party

NEW YORK — Kamala Harris “wrote off rural America” during the 2024 presidential campaign and failed to attack Donald Trump with sufficient “negative firepower,” according to a long-awaited post-election autopsy released on Thursday by the Democratic National Committee.

The committee’s chair, Ken Martin, shared the 192-page report only after facing intense internal pressure from frustrated Democratic operatives concerned with his leadership. Martin had originally promised to release the autopsy, only to keep it under wraps for months because he was concerned it would be a distraction ahead of the midterms as Democrats mobilize to take back control of Congress.

On Tuesday, Martin apologized for his handling of the situation and conceded that the report was withheld because it “was not ready for primetime.”

Although the autopsy criticizes Democrats’ focus on “identity politics,” it sidesteps some of the most controversial elements of the 2024 campaign. The report does not address former President Joe Biden’s decision to seek reelection, the rushed selection of Harris to replace him on the ticket or the party’s acrimonious divide over the war in Gaza.

“I am not proud of this product; it does not meet my standards, and it won’t meet your standards,” Martin wrote in an essay on Substack on Thursday. “I don’t endorse what’s in this report, or what’s left out of it. I could not in good faith put the DNC’s stamp of approval on it. But transparency is paramount.”

A spokesperson for Harris did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The initial reaction from Democratic operatives was a mix of bafflement and anger over Martin’s handling of the situation.

“Why not say this in 2024, or bring in more people to finish it, instead of turning this into the dumbest media cycle for 7-8 months?” Democratic strategist Steve Schale wrote on social media.

Report says Democrats don’t ‘listen to all voters’

The postelection report, which was authored by Democratic consultant Paul Rivera, calls for “a renewed focus on the voters of Middle America and the South, who have come to believe they are not included in the Democratic vision of a stronger and more dynamic America for everyone.”

“Millions of Americans are suffering from poor access to healthcare, manufacturing and job losses, and a failing infrastructure, yet continue to be persuaded to vote against their best interests because they do not see themselves reflected in the America of the Democratic Party,” the report says.

The autopsy points to a reduction in support and training for Democratic state parties, voter registration shifts and “a persistent inability or unwillingness to listen to all voters.”

Thursday’s release comes as Martin confronts a crisis of confidence among party officials who are increasingly concerned about the health of their political machine barely a year into his term. Some Democratic operatives have had informal discussions about recruiting a new chair, even though most believe that Martin’s job wasn’t in serious jeopardy ahead of the midterm elections.

Were Democrats too nice?

The report found that Harris and her allies failed to focus enough on Trump’s negatives, especially his felony convictions. This was part of a broader criticism that Democrats’ messaging is too focused on reason and winning arguments, “even in cycles when the electorate is defined by rage.”

“There was a decision in the 2024 Democratic leadership not to engage in negative advertising at the scale required,” the report states. “The Trump campaign and supportive Super PACs went full throttle against Vice President Harris, but there was not sufficient or similar negative firepower directed at Trump by Democrats.”

The report continues: “It was essential to prosecute a more effective case as to why Trump should have been disqualified from ever again taking office. The grounds were there, but the messaging did not make the case.”

Trump’s attack on Harris’ transgender policies were cited as a key contrast.

Specifically, the report suggested the Democratic nominee was “boxed” in by the Trump campaign’s “very effective” ad that highlighted Harris’ previous statement of support for taxpayer-funded gender-affirming surgeries for prison inmates.

Democratic pollsters believed that “if the Vice President would not change her position – and she did not – then there was nothing which would have worked as a response,” the report said.

‘The math doesn’t work’

The report criticized Harris’ outreach to key segments of America while condemning the party’s focus on “identity politics.”

“Harris wrote off rural America, assuming urban/suburban margins would compensate. The math doesn’t work,” the report says. “You can’t lose rural areas by overwhelming margins and make it up elsewhere when rural voters are a significant share of the electorate. If Democrats are to reclaim leadership in the Heartland or the South, candidates must perform well in rural turf. Show up, listen, and then do it again.”

The report also references Democrats’ underperformance with male voters of color.

“Male voters require direct engagement. The gender gap can be narrowed. Deploy male messengers, address economic concerns, and don’t assume identity politics will hold male voters of color,” it says.

Peoples writes for the Associated Press.

As plenty of Californians remain undecided about the gubernatorial primary’s unsettled Democratic field, some are waiting to cast their ballots, creating the potential for a slower vote count or a longer wait to find out the winners.

Though the landscape could change quickly if Democrats coalesce around a single candidate within the next several days — signs of which were emerging this week — for now, many Democratic-leaning voters appear to be waiting for new developments before making their final decisions, political analysts say.

“This has been a roller coaster of a race, and I think voters are waiting to see when the ride is going to end and cast a vote at that time,” said Steve Maviglio, a Democratic strategist.

A larger-than-usual number of people casting mail ballots on or close to election day could extend the ballot-counting process, said Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation. County election officials said they were prepared for that possibility. Early returns so far haven’t made it clear whether most voters will wait longer than usual to cast ballots.

Mike Sanchez, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles County registrar, said the county was “fully prepared” for the possibility of receiving “a significant number” of ballots returned close to or on election day, June 2.

“It is not uncommon in primary elections, particularly those with a large number of contests and candidates, for some voters to take additional time to review their ballots and hold onto them longer before returning them,” he said.

Californians who want to vote on or close to election day can vote in person or use a mail-ballot return option that doesn’t rely on the U.S. Postal Service to help speed the process and avoid the risk of a mail ballot arriving late, election officials said.

Hesitation by Democratic-leaning voters reflects the toll of a historically uncertain primary race for governor. The contest has been marked by the unusual lack of a clear Democratic front-runner and the party’s failure to line up behind a single candidate after former U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out in April.

Early concerns within the party that a split Democratic electorate could put two Republicans on the November ballot under the state’s top-two primary system also heightened the sense of stakes among left-leaning voters.

Those factors, combined with a large slate of candidates, voter confusion about how candidates’ platforms differ and a desire to choose the person “most likely to win” have made Democratic-leaning voters uncertain, said Christian Grose, director of the USC Democracy and Fair Elections Lab.

“There’s a little bit of, whoever’s in the lead some Democrats are choosing to vote for … but people don’t know who that person is,” Grose said, noting that “some of that [could start] to go away” as the race tightens.

An indication that Democrats are starting to consolidate around Xavier Becerra, the former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary, came Tuesday in a new survey released by the California Democratic Party. It showed Becerra with support from 21% of respondents, followed by billionaire Tom Steyer with 15%.

Republican-leaning voters appear to favor Steve Hilton, who had support from 22% of survey respondents. Republican Chad Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff, had 10%. Under California’s primary system, the top two vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of party.

Tallies from a handful of counties showed varying early turnout so far.

In San Francisco, a relatively small number of ballots have been returned, indicating that voters may be waiting, Michelle Parker, president of the city’s elections commission, said Tuesday. If people vote by mail close to election day — rather than voting in person or using a drop box — it could affect the speed of vote-counting, a possibility the city’s election staff is prepared for, she said.

“We’ll see how quickly they come in, but knowing what the news has been like and watching what the dynamic has been like across the state, I’m not surprised people are waiting,” Parker said, referring to the governor’s race.

In San Bernardino County, 5.6% of mail ballots had been returned as of Tuesday, a rate comparable with previous elections, Registrar of Voters Joani Finwall said. Election officials “strongly encourage” voters to cast ballots early using drop boxes or early voting locations, Finwall said.

In Orange County, by contrast, data so far indicate that voters are not waiting, the Registrar of Voters office said. More than 129,000 vote-by-mail ballots had been returned by the end of the day Monday, more than had been returned by the same time in the 2024 and 2022 primaries. Of those, a slightly higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats had voted.

If a large number of voters were to wait until June 2 to cast a mail ballot, the county would be able to efficiently process them, said Registrar of Voters Bob Page, noting that 90% of the county’s early vote-by-mail ballots were included in election night results in the 2024 presidential primary.

Voters should be prepared for the possibility that the gubernatorial results aren’t determined on election night, Grose said. One candidate could appear to be in the lead on election night and another could overtake them once all ballots are counted.

State election officials warned this month that some social media posts urging Democrats to vote “late” could be misinformation. Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office said it would look into such posts, one of which falsely attributed the message to historian Heather Cox Richardson.

Mail ballots must be postmarked on or before election day and arrive within seven days after the election; otherwise, they are considered late and not counted.

Rusty Hicks, chair of the California Democratic Party, acknowledged chatter around people holding onto their ballots but said the survey released Tuesday indicated voters are “beginning to move towards specific candidates.”

Even as Becerra and, to a lesser extent, Steyer rose in popularity, other Democrats saw support in the single digits in the poll, including former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, San José Mayor Matt Mahan and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

“This race isn’t over; we’ve certainly seen a lot of twists and turns to this point, but you do see some clear consolidation taking place for both Democrats and Republicans,” Hicks said on a call with reporters. “I’m not concerned about California Democrats having their voices heard.”

Still, the race’s surprises have taken a toll on voters, Grose said: Swalwell’s exit under a cloud of sexual assault allegations, along with a guilty plea to federal corruption charges by Becerra’s former longtime advisor, two videos that raised questions about the temperament of Porter and a lack of disclosure by influencers being paid to promote Steyer.

“There is some uncertainty among Democrats about, ‘Is there one more shoe to drop for someone?” Grose said. “That’s one reason people are holding onto their ballots.”

Voters who want to cast ballots later than May 26 should return their mail ballots at a voting site, county election office or drop box, rather than via the Postal Service, by 8 p.m. on June 2 or should vote in person, recommended Alexander, of the California Voter Foundation.

Because mail ballots require election officials to conduct signature verification, they take longer to count than in-person ballots. In addition, recent changes at the U.S. Postal Service have slowed mail service, creating a higher potential for mailed ballots to arrive late.

Alexander also urged voters to take advantage of Saturday in-person voting, available at county election offices statewide the weekend before election day, and other early voting options.

“I am very sympathetic with voters who want to take their time to make their decision in this very fluid election,” she said. “The important thing is to have a plan.”

WASHINGTON — Barney Frank, the longtime Democratic congressman and leading liberal who brought new visibility to gay rights and crafted the most significant reforms to the financial system in a generation, has died. He was 86.

Frank died late Tuesday, according to Jim Segel, Frank’s former campaign manager and close friend.

After representing broad swaths of Boston’s suburbs in Congress for 32 years, Frank and his husband moved to Ogunquit, Maine. He entered hospice there in April with congestive heart failure and is survived by his husband, Jim Ready, and sisters, the longtime Democratic strategist Ann Lewis and Doris Breay, along with brother David Frank.

A self-described “left-handed gay Jew,” Frank was known for his acerbic wit, combative style and focus on marginalized communities. He represented the party’s left wing while keeping close with Democratic leaders who sometimes frustrated progressives.

He is best known as a pioneer for LGBT rights. After decades of grappling with his sexuality, he publicly came out as gay in 1987, the first member of Congress to do so voluntarily. With his 2012 marriage to Ready, he became the first incumbent lawmaker on Capitol Hill to marry someone of the same sex.

But in an April interview as he entered hospice, Frank said he hoped he would be remembered for advocating a brand of politics that embraced progressive ideals without forcing them on voters prematurely. It is an approach he feared was being rejected as Democrats prepare for what could be a rollicking primary as they hope to retake the White House in 2028 and move past the Trump era.

“I hope I made the point that the best way to accomplish the improvements in our society that we need, particularly in making it less unfair economically and socially, is by conventional political methods,” Frank said. “The main obstacle to our defeating populism and going further in the right direction is that mainstream Democrats have to make it clear that we oppose that part of the agenda of our friends on the left that is politically unacceptable. They’re right about a lot of things but you have to have some discretion.”

“You should not take the most unpopular parts of your agenda and make them litmus tests,” he added. “And that’s what my friends on the left have been doing.”

Frank’s path to public life

Born in 1940 in Bayonne, N.J., Frank wrote in his 2015 memoir that he was drawn to public life after Emmett Till, a Black 14-year-old from Chicago, was lynched by white men in Mississippi. Frank would volunteer in Mississippi during the Freedom Summer of 1964, though he acknowledged the fast-talking style was a challenge in the Deep South.

“My direct organizing of Mississippi voters was limited by the fact that my accent [to this day more New Jersey than New England], my poor diction, and my rapid speech, especially when I got excited, rendered me largely incomprehensible to rural Mississippians of both races,” he wrote.

He entered politics in 1968 as an aide to Boston Mayor Kevin White before winning a seat in the Massachusetts House in 1972. Frank was elected to Congress in 1980, an otherwise dismal year for Democrats as the party lost dozens of seats in the U.S. House and Republican Ronald Reagan won the White House.

Frank’s pragmatic style surfaced early in his congressional career. He joined the liberal Democratic Study Group to help push then-Speaker Tip O’Neill (D-Mass.) to respond more aggressively to the Reagan administration. But Frank said he found himself more often agreeing with O’Neill’s less confrontational approach.

Years later, as Congress prepared to pass a massive tax overhaul package, Frank intended to vote “no,” opposed to the bill’s lowering of top tax rates. He changed his mind, however, when he worked out a deal boosting affordable housing tax credits.

“I was happy to sacrifice my ideological purity to improve legislation that was going to become law with or without me,” he wrote.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat and former House speaker, called Frank an “idealist to the nth degree.”

“The goals, the vision, the promise of it all,” she recalled in an interview. “Nobody could ever surpass what he brought to the table in that regard.”

Making history in Congress

Through his early years in Washington, Frank led something of a double life.

Privately, he socialized in the city’s gay circles and had relationships but did not publicly acknowledge his sexuality. The media at the time rarely reported that someone was gay unless that person was involved in a scandal. When Frank in 1987 invited a reporter to his office to formally ask whether the congressman was gay, Frank responded, “yeah, so what?”

Other elected leaders, perhaps most notably San Francisco’s Harvey Milk, had come out years before. Members of Congress, including Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.), were previously outed through scandal.

Frank’s approach made him the most prominent gay leader in national politics for much of the 1980s and 1990s. He helped secure AIDS funding and pressed the Democratic Clinton administration, unsuccessfully, to lift a ban on gays serving in the military.

But there were low points, too, most notably an overwhelming 1987 House vote to reprimand him for poor judgment involving a male prostitute he hired in 1985. Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia, the Republican whip at the time, pressed for the more severe punishment of censure, which was rejected by a large margin.

Frank became something of a punch line among conservative Republicans, with House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) calling him “Barney Fag” in 1995. Armey said he misspoke and later apologized from the House floor.

Along the way, Frank became known as one of the most quotable lawmakers in Congress.

Regarding abortion, he said Republicans believed “life begins at conception and ends at birth,” criticizing the party’s push to curb social programs. After Ken Starr released a report describing President Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky in sometimes intimate detail, Frank said it required “too much reading about heterosexual sex.”

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) entered Congress the same year as Frank and he recalled his former colleague: “You may get a blow, but it was softened by the humor that came with it.”

Presiding over a financial overhaul

By 2007, Frank was the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, where he would leave his lasting policy mark as the U.S. economy careened toward collapse. He worked with the Republican Bush administration to pass a rescue package, providing vital support to financial institutions but spurring a populist revolt that still courses through American politics.

Once the initial crisis eased, Frank helped develop the most significant reform legislation since the New Deal. Working with then-Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), the Dodd-Frank Act would enhance consumer protections, impose new capital requirements for banks and boost the ability of regulators to monitor risk.

“Barney and I shared a fantastic relationship,” Dodd said. “I had many good moments in those 36 years in Congress, but none more significant, joyful, or productive than those almost two years working with Barney on our banking bill.”

During President Trump’s second term, his Republican administration has worked to roll back many of the legislation’s provisions, arguing they were too onerous.

Frank faced his toughest reelection campaign in years in 2010 as the tea party wave swept over American politics. He opted against running again in 2012, though remained engaged in politics long after leaving Congress and was a fierce critic of Trump.

Asked for his prediction on who might succeed Trump, Frank said “unfortunately I won’t get to vote for it.”

Sloan writes for the Associated Press.

ALLEN, Texas — President Trump on Tuesday endorsed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, supercharging his effort to oust incumbent Sen. John Cornyn in a Republican primary runoff.

“Ken is a true MAGA Warrior who has ALWAYS delivered for Texas, and will continue to do so in the United States Senate,” Trump wrote on social media.

When news of the endorsement broke, Paxton supporters began cheering and dancing to “YMCA,” a Trump campaign anthem, at an event in Allen, Texas, where the attorney general was scheduled to speak.

Paxton and Cornyn qualified for the May 26 runoff after a March 3 primary, while Rep. Wesley Hunt finished third and did not advance.

Although the four-term Cornyn has backed Trump’s agenda in Washington, Paxton pitched himself as a political warrior for the Make America Great Again movement. Trump’s endorsement puts him at odds with his party’s establishment, which is convinced that Cornyn is the better candidate for November’s general election. The Democrats nominated Texas State Rep. James Talarico as their candidate for Senate.

In response to Trump’s endorsement, Talarico said in a statement that “it doesn’t matter who wins this runoff. We already know who we’re running against: the billionaire mega-donors and their corrupt political system.”

Cornyn’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. On Monday, the senator said he believed that Trump had decided not to weigh in with an endorsement.

“I think the president doesn’t want to disappoint some of his own political base, and some of the Paxton people have been talking to him and encouraged him to support him, I think that was a bridge too far for the president so he’s just opted to say out of the race,” he said.

Cornyn also argued that Paxton is a liability in a general election, where Democrats hope to flip the seat blue, and “Ken Paxton would hand it to them on a silver platter.”

Trump, in his social media post, said Cornyn was “a good man” but “he was not supportive of me when times were tough.” He complained that “John was very late in backing me in what turned out to be a Historic Run for the Republican Nomination.”

The runoff between Cornyn and Paxton had been shaping up as a bitter and expensive battle for the future of the Republican Party, and one that was diverting resources from other competitive races elsewhere in the country.

Trump frustrated some Republicans by declining to endorse earlier in the race. On the Friday before the March 3 primary, he said that he had “pretty much” decided whom to support — but declined to say who — when asked by reporters on a visit to Corpus Christi.

On the day after the primary, Trump promised to make an endorsement and said he would expect the candidate without his support to drop out. Paxton had said that he would not leave the race.

Trump has had an at-times cool relationship with Cornyn, notably after the senator suggested in 2023 that Trump could not win the presidency again in 2024 and that his “time has passed him by.”

Cornyn also was an early critic of Trump’s plan for a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico — a project he now supports.

A former state attorney general and state Supreme Court judge, Cornyn was first elected to statewide office 36 years ago. His understated style and judge’s temperament contrast with the fiery rhetoric of Trump and his Make America Great Again movement.

Cornyn has had support from Senate Republican leadership, including South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, who warned that “it is a strong possibility we cannot hold Texas if John Cornyn is not our nominee.”

Some Republican leaders have worried the party will need to spend much more money to defend the seat if Paxton is the nominee — money they could be spending on Senate races in more competitive states. Paxton was acquitted in a 2023 impeachment trial on corruption charges. He also reached a deal in 2024 to end a long-running securities fraud case.

Trump stoked the competition on Feb. 27 in Corpus Christi, noting there’s “a little bit of a race,” while acknowledging their attendance.

“We have a great attorney general, Ken Paxton. Where’s Ken? Hi, Ken,” Trump said. He continued, “And we have a great senator, John Cornyn. Hi, John.”

“It’s going to be an interesting one, right? They’re both great people,” he added.

Trump mentioned the third candidate, Hunt, after running through the long list of Texas lawmakers present.

“Another friend of mine who is doing very well, Wesley Hunt,” he said. “Wesley Hunt, what a good job.”

Beaumont, Bedayn and LaFleur write for the Associated Press. Beaumont reported from Des Moines, Iowa, and Bedayn reported from Austin, Texas.

VICTORIA Beckham put on an Adams family party to celebrate the 80th birthday of her dad Tony. 

Posh Spice, whose maiden name was Adams, posed with her clan, including husband Sir David and 14-year-old daughter Harper — but estranged son Brooklyn, 27, was not there. 

Fashion designer Victoria, 52, was also joined by her younger sons Romeo, 23, and Cruz, 21, and her mum Jackie. 

The lavish celebration at the weekend was at Hotel Café Royal in Central London. 

Victoria, who wore a white dress at the party, said as her father turned 80 yesterday: “Happy birthday, Daddy, we love you so so much! 

“Thank you to all our friends and family who helped to make it so special! Such an amazing night celebrating my wonderful dad.” 

HUNT FOR LEE

Mystery as ‘kidnapped’ Katie Price hubby ‘officially declared missing person’

ON THE RUN

Cops hunt Yungblud ‘stalker’ after she ‘showed up at gig and abused his fans’

The mum-of-four was known as Victoria Adams before marrying England footie star David in 1999. 

Brooklyn made a rare mention of his family by posting a photo on social media, right, of him and Tony and saying: “Happy 80th papa x I love you so much.” 

Brooklyn is said to still be close to his grandparents despite not seeing them for months amid his feud with his parents and brothers. He has remained in the US with his wife Nicola Peltz, 31. 

Sir David, 51, gave Tony a leg of Monte Nevado ham as a gift and called him “the best father-in-law I could ask for”. 

There was a more down-to-earth birthday celebration yesterday — a visit to a pie and mash shop in Waltham Abbey, Essex, where Tony was presented with some school cake. 

President Trump succeeded in his effort to defeat Sen. Bill Cassidy in Louisiana’s Republican primary, a signal of the enduring strength of the president’s hold on his party despite an unpopular war and soaring gas prices.

Cassidy was one of seven Republican senators in 2021 who voted to convict Trump on the impeachment charge of inciting an insurrection on Jan. 6 that year. He placed last in a three-way race Saturday against U.S. Rep. Julia Letlow, who was endorsed by Trump, and state Treasurer John Fleming.

“His disloyalty to the man who got him elected is now a part of legend, and it’s nice to see that his political career is OVER!” Trump said of Cassidy on social media late Saturday.

With 92.3% of ballots tallied, Letlow had 44.8% of the vote and Fleming had 28.3%. Cassidy trailed with 24.7%.

Letlow and Fleming will advance to a runoff next month. Whoever wins that contest is virtually assured victory in November in deep-red Louisiana. In his last reelection in 2020, just months before his vote to convict Trump, Cassidy won 59% of the vote.

In a primary season where Trump is crusading to vanquish members of his party with whom he’s been at odds, the Louisiana race comes just days before the president tries to oust another Republican foe, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky. But Trump has opted so far to stay out of a hard-fought Texas GOP runoff later this month between incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, a traditional conservative, and state Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, who is more politically aligned with the president’s MAGA movement.

Massie, who faces a primary that has become the most expensive of its kind, said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” that’s he’s confident he will prevail Tuesday despite a string of social media insults from the president and fundraising by Trump allies such as billionaires Miriam Adelson and Paul Singer.

“I think it’s going to help my fundraising,” Massie said. “People don’t like this.”

With state polls showing Massie with a slight lead, the congressman said, “that’s why the president is losing sleep and tweeting about me.”

Trump’s success in defeating Cassidy left the Louisiana senator defiant: “Let me just set the record straight. Our country is not about one individual, it is about the welfare of all Americans and it is about our Constitution.”

“If someone doesn’t understand that and attempts to control others through using the levers of power, they’re about serving themselves, they’re not about serving us,” he added.

Trump has attacked Cassidy for his 2021 vote and his opposition to some aspects of his agenda, particularly vaccine and other health policies pushed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. During Kennedy’s Senate confirmation hearings last year, Cassidy, who is a doctor, expressed deep skepticism about the nominee’s anti-vaccine views, but ultimately voted to confirm him.

Trump recently blamed Cassidy for thwarting the nomination of wellness influencer Casey Means as surgeon general. Means is a longtime ally of Kennedy’s, and Cassidy had also questioned her stance on vaccinations.

On Saturday morning, Trump continued his attacks, calling Cassidy a “a disloyal disaster” on social media. He later congratulated Letlow on her first-place finish.

In his concession speech, Cassidy said: “I find that people of character and integrity don’t spend their time attacking people on the internet.”

Despite the president’s opposition to his candidacy, Cassidy had run ads featuring images of Trump, praising top White House issues that the senator had supported including the president’s massive tax package enacted last year, while casting Letlow as insufficiently conservative.

The outcome also notches a high-profile win for Kennedy’s political operation, which supported Letlow and opposed Cassidy in the race. The two men have repeatedly clashed over nominations and the department’s changes to vaccine policy. With certainty of his departure when his term ends in January, Cassidy could make the health secretary’s job even more difficult as he finishes out his term with an eye to his legacy and priorities.

Cassidy’s departure will also leave a leadership vacuum for the GOP atop the Senate Health Committee next year. The panel oversees health agencies and confirmations for key leadership positions at the agencies, and Cassidy brought his medical expertise to the role. He has built a reputation as a healthcare policy wonk willing to work across the aisle.

Only two other Republican senators who broke with Trump in his 2021 impeachment trial, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, remain in the Senate. Collins, who represents a state Trump lost in 2024, has largely avoided the president’s wrath while she fights for her political life in one of the most competitive races of the midterms. Murkowski won reelection in 2022.

“You can disagree with President Trump, but if you try to destroy him you’re going to lose because this is the party of Donald Trump,” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“There’s no room in this party to destroy his agenda or to destroy him or his family as a Republican,” Graham said. “It’s just a reality.”

Cohrs Zhang writes for Bloomberg. Bloomberg writers Tony Czuczka and Se Young Lee contributed to this report.

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