the other side of the call, the Journal research shows there is support for work requirements and increased checks on Medicaid eligibility. Furthermore, as always, there is support for tax cuts.

Much will depend on how the issues are framed. Right now, there is a lot of blank space for Democrats or Republicans to work with. Polling from CNN finds that only 27 percent say that they have been following debate over U.S. President Donald Trump’s mega-bill “very closely.”

In these times, it is easy to feel overwhelmed and that there is little or nothing that one person can do to make a difference. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This August you have a rare opportunity to help save American democracy by speaking out against the Medicaid cuts in Trump’s mega-bill. Reach out to your member of Congress and find out how you can attend a town meeting and speak out in support of Medicaid. If your member of Congress is not holding a town meeting, stop by their district office and share your concerns with congressional staff. Trust me as a former congressional district office staffer, your presence will be noted.

If you have never gone to a congressional town meeting or met with a member of Congress, it can be intimidating. There is no need to be nervous. Remember that they work for you! Here are some simple tips that might be helpful:

Remind your member of Congress that according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicaid pays for the care of fully 60 percent of patients in nursing homes.
Tell your member of Congress that according to the American Hospital Association, 40 percent of all the births in this country are paid for by Medicaid.
Convey the real-world impact of what cuts to Medicaid would be. Do not fall into the trap of defending Medicaid as a government program. Instead, talk about anyone you know who relies on Medicaid. If you rely on Medicaid, you should share that. Polling data shows that fully 60 percent of Americans know someone who depends on Medicaid. The more personal you make the issue of Medicaid, the more effective you will be.
If you live in a rural area, tell your member of Congress that their vote for the Trump mega-bill will hurt your local hospital. According to the National Rural Health Association, “the bill will limit access to care for all rural patients by ending healthcare coverage for rural residents nationwide and putting financial strain on rural facilities who care for them.” Do not talk about rural hospitals in general, talk about your local hospital and why it is important.
Provide the “why” in your Medicaid advocacy. Tell your member of Congress that you know that Medicaid is being cut to fund tax cuts for the wealthy.

Martin Burns resides with his wife Mary Liz in Washington, D.C. Most recently, he was on the campaign trail for Harris-Walz in Pennsylvanian and North Carolina. He has worked as a congressional aide, journalist, and lobbyist and is a member of the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. and a member of the National Writers Union.