democrats

Aug. 4 (UPI) — The Democratic primary for Michigan’s Senate seat between Abdul El-Sayed and Rep. Haley Stevens is just one of Tuesday’s key races to watch.

Michigan is one of five states holding primaries on Tuesday, along with Virginia, Missouri, Kansas and Washington.

El-Sayed and Stevens are running for the seat left open by retiring Sen. Gary Peters. El-Sayed has received endorsements from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., while Stevens has the endorsement of Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

Stevens represents a more moderate wing of the Democratic Party while El-Sayed is the more progressive candidate.

Mike Rogers, a former Republican congressman, is running unopposed in the Republican primary. Rogers lost a tight race against Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., in 2024. Rogers is endorsed by President Donald Trump.

Whitmer’s endorsement of Stevens is among the last endorsements she will make as sitting governor. She has reached her term limit, leaving the governor’s seat up for grabs.

For the Democratic Party, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson is running against Genesee County Sheriff Chris Swanson. For the Republican Party, Rep. John James is running against businessman Perry Johnson. James is endorsed by Trump.

The Democratic Party is focused on flipping House seats in Virginia after the state’s Supreme Court struck down a congressional redistricting plan pushed by Democrats. The proposed map would have favored Democrats in 10 of 11 congressional districts.

Instead, Democrats are hoping to flip several Republican-held seats, including that of Rep. Jen Kiggans, R-Va. Elaine Luria, a former congresswoman, is running to take on Kiggans, who defeated her in 2024. She is one of four Democrats vying for the party’s nomination.

Seven Democrats are running for the opportunity to challenge Republican Rep. Rob Wittmann in the Williamsburg and suburban Richmond district. The Democratic Party has supported prosecutor Shannon Taylor’s primary campaign. Taylor was the first Democrat to be elected Henrico Commonwealth attorney in 40 years.

A Republican-led redistricting in Missouri has altered the makeup of the state’s congressional districts. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., who represents Kansas City, is running unopposed in a district that suddenly is more Republican-leaning than it has been in recent elections. The Republican primary to challenge Cleaver includes six candidates.

Former Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., is seeking a return to Congress after losing her seat to Rep. Wesley Bell, D-Mo. Bush and Bell are running in a firmly Democratic district in St. Louis. The district voted 80% for Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024.

In the state of Washington, nonpartisan primaries will see the top two vote getters on the ballot in November regardless of party. Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., is running for re-election against eight candidates in Washington’s District 3.

The Kansas gubernatorial election is an open race with Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly reaching her term limit this year. Three Democrats and seven Republicans are running for her seat in a state that favored Trump by 16 points in 2024.

Esther Kim Varet has gotten a lot of questions recently from “depressed” liberals wondering whom they should vote for in November to represent them in the redrawn 40th Congressional District, which covers a large swath of inland Orange County and portions of San Bernardino and Riverside counties.

The Democratic art gallery owner placed third in last month’s closely watched primary for the seat, behind Republican incumbent Reps. Ken Calvert of Corona and Young Kim of Anaheim Hills. Calvert and Kim were pushed into the same district by last year’s Proposition 50 and will be the only two candidates facing off for the seat in November.

Kim Varet said her supporters have “obviously put a lot of thought into” which of the incumbents to support, but they have had a hard time swallowing the idea of voting for either. So she tells them why, “if we’re playing a kind of longer game,” they should vote for Kim.

She says Calvert is favored to win, so supporting Kim will “force both sides to spend more on this race” and reduce Republican spending on other races where Democrats still have a shot at beating a GOP incumbent. She says Calvert is “much more senior” than Kim, so ousting him would be “more significant.” And Calvert, as chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, has funded Trump’s war in Iran and would be “morally the better target.”

In last month’s primary, Kim Varet and other Democratic candidates collectively won 42.9% of the district vote, compared with Calvert’s 34.9% and Kim’s 20.6%. If enough of those Democratic voters coalesced behind Kim, they could end Calvert’s 33-year run in Congress.

Whether they will, however, is unclear. Such “orphaned” voters — those left without a candidate of their party in a general election — are historically just as likely to abstain from voting or to vote based on far less strategic considerations. Californians created that dilemma more than a decade ago when they approved the top-two primary system that puts all candidates on the same ballot and only allows the top-two finishers to advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.

Paul Mitchell, a Democratic redistricting expert who devised California’s new congressional map under Proposition 50, said the backers of California’s primary system sold it years ago as a moderating force, where those orphaned voters would be encouraged to select the least partisan general election candidate.

But in reality, Mitchell said, “it doesn’t work that way.”

Voter decisions

Mitchell said intraparty matchups in the past have shown 35% of orphaned voters or more simply abstain from voting in that race.

A recent analysis Mitchell conducted of races, including for seats in the state Legislature, showed such undervoting among orphaned voters in every intraparty race for a state Senate seat in 2024 — one clear example being the competitive and costly battle between two Democrats, Laura Richardson and Michelle Chambers, in South Los Angeles.

Many others vote based on “tertiary things,” he said, such as a candidate’s race or gender, or whether they seem local or a Washington insider.

“Traditionally, it isn’t so much about somebody being more moderate,” he said, in part because voters can’t always discern moderation among candidates of an opposing party. “Republicans might be able to tell the difference between a moderate Republican and a conservative Republican, but Democrats can’t tell the difference.”

Incumbency can also be a drag on a candidate if orphaned voters dislike their track record, even if their opponent is even further from those voters politically. As one example, Mitchell pointed to rural, more conservative parts of the state going for Kevin de León over Sen. Dianne Feinstein when he challenged her in 2018, despite his running to her left.

“You’re like, how in the hell did these rural counties vote for Kevin de León? And it was because there were a lot of Republicans who, if they were going to vote in the U.S. Senate race, just wanted to vote against Feinstein,” Mitchell said.

Katelyn Stauffer, an associate politics professor at University of Georgia who has studied voter behavior in top-two races in California, said people “like to make decisions that are easy,” and “for most people, the ultimate cue is, does this person share my party?”

When party doesn’t differentiate candidates, voters tend to rely on other “simple cues or heuristics,” Stauffer said.

For example, based on her research, she said, women regardless of party and Democrats regardless of gender are more likely to vote for a woman in such scenarios.

Candidate messaging

Candidates could consider moderating their message to attract orphaned voters, though that can be perilous.

In a statement to The Times, Calvert accused Kim of trying to woo orphaned voters with a more bipartisan message, as evidence she is untrustworthy.

“Young Kim has bragged to some voters that she’s a moderate who censured President Trump. She’s then claimed to others that she [is] a 100% Trump Republican. It’s obvious Young Kim will say anything to try and hold on to her job, which is why voters from every party just can’t trust her,” Calvert said.

He said he has “been a consistent conservative in Congress for many years and that’s not going to change.” He also claimed to be “one of the most effective members of Congress,” saying he has secured funding to reduce traffic congestion, fight fires and improve water infrastructure in his district — things “voters from all parties want.”

Chris Pack, a spokesman for Kim, denied that Kim is changing her tune depending on her audience, and dismissed Calvert’s claims of serving his constituents well, calling him a “do-nothing dinosaur” who has failed to improve his constituents’ lives for decades.

“The truth is he’s had more than enough time to deliver for the people of California, and he hasn’t,” Pack said.

Similar intraparty battles are playing out in other congressional races between Democrats.

In the 4th Congressional District, which stretches through the Napa and Sacramento valleys, Republican voters could help decide between incumbent Rep. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) and his challenger from the left, venture capitalist Eric Jones.

Thompson — who has been in Congress since 1999 and sits on the powerful Ways and Means Committee — won 41% of the vote in the primary, while Jones won 22.2%. A slate of six Republican candidates collectively won 36.1%.

Jones, who backs progressive measures to expand Medicare and cut working-class taxes, said he hopes voters of all stripes look beyond political labels and see that he is the only candidate in the race who will take on big utilities, healthcare lobbyists and other big-business interests who fund Thompson’s campaigns.

“I want voters to realize that there’s a real choice in front of them,” he said.

Thompson said he is focused on doing his job, introducing himself to voters in the new parts of his district, reconfigured under Proposition 50, and “figuring out how I can work with them” to address their concerns. He said there is “a lot of commonality” among voters of all parties who want “good roads, clean air, water, strong [agriculture], safe communities,” and that he’s been endorsed by local Republicans and Democrats alike.

Thompson also rejected Jones’ criticism of his fundraising, saying he has “done a lot of good work that’s not necessarily in the interests” of those who have contributed to his campaign. He also said fundraising is necessary in a race against a wealthy opponent like Jones, who donated millions of dollars to his own campaign.

In the 7th Congressional District, Republican voters will help decide between incumbent Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento) — who has been in Congress since replacing her late husband there in 2005 — and her challenger from the left, progressive Sacramento City Councilmember Mai Vang.

Vang won 31.2% of the primary vote. Matsui won 29.1%. Two Republican candidates together won 37%.

In a statement to The Times, Matsui said November’s general election “will be a significantly different race because there will be many more voters that didn’t vote in the primary,” and that she will “work harder to court voters by meeting them where they are and informing them how I’ve delivered on my promises,” including on healthcare, public safety and jobs.

Vang did not respond to a request for comment but has previously accused Matsui of not delivering on her promises for decades.

“After 20 years, families are living paycheck to paycheck, people of my generation are no closer to owning a home, and you still can’t afford a doctor visit,” Vang said last month.

Party involvement

Political parties have traditionally shunned meddling in races where they lack a candidate of their own, experts said. They sometimes endorse in races where two members of their own party are facing off against each other, but not always.

Nick Poche, a Republican National Committee spokesperson, said his organization is largely focused on three races in which Republicans are either looking to hold or win seats from Democrats: the 13th Congressional District, where Republican Kevin Lincoln is challenging Rep. Adam Gray (D-Merced); the 22nd Congressional District, where Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) is trying to fend off Democrat Randy Villegas; and the 48th Congressional District, where Republican Jim Desmond is facing off against Democrat Marni von Wilpert for the seat of retiring Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall).

He called the Democrats in those races “radical socialists and emblematic of California’s far-left failures,” and said his party would be campaigning against them. But he declined to speak to the Calvert-Kim race, or the races in which two Democrats are facing off.

The California Republican Party did not respond to a request for comment.

Rusty Hicks, chair of the California Democratic Party, said his party is focused on “fulfilling the promise of Proposition 50” to flip five seats to help his party win control of the House, and is also focused on three competitive races: those for Valadao’s and Issa’s seats, and one in the 6th Congressional District, where Democrat Richard Pan is taking on Republican-turned-independent Rep. Kevin Kiley of Rocklin.

Hicks said the party will not endorse Calvert or Kim, whom he called “two rotten choices,” but has endorsed incumbents Matsui and Thompson in their races against fellow Democrats because they have “been leading” on issues of affordability and access to healthcare and “are best positioned to be reelected.”

Jones scoffed at his party endorsing his opponent. “Are we really excited that the Democratic machine keeps trying to choose our electeds for us?” he said.

WASHINGTON — Immigration remains a stronger issue for President Trump than the economy or Iran among Republican voters, according to a new poll, even after three people were killed in encounters with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents within a week in July.

But Trump’s immigration approach is unpopular among Americans overall, the new survey from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found. Only 39% of U.S. adults approve of his performance on immigration, a decline from 49% at the beginning of his second term.

About 8 in 10 Republicans continue to approve of how Trump is handling immigration. That’s a slight decline from the beginning of his second term, when about 9 in 10 Republicans approved, but his support on the issue within his base has been mostly stable since last summer despite a chaotic year of immigration enforcement actions including several shooting deaths.

Republicans are also more likely to approve of how Trump is handling immigration than the economy or Iran. In just the last month, GOP voter approval of Trump’s handling of Iran dropped slightly in AP-NORC polling.

The poll found that about half of U.S. adults say Trump has “gone too far” on deporting immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. That number also has remained steady for more than a year, despite multiple immigration crackdowns that deployed federal law enforcement to large cities and at least 10 deaths involving encounters with immigration officers since the mass deportation campaign began. Republicans are much less likely to say Trump has overstepped in his immigration enforcement actions.

Overall, Trump’s popularity has fallen since he took office last year, but the findings highlight the relatively muted impact of the last year’s aggressive immigration enforcement on his public standing. That’s a contrast with views of his handling of Iran, where he’s seen more recent signs of slippage, even among supporters.

Partisan divide

Americans remain divided on whether Trump has overstepped on immigration.

About half of U.S. adults say Trump has “gone too far” when it comes to restricting legal immigration, in line with the last time the question was asked in February. Roughly half — 47% — say Trump has exceeded his authority when it comes to deporting immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. In each case, about 3 in 10 say Trump’s actions have been “about right,” and closer to 2 in 10 say he hasn’t gone far enough.

Few Republicans — about 2 in 10 or fewer — say he’s “gone too far” on deporting immigrants in the country illegally or restricting legal immigration.

Most Americans, however, say he’s gone too far when it comes to using traffic stops to find and arrest immigrants living in the U.S. illegally — a practice that was at the center of two recent ICE shootings in Texas and Maine — and when it comes to sending federal immigration agents into U.S. cities. Republicans were also less likely to see these as oversteps.

James Leatherman, a 68-year-old Republican from San Antonio, is generally supportive of Trump’s handling of the presidency and backs him on immigration in particular.

“You cannot come in here illegally — you’re breaking the law,” he said.

More Americans disapprove than approve of the way ICE is enforcing immigration laws. About half of Americans “strongly” or “somewhat” disapprove of the agency’s approach, while roughly 3 in 10 “strongly” or “somewhat” approve. There’s a wide partisan split, though: About 6 in 10 Republicans approve of ICE’s approach, compared with about 2 in 10 independents and just 4% of Democrats.

Eric Coursen, 76, an independent from Chincoteague, Va., agrees with the president that there were problems with the immigration system that needed to be addressed. He said doesn’t believe in “open borders,” but he’s deeply opposed to how the administration has been enforcing immigration law.

“It’s like taking some bread when you’re hungry, and you take it, you’re going to shoot that person rather than just, you know, get them for theft?” he said. “It’s just overkill.”

Poor marks on economy

About 3 in 10 U.S. adults, 32%, approve of how Trump is handling the economy. That’s down from 40% at the start of his second term, and marks a shift from his first presidential term when the economy was a relatively strong issue for Trump.

During Trump’s first term, his lowest approval on the economy was 40% in December 2017. Now, his rating is well below that.

Roughly 7 in 10 Republicans — 69% — approve of how Trump is handling the economy. That’s roughly in line with the share who approve of how he’s handing the presidency, but it’s slightly below the 78% who approved early in Trump’s second term.

Leatherman, despite his support for Trump, said he’s feeling the pinch of higher prices in his budget. “I almost have to go to the bank to get a loan before I go grocery shopping,” he said.

About 7 in 10 U.S. adults describe the nation’s economy as “very” or “somewhat” poor, in line with April. Republicans are more optimistic, with about 6 in 10 saying that the economy is doing well, compared with about 2 in 10 independents and roughly 1 in 10 Democrats.

Healthcare remains a weak issue

Healthcare never has been a strong issue for Trump. Unlike with immigration and the economy, a clear majority of U.S. adults has disapproved of Trump’s performance on healthcare across both terms. That hasn’t changed in the new poll, which found that only about 3 in 10 Americans approve of how Trump is handling healthcare, in line with when the question was last asked in December.

He’s experienced a rebound on the issue among his own supporters since late last year, though. Roughly 71% of Republicans now approve, compared with 59% in the December poll.

That shift comes as Democrats kicked off 100 days until the midterm elections last week, with leaders saying they’ll focus on healthcare cuts, in addition to the cost of living and the war in Iran. Democrats and independents continue to overwhelmingly disapprove of Trump’s handling of healthcare.

The AP-NORC poll of 1,165 adults was conducted July 23-27 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.7 percentage points. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 6 points for Republicans overall and plus or minus 5.4 points for Democrats overall.

Thomson-Deveaux, Sanders and Catalini write for the Associated Press.

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Pursuing a narrow path to retake control of the U.S. House, Democrats are seeing fresh opportunity in a northeast Ohio congressional district where the Republican incumbent is facing mounting pressure over domestic abuse allegations and a GOP senator, his former father-in-law, said Sunday he is unfit to serve.

Allegations against Rep. Max Miller, a White House advisor during President Trump’s first term who is endorsed by Trump, have been public for years but recently have drawn increased media scrutiny amid an escalating legal back-and-forth with his former spouse, who is the daughter of U.S. Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio). That has Democrats sensing Miller could be vulnerable in a district he won two years ago with a little more than 51% of the vote.

The threat to Miller’s candidacy heightened significantly Sunday, as Moreno said his former son-in-law should not be serving in the House and should “seek professional help,” while Miller defended himself against the allegations in a live video on social media.

Miller says he won’t drop out

Moreno, who had been publicly restrained in recent months as the custody dispute between Miller and his daughter Emily played out, said in a lengthy post: “If there are any basic standards of character required to hold elected office, Max Miller fails them. He should not serve in the House of Representatives.”

Moreno wrote that Miller “needs serious psychological help. He is a danger to my daughter, and I hold my breath every minute he has custody of my granddaughter.”

Miller said Sunday that he will remain in his race for reelection before a Wednesday deadline to replace him.

“I’m not dropping out of this race and I’ll win in November,” he said.

Emily Moreno has said that Miller scalded, hit and threatened her while they were married. Miller denied those allegations in the video, as he has in the past.

“It’s incredibly upsetting,” Miller said as he went through a list of the allegations.

Miller also said he had nothing to do with a broken collarbone on their 2-year-old daughter that led Emily Moreno to contact authorities. The pair, who were married in 2022 and finalized their divorce last year, have presented different versions of how the injury occurred, according to court filings and police reports detailed in the magazine Mother Jones that first revealed the child’s injury.

Miller accompanied his announcement with the release of a cache of investigative and court documents related to the custody dispute.

A spokesperson for Emily Moreno, Stefan Mychajliw, said Sunday that the video was “shameful.”

“No loving parent would have ever used their daughter as a PR pawn to save their own political career,” Mychajliw said. “Miller can lie and spin on X, but he cannot do so under oath in a court of law. We are confident that justice will prevail in court.”

Republican reaction

Sen. Moreno’s statement prompted some hand-wringing behind the scenes in his home state, where Trump-endorsed candidates like Miller typically win with ease. The White House did not respond to a request for comment Sunday.

Miller’s Democratic opponent, Brian Poindexter, said no one facing such accusations “belongs in the halls of power.”

State Rep. Mike Dovilla, a U.S. Navy veteran and former presidential appointee to the Office of Personnel Management, and Kevin Coughlin, a former state senator and representative who ran for the U.S. House in 2024 and 2026, were among Republicans whose names were being floated should Miller drop out, according to a high-ranking Republican who discussed the sensitive subject on condition of anonymity.

Democrats have called on Miller to resign, requested a congressional ethics investigation and suggested more help could be directed in the fall toward Poindexter, a union ironworker.

Republicans generally had remained in Miller’s corner until now, saying he has delivered for his district and is electable in November.

Republican Gov. Mike DeWine told Ohio’s Capital Journal that the accusations were troubling and “very serious” but that Miller’s fate should be up to voters.

The tension comes as Republicans are defending their narrow majority in the House in the November races.

Terry Casey, a longtime Republican consultant in Ohio, said Miller remains in a strong position to win the Republican-leaning district, which stretches south from Cleveland and was won decisively by Trump two years ago.

That is unless Poindexter, who has been endorsed by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), can attract money significant enough to step up his advertising in the 7th Congressional District’s media markets.

“Unless serious people are willing to put in serious money, I’d say beginning around $2 million, it’s all nothing but lip exercises,” Casey said.

The National Republican Congressional Committee declined to discuss whether it would match any influx of Democratic cash. Miller has significantly outraised Poindexter, although the Democrat’s campaign said it has received a surge in social media followers in recent weeks.

Democrats call for ethics probe

Last week, U.S. Rep. Shontel Brown, a Cleveland Democrat, said it “would be wise” for Miller to resign. The House Democratic Women’s Caucus called for an ethics investigation.

“The recent reports of domestic violence and child abuse against Representative Max Miller are deeply disturbing, and Congress can’t ignore them,” Democratic Reps. Teresa Leger Fernández of New Mexico, Emilia Sykes of Ohio and Hillary Scholten of Michigan wrote in their letter. “Allegations of violence against women and children have to be met with the utmost seriousness.”

Other allegations

Miller has denied all allegations of abuse. Last spring, his spokesperson provided documentation to the Associated Press that showed several allegations that he had abused his daughter had been investigated by the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services and were deemed unsubstantiated. He has sued Emily Moreno for defamation.

The couple’s dispute escalated last week.

On Thursday, lawyers for Emily Moreno asked a judge for a temporary restraining order barring Miller from contact with her attorney, Andrew Zashin. The filing alleges that Miller shouted insults at Zashin and goaded him to “Come at me!” outside a court hearing last May, then grabbed Zashin during a different proceeding on Tuesday.

The court filing quotes Miller’s lawyer as saying his client “just can’t control himself.” The attorney did not return a call seeking comment.

Last month, Miller’s ex-girlfriend, former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham, filed a lawsuit against him. She accused Miller of violating terms of a confidential settlement agreement they struck to resolve his 2021 lawsuit against her.

That lawsuit alleged Grisham defamed him in her book and in a Washington Post op-ed when she said a former White House staffer — later identified as Miller — physically abused her while they were dating. While the book is vague on the specific allegations, Politico reported at the time that Grisham and Miller’s relationship ended “when he pushed her against a wall and slapped her in the face in his Washington apartment after she accused him of cheating on her.”

Grisham alleged in the new lawsuit filed July 7 that Miller dragged her name into his dispute with Moreno and violated their agreement not to disparage each other.

Democrat’s strategy

For Poindexter, t the accusations against Miller provide a possible path to an upset in November if some conservative-leaning voters opt for him or enough Republican voters are turned off by the domestic abuse allegations and stay home.

“These are serious allegations and deserve the full attention of law enforcement,” Poindexter said in a statement. “If all the allegations against Congressman Miller prove to be true, Max Miller should be in jail, not worried about retaining a seat in Congress.”

Jim Trakas, a former state lawmaker and GOP party chair in northeast Ohio, said Miller is not helped by the fresh developments so close to the election.

“It’s a difficult year for any incumbent,” he said. “Now you have to spend time on this when you want to focus on the main event, which is the pocketbook issues.”

Smyth, Jalonick and Catalini write for the Associated Press.

Come 2028, the Democratic presidential campaign promises to be a banger, with all sorts of intrigue and subplots layered within a wide-open fight for the nomination.

There’s the prospect of same-state rivals going at it. (California’s Gavin Newsom vs. Kamala Harris; Georgia’s Sen. Jon Ossoff vs. Sen. Raphael Warnock.)

There’s sure to be a generational divide, a split over how much time and energy Democrats should spend rehashing the Trump era, and, inevitably, a clash between standard-bearers of the left, the far left and the party’s increasingly small center-left.

All that remains in the offing, however, as none of the major prospects have formally declared their candidacies. Political tradition, and self-preservation, require waiting at least until after November’s midterm election to jump into the race.

In the meantime, Democrats have seemingly resolved at least one 2028 fight, a fracas marked by snarking, backbiting and plenty of acrimony — all the things that make our politics such a grand and glorious endeavor.

We speak of the contest to determine which state will hold the first vote of the 2028 nominating process. And the winner is … South Carolina!

This was a blow to Nevada, the runner-up in the calendar sweepstakes, and not a very sporting one at that. The state Democratic Party issued a huffy news release, insisting Nevada will be the candidates’ first true test of 2028 — emphasis added — reprising the argument over which state offers the best starting path to reclaim the White House and, thus, deserves the coveted lead voting slot.

(California, a perennially frustrated onlooker, is not set to vote until March 7, several weeks into the balloting, which is supposed to start Jan. 22.)

For decades, the political calendar was unchanged and, mostly, unchallenged.

Iowa went first, holding its quaint and quirky precinct caucuses — neighbors gathered in church halls, school libraries and the like as they worked through arcane rules involving “realignment” and “viability thresholds” — followed by New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary.

In 2024, President Biden shook things up.

He’d failed miserably in Iowa in his runs for president, so Biden had no problem slotting South Carolina first after the state resurrected his lifeless 2020 candidacy. (Iowa didn’t help itself by making a thorough mess of its 2020 caucuses, taking nearly a month to certify a winner.)

The change set off a free-for-all this time around, as a dozen states bid for the chance to vote first.

(The two major political parties set the rules for choosing their presidential nominees, independent of one another. Republicans are expected to stick to the traditional lineup, starting with the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, followed by contests in Nevada and South Carolina.)

Last month, after nearly a year of consideration, the Democratic Party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee voted for six states to hold their contests in a window between late January and the end of February. They are, in order, South Carolina, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Michigan and Virginia. The lineup will be presented to the full Democratic National Committee to be voted on and finalized later this month.

Doubtless, you — a normal person — have paid little or no attention to any of this. You’ve got more important things to do, like binge-watching “Widow’s Bay,” or not melting.

But party leaders and political insiders take the process extremely seriously. At stake: bragging rights, a modest economic boost and the chance for local analysts and office-holders to make frequent appearances as experts on the cable-TV chat shows.

The jostling grew particularly fierce between South Carolina and Nevada.

More than 50% of the Democratic primary electorate in South Carolina is Black. In Nevada, Latinos are a substantial and increasingly powerful voting bloc. So, naturally, the competition between the two states assumed fraught racial overtones, which is unfortunate but not surprising, given Democrats’ penchant for picking at sore spots and turning on each other at the slightest provocation.

It was also rather pointless. The order of the presidential calendar is consequential, but far from determinative.

South Carolina was vital to Biden’s success. But so, too, was the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which sharply curtailed the Democratic nominating fight. Barack Obama’s 2008 victory in Iowa gave him a huge lift, but he lost to Hillary Clinton the following week in New Hampshire and had to fight another six months before winning the nomination.

Presidential campaigns have changed drastically in the 50 years since a little-known Jimmy Carter quietly burrowed into Iowa, spent months bunking in folks’ extra bedrooms, then burst to national fame by outperforming his more prominent rivals. Today, the race is a 24/7 affair, followed by voters in all 50 states.

While local concerns may come up here and there — the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in Nevada, beach erosion in South Carolina’s Lowcountry — the same issues and controversies confront candidates and animate the contest regardless of whether a field of soybeans, a white church steeple or a Southern fish fry serves as the backdrop.

Obviously, the voting has to begin somewhere and the competition between states is well and good. But the trash-talking and, especially, antagonism over race and ethnicity is gratuitous and needlessly divisive. Candidates will show they have the stuff to win the nomination, or not, by building their best case and pitching it to voters.

No matter if it’s a Black church in Las Vegas or a Latino neighborhood in North Charleston. Any location will do.

WASHINGTON — The nation is set to have its least competitive congressional election cycle in years by some measures, with California partly driving the shift.

The redistricting carried out in California and nine other states since 2024 has left the nation with an unusually low number of truly competitive districts, narrowing the battle for U.S. House control in this year’s historically consequential midterms cycle to a few dozen races at best.

In California, that looks like a paradox: The state has both a shrinking number of political battlegrounds and a handful of critical races that could help decide which party controls the House. Both are a result of Proposition 50, the Democratic-led, voter-passed redistricting effort designed to offset new maps drawn by Republicans in Texas and other states.

Only three California races are rated as competitive by Cook Political Report, the nonpartisan analyst, compared with 12 races in 2024 and nine in 2022, according to a Times analysis of Cook data.

California was also the biggest driver in the nationwide decline of competitive seats, according to a separate Cook analysis released Wednesday. Six of the 14 U.S. House seats that dropped out of the swing-seat zone in 2026 were in the Golden State.

“There’s no question that we’re seeing the consequence” of the state’s redistricting, “of having fewer competitive districts,” said Michael Latner, a professor of political science at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.

That doesn’t dilute the key role California is expected to play in Democrats’ effort to win the House majority, however. The new map made some blue seats safer and gave the party the chance to flip up to five red seats.

“The path to the House majority still runs through California,” said Anna Elsasser, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who said the party is investing heavily to flip those seats.

‘Not backing off’

The fight for the majority at the halfway point of President Trump’s second term is fierce. Republicans, who control both chambers of Congress, face headwinds fueled by voters’ feelings on the economy and the war in Iran. Democrats have built their campaigns around Americans’ economic frustration in an attempt to win the House majority and regain some power in Trump’s Washington.

Having more safe seats positions California to have a greater effect on the election, said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego, and in Congress afterward, where the state is expected to have a large blue delegation.

The less-competitive map is a return to the 2000s for California, when the state’s two parties agreed on a congressional map that created safe districts for both, Kousser said.

That decade saw fewer competitive House races before new maps created more battleground areas in 2010 and 2020, the result of regular redistricting that occurs every decade after the U.S. census.

The shift in the state’s competitive seats caused by Proposition 50’s partisan redistricting was so acute because the existing 2020 map was relatively neutral, Cook senior editor David Wasserman said in the report. In Florida, Missouri and Texas, by contrast, the maps Republicans replaced were already partisan, making the shifts less extreme.

Three of the seats Democrats targeted with Proposition 50 are rated as solidly blue, while two present fights: the Central Valley seat held by Republican David Valadao, the state’s only toss-up race per Cook, and the seat being vacated by retiring Republican Darrell Issa in the San Diego area, where the redrawn district now slightly favors Democrats.

Just one seat Republicans hope to flip is rated competitively by Cook, that of Democrat Adam Gray in the Central Valley. Democrats are slightly more favored there under the new map, but it presents a challenge for both parties.

Both parties view California’s three most competitive races as key to win, and each is putting resources toward a few additional contests.

“We’re not backing off a single seat in California,” said Christian Martinez, spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “We’re on offense.”

Shrinking battlegrounds nationwide

This year’s push by Republicans to redo state maps ahead of the November election — and California’s move to respond in kind — was without precedent. Ten states approved new maps; before this year, only two states had voluntarily redrawn maps between censuses for partisan advantage since 1970, according to a Pew Research Center analysis.

It was partly enabled by a spring Supreme Court decision that cleared the way for states to redraw their election maps to eliminate voting districts that were drawn with race as a consideration.

The 10 new maps supercharged an ongoing national trend of polarization that has seen the number of competitive seats shrink over the last 30 years. The country used to see election cycles with as many as 50 seats rated as toss-ups, said Erin Covey, who leads the Cook Political Report’s U.S. House coverage, something that has not happened since 2010. As of this week, just 18 of 435 House districts are rated as toss-ups by Cook.

California is not alone in having fewer battlegrounds; no state has a high concentration of competitive seats this cycle. Michigan had four under Cook’s ratings, and Pennsylvania, Iowa, New York and Texas each had three as of this week.

That could be unhealthy for democracy, experts said. Voters can feel as though their votes matter less, and it may contribute to negative public opinion about how the electoral system functions, Latner said.

“The very premise of a free republic is that you are going to have differences in views,” Latner said. “The way those differences get resolved is through electoral competition.”

The erosion of “free and fair competition … is a threat to all voters, regardless of their partisanship,” he added.

Eyes on key races

In California’s most competitive race, Valadao is being challenged in the redrawn 22nd District by progressive college professor Randy Villegas. Republicans are bullish about their chances to retain the seat.

In the neighboring 13th District, which the new map aimed to make safer for Democrats, Gray faces former Stockton mayor and Marine veteran Kevin Lincoln. Also important for both parties is the battle for the 48th District, the seat vacated by Issa. Republican Jim Desmond, a San Diego County supervisor, faces Democrat Marni von Wilpert, a San Diego City Council member.

Republicans have also targeted Rep. Derek Tran’s Democratic seat in the 45th District, another former battleground that Proposition 50 made safer for Democrats, and three other seats that Cook rates as solidly Democratic.

Democrats’ safer flips target Northern California’s 1st and Sacramento County’s 6th districts. They also expect to gain a seat in the new 41st District, which now covers parts of Los Angeles and Orange counties. The new map gave Democrats a Democratic voter registration edge there and forced Republican incumbent Ken Calvert to run in the newly drawn 40th District against fellow Republican Rep. Young Kim.

MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin voters who have already returned their absentee ballots for the state’s primary are not allowed to void those and request a new one, a judge ruled Wednesday.

The ruling deals a blow to Democrats, who filed a lawsuit seeking to give voters a do-over because of a chaotic party primary in the governor’s race.

The ruling is almost certain to be appealed with voting already underway in the state’s primary for governor. It creates another level of uncertainty in the waning days of a primary season that saw Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, who had been seen as a Democratic front-runner, drop out on July 17. A day later, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, who had bowed out on July 8, reentered the race.

Rodriguez’s name remains on the ballot, along with former state economic development director Missy Hughes, who dropped out in June.

More than 117,000 absentee ballots had been returned by Wednesday. Democrats were concerned that many of those might have been cast for Rodriguez.

The attorney for voters who filed the lawsuit with support from the Wisconsin Democratic Party argued in a Tuesday hearing that state law allows voters who have submitted absentee ballots to change their mind before those ballots are counted on election day.

“Voters across Wisconsin will be disenfranchised” if not allowed to do that, attorney Eduardo Castro argued before Dane County Circuit Judge David Conway.

The bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission had voted on July 9 to distribute guidance to clerks saying absentee voters cannot change their ballot after it has been returned. The rarely used process is known as ballot spoiling.

But Conway on Wednesday ruled that “the unambiguous language of the statute does not allow a voter to spoil an absentee ballot after it is returned.” He said the guidance issued by the elections commission to the roughly 2,000 clerks who run elections at the local level was consistent with the law.

The judge declined to issue a temporary restraining order sought by Democrats. They had wanted the judge to order the state elections commission to rescind its guidance.

Spokespeople for the Wisconsin Democratic Party and the state elections commission did not immediately return messages seeking comment on the ruling.

Ballot spoiling was the subject of a 2022 lawsuit brought by a Republican group. In that case, a Waukesha County judge agreed that the elections commission must rescind its guidance that allowed voters to cast a second ballot. But the state appeals court earlier this year vacated that ruling on technical grounds and did not rule on the merits.

The winner of the Democratic primary will advance to November’s general election, most likely against Republican U.S. Rep. Thomas P. Tiffany, who has only token opposition in his party’s primary. Democratic Gov. Tony Evers is not seeking a third term.

Democrats hope to keep the governor’s office and flip both chambers of the Legislature to gain full control of state government for the first time since 2010.

Bauer writes for the Associated Press.

AMARILLO, Texas — When Gina Hinojosa, the Democratic nominee for Texas governor, began her campaign last year, candidates weren’t talking about — or hearing about — data centers that power artificial intelligence.

But with barely three months until November’s contest, the perceived threat to rural life, ranchland and dwindling water supplies could become a defining issue for her long-shot challenge to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, dividing conservative rural areas that have traditionally served as a counterweight to Democrats’ urban strongholds.

The backlash to energy-guzzling server warehouses is also shaping other statewide campaigns from Arizona to Ohio to New York, and even giving Democrats a glimmer of hope in Texas, where Republicans have dominated for three decades.

“There is this little issue that I recently started hearing about that I wanted to tell you about, in case you don’t know,” Hinojosa quipped to a Democratic Party-organized crowd of about 160 seated on fold-out chairs at an Amarillo social club in Texas’ panhandle. “It’s this issue of data centers.”

The crowd booed, and she went on: “They are owned by the richest men in the world. We’re all footing the bill. There are no rules. It is the wild west of data centers.”

The fast growth of massive data centers has already upended races for local offices across the country, often uniting conservatives and liberals in revolting against projects in their midst.

People don’t like the secrecy surrounding the projects or the prospect of air, noise, water and light pollution. They fear electric bills going up, wells going dry and losing open space, farmland or forest.

Now the ripple effects have spread to top-of-the-ticket races, where incumbents and challengers are trying to show that they hear an angry electorate.

In Ohio, Democratic nominee Sherrod Brown aired a television advertisement attacking Republican U.S. Sen. Jon Husted as the “face of data centers in Ohio” as people gather signatures for a statewide referendum to outright ban their construction.

In Wisconsin, a Democratic candidate for governor, Francesca Hong, is pledging to “tax the rich, fund our schools and stop AI data centers” as she campaigns for her party’s nomination in a crowded primary.

In Pennsylvania, Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro is facing heat from some voters who feel like he’s been too welcoming to tech behemoths. Sam Burleigh, a Democrat whose rural community is fighting off data center projects, accused Shapiro of “allowing these data centers to come in and take over acres and acres of prime farmland.”

Texas is fertile ground for data centers

Any political unrest may be felt most acutely in Texas.

The state is poised to overtake northern Virginia as the largest global data center market by 2030, according to a report by commercial real estate giant JLL. It has lots of land, lots of energy and a friendly regulatory environment under Republican leadership.

In rural west Texas and its panhandle, gargantuan data centers are under construction, including one near Amarillo touted as the world’s largest. Some come with designs for natural gas-fired turbines to power them.

Rumors are flying about others popping up — Google, which is building four data centers in northwest Texas, sponsored moderated conversations with officials and business elite in Lubbock and Amarillo in recent weeks — and it is sowing an outcry across small cities, tiny towns and sprawling ranches where people vote overwhelmingly Republican.

Google says its investments are advancing American innovation, fortifying cybersecurity and boosting energy capacity, while President Trump has made data centers a top priority to help the U.S. compete against China for AI superiority.

But tech giants and developers can be secretive about their plans, making it impossible to know what will be built or what sort of pollution they’ll create, critics say. Some worry that data centers will destroy rural Texas’ low cost of living and sully sunsets and sweeping views that stretch toward the horizon.

Others say construction and an influx of workers are already causing havoc for ranchers and towns, driving up rents, snapping up farmland, illuminating the night sky, clogging roads and turning parts of rural Texas into industrial zones.

Opposition crosses partisan divide

Democrats are prominent among the data center critics, but so are Republicans, including Texas’ sitting agriculture commissioner, Sid Miller. They say there are many more Republicans who are quieter because they fear publicly opposing their governor and party.

“They’re upset with Greg Abbott,” said Suzanne Bellsnyder, a former Republican activist from Spearman who writes a syndicated column that advocates for rural Texas. “Whether that translates into voting against him, I don’t know.”

Abbott has aggressively advocated for big projects in Texas and, in November, he helped make Google’s announcement of a $40-billion investment there, saying, “Texas is the epicenter of AI development.”

Compounding that, Texas counties don’t have zoning authority — precisely the local land planning authority that communities around the country are increasingly using to fight off data centers.

Abbott seems to recognize that data centers are dividing his base. In recent weeks, he ordered regulators to take steps to ensure Texans weren’t paying higher electricity bills because of data centers and promised to push a legislative agenda next year to impose regulations on data centers.

At an East Texas campaign stop, Abbott said that includes taking away the state’s billion-dollar-plus-per-year tax break and preventing data centers from being built in “rural Texas neighborhoods.”

Hinojosa and others derided Abbott’s words about “rural Texas neighborhoods” as meaningless — “doublespeak that makes no sense to anyone,” Hinojosa said — and lacking urgency or seriousness.

“Now we have this gold rush of data centers in our communities,” Hinojosa said in an interview, adding that “people want a say, and I think that’s fair.”

As governor, she said she’d block a permit for a data center if it wasn’t a good deal for Texans or residents hadn’t gotten a say in the matter.

Abbott tries to soothe concerns

Abbott’s campaign season turnabout on data centers doesn’t seem to have soothed many.

Of great concern is the prospect that data centers will consume massive amounts of water and worsen drought conditions for ranchers and farmers in a state where water shortages already crippled the sugar cane industry.

“Oh, I guarantee you, it’s on everybody’s mind,” said Giles Dalby, a cattle rancher and a Republican county commissioner in west Texas.

Dalby, who raises Angus and Brangus cattle on ranchland that’s been in his family for 125 years, pointed to fast-growing cities where water authorities have had to go to greater lengths to procure water, including the “water wars” between San Antonio and ranchers several years ago.

Texas is increasingly steamrolling over landowner rights in the quest for public water, Dalby said, and that could mean that data centers get in line ahead of ranchers when shortages or rationing worsen.

Clayton Tucker, a rancher and the Democratic nominee for state agriculture commissioner, said his campaign events are consumed by talk of data centers. It doesn’t matter whether he’s meeting with Democrats or Republicans.

“This is the most cross-partisan issue I’ve ever seen in my life,” Tucker said.

Meanwhile, protest groups are springing up, including one in Lubbock that is led by Republicans. The founders, Stephen Sanders and Hallie Bertrand, like some other Republican opponents of data centers, say it’s possible or even certain they won’t vote for Abbott, although they may not necessarily vote for Hinojosa.

There is still time for Abbott to push through major legislation before the election and “be a hero,” Sanders said.

The big question is whether enough rural voters will turn against Abbott to give Hinojosa a shot. It’s hard to tell, Bertrand said, especially when some know nothing about the issue.

“They’ll just hit that button, Republican all the way down,” Bertrand said. “But I think it’s a step towards something that we have not seen in Texas in a long time, with people on the right switching to the left. Or scooting a little closer to the middle, maybe.”

Levy writes for the Associated Press.

President Trump’s $1.4-billion crypto windfall has become the biggest obstacle to passing his sweeping digital-asset legislation as Democrats demand tougher language to prevent the president from profiting off an industry his administration regulates.

Senate Republicans released a proposal this week intended to break a months-long impasse over the bill, known as the Clarity Act. But Democrats and consumer watchdog groups dismissed the terms almost immediately, complaining the bill would not stop Trump or his family from continuing to profit from his meme coin and other crypto ventures.

Trump needs the support of at least seven Senate Democrats to pass the legislation, which would set rules for digital assets. Ethics has emerged as the biggest, though not the only, sticking point.

“It’s the linchpin,” said Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, a Maryland Democrat and key negotiator who has been supportive of the crypto industry.

A spokesperson for the White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The White House has consistently asserted Trump is not involved in managing the family’s crypto ventures and has denied conflicts of interest.

Democrats have specifically taken issue with a provision that would leave Trump’s Justice Department as the primary enforcer of the new ethics regulations, preventing state attorneys general from acting as an independent check.

Another Democratic negotiator, Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona, and Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said they’re working on a compromise ethics proposal to send to the White House but didn’t provide details.

Senators in both parties said they see the negotiations in the coming week as key to whether a bill reaches Trump’s desk this year. But after the chilly initial reception to the latest White House offer, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.C.) said he didn’t think the Clarity Act would pass the chamber before the month-long August recess.

“We’ll see where the votes are,” Thune said.

Alsobrooks, Gallego and other crypto-friendly Democrats are demanding changes to other pieces of the massive bill, including consumer protection and illicit finance measures.

The bill has other issues, including opposition from banks intent on tightening restrictions on stablecoin rewards. Tillis and several other Republicans said they are considering backing changes to reflect banks’ concerns that their deposits could shift to stablecoin accounts, crimping their profits and customers’ access to credit.

Tillis has floated adding “circuit-breaker” language empowering the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. or other regulators to step in if bank deposits drop — an idea opposed by GOP Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, the crypto industry’s biggest backer in the chamber.

Porous provisions

Critics said the draft’s ethics protections are porous. It would let Trump divest a large stake in his crypto venture or move it into a blind trust for the rest of his term, but stops short of requiring him to sell.

“It’s going to allow him to keep making money the way he has in the past,” said Scott Greytak, deputy executive director of Transparency International US, an anti-corruption advocacy group.

The restrictions also hinge on whether an official has a “direct interest” in a crypto asset — a threshold that may not apply to Trump.

The president is a significant owner of World Liberty Financial, the Trump family’s crypto venture, through an entity called DT Marks DEFI LLC, which holds about a 38% stake. Whether that counts as a direct interest “isn’t clear,” said Zach Everson, research director for Public Citizen’s Trump Accountability Project. “Does direct interest describe how he holds the crypto?”

Because the bill wouldn’t apply to the children of government officials, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump could continue their own crypto business interests. And much of the family’s fortune has already been made: Trump and his affiliates have earned a huge windfall from meme coin and token ventures, income the legislation would not claw back.

Critics also decried a provision that would sunset the ethics requirements on Jan. 20, 2029, the day Trump’s successor would be inaugurated. That could prevent the next administration from holding Trump accountable.

The White House and Republicans argued that Trump had gone further in backing ethics restrictions in law than any previous president.

“History will remember this as the moment a president chose a higher standard of ethics than the law required of him,” Lummis, a key architect of the bill, said on X.

Democrats were skeptical even before the language was released. “Any meaningful ethics provision would be shot down by the White House,” Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut said.

The politics of crypto have long divided Democrats, and a bipartisan deal on the legislation risks provoking a backlash from progressives. Failure to reach a deal, however, could make the party the target of a torrent of crypto campaign cash.

Crypto group Fairshake and its two affiliated super PACs have raised $164 million for the midterm elections, Federal Election Commission filings show, and have spent $66.6 million so far.

It’s the kind of political arsenal that Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York can ill afford to have aimed at his candidates as the party seeks to regain Senate control.

But others, like Murphy, have warned that blessing Trump’s big crypto bill would undermine Democrats’ midterm message.

A potential presidential candidate, Murphy said Wednesday while addressing the left-leaning Center for American Progress that the bill is before the Senate “because the industry paid for it” and urged Democrats to instead turn fighting crypto corruption into a potent campaign issue this fall.

Markets have grown less convinced a deal gets done. On Polymarket, the odds of the Clarity Act passing this year fell to about 1 chance in 3 earlier this week after Republicans released the new draft.

That’s about half the odds the prediction market gave passage after the Senate Banking Committee backed an earlier version of the bill on May 14.

Dennis and Patterson write for Bloomberg. Bloomberg writers Yash Roy, Lydia Beyoud, Aidan Williams, Bill Allison and Olga Kharif contributed to this report.

BANGOR, Maine — Former state lawmaker and logger Troy Jackson secured the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in Maine on Saturday and will face longtime GOP Sen. Susan Collins in November in a race that could decide which party controls the Senate.

Jackson replaces Graham Platner, who won the Democratic primary in June but withdrew from the race this month following an allegation of sexual assault that Platner has denied. Maine Democrats met Saturday to choose a new nominee to face Collins.

Support coalesced around Jackson, a former Maine Senate president and fifth-generation logger from rural northern Maine who campaigned alongside Platner during a failed bid for governor and was a favorite among progressives to replace him.

“When the people in power refuse to listen, you have to organize, you have to stand in solidarity, together. And you have to make them listen,” Jackson said during a speech at a last-minute nominating convention held Saturday.

The Maine Democratic Party has been scrambling to choose a new nominee after Platner, who sailed to victory in the Democratic primary in June, was accused by a former girlfriend of sexually assaulting her in 2021. Platner denies the allegation, but quit the race after key supporters called on him to withdraw.

Democrats have seen Maine as the party’s best opportunity to flip a Senate seat this year because it is a competitive Senate race in a state that Donald Trump lost in 2024. But defeating Collins won’t be easy. The five-term incumbent holds a fundraising advantage, while the new Democratic nominee will have less than four months to sell himself to voters.

Maine law gave the state party authority to choose a replacement and required a new nominee to be named by Monday — 99 days before the Nov. 3 election.

Maine Democrats’ never-before-used process of voting on a new nominee involved hundreds of Democratic delegates gathering in Bangor, about 130 miles north of Portland. The delegates were elected at county party meetings last weekend. The nominating convention began Saturday morning and wrapped by noon.

Jackson’s victory was largely expected after his campaign touted that more than 480 delegates selected to go to the convention had promised to vote for him, a progressive who supports Medicare for all and dismantling Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He ended up winning 566 of 571 delegates who cast votes.

Jackson first ran for office as a Republican in 2000 when he sought a seat in Maine’s House of Representatives. He lost, but won two years later when he ran as an independent. He switched to the Democratic Party in 2004 and eventually became the Maine Senate president before leaving the statehouse in 2024.

He came in third while running for governor in this year’s Democratic primary election, but had the backing of Platner, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and Our Revolution, the political organization founded by the Vermont independent.

Other top candidates dropped out

Once Platner dropped out July 10, Jackson and a flood of other former gubernatorial candidates and others jumped in to try to take Platner’s place. But by July 19, most had abandoned their bids, with Jackson emerging as the clear favorite.

Jackson received early support from progressives who had backed Platner before he dropped out. Our Revolution initially backed Jackson for governor and Platner for Senate. When Platner left the race, the group rallied behind Jackson.

Jackson previously ran Maine operations for Sanders’ 2016 presidential bid. This election cycle, Sanders endorsed Jackson for governor and Platner for Senate, though he withdrew his support for Platner after the sexual assault allegation. He said he didn’t plan to weigh in on which Democrat should replace Platner.

Just one other candidate remained in the race for the Senate nomination — women’s health company Chief Executive Saundra Pelletier. She faced long odds against Jackson, who has been a fixture in Maine politics for more than a decade.

Jackson has supported progressive positions such as Medicare for all. He also has called for the abolition of ICE, whose presence in Maine has been hotly debated since an agent fatally shot Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, a 25-year-old Colombian national, near his home in Biddeford, Maine.

Maine key to Democrats’ Senate path

Democrats have a narrow path to take back the Senate in November, and it’s unlikely they can do it without a win in Maine. In addition, they need victories in most other competitive races — including in North Carolina, Alaska, Ohio and Texas — and they need to hang on to the seats they already have. That includes open Senate seats in Michigan and Minnesota, where Democratic incumbents are retiring.

Maine’s Democratic primary was one of the early contests where progressives took on establishment-backed Democrats. While Platner faced several controversies during his campaign, he easily outlasted Gov. Janet Mills, who was backed by Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer of New York but dropped out before the June 9 primary.

Platner had backing from Sanders as well as Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. That support disintegrated after the sexual assault allegation surfaced this month.

Midterm messages

Jackson will need to convince the state’s large independent voting bloc that it’s time to replace Collins. Republicans have called Jackson too extreme for Maine voters, and Collins said this week that she knows Jackson well and that his positions are “clearly” in line with socialism.

She noted that Jackson ran democratic socialist Sanders’ first presidential campaign in Maine, adding, “He’s a Bernie Bro.”

Jackson also needs to scramble to make up a fundraising gulf against Collins, who has been raising money for months.

Federal filings show she has raised more than $16 million so far. Jackson’s campaign this week said he raised more than $1 million since jumping into the Senate race.

Jackson said Saturday he believed his team is up to the task.

“We’re not from the left, we’re not from the right. We’re from the bottom, and we are rising,” he said during a speech.

Whittle and Kruesi write for the Associated Press. AP journalist Nathan Ellgren in Washington contributed to this report.

The U.S. war with Iran escalated again Thursday as Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen attacked two Saudi Araian oil tankers in the Red Sea, causing global oil prices to surge amid fears of yet another vital energy corridor being choked off by the conflict.

The attacks came after the Trump administration threatened additional strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure while pushing a new deal to help Saudi Arabia develop a nuclear energy program of its own. Also Thursday, four Republicans in the U.S. House joined Democrats in a vote to halt the American military campaign absent congressional approval. Senate Republicans blocked a similar measure.

The price of oil hit $100 a barrel for the first time since May, increasing the financial pressure on Americans at the gas pump and the political pressure on President Trump to end a war he promised would last weeks but has persisted for months. At least 18 U.S. service members have died in the war.

The Houthis, who control the populous northwest of Yemen, receive arms and training from Tehran but had remained largely on the sidelines since the U.S. and Israel launched the war. Their latest strikes complicate already fraught negotiations between the U.S. and Iran after the collapse of a ceasefire this month amid renewed hostilities in the Strait of Hormuz, the other major energy passageway choked by the conflict.

The Houthis had this week announced a naval blockade of Saudi ships in the Red Sea, which stretches along Saudi Arabia’s western flank. That blockade centered on the Bab al Mandeb strait, the only southbound route for Saudi tankers headed to Asian markets.

Tanker traffic has already been heavily diminished in the Persian Gulf along Saudi Arabia’s northeast flank and between it and Iran, because of Iran’s threats to vessels traveling through the Strait of Hormuz. Saudi Arabia had diverted its oil exports to its Red Sea ports and out the Bab al Mandeb, dispatching some 4.5 million barrels via that route per day.

In a social media post Thursday, Trump said that if the Houthis continue attacking ships in the Red Sea, the U.S. “will hold Iran responsible” because the Houthis are an Iranian proxy, and inflict “major military punishment” on the Houthis and Iran.

He said he was “very disappointed” in the Houthis, “in that they have, until now, acted very professionally and smart” amid the Iran war.

At a later event Thursday, Trump said the U.S. is “doing extremely well” against Iran, which he accused of having “evil intentions.”

Democrats in the House and Senate cited the war’s spread to the Red Sea as yet another reason that Congress should act to pass a war powers measure to halt the president’s military campaign. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who led the unsuccessful effort in the Senate, cited the expansion while recalling how Trump had claimed victory in Iran as far back as March.

“If we won back in March, why are more Americans getting killed in July? If we won back in March, why is the Strait of Hormuz closed? If we won back in March, why is the war expanding as Houthis attack ships transiting the Bab al Mandeb strait in the Red Sea? If we won back in March, why are oil and gas prices and diesel prices shooting through the roof again, imposing costs on every American family?” Van Hollen said. “Is that their definition of winning?”

The Houthis’ military spokesman, Yahya al-Sarea, said the group’s forces conducted “a qualitative military operation” targeting two Saudi oil tankers with missiles and drones for what he said were violations of the Houthis’ blockade on the Red Sea.

The Houthis have accused Saudi Arabia of imposing a blockade on airports and seaports in northwestern Yemen, where most of the country’s population lives and which the Houthis otherwise control. They also blamed Saudi Arabia for an attack this month on Sanaa’s airport to prevent the landing of a plane carrying a Houthi delegation returning from the funeral of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who was killed at the start of the war.

Al-Sarea said that in addition to striking the two tankers, the Houthis forced 10 other ships to turn back from their passage, will “continue their naval operations against the Saudi enemy” and will “continue imposing the equation of blockade against blockade.”

The escalation of the war — and the shock wave it sent through global energy markets — added to regional uncertainty already being stoked by the Trump administration’s announcement Wednesday that it had agreed to work with Saudi Arabia to develop a civilian nuclear program.

That announcement, after years of U.S. attempts to block nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, sparked widespread concern in Washington, where lawmakers will vote on the deal, and in Israel, which has long feared a nuclear arms race in the region.

Trump administration officials said the deal would “uphold the highest standards of nuclear safety and nonproliferation,” with American firms developing the program. But they provided few details, and questions immediately arose about the absence of clear inspection protocols or any requirement that Saudi Arabia first normalize diplomatic relations with Israel.

On Thursday, Trump said the deal would be conditioned on Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords and establishing diplomatic ties with Israel. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt later said that Trump had not talked to Saudi leaders since making that condition public, but that they would have to agree to it or “the deal is off.”

Leavitt said that Trump had raised the matter with Saudi leaders in the past, and that it is something Trump “feels very strongly about.”

Asked whether Israel pressured the president to impose the condition, Leavitt said, “Not to my knowledge.”

Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Congress that the Iran war has already cost the U.S. $37.5 billion. House Republicans on Wednesday pushed through a $1.15-trillion defense policy bill to fund the war moving forward. Most Democrats voted against the measure in protest of the war, and it faces stiff opposition in the Senate.

Trump in recent days has tried to deny polls showing plummeting support for the war among Americans. On Wednesday, before attending the dignified transfer of the bodies of U.S. service members killed in the war to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, Trump claimed Americans don’t want high gas prices but “aren’t against the war.”

On Tuesday, Trump posted statistics showing that more U.S. service members died in past wars, which Democrats denounced as disrespectful to those killed in the current conflict.

The Houthis seized control of the Yemeni capital in 2014, along with much of Yemen’s populous northwest. Their advance triggered a devastating Saudi-led campaign to dislodge them. Since 2022, the two sides have been in a stalemate, though tensions have been rising again in recent months.

Mohammed al-Basha, founder of the Basha Report, a U.S. risk advisory firm focused on the Middle East and Africa, said the Houthis’ latest escalation comes as their influence is growing because of the increased importance of Bab al Mandeb while the Strait of Hormuz is choked off by Iran.

“This is their moment, because with everything happening in the Strait of Hormuz, Bab al Mandeb quadrupled in importance. By exerting maximum pressure in this period, they can maximize the effect of any kinetic action they’re trying to do,” Al-Basha said.

“Their narrative is very aggressive. They want war. And they feel that because they want war and sense that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia don’t, that they will submit to their demands.”

WASHINGTON — The House adopted a Republican-only $95-billion budget proposal Wednesday, a long-shot effort to fund the Iran war and other White House priorities over objections from Democrats and a few GOP holdouts in a final push before the midterm elections.

House Republicans were divided over the plan, with conservatives wary because there are no offsetting budget cuts. But Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) plunged ahead, viewing the go-it-alone process as the best chance to usher President Trump’s priorities through the split Congress, despite skepticism in the Senate.

The vote tally was 216-214, with two Republicans and one independent joining Democrats in opposition.

“Just bullets and bombs to finish the job,” said Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), the chairman of the Budget Committee.

Democrats argued the money should be spent at home, particularly on efforts to lower costs for Americans.

“Republicans plan to spend tens of billions of dollars on Trump’s failed war in Iran,” Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Democratic caucus, said this week. “Think about what we could spend with these resources instead.”

Congress is at a standstill over the U.S. war against Iran — unable to stop Trump’s military strikes, but not having authorized the use of American military force — and politically torn over having to provide billions of taxpayer dollars to pay for it. Most Americans disapprove of Trump’s Iran strategy, according to a recent AP-NORC poll.

The budget battle comes as Trump attended the dignified transfer of four service members killed in the Middle East, bringing the military death toll to 18. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told senators at a fiery hearing this week that the Pentagon is running short of cash, despite a massive $150 billion one-time allotment in last year’s big budget bill.

Even as the House action advanced the resolution, Johnson’s strategy faces uncertainty in the Senate.

The package has $60 billion for the Pentagon and $13 billion for other national security needs, $12 billion for farmers struggling under Trump’s tariffs and $10 billion for voting law changes aligned with the SAVE America Act and proof-of-citizenship requirements that are Trump’s top priority.

Republicans are relying on the budget reconciliation process, which enables approval on a majority vote in Congress, bypassing the Senate’s ability to filibuster the measure to stall or kill it.

Once rare, the reconciliation process is now Johnson’s preferred strategy for pushing proposals through Congress. It’s the way Republicans approved Trump’s big tax breaks and spending cuts bill last summer and funded Homeland Security this year over Democrats’ refusal to fund Trump’s mass deportation agenda.

“No matter how you feel about current events, these funds are necessary to ensure our fighting forces remain ready, our troops are paid and our nation is safe,” said Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

But House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said, “Republicans have literally ripped food from the mouths of hungry children, seniors and veterans to sustain the Trump war machine.”

Among those opposed was Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, a former Republican turned independent who said he felt any war funding bill should be bipartisan. He also wanted to ensure Congress had a “much higher level of involvement” in bringing the war to an end, and he said this proposal did not set that process in motion.

Republicans Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio also voted against.

This is the third time GOP leaders have relied on reconciliation, dubbing this version 3.0, and it’s a lengthy process. If the House approves the budget resolution, it next goes to the Senate for a round-the-clock session to consider politically tough amendments — something senators would rather avoid in an election year.

The budget resolution sets out instructions for the various committees to draft legislation, which Johnson hopes could be done this summer, with final voting on the package once lawmakers return after the August recess.

Senators pan House’s budget and have their own ideas

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has been noncommittal on the House package that also divides his own GOP majority, with some Republican senators preferring more money for the military and others demanding the costs be offset with cuts elsewhere.

“We’ll see,” Thune said this week.

Thune’s focus, at the moment, is avoiding another government shutdown. He wants the Senate to approve a stopgap funding measure, called a continuing resolution, to provide routine government funding before lawmakers leave for the summer break.

If senators are unable to reach agreement on government funding, Thune has said he may hold onto the House’s budget resolution and use it later in the fall as a way to push the resolution through the Senate over objections. He wants to prevent a federal shutdown when current funds expire on Sept. 30.

“It’s a possibility that, if necessary, we could pull that budget resolution passed by the House and use it to fund government,” Thune said. “I hope that’s not necessary.”

Thune has also clashed with Trump over the president’s push for the SAVE America Act, which would require proof of citizenship for voting. The measure, while popular among Trump’s most ardent supporters, does not have enough support among Senate Republicans for passage.

It’s already against the law for noncitizens to vote in federal elections and experts warn the proposed new rules could make it more difficult for eligible Americans to cast ballots.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

Troy Jackson, a former Maine lawmaker and fifth-generation logger from the North Maine Woods, has emerged as the likely new replacement for the state’s Democratic Senate nominee after former candidate Graham Platner quit the high-stakes race less than two weeks ago.

Platner’s departure came after a sexual assault allegation that he denied but forced his exit anyway. It sparked a wave of potential candidates eager to prove to Mainers that they could take on longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins.

But by Sunday, the field had largely been cleared after Jackson supporters spent the weekend securing hundreds of delegates who promised to back him at the upcoming state convention.

Under a never-before-used system to replace Platner, delegates will vote Saturday in Bangor on a new Senate nominee. Out of the 601 delegates who will gather this weekend, Jackson’s campaign says it has 481 delegates committed to supporting him.

Top opponents — including Secretary of State Shenna Bellows and Nirav Shah, former director of Maine’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention — have since dropped out, and Jackson announced Monday that he was focusing his attention on ousting Collins.

“I’m grateful to Democrats across Maine for putting their faith in me and in what we’re fighting for,” Jackson said in a statement.

“This didn’t happen because of one person,” he added. “It happened because hundreds of volunteers put in the hours, knocked on doors, made phone calls, and believed we could build something bigger than ourselves.”

Yet securing the nomination is only just the beginning of challenges facing Jackson. There’s little more than 100 days until the general election, meaning Jackson faces an uphill battle raising campaign funds when Collins already has millions. Jackson also must implement a statewide campaign network and woo over the state’s large independent base.

As former state Senate president, Jackson may be more politically vetted than Platner was running as a first-time candidate, but the logger’s backing of progressive policies will leave him open to plenty of attacks by Republicans, said Nicholas Jacobs, a political scientist at Colby College in Maine.

“The guy does have some pretty interesting positions,” Jacobs said. “Positions that are pretty far to the left of the median voter.”

Jackson supports ‘Medicare for All’ and eliminating ICE

Like Platner, Jackson has said he wants to “get rid of” Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has become top of mind for many Mainers after an ICE officer fatally shot a driver last week. Democrats have rushed to connect Collins to the embattled federal agency, while Jackson has reiterated his support of dissolving ICE altogether.

Jackson has also called for “Medicare for All,” which would replace job-based and individual private health insurance with a government-run plan that guarantees coverage for all with no premiums, no deductibles and only minimal copays for certain services.

Republicans were already criticizing Jackson as a “socialist” Monday.

“This entire process is just as bad as Kamala’s rigged coronation,” said Republican National Committee spokesperson Kristen Cianci, nodding to former President Biden’s decision to drop out of the presidential race in July 2024, leaving Vice President Kamala Harris to head up the Democratic ticket and ultimately lose to Republican Donald Trump.

“Maine voters have had their voices stolen by party insiders,” Cianci added.

Jackson first ran for office as a Republican

However, unlike the scrutiny Platner faced from a series of controversies, Jackson’s background coming from “old Maine” and his decades of working in the logging industry will help him, Jacobs said.

“He’s the real deal,” Jacobs said.

In 1998, Jackson helped lead a weeklong blockade along the Quebec border in an effort to protest the hiring of Canadian loggers who were coming into Maine and driving down pay rates. The standoff ended with Jackson being escorted away by police, but resulted in Jackson fighting for better logger and wood hauler protections as a state lawmaker.

Jackson initially ran as a Republican in 2000 when he sought a seat inside Maine’s House of Representatives. He lost, but won two years later when he ran as an independent. He switched to the Democratic Party in 2004, and eventually became the Maine Senate president before leaving the statehouse in 2024.

He came in third while running for governor in this year’s Democratic primary election, but had the backing of Platner, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and Our Revolution, the political organization founded by Sanders.

Democrats must net four Senate seats to gain control of the 100-member chamber, and party leaders viewed Maine as a crucial piece of the puzzle, along with Alaska, Ohio and North Carolina.

Kruesi writes for the Associated Press.

Two weeks after suspending his bid for Wisconsin governor, David Crowley has reentered the state’s Democratic primary, with the Milwaukee County executive securing a last-minute endorsement from outgoing Gov. Tony Evers.

The moves appears to be a Democratic effort to best position the party for success in November.

Evers had initially declined to endorse in the race, but threw his weight behind Crowley and resuscitated his bid to lead the swing state known for razor-thin election margins, where appealing to moderate and independent voters is crucial.

It was the latest turn in a chaotic Democratic primary that has jeopardized the party’s chances this fall and comes after Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez said she was abandoning her campaign for the state’s top office after a campaign finance scandal.

Democrats are looking to November to secure full control of Wisconsin state government for the first time since 2010, and hope it will send a signal about where the country’s politics are headed by shaping a key political battleground that helps decide presidential elections.

In an event in Milwaukee on Saturday relaunching his campaign, Crowley referenced the stakes, saying that “winning this election will require building the broadest possible coalition,” and touting his ability to forge relationships across partisan divides. And Evers’ endorsement, he added, “reflects his confidence that I have the experience” to lead and to win.

Evers was on a trade visit to Africa and not in attendance at Crowley’s Saturday event, but acknowledged in a social media post that he was now “all in” for Crowley, touting his executive leadership on issues including job creation and balancing budgets.

“He’s not just a candidate who can win in November, but he’s the kind of person who cares about doing the job right,” Evers wrote.

Crowley, 40, is reemerging into a competitive primary for Wisconsin’s open governor’s race that was turned on its head Friday with the departure of Rodriguez, who earlier in the week fired her campaign manager after discovering her campaign had hundreds of thousands of dollars less on hand than expected.

Now, as they approach Wisconsin’s primary election Aug. 11, Democrats are hoping to hold on to the governor’s office as they also eye flipping majority control of the state Legislature, which Republicans have held since 2011.

The primary also comes after democratic socialists’ earlier victories in the liberal strongholds of New York City, Washington and Denver. Francesca Hong, a single mother who has worked as a dishwasher and line cook, is trying to do the same with her campaign for Wisconsin governor, with her candidacy turning the Democratic contest into a test of party voters’ growing embrace of leftist candidates heading in the November midterms.

Crowley, who would be the state’s first Black governor if elected, had ended his own bid two weeks ago to back Rodriguez. Now, he’s returning to a contest against Hong, former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, state Sen. Kelda Roys and Joel Brennan, a former top aide to Evers. The Democratic nominee is expected to face Republican U.S. Rep. Thomas P. Tiffany, who faces only token opposition and has the support of President Trump and other GOP leaders.

In an interview Saturday afternoon, Crowley told the Associated Press that voters would see “a much more aggressive campaign” from him in the primary’s closing weeks, buoyed in part by Evers’ backing and “a renewed, energized, volunteer base.”

“I wouldn’t have gotten into this race if I didn’t believe a pathway was there,” Crowley said. “We can not only get over the hump in winning on the Aug. 11 primary, but then we’ll be able to really focus on how we can make sure that Tom Tiffany doesn’t bring an extreme MAGA agenda to the state of Wisconsin,” Crowley said.

In the first iteration of his campaign, Crowley leaned into his background, highlighting how his family was once homeless in Milwaukee but he rose to become a community organizer and was elected to the state Assembly in 2016 at age 30. He served until the middle of 2020, when he was elected as executive of Milwaukee County, the state’s largest county. He was the first Black person to hold that job and also the youngest, at 33.

In a statement to AP, Tiffany portrayed Crowley as “asleep at the wheel” in his role as county executive and described his reemergence as Democrats’ “only shot at stopping the socialist who wants to abolish the police and prisons.”

In an email statement, the Republican Governors Assn. said that “watching Wisconsin Democrats is like watching a clown car crash into a parked semitruck.”

Kinnard writes for the Associated Press. AP reporter Scott Bauer in Madison, Wis., contributed to this report.

It pains me to say that most of us are missing the point when it comes to President Trump’s rambling election fraud speech. Which is exactly what he wants.

Within minutes of its airing Thursday night, the internet and pundits were abuzz debating whether voting machines were secure and whether the federal government has a right, or even a duty, to oversee voter rolls (it has neither). Long posts were written condemning voter identification efforts, and more posts written attacking those condemnations.

This, friends, is exactly what the speech was meant to accomplish — myopic bickering.

To be specific, myopic bickering about the past, as a dark future creeps ever closer — like, say, Nov. 3.

The question we should be asking now isn’t whether there is massive fraud in U.S. elections — even the conservative Heritage Foundation has documented only 71 cases of such fraud in California in more than 25 years.

The question is will we allow Trump to sow just enough doubt in the minds of average Americans that what comes next seems inevitable and even necessary?

Trump falsely claimed that he was revealing “an election system so broken and so vulnerable that no one can possibly defend it.”

“This cannot be allowed to continue,” he said.

Those are ominous words, ones we should take seriously.

“This is a very sad thing to be able to say about the president of the United States, but I think it’s quite clear,” said Mindy Romero, director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy, a nonpartisan research facility. “This is about a certain set of political goals, and using this misinformation to achieve those political goals.”

Trump knows that the midterms present a threat to his power and he, and those around him, have been working for years to create a strategy to invalidate our election results just in case they don’t fall in his direction. Whether the overall outcome favors Democrats or Republicans in the midterms, the wins and losses are going to be close, giving him the chance to attack Democratic wins.

On Jan. 6, 2021, Trump learned from the unlikely teacher Mike Pence the difficult lesson that plans work only when people are in place to implement them. As vice president, Pence, you may recall, refused to stop the election certification process that legally, rightfully, fairly allowed Joe Biden to take office.

Since then, Trump has purged dissenters from top roles, instead putting in flat-out sycophants, election deniers and conspiracy theorists — more than one of whom has been associated with the racist Great Replacement theory that Democrats are secretly helping Black and brown people to illegally cross the border in exchange for these folks illegally voting for Democrats, thereby replacing the “true” America of conservative white people.

So the apparatchiks are in place, Soviet-style. There will be no Penceian savior on the inside this time around.

More than one election expert I have spoken to in recent months fear that because there is no one left on the inside to object, we could see post-election turmoil like this: Republicans lose one or both houses of Congress. Trump calls fraud. The Department of Justice or outside lawyers, or both, sue to overturn results. Congress, the Republican one still in place, refuses to seat newly elected Democrats until the court cases are resolved.

A constitutional crisis is at hand. Democrats say they were elected. Republicans won’t let them serve. No one is clear who is in Congress and who isn’t. In effect, the body is frozen and it’s legitimacy undermined. Into that vacuum, Trump pushes his already great power even further.

As movie-terrible as that sounds, that internal structure is in place and this scenario is far less impossible or even improbable than we could hope.

“What we’re talking about is just misinformation and what could be used as a justification for potentially interfering with seating of elected officials,” Romero said. “Particularly Congress.”

Now, with the internal stuff squared away, Trump’s focus is neutralizing outside dissent. That’s you and me, and that’s what this speech was about. Sowing doubt, tossing seeds of chaos into the soil to see what grows. Letting us know it’s coming, so we as Americans have time to bicker, argue, and tear away at our trust in elections so that by the time we vote, we expect the worst to happen.

“Unfortunately, there are some members of the public that are going to believe what they’re being told and when they hear election results, question it,” said Chad Dunn, legal director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project. “This kind of communication misleads Americans and does a disservice to our democracy.”

Dunn told me he’s “as worried as I’ve been in my life” about the next election.

Trump’s far right is wasting no time on this effort. After Trump’s speech, the Department of Homeland Security sent out a letter to California and three other states claiming California has more than 190,000 non-citizens registered to vote, and demanding the state “confirm their intentions to collaborate with DHS in order to ensure free, fair, and honest elections.”

This is a misleading, erroneous count and does not include the obvious fact that there is no evidence that undocumented people actually voted in any California election in any noticeable numbers.

But it creates that chaos and doubt. California isn’t going to share its voter rolls willingly with the federal government because elections — according to the Constitution — are state affairs. And there is no evidence that the federal government has a better way of vetting citizenship than California does. So it becomes one more point of bickering.

But what Dunn, Romero and other honest elections experts want Americans to know is that our elections are free and fair and all is not lost. Far from it.

The answer to the propaganda and lies is to remain aware of it, remain above it. Spread truth and refute falsehoods.

Dunn said that Americans should demand that any voter fraud be taken to the courts — where it belongs, and where we can determine the validity of the evidence.

“If you’re concerned about this, if you’re inclined to believe the president, demand proof, demand resolution in court at trial with the the showing of evidence,” he said. “And reserve judgment until you see that.”

Romero has her own advice — never underestimate the power of the vote.

“Show up and to participate,” she said. “Regardless of how [you’re] going to vote — Democrat, Republican, otherwise — just to show up and participate.”

Because in the end, we only lose democracy if we willingly let it go.

The tight timeline to replace former Maine Senate nominee Graham Platner has left Democratic hopefuls scrambling to woo his progressive base while trying to turn the focus from the disgraced oysterman to defeating Republican Sen. Susan Collins in November.

It’s a delicate balance for the candidates, who are vying to face Collins in a contest that could decide control of the Senate as Platner’s shadow hangs over the race. In their first debate Thursday night, one of the first questions candidates were asked was: What was Graham Platner’s best idea?

Moving past Platner is just one of the challenges facing Democrats. The never-before-used process to pick a new nominee means candidates have less than three weeks to pull off what typically takes campaigns months or years, from organizing volunteers to raising money and preparing for debates.

The whiplash many of the candidates are facing was on display Thursday.

Asked by debate moderators about President Trump’s decision to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife earlier this year, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows gave inaccurate information about Collins not pushing back against Trump, a Republican. When a moderator called her on it, Bellows said she was on vacation on the Kennebec River last week after previously focusing on her unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign and hadn’t expected to be running for the Senate.

“When I need to know the facts, I will. I’ll do my homework,” said Bellows, who lost to Collins in 2014.

The field of 12 candidates also includes former public health leader Nirav Shah and union-backed logger Troy Jackson, who campaigned alongside Platner in a failed bid for governor.

Platner’s exit means the clock is ticking

Platner quit the Senate race last week after he was accused of rape, which he denies, and his campaign quickly imploded as supporters revoked their endorsements and resources.

Democrats have until July 27 to choose a new nominee, according to state law. The Maine Democratic Party’s succession plan calls for a state party convention at which 601 delegates will meet on July 25 and vote for Platner’s replacement. The majority of the convention delegates will be selected this weekend from each of the state’s 16 counties.

Candidates hoping to replace Platner have been recruiting delegates who will vote for them at the convention. The candidates also must collect 500 voter signatures needed to qualify for the convention vote.

“I don’t think anyone’s happy that we’re in this situation,” said Dan Jenkins, a Maine Democrat who has applied to be a delegate. “We would have preferred that this had broken many, many months ago and then Graham had exited the race when there was a time for a democratic process. But it’s where we are.”

Some candidates might see a boost from prior campaigns

Jackson is among the handful of candidates pivoting to the Senate race after running for other political offices, likely giving them a leg up in not having to launch from scratch.

Our Revolution, a progressive organization founded by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont that had originally backed Platner, has thrown its support behind Jackson, the former Maine Senate president. Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, has not endorsed in the race.

Shah, former director of Maine’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention, also unsuccessfully ran in this year’s Maine Democratic governor’s primary. He has been pitching Platner’s supporters that he’s also an outsider who can unify a fractured Democratic Party.

“You have an important place in this campaign, and we welcome your voices,” Shah said earlier this month speaking to Platner’s base.

Bellows also ran for governor. She’s hoping that her previous battles with Trump will bolster her argument that she’ll be an advocate for the working class.

Bellows previously attempted to run against Collins in 2014 as the Senate Democratic nominee and lost in a landslide. She later went on to win a seat as a state senator before becoming Maine’s secretary of state. She’s since downplayed her prior loss to Collins by pointing to the Democratic establishment’s unwillingness to take on the Republican in 2014.

Another candidate, Jordan Wood, initially announced his intent to run in the Maine Democratic Senate primary. He dropped out last fall to run in the state’s 2nd District but lost that race.

Candidates seize on recent ICE shooting

The fatal shooting by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Maine this week has been top of mind among the potential Senate nominees.

The Embassy of Colombia has identified the man killed Monday in Biddeford, roughly 15 miles southwest of Portland, as Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, a 26-year-old Colombian national. The Department of Homeland Security has since said an ICE officer fired his weapon when the man officers were pursuing attempted to flee the scene, threatening “public safety.”

Many have rushed to connect Collins to the embattled federal agency.

All the candidates who debated Thursday said they agreed with the call to “abolish ICE,” though Wood stopped short of saying the agency should be completely dissolved.

“I believe that when I say we have to abolish it, what I mean is that we need a new law enforcement agency that has the trust of the people,” Wood said.

Jackson disagreed, calling ICE a “rogue agency that goes around doing things that they’re being told to on high.”

Candidates asked about Platner’s best ideas

Platner attracted more than 150,000 votes during the June 9 primary, an eye-opening number that signaled a progressive base eager to support a candidate known for his promise to defend the working class and ability to rally large crowds.

With little more than a week until the state convention to find Platner’s replacement, it still remains unknown just who will be able to capture that same excitement seen among Platner’s base.

When pressed during Thursday’s debate about Platner’s best idea on the campaign trail, Jackson pointed to his commitment to “Medicare for All.” As a gubernatorial candidate, Jackson also voiced support for replacing job-based and individual private health insurance with a government-run plan that guarantees coverage for all with no premiums, no deductibles and only minimal copays for certain services.

Bellows said that she agreed with Platner’s description that democracy in the U.S. has been corrupted by those in power.

Shah said he would take up Platner’s commitment to “abolish ICE,” while Wood said he admired Platner’s decision to say that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, something Israel denies.

“Graham got into this race saying, ‘this is genocide.’ And I learned that it is so important in these moments to draw those moral lines,” Wood said.

Kruesi writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Democrats are making a growing effort to adopt a pragmatic focus as they campaign on affordability in the midterms, as some within the party push for moving away from ideological arguments.

Across the country, Democratic candidates are trying to win over voters by talking about real-life scenarios, framing other platform issues in economic terms and, strategists say, aiming to shift a perception that Democrats deal in the abstract.

They see an opening created by voters’ focus on the economy and their ability as the party not in power to leverage affordability as the key midterms issue as Trump’s economic approval remains low. Trump has dismissed the issue, calling affordability a “hoax” by Democrats while also promising economic improvements.

“There has been a learning process in being able to take what Trump and the Republicans are doing and make sure that [candidates] are coming back to the real-world economic implications of whatever that might be,” Democratic strategist Alex Jacquez, who served in the Biden White House. “That’s where maybe [Democrats] haven’t always, in the recent past, made the full connection all the way through.”

Now, “the moment is ripe,” he suggested, for the party to shift its image.

The Democrats’ concentration on affordability and the economy has defined their midterm messaging, playing off elevated inflation, the effects of Trump’s tariffs and high gas prices caused by the war in Iran. The party is attempting to capture enough swing voters to win a House majority in November, and some believe the Senate could also be within reach.

Polling shows pessimism about the economy has increased among all Americans and most believe the country is in an affordability crisis. Americans most frequently mention government leadership and economic issues as the country’s most important problems in Gallup polling.

Voters also increasingly disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy, including working-class white voters who make up a key part of his base. In an NPR/PBS News/Marist Poll last month, Americans gave the president his lowest-ever approval rating on the economy at 33%.

Speaking in Pennsylvania on Thursday, Trump said of affordability: “That’s a fake word that they use. They caused the affordability problem. It’s called high prices.”

Rep. Adam Gray, a Democrat who represents a purple Central Valley district and is a member of the center-left Blue Dog Coalition in Congress, said he believes voters have grown frustrated by the failure of Washington lawmakers to pay attention to what the people want out from government.

He pointed to Central Valley growers whose business has been affected, he said, by the rising price of fuel and fertilizer, the squeeze on the labor market caused by immigration enforcement and changes to federal programs.

“How regular people experience politics, it’s not the kind of ideological debates we have in Washington,” Gray said. “It’s the experience of doing something, whether that’s shopping for groceries or going to the lake to go boating with your family and realizing the price of gas is through the roof or the road to the lake is in disrepair.”

At a time when Democrats have debated how to embrace a party identity beyond opposing Trump and intra-party fights between progressive and moderate candidates have drawn attention, some believe the “practical” tactic may offer one key to the party’s path forward.

In Texas, Democratic candidates are pointing to the impact of data centers on water supply or the consequences of the state’s abortion ban, said Matt Angle, director of Lone Star Project, a political research organization that works to help get Democrats elected.

“The fact that Corpus Christi is running out of water … [or] you have women who have died because they were denied abortion services,” Angle said. “It’s very important that those things not be talked about in ideological terms but in practical terms. I think Democrats are doing a better job of that than ever before.”

“Real life is happening on the ground,” Angle added. “I think Democrats see that.”

Republicans pursued a similar strategy successfully in 2024, and their attacks on Democrats for focusing on cultural issues may have been successful in pushing Democrats away from that messaging, said Republican strategist Brittany Martinez.

“They have made it clear that’s the direction in which they’re trying to go,” she said of Democrats. “I also think you have outliers of the party that sometimes suck all the oxygen out of the room and maybe derail that message.”

National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Christian Martinez said Democrats’ economic record, including in California under Gov. Gavin Newsom, demonstrates a failure to prioritize working families.

“It’s laughable that Democrats are trying to make kitchen-table issues their brand,” he said. “It only proves their political brand is broken, while Californians continue living every day with the receipts from Democrats’ failed agenda.”

Republican National Committee Chair Joe Gruters said Thursday at a summit convened by the Washington-based news outlet the Hill that he was confident the party would retain the House and Senate and projected optimism about the economy.

“He’s going to bat for the American worker every single day,” Gruters said of Trump. “He’s going to continue to do everything he can to get the nose of the economy in this country up and to get prices down.”

But as Trump appears to prioritize other issues, Martinez said, Republicans are facing their own uphill battle to win over swing voters.

“When the president has mocked affordability, said it’s not a crisis, I don’t think that helps [Republicans],” Martinez said. “Democrats have an opportunity to capitalize on that right now.”

Both moderate and progressive Democrats see the moment as a chance to define what the party stands for beyond opposing Trump, and both have seized on real-life arguments, though the approaches differ.

Progressives have long framed a spectrum of issues in economic terms, said Usamah Andrabi, spokesperson for the progressive caucus Justice Democrats.

“That has always been the progressive economic playbook, and I think it’s about time that the other wings of the Democratic Party catch up to us,” Andrabi said.

That also means, he said, not backing away from other issues, such as abortion, foreign wars and healthcare.

“It has always been the right that has sought to divide our communities on these so-called culture war issues,” Andrabi said. “Our vision forward should be one that includes everyone… That does not mean simply ignoring some people’s most urgent crises to focus on something else, because these are interconnected.”

Climate advocates, for instance, are “effectively connecting” climate to top midterm issues, including including gas and utility costs, AI data centers and the Iran war, said Jamie Henn, executive director of nonprofit communications lab Fossil Fuel Media, and have encouraged Democratic candidates to do the same.

“Climate, like many issues, doesn’t win itself on its own merits. It’s in the ways that you talk about it and connect it to kitchen-table issues,” Henn said. “Do it in the right way – it’s not a science lecture on global warming, it’s a story about how clean energy can reduce your bills.”

Still, getting more candidates to pick up those messages can be a steep climb, he said. Advocates in some spaces, including climate, have worried about their issues being sidelined.

“There are Democrats that could be threading this needle who aren’t,” Henn said. “We know the issues that climate needs to be connected to, but [politicians] need… to do a better job to clearly articulate the messages.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump appeared poised to question the security of U.S. elections with a planned prime-time speech Thursday night, eliciting fears from Democrats and voting rights advocates that he is planning yet another play for federal control over voting in November’s midterms.

The exact reason for the speech has not been disclosed by the White House, with Trump only characterizing it to reporters this week as “really, really big news.” He confirmed it would have to do with “free and fair elections.”

The Washington Post reported, citing sources, that Trump planned to argue that there are vulnerabilities in the nation’s election infrastructure and claim that China had accessed U.S. voter data. The White House declined to confirm any such details Wednesday.

The announcement of the speech set off concerns among the president’s political opponents, as well as elections experts and voting rights advocates, that Trump could again escalate claims that the nation’s voting system is vulnerable to domestic fraud and foreign attacks.

He has previously said that Republicans should “nationalize” election administration, a job that falls to the states under the Constitution, and has pressured his party to tighten federal voting rules.

“We don’t know anything about what he might say … or what he might try to do with his very limited powers, as the president, over elections,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research. “I expect we’re going to hear a lot of rehashed and debunked claims.”

The president could potentially use new claims to argue that the nation is facing an emergency in upcoming elections that necessitates further federal intervention into voting, Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Administration Committee, which has oversight of elections, said in an interview with The Times.

“This is going to be the rationale for declaring a national emergency,” Morelle said. “It’s transparent that he is creating the emergency and he’s creating the evidence out of whole cloth to suggest there is an emergency.”

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the Senate Rules Committee, which oversees federal elections, told The Times on Wednesday that Trump was using a known playbook to “[sow] doubt about the outcome before a single vote has been cast.”

“All signs show that tomorrow’s speech will be more of the same: debunked conspiracy theories offered up not because they’re true, but because chaos and doubt are the only cards he has left to play,” Padilla said.

The speech, which Trump announced on social media Monday, comes four months ahead of midterm elections that will determine whether his party retains legislative control in Washington.

White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt dismissed news reports about what Trump might say in the 6 p.m. PDT speech as speculation, and said “nobody knows yet what President Trump will ultimately say.”

The address also comes as Trump’s ceasefire with Iran has fallen apart, renewing expectations for increased gas prices, and his approval rating on the economy has steadily dropped. On Tuesday, it also became public that Trump had paid $5.6 million to the writer E. Jean Carroll, as ordered by a jury that in 2023 found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming her.

“What we’re going to be talking about Thursday is, it doesn’t get bigger,” Trump told reporters who asked Tuesday about the speech. “Because without free and fair elections you don’t have a country.”

Trump has spread baseless claims of widespread election fraud for years. But his prioritization of his claims about the voting system — even as much of the nation’s attention is on cost-of-living issues — has been on particularly clear display in recent days.

He has aggressively lobbied reluctant Republican senators to pass his voter ID legislation, refusing to sign a bipartisan housing bill over it; he fired all remaining members of the bipartisan U.S. Elections Assistance Commission; and his Justice Department said it would send election monitors to six states.

Since the midterm primaries began, Trump has also sown doubt about election security — chiefly in California, where he suggested Democrats had cheated or attempted to in the gubernatorial and Los Angeles mayoral primaries.

Georgia Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff, whose state was often at the center of Trump’s 2020 fraud claims, said the president’s speech posed a threat to voting rights.

“I expect him to use whatever he puts out there on Thursday as a pretext, either for some attempted unconstitutional use of federal power to interfere in the election,” Ossoff said Tuesday on MS Now, “or to give his proxies and loyalists in state and local jurisdictions some cover for whatever they might attempt, or to lay the groundwork for challenging the result.”

Any effort to federalize or take over elections would face serious legal obstacles, said Nahal Kazemi, a Chapman University law professor. Although Congress can pass laws regarding election administration, as it did with the Voting Rights Act, the executive branch doesn’t play a role in running elections.

“You run into essentially a brick wall that is the Constitution, which makes very plain that states run elections,” Kazemi said.

When it comes to concerns about foreign interference, experts say there is little evidence of other countries attempting to hack systems or change votes. Instead, foreign actors have largely operated via disinformation campaigns, as the U.S. determined had occurred in the 2016 and 2020 elections.

“Of the information that is available to us now, there’s no reason to be alarmed about the possibility that a foreign adversary is going to take over election systems,” said Kazemi, who has studied foreign election interference.

One of the things that helps make American elections generally secure, she said, is that they are not centralized but are run by thousands of counties. Hacking into so many voting systems would be extraordinarily difficult for a foreign adversary, she said.

Jenny Farrell, executive director of the League of Women Voters of California, said California “takes elections security extremely seriously” and has one of the most secure systems in the country, subject to strict voter verification measures and intense chain of custody and auditing procedures.

Democrats have worked with elections experts in recent months on attempts to assure the public that U.S. elections are safe and secure. They have also tried to counter claims by Trump that mail ballots and voting machines are unreliable.

A slew of 2020 election reviews, including by Trump’s first administration, concluded that Trump lost and Biden won. Election experts say there is no evidence that widespread fraud determined the outcome of the election.

A judge also found that claims pushed by Trump and his attorneys that the company Dominion Voting Systems manipulated votes cast through its machines in favor of Biden were untrue.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s pick to head the nation’s intelligence agencies struggled to win Democratic support in a contentious confirmation hearing Wednesday where he clashed repeatedly with them over the 2020 election.

Democrats asked Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and a former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, over and over again whether former President Biden won the election and defeated Trump. Echoing many of Trump’s nominees, Clayton said many times that the election was “certified” for Biden, declining to say outright that the Democrat won.

“I’m not going to get into this with you,” Clayton told Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff, the last of several Democrats on the committee to grill Clayton on the 2020 election. Clayton appeared frustrated and flustered as Ossoff repeated the question several times. “I’ve answered it,” he said.

Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, who had praised Clayton’s nomination when Trump picked him for the role last month, expressed exasperation with him at the end of the hearing. Democrats say they are concerned that Trump will try to direct intelligence agencies to influence U.S. elections as the president has repeated his false claims that the 2020 contest was stolen.

“I’ve known Mr. Clayton for some time, I worked with him closely when he was at the SEC,” said Warner, the top Democrat on the intelligence panel. “But I am bitterly disappointed.”

While Clayton has broad support among Republicans, the acrimony with Democrats could be a blow to GOP leaders who had hoped to gain their consent for a quick vote to replace temporary intelligence director Bill Pulte, a former housing official with no known intelligence experience and who used his previous administration perch to target perceived adversaries of the president.

Senators in both parties have criticized Pulte, and Republicans had hoped to confirm Clayton immediately after he was nominated in June so Pulte did not take over when Gabbard left office. But Trump delayed Clayton’s nomination, allowing Pulte to take the job temporarily.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said the committee will vote on Clayton’s nomination next week.

Clayton emphasizes national security experience

Clayton did not mention Pulte in the hearing. But he emphasized his own government and national security experience, attempting to assuage senators in both parties.

“I saw firsthand how a strong national security apparatus depends on decisive judgment, discipline, integrity, and effective communication and cooperation across different branches of the government,” Clayton said in his opening statement. “If confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, I will commit to upholding these principles every day.”

Cotton expressed frustration last month when the hearing was delayed. He said in his opening statement Wednesday that Clayton has a reputation for operating with “morality, decency and integrity” in his previous positions and that he hopes his nomination will win bipartisan support.

Democrats press Clayton on Gabbard’s election activities

Democrats also pressed Clayton on former National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard’s visit to a Georgia election office earlier this year during an FBI search related to the 2020 election. Trump administration officials have given varying explanations for Gabbard’s involvement in the search, which appeared to be outside of her intelligence role.

Clayton declined to say whether Gabbard’s visit was appropriate or how he would handle the same situation. At one point he said he wasn’t aware of Gabbard’s visit before this week, then later appeared to backtrack, saying “it wasn’t something on my mind” before he started to prepare for the hearing.

Warner said it “strains credibility” that Clayton wasn’t aware of Gabbard’s election activities.

Democrats also asked Clayton about Trump’s announcement that he will deliver a primetime address on Thursday with a focus on elections, after the president suggested he could revisit long-debunked conspiracy theories about his 2020 defeat. Clayton said he had has no involvement with that speech.

As U.S. attorney in Manhattan, Clayton oversees vast portfolio

Clayton is currently the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, one of the most prestigious of the Justice Department’s prosecution offices. His cases have ranged from terrorism and espionage cases to security fraud and public corruption.

Democrats pressed Clayton on subpoenas of four New York Times journalists after they reported on security concerns involving the new, Qatari-gifted Air Force One. The Committee to Protect Journalists has called the subpoenas “an extraordinary escalation in President Trump’s efforts to threaten and intimidate independent news organizations and have a chilling effect on the work of journalists across the country.”

Clayton said he was not able to discuss the details of the subpoenas and declined to elaborate on whether he spoke to the White House before they were issued. He said he is “confident in procedures we have in place to protect freedom of press.”

Under Clayton, the office also facilitated the unsealing of thousands of pages of court records from the prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell — documents that were made public as part of the Justice Department’s release of records related to the late sex offender and his longtime confidant.

Clayton has also overseen the prosecution of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and Maduro’s wife, Cilia Flores, on drug trafficking charges.

Confirmation vote could unlock renewal of surveillance authority

Clayton’s confirmation could potentially clear the way for bipartisan legislation to renew Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, which stalled last month when Democrats had said they would not provide the necessary votes to pass the bill unless Pulte’s temporary appointment was withdrawn.

The law, which aims to prevent terrorist attacks by monitoring the communications of targeted foreigners located outside the United States, expired in June.

Even if Democrats relent, it is unclear if Trump would sign the bill. He said in his June social media post delaying Clayton’s nomination that he would not sign the FISA renewal without his legislation to require proof of citizenship for all voters. The voting bill does not have enough support to pass the Senate.

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

NEW YORK — Former President Biden will publish a memoir, “Promise Me, America,” which he says will touch upon everything from the economy to his decision to drop his bid for reelection.

The memoir is scheduled to come out Nov. 17, publisher Little, Brown and Company told The Associated Press. The timing of the book — two weeks after midterm elections in which Democrats seek to regain control of Congress — could raise concerns within Biden’s party by putting him back into the spotlight.

Democrats remain divided on Biden’s legacy, with many blaming his ill-fated determination to seek a second term for Republican President Trump’s return to the White House. Leaders hope to keep the fall campaign focused on Trump and his record, and any leaks or promotional efforts before votes are cast could draw frustration.

“‘Promise Me, America’ is about the challenges we faced as a nation. It’s about the decisions I made and why I made them,” Biden said in a video statement accompanying Wednesday’s announcement. “It’s about why I chose to run for reelection and why I chose to step aside.”

Reports of Biden’s book have circulated for more than a year, and the former president himself has referred to it during public remarks, appearing to suggest it would be released before November’s election.

Biden, who will turn 84 three days after the publication of “Promise Me, America,” has long presented himself as an upholder of standards and traditions; presidential memoirs are one of them. With a handful of exceptions, modern presidents since Harry Truman in the 1950s have published books about their White House years. Little, Brown declined to release financial details for ”Promise Me, America,” although presidents have usually reached deals worth at least seven figures.

The book’s title echoes a 2017 memoir by Biden, “Promise Me, Dad,” which centered on the death of his son, Beau Biden.

Vowing as a candidate to “restore the soul” of his country, Biden was sworn into office in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters seeking to stop his certification as president. Biden’s term was defined by a wide range of conflicts and achievements, from his handling of wars in Ukraine and the Middle East to the passage of ambitious infrastructure and economic aid bills. But many readers will likely want to know more about his health while president, including the disastrous debate in June 2024 against Trump that led to his giving up his reelection bid. Then-Vice President Kamala Harris, who ran instead, lost decisively to Trump.

Former first lady Jill Biden wrote in her own book that her husband seemed so weak and disoriented during the debate that she feared he was having a stroke. In “View from the East Wing,” published in June, she noted that the White House had initially said he was suffering from a cold.

“The biggest lesson for us, I think, was that if you don’t explain something well enough then the question won’t go away,” she wrote. “There was never a satisfying enough explanation offered for Joe’s debate performance, and a lot of people never got over it.”

Biden was the oldest man to serve as president and his health was a source of speculation for much of his term; Biden and his White House advisers have faced intense criticism from Democrats and Republicans for allegedly concealing the extent of his problems. A notable book release from 2025, Jake Tapper’s and Alex Thompson’s “Original Sin,” was subtitled “President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again.”

That year, Biden announced he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Biden’s previous books also include “Promises to Keep,” a campaign work published to boost his run for president in 2008, when Barack Obama was the eventual nominee and Biden his running mate. ”Promise Me, America” comes out during a year when nonfiction sales have declined and few political books have caught on, although recent bestsellers have included Vice President JD Vance’s “Communion” and an inside account of Trump’s second term, by New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, “Regime Change.”

A Little, Brown spokesperson said that Biden plans to tour on behalf of the book and give interviews. In his video announcement, Biden said that many people had been asking him how he was doing.

“I’ve been spending a lot of time with my family. I’m dealing with a cancer diagnosis, been getting treatment, and it’s going really well,” he said. “I want to thank all those who have offered their prayers and support and well-wishes. It’s meant the world to me and to Jill.”

Italie writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The sudden death of Sen. Lindsey Graham, the veteran South Carolina Republican lawmaker, is scrambling the state’s U.S. Senate race as Republicans face a fast primary election to replace him on the ballot.

Graham, 71, who died Saturday after what the D.C. medical examiner called an aorta rupture, was seeking a fifth term in the Senate. Even as his political allies publicly mourned his loss, jockeying began over the vacancy, and President Trump signaled an intention to weigh in.

“I have somebody that I think would be great, but I don’t want to say it now because it’s just, you know, it’s too soon with Lindsey,” Trump, who ordered American flags to be lowered to half-staff in Graham’s honor, said Sunday on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.” “I don’t want to even talk about anybody, but I do have somebody that I think is really good.”

Graham’s death eats into Republicans’ voting majority in the Senate, as does the absence of Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who has been hospitalized for weeks. It adds new uncertainty for the GOP at a time when the party is contending with Trump’s declining popularity among Americans and tensions have been high among Senate Republicans at odds with Trump.

Graham’s death creates the second major shakeup of a Senate race in a week, following Democratic candidate Graham Platner’s dropping out in Maine. Like that state’s Democrats, South Carolina Republicans now face a snap process for choosing a new nominee four months before the November midterms.

But whereas Maine Democrats are expected to decide Platner’s replacement at a convention in two weeks, South Carolina Republican voters will choose Graham’s replacement next month at the ballot box.

Whether the absence of an incumbent could tighten the race or force the GOP to funnel extra money into it remains to be seen. South Carolina is a reliably red state and Graham’s seat was not widely seen as competitive; the race has been rated as solidly Republican by Cook Political Report.

“I expect we’ll have a good November,” said Drew McKissick, chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party, but, he added: “You never take anything for granted, and that’s the last thing I would do in a situation like this.”

McKissick remembered Graham as dedicated to helping his party across levels and in sometimes little-noticed ways, assisting county organizations and down-ballot candidates.

“His time [was] spent on so many issues that were incredibly important to our party,” McKissick said. “He was a staunch pro-life senator with no equal.”

To replace him on the November ballot, the party must hold a special election, according to state election law. Republicans who want to vie for the seat will be able to file starting July 21, and the primary election will be Aug. 11, with a possible Aug. 25 runoff.

Graham was opposed by Democrat Annie Andrews, a pediatrician, who in a statement Sunday called the senator “a man of great faith who proudly served our nation.”

“I hope that South Carolinians will join me in setting partisanship aside and offering gratitude to Senator Lindsey Graham for his service to the great state of South Carolina,” Andrews wrote.

Because it is now an open seat, that changes the race, said Jay Parmley, executive director of the South Carolina Democratic Party.

It will require the “rejiggering” of campaign strategy built around opposing Graham, but the Democrats’ big-picture approach of countering Trump and MAGA Republican values will stand regardless of who becomes the new nominee, Parmley said. He predicted the race would be competitive.

“This absolutely is in play,” Parmley said of the seat. “I think it was in play before … but now, I think it’s game on.”

Democrats must retain their seats in three competitive states and flip seats in at least four others. The party has largely focused on Maine, Alaska, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas for possible flips.

South Carolina remains a stretch for Democrats, so Graham’s death likely doesn’t change the party’s calculus, said Democratic strategist Andrew DeStefano.

“The math is still very clear and doable,” DeStefano said. “I would rather be Dems than Republicans right now, even with the Senate math and even playing in some tough states.”

Under South Carolina law, Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, can appoint someone to fill Graham’s vacant seat until January. In a statement, McMaster said Graham was “irreplaceable,” calling him “the fiercest of fighters for South Carolina and America.”

If a member of the South Carolina congressional delegation were to be appointed to the seat, it would erode the party’s slim margin in that chamber — something some House Republicans were reportedly seeking to avoid. At least one, Rep. Joe Wilson, said Sunday he had told Trump would not seek the seat in order to preserve the House majority.

In Kentucky, McConnell is set to retire at the end of this term, and a race is underway to fill his vacant seat in November. If he were to die before the new session of Congress begins in January, it could set off a legal fight over an untested Kentucky state law requiring a special election to fill a Senate vacancy, but would not affect the November race.

On Sunday, McConnell said in a statement he had been hospitalized after a fall. Little information had been released from his office about his condition, causing questions to swirl. “Just tell us what’s going on,” Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat, urged Saturday on X.

In Maine, Democrats last week announced a July 25 convention where 601 county delegates and state party members will select a nominee to replace Platner.

“The circumstances are different between the two states,” said David Farmer, a Maine-based Democratic strategist, “but it’s certainly shaping up to be a strange midterm election with enormous stakes for the country.”

As the fight for control of the U.S. Senate grows increasingly competitive, eyes are turning north to Alaska and a contest pitting, among its contestants, Dan Sullivan vs. Dan Sullivan — and, no, it’s not about a candidate living a double life or wrestling demons within himself.

Confused?

That may be the point.

Daniel S. Sullivan is Alaska’s two-term Republican senator. He’s seeking reelection in November.

Daniel J. Sullivan is a retired school teacher and political novice. He calls himself an independent Republican cut from the same polar-fleece lining as the state’s maverick GOP senator, Lisa Murkowski.

Political handicappers give Daniel J. Sullivan little chance of winning the highly competitive race. So is there some other reason he’s running? Is his presence on the ballot intended to draw enough befuddled voters away from the incumbent to elect his Democratic challenger, former Rep. Mary Peltola?

That’s what Republicans think. And you don’t have to be standing on the banks of the Kenai River to smell something fishy.

When Daniel J. Sullivan launched his campaign in May, he did so as plain old “Dan Sullivan,” with a website closely resembling that of the incumbent. The press release announcing his candidacy was written by one “Amber Lee.” There is an Alaska political strategist named Amber Lee who has supported Peltola in the past.

(For such a sparsely populated state, there sure are a lot of doppelgangers in this political saga.)

Election officials say Daniel J. Sullivan asked to appear on the ballot as a Republican, even though he hadn’t previously been affiliated with the party. In fact, over the years he’d contributed money to Democrats, including Peltola. He also asked to be identified on the ballot as “Dan S. Sullivan” before changing his mind, an attorney for the state told Alaska’s Supreme Court, which took up the matter late last month.

“That’s not an innocent mistake, or random mistake,” Chris Murray told the justices. “There’s a lot of other letters in the alphabet that could have been a typo.”

The political consultant Amber Lee declined to comment when reached by the Anchorage Daily News. She did not respond to an email from your friendly political columnist.

For his part, Daniel J. Sullivan denied any malice or mischievous intent.

“This is my choice,” he told the Associated Press. He said he had no contact with Peltola’s campaign — “zero, none, zilch” — and denied anyone from the state Democratic Party or any national Democratic operatives had contacted him to run.

Peltola’s campaign has adamantly denied any involvement. So, too, have the Alaska Democratic Party and the Democrat’s national Senate campaign committee.

After an investigation, Daniel J. Sullivan was removed from the Aug. 18 primary ballot. Carol Beecher, head of Alaska’s Division of Elections, said his candidacy was intended to “confuse or mislead” voters.

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) attends meetings at the U.S. Capitol in 2025.

(Francis Chung / Politico via Associated Press)

But the state’s high court overturned that decision, instructing elections officials to figure out a way to keep Daniel J. Sullivan’s name on the ballot “within the confines of existing Alaska ballot design law.”

It’s been nearly 20 years since the state sent a Democrat to the U.S. Senate, but this election looks to offer the party its best shot in years, thanks to Peltola.

Jessica Taylor, of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, called her “the ideal recruit,” given Peltola’s fundraising prowess and her ability to outperform other Democrats by avoiding the toxic taint of the national party. (Peltola’s slogan —”Fish, family and freedom” — is about as far removed from the Whole Foods-shopping, Prius-driving Democratic image as it gets.)

Democrats need to win four seats in November to take control of the Senate, from a menu that includes Alaska, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas while, at the same time, hanging on to contested Senate seats in Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire. The Cook Political Report rates Alaska as one of the few toss-up races in the bunch.

The state has a ranked-choice election system in which the top four vote-getters advance to November. Ivan Moore, who does nonpartisan polling in Alaska, said that system virtually ensures Sullivan and Sullivan will face off against each other in a runoff that includes Peltola. At that point, Moore suggested, the choice to most voters will be clear.

Under the solution devised by state election officials, the senator will be listed as “Sullivan, Dan S.” and as “(Registered Republican) Incumbent.” His challenger will be identified as “Sullivan, Daniel J. Jr.” with no party affiliation.

“I imagine there’s some people out there who don’t know what the word ‘incumbent’ means,” Moore said. “But I find it pretty hard to believe that people who are dead set on voting for Dan S. Sullivan, the senator, are going to go in the voting booth and vote for the wrong person when Dan S. has the word ‘incumbent’ next to his name and Dan J. doesn’t have any party affiliation.”

Political hijinks are nothing new. But the level of partisan gamesmanship seems to be growing as the old saying about all being far in love and war is increasingly applied to campaigns and elections.

It was something of a novelty in 2002 when Democrats meddled in the California Republican primary to promote their preferred candidate. Now it’s common practice.

Redistricting, or redrawing the nation’s congressional lines to reflect changes in population, used to occur once a decade following the national census. But spurred by President Trump, the last year has seen an arms race among states, including California, which gerrymandered their political maps to boost a preferred party and, essentially, decide House races before a single ballot is cast.

Politics, another old saying goes, ain’t beanbag.

But it doesn’t have to be this slanted and cynical. There’s no need for fishy-smelling candidates like Daniel J. Sullivan.