party

NEW YORK — Democratic leaders, desperate to compete in red states where their party brand is toxic, are embracing something new this midterm season: not backing Democrats.

In states like Nebraska and Alaska, Democratic officials are, in some cases, looking past their own party’s candidates while subtly encouraging — or even openly promoting — independent candidates they hope can outperform the Democratic label. The Democratic National Committee and some of its allies in Washington are quietly supporting the new strategy.

Meanwhile, some of the independent candidates are chatting in a group text about their approach as they plot a path that could shake up Congress, which is consumed by partisan gridlock.

Nebraska Democrats this week chose a nominee for U.S. Senate, Cindy Burbank, who said a major campaign priority was to ensure a Democrat wouldn’t be on the fall ballot to pull support from independent Dan Osborn. Shortly after polls closed, Burbank reiterated her plan to drop out in the coming weeks during a private conversation with a party official, according to state Democratic chair Jane Kleeb.

Democratic leaders believe Osborn, who came within 7 percentage points of winning a Senate seat in 2024, has the best chance to defeat Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts.

Democrats’ pivot toward independents is part of an intentional strategy in some places — and something closer to a wink and a nod in others — that covers a handful of high-profile Senate and House and even statehouse contests. Independent Senate candidates are also running in states like Idaho, South Dakota and Montana, where Democratic leadership has so far been unwilling to fully embrace the independents, although many view them as the Democrats’ best chance to stop Republicans this fall.

“For some states, and Nebraska is one of them, where Democrats are 32% of the electorate, this is a long-term strategy for us,” said Kleeb, who also serves as a vice chair to the Democratic National Committee.

Kleeb said her state party is backing independents in at least four state legislative seats in addition to the U.S. Senate: “We have to build a coalition with independents in order to win elections so we can do good work for the people. Period.”

Some of the Democratic Party’s national political machine appears to be on board.

The Democrats’ fundraising site, ActBlue, serves some of the independent candidates, as do popular Democratic-allied website builders. At the same time, some of the party’s campaign committees in Washington quietly provide logistical support in some cases, while avoiding public criticism of the independent candidates even in some races where there is a Democratic nominee.

“The Democratic Party’s brand is awful right now,” said Democratic strategist Josh Schwerin. “The combination of the brand problem and the existential nature of the threat that our country is facing requires us to have a big tent and look for candidates who can win.”

There are risks for the Democratic Party

Some Democratic donors, strategists and party leaders from other states have privately pushed back, insisting Democrats should not look past their own nominees for short-term political gain. They want Democratic officials, in Washington and on the ground in red states, to work harder to make the Democratic brand more attractive — even if it takes several more years to be competitive.

“What’s the independent going to do for the Democratic Party if they win?” asked Democratic strategist Mike Ceraso, who sees the shift toward independents as an attempt to disguise Democrats in some cases. “We’re the party of truth and honesty and integrity, but we’re playing these stupid political games?”

And there is no guarantee that the independent candidates, if elected, would support all of the Democrats’ policy priorities or even Democratic leadership in Congress.

In Idaho, independent Senate candidate Todd Achilles, an Army veteran and former Democratic state legislator, said he won’t be caucusing with either party if elected. He explained his politics as “straight down the middle,” and said he believes in individual liberties.

“Idahoans should be able to live how they want,” he said. But the Democratic Party was a bad fit because it “has given up on little red states like Idaho.”

On his list of problems with Democrats is that the party made a big mistake by initially running Joe Biden again for president in 2024. But he also said “the shine is coming off” Trump, whom Idaho voters backed by 36 points in 2024.

Achilles said he and other military veterans running for Senate as independents chat in the text chain and are “very much on the same page.” He says the group wants to see “guardrails,” including term and age limits and campaign finance reform.

“The priority is to get Congress functioning again,” he said. “We gotta break the grip of the two-party system.”

‘I’ll never vote for a Democrat’

In South Dakota, Navy and Air Force veteran Brian Bengs has launched an independent bid to defeat Republican incumbent Sen. Mike Rounds, who’s seeking a third term this fall.

Bengs ran as a Democrat against Senate Majority Leader John Thune four years ago and lost by 43 points.

A lifelong independent, he said he got turned down by the party this time when he sought to run with its organizational support but without the label. Still, he insists he can win without the party’s formal backing.

One key lesson from his 2022 campaign, he says, was how hard it was to break through with the Democratic Party label.

Voters would immediately ask, “What are you?” he recalled.

“When you say, ‘I’m a lifelong independent running as a Democrat,’” Bengs said, the response was quick. “‘I’ll never vote for a Democrat.’ And that was it,” he said.

“So that takeaway soured me on running again in any party system, because it was just a soul-sucking experience.”

In Alaska, some Democrats believe that commercial fisherman Bill Hill, a retired school superintendent, may represent their best hope in defeating first-term Republican Rep. Nick Begich for the state’s only House seat.

Hill, a lifelong independent, raised more than $780,000 in the first three months of the year, besting Democrat Matt Schultz, a pastor, who raised $578,000 from last October through March.

The state Democratic Party declined to endorse Schultz at its recent convention, which Hill also attended. The House Democrats’ campaign committee in Washington has also declined so far to promote Schultz’s candidacy. Hill, meanwhile, is racking up local union endorsements.

Hill’s message to voters, he said, is the same for Republicans, Democrats and independents: “You need to be pragmatic about who you choose to support in this election cycle, because at the end of the day, we need a change in the House seat in Alaska.”

A spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee criticized independents like Osborn, Bengs, Achilles and Seth Bodnar, who is running in Montana, as “fake Independents who would push liberal Democratic policies in the Senate.”

Currently, there are two independents in the Senate: Maine Sen. Angus King and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Both caucus with Democrats.

In an interview, Hill said he’s unlikely to caucus with Republicans in Washington if elected, but he’s not committing to joining Democrats either. He was reluctant to criticize the Democratic Party or Trump.

Hill acknowledged the challenge of running for Congress as an independent, but said there are benefits, too.

“There’s freedom,” he said. “I can truly represent the working people of Alaska.”

Peoples and Catalini write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries had warned Republicans they would come to regret the congressional redistricting fight, and when Democrats counterpunched last month with a redrawn Virginia map, he had made his point.

The net tally of seats gained and lost was essentially a wash.

“F— around and find out,” said Jeffries after the election victory.

But in a matter of days, the race for control of the House — and the speaker’s gavel — was dramatically reset by back-to-back court rulings that wiped out the Democratic gains in Virginia and now threaten to erode Black representation by Democrats in the Deep South.

The shifting political prospects have been a wake-up call for Democrats, who have been favored to win back the House this November, riding the wave of President Trump’s dipping approval ratings, and a test for Jeffries as the party faces an enlarging map of Republican-friendly seats.

The leader’s aligned outside group has spent some $60 million, much of it on Virginia alone, a hit to the Democrats’ resources as they confront Trump’s Republicans.

“It sort of crystallizes the election is now a contest between one side that has the money and the maps, and the other that has the voters and the candidates,” said Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic strategist and former deputy director of the House Democrats’ campaign arm.

Jeffries would make history as the first Black speaker of the House

Jeffries, who is in line to make history as America’s first Black speaker of the House, acknowledged the Democrats may need to flip twice as many Republican seats — a total gain of six rather than just three — to win the majority in the aftermath of the redistricting fights.

But he insisted that Democrats were on track to pick up seats, as they did in 2018 during Trump’s first term, because Republicans are relying on redistricting — rather than policy solutions — to win elections.

Trump Republicans “don’t give a damn” about Americans’ financial struggles, Jeffries said, paraphrasing the president’s own remarks.

During a closed-door meeting on Wednesday with House Democrats, Jeffries described the work ahead in almost existential terms for the country.

He said the court rulings against the Voting Rights Act and the Virginia measure were “disgusting.” And he warned his colleagues that Republicans would proceed with “diabolical intensity” in their campaigns to regain control of the House, which Democrats will not only have to match but “we have to exceed it with righteous intensity at all times.”

“Failure is not an option,” he told the Democrats, according to a person in the room granted anonymity to disclose the private remarks. “We have to win, and we are going to win.”

Path to power depends on a handful of House seats

Never easy, the race to the House majority was also not expected to be this complicated. Republicans hold a slim majority, among the most narrow in modern House history, and midterm elections tend to favor the party out of power, as a check on the White House.

But when Trump said last summer that Republicans were “entitled” to five more GOP seats from Texas, it sparked a redistricting crusade that led Jeffries to respond in kind.

Rather than take what they call the high road, Democrats said they decided to fight back, believing they could not fully count on the nation’s institutions — in this case, the courts — to provide a check on the GOP power play.

Jeffries flew to Austin to join the Texas Democrats fighting the redistricting plan in their state and stood with those same lawmakers in Chicago where they fled to deny statehouse Republicans a quorum. He joined the private meetings of California Democrats as they launched their counter attack, a voter initiative that put five more seats in the Democratic column. The Democrats picked up a seat in Utah.

And on it went.

“We had to very quickly make a decision, set a course and take a risk,” said Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., recalling the closed-door talks last summer. “There was no guarantee this was going to work out.”

The Virginia measure became a turning point, Jeffries’ biggest swing yet, putting Democrats essentially at parity, if not a potential upper hand in the number of seats gained, and shifting Old Dominion more securely into the party’s column.

He rallied some 1,000 churchgoers in Richmond ahead of Election Day as voters headed to the polls.

House Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday called the Democratic play for Virginia a “crazy overreach” that was rightly rejected by the state’s high court.

“Fortunately, the plan failed spectacularly,” Johnson said.

Redistricting battles push into 2028

While Democrats said they expected the Supreme Court to gut the Voting Rights Act, the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision to toss last month’s election results blindsided many of them.

Jeffries joined a call with furious Virginia Democrats over the weekend who said they were more determined than ever to win the Republican seats outright, regardless of their loss over the map changes.

The overall tally after nearly a year of redistricting battles is still shifting as Republican legislatures in the South rush to redraw their maps in the aftermath of the ruling in the Voting Rights Act case, many of them preparing to eliminate districts held by some of the most senior Black lawmakers in Congress.

Rep. James Clyburn, the veteran Democratic legislator from South Carolina whose own seat is at risk, blamed the justices, not Jeffries, for the outcome in Virginia and elsewhere.

“What the hell, he can’t control the courts,” Clyburn said, vowing to run for reelection regardless of where his district is drawn. “Don’t put that on Jeffries. We won the vote.”

Jeffries acknowledged that this year’s maps are almost set, and pivoted to 2028 when he said Democrats will redouble their efforts to confront the GOP redistricting battle ahead of the next election.

“We know this unprecedented assault on Black political representation, the likes of which we have not seen since the Jim Crow era, the ghost of the Confederacy” will continue, he said. “The challenge that is in front of us is ensuring that there is a decisive and overwhelming response in advance of 2028.”

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

Author Oliver Eagleton says British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is fighting for his job because he tried to turn the Labour Party into the ‘new Conservative Party’ and ‘occupy that centre ground’. Dozens of lawmakers are calling for Starmer’s resignation after devastating local elections.

WASHINGTON — Democrats on Monday filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to halt a Virginia ruling invalidating a ballot measure that would have given their party an additional four winnable U.S. House seats.

The move came after the Virginia Supreme Court on Friday struck down a constitutional amendment that voters narrowly passed just last month. The 4-3 state court decision found that the Democratic-controlled legislature improperly began the process of placing the amendment on the ballot after early voting had begun in Virginia’s general election last fall.

Democrats argued unsuccessfully that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that, even if early voting is underway, an election does not happen until election day itself.

The appeal is the latest twist in the nation’s mid-decade redistricting competition. It was kicked off last year by President Trump urging Republican-controlled states to redraw their lines and was supercharged by a recent Supreme Court ruling severely weakening the Voting Rights Act.

“The Court overrode the will of the people who ratified the amendment by ordering the Commonwealth to conduct its election with the congressional districts that the people rejected,” wrote lawyers for Virginia Democrats and Democratic state Atty. Gen. Jay Jones. “The irreparable harm resulting from the Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision is profound and immediate.”

The filing is a sign of Democratic desperation after the Virginia decision. Democrats are still favorites to recapture the U.S. House of Representatives, but their GOP rivals have claimed to have gained more than a dozen seats through redistricting. The voter-approved Virginia map would have partly offset that.

Democrats are taking a legal long shot in asking the justices to reverse the Virginia court’s ruling. The Supreme Court tries to avoid second-guessing state courts’ interpretations of their own constitutions. In 2023, it turned down a request by North Carolina Republicans to overrule a state Supreme Court decision that blocked the GOP’s congressional map.

Politically, the appeal could help a party struggling to compete with Republicans in the unusual mid-decade redrawing of congressional boundaries by providing fodder for election-year messaging about a partisan Supreme Court. The court recently allowed Louisiana Republicans to proceed with redistricting after the justices struck down a majority Black district as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

Democrats have been set on their heels because, days after the Virginia ballot measure passed, the Supreme Court’s conservatives reversed decades of rulings and in effect neutered the Voting Rights Act, paving the way for Southern states to eliminate some majority Black districts and further pad Republican margins in Congress.

The Virginia amendment had been launched long before that ruling. It was intended as a response to Republican gains in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio, and to blunt a new map in Florida that just became law. Once the Virginia amendment passed, it briefly turned the nationwide redistricting scramble into a draw between the two parties.

That was unraveled by the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision. The justices are appointed by the legislature, which has flipped between the two parties in recent decades, and the body is generally not seen as having a clear ideological bent.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

It’s a showdown that — regardless of the outcome in the June 2 primary election — probably won’t have Republicans in a celebratory mood.

The battle for the 40th Congressional District representing a swath of inland Orange County and portions of San Bernardino and Riverside counties is happening in one of Southern California’s only remaining solidly red districts. But that doesn’t provide much solace, experts say.

The shuffling of districts following the passage of Proposition 50, which gave Democrats in Sacramento the authority to redraw the state’s congressional districts in favor of Democratic candidates, is pitting two current members of Congress — Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills) and Ken Calvert (R-Corona) — against each other in a bid to keep their seat.

The two are also fending off challenges from a host of Democrats and an independent candidate who says she hopes to win votes from those disenchanted by deeply partisan politics felt across the country.

But even if a Republican keeps the seat, California’s Republican congressional delegation is still down by another member.

“It was all part of the Prop. 50 effort,” said Jon Fleischman, a conservative strategist. “Not only did they reduce the number of seats that Republicans have, they got to shove a couple of incumbents into one seat and eat popcorn and watch the food fight.”

And the gloves are already off.

Kim launched a $3.7-million ad blitz last month with a video boasting her support of President Trump, saying that she’s a “trusted Trump conservative.”

Calvert’s campaign responded in an attack ad that referred to Kim as a RINO, or Republican in name only, a pejorative term frequently used by Trump and others in the GOP to describe conservatives perceived as being disloyal to the party and a “Trump traitor.”

The television advertisement, which began airing last month, called attention to Kim co-sponsoring legislation with other Republicans to censure Trump in 2022 after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Democrats widely criticized the move as a slap on the wrist.

“I believe censuring the president after his actions helps hold him accountable and could garner wide bipartisan support, allowing the House to remain united during some of our nation’s darkest days,” Kim said at the time.

The nonpartisan Cook Political Report lists the 40th District, which extends from Villa Park south to Mission Viejo in Orange County and into Corona, Murrieta and Menifee in the Inland Empire, as being solidly Republican.

It’s the only House seat that was competitive under the old congressional district map that is now fairly safe for the GOP. Trump would have won the district by 12 points in 2024.

As the two incumbents trade jabs, Democrats Esther Kim Varet, an art gallery owner; Lisa Ramirez, an immigration attorney; Joe Kerr, a retired fire captain; and Claude Keissieh, an electrical engineer; are hoping to garner enough support among the progressives in the district to advance to the November election.

Nina Linh, who entered the race early on as a Democrat but has since identified as an independent, is hoping to make inroads with voters disenchanted by both parties.

“When I look at our political climate, I have never in my adult life witnessed or experienced anything so polarized,” she said in a recent interview. “And people, including myself, are just exhausted from this back-and-forth rhetoric for over a decade that has gotten us into a culture of just hyper-divisiveness and extreme partisanship that is prioritized over what everyday people are concerned about.”

Dan Schnur, who teaches political communications at USC, UC Berkeley and Pepperdine, called the race in the 40th District a “classic matchup between the two Republican parties — the pro-Trump party and the pre-Trump party.”

Kim, who in 2020 was one of the first Korean American women elected to Congress, does vote to advance Trump policies, but her biography is more consistent with an earlier era of conservatism. Calvert, the longest-serving Republican in California’s congressional delegation, has much more aggressively positioned himself in line with Trump, Schnur said.

The district is representative in a lot of ways of the two types of Republicans that make up much of the party’s base — MAGA supporters and traditional Republicans who have either come to accept Trump or quietly resent him.

“Not only is this district reflective of the challenge that the party is facing around the country this year, it could be an early precursor of what Republicans will face in the 2028 presidential primary,” Schnur said.

Voters in California may get a chance to remake the state’s open primary system in two years.

Political consultant Steve Maviglio filed an application Friday with state officials that seeks to alter California’s voting system by reverting to a traditional primary. Under the proposal, the top candidates from each party would advance to the general election in November.

The current system allows the top two candidates, regardless of party, to move on to the runoff. That has led to instances in which two Democrats or two Republicans have faced off in the general election.

The state’s gubernatorial election, for example, has prompted concern that two Republicans could shut out the Democratic candidates. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton have polled high in various surveys and are facing a large field of Democrats.

Democratic voters vastly outnumber Republicans in California, yet some political consultants said they feared there were so many Democrats running that voters wouldn’t coalesce around one candidate and the field would be split. Those fears have eased somewhat in recent months as some Democratic candidates advance from the pack.

The state’s top-two primary system has been in place since California voters passed Proposition 14 in 2010. The goal was to help end partisan gridlock in Sacramento and force candidates in primaries to appeal to a wider range of voters, rather than just those in their own party.

Proposition 14, as well as the state’s once-a-decade redistricting process, has led to some dramatic races, including the 2012 face-off between Democratic Reps. Brad Sherman and Howard Berman for a congressional seat in Los Angeles’ San Fernando Valley. Amid aspersions and attack ads, the pair nearly came to blows at a community debate.

Maviglio described the ballot measure as a simple repeal of Proposition 14, and said he was inspired by the governor’s race.

“It was extremely scary to envision the November ballot for governor with Republicans on it,” Maviglio said.

The New York Times first reported on the ballot measure proposal.

A news release from Maviglio states that the proposed repeal of Prop. 14 “is fueled by concerns that California’s primaries are disenfranchising a majority of California voters by limiting choice to candidates from one party.”

A website for the effort includes criticisms of the current primary system by Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks and Ron Nehring, former chairman of the California Republican Party.

Maviglio’s ballot initiative proposes to appear on the 2028 ballot and take effect in 2030.

Talk of changing Proposition 14 has been swirling in Sacramento for months.

Secretary of State Shirley Weber told reporters at an unrelated news conference last week that she had voted years ago against Proposition 14. She questioned whether it had actually succeeded in creating more diversity.

“I did not like the open primary,” Weber said. “I didn’t think it would solve any problems. They had a list of problems it would solve, and none of those have been solved.”

WASHINGTON — As Kamala Harris eyes a possible 2028 presidential bid, there is little outward enthusiasm among her biggest 2024 backers to fund a repeat performance, adding to uncertainty about the former vice president’s prospects in what is sure to be a crowded primary field.

The Times reached out to more than two dozen top donors to the biggest pro-Harris super PAC in 2024. Several of them said they do not plan to support her should she choose to run, or declined to talk about her. Others did not respond.

“I don’t think it’s a helpful narrative [for 2028] to start with the 2024 hangover,” said one fundraiser for Harris’ 2024 campaign, who requested anonymity to speak candidly. “There is an enormous appetite for new blood — something fresh, something that really represents the future, not the past.”

That narrative is poised to present Harris’ biggest challenge if she decides to run — particularly if it jeopardizes her ability to pull in crucial funding. Though few in the party want to criticize Harris, few appear inclined to endorse her, and conversations about her prospects often come down to one thing: Democrats’ anxiety about winning.

“She’s run, she’s lost, so the question’s going to be, is there somebody that gives Democratic voters more of a sense that they could win?” said Dick Harpootlian, a longtime South Carolina Democratic strategist. “That’s what all of us are looking for. We want to win in ‘28.”

The chatter among party elites appears at odds with recent polling in Harris’ favor, including in April’s Harvard Center for American Political Studies/Harris Poll, which showed Harris leading the Democratic field with support from 50% of Democrats.

The former vice president has also been met with enthusiasm from audiences in a series of recent speaking stops — including when she told a friendly crowd at a New York conference in April that she “might” run for president.

Harris remains undecided about whether to mount a run, according to a person familiar with her thinking, who said Friday she has been focused on boosting Democrats ahead of the midterm elections, meeting voters and delivering messages about the economy and affordability.

If she were to run, Harris would expect a crowded primary field to split donors and would be aware of the need to overcome the perception of skeptics, this person said — but noted that 2028 would afford a very different dynamic than the circumstances under which she took the nomination in 2024.

“There’s a bit of a ‘doth protest too much’ quality to some of these complaints about the idea of her running,” said the person close to her. “It may be a backhanded way of acknowledging that she’d be quite formidable if she decided to get in.”

Speculation about whether Harris would run again — and whether she should — has swirled since her truncated 2024 campaign ended in defeat to Donald Trump. Harris’ decision not to run for California governor in a wide-open race was broadly viewed as signaling presidential ambitions, and she reentered the public eye with the publication of a book about the 2024 campaign and an associated speaking tour.

Last month, Harris gave her strongest signal yet that she could seek the party’s nomination again, telling the Rev. Al Sharpton at a gathering of his civil rights organization in New York that she was “thinking about it.”

“I know what the job is and I know what it requires,” Harris said at the time.

Harris’ 2024 loss to Trump and failure to capture any battleground states — after entering the race late following President Biden’s exit — was bruising for Democrats. The defeat is lingering longer for some top donors than it did after Hillary Clinton’s loss to Trump in 2016, making them extra wary, said one Democratic political consultant.

“Especially in the donor class, everyone feels burnt,” he said. “People just want to turn the page.”

The Times contacted top donors to Future Forward, the Democratic super PAC that spent the most to back Harris in the 2024 election. All the donors contacted gave at least $1 million and some acted as bundlers for the campaign, soliciting big checks from other donors in addition to their own contributions.

Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings, who gave $1 million to Future Forward in 2024, said he hoped to support a different Californian.

“Gavin is the candidate who can motivate both the left and the center,” Hastings told The Times, referring to Gov. Gavin Newsom.

A bundler for both Harris and Biden said it comes down to who can give Democrats the best chance to succeed.

“I think it is too early to pick a favorite in the 2028 race, but Kamala Harris will not be my candidate,” this person said. “I don’t think she would appeal to a swing voter, and we need swing voters to win.”

Others, including a few party leaders, deflected questions by citing a focus on this year’s midterm elections. Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), who last year praised Newsom’s presidential prospects during a visit by the governor, said Tuesday that Democrats should be zeroed in on 2026.

“I’m not thinking about 2028, and if she were to call me I wouldn’t talk to her about it,” Clyburn told The Times when asked about Harris’ chances.

Enthusiasm for Harris and skepticism about her viability in 2028 aren’t mutually exclusive, said the former Harris fundraiser.

“A lot of people love her and also don’t think that she is the answer for 2028,” the fundraiser said.

The attitudes of the donor class and political elite may be at odds with those of regular Americans, particularly Black and working-class voters, the Democratic political consultant said. Few of the possible candidates have the potential to excite Black voters the way Harris does, he said.

If a candidate, whether Harris or someone else, makes a successful case that they can win, Black voters will be “strategic and optimistic enough” to rally around whoever it is, said Keneshia Grant, a Howard University political scientist.

But, she said, “I don’t think that they are going to take well to work by elites or the donor class to sideline Harris if there is no clear, reasonable, exciting, Obama-level, yes-we-can candidate instead of her.”

Harris speaks the Public Counsel Awards Dinner on April 29 in Beverly Hills.

(Frazer Harrison / Getty Images)

In recent weeks, Harris has spoken at a fundraiser in South Carolina, a party luncheon in Michigan and a dinner in Arkansas. On Thursday, she was in Nevada to rally Democrats ahead of the midterm primary.

She also joined other likely 2028 contenders at the Colorado Speaker Series in Denver and Sharpton’s conference, accepted an award from the nonprofit Public Counsel at a Los Angeles gala and addressed the National Women’s Law Center gala in Washington to a warm reception, as did Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.

“She was inspiring, she was hopeful, she pushed back on Trump,” said Jay Parmley, chair of the Democratic Party in South Carolina, where Harris spoke at a party-hosted fundraiser in Greenville on April 15.

South Carolina, a key primary state, could help unlock Harris’ path to the nomination. If Black voters there boosted her to a win, she could build early momentum.

But Parmley said he believed she would have to “get over” the hurdle of convincing voters that she can beat the GOP.

“I don’t think it’s a given she wins here without work,” Parmley said. “She’s going to have to really visit with voters and work just like everybody else.”

Times staff writer Ana Ceballos in Washington contributed to this report.

Just weeks after Justin Bieber’s well-received Coachella headline gig, the singer played a small private event for tech, entertainment and defense industry moguls. Executives at controversial firms, such as surveillance tech giant Palantir, were also on the bill.

Bieber was a headliner at WNDR, entertainment executive Jeffrey Katzenberg’s invitation-only confab at the Rosewood Miramar in Montecito last week. The programming for the event was first reported by Puck.

The ultra A-list talks and guests included director James Cameron and former Disney CEO Bob Iger, YouTube CEO Neal Mohan, FIFA President Gianni Infantino, Oprah Winfrey and Julia Roberts, comedians Chris Rock and Trevor Noah and artist Jeff Koons on a panel discussion with LACMA chief Michael Govan.

Bieber, meanwhile, performed a Wednesday poolside set for attendees at the Rosewood. The “Swag” singer reportedly became the highest-paid headliner in Coachella history last month, and its most lucrative merch seller.

Representatives for Bieber did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

While there was lighter programming (like a karaoke party with pop producers StarGate and a talk about snacks with chef Nancy Silverton), the bill included talks and cameos from major weapons and surveillance technology firms noted for their support for — or deep engagement with — the Trump administration.

One panel featured Anduril Industries’ Palmer Luckey, who recently welcomed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to its Southern California headquarters. “We are rebuilding the Arsenal of Freedom,” Hegseth said after the Anduril visit.

Palantir Chief Executive Alex Karp led another talk. Palantir’s AI-driven defense and surveillance software has faced scrutiny around how tech like its Maven Smart System may have been used to target civilians in the Iran war.

Karp also published a recent book, “The Technological Republic,” where he wrote that “We must resist the shallow temptation of a vacant and hollow pluralism. We, in America and more broadly the West, have for the past half century resisted defining national cultures in the name of inclusivity. But inclusion into what?”

Katzenberg’s WNDR conference is one of several recent multi-discipline, ultra-elite gatherings hosted by CEOs, including Jeff Bezos and Eric Schmidt. Katzenberg founded his investment firm WndrCo in 2017.

Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his Labour Party suffered significant losses in local elections, despite his huge majority in parliament.

He’s rejecting calls to resign – but faces new challenges from both the left and right.

So, why is the local vote so important?

Presenter: Mohammed Jamjoom

Guests:

Peter Geoghegan – Editor of the investigative news site, Democracy for Sale

Lesley Riddoch – Podcaster, journalist and author of: ‘Blossom: What Scotland Needs to Flourish’

Tim Bale – Professor of politics, Queen Mary University of London

The Virginia Supreme Court on Friday struck down a voter-approved Democratic congressional redistricting plan, delivering another major setback to the party in a nationwide battle against Republicans for an edge in this year’s midterm elections.

The court ruled that the state’s Democratic-led legislature violated procedural requirements when it placed the constitutional amendment on the ballot to authorize the mid-decade redistricting. Voters narrowly approved the amendment April 21, but the court’s ruling renders the results of that vote meaningless.

“This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void,” the court said in its opinion.

Democrats had hoped to win as many as four additional U.S. House seats under Virginia’s redrawn U.S. House map as part of an attempt to offset Republican redistricting done elsewhere at the urging of President Donald Trump. That ruling, combined with a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision severely weakening the Voting Rights Act, has supercharged the Republicans’ congressional gerrymandering advantage heading into this year’s midterm elections.

Legislative voting districts typically are redrawn once a decade after each census to account for population changes. But Trump started an unusual flurry of mid-decade redistricting last year when he encouraged Republican officials in Texas to redraw districts in a bid to win several additional U.S. House seats and hold on to their party’s narrow majority in the midterm elections.

California responded with new voter-approved districts drawn to Democrats’ advantage, and Utah’s top court imposed a new congressional map that also helps Democrats. Meanwhile, Republicans stand to gain from new House districts passed in Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee. They could add even more after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Voting Rights Act case, which has prompted some other Republican states to consider redrawing their maps in time for this year’s elections.

Virginia currently is represented in the U.S. House by six Democrats and five Republicans who were elected from districts imposed by a court after a bipartisan redistricting commission failed to agree on a map after the 2020 census. The new districts could have given Democrats an improved chance to win all but one of the state’s 11 congressional seats.

Under the Demcoratic-drawn map, five districts would have been anchored in the Democratic stronghold of northern Virginia, including one stretching out like a lobster to consume Republican-leaning rural areas. Revisions to four other districts across Richmond, southern Virginia and Hampton Roads would have diluted the voting power of conservative blocs in those areas. And a reshaped district in parts of western Virginia would have lumped together three Democratic-leaning college towns to offset other Republican voters.

The state Supreme Court’s seven justices are appointed by the state legislature, which has toggled back and forth between Democratic, Republican and split control over recent years. Legal experts say the body doesn’t have a set ideological profile

The case before the court focused not on the shape of the new districts but rather on the process the General Assembly used to authorize them.

Because the state’s redistricting commission was established by a voter-approved constitutional amendment, lawmakers had to propose an amendment to redraw the districts. That required approval of a resolution in two separate legislative sessions, with a state election sandwiched in between, to place the amendment on the ballot.

The legislature’s initial approval of the amendment occurred last October — while early voting was underway but before it concluded on the day of the general election. The legislature’s second vote on the amendment occurred after a new legislative session began in January. Lawmakers also approved a separate bill in February laying out the new districts, subject to voter approval of the constitutional amendment.

Judicial arguments focused on whether the legislature’s initial approval of the amendment came too late, because early voting already had begun for the 2025 general election.

Attorney Matthew Seligman, who defended the legislature, argued that the “election” should be defined narrowly to mean the Tuesday of the general election. In that case, the legislature’s first vote on the redistricting amendment occurred before the election and was constitutional, he told judges.

An attorney for the plaintiffs, Thomas McCarthy, argued that an “election” should be interpreted to cover the entire period during which people can cast ballots, which lasts several weeks in Virginia. If that’s the case, he told justices, then the legislature’s initial endorsement of the redistricting amendment came too late to comply with the state constitution.

In January, a judge in rural Tazewell County, in southwestern Virginia, ruled that lawmakers failed to follow their own rules for adding the redistricting amendment to a special session last fall. Circuit Judge Jack Hurley Jr. also ruled that lawmakers failed to initially approve the amendment before the public began voting in last year’s general election and that the state had failed to publish the amendment three months before the election, as required by law. As a result, he said, the amendment is invalid and void.

The Virginia Supreme Court placed Hurley’s order on hold and allowed the redistricting vote to proceed before hearing arguments on the case.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

With President Trump continuing to tank in the polls, the parlor game we know as “2028 Republican primary speculation” is back in full swing among the chattering classes.

Vice President JD Vance — who would normally be considered the heir apparent, and who just happened to make a campaign stop in Iowa recently — now finds his “America First” brand positioning complicated by Trump’s Iran misadventure. So much for an easy glide path to the nomination.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio would seem to benefit from Vance’s stumbles, but in a political moment that fetishizes “authenticity,” Rubio risks coming across like a man who irons his blue jeans. Add to that his reputation as a foreign policy hawk in a party that increasingly wants out of “forever wars,” and he’d be the ideal presidential candidate for … 2004.

All of which has opened the door to more imaginative speculation. “If Pat Buchanan and Roger Ailes had a baby,” former “Meet The Press” host Chuck Todd recently quipped, “it would be Tucker Carlson.”

Ailes, of course, was the media-savvy evil genius who took Fox News to No. 1. And while “Pitchfork Pat’s” populist presidential campaigns weren’t ultimately victorious, he is credited with paving the way for Trump’s eventual 2016 victory.

As this comparison suggests, Carlson could make a formidable Republican presidential candidate. The hitch? Carlson and Trump have recently been trading blows, which is not where any potential Republican candidate wants to be.

For all of his polling woes, Trump still enjoys an 85% approval rating among Republicans, according to the recent Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll. And his recent defeat of Indiana Republican legislators who dared defy him over gerrymandering only underscores the point: Trump’s grip on the Republican Party remains firm.

Even if you dismiss talk of a third Trump term as overwrought constitutional fan fiction, it’s hard to imagine a Republican nominee emerging without Trump’s blessing — let alone in defiance of it.

Which brings us to the latest theory making the rounds: Trump isn’t going to pass this torch to anyone lacking the proper surname.

In this telling, Vance is the loyal, if naive, assistant manager waiting for the boss to retire and hand him the keys to the office — only to discover it’s a family business and the ne’er-do-well son has just pulled into the parking lot in a Ferrari.

Enter Donald Trump Jr., whose chief qualification is name recognition so strong it could probably win a Republican primary on its own.

Add to that daddy’s endorsement, and as the Bulwark’s Jonathan V. Last has noted about Vance and Rubio, “Challenging Don Jr. would turn them into enemies of the people.”

But that doesn’t mean this is a slam dunk for Junior.

As British-American journalist Sarah Baxter recently wrote, “like Logan Roy, the patriarch in the television drama Succession, Trump loves playing his children off against each other. He thinks it instills a healthy killer instinct in his privileged offspring.”

This is to say that Junior isn’t the only potential heir lurking in the wings.

Last year, for example, Eric Trump told a journalist: “I think I could do it. And by the way, I think other members of our family could do it too.”

Which brings us to the wildest speculation of all: Ivanka Trump.

Now, to be sure, Ivanka has kept a polite distance from politics (and her father) in recent years, and she doesn’t exactly electrify the MAGA faithful. But she was always her father’s favorite, and her aforementioned liabilities could be overcome with a sufficiently enthusiastic paternal endorsement.

And once she became the standard bearer, Ivanka could market herself as both continuity and “change” — a neat trick, if she can pull it off.

In that sense Republicans could keep the Trump brand while offering a kinder, gentler, fresher face — all while making GOP history with a female presidential nominee.

This, of course, raises the question: Why would Ivanka — or any of the Trumps — want to be part of a political dynasty?

Among the many reasons, the Trump family is raking in cash. Lots of it. And as long as the next president could conceivably be a family member — a possibility that remains operable even if a Trump family member were to lose the general election in 2028 — the spigot will remain on.

That’s one of the reasons that, although Vance would normally be Trump’s obvious successor, the smart money might actually be to bet on someone with the last name “Trump.”

Now, if this dynastic denouement sounds far-fetched, of course it is. But so was electing a thrice-married casino magnate to the presidency in 2016. And so reelecting him in 2024.

We’re living in an era when the seemingly improbable isn’t just possible — it might even be likely.

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

The ruling Democratic Party’s (DP) push to put a constitutional change to a national vote in the upcoming local elections fell through Friday as the main opposition People Power Party (PPP) continued to boycott a parliamentary vote on the proposal.

Shortly after Friday’s plenary session opened, National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik announced that he will not put the amendment bill to a vote as the PPP warned it would launch a filibuster to block the proposal.

“I convened the plenary session again today in an effort to prevent the first constitutional amendment vote in 39 years from falling through,” Woo said. “But I believe further proceedings would be meaningless, seeing the (PPP) responding with a filibuster.”

The PPP boycotted a vote on the bill Thursday, leaving the unicameral parliament short of a quorum.

Cheong Wa Dae expressed regret over the National Assembly’s failure to pass the bill due to opposition from PPP lawmakers.

“The public will find it difficult to understand why they opposed even minimal constitutional changes aimed at safeguarding national security and democracy,” presidential spokesperson Kang Yu-jung said in a written briefing, noting that there had been broad public consensus on the need to “reflect the lessons” of former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s Dec. 3, 2024, martial law attempt in the Constitution.

“We urge the National Assembly to continue the discussions on the constitutional amendment with a greater sense of responsibility during the second half and to keep the promise it made to the people,” she added.

President Lee Jae Myung earlier highlighted the need to amend the constitution in “phases” if necessary, saying the Constitution, which has remained unchanged for nearly 40 years since 1987, may now be outdated.

The proposed bill aimed to tighten the rules for declaring martial law, requiring the president to obtain parliamentary approval without delay and stipulating that if the National Assembly rejects the declaration or fails to approve it within 48 hours, the martial law will be immediately nullified.

It also sought to include the 1980 pro-democracy uprising in Gwangju and the 1979 Busan-Masan pro-democracy protests in the preamble. It currently states that the country inherits the spirit of the April 19 revolution in 1960, which overthrew South Korea’s first president, Rhee Syng-man, over election fraud.

The bill was jointly proposed by 187 lawmakers from the DP and five minor parties.

A constitutional amendment requires two thirds of votes from sitting lawmakers to be put to a national referendum for final approval by a majority of ballots cast.

South Korea is set to hold its quadrennial local elections on June 3.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

Married At First Sight Australia fans were left in disbelief as the final dinner party descended into chaos and tears

Viewers confessed they found themselves shouting at their television screens during the final Married At First Sight Australia dinner party.

Fans branded it ‘unhinged’ as proceedings spiralled into mayhem and waterworks. Just a handful of episodes remain of the current reality series from Down Under, with Final Vows anticipated to broadcast next week.

While Australian audiences have already seen it through to the end, UK-based fans are almost completely up to speed. Once again, more than a dozen strangers exchanged vows upon meeting for the very first time as part of an unconventional social dating experiment.

Throughout recent weeks, audiences have been captivated by numerous dramatic developments and its climax is scheduled to reach British screens this week. One couple even chose to call it quits just days ahead of the finale.

Recent days have witnessed the surviving couples undertake a final challenge devised by the experts. This was succeeded by a catastrophic breakdown as multiple participants fled from the cameras, threatening to abandon the programme, reports OK!.

This evening’s episode (May 7) resumes just in time for the final dinner party. Scott, still shaken after his bride abandoned him, reveals that he suspects Gia has travelled back home. He says: “Gia sent me a voicemail. She’s upset and her daughter’s crying. She sent me pictures. I think she’s trying to make me feel bad?” Despite Gia’s earlier insistence that she’d quit the experiment and jetted off, Filip drops a bombshell – he’d actually spotted her in their apartment block. Unsurprisingly, she’s not about to miss out on Dinner Party drama.

Elsewhere, Alissa and David are battling to repair their relationship following their explosive row over the final challenge. David confronted Alissa about her conduct, which saw him storm off and Alissa hurl her wedding ring in his direction.

David offers an apology for removing his ring and expresses his desire to listen to Alissa’s perspective. However, Alissa refuses to say sorry for her antics during the lunch with the alternate matches, insisting she was simply enjoying herself. In a dramatic gesture, David drops to one knee and tries to slip the ring back onto her finger.

He declares: “I love you” and Alissa pauses before responding: “Thank you.”

The experts observe the exchange, with Mel Schilling appearing distinctly unimpressed by Alissa’s reply. She remarks: “That shows absolutely lack of flexibility and saying this is who I am, take me or leave me. She’s giving him nothing.” Alessandra adds: “I can’t believe that was her response to saying he loves her.”

Shortly after Gia makes her entrance, Bec wastes no time exposing her fabrications. Gia’s knee-jerk reaction is, predictably, to announce she wants out. Once more, Bec appears oblivious to the presence of cameras and microphones as her covert scheme unfolds before the audience. She instructs Gia: “They all know you weren’t in Melbourne. You know what you need to do.” Gia responds: “Out victim him. So, what am I saying?”

Bec advises: “I’m looking at this strategically. It’s not just about your relationship, it’s about all of Australia. This is your moment. And if you can cry, that would be great.”

During the confrontation, Gia delivers a rehearsed statement as directed by Bec. She declares: “Dear Scott (cue tears), this hurts in a way I didn’t think it could.”

Upon completion, Stella disapprovingly shakes her head, while Bec applauds in isolation and gestures for Gia to cease the waterworks. Scott then presents his own statement, which resonates far more with the majority of the group, including the words: “You are not the one for me. We are a different calibre of people.”

Gia attempts one final manoeuvre, suddenly levelling accusations at Scott, who has already departed, of pressuring her into a ‘showmance’. She further alleges he never paid her compliments, criticised her drinking habits and exploited her physically. Claims that devoted viewers have never witnessed on screen.

Audiences at home were swift to voice their reactions. One viewer questioned: “Is this more dramatic than the I’m A Celeb reunion?” Another remarked: “Gia for once was put in her place. So whatever else she says now will be met with pure disgust. No less than she deserves..” One person asked: “How many of us are arguing out loud with our TVs?” Another confessed: “‘To bare my soul, not for the cameras but for you’ – the worst performance I’ve ever seen, Gia. And loving this letter show down.”

Others remarked on David and Alissa’s predicament, with one stating: “So, David taking off his ring was unforgivable, but it was absolutely fine for Alissa to lob hers at him.”

And another: “Alissa pretending she didn’t do or say anything wrong at that dinner is unbelievable. And David is just being FAR too graceful. Bless his heart.”

Married At First Sight Australia continues Monday at 7.30PM on E4 and streaming on Channel 4.

Democrats have a huge opportunity to make a huge difference. But whether they’ll grab it is a huge question.

In 2020, I wrote that voters were “weary, anxious and looking for salve” after President Trump’s first term. I said then that the experienced, reassuring Joe Biden fit the moment. Now I fear that if Democrats nominate a similar presidential candidate in 2028, one who wins yet doesn’t act with alacrity on democracy preservation and helping Americans live better lives, a fed-up electorate will once again turn them out as ineffectual.

Who can or should lead the party at a time like this?

I’m not alone in hoping for a tough and confrontational 2028 nominee, someone who is aggressive, persistent and, when necessary, as ruthless as the forces on the opposite side. This person also must have the energy to undertake the mammoth task of repairing the institutional wreckage of Trumpism. Which suggests Democrats should be checking out younger nominees.

Fortunately, newer generations of leaders are emerging. Those who “get it,” in my view, include Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut.

Obviously any Democrat will be better than anyone from Trump’s team or orbit, including JD Vance, Donald Trump Jr. or Marco Rubio. The issue facing Democrats is whether moderate or policy wonkish people such as former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear or Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro would be the democracy warriors this moment demands. Repairing a crucial interstate bridge with lightning speed is a great thing and, sometimes, so is outreach to Republicans and Fox News. But would they prioritize thinking big and fighting hard for the fundamental changes we need?

Where would centrist former CIA officer Abigail Spanberger, the new Virginia governor, land on this scale? Even after coming around to supporting new House maps that will net four seats for her party? Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, who began his podcast by inviting MAGA guests, championed a referendum on five new Democratic seats in his state and led his party to a redistricting triumph. Where would he land? Would he prioritize outreach to Republicans or the battle to assure a “no kings” future for America? The need for structural changes in our outdated institutions is glaringly obvious. Who will run to repair this country? Who can be trusted to follow through? Because the solutions are out there, staring us in the face:

Checks on presidential pardon power. A larger, term-limited Supreme Court bound to an enforceable ethics code. A national law requiring independent redistricting commissions or, better yet, multi-member districts with proportional representation. A voting rights law that sets minimum standards for mail voting, early voting and voter IDs. Anti-corruption laws that prevent profiteering by presidents and their allies. Explicit limits on presidential construction and alterations to federal properties. A stronger “impoundment” act with sharp teeth to make sure future presidents spend taxpayer money constitutionally, as Congress intends, instead of any way they want. D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood to start rebalancing a Congress and electoral college that have shortchanged urban America since the late 19th century.

It’s a long list, and there’s no guarantee that today’s Supreme Court would allow any of it. But realizing some of these goals will take decades; we can’t be discouraged by temporary impediments such as the current lineup of justices. The work on all of it should start ASAP — next year in the next Congress if Democrats are running one or both chambers. And at some point, we’ll have a different high court.

I can already hear the protests: What about affordability? That’s the best part: Trump has done so many things to make life more expensive that simply reversing them would have immediate impact. Stop the Iran war; reopen the Strait of Hormuz; aim to restore the Obama-era agreement that kept Iran’s nuclear ambitions in check; end the Trump tariffs; stop shrinking labor forces in agriculture, healthcare, construction and other industries by ending detentions and deportations of noncriminals; reverse last year’s tax breaks for elites and restore the money for Medicaid and health insurance premium subsidies; and kill off the Versailles-level Trump ballroom that he now wants to fund with taxpayer dollars (initially $400 million, now $1 billion).

Then Democrats could revisit some of their own affordability priorities, including the expanded child tax credit that significantly reduced child poverty, new ways to put housing within reach of more people and national paid family leave. They could also crack down on military spending that is pointless in the modern era and refocus on cheap and effective equipment such as drones like Ukraine is using to strike inside Russia.

As it happens, a stark indicator of the political tides came as I was writing this. Maine Gov. Janet Mills suddenly dropped out of the Democratic Senate primary race against Graham Platner. It was a lightning bolt, given her establishment support after being recruited by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. But in a way it was inevitable.

Mills is 78. If she had gone on to win the primary and defeat GOP Sen. Susan Collins, she would have been sworn in at age 79. Platner is 41, an oyster farmer and military veteran with a compelling, relatable persona. Though he has a controversial past, Mills’ negative ads did nothing to dent his appeal. Polls showed him winning the primary vote against Mills, sometimes by 2 to 1, and with a consistent general-election edge against Collins as well.

Platner told Jon Stewart last week that the party leadership establishment had largely ignored him. His message to them? “You should be curious, because I’m polling 40 points ahead.” By the next morning, Mills was out, and the establishment — Schumer and New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, chair of the Senate campaign committee — said they’d work with Platner to flip the seat.

The midterm races are sending Democrats clues. They should take them seriously.

Jill Lawrence is a journalist and the author of “The Art of the Political Deal: How Congress Beat the Odds and Broke Through Gridlock.” Bluesky: @jilldlawrence

One of the things journalism teaches you over and over again is that nothing ruins a good story quite like the facts.

Consider, for example, this week’s renewal of the chattering classes’ infatuation with the “tea party” movement, timed to coincide with the deadline to file federal income tax returns. The group is conventionally portrayed as a burgeoning populist expression of discontent that sprouted spontaneously from the grass-roots and cuts in new ways across sectional, class and gender lines.

Reams of analysis have proceeded from those assumptions, but like a great deal that’s based on anecdotal reporting, it turns out to be wrong. To their great credit, the New York Times and CBS undertook extensive, and expensive, polling that provides the first reliable look at the tea party supporters. Little that has been generally assumed survived the scrutiny.

As it turns out, fewer than 1 in 5 Americans “supports” the tea party movement in any respect, and just 4% of all adult Americans have contributed to it or attended one of its events or both. (On any given day, you probably could drum up twice as many people who think the Pentagon is hiding dead aliens in Area 51.)

Of the 18% of all adults who expressed support for the tea party, the overwhelming majority were white (89%), male (59%) Republicans over age 45 (75%) and significantly more affluent and better educated than the majority of Americans. One in five has an annual income greater than $100,000, and 37% have advanced degrees. More than 9 out of 10 think President Obama is pushing the country into “socialism.”

The survey also found that more than half of the tea party supporters say “the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25% think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with 11% of the general public.”

If all this is beginning to have a familiar ring, it’s because you’ve met these guys before: They’re the “angry white males” we’ve been reading about since political strategist-turned-analyst Kevin Phillips first identified them as an electoral presence during Richard Nixon’s successful presidential campaign in 1968.

They share many qualities with other Americans. For example, while 96% of tea party supporters say they disapprove of the current Congress, 40% think their own representative does a good job, a sentiment shared by 46% of all adults, 73% of whom disapprove of the performance of Congress as a whole.

They aren’t, however, implacable foes of “big government” or even of taxes. More than half (52%) told the pollsters they think their own “income taxes this year are fair,” just 10% less than all American adults. Moreover, a majority told follow-up interviewers that, though they wanted “smaller government,” they didn’t want cuts in our largest social programs, Social Security and Medicare.

So much for the surge of a new anti-government populism.

What the movement really amounts to is old wine in new skins, a re-branding of the old-fashioned angry white male in a camera-ready package tailored to the demands of the 24-hour cable news cycle.

Let’s return to this week, for example: There’s nothing harder for TV to cover than a tax-filing deadline — no conflict, no action pictures. By staging rallies on April 15, and particularly in Washington, the tea party’s strategists made themselves and their speakers the center of cable news coverage. This was true despite the fact that, as the poll demonstrates, a majority of the movement’s supporters think their taxes are fair.

As regular readers of this column will recall, the public packaging of the tea party movement — and particularly events that win it TV airtime, like cross-country bus tours, rallies and ads — is mainly the product of California Republican political consultants, foremost among them the Sacramento-based firm of Russo Marsh and Rogers. That company has not only promoted the movement but also used it to raise money for a political action committee, Our Country Deserves Better, founded to oppose Obama during the general election. This week, Politico reported that, according to federal filings, the Our Country PAC has raised $2.7 million since launching the Tea Party Express bus tours.

“That fundraising success,” Politico wrote, “has also meant a brisk business for Russo Marsh.” The website found that Russo Marsh and a sister firm received $1.9 million of the $4.1 million in payments made by the PAC; some of those funds would have gone for TV airtime and to vendors.

It’s good to see that all the creeping socialism in the nation hasn’t silenced traditional voices, like those of the angry white male, nor wrung the profit motive from our politics.

timothy.rutten@latimes.com

May 5 (UPI) — One of 23 people injured in a weekend shooting at a lake party in an Oklahoma City suburb has died, authorities said Tuesday as they continue to search for a suspect.

The shooting occurred at around 9 p.m. CDT Sunday at Lake Arcadia where a group of young people were having an unauthorized party near a campground that had been advertised across social media.

Police initially said 10 people were taken to area hospitals but warned the number would rise as individuals were transported by private vehicles.

The deceased victim was identified by the Edmond Police Department as “an 18-year-old young woman.”

“Our thoughts are with her loved ones, as well as all those affected by this tragic incident,” the Edmond Police Department said in a statement.

“We thank our community and media partners for their patience and understanding as we work to confirm details and release appropriate information. This investigation is being handled with the utmost care and seriousness.”

The announcement came a day after local police announced the casualty toll had increased to 23, with injuries ranging in severity. Some suffered gunshot wounds, authorities said.

Police said they were not releasing suspect information at this time but asked members of the public with information about the shooting to contact authorities.

Edmond Mayor Mark Nash issued a statement Monday explaining that shootings such as the one on Sunday are rare for the city and “will not define us.”

“We are a strong, engaged community. We support one another, we face challenges directly and we move forward together,” he said.

“That is what makes Edmond special, and that is exactly what we will continue to protect.”

SIMON Cowell has admitted spending a whopping £3M on a “dancing vaginas” birthday party and shelling out £2K to have a bath.

The Britain’s Got Talent judge, 66, has opened up about some of the wild ways he has splashed his cash over the years.

Simon, who has made a fortune from TV talent shows and also through bands like One Direction, has been candidly opening up about how he’s spent his enormous wealth over the years.

To launch his brand new podcast Tales from the Celebrity Trenches, Holy Moly founder Jamie East invited The X Factor creator onto his very first episode.

As the two got talking Simon didn’t hold back with his answers, and when asked if he once spent £3M on a birthday party featuring burlesque dancing vaginas, he coolly replied: “Absolutely correct. Those days are over., by the way.

“I didn’t know it was going to cost that much, I really didn’t.

READ MORE ON SIMON COWELL

sin-waita

I’m A Celeb’s Sinitta breaks silence on Simon Cowell ’40 year on and off romance’

SPECIAL ACT

Simon Cowell left emotional on BGT as he reunites with X Factor star 9 years on

“I think I’m still paying for it now. I honestly couldn’t believe it”

It was then revealed that the party was for his 50th birthday, which turned out to be quite the wild bash.

“I wish I could remember it. I honestly can’t. I remember taking, I think, half a Xanax before that because I was so anxious,” Simon revealed.

Jamie then asked him about the time he once paid £2,000 to check into the London Mandarin Oriental to take a bath because his was broken.

“I might have done that. Do you know, what I p***ed away so much money in hindsight. I do think about that, because my God, two grand on a bath?” Simon said.

“I’m a bit more cautious now, I think because I didn’t have a lot of money to start with.

“So when I started to make a lot of money, I’m like, ‘wow, this is fantastic’.

“And now I’m like, ‘God, why did I spend all that money?’ You know, all those lists, I’m not worth anywhere near that.”

Meanwhile, these days Simon is loved-up with long-term partner Lauren Silverman, 48, who he shares son Eric, 10, with.

But before her, he was known for having a string of famous beauties on his arm.

Just last month, The Sun revealed that his ex, Baywatch model Carmen Electra, and his fellow American Idol judge Paula Abdul are both working on memoirs AND are set to feature their relationships with the music mogul.

A Los Angeles literary agent said: “Paula and Carmen are strong women and they won’t hold back when it comes to their memoirs.

“Carmen dated Simon, so knows what he is like when the cameras stop rolling.

“Rumours have swirled for years about Paula and Simon.

“They had undeniable chemistry on American Idol and now Paula has the chance to put the record straight.”

Carmen and Simon were first linked in 2012 when she briefly starred as a guest judge on ITV show Britain’s Got Talent.

The pair were spotted on a series of dinner dates.

Speaking about Carmen in December 2012, Simon said: “She’s not my girlfriend. We’re people who date. She’s adorable, isn’t she?”

Paula had starred on American Idol with Simon for eight seasons between 2002 and 2009.

The pair, who also appear­ed together on The X Factor USA, were known for their chemistry on the shows.

YOU might have thought going on a barge break would be relaxing, quiet and peaceful being surrounded by nothing but nature and water.

That’s what I thought too, before I moored up on what was one of the biggest party spots in the Midlands.

Follow The Sun’s award-winning travel team on Instagram and Tiktok for top holiday tips and inspiration @thesuntravel.

Birmingham’s Gas Street basin is one of the most iconic stretches of canal in the world. So when we found a free mooring spot right there in the city centre we were delighted.

We tied up our rented barge to the metal posts and went out for dinner and a couple of drinks.

It was only when we returned to spend the evening on board that we realised it was going to be somewhat noisier than a few passing dog walkers or nesting geese at 5pm had initially made us realise.

GO GREEK

Five cheapest Greek hols islands as country lets Brits SKIP huge EU airport queues

SUN SPOT

Travel experts’ guide to lesser-known holiday spots that are quieter AND cheaper

Because by 9pm, it felt like we were moored on the party strip in Ayia Napa. 

There were disco boats with banging music passing on one side, and large groups of boisterous pedestrians on the other – passing very loudly between one bar or club and another. 

We had inadvertently plonked ourselves right in the very party heart of the Midlands. 

One year-round barge user told me that he has moored in this very spot before only to wake up adrift – one of those boisterous party people had untied him in the middle of the night as a prank.

It wasn’t until after two in the morning when the last of the last orders were called that it began to quieten down – and we started to hear the sound of geese again rather than dance music.

Thankfully we were still tied to those posts though. 

So the next morning, after coffee, we moved the boat another half a mile to a quieter spot where we would spend our second night in Brum. 

It was the only blip on what was to be a terrific long weekend in the Second City.

Because although I’d been to Birmingham several times before I’d never really devoted any time to the place – just headed straight to whatever job I had and then gone off again.

This trip was an attempt to redress this miss. And it was great fun – Birmingham was a blast. 

We aren’t the first people to realise this. The city has had a lot of money spent on it and tourism here has had a shot in the arm – not least from the success of Peaky Blinders, which is celebrated across the centre. You can’t miss the many references. 

Thanks to our very central location, it was also extremely navigable: that meal we had, at Indian street food restaurant Indico Mailbox, was barely a five minute walk from our bed. 

And, as Londoners, it felt very cheap. Very cheap indeed.

At one point I confidently told a bar worker that she had only charged us for one of our two drinks. She hadn’t, it really was £5.25 for a pint and a glass of wine. 

That was the cheapest round of quite a few – we found, as we often do, that a good way to see the sights was by turning our day there into a pub crawl.

So although we did get into some set piece tourism spots – the very good city gallery, the cathedral with its spectacular stained glass windows etc – it was while walking from one pub to another.

And goodness, does Birmingham have a vibrant pub scene. 

The standouts were: The Wellington, with its incredible array of real ales and ciders, The Craven Arms, The Spotted Dog and the Woodman.

The latter is currently isolated in the middle of vast building works next door to one of the oldest stations in the world, Curzon Street, which will also become one of the newest when HS2 finally opens.

Remarkably it still functions as a top, top boozer despite this. So that was our time in the city – now onto how we got there.

And this was what they call a life hack: we realised that for the same money it would cost to spend two nights in a city centre hotel and eat out for every meal, we could hire a barge and do (most of) our own cooking, as well as picking our own berth (see above for the pitfalls in this aspect of the plan).

We went as a single couple but two couples sharing could do this even more affordably – most boats have two double rooms.

We picked up our boat from – and returned it to – the marina at Alvechurch, some 11 miles south of the city centre.

It’s an interesting journey into the city for two main reasons.

Firstly you get to travel through – and if you like, you can tie up to explore – the famous Bournville suburb, where the Cadbury brothers, real-life Willy Wonkas, built a model Victorian neighbourhood for their chocolate factory workers – and it remains largely unchanged. 

Then there’s the dramatic Wast Hill tunnel, at 1.5 miles one of the longest in Britain’s entire 3000 mile canal network, which takes longer to navigate by slow moving barge than the train journey through the Channel Tunnel.

It has an extraordinary and slightly ghostly atmosphere within: complete darkness except for that distant pinprick of light at the end of the tunnel. 

But the great advantage of this short trip is that there are no locks! Just a five-hour each way tour followed by one single, easy-to-perform U-turn at the end before your return leg. 

It is without doubt the least demanding, most relaxing canal trip I have ever done. 

The only thing that could have improved it would have been if I were still young enough to have taken advantage of all that nightlife on our doorstep – or rather barge step.

Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni have reached an agreement to resolve their legal dispute, bringing an abrupt end to a high-profile and increasingly contentious battle that had been set to go to trial in two weeks.

“The parties in the Blake Lively and Wayfarer Studios litigation have reached an agreement to resolve the matters,” lawyers for both sides said in a joint statement Monday in a case that has drawn outsized attention for more than a year.

“The end product — the movie ‘It Ends With Us’ — is a source of pride to all of us who worked to bring it to life. Raising awareness, and making a meaningful impact in the lives of domestic violence survivors — and all survivors — is a goal that we stand behind. We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard. We remain firmly committed to workplaces free of improprieties and unproductive environments. It is our sincere hope that this brings closure and allows all involved to move forward constructively and in peace, including a respectful environment online.”

The statement did not disclose the terms of the agreement.

The bitter dispute, which grew out of the production of the 2024 romantic drama “It Ends With Us,” had sprawled over months into a series of lawsuits, countersuits and public claims, with both sides offering sharply different accounts of what took place during and after filming.

Lively sued Baldoni, his production company Wayfarer Studios and others in December 2024, alleging sexual harassment, retaliation and other claims tied to her experience on the film. Baldoni denied the allegations and pushed back in court filings, arguing that the dispute had been mischaracterized.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman dismissed most of Lively’s claims, including her sexual harassment allegations, significantly narrowing the case ahead of a trial that had been scheduled to begin May 18 in New York.

The remaining claims, centered largely on alleged retaliation, had been expected to be the focus of the trial, which was likely to last two to three weeks and risked reputational damage to both parties.

It was not immediately clear whether the court had formally vacated the trial date.

May 4 (UPI) — A shooting erupted at a lake party in the Oklahoma City suburb of Edmond on Sunday night, according to police, who said at least 10 people were transported to area hospitals though the number of victims was expected to change.

Multiple law enforcement agencies responded to a party by Lake Arcadia following reports of shots fired just after 9 p.m. CDT and found several victims.

Ten people were transported to local hospitals in various conditions, Edmond Police Department spokesperson Emily Ward told reporters during a press conference, but she said the number was expected to increase as additional victims arrived at the hospitals in personal vehicles.

“At this time, I don’t have a condition on anyone as far as fatality or not,” she said.

No suspects were in police custody, and authorities were asking members of the public with information about the shooting to contact them, she said.

“This is obviously a very terrifying situation, and we understand the concern from the public and those involved, and we are working extremely hard to find the suspects and help these victims,” she said.

Investigators were at the scene and taking statements from victims and witnesses across the metro area, according to police.

“So that’s what we’ll be doing in these next multiple hours,” Ward added.

Little information about the shooting was made public.

Ward did not describe the party at the lake nor those who attended it, other than to say it was “a large group of young people.”

The man-made Arcadia Lake is located on the Deep Fork River in Edmond, an Oklahoma City suburb of about 99,000 people, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Tens of thousands of partygoers gathered for an illegal “free party” at a military firing range near Bourges, despite warnings about unexploded World War II ordnance. Authorities warned of serious risks, while organisers said the event was attended by 40,000 to protest against proposed laws targeting unregistered raves.