Democratic

NEW YORK — Maine just sent a blunt message to the Democratic Party’s national leaders.

Democratic Gov. Janet Mills was forced to abandon her U.S. Senate campaign last week, unable to generate sufficient fundraising or enthusiasm to compete against Graham Platner, an oyster farmer who has never served in elected office. The announcement marked a stinging defeat for Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, who recruited Mills to lead the party’s decades-long quest to defeat Republican Sen. Susan Collins.

The swift eclipse of a two-term governor by a political neophyte highlighted a stark reality that has begun to take hold at a pivotal moment — Democratic voters are rejecting their party’s establishment and embracing new risks, even as their confidence grows that a blue wave is coming in November’s midterm elections.

Sometimes Democratic voters seem almost as angry at their own party’s aging, entrenched leadership as they are at President Trump.

“Rank-and-file Democrats don’t want the Democratic Party as we know it,” said Ezra Levin, co-founder of the Democratic resistance group Indivisible. “Rank-and-file Democrats want fighters.”

Local chapters of the group Indivisible, as well as Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, and other leaders from the party’s progressive wing had already lined up behind Platner, who is now almost certain to be the Democratic nominee in one of the party’s best Senate pickup opportunities in the nation.

Platner on Friday said he would continue to speak out against his party’s leadership, including Schumer (D-N.Y.), although he acknowledged that the two spoke privately the night before.

“The fact that we’ve been able to do all of this without the help of the establishment, it puts us in such an amazing position,” Platner said on MS NOW’s “Morning Joe.” “My criticisms of the party leadership, my criticisms of the party, they have not changed, and I’ve been very vocal about that since the beginning. But we will absolutely take the help that we can get.”

Republicans, meanwhile, are giddy — and some moderate Democratic strategists are worried — that the anti-establishment shift may undermine the Democratic Party’s effort to win back control of Congress in November.

“Chuck Schumer has officially lost the first battle in his proxy war with Bernie Sanders,” said Bernadette Breslin, spokesperson for the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm. “As Sanders hits the campaign trail to prop up progressives in messy Democrat primaries in Michigan and Minnesota, Schumer’s chances of getting his preferred candidates through look grim.”

Beyond Maine

Maine is far from alone.

Prominent anti-establishment clashes are playing out in high-profile Senate races in Michigan, Minnesota and Iowa, along with House races in several states.

Sanders, the country’s highest-profile democratic socialist, continues to promote Platner and other critics of the Democratic Party’s national leadership. The Vermont senator planned to campaign over the weekend in Detroit with Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, who is running in a three-way Senate primary against Rep. Haley Stevens and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow.

“There’s a desire to turn the page on the old guard,” Sanders’ political advisor Faiz Shakir said. “It’s not even just the Democratic electorate. There’s a populist mood in this country. You’d have to be blind not to see it.”

Indeed, McMorrow is actively working to remind voters that she would not support Schumer as Democrats’ Senate leader if given the chance.

“Frankly, I was the first person in this country to say no,” McMorrow said in a video she posted Thursday on social media. “It is a different moment. This is no longer a Republican Party we’re dealing with, it is a MAGA party that has been taken over by Trump loyalists. … You need to respond in a very different way.”

Veteran Democratic strategists like Lis Smith, who works with candidates across the country, tied the anti-establishment shift to the party’s painful losses in 2024, after President Biden abandoned his reelection bid and Vice President Kamala Harris went on to lose to Trump.

“After 2024, voters are sick of the gerontocracy, sick of the status quo, and Chuck Schumer has completely misread that,” Smith said.

Moderates are worried

Privately, Schumer’s allies downplay the impact of the anti-establishment backlash.

The Democratic leader’s preferred Senate picks in North Carolina, Ohio and Alaska haven’t faced the same challenges as Mills did in Maine. The four states represent the party’s most likely path to a majority in the chamber, which has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two independents who caucus with the Democrats.

Mills is the oldest of the candidates and, at 78, would have been the oldest freshman senator in history. She promised to serve one term if elected. Platner is 41.

Schumer’s team is unwilling to make any apologies for backing Mills over Platner.

“Leader Schumer’s North Star is taking back the Senate,” Schumer spokesperson Allison Biasotti said. “When no one thought a Senate majority was possible just a year ago, he made it a reality by recruiting great candidates across the country and laying out an agenda for lower costs and better lives for Americans.”

Some in the Democratic Party’s moderate wing are worried.

Matt Bennett, co-founder of the center-left group Third Way, said that Platner’s emergence in Maine “without a doubt” will make it harder for Democrats to defeat Collins in November. He warns that it could be the same elsewhere if Democratic primary voters rally behind anti-establishment candidates.

“Our message is if you would like to beat Donald Trump’s Republicans, you better nominate people who can win,” Bennett said.

Peoples writes for the Associated Press.

Prominent Democratic governors, some considering 2028 presidential bids, gathered Thursday in Los Angeles for a high-dollar fundraiser.

Tickets to attend the event cost up to $100,000, according to an invitation. Closed to the press, it was expected to raise more than $1.5 million for the Democratic Governors Assn., among the largest amount the group has ever raised at a fundraiser in Los Angeles.

Gov. Gavin Newsom introduced fellow Democratic Govs. Andy Beshear of Kentucky, Maura Healey of Massachusetts, Laura Kelly of Kansas, Katie Hobbs of Arizona, Wes Moore of Maryland, Josh Stein of North Carolina, Tim Walz of Minnesota and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan.

Several attendees, including Newson, Beshear and Whitmore, are widely believed to be eyeing a presidential run in 2028. Walz was then-Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate in her unsuccessful 2024 bid for the presidency.

Beshear moderated the conversation among the state leaders at the Los Angeles-area home of liquor heiress Ellen Bronfman Hauptman and her husband, former Chicago Fire soccer club owner Andrew Hauptman. Attendees enjoyed cocktails and passed hors d’oeuvres
around the pool before settling in for a conversation in the house that focused on how governors must focus on results more than ideological disputes, and how that ought to be a model for federal elected officials.

About 45 donors attended, including Damon Lindelof, the creator of “Lost,” and Scott Budnick, the executive producer of “The Hangover” movie series. Others who supported the event included director J.J. Abrams and former Walt Disney Studios Chairman Alan Horn.

WASHINGTON — Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick is resigning from Congress rather than be formally disciplined by the House as part of an ethics investigation into her use of campaign funds.

Explaining her decision in an extended social media statement on Tuesday, the Florida Democrat decried the internal investigation process as unfair. She said the House Committee denied her and her new attorney adequate time to prepare a defense.

“Rather than play these political games, I choose to step away,” she wrote.

Members of the House Ethics Committee on Tuesday had been set to weigh what punishment to recommend after they found she committed 25 violations of House rules and ethical standards, including breaking campaign finance laws.

Republicans had already called for the expulsion of Cherfilus-McCormick, who was in her third term and was running for reelection in a southeastern Florida district. She is also facing federal criminal charges accusing her of stealing $5 million in coronavirus disaster relief funds and using the money to buy items such as a 3-carat yellow diamond ring.

Cherfilus-McCormick has pleaded not guilty to the criminal charges and says she is not guilty of ethics violations, either.

The allegations against the congresswoman center on how she received millions of dollars from her family’s healthcare business after Florida mistakenly overpaid the business by roughly $5 million with COVID-19 disaster relief funds. She is accused of using that money to fund her 2022 congressional campaign through a network of businesses and family members.

Cherfilus-McCormick declined to testify during a previous Ethics Committee hearing, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Her attorney, William Barzee, sparred with some of the lawmakers and argued that they should have allowed a thorough ethics trial, at which he could present witnesses and evidence to counter the conclusions of House investigators.

A group of supporters in Cherfilus-McCormick’s congressional district had weighed in on her behalf with the lawmakers who lead the Ethics Committee, urging committee leaders to proceed with caution.

“Our communities deserve stability. Our voices deserve to be heard. And our right to representation must be protected,” said one of the letters sent to the committee signed by about a dozen local faith leaders, union officials and others.

In all, the panel’s two-year investigation led to the issuance of 59 subpoenas, 28 witness interviews and a review of more than 33,000 pages of documents.

Rep. Greg Steube, a Florida Republican, had said he would move to expel Cherfilus-McCormick once the Ethics Committee made a determination on what punishment it would recommend.

That move could in turn prompt Democrats to seek the expulsion of Rep. Cory Mills, a Florida Republican who is the subject of a wide-ranging investigation by the Ethics Committee that includes whether he violated campaign finance laws, misused congressional resources and engaged in sexual misconduct or dating violence. That investigation is ongoing. Mills has denied any wrongdoing.

The focus on lawmaker wrongdoing comes just one week after two lawmakers resigned during ethics investigations into alleged sexual misconduct. Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California and Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas headed off possible expulsion votes with their resignations.

House Democratic leaders had declined to condemn Cherfilus-McCormick, saying they wanted to see the ethics process play out. Potential punishments included a reprimand or a censure, which serve as forms of public rebuke. The committee could also have recommended a fine. The most severe form of punishment was expulsion, but the House has historically been reluctant to serve as the final arbiter of a lawmaker’s career, preferring to give that final say to the voters.

Only six members of the House have been expelled. The first three fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War and were expelled for disloyalty. The next two had been convicted of crimes. The final one was George Santos, the scandal-plagued freshman who was the subject of a blistering ethics report on his conduct as well as federal indictment. Santos, a New York Republican, served time in prison for ripping off his campaign donors before President Trump granted him clemency, and he has apologized to his former constituents.

Under the Constitution, at least two-thirds of the House has to vote for expulsion for it to occur, a high threshold that requires enormous bipartisan support.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters last week he believes the House will move to expel Cherfilus-McCormick.

“The facts are indisputable at this point, and so I believe it’ll be the consensus of this body that she should be expelled,” Johnson said.

Freking and Groves write for the Associated Press.

Reporting from Sacramento — — Two days after he was finally sworn in as California’s lieutenant governor after a grueling partisan battle, Republican Abel Maldonado appeared on national TV with political comedian Stephen Colbert to discuss his signature issue, a primary election designed to reduce the influence of party hardliners in the Legislature.

“Why on Earth would you want to destroy the two-party system?” demanded Colbert, who parodies a right-wing cable news host.

Leaders from both major parties in California, who vehemently oppose the open-primary measure, are asking essentially the same question, only they don’t see it as a laughing matter.

Proposition 14, which appears on the June 8 ballot, would put all candidates for statewide, congressional and legislative offices on the same primary ballot and allow voters to choose from the full list. The top two vote-getters for each office — regardless of party — would face each other in a runoff.

A poll released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California showed 60% of respondents in favor of the measure, 27% opposed and 13% undecided.

Backers, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, say the system would free candidates from the need to court the radical wings of their parties to win nomination to the November ballot. That, in turn, would lead to the election of more moderate lawmakers and more cooperation on tough issues like fixing California’s $19.1–billion budget deficit.

Under the current system, Republicans vote on one ballot in a primary election and Democrats on another. Independents, who now represent a record 20% of the California electorate, are allowed to choose either ballot. But few do, so their influence in a primary is minimal, and candidates for November are generally chosen by hard-core party loyalists.

About a third of California congressional and legislative districts are dominated by a single party, according to a recent report by the nonpartisan Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles. Almost all are Democratic strongholds. In some, Democrats have such an advantage that the two top primary vote-getters might both be Democrats.

In those cases, Proposition 14 supporters said, they hope the more moderate candidate could win by appealing to Republicans and independents.

As of Friday, Schwarzenegger and the California Chamber of Commerce had helped raise more than $4.7 million for a Yes on 14 campaign, which has started airing a radio ad that claims the measure would reduce “the influence of the major parties which are now under the control of the special interests.”

In a display of harmony that would seem unthinkable on other issues, leading state Democrats and Republicans announced a joint campaign to defeat the measure. They had raised $200,000 as of Friday.

“Both political parties in California hate this measure,” said Tony Quinn, co-editor of the nonpartisan California Target Book, which tracks state political races. “They like having these little private clubs. But the voters don’t.”

Party leaders say passage of Proposition 14 would invite a slew of unintended consequences, including higher campaign costs and political skullduggery.

“It allows for mischief where Democrats could go and choose the Republican nominee,” said John Burton, chairman of the state Democratic Party.

He said there are Democrats in safe districts who might try to help their party by casting their primary votes for hard-line Republicans who are “so far out” that they could not win a general election.

Under the current system, primary campaigns are less expensive than general elections because candidates have to woo only voters registered in their own party. With an open system, candidates would need to appeal to all voters, sending out a lot more mail and potentially buying expensive air time on radio and TV. The increased costs could drive them deeper into the arms of well-heeled special interests, party leaders say.

Those leaders also take issue with the underlying notion that they are a source of unhealthy division.

“Broad-based political parties are an essential part of our democracy,” said California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring. “The alternative is to have voters divided by … region, or ethnicity or religion.”

Burton, whose Democrats control both chambers of the Legislature, scoffed at the notion that he can call the shots for lawmakers.

“If I had power, this wouldn’t even be on the ballot, because I urged the [Senate president] pro tem and the Assembly speaker not to do it,” he said.

In fact, it was the Legislature that put the measure on the ballot after one lone moderate broke last year’s budget stalemate. Maldonado, then a state senator, agreed to vote for tax increases after legislative leaders agreed to put the open-primary measure before voters.

But the Legislature’s leaders don’t want the measure to pass and are now opposing it. The move won Maldonado a friend in Schwarzenegger, however, and the governor nominated him for the vacant lieutenant governor post.

The confirmation process quickly descended into a partisan fight.

“They came at me from all sides, and it was all driven by the party bosses,” Maldonado said of the roughly 150 days he spent in limbo, waiting for confirmation. “But with the open primary initiative, you would only be accountable to the people.”

While politicians debate the measure’s possible effect, many academics wonder if it would have any noticeable effect. Bruce Cain, a professor of political science at UC Berkeley, said he expected the major parties and big donors would adapt quickly and make sure they have only one credible candidate in each primary.

“As a social scientist, I’m glad that California wants to do another experiment; it generates more papers and more studies,” Cain said. “But I share the prevailing skepticism of my profession that any significant change will come about.”

jack.dolan@latimes.com

WASHINGTON — Democrats who once saw retaking the U.S. Senate as a long shot in 2026 have newfound hope thanks to an unpopular president and a California donor machine that has snapped into action.

Californians provided the most out-of-state cash to Democrats in nearly every hotly contested race, and in several cases gave more than in-state donors, according to a Times analysis of campaign finance filings covering the first three months of 2026.

Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, who took in more than $14 million overall, received nearly as much from California backers as from supporters in his home state among donors who contributed at least $200 and whose identities were disclosed.

James Talarico, a Democratic Senate candidate in Texas, has raised a staggering $27 million so far this year, with California donors contributing just under $1.2 million to back his campaign — second only to Texas supporters among those donors whose names were disclosed.

Donors who give less than $200 are not required to be identified in campaign finance reports and made up a significant share of the donors to Ossoff’s and Talarico’s campaigns.

Republicans currently have control of the Senate with 53 of the chamber’s 100 seats. This year 35 seats are at play, including special elections in Florida and Ohio.

GOP still winning a key cash race

While more of the seats up for grabs are in Republican hands, polling showing the potential for tight races in several of them has given Democrats hope that they might be able to shrink or reverse their deficit in November.

Top Democratic candidates have out-raised their GOP rivals in the most competitive Senate races, but Republicans are winning the cash race among big-money committees that can accept checks far larger than the $7,000 cap on donations to candidate committees.

Those Democratic candidates have continued a tradition of relying on donors in the country’s most populous state to bankroll their campaigns.

“California has been a rich gold mine for many a candidate and continues to be that,” said Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform at Issue One, a bipartisan advocacy group.

Democratic Senate candidates in a few races raised more from California donors than from donors in their home states, according to campaign finance reports filed Wednesday.

Democratic former Rep. Mary Peltola of Alaska, who is challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, brought in nearly $900,000 from California donors who had contributed at least $200. Alaska donors contributed just over $520,000 to Peltola in the same time period.

Two of the three leading Democratic hopefuls in Michigan’s open Senate race, Rep. Haley Stevens and physician Abdul El-Sayed, reported taking in more from California donors than from donors in Michigan. California was the second biggest bank of support for the other top Democratic contender, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow.

And in Nebraska, independent Dan Osborn, who is challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts, took in $80,000 more from disclosed California donors than from Nebraskans.

Dozens of California donors gave to at least five Senate candidates across the country, according to The Times’ analysis of the filing data.

Burbank playwright and screenwriter Winnie Holzman has donated to Democratic candidates in nine key races and said she has been inspired to give to them — and other candidates and political groups — because of concerns about the policies of President Trump’s administration and what she sees as its violation of the law.

“This isn’t just about who is in the Senate,” said Holzman, who wrote the script for the play “Wicked” and co-wrote its movie adaptations. “But if enough Democrats were in the Senate right now, there would be a lot more ability to push back on this.”

The impressive fundraising hauls by Democrats come with a significant caveat.

The two most prominent political committees that support Republican Senate candidates — the party-affiliated National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Senate Leadership Fund super PAC, have both outraised rival Democratic groups by a significant margin this cycle.

For the NRSC, an $11.5-million fundraising advantage since the start of 2025 has translated to a modest $2-million advantage in cash in the bank through the end of February compared with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

But the Senate Leadership Fund, which can accept unlimited amounts of cash from donors, had $91.6 million more to spend at the end of March than the Democratic rival Senate Majority PAC.

And the pro-Trump super PAC MAGA Inc. had a stunning $312 million in the bank at the end of February.

Money raised by candidate campaign committees does, however, bring some advantages over money raised by other committees. Most significantly, candidates are able to buy advertising at cheaper rates than other political committees.

That is an important distinction in a year when advertising spending in Senate races is expected to top $2.8 billion.

The Senate map

While political analysts expect that Democrats will likely perform well in congressional races — with early signs pointing to a strong possibility that the party regains control of the House — winning control of the Senate would be a much taller order.

“The Senate is going to be won or lost in red states,” said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.

Even in the best-case scenario for Democrats, to retake control of the chamber they would probably need to win in at least two states such as Iowa, Alaska, Ohio or Texas, all of which went to Trump in the 2024 presidential election by double-digit margins.

With the vast sums likely to be raised — and spent — by both sides, Kondik said that fundraising can reach a point of diminishing returns.

“You’d rather have more than less, obviously, but the actual effect is pretty debatable,” he said.

And history shows that fundraising prowess doesn’t necessarily translate to electoral success in November.

Take the example of Texas Democrat Beto O’Rourke.

In his 2018 challenge of incumbent Republican Ted Cruz, O’Rourke brought in more than $80 million, more than double Cruz’s fundraising haul of $35 million.

But it wasn’t enough to put the then-congressman from El Paso over the top.

O’Rourke lost the race by about 2.5 percentage points.

MADISON, Wis. — The bluntest assessment of Republican failures during this week’s elections in Wisconsin came from one of their own.

“We got our butts kicked,” said U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who is running for governor.

He was referring to Democratic victories in campaigns for the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the mayor’s office in Waukesha, a conservative suburb outside Milwaukee. But some Republicans were also rattled by a special election in Georgia, where their candidate to replace Marjorie Taylor Greene in Congress won by a much slimmer margin than the party enjoyed in the past.

Taken together, the swings from red to blue added more data points to an increasingly clear picture of Democratic momentum heading into the November midterms, when control of the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate and state governments around the country are up for grabs.

“In rural, urban, red, blue, Democrats have overperformed everywhere,” said Jared Leopold, a Democratic consultant whose clients include Keisha Lance Bottoms, a candidate for Georgia governor. “That is a significant canary in the coal mine about what November of ’26 is going to look like.”

Some Republicans insisted there was no need to panic, and their fundraising remains stronger than Democrats’. Stephen Lawson, a Georgia strategist, said “the sky is not falling.”

But he also said his party is running behind where it has been in the past, and Republicans need to be “looking at these results carefully.”

‘A red alarm for Republicans’

Special elections can be notoriously unreliable as political benchmarks, but Democrats have consistently demonstrated surprising strength. They flipped a Texas state Senate district. They won a Florida state House seat in a district that includes President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach.

Then they gained ground on Tuesday in the race to replace Greene, who resigned from Congress in January after a falling out with Trump.

Clay Fuller, the Republican candidate, prevailed by 12 percentage points. Two years ago, Greene won by 29 percentage points and Trump carried the district by almost 37 percentage points.

“That’s a red alarm for Republicans,” said Democratic strategist Meredith Brasher.

Fuller defeated Shawn Harris, who plans to challenge him again in November.

Jackie Harling, the district’s Republican chairwoman, said she believed that Greene’s resignation energized Democrats while her party is suffering from “election fatigue.”

“Marjorie Taylor Greene was like a freight train that you couldn’t stop, and when she pulled out, it gave Democrats hope and it gave them a shot at winning something they believed was unwinnable,” Harling said.

‘Slightly bluer side of purple’

Georgia has key races this year, including an open contest for the governor’s office. Sen. Jon Ossoff, a Democrat, is trying to defend his seat as well.

There’s reason to think that simmering discontent could boomerang on Republicans just two years after Trump harnessed voters’ anger with his comeback presidential campaign.

In November, Democrats defeated two Republican incumbents in statewide races for seats on the Public Service Commission, which regulates utilities. Rising electricity rates have been a fault line in recent campaigns, especially as enormous data centers are built to power artificial intelligence.

But Georgia Democratic Party Chair Charlie Bailey is trying to maintain modest expectations.

“We could cement ourselves, put ourselves, on the slightly bluer side of purple,” he said. ”We’re not going to overnight turn into Colorado.”

‘A very clear sign of momentum’

Wisconsin holds statewide elections for Supreme Court seats, and liberals expanded their majority with a 20-percentage-point blowout victory on Tuesday.

Democrats saw gains in red, blue and purple counties when compared with another judicial race last year, which was also won by the liberal candidate.

“This to me was a very clear sign of momentum and enthusiasm for Democrats in the fall,” said Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Devin Remiker.

The state has its own open race for governor this year, and Democrats are hoping to take control of the state Legislature and oust Republican U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden.

“It’s time for us to put this thing in overdrive,” said Mandela Barnes, a Democratic former lieutenant governor who is running for governor.

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, another Democratic candidate for governor, said it’s clear that “people are really upset with the Republican Party and their brand right now.”

“But that doesn’t mean that they’re automatically going to come over to the Democrats,” Crowley said. “And that’s why we have to continue to focus on the issues and speak to the values of all the voters here in the state of Wisconsin.”

‘A lot of anxiety’

Tiffany, the Republican candidate for governor in Wisconsin, cautioned against reading too much into Tuesday’s results.

He said “every election is unique,” and he wasn’t making any changes to his campaign. He said the key to winning will be to “paint that clear contrast of how we are going to help everyday Wisconsinites.”

But Democrats seemed to be making inroads, including in Waukesha. The city is located outside of Milwaukee in the Republican stronghold of Waukesha County.

Democrat Alicia Halvensleben, president of the city’s Common Council, defeated Republican Scott Allen, one of the most conservative members of the state Assembly.

She said Trump came up “a lot” when she was campaigning, although she thinks her victory came down to local issues and how the state legislature wasn’t addressing them.

“There’s so much uncertainty at the national level,” Halvensleben said. “I think that level of uncertainty is causing people a lot of anxiety, all the way down to the local level.”

Bauer, Amy and Cooper write for the Associated Press. Amy reported from Atlanta, and Cooper from Phoenix.

April 6 (UPI) — Two Democratic lawmakers concluded a trip to Cuba on Monday by calling for the United States and Cuba to begin “real negotiations” and denouncing the Trump administration’s “economic bombing” of Havana.

Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal, of Washington, and Jonathan Jackson, of Illinois, returned to the United States following a five-day visit to Cuba. They said they spoke with officials and witnessed the effects of President Donald Trump‘s monthslong de facto oil blockade of the island nation.

The lawmakers said they saw premature babies in incubators put at risk due to Cuba’s energy crisis, children out of school because teachers have no fuel to travel to school and cancer patients being denied treatment because of a lack of medicine.

“This is cruel collective punishment — effectively an economic bombing of the infrastructure of the country — that has produced permanent damage,” the lawmakers said in a joint statement.

“It must stop immediately.”

The Trump administration has been enforcing a monthslong policy of choking off oil supplies to Cuba, plunging the socialist nation into a worsening energy and humanitarian crisis. On Jan. 29, President Donald Trump declared a national emergency with respect to Cuba and created a process to penalize countries that provide it with oil. According to a recent U.N. system action plan, citing Cuban authorities, no fuel imports have been recorded since Dec. 13.

“This disruption has triggered a severe energy shock, characterized by a critical fuel shortage affecting electricity generation, transportation and essential logistics across the country,” the U.N. report published last week said.

Widespread blackouts, fuel rationing and electricity shortages have been reported, it said.

The two Democratic lawmakers said they met with Cuba leaders in religion, civi society and the government, as well as dissidents, and all agreed that the blockade — which they called illegal — must end.

“We do not believe that the majority of Americans would want this kind of cruelty and inhumanity to continue in our name,” they said.

The pair met with President Miguel Diaz-Canel Bermudez, who said in a statement that he denounced to them the “energy siege decreed by the current U.S. government” and reiterated “the willingness of our Government to sustain a serious and responsible dialogue and to find solutions to the existing differences.”

Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez of Cuba said in a statement that he also told the lawmakers about the situation facing his country and their “willingness for serious and responsible dialogue to try to find solutions to bilateral problems.”

The Democrats said the Cuba government has sent signals that the country is ready for reform, pointing to its pardoning last week of more than 2,000 prisoners and efforts to liberalize its economy, while arguing the remaining obstacles to its progress is U.S. policy, which they called “outdated” from the Cold War-era.

“True reform will only come from charting a new course,” they said.

Trump has turned his attention to Cuba after detaining Venezuela’s authoritarian leader, Nicolas Maduro, in early January in a clandestine military operation.

He has said it is “a failing nation” and described it as on the precipice of collapse.

“As we achieve a historic transformation in Venezuela, we’re also looking forward to the great change that will soon be coming to Cuba,” he said on March 7 during the Shield of the Americas Summit.

“Cuba’s at the end of the line.”

The Los Angeles chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America will not endorse a candidate for mayor.

After City Councilmember Nithya Raman decided at the last minute to run against her former ally Mayor Karen Bass, the group called a vote on whether to reopen the endorsement process, which it had closed without supporting a candidate.

DSA-LA backed Raman’s two successful city council runs, but she has been at odds with the group on some issues.

Also in the mix was another mayoral candidate, community organizer Rae Huang, whose positions align more closely with those of the group.

The two candidates were present for Saturday’s vote at Immanuel Presbyterian Church in Koreatown, though neither spoke.

The left-wing organization, which has about 5,000 members, is known for running strong ground game campaigns that include canvassing, door-knocking and phone banking. In addition to Raman, three other DSA-backed politicians now sit on the 15-member City Council.

Before the vote, DSA-LA members argued for and against reopening the endorsement process.

“The worst thing we can do right now for our movement is to say, ‘Well, actually, we’re not going to endorse Rae or Nithya. We’re going to do a third thing, which is to issue no endorsement.’ Who is the audience for this message?” said Leslie Chang, a co-chair of DSA-LA.

DSA-LA member Anna Gross argued that neither candidate was ideal, with Huang, who has little political experience, being a long shot and Raman hesitating to fully embrace the group.

“I do want a democratic socialist mayor, but as it stands, we have one candidate who is not going to win … and a candidate who will not openly identify as a democratic socialist,” Gross said.

Of the 488 members who voted Saturday, about 55% supported reopening the endorsement process, falling short of the required two-thirds majority.

If the process had been reopened, the group would have then voted on whether to endorse Raman, Huang or neither.

Huang’s earlier attempt to get the endorsement while the window was still open had failed because she did not obtain enough valid member signatures to qualify.

If the race is not decided in the June 2 primary, DSA-LA can still endorse a candidate in the runoff.

Besides Bass, Raman and Huang, the field of 14 candidates includes conservative reality TV star Spencer Pratt and tech entrepreneur Adam Miller.

Some members believed that a mayoral endorsement would take resources away from the slate of six local candidates they have already endorsed.

In city council races, DSA-LA is backing incumbents Hugo Soto-Martínez and Eunisses Hernandez; Faizah Malik, who is running against incumbent Traci Park on the Westside; and Estuardo Mazariegos for an open South L.A. seat.

The group is also backing Marissa Roy, who is challenging City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, and Rocío Rivas, an incumbent L.A. Unified school board member.

The same day she announced her surprise bid for mayor, Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Raman called a member of the local Democratic Socialists of America chapter.

She wanted to meet with the group’s leadership to explain her late-breaking decision to challenge Mayor Karen Bass, her longtime ally, which took just about everyone in the city by surprise.

Two days later, Raman gathered at her Silver Lake home with leaders of DSA-LA, which has endorsed her two runs for City Council but has been at odds with her on some issues.

Leslie Chang, a co-chair of the 5,000-member chapter, recalled Raman saying, “‘The media is going to paint me as a DSA candidate, and I have a relationship with you, and I’m interested in maintaining that relationship. So let’s talk.’”

DSA-LA, which had declined to endorse in the mayor’s race, will decide on Saturday whether to reopen its endorsement process.

Some members believe that a mayoral endorsement would take valuable phone-banking and door-knocking resources away from the slate of six local candidates they have already endorsed.

If the process moves forward, the question would then be whether to back Raman or Rae Huang, a housing activist viewed by some members as more aligned with socialist principles, while others see her as less electable. The group could also decide not to endorse either candidate.

Leslie Chang, co-chair for the Los Angeles chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, at a rally at Molina Grand Park in Los Angeles on March 18.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Going to bat for a mayoral candidate would be the highest-profile drive the local organization has run in a city where its influence has expanded since it knocked on doors for Raman’s first council campaign in 2020. In addition to Raman, three other DSA-backed politicians now occupy seats on the 15-member City Council.

In New York, DSA member Zohran Mamdani was recently elected mayor on a platform of rent freezes and free city buses.

“It would be a major coup for DSA to have one of their candidates be elected mayor [of Los Angeles],” said Sara Sadhwani, a politics professor at Pomona College.

The Rev. Rae Huang, who is running for mayor of Los Angeles, joined the Fair Games Coalition to announce the launch of the Overpaid CEO Tax Initiative in front of the Tesla Diner in West Hollywood on Jan. 14.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

As a city council member, Raman has delivered several major wins celebrated by DSA members, including strengthening renter protections and passing the first reform to the city’s rent stabilization ordinance in decades.

But she has sometimes been out of step with the group, approving budgets that increased police spending and seeking to revise Measure ULA, also known as the city’s “mansion tax,” to offer a 15-year exemption to developers of multifamily and commercial projects.

Raman’s most visible split with DSA occurred over the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack that killed more than 1,200 Israelis.

DSA released a statement saying “this was not unprovoked.” Raman called the statement “unacceptably devoid of empathy for communities in Israel.”

In early 2024, DSA censured Raman for seeking and accepting an endorsement from Democrats for Israel-Los Angeles, a liberal Zionist group, chiding her for “accepting support from [DSA’s] enemies.”

“Why are people wary of endorsing Nithya for mayor? A lot of people who were in leadership at the time are hesitant because of that situation,” said Noah Suarez-Sikes, a member of DSA-LA’s steering committee.

In a statement to The Times, Raman called herself an “independent leader.”

“While I share the DSA’s emphasis on uplifting the working class and those who have been left behind by the political establishment, I don’t always agree with my allies on how to accomplish our goals,” she said.

Some DSA members see Huang, who has little citywide name recognition or political experience, as more connected to the group’s platform than Raman. Huang has called for “Fast and Free Buses” as well as for more public input on the city budget.

Huang highlighted her support for keeping the “mansion tax” as is, also telling The Times that she would reduce the Police Department budget and the number of officers.

Raman has said she believes the Los Angeles Police Department should maintain its current staffing of around 8,700 sworn officers.

Konstantine Anthony, a DSA member and Burbank City Council member who gathered signatures to reopen the endorsement window, is supporting Huang.

“She is the exact candidate DSA across the country should be running for every seat,” he said.

Keshav Kundassery, a DSA member since 2019, supports Raman.

While he called Huang’s campaign for mayor “inspiring,” Kundassery said he does not think that she can get enough support.

“DSA should be in the business of running campaigns to win,” he said.

DSA-LA has already endorsed in four city council races, backing incumbents Hugo Soto-Martínez and Eunisses Hernandez; Faizah Malik, who is running against incumbent Traci Park on the Westside; and Estuardo Mazariegos for an open South L.A. seat.

The group is also backing Marissa Roy, who is challenging City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, and Rocío Rivas, an incumbent L.A. Unified school board member.

“Any consideration we make now we will make understanding the balance of resources of our six candidates and a potential seventh,” said Chang, the DSA-LA co-chair.

Times staff writer David Zahniser contributed to this report.

I’ve seen enough. It’s time to revise our expectations about the midterms.

For more than a year now, conventional wisdom has been that Democrats would take back the House — but not the Senate — in the November midterms.

That’s because this year’s Senate map would require Democrats to win numerous seats in red states.

In fact, if you had asked me a couple of months ago, I would have told you that, yes, Democrats have a shot at the Senate, but in the same way my teenage son has a shot at someday dating Sydney Sweeney. Which is to say, technically possible but cosmically unlikely.

But recent developments (such as President Trump’s plunging approval ratings on the economy) are encouraging me to revise my thinking.

I’m not alone. Independent journalist Chris Cillizza recently observed that for the first time ever, prediction markets like Polymarket and Kalshi showed Democrats with a narrow edge.

Now, prediction markets are not scientific. Neither, for that matter, is licking your finger and holding it up to the wind — but both have outperformed political polling at various times in the last couple of years.

The difference is that in prediction markets, people are wagering actual money, which tends to sharpen the mind in ways that answering a pollster’s call during dinner does not.

Of course, you probably haven’t heard much about this revised political outlook. That’s because nobody has any incentive to shout it from the rooftops.

Democrats don’t want to inflate expectations and risk turning a solid win into a perceived disappointment. Republicans, meanwhile, are not eager to advertise that their Senate majority is wobbling like a shopping cart with a bad wheel. And we pundits, chastened by having been burned, are reluctant to get too far out over our skis.

Even Cillizza still leans Republican on balance. But if I had to bet today — and I tend to define bet as “regret later” — I’d put my chips on the Democrats. Not because it’s a sure thing, but because almost every political and economic development seems to be trending in their direction.

History helps. The “out” party in the midterms usually does well. Current events help. Policies, including the war in Iran and rising gas prices, tend to sour voters on whoever’s in charge. And candidate quality helps. Voters do occasionally notice who’s actually on the ballot, and Democrats are serving up a semi-respectable offering.

Let’s pause to appreciate what’s at stake. Control of the Senate isn’t just about who gets the nicer office furniture. It determines judicial confirmations, including the possibility that Trump could fill a fourth Supreme Court vacancy (if one opens up in 2027 or 2028).

Now, it would be irresponsible of me to just drop this idea without delving into some logistical details.

For Democrats to flip the Senate, they need to net four seats. That means defending everything they already have while winning four more. The encouraging news (if you’re rooting for the Democrats) is that there are at least eight plausible opportunities for that to happen.

In North Carolina, incumbent Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, is widely expected to win. In Maine, Republican Sen. Susan Collins once again finds herself in a political knife fight — her natural habitat, though perhaps not her preferred one. She will face Maine’s current governor or a flamboyant and controversial oysterman. I’m not sure who’d be the tougher opponent.

Out in Ohio, former Sen. Sherrod Brown benefits from the rare political skill of being a Democrat who still seems at home in Ohio.

The Democrat running in Alaska is a former member of Congress (and the first Alaska Native elected to Congress). And for the open seat in Iowa, Democrats seem likely to nominate a two-time Paralympic gold medalist who represents the reddest state house seat held by a Democrat.

Then there’s Texas, the perennial Democratic mirage — always shimmering on the horizon. But this year, it might come into clear view. James Talarico has emerged for Democrats, while Republicans are stuck choosing between scandal-plagued Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton and incumbent Sen. John Cornyn — a process that currently resembles a family feud conducted with vicious attack ads.

Meanwhile, in Nebraska and Montana, Democrats aren’t even pretending to compete. Instead, they’re relying on independents who — like Sens. Bernie Sanders and Angus King — would likely caucus with them.

In Nebraska, independent Dan Osborn already proved he can make it close: He lost in 2024 — a bad year to run against a Republican. And in Montana, the sudden announced retirement of Sen. Steve Daines has created an opening that didn’t exist five minutes ago (in political time).

Let’s not get carried away. The idea that Democrats could sweep all these races is still the kind of thing you say after your third drink. But winning half of them? That’s no longer fantasy. That’s … plausible. Maybe even more likely than not.

This isn’t a safe bet. It’s not even a comfortable one. But for the first time, it’s starting to look like smart money isn’t laughing at the idea anymore — it’s quietly sliding chips across the table.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

March 18 (UPI) — Illinois Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton claimed victory late Tuesday in a close race to be the Democratic Senate nominee in November, as voters headed to the polls to cast ballots in primary elections.

Dozens of local and federal contests were held throughout the state on a busy election Tuesday that included 17 U.S. House races but only one for the Senate — a seat being left vacant by the retiring Dick Durbin, the six-term senator and the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate.

Stratton claimed victory in a packed race for the Democratic nomination for Durbin’s seat.

“We did it,” she told supporters in her victory speech in Chicago.

“Tonight, we showed what’s possible when you listen to the people and give the people what they want.”

Stratton ran on a progressive platform of securing a single-payer healthcare system and a $25 minimum wage, while rejecting all corporate Political Action Committee funding during her campaign.

U.S. Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi and Robin Kelly emerged as her main political rivals.

Krishnamoorthi told his supporters in a brief speech Tuesday night at the Westin Hotel in Chicago’s River North neighborhood that he had called Stratton to congratulate her on winning the primary.

“I offered her my full support on the road ahead,” he said.

Krishnamoorthi positioned himself as the anti-President Donald Trump Democrat, often railing against the Republican leader and campaigning on his so-called Trump accountability plan of reforms to rein in presidential power to prevent abuses of power.

“Obviously, this is not the result we sought, but unlike Donald Trump, I’m not going to question the outcome,” he said.

“Now we must come together as Democrats and as Americans to make sure that we return to principles that made us a beacon of freedom and opportunity for the world.”

Kelly conceded online.

“Tonight’s isn’t the outcome we wanted, but I am so proud of us, and I still believe in putting people over profits,” she said in a statement.

“You want to know that your elected leaders are fighting for YOU, not distracted by outside noise. I’ll continue that fight in the U.S. house. I still have your back.”

As of early Wednesday, when an estimated 92% of the ballots had been counted, Stratton had secured about 40.1% of the vote share to Krishnamoorthi’s 33.2% and Kelly’s 18.1%, CNN and CBS News reported.

In a statement, Durbin, who did not endorse any candidate in the race, said he looked forward to “passing the torch” to Stratton when his term ends, while congratulating Krishnamoorthi and Kelly.

“Now our attention must turn to ensuring Juliana wins the general election on November 3,” he said. “With Donald Trump in the White House for another two years, the challenges facing our country and state will continue to be historic and unprecedented. We need Juliana Stratton fighting alongside Sen. [Tammy] Duckworth every day.”

On the GOP side, Don Tracy, former Illinois Republican Party chairman, was poised to seek Durbin’s vacant Senate seat as his party’s nominee.

Tracy campaigned in the blue state by positioning himself as a center-right candidate at a time of extremism in his party, stating on his website that he would seek “common sense solutions over extreme agendas.”

He also argued to be a voice for the entire state, voicing concerns that all federal elections had become contests for Chicago and Cook County.

“It’s time to make Illinois a two-party state again,” he said in a statement claiming victory on Facebook, while bashing Stratton as “the most extreme far-left U.S. Senate candidate this state has ever seen.”

“I will push for common sense solutions that make life more affordable for working families. I will work for everyday Illinoisans, not special interests or extreme agendas.”

Tracy was poised to win early Wednesday with nearly 40% of the vote share compared to lawyer Jeannie Evans’ nearly 23%, the closest runner-up, CNN and CBS News reported.

Evans campaigned on being a political outsider and a conservative Republican, while championing lowering costs and fighting crime.

In the governor’s race, Illinois is poised to have a rematch of 2022, when Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, beat Republican farmer Darren Bailey.

While Pritzker ran uncontested, Bailey was seemingly coasting to the GOP nomination in a landslide.

With 94% of ballots counted, Bailey had won 53.5% of the vote share to runner-up Ted Dabrowski’s 28.8%, according to CNN and CBS News tallies.

“The first fight has been won, but make no mistake, we are just getting warmed up,” he said in his victory speech.

“Best birthday ever.”

Bailey ran on a law-and-order campaign that included lowering property taxes, cutting government spending and cracking down on repeated criminal offenders.

SANTA FE, N.M. — Democratic-led states alarmed by the prospect of federal immigration officers patrolling the polls during this year’s midterm elections are taking steps to counter what they see as a potential tactic to intimidate voters.

New Mexico this week became the first state to bar armed agents from polling locations in response to President Trump’s immigration crackdown, a step being considered in at least half a dozen other Democratic-led states.

The moves highlight a deep distrust toward the Trump administration from blue states, which have been the target of his aggressive immigration tactics while threatened with military deployments and deep cuts in federal funding. Their concerns were heightened after the president suggested he wants to nationalize U.S. elections, even though the Constitution says it’s the states that run elections.

The Trump administration said it has no plans to deploy immigration agents to polling locations. Last month, the heads of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol told a congressional committee “No, sir” when asked if they had any plans to guard polling places. The Department of Homeland Security’s deputy assistant secretary for election integrity, Heather Honey, recently told secretaries of state it “is simply not true” that immigration agents will be at the polls this year.

But a group of eight secretaries of state wants that in writing from the nominee to succeed Kristi Noem as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. In a letter Monday to Trump’s new pick to lead the agency, Markwayne Mullin, the group pressed for assurances “that ICE will not have a presence at polling locations during the 2026 election cycle.”

Federal law already prohibits the deployment of armed federal forces to election locations unless “necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States,” but Democratic lawmakers, election officials and governors remain concerned.

“The fear is that the Trump administration will attempt to evoke a national emergency or execute some other deployment of federal agents or military troops in order to interfere with elections and intimidate voters,” said Connecticut Democratic state Rep. Matt Blumenthal, co-author of a state bill to establish a 250-foot buffer from federal agents at local polls and other restrictions on federal intervention. “And we’re not going to let that happen.”

A potential clash between states and the federal government

Other bills seeking to ban immigration agents at the polls are pending in Democratic-led states, large and small, from California to Rhode Island.

In Virginia, lawmakers are weighing legislation that could prevent federal civil immigration officials from making arrests within 40 feet of any polling place or courthouse. But the provision on polling sites remains under negotiation, and it’s unclear whether it will be in the final bill.

The newly signed law in New Mexico prohibits orders that put any armed person in the “civil, military or naval service of the United States” at local polling locations and related parking areas, or within 50 feet of a monitored ballot box, from the start of early voting.

Under New Mexico’s new law, which takes effect in May and will be in place for the state’s June 2 primary, people who experience intimidation or obstruction at the polls from federal agents or military personnel can file a civil lawsuit seeking relief in state courts. State prosecutors and local and state election officials also can sue, and the courts can apply fines of up to $50,000 per violation.

It also prohibits changes to voting qualifications and election rules and procedures that conflict with New Mexico law, as Trump prods the U.S. Senate to approve a bill to impose strict new proof-of-citizenship requirements in elections nationwide.

Any state measures intended to counter federal election law will face legal hurdles because of the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution, which says federal law supersedes state law.

“It could set up a direct clash between state governments and the federal government. We don’t know exactly how that’s going to go,” said Richard Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at the UCLA School of Law. “Given the supremacy clause, there’s only so much states can do.”

‘We will hold free and fair elections’

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said her own distrust of the Trump administration in election oversight stems from ongoing Department of Justice efforts to get detailed state voter data without explaining why and Trump’s continuing false claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

“Do I believe the federal government and people in the White House? No,” said Lujan Grisham, who terms out of office at the end of 2026.

“We are sending a message to everyone: We will hold free and fair elections, and New Mexicans will be safe in every ballot location and that’s our responsibility,” the Democrat said Tuesday during a news conference. “The Constitution says the states run their elections, and that bill makes that painfully re-clear to the federal government.”

Federal seizure of ballots and election records is a growing concern

New Mexico Republicans, who are in the minority in the legislature, voted in unison against the bill.

“I would question strongly why we have to do this other than just to have to poke the president in the eye,” state GOP Sen. Bill Sharer of Farmington said during floor debate.

State Sen. Katy Duhigg, an Albuquerque Democrat who was a co-sponsor of the legislation, said it’s “better safe than sorry with democracy.” She said she wanted to “make sure that there was some sort of tool that our local law enforcement would have at their disposal if something does happen, if the federal government does in some manner try to interfere with our elections.”

Connecticut’s bill, scheduled for a hearing later this week, also takes aim at federal attempts to seize ballots or other election material. It would require that state officials receive notification of such a move.

Blumenthal said state lawmakers can’t prevent seizures such as the January search by the FBI on an election center in Fulton County, Ga., a Democratic stronghold that includes Atlanta. But he said, “there might be an opportunity for our state attorney general’s office or the secretary of the state’s office to challenge that.”

Lee and Haigh write for the Associated Press. Haigh reported from Hartford, Conn. AP writer Oliva Diaz in Richmond, Va., and David A. Lieb in Jefferson City, Mo., contributed to this report.