Democrat Politics

Despite the damage being wrought by President Donald Trump in his new administration, it’s Democrats who are losing favor with their voters, according to a series of recent polls.

New internal polling conducted by Navigator Research, a Democratic group, presents a bleak outlook for the party ahead of next year’s midterm elections, where they already face tough odds to regain the Senate. Initially shared with Politico, this poll is among the first comprehensive surveys of swing-state voters since this past November election.

Essentially, pollsters discovered that most voters in competitive House districts believe that congressional Democrats “are more focused on helping other people than people like me.” Just 1 in 4 independents (27%) believe that Democrats are focused on helping them, while a majority (55%) feels the party aims to assist others. 

x
Datawrapper Content

“The Democratic brand is still not where it needs to be in terms of core trust and understanding people’s challenges,” said Molly Murphy, one of the pollsters, in a conversation with Politico. “Even though voters are critical about Trump and some of the things he’s doing, that criticism of Trump doesn’t translate into trust in Democrats. The trust has to be earned.”

These findings from Navigator Research arrive during a challenging period for the party. Members feel low after being ridiculed for their largely weak response to Trump’s recent joint address to Congress. 

The poll results, which were presented in full at the caucus’ Issues Conference on Wednesday, indicate that the party needs to work hard to repair its image. The question now is whether Democrats can devise a strategy that energizes their base while attracting new voters. If they fail at that, they risk suffering losses again in a year that should otherwise be favorable for them. 

A major struggle for Democrats is to gain voters’ trust around how the party values jobs and work, or the lack thereof. 

According to the Navigator poll, only 44% of respondents believe Democrats respect work, and an even smaller proportion (39%) think Democrats value it. Possibly worse, over half of those polled (56%) do not believe Democrats prioritize working people, while fewer than half (42%) feel Democrats share their values. Merely 39% of the party’s voters believe that Democrats have the best priorities. 

x
Datawrapper Content

While Politico notes that congressional Republicans also face problems with voters on their handling of the economy, 51% say the term “elitist” describes the Democratic Party well—a terrible number for a party that aims to help the working class.

This isn’t the first poll to suggest a declining perception of the Democratic Party. A February Civiqs poll for Daily Kos similarly found that 21% of Democratic voters viewed their party unfavorably, a statistic that rose to 30% among Democrats ages 18 to 34. Among Black voters, 35% expressed an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party, while 63% of Hispanic voters felt the same way. 

More recently, on Tuesday, Emerson College released a survey indicating that voters have a more favorable view of the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. While 39% of registered voters reported a favorable view of the GOP, the Democratic Party scored just 29% favorability. Fifty-six percent of voters had an unfavorable impression of the Democratic Party, compared with 49% who felt the same about the Republican Party.

“A concern for Democrats is their standing among Hispanic voters—who view the Republican Party slightly more favorably (29%-58%) than the Democratic Party (26%-58%),” remarked Spencer Kimball, executive director of polling at Emerson College. “This signals a potential shift in a key voting bloc that Democrats have traditionally relied on.” 

Trucks enter into the United States from Ontario, Canada, across Detroit’s Ambassador Bridge on Feb. 3, 2025.

There has been significant criticism that the Democratic Party has struggled to find its footing since Trump’s election, even though the president has provided them with ample material to work with. Just this week, he sent the stock market into turmoil over his petty and pointless trade wars with Canada, China, and Mexico, all while members of his administration have dismantled parts of the federal government. 

There have certainly been some dissenters within the Democratic Party. However, progressive members who have attempted to confront Trump and the Republicans have faced backlash from their colleagues. 

Indeed, a February survey by the liberal polling firm Blueprint revealed that a plurality of voters (40%) believe the Democratic Party “doesn’t have any strategy at all for responding to Trump.” Twenty-four percent said Democrats have a plan but it’s failing. Only 10% thought Democrats have a plan and it’s successful so far.

These findings indicate that Democrats must find a way to connect with working-class individuals if they hope to reclaim Congress next year. This necessity is even more pressing now than it was last year, given the harm Trump is inflicting on the economy and federal agencies.

Campaign Action

A cartoon by Clay Bennett.

Related | 10 Senate Democrats cave to let Trump keep burning down the government

Campaign Action

by Noam N. Levey, KFF Health News

As President Donald Trump wrapped up his first term in 2020, he signed legislation to protect Americans from surprise medical bills. “This must end,” Trump said. “We’re going to hold insurance companies and hospitals totally accountable.”

But the president’s wide-ranging push to slash government spending, led by billionaire Elon Musk, is weakening the federal office charged with implementing the No Surprises Act.

Some 15% of those working at the federal Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, or CCIIO, were fired two weeks ago, according to the agency’s former deputy director in charge of operations, Jeff Grant.

And while the full impact of the cutbacks is still coming into focus, the retrenchment is threatening work at an agency already laboring to run an overstretched system for resolving sometimes very large bills from out-of-network medical providers.

“It’s a hot mess,” Grant said of the job cuts in an interview with KFF Health News. “The chaos has put everyone in a tailspin.”

The cuts, which affected 82 of the federal office’s employees, also risk delaying critical new rules designed to speed the process of adjudicating disputes over surprise bills between health plans and medical providers.

Grant, who was the top career official at CCIIO, retired last week after 41 years in government. He blasted the layoffs as a “grievous error” in a strongly worded letter to the acting human resources director, criticizing him for cutting jobs without regard for the qualifications of employees or the needs of the agency.

Health insurers have also raised concerns about maintaining the agency’s work on surprise bills.

A spokesperson for the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which oversees the CCIIO, said the federal agency is doing that. “CMS is committed to enforcing the No Surprises Act, and the agency continues to move forward with that important work,” Catherine Howden said.

The CCIIO, a small part of the federal health agency, was created by the 2010 Affordable Care Act and charged with ensuring that health insurance plans meet standards established by the law to protect patients.

After Congress passed the No Surprises Act in 2020, the office assumed additional responsibility for setting up and administering the complex process for protecting patients from surprise bills.

The work drew support from Democrats and Republicans, who’d been inundated with stories of patients hit by huge bills from emergency physicians, anesthesiologists, and other providers who were not in patients’ insurance networks, even when patients received care at in-network hospitals.

“We will end surprise medical billing,” Trump promised on the campaign trail in 2020. “The days of ripping off patients are over.”

The law barred medical providers in most cases from pursuing patients over surprise bills. This prohibition is not directly affected by the recent job cuts ordered by Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, created by Trump through an executive order. 

A demonstrator holds a sign during a rally to protest President Donald Trump and Elon Musk policies Feb. 17, 2025, in Los Angeles.

But the CCIIO had been working to streamline a system established by the No Surprises Act to resolve disagreements between health plans and medical providers over out-of-network bills. This key protection was put in place so patients would not be caught in the middle of billing disputes.

The system, known as independent dispute resolution, or IDR, has been inundated with hundreds of thousands of cases. In 2023, more than 650,000 new disputes were filed, according to a recent analysis published in the journal Health Affairs.

“The No Surprises Act has protected millions of Americans from receiving surprise medical bills,” said Jennifer Jones, who directs legislative policy at the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, an insurance trade group. “But issues with the independent dispute resolution process,” she added, “are driving up costs for patients and employers.”

Also overwhelmed has been a consumer reporting system designed to allow patients to lodge complaints if they feel they have been unfairly targeted with a surprise bill.

Under former President Joe Biden, the CCIIO had been working on new rules to make dispute resolution more efficient, which experts said would make a difference.

“If this rule becomes final and works as well as intended, it should help more out-of-network claims get resolved,” said Jack Hoadley, an emeritus research professor at Georgetown University, who has studied surprise medical billing.

But the new rules weren’t finished before Biden left office. And the senior official overseeing this work left his job in January. The recent cuts hit the remaining CCIIO staffers working on the No Surprises Act, according to Grant and other sources familiar with the layoffs, who asked not to be identified out of fear of professional retaliation.

Grant said senior CCIIO officials were since able to shift some employees around and got permission to recall some of the 82 people let go. But he said there is no guarantee that all of them will want to come back to the diminished agency.

Even more concerning, Grant said, are deeper cuts that the White House has told federal agencies to prepare for by March 13.

“These cuts were pretty bad,” Grant said. “What happens next will be even more important.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

Campaign Action

This is an occasional roundup of people who voted for Donald Trump and are shocked to find out no one is immune from the damage and pain he causes. Many are now grappling with the consequences of their choice as it affects them and their loved ones—and possibly regretting their vote.

Axios gathered 13 Michigan voters who voted for Donald Trump in 2024 after voting for Joe Biden in 2020, and gauged their opinions of the new administration. The results were both encouraging and infuriating—often at the same time. 

“Ten of 13 participants from this battleground, auto-industry state bordering Canada said what they’re seeing isn’t what they thought they were voting for—and they’re worried Trump’s approach may hurt their pocketbooks,” wrote Axios. 

From the start, this conclusion is obnoxious. People voted for Trump—even as he openly and repeatedly promised to hurt other people—because they either wanted other people to get hurt, or didn’t care. Either way, that makes them shitty people. 

“Another voter, who owns a health and weight loss business, said most of her clients are in the auto industry—if they’re hit it could devastate her,” wrote Axios. “One said she works in the auto industry and just got furloughed because ‘we are not building any cars right now.’”

They loved Trump when he promised to hurt other people, but they don’t like it when they themselves are facing the consequences of their vote. It’s hard to feel sorry for this crowd. But there is also a great deal of dumb, dumb, dumb. 

“I don’t feel like he was this aggressive last time because I don’t think anyone would’ve voted for him if they expected to see what we’re seeing now,” said Shannon B., a 27-year-old from Livonia, Michigan.

President Donald Trump

I’ll give Shannon a little bit of a pass since she was 19 at the start of Trump’s first presidency, with that underdeveloped frontal lobe. But … those of us paying attention can’t fathom why anyone would vote for him given what we saw the first time. 

“He’s so erratic, and it’s getting to the point where I’m almost scared to watch the news,” said Sheryl M., a 44-year-old from Chesterfield. “I mean, it’s a little bit frightening ’cause each day is something new, so you get a little anxious.”

This might be excusable if Trump hadn’t been erratic for his entire first term and then for the entire 2024 campaign cycle. In other words, inexcusable. 

“I mean, Canada? When have we ever had issues with Canada?” asked Dearborn Height’s Phil L., age 45. “We barely have a border. You can go in and out of the country and a lot of places, a lot of states. I think we’re just barking up the wrong tree with this.”

Given that Trump spent his first term making enemies out of our allies, and coddling up to dictators in Russia, North Korea, China, and elsewhere, why would anyone act surprised is beyond me. 

Therese L., a 55-year-old from Commerce Township, was disgusted by that creepy AI image of Trump wearing a crown, saying “long live the king,” and claiming that “He who saves his country doesn’t violate any law.” “He is acting like a dictator,” said Therese L.

And who warned her that Trump’s behaviors during his first term and campaign rhetoric were dictatorial? Wasn’t even us liberals! It was the very people who served in his first administration! 

“[Trump] campaigned on lowering prices and making things more affordable for working-class people. He’s moving in the opposite direction,” said Michael L., a 43-year-old also out of Commerce Township. Axios further noted that Michael L. “conceded that Trump had previewed tariffs during the campaign, but said ‘we didn’t necessarily think it would be this much, this fast.’”

Aaaargh! I’ve noted before how powerful this feeling is—that Trump ran on lowering prices, and everything he’s done since has raised prices. It’ll be his eventual undoing, practically inevitable in my opinion. That’s why his pathetic Tesla stunt was particularly damaging to him. 

Still, a huge group of people who voted for him didn’t understand what tariffs were about. Michael L. apparently did—and still voted for him. It really is amazing how Trump gets people to believe his lies and not believe his truths. Trump is doing exactly what he promised, so why are people surprised if they were paying any attention? 

“[I fear] that this will eventually turn into a dictatorship,” said Malea H., a 34-year-old from Clinton Township. “[I]f the people that we elected to be his checks and balances don’t check and balance him, then what are they there for?” 

A voter inserts her absentee voter ballot into a drop box in Troy, Michigan, on Oct. 15, 2020.

Maybe don’t vote for wannabe dictators who have already stressed our institution? Yes, Democrats need to put up a fiercer fight. But that doesn’t absolve her of her vote. I don’t dump chemicals into a city’s water supply, then complain that authorities aren’t cleaning it up fast enough. 

So 10 of 13 aren’t happy with Trump, but … “Only one of the 10 Trump voters-turned-critics said they’d choose Kamala Harris for president if they could do it over,” according to Axios.

That sounds damning, and it is. People don’t like to admit they made wrong choices, so they’ll rationalize their decision until the end of their days. Kamala would’ve been worse is a popular rationale. 

Here’s the thing: We will never change the minds of the MAGA cult. The vast majority of Trump voters will stick by their decision to vote for him, and they’ll keep voting for Republicans up and down the ticket. Changing their minds is not our job, however. 

One of 13 Trump voters would’ve switched their vote to Harris, and that’s 7.7% of the whole that might vote differently next time. The story doesn’t say whether the rest would’ve still voted Trump or sat out the election or voted or voted third party or what. Given the fears of “dictatorship” from several of the panelists, presumably many would stay home. In any case, shift the vote in some battleground states by just a few percentage points and Harris would’ve won. 

The core cult won’t shift. But if we can get 7.7% of Trump voters to regret their vote and shift to the Democrats, that would reshape the electoral landscape. That kind of shift would dramatically expand the presidential and Senate maps, and make it impossible for Republicans to win the House. 

That’s our job, reaching those people.

Campaign Action

Caribbean Matters is a weekly series from Daily Kos. Hope you’ll join us here every Saturday. If you are unfamiliar with the region, check out Caribbean Matters: Getting to know the countries of the Caribbean.

Now that the Trump administration has officially announced that Temporary Protected Status will end in August for Haitians and in April for Venezuelans, tensions and fear have skyrocketed in impacted immigrant communities. 

From the US Citizenship and Immigration website:

On Feb. 20, 2025, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem partially vacated the July 1, 2024, notice that extended and redesignated Haiti for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The announcement amends the period of extension and redesignation of Haiti for TPS from 18 months to 12 months, with a new end date of Aug. 3, 2025, and makes a corresponding change to the initial registration period for new applicants under the redesignation, which will now remain in effect through Aug. 3, 2025

Protests are being staged around the country, including in New York City.

x
YouTube Video

The Department of Homeland Security confirmed this week that the Temporary Protected Status for Haitians in America will expire six months early on August 3. Spectrum News anchor Errol Louis is joined by Vania Andre, the editor-in-chief of “The Haitian Times,” to talk about what is next for Haitians at risk of deportation.

There was an immediate outcry from Boston’s sizable Haitian community. City Councilor Jean Bradley Derenoncourt raised the issue of racism in this GBH News interview:

x
YouTube Video

The GBH News video notes:

Temporary Protected Status – or TPS – allows about a half-million Haitian-born people to live and work in the United States legally.  The Trump administration announced plans to end TPS for Haitians in August.  Dr. Geralde Gabeau of the Immigrant Family Services Institute in Boston, MA and Jean Bradley Derenoncourt, a city councilor from Brockton, MA  joined GBH News’ Paris Alston to discuss the impact of ending TPS and Border Czar Tom Homan’s claim that he’s “bringing hell” to Boston.

CBS Miami filed this report on the community’s response last month:

x
YouTube Video

Immigrant advocacy groups have filed lawsuits against the decision to shorten the immigrants’ legal status, as NBC News reported in “Haitians sue to stop Trump administration from revoking temporary protection”:

Three organizations filed a lawsuit Monday seeking to block the Trump administration’s attempt to put an early end to Temporary Protected Status for people from Haiti and Venezuela living in the U.S.

Last month, President Donald Trump’s administration rescinded the TPS extension until February 2026 that was granted under President Joe Biden, requiring Haitians to return to their country by Aug. 3 and Venezuelans by April 2.

[…]

Lawyers for Civil Rights, which is representing the groups and four people who are in the country under TPS, said the suit was the first filed on behalf of Haitians in the U.S. under TPS. Two lawsuits were quickly filed to challenge the administration’s decision on behalf of Venezuelans last month.

“TPS is a critical lifeline for immigrants who have fled extreme violence, political upheaval, and natural disasters in their home countries,” LCR senior attorney Mirian Albert said in a statement.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment about the lawsuit.

Marissa A. Prianti at The National Law Review wrote “New Lawsuit Challenges Trump Administration’s Termination of TPS for Haiti and Venezuela”:

Haitian-Americans United, Inc., Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts, UndocuBlack Network, Inc., and four individual Haitian and Venezuelan migrants residing in Boston filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on March 3, 2025, challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) decision to terminate Haitian and Venezuelan Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Haitian-Americans United Inc., et al. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-10498.

[…]

The suit alleges that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem lacked legal authority to vacate former DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ July 1, 2024, decision to grant an 18-month extension of TPS for Haiti, and his Jan. 17, 2025, decision to grant an 18-month extension of TPS for Venezuela.

The complaint cites “dehumanizing and disparaging statements” that President Donald Trump has made against Haitian and Venezuelan migrants, including the claim that Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, were eating dogs and cats.

The suit further contends that the Trump Administration is discriminating against both groups of migrants based on race, ethnicity, or national origin in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Canadian author and activist Yves Engler wrote a scathing piece for Common Dreams last year addressing the racism and stigma that Haitians have long faced. It was titled “Lies About Haitians Reflect America’s Racist Imperialism“:

The ‘Haitians eat pets’ tale is the latest in a long line of anti-Haitian claims that goes back to the nation’s slave revolt nearly 200 years ago—a struggle against slavery, colonialism, and white supremacy.

A crass new iteration of anti-Haitianism has recently received a remarkable amount of attention. This novel form of racism with deep anti-Black roots was even referenced in this week’s U.S. presidential debate.

Recently racist and ignorant social media users have circulated the idea that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are eating pets. Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance greatly boosted the anti-Haitian claim with a post to X stating, “Months ago, I raised the issue of Haitian illegal immigrants draining social services and generally causing chaos all over Springfield, Ohio. Reports now show that people have had their pets abducted and eaten by people who shouldn’t be in this country.”

Vance’s X post had over 11 million views with Donald Trump even referencing the claim in the presidential debate. This despite an absence of any evidence whatsoever. Springfield officials haven’t received any credible reports of Haitian immigrants abducting and eating pets.

The ‘Haitians eat pets’ tale is the latest in a long line of anti-Haitian claims. In the early 1980s Haitians were stigmatized as the originators of the HIV virus in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) labeled Haitians as a risk group, which gave rise to “The Four H’s” designation of Homosexuals, Hemophiliacs, Heroin addicts, and Haitians. At the time the Canadian Red Cross publicly identified Haitians as a “high-risk” group for AIDS, the only nationality singled out. In 1983 they called on homosexuals and bisexuals with multiple partners, intravenous drug users, hemophiliacs and recent immigrants from Haiti to voluntarily stop giving blood. A Canadian government pamphlet, which was distributed in shopping malls, also linked Haitians with AIDS. Again, this was despite a lack of evidence that the incidence of AIDS in Haiti was greater than in the U.S. By 1987 it was lower in Haiti than in the U.S. and other Caribbean nations.

But, as a result of the unfounded stigmatization, the country’s significant tourism basically collapsed overnight. Out of fear the virus may transmit through goods, some Haitian exports were even blocked from entering the U.S.

Having lived through the 1980s’ AIDS pandemic in New York City, I got involved in fighting against the targeting of Haitian Americans. For those of you who were not even born or too young at the time to remember, here’s a 1983 special report on the stigma’s impact on Haitians.

x
YouTube Video

Lest you think these bogus claims have gone away, the LGBTQ+ advocacy group GLAAD reported on how “Despite Zero Evidence, U.S. Senator JD Vance Continues Disinformation Campaign Targeting Haitian Immigrants, People Living with HIV”:

In a tweet the morning of the debate and in an interview after, Vance inaccurately blamed Haitian immigrants in Springfield for a “skyrocketing” increase in HIV and TB. Public health officials say there is no evidence that HIV cases are skyrocketing in Springfield. Vance has spent several days spreading fear and disinformation about Springfield, comments amplified by his running mate, former President Donald Trump. During the presidential debate earlier in the evening, Trump responded in an exchange about immigration,” They’re eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats.”  There is zero evidence of this happening, according to the Springfield city manager and police department.

Sarah Kate Ellis, President and CEO of GLAAD, responded on Twitter/X and Threads to Vance’s attack on immigrants and people living with HIV.

“JD Vance’s inflammatory comments about HIV triple down on his truly revolting lies about this community and threaten public health in the most irresponsible way,” Ellis said. “Vance’s rhetoric is not grounded in science or statistical truth. It is a racist dog whistle to a bygone era that stigmatized people of color, immigrants, and people living with HIV. Facts still matter. Anyone can have and transmit HIV, but HIV is preventable with antiretroviral medication and treatable to the point of being undetectable, therefore untransmittable, the critical message of U=U. HIV is a fully manageable condition, and people living with HIV can lead long and fulfilling lives. Vance’s desperate disinformation campaign is shamefully spreading baseless, racist lies, fueling the stigma we need to break to end HIV.”

Epidemiologist Greg Gonsalves debunked Trump and Vance’s lies.

xNow, there is no spike in HIV in Springfield, OH. Take a look AIDVu.org. Hotspots of HIV in the state are in larger urban centers like Cleveland, Cincinnati and Columbus. 3/ aidsvu.org?gad_source=1…[image or embed]— Gregg Gonsalves (@gregggonsalves.bsky.social) September 15, 2024 at 9:40 AM

xSo Donald Trump and JD Vance are lying about HIV and Springfield, OH. 5/— Gregg Gonsalves (@gregggonsalves.bsky.social) September 15, 2024 at 9:40 AM

The long-term impact of stigma combined with toxic anti-Black and anti-Haitian vitriol takes a toll on the Haitian community’s mental health. Groups like The Haitian American Psychiatric Association are in place to help.

The Haitian American Psychiatric Association, Inc. is a nonprofit mental health organization dedicated to spreading awareness of mental health issues among Haitians in the United States and Haiti. We also strive to engage communities in the development of mental health services locally and abroad.

Pass the word on.

Join me in the comments section below for more, and for the weekly Caribbean News Roundup.

Campaign Action

A cartoon by Tim Campbell.

Related | Trump hosts awkward infomercial to hawk Teslas from White House driveway

Campaign Action

The following guest post was written for Daily Kos by Ben Wikler, chair of the Democratic Party  of Wisconsin. This post does not represent an official endorsement by Daily Kos.

This week, Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election beat the record—a record set just two years ago in Wisconsin. It is now the most expensive judicial election in American history. 

On one side is Brad Schimel—now known as “Elon Schimel” because of Elon Musk’s eight-figure investment in putting him on the court. He’s the most extreme, pro-Trump MAGA candidate we’ve ever seen. He even dressed as Donald Trump in a garbage truck drive costume for Halloween. 

On the other side is Judge Susan Crawford, the kind of common-sense judge any defendant would want behind the bench. 

On Wednesday night, Schimel and Crawford faced off for the state Supreme Court’s one debate. Check out some of the highlights (or can watch the full debate here).

x

x
YouTube Video

Schimel repeatedly defended the state’s 1849 abortion ban as “valid.” 

Asked whether the case in which the Wisconsin Supreme Court declined Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election was correctly decided, Schimel answered, “I don’t know.” 

Asked if he embraces Musk’s endorsement, Schimel hemmed and hawed. 

“It is expensive and it’s difficult to get your message out,” he said—a veiled thank-you to the richest man in the world, who happens to be shredding the Social Security Administration, the Veterans Administration, and our Constitution, all while his own court case affecting his bottom line moves through the Wisconsin court system. 

Related | Here’s the election Elon Musk is trying to buy next

Crawford, meanwhile, reminded us why she’s exactly the right person to serve on the Supreme Court: clear answers, Wisconsin values, and great care to make clear that she wouldn’t prejudge cases that might come before her.

She won the debate walking away. But only a tiny number of voters watched the debate, and nearly all of them already knew who they were supporting before the first question was asked. To win this election, it’s on all of us to reach the hundreds of thousands of committed Democrats—and friends of freedom and democracy—who didn’t watch it. 

And Musk’s millions are standing in the way.

Musk’s strategy is two-fold. First, spend millions of dollars, through various groups and PACs he’s funding, on relentless ads trying to suppress support for Crawford by lying about her record as a judge. Second, launch a huge mail-and-door-hangers campaign targeting Republicans with a simple promise: “BRAD SCHIMEL WILL SUPPORT PRESIDENT TRUMP’S AGENDA!” 

Here’s one of their mailers: 

A mailer sent by Elon Musk’s super PAC, the America PAC, in support of Brad Schimel, the conservative candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Is it working? 

Well, a right-wing dark-money group posted its poll saying the race is tied 47-47. If Democrats and Republicans vote in equal numbers, that might in fact be the case. 

But the Democrats’ job is to out-organize and out-communicate the Republicans—and clean Schimel’s clock by driving up turnout for Crawford. That’s why anti-Schimel billboards went up this week around Wisconsin.

And that’s why Wisconsin Democrats will be out in every community in the state this weekend, knocking on doors, calling phones, and spreading the word to friends—that a vote for Crawford is a vote for freedom, democracy, and the rule of law, and a vote for Schimel is a vote for abortion bans and Elon Musk. 

If you haven’t signed up for a volunteer shift yet, do it now, right here.

Nobody has a reliable way to measure in advance which side will have more energy in this race or who will ultimately vote. But in special elections so far this year, margins have swung toward Democrats by an average of almost 10 points. And all it takes is a gut check to know that Democrats are furious about what Musk, Trump, and the GOP are doing to this country. If we channel that outrage into electoral energy, we’ll win this race. 

And the whole world will see that no amount of Musk spending is enough to deter us from defending the country that we love. 

Let’s get out there. Just 18 days to go. 

Wisconsin Democrats need all hands on deck to defeat Brad Schimel and defuse Elon Musk’s money bomb. Electing Judge Susan Crawford will take resources to reach voters across Wisconsin. Help fuel WisDems efforts. Chip in here.

Campaign Action

Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly announced in a video posted to his social media account that he is giving up his Tesla, citing “asshole” behavior by Donald Trump megadonor Elon Musk, the multibillionaire Tesla CEO who also heads the so-called Department of Government Efficiency.

Kelly said that Friday was his last day driving to the Capitol in his Tesla Model S, which he bought a few years ago. The senator said when he originally bought the car he didn’t think it would become a  political issue, but “every time I get in this car in the last 60 days or so it reminds me of just how much damage Elon Musk and Donald Trump is doing to our country.”

xI bought a Tesla because it was fast like a rocket ship. But now every time I drive it, I feel like a rolling billboard for a man dismantling our government and hurting people. So Tesla, you’re fired!New ride coming soon.[image or embed]— Captain Mark Kelly (@captmarkkelly.bsky.social) March 14, 2025 at 8:48 AM

“Elon Musk kind of turned out to be an asshole, and I don’t want to be driving a car built and designed by an asshole,” he concluded.

The Democratic senator’s move stands in sharp contrast to Trump and his most loyal Republican toadies, who have completely wedded themselves to the financially ailing electric car company owned by Musk.

After nationwide protests at Tesla dealerships and showrooms and whining about those protests from Musk, Trump announced that he would purchase one of the cars. He then proceeded to use the publicly owned White House lawn for a sales pitch for Tesla cars, even reading from sales notes touting the car’s purported benefits.

Musk and DOGE have launched a series of attacks on key government agencies, creating a growing backlash against Tesla. The electric vehicle company’s stock price has dropped by nearly half in the past six months as Musk has entrenched himself in Trump’s “MAGA” brand of politics.

Continued association with Trump and Musk, who have lost ground in public support in recent weeks, is unlikely to help the company—which was already bailed out once by the Obama administration, by the way.

Kelly isn’t alone in ditching his Tesla. People across the country are getting rid of theirs and posting on social media platforms about how great it feels not to be driving a “swasticar” anymore. 

Pop singer Sheryl Crow announced in February that she got rid of her Tesla and donated the money to National Public Radio, “which is under threat by President Musk.”

x
Facebook Content

Similarly, Cassandra Peterson—better known as the television personality Elvira, Mistress of the Dark—donated her car to NPR. 

“I don’t want to drive something around that represents a person who is directly trying to take away our freedoms,” she told The Oregonian.

x
Facebook Content

Kelly’s decision to dump his Tesla comes just a few days after Musk accused the widely respected senator of being a “traitor” for expressing his support for Ukraine’s independence from Russia.

“Traitor? Elon, if you don’t understand that defending freedom is a basic tenet of what makes America great and keeps us safe, maybe you should leave it to those of us who do,” Kelly responded.

Kelly is a former Navy captain who served on multiple combat missions in the first Gulf War. He went on to become a NASA astronaut and flew on board four space shuttle missions, including two where he served as shuttle commander.

The senator is married to former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot and severely injured in a mass shooting while she was meeting constituents outside an Arizona grocery store in 2011. Kelly and Giffords have fiercely advocated for gun safety, with Kelly later successfully running for the Senate seat he has held since 2021.

Meanwhile, Musk poses with chainsaws, disowns and neglects some of his 14 children with four different women, attacks the federal government, and loves racism.

Campaign Action

Mehmet Oz, the celebrity quack doctor, faced his Senate confirmation hearing on Friday as he seeks to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. And he refused to promise he won’t help the Republican Party slash Medicaid.

“Since you cherish Medicaid, will you agree to oppose cuts in the Medicaid program?” asked Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon.

“I cherish Medicaid, and I’ve worked within the Medicaid environment quite extensively, as I highlighted, practicing at Columbia University,” Oz replied. 

Wyden shot back: “That’s not that question, doctor. The question is, will you oppose cuts to this program you say you cherish?”

Dodging the question again, Oz said, “I want to make sure that patients today and in the future have resources to protect them if they get ill. The way you protect Medicaid is by making sure that it’s viable at every level, which includes having enough practitioners to afford the services, paying them enough to do what you request of them, and making sure that patients are able to actually use Medicaid.”

For the record, it was a yes/no question.

x
Datawrapper Content

Later, Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts brought up a popular phrase—“waste, fraud, and abuse”—and referred to the issue of insurance scams in Medicare where insurers have been notoriously pocketing millions of taxpayer dollars through “upcoding.” For instance, The Wall Street Journal found that insurers were pocketing $50 billion in Medicare by giving patients fake diagnoses. 

“If you had the choice, would you rather cut waste, fraud, and abuse by a Fortune 50 health insurance company in Medicare Advantage, or cut funding for Medicaid, which covers half of all seniors in nursing homes and 1 in 3 of America’s children?” Warren asked.

Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts

“My goal is to improve the health care of the American people,” Oz replied, “and as you create the argument, the former sounds like the more rational way to do that.”

Oz has his own multimillion-dollar investments in the health care sector, which had senators like Warren concerned prior to the hearing. In a 2020 op-ed in Forbes, he outlined a plan to privatize Medicare Advantage, which appeared as a conflict of interest given the celebrity doctor’s personal investments in companies that might get a piece of the pie. In February, responding to the resurfaced op-ed, Oz said that he would sell most of his stocks in these companies should he get nominated. 

But his confirmation also brought back some skeletons in the daytime talk show host’s closet.

Around the time of his unsuccessful bid for the U.S. Senate in 2022, Oz’s dealings with supplement company Usana came to light. Oz became a spokesperson for the company, peddling the products on his talk show and speaking at events. However, some of the products were later found to have unsafe levels of lead. 

The doctor cut ties with the products prior to his run for Senate. 

Of course, he’s not the only Trump nominee with shady grifts in their past. If confirmed, Oz will work under Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is now running the Department of Health and Human Services. 

With measles cases rising and two reported deaths, Democratic Sen. Ben Ray Luján of Arizona seemed hesitant to sign off on another of Trump’s appointees so fast. 

“My colleagues and I have written twice to the secretary of health and human services to do more to address measles. There’s not been a response,” he said, then seemed to rhetorically ask Oz if he would make the same promise RFK Jr. failed to keep.

Speaking to RFK Jr. directly, Luján said, “Secretary, if you’re watching today, respond to the damn letter. People are dying.”

Campaign Action

President Donald Trump’s beleaguered U.S. Department of Education has launched investigations into more than 50 universities as part of an ongoing effort to end diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.

In a press release, the agency alleged that 45 schools had possibly engaged in “race exclusionary” practices in their graduate programs. Specifically, the agency took issue with reported partnerships with The PhD Project, an organization that uplifts underrepresented minorities so they can pursue business PhDs and become professors. 

But if you ask Trump’s cronies, the organization has deployed the much more sinister practice of “limit[ing] eligibility based on the race of participants.” 

Additionally, the DOE’s Office for Civil Rights is probing seven other universities on similar grounds—six for “allegedly awarding impermissible race-based scholarships” and one for “allegedly administering a program that segregates students on the basis of race.”

“The Department is working to reorient civil rights enforcement to ensure all students are protected from illegal discrimination. Students must be assessed according to merit and accomplishment, not prejudged by the color of their skin. We will not yield on this commitment,” the impossibly underqualified Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon

Affected schools include Ivy League colleges, state universities, and smaller higher education institutions. Arizona State University, Duke University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, New York University, and Yale University are among those being investigated. 

Given that Trump’s DOE now has fewer staff, it’s striking that the agency would dedicate its remaining resources to snuffing out DEI efforts. While the Trump administration should be spending its time ensuring that students can apply for federal loans, it has instead targeted beneficial programs.

Notably, McMahon didn’t clarify how exactly the schools in question were enforcing race-based segregation or awards.

News of the investigations comes one week after the DOE sent a “dear colleague” letter to colleges that receive federal funding, ordering them to terminate all DEI initiatives. The letter threatened funding cuts for schools not found in compliance. 

“The Department will no longer tolerate the overt and covert racial discrimination that has become widespread in this Nation’s educational institutions. The law is clear: treating students differently on the basis of race to achieve nebulous goals such as diversity, racial balancing, social justice, or equity is illegal under controlling Supreme Court precedent,” the letter said.  

Friday’s announcement is the latest escalation in Trump’s threat of pulling federal funding from colleges and universities.

And some of them are already feeling the pressure. 

According to The Associated Press, Columbia University, which has been a longtime target of Trump’s, announced Thursday that it expelled and suspended some students who participated in the occupation of a campus building as part of pro-Palestinian protests last year. It also temporarily revoked degrees from some protesters.    

Meanwhile, the Department of Justice is investigating 10 universities, including Columbia, that have “experienced antisemitic incidents” since October 2023.

Campaign Action