Inquirer.com – Zurich DR

Category: National Politics

  • Graham, and Trump, triumph: Six takeaways from South Carolina’s Senate runoff

    Graham, and Trump, triumph: Six takeaways from South Carolina’s Senate runoff

    ROCK HILL, S.C. — Sen. Darline Graham won the Republican Senate nomination in South Carolina on Tuesday, relying on the strength of President Donald Trump’s political capital to overcome her inexperience as a first-time candidate for public office.

    Graham defeated Rep. Ralph Norman, a five-term member of Congress, in deeply red South Carolina after Trump did more to support her than he has for any other Republican candidate this year — out of apparent affection for her late brother, Lindsey Graham, who died last month.

    Her win showed the president’s continued ability to move Republican primary voters, especially when he goes all in on a race. His chosen candidates won a series of key primaries in the spring, but a few of his picks have more recently lost, putting the power of his endorsement in question. That he could lift Graham, who is poised to win a six-year Senate term after being virtually unknown six weeks ago, may have settled that question, for now.

    Trump’s pick also prevailed in Oklahoma’s Republican primary for governor, where Mike Mazzei, a former state lawmaker, defeated Gentner Drummond, the state’s attorney general. Mazzei was ahead by less than half of a percentage point when The Associated Press called the race.

    Here are six takeaways from Tuesday night’s primaries:

    Trump’s support faced a big test in South Carolina. He aced it.

    Trump won South Carolina by more than 18 percentage points in 2024. But twice in the past six months, candidates he endorsed have fallen in the state.

    Graham looked like she could become one of only a handful of Trump-backed Senate candidates to lose their primaries nationwide since 2017. She initially struggled to introduce herself to voters in the extraordinarily short campaign and flubbed a debate answer about national security.

    But on the campaign trail, she said, voters asked her about kitchen-table issues, not national security. And she wrapped her candidacy around her support for Trump and his for her. She will now face Dr. Annie Andrews, a pediatrician and the Democratic nominee, in the November general election, where Graham will be heavily favored.

    Trump-backed candidate prevailed in a tough fight in Oklahoma

    Mazzei, the president’s pick to succeed Oklahoma’s term-limited governor, Kevin Stitt, won the Republican nomination after a neck-and-neck race against Drummond, a former Air Force pilot who is in his first term as attorney general.

    Trump not only endorsed Mazzei but also went out of his way to attack Drummond during the campaign.

    “Everybody I know dislikes him,” Trump told supporters in a telephone rally for Mazzei on Monday.

    A key issue in the race was a $4 billion aluminum smelter project that has been a priority of Trump’s. Mazzei initially opposed it and then reversed his position. Drummond campaigned against it.

    Where Trump goes, his voters vote

    Trump rallied for Graham last Friday in Myrtle Beach, an area where the candidate who came in third place in the primary, Rep. Russell Fry, performed best. On Tuesday, Graham trounced Norman in Horry County, home to Myrtle Beach.

    Graham also did well across the eastern part of South Carolina, including in Charleston County, which had been a base of support for another rival, Mark Sanford, in the primary.

    When Trump’s allies send texts, his voters vote

    Trump’s super political action committee, MAGA Inc., spent more than $800,000 on the special primary runoff, nearly a third of the organization’s total spending in this election cycle. And South Carolina Republicans had the evidence on their cellphones: They said they received repeated text messages, including Tuesday, urging them to cast ballots for Graham.

    Republicans nationwide have fretted about MAGA Inc. not spending as quickly as some in the party would like to help vulnerable Republicans. The organization’s investment in South Carolina may not stop the grumbling, given the ongoing battle for control of Congress and the fact that the Senate seat was expected to stay in Republican hands regardless of who won the nomination. But it will allow MAGA Inc. to say that when it does enter a race, it does so decisively.

    Winning South Carolina’s most conservative region was not enough for Ralph Norman

    Norman performed best in the Upstate region of northwest South Carolina, which includes Greenville and Spartanburg and surrounds his congressional district. The area is rich in Republican voters who lifted him into second place in the crowded primary two weeks ago.

    But the rest of South Carolina went for Graham, leaving Norman without the broader support needed to win a two-way runoff. His supporters pinned much of their hopes Tuesday on Greenville County. But they were not enough.

    Norman told supporters in Rock Hill on Tuesday night that he “couldn’t have done anything different,” but he did lament that Trump took sides in the race.

    “He has that right,” he said, as his supporters booed. “He has that prerogative.”

    Lindsey Graham’s legacy didn’t sink his sister

    Graham, who was running for reelection when he died, won his Republican Senate primary in June with 56% of the vote. That was a low ceiling for a four-term incumbent, and one he reached only after he and his allies spent more than $18 million on the race. He had long struggled with some Republican voters who were skeptical of his past support for immigration reform and for Trump’s rivals in the 2016 presidential primary.

    When Darline Graham entered the race to succeed him, her ceiling was even lower: She was a first-time candidate known to voters only as the sister of a senator they had complicated feelings about. And many Republican voters said they disliked the perception of nepotism.

    Graham said she knew she had to earn voters’ support. She tried to break with her brother, saying she was more focused on domestic policy and would take a harder line on immigration.

    “I continue to miss Lindsey every day, and there is still a big hole in my heart,” she told supporters in Columbia, South Carolina, on Tuesday night. “But I know he’s looking down right now very proud of everyone in this room.”

    Time to brush up on foreign policy.

    This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

  • El-Sayed joins Fox News for some light verbal combat and a pitch to Republicans

    El-Sayed joins Fox News for some light verbal combat and a pitch to Republicans

    “You’re filibustering.”

    “Pipe down one second.”

    “That’s a dodge, Abdul.”

    Through tense smiles and laughter, Fox News host Jesse Watters frequently reminded his guest — the Democratic nominee for Senate in Michigan, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed — that Watters was the one conducting their prime-time interview as the candidate swerved through a minefield of hostile questions about issues ranging from transition surgeries to reparations to Islam to immigration.

    The appearance Monday night by El-Sayed, a progressive who has sought to dispel worries from moderate Democrats that he is too left-wing to win battleground Michigan, signaled his growing efforts to reach Republican voters and previewed his messaging strategy for the general election. His hard-fought primary victory this month has set up a race against former Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican, in a contest considered crucial to Senate control.

    When Watters sought to pin down El-Sayed, the candidate would often redirect the question to more favorable political terrain. He pivoted from a question on immigration enforcement to high gas and grocery costs, and turned an inquiry on whether he drives an electric car (he drives a plug-in hybrid, he said) into a jab at President Donald Trump’s new trade war with Canada.

    In the most eye-popping moment of the exchange, Watters asked if El-Sayed believed it was OK “for a parent to slash his kid’s ding-a-ling off,” referring to transition surgeries for minors.

    El-Sayed responded by asking if Watters was circumcised.

    “Uh, yeah, but that’s a personal question, doctor,” Watters responded, laughing, before contending that “circumcision’s different than castration.”

    El-Sayed said that he believed the government should not tell Americans what healthcare procedures they could undergo, but he did not directly say whether he approved of transition surgeries.

    The interview showed the strategy El-Sayed is adopting as Rogers seeks to paint him as a radical leftist who is out of touch with Michigan voters. The Democratic nominee’s approach is to cast “culture-war” issues as a distraction from the everyday problems Americans face, like rising costs and worries about health care.

    The interview also previewed the kinds of arguments that could animate El-Sayed’s planned debate against Rogers, which is set for Oct. 8 on WOOD-TV, both campaigns announced Monday. The two men may face off sooner if they agree to additional debates.

    After Watters brought up Shariah — the system of Islamic religious rules often invoked by opponents to portray Islam as dangerous and anti-American — El-Sayed countered by asking the host if he knew about canon law, the code of religious rules that guides the Roman Catholic Church.

    “Nobody is trying to push Shariah law on anyone else, just like I hope nobody is trying to push canon law on anybody else,” El-Sayed said. “Because we live in an America where you should have the freedom of your religion.”

    Watters responded by saying: “Maybe. Shariah law in Michigan is kind of scary.”

    El-Sayed argued that voters were far more concerned about affording gas, seeing doctors and keeping their jobs than they were about Shariah.

    Asked about his position on trans athletes in sports, El-Sayed said he believed that matter should be “decided by the people who govern sports,” not him.

    “I’m out here trying to take on the healthcare crisis and Big Pharma, and you’re asking me about who gets to play what sports,” El-Sayed said. “It’s silly.”

    El-Sayed’s appearance Monday was his third televised interview with Fox News of the campaign, and his first of the general election.

    Whether or not he is able to attract a slice of Republican voters, he has already sought to capitalize on Watters’ comments about him. He started airing an ad Thursday that features the Fox News host saying after the primary, “You’ve got to respect Abdul because he beat the machine.”

    At the end of the interview Monday, Watters gave his guest “credit for facing the music” by going on his show, but called him “a little naive” and said some of his policies were “straight-up wacky.”

    El-Sayed contended that Trump’s ballroom renovations amid the war with Iran were “wacky,” and then said he would “love to come back on” to talk about money in politics, affordability and Medicare for All.

    “We’ll do it again, Abdul,” Watters said, smiling amusedly and adding, “Good luck in Michigan.”

    This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

  • Black voters have long been politically pragmatic

    Black voters have long been politically pragmatic

    Fierce primary fights throughout the spring and summer have exposed deep ideological fractures within the Democratic Party. They’ve also reopened an internal party debate about whether African Americans — one of the pillars of the Democratic Party — will support “progressive” or left-wing candidates in primaries against moderate opposition.

    In Michigan’s contentious Senate primary, upstart candidate Abdul El-Sayed narrowly beat establishment candidate Haley Stevens, despite the latter performing better overall with African American voters. In Wisconsin, however, African American voters proved decisive, as David Crowley eked out a narrow victory over Democratic Socialist Francesca Hong. In both campaigns, perceptions of electability in November became a key issue and a key indicator of whether a candidate could win Black support.

    This fight isn’t new. The Democratic Party has long featured debates over electability, and whether it ought to prioritize finding candidates who can excite base voters or identifying candidates who have crossover appeal in November.

    This question has unique importance for African American voters. They take a deeply pragmatic approach, one that has been shaped by the fraught racial environment that is, sadly, a key part of American electoral history. For close to a century, that has translated into a reluctance to back political causes or campaigns that make broad promises, but will have difficulty delivering results. While African Americans have been a stalwart Democratic constituency for more than 60 years, they have not automatically gravitated toward left-wing causes.

    The 1948 presidential campaign took place at the height of the Cold War abroad and the Second Red Scare at home. It also had a critical civil rights dimension.

    Many Black soldiers had fought in World War II for a “Double V” — victory against fascism abroad and victory over racism at home. Yet, returning after the war, they discovered that many of their white counterparts did not want to eliminate Jim Crow segregation in the South, or other forms of white supremacy and discrimination elsewhere in the country. Lynchings and racial violence dramatically increased after the war, most memorably, the beating and blinding of Pacific War veteran Sergeant Isaac Woodard in South Carolina in 1946.

    In this Feb. 9, 2019, file photo, the Blinding of Isaac Woodard historical marker was dedicated in Batesburg-Leesville, S.C. Woodard, a uniformed World War II veteran was headed home on a bus in 1946, when he was removed and beaten by a white South Carolina police chief, leaving Woodard permanently blind.Christina Myers

    Black Americans demanded that embattled President Harry Truman embrace new civil rights protections. Truman was aghast at the treatment of returning veterans and believed in fairness. He also realized that he’d need the votes of African Americans to have any chance of winning reelection.

    In 1947, Truman began making a concerted effort to advance the civil rights cause. He became the first president to speak at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s annual convention. The White House also released To Secure These Rights, a book detailing how the Truman administration both acknowledged the problems facing African Americans and the steps it would take to ameliorate them. Additionally, Truman desegregated the armed forces, a critical step in showing he was serious about embracing civil rights.

    Truman made these moves to showcase American freedom and democracy and juxtapose it with Soviet communism, while also trying to shore up the African American vote. That was especially critical because of a political insurgency that threatened Truman’s hope for reelection: the rise of Henry Wallace and the Progressive Party.

    Wallace had served as agriculture secretary during Franklin Roosevelt’s first two terms as president and as vice president during Roosevelt’s third term. He had also served as Truman’s secretary of commerce. Many on the left saw Wallace as the only hope for achieving their main goals: preventing a full-blown war with the Soviets, and securing greater labor, civil and human rights at home.

    Wallace’s backers included prominent African Americans like Paul Robeson and W.E.B. Du Bois, who distrusted Truman. Both men supported Wallace due to the former’s strong stance in favor of civil rights at home and deep-seated opposition to the brewing Cold War abroad. Their support helped catalyze a debate in the Black community over which candidate to back.

    Forums like The Crisis, the official magazine of the NAACP, became spaces for African American voters to debate Wallace vs. Truman. In early 1948, The Crisis editors declared “Wallace is straight on our question,” referring to his unabashed support for civil rights. They refrained, however, from outright endorsing him, noting his mixed record as secretary of agriculture.

    Made By History sponsors. FOR USE ON MADE BY HISTORY STORIES ONLY.Inquirer Staff

    Readers remained divided over this support for Wallace. Some felt the editorial was too harsh about his policies as secretary, while others believed he had not done enough for Black Americans in the federal government. “I challenge you to name another American of equal stature,” Robert and Selma Singer from Chicago wrote to The Crisis offices after its April 1948 issue, “who has mass support, who has given such impetus toward solving the ‘Negro Problem.’”

    Yet, others, such as Max Womack of Iowa City, argued that Wallace had no chance as a third-party candidate, and would merely split the votes of people who’d otherwise back Truman. He also wondered why the editors hadn’t given “President Truman any credit at all?”

    This last question hinted at the prevailing sentiment in the Black community: most African American voters backed Truman that November. They preferred trusting the incumbent — a proven commodity — rather than taking a chance on what turned out to be a quixotic campaign.

    Their overwhelming support delivered key margins in battleground states in the North and Midwest, like Michigan, a testament to the maturing power of the African American vote. “Negro leaders pointed out,” proclaimed the front page of the Black-owned and operated Detroit Tribune, “that the Michigan Republican party seemed to go out of its way to avoid the Detroit population and its political desires.”

    Black voters siding with mainstream, liberal Democrats over more radical ideas proved to be no anomaly. Twenty-four years later, in 1972, Black voters again engaged in an ideological skirmish. Activists debated the best way forward after the heyday of the Civil Rights Movement and the election of Republican Richard Nixon in 1968 against a deeply divided Democratic Party.

    At the National Black Political Convention, held in Gary, Indiana, African American liberals, moderates, socialists, nationalists, and even conservatives gathered to map out a strategy for adjusting the politics of Black America to a new normal. Nixon’s administration had largely practiced “benign neglect” on racial issues, while suppressing the Black Power Movement. Attendees grappled with an overall backlash to the Great Society programs spearheaded by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

    In this March 13, 1972, file photo, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, executive director of Operation: PUSH, speaks from the floor of the National Black Political Convention in Gary, Ind.Jim Wells

    The Convention’s “Gary Declaration” gave voice to the frustration of many Black Americans, arguing, “Both parties have betrayed us whenever their interests conflicted with ours (which was most of the time), and whenever our forces were unorganized and dependent, quiescent and compliant.”

    Still, despite the critique of both Nixonian conservatism and Great Society liberalism, the members of the Gary Convention disagreed over a radical proposal to create an all-Black political party that could, in theory, broker deals with both major parties on behalf of Black America. Later that year, most Black Americans stuck with the Democrats — one of the few constituencies to back the doomed campaign of George McGovern.

    The primary that year had illustrated Black political pragmatism at work. Ebony magazine journalist Alex Poinsett acknowledged that McGovern was far from perfect and that Black voters lacked a truly satisfactory option. Yet, he argued that the candidate’s support for elements of the Gary Declaration — and a competing “Black Bill of Rights” proposed by the Congressional Black Caucus — made him a sensible option over several longer shots, including African American congresswoman Shirley Chisholm.

    The choice of McGovern over Chisholm reflected how Black voters’ wariness about progressivism that did not seem to be electorally viable even applied to Black candidates. The same was true three decades later: Barack Obama struggled with Black voters in polling until his victory in Iowa in January 2008 made it clear he was a candidate who could win.

    These cases epitomize how, over time, Black voters have stuck with liberals in the Democratic Party who demonstrate a genuine chance of victory over more radical options that might promise better policy. They aren’t always happy with their choices, but they know what to expect from mainstream Democrats.

    This choice reflects how, ultimately, for African American voters, a pragmatic view of politics overrules almost everything else. The old saying that “politics is the art of the possible” is, often, the rueful outlook on politics by African Americans.

    Robert Greene II is associate professor of history at Claflin University. He is also managing editor of “Global Black Thought” and co-host of the award-winning podcast, “Our New South.”

    Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of The Inquirer.

  • Jeffries defends Kushner meeting, vowing tough oversight of Trump

    Jeffries defends Kushner meeting, vowing tough oversight of Trump

    WASHINGTON — Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader, was forced to defend himself on Monday for taking a recent meeting with Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and top outside adviser, amid a backlash about the encounter from some progressives.

    “I wanted to give you a little real talk on this Jared Kushner situation,” Jeffries, D-N.Y., said in a video he posted on social media, in which he appeared in Brooklyn dressed in a bright green New York Yankees cap and matching polo shirt.

    Jeffries, who had initially declined to acknowledge the meeting or comment on it, said in the video that Kushner had asked for the meeting, and he had taken it, in order “to discuss the affordability crisis that exists, that is not a hoax.” (Trump has accused Democrats of inventing the concept of “affordability” to attack him over the high cost of living.)

    The discussion came as Trump and Democrats are attacking one another relentlessly on the campaign trail as they battle for control of Congress, and as the president’s inner circle is facing the increasingly likely possibility of a Democratic takeover, one that would put the Brooklyn lawmaker in line to be the House speaker.

    It drew bitter criticism from some Democrats, who are eager to see accountability for the Trump administration on a range of topics after a pliant two years of House Republican control. They said his decision to privately huddle with Kushner raised questions about how tough Jeffries would be in investigating the administration.

    “You do not meet with them — don’t have anything to do with them,” James Carville, the veteran Democratic strategist, vented online in a four-minute rant about Jeffries. “Any business we have is going to be conducted with you under oath.”

    Jeffries insisted in the video that he would be aggressive.

    “I shouldn’t have to say it, but I am,” he said. “No one is going to get a pass. We’re going to hold every single member of the Trump cartel accountable.”

    A spokesperson for Kushner did not respond to an email seeking comment on Jeffries’ video.

    The confab, which was first reported by The New York Times on Sunday, was described by people familiar with it as a general get-together in New York City to discuss areas where the Trump administration and Democrats could find common ground, discussing housing, cost-of-living and immigration. Kushner used the discussion to suggest that Jeffries meet with Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, with whom the Democratic leader has no relationship, according to one of the people with knowledge of the meeting.

    Kushner worked with Jeffries on criminal justice legislation during Trump’s first term, when he was an official senior adviser in the White House. Kushner now runs an investment firm backed heavily by Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds and is not formally a part of the administration.

    But he has been an increasingly key outside adviser to his father-in-law, playing a central role in aspects of Trump’s foreign policy since last summer, a fact that Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have begun to investigate.

    One of the most prominent faces of the Democratic left, Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York, said he would still support Jeffries to lead the party. But elsewhere, there was outrage.

    Mehdi Hasan, the founder of the news site Zeteo, called the meeting “pathetic stuff from the House Dem leader” in a social media post. Adam Kinzinger, a former Republican member of Congress who has been among Trump’s harshest critics, referred to the meeting by posting: “Make this make sense.”

    Jeffries was already facing a potential rift within his caucus next year, with an incoming faction of antiestablishment members on the left who have repudiated him and broken with mainstream Democrats on a number of issues.

    A person with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic, said it was a mutual friend, not the president’s son-in-law, who suggested that Jeffries and Kushner meet.

    The meeting also created an awkward situation for House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who has been confidently predicting that his party will retain its majority and found himself pushing back on the idea that the Trump administration was instead preparing for a Democratic victory.

    Asked on Sunday about the meeting, Johnson played down Kushner’s influence, saying he was “not really directly involved” in the administration, “at least in the day-to-day in the White House,” and again expressed confidence that Republicans could keep control of the House.

    This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

  • Most of Pa.’s likely voters disapprove of Donald Trump and his policies, new poll shows

    Most of Pa.’s likely voters disapprove of Donald Trump and his policies, new poll shows

    More than half of likely voters in Pennsylvania’s forthcoming midterm elections disapprove of President Donald Trump’s job performance, and he is drastically underwater among the state’s electorate on key issues — some of which helped him win a second term in 2024.

    Trump, who won the crucial swing state by nearly two percentage points in November 2024, now has an approval rating of 39% and a disapproval rating of 58% among Pennsylvania’s likely voters, according to an Inquirer/New York Times/Siena University poll published Tuesday.

    The poll, which was conducted from Aug. 17 to 21 among 760 likely Pennsylvania voters, raises questions about how voters’ perception of the president will affect November’s midterms, when many Pennsylvanians will cast their ballots in four critical swing district races that could determine which party controls the U.S. House.

    (function() { var l = function() { new pym.Parent( ‘nyt-trump2__graphic’, ‘https://media.inquirer.com/storage/inquirer/ai2html/nyt-trump2/index.html’); }; if(typeof(pym) === ‘undefined’) { var h = document.getElementsByTagName(‘head’)[0], s = document.createElement(‘script’); s.type = ‘text/javascript’; s.src = ‘https://pym.nprapps.org/pym.v1.min.js’; s.onload = l; h.appendChild(s); } else { l(); } })();

    Even among his Pennsylvania supporters who were surveyed, Trump faces some of his lowest approval ratings regarding his handling of the war in Iran and cost-of-living issues, according to the poll, counteracting campaign promises that proved successful in 2024: ending foreign wars and helping people pay their bills.

    Read the full Inquirer/NYT/Siena poll here.

    Once again, the economy will likely be at the front of voters’ minds heading into November — 22% of Pennsylvanians polled said it is their top issue in the governor’s race — and it could also serve as an indicator for the outcome of House races where Republicans will be on the defensive.

    “Certainly it’s got to be a drag on their fortunes,” said Don Levy, director of the Siena Research Institute.

    (function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();</script

    Trump losing ground on issues that propelled him to White House

    The new polling on Trump’s management of top concerns facing the United States — particularly the economy and the cost of living — shows how the issues that helped propel him to the White House in 2024 are now souring his approval among Pennsylvanians, including some who previously voted for him.

    Among likely voters in the Keystone State, 39% approve and 61% disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy. On his handling of the cost of living, 33% said they approve and 66% disapprove.

    The data come as voters continue to grapple with rising costs, including unusually high gas prices, and grocery prices that have been increasing for nearly six years. Trump’s tariffs, one of the defining policies of his first year back in office, also raised prices for consumers and businesses.

    Now, a quarter of Pennsylvanians who voted for the president in 2024 say they disapprove of how he is handling of the cost of living.

    Michael Patterson, 60, of Bucks County, is one of them.

    Though Patterson said Trump’s term has been “great” overall, he was expecting more from the president on the economy and costs.

    “The prices are still too high, interest rates are still too high,” Patterson said. “We still haven’t seen anything from that promise yet.”

    (function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();

    Trump’s messaging on the economy in 2024 was part of why he won Pennsylvania with more votes than any other statewide GOP candidate in history. Pennsylvania voters cited Trump’s promises to bring costs down as a top reason that they voted for him and overlooked Democrats’ warnings about what his election could mean for democracy.

    Trump is also hurting on other issues that helped boost him to the presidency, including his promise to end wars. Thirty-two percent of likely voters in Pennsylvania approve of Trump’s handling of the war in Iran and 66% disapprove — including 30% of Trump voters.

    The war has now gone on for almost six months, after Trump promised it would last just a few weeks, and has contributed to rising oil and gas prices.

    Kay Skripac, who voted for Trump in 2024, said that though she supports the president on almost every other issue, “I just don’t think that we should have invaded or bombed Iran. I was very surprised, because I didn’t vote for that.”

    The 72-year-old independent voter said, despite thinking Trump has done strong work on the economy (she says her retirement portfolio doubled from 2016 to 2026), she is feeling the war’s impact at the gas pump.

    “I want everything to just be normal and stay the same, because everything was fine,” said Skripac, who lives in Crawford County. “We weren’t involved in any wars. You didn’t have to worry about any friends or loved ones potentially getting killed. I don’t like that at all.”

    Trump’s handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict also received low marks from voters, with 62% disapproval, compared with 36% approval.

    Republican Sandra Faust, 40, approves of Trump’s handling of that conflict. But her support does not extend to the war in Iran, which Trump launched in coordination with Israel.

    Faust, who voted for Trump two years ago, said she strongly disapproves of the war due to rising gas prices and believes it conflicts with the president’s promise to end wars. The Pittsburgh resident, who has a family member in military training to become a jet refueler, said she wishes the conflict in Iran would end.

    “Them dragging it on is not only harming us, locally with gas and, you know, pricing and stuff like that, but it’s putting our military in harm’s way, and I’m not happy about that,” she said.

    Faust added that she opposes the war because of her belief in the “America First” ideology. That perspective also makes her supportive of Trump’s immigration agenda, she said.

    The president is lagging in Pennsylvanians’ support of his immigration policies — which have included mass deportations and enhanced border security — but the disapproval is not as stark. Among likely voters, 44% approve of his handling of immigration and 55% disapprove.

    “We are not responsible for taking care of the world’s problems,” Faust said.

    What does Trump’s approval rating mean for November in Pa.?

    So what does this mean for the midterms?

    Time will tell.

    But 51% of Pennsylvania’s likely voters who were polled indicated they would be more likely to vote for a Democrat in their congressional district, and 44% said they would support a Republican. More than half, 53%, say they would want to see a flip of control in the House, putting Democrats in charge, while 44% say they would want to see the GOP maintain control.

    The polling for the GOP in November is not as bleak as Trump’s numbers, but it shows where voters’ heads are a little more than two months away from the midterms, when Pennsylvanians will weigh in on four competitive swing district congressional races.

    (function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();

    Both parties are targeting GOP-held seats in Bucks County’s 1st Congressional District, the Lehigh Valley’s 7th Congressional District, the Scranton area’s 8th Congressional District, and the Harrisburg area’s 10th Congressional District.

    Democrats are hoping that a message focused on affordability and tying opponents to Trump will usher in wins this fall. For instance, Democrat Bob Harvie in the heated 1st Congressional District race published a new campaign platform recently that focuses mainly on addressing economic issues.

    “The task of Republicans running in various congressional districts, or for the governor of the state, is going to be to somehow separate themselves from the perception that Pennsylvanians have about the job that the head of their party is doing on the economy,” said Levy, the Siena polling director.

    But for Democrats, connecting Harvie’s opponent, longtime Republican U.S. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, to Trump could be a harder sell. The Bucks County lawmaker consistently outperforms his party and has survived one blue wave after another.

    The poll’s findings signal that both parties may also have to think about their branding to the public — 50% of respondents said the Democratic Party is too far to the left and 47% said Republican Party is too far to the right.

    Republicans will also have to consider Trump’s unpopularity, especially with women. Sixty-two percent of female likely voters in Pennsylvania disapprove of Trump’s policies, while 34% approve. The president is also struggling with men — a key base for him in 2024: 51% of men disapprove of Trump’s policies, compared with 46% who approve.

    (function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();

    Democrat Vincent Russo, 78, of Lackawanna County, where Republican U.S. Rep. Rob Bresnahan faces a challenge from Democrat Paige Cognetti in the 8th District, said he will be voting straight blue on his ballot in November and thinks opposition to Trump’s policies will motivate his party to get out to the polls.

    “I think the people are starting to see he does nothing but lie,” Russo said.

    Staff writers Michelle Baruchman and Gillian McGoldrick contributed to this article.

  • Josh Shapiro has a 16-point lead in the governor’s race — and most Pa. Democrats would support him for president

    Josh Shapiro has a 16-point lead in the governor’s race — and most Pa. Democrats would support him for president

    With a little more than two months until Election Day, Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro has a double-digit lead over his Republican challenger, Stacy Garrity, among likely Pennsylvania voters in the race to lead the critical swing state — an election that could also serve as an audition for the 2028 presidential primary.

    Shapiro holds a 16-percentage-point lead over Garrity, the state treasurer, according to a new poll of 760 likely voters conducted from Aug. 17 through 21 by The Inquirer, the New York Times, and Siena University.

    The numbers could foreshadow another commanding victory for Shapiro, as he hopes his popularity trickles into other down-ballot races, including four congressional districts that national Democrats think they can flip. Shapiro is also trying to flip the state Senate for the first time in 30 years and deliver a Democratic trifecta in the statehouse.

    (function() { var l = function() { new pym.Parent( ‘nyt-shapiro2__graphic’, ‘https://media.inquirer.com/storage/inquirer/ai2html/nyt-shapiro2/index.html’); }; if(typeof(pym) === ‘undefined’) { var h = document.getElementsByTagName(‘head’)[0], s = document.createElement(‘script’); s.type = ‘text/javascript’; s.src = ‘https://pym.nprapps.org/pym.v1.min.js’; s.onload = l; h.appendChild(s); } else { l(); } })();

    A majority of Pennsylvania voters — 60% — have a favorable opinion of the governor, compared with Garrity, who is viewed favorably by just 37% in the state.

    Shapiro’s popularity also eclipses that of President Donald Trump, according to the poll. Sixty percent of likely Pennsylvania voters approve of the job Shapiro is doing as governor, while 39% approve of Trump, who won the state two years ago.

    Read the full Inquirer/NYT/Siena poll here.

    Lora Peluso, 63, a Democrat and retired catering director from Pittsburgh, said Shapiro has been a shield in Pennsylvania against some of Trump’s most harmful policies affecting low-income and older people.

    “I think [Shapiro] is trustworthy,” said Peluso, who participated in the poll. “His policies are things that actually benefit people, the average working person, seniors.”

    Garrity still unknown by some Republicans

    Pennsylvania Republicans this year had hoped to avoid another walloping by Shapiro, who has won three times statewide, with fears that a weak gubernatorial candidate could negatively affect the rest of the Republican ticket. So the state GOP took the unprecedented move of endorsing Garrity in September 2025 — approximately 14 months before the election — to try to raise her profile.

    Despite securing Trump’s endorsement, Garrity has struggled to raise money, attract support from national Republicans, or compete with Shapiro’s $13 million in ad buys so far this cycle. Her campaign has spent $679,000 on ad buys thus far, according to media-tracking firm AdImpact, as it seeks to introduce the candidate to voters.

    Now, with 70 days until the election, a quarter of likely Republican voters still did not know Garrity or know enough about her to form an opinion of her, according to the poll.

    Meanwhile, Shapiro maintains favorable opinions among 27% of Trump’s 2024 supporters, and 35% of registered Republicans approve of the job he is doing as governor, the poll found.

    Will Donald Trump and national Republicans help Stacy Garrity’s campaign from falling flat against Josh Shapiro?

    (function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();

    Michael Patterson, a Republican from Trumbauersville, Bucks County, who supported Trump in 2024, said he plans to support Shapiro in November because he likes the job the governor is doing and because he does not know much about Garrity besides what he has seen on social media.

    “Honestly, I don’t know much about her,” Patterson, 60, said. “I guess I don’t see advertisements on the TV. Other than Facebook, I really don’t see her. The stuff I see on Facebook is just typical partisan stuff.”

    Shapiro, on the other hand, appears more moderate and independent from his party in Patterson’s eyes.

    “He’s kinda doing his own thing. I have a lot of respect for that. He’s not playing partisan games,” Patterson said, contrasting Shapiro with Democrats in California and New York.

    Michael Patterson, a Bucks County Republican voter pictured in his Trumbauersville home, plans to vote for Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro over Republican nominee Stacy Garrity. William Thomas Cain / For The Inquirer

    This attitude shows up among other Republicans, too, said Don Levy, the director of the Siena Research Institute.

    “Shapiro is seen as sufficiently middle of the road,” Levy said. “He’s got 35% of Republicans approving of the job that he’s doing as governor. That’s a really impressive number in today’s world.”

    Other Republicans like Steven Keenan, 70, of Ridley Township, are all in for Garrity, citing her military experience and support for Trump.

    “[Shapiro’s] a big phony. He’s a politician,” Keenan said. “She is, too, but she’s been through the wars. I think she’s earned her place. I think we should give a woman a chance.”

    A majority of Pennsylvania voters trust Shapiro over Garrity to handle top issues facing the state, including the economy, cost-of-living increases, the Trump administration, immigration, and doing what is best for ordinary Pennsylvanians.

    Tina Hoffert, 68, of Lenhartsville, Berks County, said she has not heard much about Garrity, but plans to vote for her in November because she is unsatisfied with Shapiro’s leadership.

    “He’s forever bashing Trump,” Hoffert, a Republican, said. “I’m sorry, I don’t care whether you like him or not, he’s our president. You work with him. You don’t fight him. And if there’s things you don’t like that he’s doing, then you go in there and you have discussions.”

    Shapiro’s presidential prospects

    If Shapiro is reelected in a landslide victory this November, it becomes even more likely that he jumps into the 2028 presidential race as the governor of a key swing state with 19 electoral votes.

    Among those surveyed who said they plan to vote in the Democratic primary in two years, 86% said they would be likely to support him — though the poll did not compare him with other potential primary candidates.

    Other prospective candidates include former Vice President Kamala Harris, Govs. Gavin Newsom of California and JB Pritzker of Illinois, U.S. Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Jon Ossoff of Georgia, and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

    (function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();

    Shapiro has brushed off questions about his ambitions and told a reporter Saturday, in response to whether he would commit to serving a four-year term in office, that “the only thing that I’m focused on — and the only thing anybody should be focused on — is winning in November and being a check on this president’s chaos, cruelty, and corruption.”

    Most voters in the poll — 58% — said that if Shapiro decides to run for president, doing so either would not distract from his role as governor or would not keep him from being effective at governing.

    “I mean, it would be a distraction, of course, but I think he’s a professional and a hard worker, and he would figure it out. It seems like he hires good people, too,” said Peter Hewitt, 62, of Devon, a Democrat who supports Shapiro’s reelection bid.

    (function() { var l = function() { new pym.Parent( ‘nyt-trump2__graphic’, ‘https://media.inquirer.com/storage/inquirer/ai2html/nyt-trump2/index.html’); }; if(typeof(pym) === ‘undefined’) { var h = document.getElementsByTagName(‘head’)[0], s = document.createElement(‘script’); s.type = ‘text/javascript’; s.src = ‘https://pym.nprapps.org/pym.v1.min.js’; s.onload = l; h.appendChild(s); } else { l(); } })();

    Shapiro’s potential candidacy has largely centered on his electability, especially his ability to win the top office in the nation’s premier swing state. He has pitched himself as a Democratic governor more interested in working with Republicans to make meaningful improvements to the state than in picking partisan fights, and voters agree: 58% of respondents said he is neither too far to the left nor to the right.

    “He’s done a good job of just being more of a moderate, middle-of-the-road Democrat,” said Andrew Perez, a 58-year-old self-described independent voter in Pittsburgh. He said he appreciated Shapiro’s focus on improving roads and highways and not “just blindly disagreeing” with Trump.

    “I think we need a strong presidential candidate who will try to unite the country instead of just keeping it being divisive, so I think that I’d be pretty likely to vote for him [for president],” said Perez, a physician.

    Montiese McKenzie, 46, of West Philadelphia, said she is supporting Shapiro for a second term, but is not quite yet sold on a presidential run. She said she has not seen him rise to the level of “fighter” she thinks the Democratic Party needs, and believes as of now, she would be more likely to support someone else in the Democratic primary.

    “You see people like Jon Ossoff and JB Pritzker, and they’re not putting up with it. They don’t make it pretty anymore,” McKenzie said. “If I saw some of that in Shapiro, I might be more likely to support him as a presidential candidate. Until then, I’m not sure he has the gumption.”

    Shapiro has signed on to dozens of lawsuits against Trump’s administration on a host of issues, from tariffs to gender-affirming care.

    But to win the party’s nomination, Shapiro would have to defeat more progressive candidates and make the case for his more centrist approach.

    Montiese McKenzie, 48, poses for a portrait near her home in West Philadelphia on Monday, Aug. 24, 2026. McKenzie is a supporter of Gov. Josh Shapiro’s reelection, but is hesitant to back his potential presidential run in 2028.Allie Ippolito / For The Inquirer

    He has already faced criticism from some progressive voters over his previous support for school vouchers, and his early embrace of data centers, which he reversed last week by implementing what he called some of the nation’s “strictest guardrails.” Shapiro, Pennsylvania’s third Jewish governor, has also faced a perception from some progressives that he has been too supportive of Israel during its war with Hamas, despite his vocal opposition to the country’s leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    Nearly half, 47%, of respondents said he has been just “about right on support of Israel,” with 14% saying he has been too supportive and 19% saying he has been not supportive enough.

    Should Shapiro launch a presidential campaign, Hewitt wants to see him “come out on the right side.”

    Hewitt, who emphasized his support for Jewish people in his community, said he considers the Israeli government’s actions toward Palestinian people in Gaza to be genocidal. More than 73,000 Palestinian people have been killed in Gaza since the war began nearly three years ago, and multiple international institutions have said Israel’s actions violate human rights.

    “I don’t think it’s really that big of a deal for governors per se. He’s not going to vote on national policy as the governor of Pennsylvania,” Hewitt said. But he added: “He does have a voice, and if he’s thinking about a next step beyond Pennsylvania, then he will have to come out in regard to that issue.”

  • The midterms feel like 2006 all over again

    The midterms feel like 2006 all over again

    WASHINGTON — The war in the Middle East is increasingly unpopular. So is the president as his numbers dip perilously — a common development in the sixth year of a presidency. Congressional Republicans are embroiled in unsavory scandals. Americans are shelling out big bucks for gas while economic anxiety runs high.

    The grim backdrop for November’s midterm elections has created a steep challenge for Republicans and opportunities for Democrats that look much the same as those they encountered in 2006. Back then, congressional Republicans faced the voters at the midpoint of President George W. Bush’s second term, with the public roiled by the war in Iraq, high fuel prices and a series of ugly accusations against members of the GOP majority on Capitol Hill.

    “It is striking,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic minority leader and chief architect of his party’s Senate campaign strategy this year and two decades ago. “The analogy is amazing.”

    The parallels are not perfect, since politics and campaigns have both changed radically over 20 years. But the comparisons are instructive, as officials in both parties stare down the final months of an election that will determine who controls Congress for the remainder of President Donald Trump’s term.

    “This is 2006 2.0,” said Rahm Emanuel, who in 2006 was an ambitious Democratic House member from Illinois and Schumer’s counterpart across the Capitol as the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “The similarities are eerie.”

    Emanuel and Schumer both have good reason to look back fondly on 2006, when Democrats triumphed in a blue wave.

    Exceeding expectations that year, Democrats picked up six seats in the Senate, taking control of the chamber. In the House, where the Republican majority seemed to have exhausted itself after a dozen years, Democrats gained 31 seats and installed Nancy Pelosi, who is now retiring, as the first woman speaker. Bush, another victim of the six-year presidential itch, famously branded the outcome “a thumping.”

    This year, the Senate map is stacked against Democrats — they would need to win at least four Republican-held seats to take control, all but one of them in states that Trump won in 2024. And not all of the most competitive races have gone as party leaders had hoped. But Democrats have benefited from some political twists in places where they had not anticipated being competitive, such as in Texas, where Trump’s primary endorsement of the state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, over Sen. John Cornyn, put that seat in play.

    The nonpartisan Cook Political Report on Thursday moved its ratings of the Texas and Iowa Senate races from leaning Republican to a toss up, underscoring the expanding battleground that Democrats would need in order to replicate 2006. Democrats say that they believe they are also increasingly competitive in other states carried by Trump two years ago, including Kansas.

    While clear similarities exist this year, significant differences are present as well — not the least of which is that Americans consume and process political content far differently than they did 20 years ago, with an emphasis on digital media rather than traditional television advertising.

    Other structural changes have taken place that could influence the results. The two parties this year engaged in a redistricting war that could help stem some of the House losses Republicans might have suffered in a midterm year that traditionally runs against those in power. Polarization runs deeper, making it harder to shake voters from their party identification. Trump’s hold on his base seems stronger than Bush’s was in 2006, though it is potentially weakening amid a backlash to the war with Iran.

    In the Senate and the House, the Democratic establishment did not get its preferred candidates through the primaries in some key races, including in Maine and Michigan. And the rise of far-left socialist candidates has Republicans seeing an opening to try to brand Democratic contenders across the country as part of a movement out of step with typical Americans.

    For those reasons and more, Republicans say the comparison between the two elections comes up short.

    “Democrats are running with a radically different party on a dramatically different map, and the fundamentals are stacked against them,” Mike Marinella, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in a statement. “Republicans have stronger candidates, a historic fundraising advantage and a more favorable battlefield, while Democrats are letting socialists hijack must-win races from Michigan to Colorado, Arizona, California and Maine.”

    In 2006, the war with Iraq was the central issue in the campaign as Americans soured on Bush’s handling of the conflict, particularly after his main justification for the invasion — the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction — turned out to be false. Trump’s conflict with Iran has not gone on nearly as long, nor has it produced the same level of casualties. But Bush had significantly more support at the start. Public opposition helped drive approval numbers for the two presidents below 40%, a dangerous midterm level, as both wars also drove up fuel costs.

    Then as now, Democrats tried to capitalize on kitchen-table economic concerns with the potential to drive voters. In 2006, it was Bush’s proposal to privatize Social Security, which never came to pass. Now, it is the Republican-written law slashing Medicaid and other safety net programs to pay for large tax cuts, as well as the GOP’s decision to allow healthcare subsidies to expire, sending premiums soaring.

    “We found an issue early,” Schumer said, recalling 2006. “Rahm and I did Social Security. Now we found the costs issue, particularly led by healthcare.”

    Another undercurrent of the 2006 campaign has an equivalent today: the image of disturbing Republican misconduct. Twenty years ago, Democrats campaigned against a “culture of corruption,” pointing to a series of financial and sex scandals that led to resignations and jail time for a series of senior Republicans.

    Then, in September 2006, it was disclosed that Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., had sent sexually suggestive messages to male House pages, and that Republican leaders had failed to take action even when they had been alerted to his actions, putting a cloud over the party two months before the election.

    This year, Republicans have again had to contend with high-profile sexual misconduct accusations against multiple House members, though Democrats have had their own to deal with as well, a difference from 20 years ago.

    Top Democrats have sought to emphasize Republican conduct on Capitol Hill and in an administration in which the president, his family and his allies have faced scrutiny for profiteering. In an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” this month, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the Democratic leader, said a central element of the Democratic campaign agenda was “pushing back against the corruption that has been unleashed on the American people, and holding the crooks accountable beginning on day one in January of next year.”

    It is not clear whether it will all add up to a repeat of 2006. But Nathan Gonzales, editor of the nonpartisan Inside Elections, sees the potential for the factors working against Republicans building into a resounding voter backlash against the party in power, as they did two decades ago.

    “I remember 2006 when everything snowballed against Republicans,” Gonzales said. “Ordinarily unrelated events got lumped together under one umbrella. Everything was Bush’s fault. The war with Iraq and Mark Foley really had nothing to do with each other, but it cultivated an appetite for change. I could see that happening again.”

    This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

  • What’s so surprising about a Christian Democrat?

    What’s so surprising about a Christian Democrat?

    In early July, before the 250th anniversary of the nation’s founding, Texas Democrat James Talarico preached on the proper place of religion in politics. In his sermon, he argued for the importance of the separation of church and state while emphasizing that religion could still inform a person’s approach to and involvement in politics. He stressed how Christianity should shape the tone of one’s politics. Drawing on Jesus’ Parable of the Good Samaritan, Talarico claimed that loving one’s neighbor includes respecting people of different faiths.

    This message raised the ire of Talarico’s opponent, Ken Paxton, and many evangelicals have questioned the legitimacy of his faith. But he’s also earned the applause of a few Christian conservatives such as David French, who approvingly contrasted Talarico with MAGA Christian politicians.

    Talarico is not alone. There are currently a dozen ordained Christian ministers running for various public offices as Democrats, including Lutheran Pastor Sarah Trone Garriott (Iowa’s Third Congressional District), and United Methodist Pastor Adam Hamilton (Kansas-U.S. Senate).

    Many of these politicians, including Talarico, Trone Garriott, and Hamilton, have emphasized their religious faith not only as a part of their overall message, but they have situated their Christianity at the core of their identity. While there’s nothing “new” about Democratic politicians whose religious identity is central to their politics — this was common a century ago with progressives such as William Jennings Bryan and Barbara Jordan during the Civil Rights era (and still is quite common among African American politicians) — today’s candidates do represent a departure from the trend of the past four decades of Democratic Party politics.

    It hasn’t always been this way. Prior to the 1980s, candidates conversant in religion were common and unremarkable. At the time, evangelical and “mainline” Protestants were not aligned with political parties in the way they are today. As social scientist Ryan Burge has pointed out, in the 1970s most white evangelicals were Democrats and evangelicals helped elect “born again” Jimmy Carter in 1976 — the so-called “Year of the Evangelical.”

    President Ronald Reagan prays with National Association of Evangelicals President Arthur Gay, left, following his address to the organization’s convention asking for help in winning approval of a constitutional amendment permitting prayer in school in Columbus, Ohio, March 7, 1984.Barry Thumma

    But evangelicals’ rejection of Carter for reelection in 1980 signified an important shift for both parties. Explanations for white evangelicals’ turn away from Christian politicians like Carter and toward Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party — newly perceived as a reliably religious unit — usually point to several events in the 1970s.

    By 1972, the number of delegates at the Democratic National Convention identifying as agnostics, atheists, or people who almost never attended church had grown to 24% (compared to 5% of Americans who listed “no religion” on the General Social Survey.) These delegates helped to add progressive positions on women and gay rights into the party platform at a time when they were to the left of mainstream America’s sensibilities.

    Then in 1978, the IRS targeted mostly white private elementary and secondary schools, sometimes known as “segregation academies,” many of them religious, that had formed in response to desegregation, threatening their tax-exempt status unless they could demonstrate non-discrimination toward Black students. Additionally, by this time, the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade began to galvanize evangelical activists in a space that had been historically dominated by Catholic priests and laypeople.

    Both of these issues came together in the 1980 election, the latter thanks in part to the attention Francis Schaeffer drew to the issue in his writings and speeches across America and the organizing of Jerry Falwell Sr.’s Moral Majority. Because of the growing number of Democrats who self-identified as atheist, agnostic, or non-church attending, white Democrats tended to cede the religious political ground to the new Religious Right, even though plenty of Democrats were religious. Over the next decade, this helped create a binary between a “religious traditionalist” Republican Party and a “secularist progressive” Democratic Party.

    The Rev. Jerry Falwell speaks at his Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Va., in a 1999 photo.

    Demographic trends over the next 40 years reinforced this shift. In 1975, 30% of Americans were part of the Protestant “mainline” (e.g. United Methodist, Evangelical Lutheran, Presbyterian USA, Episcopal Church, American Baptist, Disciples of Christ, and United Church of Christ). Today the mainline only accounts for between 9% and 13% of Americans. Theories for this decline abound, including loss of identity, aging congregations, poor retention of children as they grow into adulthood, controversies over sexuality, ordination of women and LGBTQ clergy, and same-sex marriage, which led to conservatives joining more evangelical churches.

    Over this same period, the number of Americans identifying as “unaffiliated” (the so-called “nones”) rose from 5% to nearly 30%.

    Factors driving this growth include people being more willing in a secularizing environment to admit they aren’t religious, young people who choose not to identify with any religion, and the general population becoming less religious over time. Democrats have enjoyed a decided advantage among the voting “nones” going all the way back to the 1984 election.

    For Black Americans, there has also been a more modest decline in affiliation with historically Black churches (e.g. National Baptist, Church of God in Christ, and AME Zion). Yet these churches have maintained a continued source of relevance for Black Protestants, playing a vital role in Black life as a source of social support, political organizing, community engagement, aid to the needy, and defense against racism and ethnic solidarity. Today, 53% of African Americans are still associated with historically Black Protestant churches, which probably accounts for the persistence over the past 40 years of progressive Black politicians with ministerial credentials.

    Meanwhile, evangelicals shifted from a slight majority favoring the Democratic Party before the 1980s toward a reliable core of the Republican Party, at a moment when their numbers were increasing. By the end of the 20th century, evangelicals grew to represent nearly 30% of all Americans, in part by having larger families, retaining their children in the church at higher rates, and maintaining cultural and theological distinctiveness.

    Collectively though, these trends meant the Democratic Party became less beholden to a religious demographic within its own constituency, and consequently, religiously-oriented politicians seemed less relevant to the Democratic Party.

    Made By History sponsors. FOR USE ON MADE BY HISTORY STORIES ONLY.Inquirer Staff

    The exception was the African American wing of the party, where Christianity remained central to most voters’ identities. Here, a political figure like U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock (senior pastor of Ebenezer Baptist in Atlanta, a historically Black mainline church that Dr. Martin Luther King Sr. and Jr. pastored) is not exceptional. The Black church’s historic emphasis on social issues and inequality allowed for adherents’ continued support of Democratic candidates who were white and less religious, even as it did lead to some tension over progressive social goals, such as same-sex marriage.

    In fact, it was the emergence of a Black politician in 2004, then-Senate candidate Barack Obama, who helped call attention to the dearth of religiously-conversant Democratic politicians, arguing that his party needed to reengage religiously-affiliated voters. From 2004 to 2008, the Democratic Party emphasized outreach to religious voters in a concerted way. But after the 2008 election, and Obama’s win, this focus for the Democrats declined so much so that, by 2016, Michael Wear and others involved in rallying Democratic religious voters for Obama had become frustrated at the lack of dedicated outreach.

    So, does the emergence of Democratic politicians such as Talarico, Trone Garriott, and Hamilton signal a new shift on the order of what happened in the 1970s?

    It may be too early to tell.

    It may be, as Wheaton College Professor Esau McCaulley has argued, that the emergence of these politicians is linked to the backlash growing among Protestants tired of MAGA evangelicals defining what Christianity means in America today. Or, perhaps, these candidates are simply the culmination of a growing recognition within the Democratic Party of its need to reengage Christian voters.

    Regardless, it’s not an accident that the new crop of ordained Democratic candidates are located in regions of relative mainline Protestantism vibrancy in the Midwest and South.

    With the exception of Presbyterian Pastor Matt Schultz of Alaska, all 12 of the ordained candidates are running in Midwest or Southern states. Perhaps, politicians such as Talarico will succeed in reshaping how Christianity functions in the political space and reclaim a lost politics of religion within the Democratic Party. Time will tell if they are part of a new vanguard, or only a brief aberration.

    Joseph P. Slaughter is an associate professor of history and religion at Wesleyan University. His first book, “Faith in Markets: Christian Capitalism in the Early American Republic,” demonstrates how religious identities in the United States’ early decades influenced economic decision-making and the formation of the American capitalist system.

    Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of The Inquirer.

  • ICE inked a $9 million contract with a Montco firearms manufacturer — and is spending $17 million at Philly area businesses

    ICE inked a $9 million contract with a Montco firearms manufacturer — and is spending $17 million at Philly area businesses

    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has awarded more than $17 million in contracts, mostly to businesses, in the Philadelphia area since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term, with more than half of that money going to a firearms manufacturer in Montgomery County.

    The local data, compiled by The Appeal, highlights the Trump administration’s spending related to raids and enforcement operations as the agency carries out the president’s mass deportation agenda, including its purchases of weaponry.

    Geissele Automatics, a firearms manufacturer based in North Wales, has the largest and perhaps most consequential contract with ICE in the Philadelphia area.

    The company — which specializes in selling high-grade, AR-15-style semiautomatic weapons and parts to consumers, law enforcement agencies, and the military — entered a contract with ICE for nearly $9.1 million in September 2025, according to federal data.

    The payment was for the delivery of “precision long guns and accessories” to support ICE agents as well as the agency’s tactical programs, the data show. It’s unclear where the equipment is being used.

    Neither the company’s founder, Bill Geissele, nor a representative from the company’s sales team returned a request for comment.

    Nationwide, ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection has dramatically increased spending on firearms in Trump’s second term, according to a report earlier this year from U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), leading to outcry from Democratic officials and voters who say the agency has become a militarized force with little oversight or accountability.

    That outrage continued this month when Democrats voiced their opposition to ICE’s plan to provide ICE officers with electric shock gloves. Schiff’s oversight report, released earlier this year, called ICE and CBP’s contracts for weaponry a “misuse of taxpayer dollars to maximally arm federal immigration agents.”

    A spokesperson for Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that $17 million in contracts in the Philadelphia region is “simply not accurate” and “conflates nationwide ICE contracts” with spending in the area.

    “ICE contracts with vendors across the country to support its law enforcement mission. The existence of a federal contract, a vendor located in a particular region, or a nationwide contract vehicle does not mean that the full value of that contract was spent in Philadelphia,” the spokesperson said

    “Reporting should accurately distinguish between nationwide contract values, vendor locations, places of performance, and actual federal expenditures before presenting a misleading figure as fact,” they added.

    The details on the contracts come as residents and advocates in the Philadelphia region and nationwide are continuing to remain vigilant of ICE’s presence in their communities. Earlier this year, ICE struck deals to retrofit warehouses in Pennsylvania and New Jersey into mass detention centers before later backtracking after residents and leaders in both states voiced opposition.

    Bill Geissele — who hosts the manufacturer’s podcast Shots Fired in Anger —has donated to Republican elected officials in Pennsylvania, including U.S. Sen. Dave McCormick and U.S. Rep. Dan Meuser. Geissele’s contract, while not the company’s first with the federal government, is by far the most significant contract between the gun manufacturer and the federal agency on record.

    (function() {
    var l2 = function() {
    new pym.Parent(‘ice_contracts2’,
    ‘https://media.inquirer.com/storage/inquirer/projects/innovation/arcgis_iframe/ice_contracts2.html’);
    };
    if (typeof(pym) === ‘undefined’) {
    var h = document.getElementsByTagName(‘head’)[0],
    s = document.createElement(‘script’);
    s.type = ‘text/javascript’;
    s.src = ‘https://pym.nprapps.org/pym.v1.min.js’;
    s.onload = l2;
    h.appendChild(s);
    } else {
    l2();
    }
    })();

    In August 2024 for example, under former President Joe Biden’s administration, Geissele Automatics entered a $12,224 contract with ICE for equipment to support a “sniper sustainment” course, according to data compiled by The Appeal.

    By 2025, when Trump returned to the White House and significantly ramped up ICE operations nationwide, those contracts ballooned.

    On top of the $9.1 million contract that year, Geissele was paid $27,936 to provide training rifles and magazines for the agency’s Office of Firearms and Tactical Programs, as well as $16,544 for rifles and accessories required for testing and evaluation.

    ICE also took its spending across the river to Burlington County in New Jersey, where it awarded George J. Petronis Enterprises Inc., a gun shop, slightly more than $505,000 since the start of Trump’s second term for training ammunition and ink cartridges for 9mm training ammo to support ICE’s Office of Firearms and Tactical Programs in Fort Benning, Ga.

    George J. Petronis Enterprises Inc. did not return an email requesting comment.

    The Appeal’s dashboard also shows a contract for rental of a firing range between ICE and the county’s fire academy, located in Conshohocken, that has existed since at least 2021. But Montgomery County officials said Friday that the contract is with the broader Department of Homeland Security — which ICE is a part of — and not with the federal immigration enforcement agency directly.

    County Commissioner Jamila Winder, a Democrat, said that the academy is used by local, state, and federal agencies for law enforcement training but “this facility is not available for training for those engaged in immigration enforcement activities.”

    Other contracts highlighted by The Appeal dashboard may also be directly tied to DHS, instead of ICE.

    Earlier this year, Montgomery County’s Board of Commissioners passed a resolution restricting federal immigration enforcement from using county property or resources for noncriminal investigations.

    Other local contracts with ICE include a roughly $50,000 contract with the Philadelphia Parking Authority for rental spaces for 16 vehicles and more than $78,000 to Ricoh USA Inc., an office technology company headquartered in Chester County that was also used under the Biden administration. Coast2Coast Shredding LLC, which is headquartered in Montgomery County but shreds documents in California, received more than $94,000 from ICE.

  • Kennedy Center tells court it won’t try to restore Trump’s name to the building before Sept. 8

    Kennedy Center tells court it won’t try to restore Trump’s name to the building before Sept. 8

    WASHINGTON — The Kennedy Center has told a federal court that it would not attempt to return President Donald Trump’s name to the building’s facade before at least Sept. 8 as another legal battle over the performing arts venue’s future takes shape.

    In a status report filed late Tuesday, opponents of the move said members of the Kennedy Center’s Trump-aligned board “seem intent” on defying an earlier court order requiring the Republican president’s name to be removed from the building. The Kennedy Center said it would not move forward with the plans until after Labor Day “at the earliest” to allow time for legal arguments.

    Lawyers for Rep. Joyce Beatty, an Ohio Democrat who is an ex officio member of the board, pressed U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper for an earlier ruling, arguing there is “every reason to believe that Defendants will attempt to effectuate some or part of this latest unlawful resolution at the earliest opportunity after September 8.”

    A board meeting this month that was expected to largely focus on options to close the Kennedy Center for renovations instead transformed into another push to attach Trump’s name to the building, part of a broader move by the president and his supporters to leave a physical mark on the nation’s capital.

    The board passed a resolution to name the plaza in front of the building after Trump and add his name to the venue’s facade so it would read “The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Restored and Renovated By President Donald J. Trump.” In the filing, Beatty said the board also agreed to add an additional reference to the president if the Trump Kennedy Center Fund reached $100 million.

    In that event, the facade would read “The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Restored and Renovated By President Donald J. Trump Endowed by the Trump Kennedy Center Fund.”

    The board also voted to back a two-year closure for renovations, while some of the institution’s signature programming, including the Kennedy Center Honors and the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor, would take place at off-site locations. The National Symphony Orchestra announced this week it would split its upcoming season between six venues in and around Washington.

    Cooper ruled in May that letters affixed to the building spelling out Trump’s name were added illegally and he ordered their removal, a decision that the administration failed to persuade courts to overturn. Since then, a tarp has covered the area where the letters were once installed, frustrating those who sought to remove the president’s name from the building.

    Kennedy Center makes no commitment to removing tarp

    In the latest filing, the Kennedy Center made no commitment to remove the tarp, saying the covering was in place to facilitate the removal of Trump’s name and is part of a broader system needed for “water testing and structural repairs to the roof overhang.”

    More broadly, Beatty’s lawyers, Norm Eisen and Nathaniel Zelinsky, questioned the integrity of the board’s vote this month, echoing concerns Cooper raised when he called a March vote to shutter the building “ill-informed and seemingly preordained.”

    Heading into the August meeting, the Kennedy Center’s management said it would provide the board with three options, including a complete closure or a partial closure that would allow “some continued public access and limited programming in spaces unaffected” by the work. A third option would “consider a highly limited series of phased closures to address only the Center’s most serious infrastructure needs while scheduling and maintaining a full slate of programming.”

    In Tuesday’s filing, the Kennedy Center said a Delta Consulting Group analyst concluded that a partial closure that would play out over four years “would increase the length and cost of construction and lead to substantial safety concerns.”

    The analyst “recommended that the Board proceed with a full closure for two years, which would minimize total cost, minimize the amount of time that programming would be subject to disruptions from construction, and best preserve the Center’s reputation as world-class performing-arts venue,” the Kennedy Center said.

    Eisen and Zelinsky, however, noted that materials were provided to the board just two days before the meeting. They said some documents appeared to have been created before Cooper’s May ruling and referred to the Kennedy Center’s closure that was initially set to take effect on July 6.

    The August vote to close the Kennedy Center, Beatty’s lawyers argued, “exhibits the same flaws as the first vote.”