Category: Politics

It has happened before: an upset victory by a Democratic Socialist in an important primary election after an extraordinary grassroots campaign.

In the summer of 1934, Upton Sinclair earned the kind of headlines that greeted Zohran Mamdani’s primary victory on June 24, 2025, in the New York City mayoral election.

Mamdani’s win surprised nearly everyone. Not just because he beat the heavily favored former governor Andrew Cuomo, but because he did so by a large margin. Because he did so with a unique coalition, and because his Muslim identity and membership in the Democratic Socialists of America should have, in conventional political thinking, made victory impossible.

This sounds familiar, at least to historians like me. Upton Sinclair, the famous author and a socialist for most of his life, ran for governor in California in 1934 and won the Democratic primary election with a radical plan that he called End Poverty in California, or EPIC.

The news traveled the globe and set off intense speculation about the future of California, where Sinclair was then expected to win the general election. His primary victory also generated theories about the future of the Democratic Party, where this turn toward radicalism might complicate the policies of the Democratic administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

What happened next may concern Mamdani supporters. Business and media elites mounted a campaign of fear that put Sinclair on the defensive. Meanwhile, conservative Democrats defected, and a third candidate split progressive votes.

In the November election, Sinclair lost decisively to incumbent Gov. Frank Merriam, who would have stood less chance against a conventional Democrat.

As a historian of American radicalism, I have written extensively about Sinclair’s EPIC movement, and I direct an online project that includes detailed accounts of the campaign and copies of campaign materials.

Upton’s 1934 campaign initiated the on-again, off-again influence of radicals in the Democratic Party and illustrates some of the potential dynamics of that relationship, which, almost 100 years later, may be relevant to Mamdani in the coming months.

California, 1934

Sinclair launched his gubernatorial campaign in late 1933, hoping to make a difference but not expecting to win. California remained mired in the Great Depression. The unemployment rate had been estimated at 29% when Roosevelt took office in March and had improved only slightly since then.

Sinclair’s Socialist Party had failed badly in the 1932 presidential election as Democrat Roosevelt swept to victory. Those poor results included California, where the Democratic Party had been an afterthought for more than three decades.

Sinclair decided that it was time to see what could be accomplished by radicals working within that party.

Reregistering as a Democrat, he dashed off a 64-page pamphlet with the futuristic title I, Governor of California and How I Ended Poverty. It detailed his plan to solve California’s massive unemployment crisis by having the state take over idle farms and factories and turn them into cooperatives dedicated to “production for use” instead of “production for profit.”

Sinclair soon found himself presiding over an explosively popular campaign, as thousands of volunteers across the state set up EPIC clubs – numbering more than 800 by election time – and sold the weekly EPIC News to raise campaign funds.

Mainstream Democrats waited too long to worry about Sinclair and then failed to unite behind an alternative candidate. But it would not have mattered. Sinclair celebrated a massive primary victory, gaining more votes than all of his opponents combined.

Newspapers around the world told the story.

“What is the matter with California?” The Boston Globe asked, according to author Greg Mitchell. “That is the farthest shift to the left ever made by voters of a major party in this country.”

Building fear

Primaries are one thing. But in 1934, the November general election turned in a different direction.

Terrified by Sinclair’s plan, business leaders mobilized to defeat EPIC, forming the kind of cross-party coalition that is rare in America except when radicals pose an electoral threat. Sinclair described the effort in a book he wrote shortly after the November election: “I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked.”

Nearly every major newspaper in the state, including the five Democratic-leaning Hearst papers, joined the effort to stop Sinclair. Meanwhile, a high-priced advertising agency set up bipartisan groups with names like California League Against Sinclairism and Democrats for Merriam, trumpeting the names of prominent Democrats who refused to support Sinclair.

Few people of any party were enthusiastic about Merriam, who had recently angered many Californians by sending the National Guard to break a Longshore strike in San Francisco, only to trigger a general strike that shut down the city.

The campaign against Sinclair attacked him with billboards, radio and newsreel programming, and relentless newspaper stories about his radical past and supposedly dangerous plans for California.

EPIC faced another challenge, candidate Raymond Haight, running on the Progressive Party label. Haight threatened to divide left-leaning voters.

Sinclair tried to defend himself, energetically denouncing what he called the “Lie Factory” and offering revised, more moderate versions of some elements of the EPIC plan. But the Red Scare campaign worked. Merriam easily outdistanced Sinclair, winning by a plurality in the three-way race.

New York, 2025

Will a Democratic Socialist running for mayor in New York face anything similar in the months ahead?

A movement to stop Mamdani is coming together, and some of what they are saying resonates with the 1934 campaign to stop Sinclair.

The Guardian newspaper has quoted “loquacious billionaire hedge funder Bill Ackman, who said he and others in the finance industry are ready to commit ‘hundreds of millions of dollars’ into an opposing campaign.”

In 1934, newspapers publicized threats by major companies, most famously Hollywood studios, to leave California in the event of a Sinclair victory. The Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine and other media outlets have recently warned of similar threats.

And there may be something similar about the political dynamics.

Sinclair’s opponents could offer only a weak alternative candidate. Merriam had few friends and many critics.

In 2025, New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who abandoned the primary when he was running as a Democrat and is now running as an independent, is arguably weaker still, having been rescued by President Donald Trump from a corruption indictment that might have sent him to prison. If he is the best hope to stop Mamdani, the campaign strategy will likely parallel 1934. All attack ads – little effort to promote Adams.

But there is an important difference in the way the New York contest is setting up. Andrew Cuomo remains on the ballot as an independent, and his name could draw votes that might otherwise go to Adams.

Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate, will also be on the ballot. Whereas in 1934 two candidates divided progressive votes, in 2025 three candidates are going to divide the stop-Mamdani votes.

Religion also looms large in the campaign ahead. The New York City metro area’s U.S. Muslim population is said to be at least 600,000, compared to an estimated 1.6 million Jewish residents. Adams has announced that the threat of antisemitism will be the major theme of his campaign.

The stop-Sinclair campaign also relied on religion, focusing on his professed atheism and pulling quotations from books he had written denouncing organized religion. However, a statistical analysis of voting demographics suggests that this effort proved unimportant.

James N. Gregory does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Immigration has dominated recent public discourse about Florida, whether it be the opening of Alligator Alcatraz, a migrant detention facility in the middle of the Everglades, or Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis declaring an “immigration emergency” for the state that has lasted more than two years.

As demographers – that is, people who count people – we’ve noticed that this conversation has proceeded largely without the benefit of a clear description of Florida’s immigrant population.

Here’s a snapshot.

How many immigrants are in Florida?

We used data from the Office of Homeland Security Statistics and the American Community Survey, conducted annually by the U.S. Census Bureau. Homeland Security provides estimates of the state’s undocumented population and annual counts of authorized arrivals. Census data allow us to describe the social and economic characteristics of Florida’s immigrant population.

In 2023, the most recent year for which the Department of Homeland Security provides publicly available data, an estimated 590,000 immigrants without legal status were living in Florida. This is the third-largest population of immigrants without legal status in the U.S., behind California and Texas. But in contrast to those two states, the number of immigrants entering Florida illegally has been shrinking since 2018.

On the other hand, DHS data points to recent growth in Florida’s population of immigrants with legal status. This represents a rebound from declines between 2016 and 2020.

In 2023, Florida welcomed 72,850 residents from outside the country. This is just 0.3% of Florida’s population that year. About 95% of these new Florida residents were admitted as lawful permanent residents, or green card holders. The remainder entered as refugees (3%) and people granted asylum (2%).

For comparison, U.S. Census Bureau estimates suggest roughly 640,000 people moved to Florida in 2023 from other states.

Who makes up Florida’s immigrant population?

The American Community Survey data tells us even more about Florida’s immigrant population. The survey estimates that 4,996,874 foreign-born individuals lived in Florida in 2023, up from 3,798,062 in 2013. These numbers include those who are in the U.S. legally and illegally and encompass both recent arrivals and long-term residents.

In 2023, about 22% of Florida residents – and nearly 7% of Florida children – were immigrants. An additional 29% of Florida children have at least one immigrant parent.

According to the American Community Survey, nearly half of Florida’s immigrants were born in Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, Colombia or Mexico. Despite being born elsewhere, Florida’s immigrants in many ways resemble other Floridians: About 20% hold a bachelor’s degree, compared to 22% of nonimmigrant Floridians, and 13% of both groups have a graduate degree. Nearly all Florida immigrants, 89%, speak English, and the majority, 57%, are naturalized citizens.

Immigrants make up a disproportionate share of Florida’s workforce, particularly in essential sectors of the state’s economy. They account for more than 47% of Florida’s agricultural workers, 41% of hotel workers and 35% of construction workers.

Florida immigrants also work in sectors that many might not consider to be “immigrant jobs.” They constitute 33% of child care workers, 21% of school and university employees and 27% of the health care workers.

Across all sectors, immigrants have lower unemployment rates than nonimmigrants. Although available data cannot tell us the extent to which these numbers are bolstered by undocumented immigrants, the importance of Florida’s immigrants for the state’s economy is undeniable.

Florida’s population is growing at a faster rate than any other state in the country, boosted by people moving in from abroad and from other states. This growth both reflects and feeds the state’s economic vitality. Between 2019 and 2024, Florida’s GDP grew twice as fast as the nation’s as a whole.

Is Florida experiencing an “immigration emergency”? That’s for politicians to decide. Our research suggests that policies that discourage new arrivals or encourage – or force – migrants to leave could jeopardize Florida’s robust economy and the well-being of its population.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Roy Cooper raised $3.4 million in the first 24 hours of his Senate campaign — a record-breaking sum for the former North Carolina governor in one of the most competitive upcoming Senate races.

The fundraising haul, shared first with POLITICO, includes more than $2.6 million raised directly to Cooper’s campaign account, with 95 percent of those donations totaling $100 or less, according to his team. The former governor raised another $900,000 into joint fundraising committees with the party, which allows for bigger contributions.

Cooper is likely to face Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley, who will launch his own Senate bid in the coming days with the backing of President Donald Trump. Republican Sen. Thom Tillis announced his plans not to seek reelection last month, after clashing with Trump over passage of his megabill that Tillis voted against.

North Carolina represents Democrats’ best offensive opportunity for the Senate, a battleground state the former governor has won twice with Trump on the ticket. Cooper, the party’s top recruit, was expected to bring in big cash for the race, after growing a national fundraising network during his stint as Democratic Governors Association chair. Whatley, who took over the RNC last year, has built his own national donor relationships, raising expectations that the race will be one of the most expensive in 2026.

Cooper’s first-day total cracks a Senate Democratic candidate record set by Amy McGrath, a fundraising juggernaut, who nonetheless failed to unseat Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell in 2020. McGrath raised $2.5 million in her first 24 hours as a candidate.

​Politics

With help from Amira McKee

CUOMO CONUNDRUM: Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani looks to be cruising toward victory, capturing 50 percent of the vote in a new general election poll of the mayor’s race paid for by his allies.

In the five-way contest, Andrew Cuomo trailed him with 22 percent, Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa came in third at 13 percent and Mayor Eric Adams captured 7 percent of the vote among likely voters. Attorney Jim Walden received 1 percent.

“Our independent poll — the first in this cycle to be offered in four languages and to drill down into national origin and religious denomination — makes one thing clear: Black union households, young Jews, South Asians, East Asians, Latinos, and New Yorkers in every income bracket are all on the same Zohran Mamdani bus, and it’s headed in the direction of the Democratic Party’s future,” said Amit Singh Bagga, the principal of Public Progress Solutions and a veteran of federal, city, and state government.

Bagga’s firm designed and analyzed the poll along with Adam Carlson’s Zenith Research. It was funded through private donations to Bagga, who advised Mamdani’s campaign during the primary on a variety of city government issues, and was fielded by Verasight.

It quizzed 1,453 registered voters — 1,021 of whom were “likely” voters — and was conducted between July 16 and 24, concluding four days before a gunman walked into a Midtown Manhattan office building on Monday and killed four people, including one NYPD officer.

Mamdani was celebrating his wedding in Uganda at the time. He’s scheduled to be back in the city Wednesday morning.

According to the poll, even if the former governor could achieve his unlikely goal of neutralizing the rest of the field to face Mamdani one-on-one, the democratic socialist assemblymember is still up 52-40 in a head-to-head matchup with likely voters. But Mamdani’s head-to-head lead shrinks to just 3 points with registered voters.

And it’d be worse for Adams — Mamdani clocks him 59-32 with likely voters and 55-32 with registered voters.

Three months out from the Nov. 4 election, Mamdani is in a commanding position. Just 32 percent of likely voters say they would not consider voting for him, while Cuomo is at 60 percent and Adams at 68 percent.

“With a majority of voters saying they wouldn’t even consider voting for Cuomo, Adams’ net favorability being lower than Trump’s, and Sliwa mired in the low teens, it’s hard to see how anyone can put a serious scare into Mamdani in a split field,” Carlson said in a statement.

The survey is the first significant public poll after the ex-governor announced he’d mount a campaign after losing the primary.

Respondents were surveyed via a hybrid online panel, the firms said. The poll had a 3.1 percentage point margin of error.

Cuomo took issue with the poll’s model assumption that Mamdani’s campaign would boost turnout among younger and college-educated voters as it did in the primary.

“The only thing that I think is material for accuracy is what the poll says about the registered voters,” Cuomo told Playbook. “As we learned in the primary, when you’re assuming turnout levels, there are many variables. In the primary, they underestimated the number of young people. You have to make another set of assumptions on the general. Some people will assume you’re going to see a young voter surge. Some people believe you’re going to see an anti-socialist surge. Some people think you’re going to see a pro-Israel surge. So who knows?”

Mamdani still holds a 16-point lead over Cuomo among registered voters, according to the poll. Mamdani gets 42 percent in a five-way race, followed by Cuomo at 26, Sliwa at 12, Adams at 7 and Walden at 1. — Jeff Coltin & Jason Beeferman

HEASTIE WILL VOTE DEMOCRAT (WE ASSUME): Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie implied he is likely to vote for Mamdani — but continues to avoid explicitly saying the democratic socialist will earn a spot on his ballot.

“Do we ask people who they vote for?” Heastie quipped when a reporter asked him this afternoon who he would vote for in the general election. “Listen, I’m a Democrat, and I support Democrats. I’ve never voted for someone that’s not a Democrat.”

The speaker was in Schenectady today for a visit to a local musical theater in need of state investment.

When asked if his record of voting strictly along the Democratic line could change for the upcoming mayoral election, Heastie chuckled. After a brief silence, his press aide cut in to solicit other questions from reporters.

The speaker did say he is in frequent contact with the mayoral nominee.

“Zohran and I have had loads of communications,” Heastie said. “What people have to understand is that when I’m the speaker of [a] body, I have to communicate concerns of the body, and Zohran and I have communicated what I think he needs to do to get me there.” — Jason Beeferman

GUN CONTROL PLEAS: New York Democrats pleaded for Congress to approve tighter gun control laws in the wake of a Midtown shooting that left six people dead — including an NYPD officer.

There’s little chance any measures will pass given Republicans holding all levers of power in Washington.

Yet Gov. Kathy Hochul and Heastie on Tuesday urged national action — a tacit acknowledgement that the state’s comparatively strict gun laws can’t stop someone obtaining a weapon in another state. The alleged shooter reportedly traveled to New York from Nevada.

“We need a national awakening here. People need to be talking about this once again and it shouldn’t just happen in the wake of a tragedy like this. It should be an ongoing conversation where we force the Republicans to understand lives could be saved if we only do what’s smart and common sense,” Hochul told CNN.

The governor pushed through a package of gun law changes after the U.S. Supreme Court determined New York’s concealed carry measure was unconstitutional. In the wake of a Buffalo mass shooting in 2022, Hochul won approval of tighter restrictions on gun ownership, including raising the age to buy a firearm from 18 to 21.

Heastie echoed Hochul’s sentiment with reporters in Schenectady.

“When is this country going to wake up on allowing citizens to have these military-style weapons?” he said. “No other industrial nation in this world allows the citizens to do it.” — Nick Reisman 

AMEND TO THAT: Heastie is ready to change New York’s redistricting laws as red states move this year to redraw their House lines.

“At this point we should look to try to see what we can do to counteract Republican actions,” Heastie told reporters today.

There are very few options for New York Democrats to impact next year’s election, though, even as Hochul last week signaled she is open to making changes to the state’s House lines.

One potential long-term response is a constitutional amendment — a multi-year effort that ends with a voter referendum — that would allow New York to redistrict in the middle of the decade if another state undertakes the process.

Heastie said he is open to passing the measure, which was introduced by state Sen. Mike Gianaris and Assemblymember Micah Lasher, POLITICO first reported on Monday.

“It doesn’t have to be done now; it can be done in the following year,” he added. — Nick Reisman

DELGADO WANTS SPECIAL SESSION: Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado, a gubernatorial primary candidate, is calling for the state Legislature to hold a special session to protect against incoming federal cuts — but Heastie indicated an early return to Albany for lawmakers is unlikely.

Delgado is slated to appear with Assemblymembers George Alvarez, Amanda Septimo, Phara Souffrant Forrest and Claire Valdez on Thursday in Manhattan to make a public plea for a special session.

It’s a sign of support from the group of lefty lawmakers even as the vast majority of Democratic lawmakers are leery of backing the lieutenant governor over Hochul.

The event is organized by Citizen Action, VOCAL-NY, Make the Road and other left-leaning advocacy groups.

Still, Heastie indicated this afternoon a special session is unlikely.

“We haven’t had any discussions about that,” he said.

While it’s early, Heastie said his “biggest priority” for the upcoming legislative session will be to “limit as best we can the damage that Republicans have done to us that they keep trying to sugarcoat.” — Jason Beeferman

— SINCE 2000: The mass shooting in a Midtown building Monday night was New York’s deadliest shooting in 25 years. (New York Times)

— CONTESTED BALLOTS: The New York City Board of Elections is set to certify the results of a GOP primary for a Brooklyn City Council seat Tuesday amid allegations of voter fraud. (New York Daily News)

— ‘YOU AND YOUR EGO’: Cuomo slammed Adams as a “spoiler” driven by his own ego while speaking with reporters at the Columbian Day Parade. (New York Post)

— MTA OUTAGE: A slew of subway lines were delayed and suspended today as a power outage wreaked havoc on the system. (Gothamist)

Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.

NOTE: This article has been updated to accurately reflect the elected officials planning to attend Thursday’s rally with Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado. POLITICO was informed following publication that Sen. Kristen Gonzalez did not plan to attend. In addition, an earlier version of this newsletter misstated the subject of Bagga’s advising for Mamdani. He advised on city government issues.

​Politics

As the United States edges up to the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in 2026, one of the core principles the founders sought to advance – that the government must act with accountability and in accordance with the rule of law – is being strongly tested.

In their deliberations leading up to the declaration, the founders would not just raise deep concerns that the government of King George III was violating the Colonists’ rights, which they described in the declaration. They would also enshrine these principles in the U.S. Constitution over a decade later through the concept of “due process.”

What did the framers likely mean when they did so? That’s no longer simply an academic question for legal scholars like me. The meaning and application of due process has become a crucial issue in the U.S., most often with respect to the Trump administration’s migrant deportation efforts.

Over the past several months, the U.S. Supreme Court has made several rulings in deportation-related cases with respect to what’s called the due process clause of the Constitution.

In April 2025, in the case Trump v. J.G.G., the court seemed to state quite clearly that deportations could not take place without due process. More recently, however, in D.H.S. v. D.V.D., the Supreme Court prevented a lower court from providing due process protections to a group of men the administration wanted to deport to South Sudan, where they are at risk of facing torture and even death.

These seemingly contradictory rulings not only make it unclear when due process applies but probably leave many asking what the term “due process of law” even means and how it works.

The origins of due process

The American concept of due process can be traced from medieval England to its modern formulation by the U.S. Supreme Court. Doing so allows the meaning of due process to come into focus. It also calls into question the court’s most recent ruling on this issue.

The concepts of due process and the rule of law largely emerged in the 13th century in the Magna Carta, a formal, written agreement between King John of England and the rebel aristocracy that effectively established legal constraints on government.

One key passage from the Magna Carta provided that “No Freeman shall be taken, or any otherwise imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or destroyed; nor we will not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land.”

This accord established formal constraints on a previously unrestrained regent, setting English law on the course that would prioritize rule of law over the whims of the monarch.

Over a century later, Parliament would pass the English statute of 1354 that said “That no Man of what Estate or Condition that he be, shall he put out of Land or Tenement, nor taken nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without being brought in Answer by due Process of the Law.”

These principlesd evolve over time in British law and then informed the emerging revolutionary spirit in the American Colonies.

Released in January 1776, Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense would help galvanize and steel many Colonists for the revolutionary conflict to come. The work shifted the focus of Colonists’ anger from trying to force the king to treat them better to more radical change: independence and a country governed by the rule of law.

What the Colonists wanted, Paine wrote, was not a monarch: “So far as we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.”

Defining due process

After independence, many of the original 13 states adopted their own constitutions that would enshrine principles akin to due process to protect their constituents from government overreach, such as that government was to be bound, as it was in Virginia’s Declaration of Rights in 1776, by “the law of the land.”

But it was not until the nation adopted the Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments to the Constitution – in 1791 that the federal government could not act in a way that deprived the populace of life, liberty or property without due process of law. After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment would apply these same protections to all government action, state and federal.

The contemporary and most comprehensive formulation of what due process requires can be found in the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1970 case Goldberg v. Kelly, brought by welfare recipients challenging their loss of such benefits without a hearing.

In that case, the court determined that when governments attempt to deprive someone of their life, liberty or property, the target of those attempts must receive fair notice of the charges or claims against them that would justify that loss; be given an opportunity to defend against those claims; and possess the right to have such defenses considered by an impartial adjudicator.

The Supreme Court in 1976 would accept that due process protections in different settings will vary based on a number of variables. Those include what is at stake in the case, the likelihood that government might make a mistake in a particular setting, and the benefits and burdens of providing certain forms of process in a given situation.

When someone’s life is literally on the line, for example, more exacting procedures are required. At the same time, regardless of how important the interest that is subject to due process – whether it is one’s life, one’s home, one’s liberty, or something else – the components of fair notice, an opportunity to be heard, and to have one’s case decided by an impartial adjudicator must be meaningful.

As the court said in Mullane vs. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. in 1950: “Process which is a mere gesture is not due process.”

Ray Brescia does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Project 2025 architect Paul Dans on Monday is launching a bid to primary Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham in South Carolina, joining an increasingly crowded field.

“What we’ve done with Project 2025 is really change the game in terms of closing the door on the progressive era,” Dans told the Associated Press. ”If you look at where the chokepoint is, it’s the United States Senate. That’s the headwaters of the swamp.”

Dans on Monday morning also reposted the Associated Press’ story announcing his South Carolina senate primary challenge, saying “Have some news this morning.”

Dans worked in the White House during President Donald Trump’s first term. His bid may present a unique challenge for Graham, who — though he has already secured Trump’s endorsement — has found himself at odds with the president on several occasions. In 2024, after Graham urged Trump to focus more on policy during his reelection campaign, Trump responded he doesn’t “care what he says.”

“Lindsey wouldn’t be elected if I didn’t endorse him,” Trump said.

One of the leading voices on Project 2025, Dans told the AP he expects to have the support of the project’s allies as well as some of Trump’s supporters.

Graham is seeking his fifth term as Republicans attempt to hold onto their 53-47 majority in the Senate during the 2026 midterms. Dans said it’s “time to show him the door.”

Chris LaCivita, senior adviser to Graham’s campaign, said in a statement Dans has “parachuted himself” into South Carolina after being “unceremoniously dumped in 2024 while trying to torpedo Donald Trump’s historic campaign.”

“Like everything Paul Dans starts, this too will end prematurely,” said LaCivita.

Dans will officially announce his campaign at a Charleston event Wednesday.

Project 2025, the 900-page set of conservative policy proposals, dominated conversations during the 2024 presidential election. Though Trump insisted the plan — created by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation — was unrelated to his campaign, many of its architects, including Dans, have been involved with the Trump administration at some point or another.

​Politics

Democratic leaders are feeling pressure to join a brewing redistricting battle that is threatening to upend the midterms landscape — an effort that is likely to slam into legal and political reality.

As Texas Republicans pressed forward with a redistricting blitz designed to increase the number of red seats in the state, officials in the biggest Democratic states scrambled for a response. In New York, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries spoke with Gov. Kathy Hochul in recent days to discuss what a counter-effort could look like. California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration talked to state election officials about the logistics and timing of a special election to overturn its nonpartisan commission. And Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker joined Newsom in meeting with Texas Democratic lawmakers on Friday about a strategy for stalling the GOP’s brazen attempt to carve out five new seats, per President Donald Trump’s demand.

The problem is Democrats don’t have many options. In conversations with more than a dozen state lawmakers and redistricting experts, Democrats’ best shot at redrawing a map lies in California, a heavily blue state with a huge number of congressional districts. They see the second-best option in New York, which saw Democratic gerrymandering efforts sputter in recent years, and Illinois, which is already a heavily pro-Democrat gerrymander. Far less likely options lie with Maryland and New Jersey, which have just four Republican-held seats between them.

Discussion of these options come as a debate rages within the party over whether to play hard ball to the same degree as Republicans.

“At this moment, it seems very clear that self defense is something we have to put as a priority,” said Maryland House Majority Leader David Moon, who introduced a bill this week that would force open Maryland’s redistricting process if another state pursues redistricting ahead of the U.S. Census. “If that’s where we are, and that’s where we’re forced to go, then I think that’s where Democratic states need to be prepared to go.”

Trump is pushing Republicans in an aggressive effort to redraw maps in hopes of holding onto the House in a potentially unfriendly midterms cycle. Efforts are already underway in Texas, where Trump wants to draw five additional GOP seats, and in Ohio, where Republicans hope to draw additional red districts during a legally mandated redistricting. Punchbowl News recently reported Trump is pressuring Missouri to rip up its own map ahead of the midterms, too.

All of this has sparked outrage from the Democratic base, but Republicans feel bullish about a midterms map that is reshaped by partisan redistricting.

“In an arms race where there’s a race to gerrymander the most, there’s not a scenario where they have more seats than we do,” said a GOP operative, granted anonymity to speak about party strategy.

Newsom has been the most strident of all the Democratic governors who lead trifectas in his vow to counter Texas Republicans, vowing on Friday to “put a stake into the heart” of the Trump administration by preventing Republicans from retaining the House.

But the obstacles are steep: Redrawing California’s map would require either calling a special election and convincing voters to return line-drawing power to politicians after they specifically voted to entrust a nonpartisan commission with that authority, or simply having the Legislature draw maps and effectively daring the courts to stop them.

“I don’t think it’s doable. I think there are too many constitutional constraints,” said Bruce Cain, a Stanford political scientist who was deeply involved as a staffer in the partisan gerrymanders from a prior era of California politics.

It’s not just a legal obstacle. Undertaking redistricting would open up a huge “political fight” within the party by redrawing districts some politicians have run in for multiple cycles, he said. “You’d be borrowing from different kinds of Democrats and sticking them into other seats and the politics of that would be very complex,” Cain added.

But Newsom, who has his eye on running for president in 2028, has been steadily laying the groundwork anyway. He hosted Texas Democrats at the governor’s mansion in Sacramento on Friday, doing his part to project a united national front against Republicans, and told reporters he was weighing several options to expand Democrats’ margins beyond their current, disproportionate hold on 43 of 52 House seats.

“The question I imagine many folks are asking here in California is: what do the politics of Texas have to do with the politics here in California?” Newsom told reporters on Friday, flanked by Texas lawmakers. “The answer is everything.”

Lawmakers and operatives who were initially caught off guard or skeptical of Newsom’s proposal are increasingly becoming convinced California has the authority and the political will to respond to Texas in kind. Sharing maps of a potential Democratic gerrymander has become a favorite pastime.

“I’ve seen a map that’s legal, upholds the Voting Rights Act, and produces 49 to 50 Democratic seats,” said Matt Barreto, a pollster and director of UCLA’s Voting Rights Project who polled for the Harris campaign and advised the Biden White House. California currently has 43 Democrats and 9 Republicans in Congress. “This is something lawmakers should consider if Texas goes first.”

In New York, Jeffries’ staff spoke with Hochul’s office recently to discuss redistricting New York’s House seats, two people with direct knowledge of the conversation said. On Thursday, Hochul declared that “all’s fair in love and war” regarding returning to contentious congressional map redraw.

“If there’s other states violating the rules and are trying to give themselves an advantage, all I’m going to say is, I’m going to look at it with Hakeem Jeffries,” she said.

Even if state lawmakers plow ahead with redistricting, something the state Constitution says can only be done once per decade, the process would likely take more than a year to complete and may not be finished in time for the 2026 midterm elections.

New York tried an aggressive gerrymander that got blocked by the courts in 2022, and a court-drawn map was used instead. Democrats later drew a new map that is far less aggressive.

Hochul’s political allies believe there is little upside to drawing new lines.

“I understand those in New York who are watching what’s happening in Texas and Ohio want to offset their unfair advantage,” said New York Democratic Chair Jay Jacobs. But “the constitution seems pretty clear that this redistricting process should be done every 10 years. I don’t know where someone could interpret it as something you can do every two years.”

Beyond Texas, Republicans have their eye on picking up seats in other states like Missouri and Florida — which would put Democrats in a tough spot, given they don’t have as much leeway to squeeze out extra seats.

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy was noncommittal when asked by reporters earlier this week if he plans to pursue redistricting, noting that it’s “too early to make any definitive statement about it.” But he echoed what many other Democrats across the country have said when talking about the possibility of early redistricting: “Never bring a knife to a gunfight.”

New Jersey has its own constitutional impediment, which states that congressional districts, which are drawn by an independent commission, “shall remain unaltered through the next year ending in zero in which a federal census for this State is taken.”

Even if they were able to circumvent the state constitution, Democrats already have the majority in the New Jersey congressional delegation, and just two seats — the 7th, held by Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr., and the 9th, held by Democratic Rep. Nellie Pou — are considered battlegrounds.

Even some other Hail Mary options seem off the table. State lawmakers in Washington, Minnesota and Colorado balked at the suggestion they should pursue drawing new maps in the next few months.

“It’s just not in the cards,” said Washington House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon, citing the requirement that a two-thirds majority is needed in both the state House and Senate to reconvene the state’s bipartisan redistricting commission.

And Minnesota State Sen. Aric Nesbitt shut down the idea quickly: “We’re not power-crats, we’re Democrats. We should do things that improve democracy, even if that means sometimes we don’t get our way.” Democrats hold the governorship and state Senate in Minnesota, but Republicans narrowly control the House.

In Colorado “there’s really no debate,” said former Senate Leader Steve Fenberg, who helped create the state’s independent redistricting commission in 2018.“We’re at a juncture right now where the threat is so overwhelming that I don’t think Democrats should rule out responding in kind,” he said. “But in a state like Colorado, I don’t think it’s really in our DNA to do this kind of action and it’s not constitutionally allowed.”

Still, with a potentially tougher cycle ahead of them than they were anticipating given all of Trump’s strategy, redistricting is sure to be a hot topic of conversation as Democratic governors gather at the National Governors Association meeting this weekend in Colorado.

“I suspect as the Democratic governors get together for a drink or a coffee, this will be high on the agenda,” Murphy said.

CORRECTION: This article originally misstated the partisan balance of California’s congressional districts.

​Politics

FDA head Marty Makary on food dyes, ultra-processed foods and the MAHA agenda | The Conversation

lead image

​Politics