Progressive

WASHINGTON — Democrats are struggling to come up for air after outside groups flooded their first round of midterm primaries with campaign cash.

As the Democratic Party fights to regain control of Congress, organizations affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence have dominated the airwaves, sometimes leaving candidates on the sidelines of their own campaigns.

Democratic pollster Zac McCrary said the primaries have “become proxy wars, and the candidates are almost afterthoughts in larger skirmishes.”

Now the Democratic National Committee is advancing a resolution at its New Orleans spring meeting to condemn the surge of spending that has scrambled its primaries and exacerbated tensions within the party.

Candidates who lost have pointed their fingers at special interests, blaming them for derailing their campaigns. Others who are still in the running are courting voters by denouncing deep-pocketed outside groups. Even those who have benefited from the spending have expressed concern.

“It’s definitely a brave new world,” McCrary said.

“We’re not talking about doubling of campaign expenditures,” he added. “We’re talking about 10 times or 20 times more.”

Dan Sena, a former executive director at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said party organizations are no longer the ones with the clout to push favored candidates.

“All that’s been completely smashed now,” Sena said. Even if Democrats regain control of the U.S. House, he warned that outside spending could damage the party in the long run.

Referring to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, he said, “You’re going to hand Jeffries a caucus that is divided.”

Democrats bear the brunt of big spending

So far this cycle, outside money in U.S. House races has largely targeted districts particularly friendly to Democrats, meaning the primaries will likely determine who will win the general election in November. After a record number of House members retired this year, many of those seats opened up for the first time in years, drawing dozens of Democratic hopefuls.

In Illinois, for example, there was more than $125 million in outside spending across five open Democratic primaries. In all but one of those congressional races, the outside spending exceeded candidate spending.

While it’s still early in the calendar, there are indicators that many more races could see big spending. Almost 40 seats have already seen more than $1 million in outside spending, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

In Illinois, the top three spenders in U.S. House races were groups affiliated with American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, according to AdImpact, which tracks ad buys in political races, followed by the cryptocurrency-affiliated Fairshake.

AIPAC was founded to support strong ties between the U.S. and Israel, a particularly controversial issue as Democratic hostility toward Israel rises over the war in Gaza. Some Democratic National Committee, or DNC, members wanted to call out AIPAC’s role in primaries, but the final resolution did not.

“We had various resolutions that focused on different industries and groups, and instead of going one-by-one, we passed a blanket repudiation,” DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a statement.

Campaign spending has divided Democrats

The latest DNC meeting marks another chapter in longstanding disputes between progressives and the party establishment.

Progressives want the party to adopt official language that all Democratic presidential contenders oppose money from dark-money groups, or super PACs that aren’t required to disclose their donors.

“It’s necessary that we actually have the party do something on this issue, not just say something,” said Larry Cohen, co-chair of Our Revolution, a progressive group founded by independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with Democrats.

The resolution being advanced at the DNC meeting in New Orleans is viewed by progressives as a step toward that goal. However, some Democrats warn against weakening their candidates when facing a Republican Party that’s flush with cash.

“Provided that we don’t handcuff ourselves in the general elections — because if the Republicans are going to use dark money in general elections, we should be using our money in general elections, too — if you provide an even playing field, I think then that’s fine,” said Sen. Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat. “But we just can’t be handcuffing ourselves in the general to lose races.”

Any DNC resolutions would not stop outside groups from surging funds into primary contests or general elections. But some Democrats believe the issue is core to the party’s values.

“We should eliminate any super PAC in a Democratic primary. And I think every presidential candidate in 2028 should pledge that they will not have any super PAC spending in a Democratic primary,” said Rep. Ro Khanna, a progressive and possible Democratic presidential contender who co-chaired Sanders’ 2020 presidential campaign.

“That should be a litmus test,” Khanna argued. “If you’re not willing to take that pledge, then you’re part of the problem.”

Askarinam, Brown and Sweedler write for the Associated Press. Brown reported from New York.

Thanks in large part to President Trump’s disastrous policies, Democrats have a decent shot at not just retaking the House, but maybe even flipping the Senate.

Here’s the thing to know: Midterms are a referendum on the incumbent president. And this is especially true when the president is Donald Trump, who dominates every news cycle. He creates weather. He is, in short, always the issue.

But what happens when Trump is gone? What happens when Democrats have to defend their record of leadership? What happens when the referendum is on them?

Even now — as Dems appear to be surging — polling suggests that fewer than 40% of Americans view the Democratic Party favorably. That’s not exactly a mandate.

Yes, voters might choose Democrats as the lesser of two evils this November, but that doesn’t mean Americans are out there buying Democratic foam fingers. Not yet, anyway.

It also doesn’t mean Democrats are technically competent. As I type this, the Republican National Committee currently has a 7-to-1 money advantage over Democrats.

While Dems might win in 2026 in spite of all of their problems, a false sense of security would not bode well for 2028 — and beyond.

In fact, “beyond” starts to look structurally challenging, with things like the 2030 census and potential changes to voting laws threatening to rearrange the electoral map in ways Democrats will not enjoy.

But before we spiral into a dystopian future, let’s focus on the single most important decision Democrats will make: their 2028 presidential nominee. I’m not saying issues don’t matter. They do. But candidates function as shorthand for those policies.

That’s how politics works now: less like a detailed policy seminar, and more like a series of vibes that overwhelm us on our iPhones.

The next Democratic nominee will redefine what their party stands for. This one choice could spell defeat or a stunning victory that ushers in a political reordering.

Part of the challenge is that Trump has scrambled traditional political categories. He has borrowed selectively from modern Democratic economic policy preferences — tariffs, skepticism of free trade — while discarding unpopular ideas like entitlement reform and parts of the old Republican moral framework.

The next Democratic nominee will have to scramble things, too.

This isn’t a call for them to “move to the center” or “radicalize to the left.” Scrambling isn’t a linear project.

Let’s start with the premise that Democrats cannot afford to be outflanked on populism again. That already happened once, and it was not their finest hour.

Economic inequality is rising, and artificial intelligence threatens to widen that gap while disrupting millions of jobs. Meanwhile, the tech billionaires (who will profit handsomely from AI) are all lining up behind MAGA.

Putting these tech bros on the ballot should be a no-brainer.

Likewise, young people who were wooed in part by Trump’s “no new wars” promise are suddenly disenchanted.

Democrats should capitalize by nominating a candidate who can credibly promise “no stupid wars.”

In 2024, Trump capitalized on areas where progressives became out of step with mainstream values on cultural issues. Here, Democrats face a different challenge: realigning with mainstream public opinion without sounding inauthentic or uncompassionate.

Let’s take the issue of immigration. Democrats can vehemently oppose the ICE raids while also promising to keep most of Trump’s border policies in place.

Consider the recent comments of Texas Democrat James Talarico, the Senate nominee who recently criticized outside advocacy groups that convinced the Biden administration “that it was racist to support border security.” He added: “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

But that’s not the only issue that has proven to be devastating for Dems. As Thomas B. Edsall recently wrote in the New York Times, “The trans issue clearly weakened Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign, leaving her open to devastating pro-Trump ads.”

Here, a future Democratic nominee might simply say, “What adults do is none of our business, but I am not going to support taxpayer funding of ‘gender-affirming surgery’ — or the use of irreversible treatments or procedures for kids, or trans women competing in women’s sports.”

This statement might not sit well with some progressives, but it would decidedly be on the side of public opinion (three-quarters of adults say trans women shouldn’t be allowed to play female sports).

Don’t hold your breath waiting for Dems to take my advice in the 2028 presidential race — especially if they have a great midterm election night.

Indeed, Ruy Teixeira, a political scientist who has warned Democrats that they have shifted too far to the left, recently lamented that “the desire for change seems to be hovering around zero, as more and more Democrats have convinced themselves that their problems have essentially been solved.”

The path forward is not especially mysterious, but it is very difficult.

In the short term, Democrats can probably ride the blue wave. But in the long term, they need a standard bearer who can synthesize economic populism with mainstream American cultural credibility.

The future may rest on whether that political savior ever arrives.

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

TAYLORSVILLE, Utah — For decades, Democrats’ only chance of getting elected to Congress from the conservative state of Utah was by convincing voters that they were sensible moderates, not like the zealous progressives from California or Colorado.

But the political landscape has changed, thanks to a redistricting shakeup that created a deep blue district anchored by Salt Lake City. Suddenly, congressional candidates are trying to outflank each other on the left in an unusual race that could help determine whether Democrats take back control of the U.S. House in the midterms.

Exhibit A is Ben McAdams, a former congressman who once described himself as pro-life and voted against a federal minimum wage increase. As he mounts a comeback campaign in a much more Democratic district, he pledged his support for abortion rights and raising the minimum wage during a recent forum for young voters.

As primary opponents criticized McAdams as the most conservative among them, he insisted that he’s only “moderate in tone.”

It’s a far different approach than McAdams used in 2018, when he ousted a Republican incumbent in the midterms of President Donald Trump’s first term. While representing the southwest Salt Lake Valley and parts of deep-red Utah County in the former 4th district, he was considered the most conservative House Democrat during his single term by one analysis, before losing reelection to a Republican.

McAdams is now running in the new 1st district, including all of Salt Lake City and much of its suburbs, which emerged from a years-long legal battle over Utah’s congressional map.

Whoever wins the primary will likely win the November general election, and McAdams faces a half-dozen Democratic opponents.

“What makes me a strong candidate is the fact that I’ve actually delivered on a lot of things people are talking about,” McAdams told The Associated Press. “It’s easy to have a strongly worded tweet or talking points, but I can actually follow that up with accomplishments that are making life better.”

Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin views Utah’s 1st district as a foothold in a red state that could not only help the party win the House this year but set it up for long-term success. He said the party is pouring more money into Utah than ever before — at least $22,500 a month — to build infrastructure ahead of the 2030 census, when the fast-growing state could gain House seats.

The recipe for success, Martin said, is a willingness to meet voters where they’re at and a platform that reflects “not just the majority of Democrats, but the majority of the people in the district.”

Unlike state Republicans, the Democrats are holding an open primary on June 23, meaning anyone in the district can vote, regardless of party affiliation. That could benefit a candidate like McAdams, who built a broad base during his previous campaign. But state party leaders have said they’re confident that registered Democrats have a strong enough majority to decide the primary.

Democrats have historically struggled to gain solid footing in Utah, where about half the population belongs to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Members of the faith known widely as the Mormon church have always leaned Republican.

Even though the church is headquartered in Salt Lake City, the capital is one of the only places where Democrats hold local control and religion takes a back seat in politics.

Martin expects the youth vote will be key to winning in Utah and building longevity there. Utah is the youngest state, with a median age of about 32.

“This is a group that’s up for grabs,” he told the AP, noting that Democrats too often assume young voters are with them. He said that could mean Utah “is one of the biggest potential swing states in the country.”

Robert Axson, chairman of the Utah Republican Party, rejected that notion.

“Everything I am seeing shows the younger generation continuing to lead in the promotion of our conservative principles,” he said. “While we see the generational passing of the torch, there is not a political swing away from the values that make Utah a wonderful place to call home.”

Jockeying for the Gen Z vote

Several young voters who came to meet candidates on a Saturday morning in Taylorsville said they hoped to capitalize on the opportunity to elect a progressive.

Milo Hohmann, 22, of Holladay, said state Sen. Nate Blouin is the “firebrand” that Utah needs in Congress.

Perhaps the most vocal Democrat in the Republican-led state legislature, Blouin has racked up endorsements from some of the country’s most prominent progressives, including Sen. Bernie Sanders and Reps. Pramila Jayapal, Greg Casar and Maxwell Frost.

Blouin said he aims to energize an electorate that has grown accustomed to settling for someone who will “play nice” with Republicans.

He jabbed at McAdams’ voting record while defending himself against criticisms that he has never passed legislation. Blouin said he’s been effectively blacklisted by Republican legislative leaders, and at least two bills that he originally sponsored passed after they advanced under other lawmakers’ names.

“I don’t measure progress by how many times you can get pats on the back from Republicans,” he told the AP.

His stance resonated with Hohmann, a transportation engineer, who said Utah has “an electric moment” to elect a Democrat who won’t compromise their values.

Hannah Paisley Zoulek, 19, of Millcreek, said she’s leaning toward Blouin or his colleague in the state Senate, former teacher Kathleen Riebe. But she had a concern about Blouin.

“I struggle a bit with Senator Blouin’s emphasis on how hard he holds his own positions,” Zoulek said. “It’s great if you want to make a statement, but not necessarily if you want to do the work.”

Neither Hohmann nor Zoulek thought McAdams was the right fit for the new district given his more moderate past.

Ben Iverson, who will be voting for the first time this year, disagrees.

The 17-year-old from Cottonwood Heights considers himself very progressive and said he thinks McAdams is “a great option.” He noted that McAdams voted to impeach Trump in 2019, despite knowing it could cost him reelection.

“I don’t think left-wing voters want a moderate Democrat who will capitulate to the right,” Iverson said, adding that he thinks McAdams has successfully shed the moderate label.

Throughout his life, Iverson said McAdams has been a mainstay of local politics. He was Salt Lake County’s state senator, then its mayor, and represented much of the area in his previous congressional district.

“I’ve been in the trenches, rolling up my sleeves, saying not ‘How do we pass a bill that will never become law?’ but ‘How do we actually enact legislation that will make people’s lives better?’” McAdams said.

Schoenbaum writes for the Associated Press.