Tag: 2026 midterm election
Hey, Mr. President! Please Hit The Campaign Trail (Where You Can Only Help Democrats)

Hey, Mr. President! Please Hit The Campaign Trail (Where You Can Only Help Democrats)

There possibly can’t be anything more terrifying to a Republican candidate facing brutal electoral headwinds this November than the prospect of President Donald Trump hitting the campaign trail on their behalf.

Just these past few weeks, he’s delivered winning gems like this:

“For you to pay a tiny little bit more for your gasoline, just remember you’re doing that a very evil country … we don’t want to have them have a nuclear weapon,” he said. “Remember that when you have to pay a little bit more, you’re at $4—it’s okay. I mean, it’s—I’m not, I’m not, I’ll never apologize. I did the right thing.”

During the campaign, Trump promised gas below $2 per gallon. Now he won’t apologize for $4, and “it’s okay.”

Of course, it’s okay for him. He doesn’t have to worry about paying for gas.

Consider also his bizarre insistence that Democrats somehow invented the word “affordability” after he took office.

On July 26, at a rally in Marietta, Georgia, he whined:

“First day, first press conference, nice, friendly press con. You know they treat me so nicely. ‘What are you going to do about the prices?’ And they used the word, first time I heard it, it was a word made up by the Democrats, affordability. They said affordability. I said, ‘I’ve been here one day. Don’t worry, I’ll take care of it.’ And we’re taking care of it. We’re taking good care of it.”

He cried about it again on August 5.

“Our costs are coming way down,” he claimed. “You know, they talk about affordability. I took over the country. The prices were through the roof. In my first day, the press said, ‘What are you going to do about affordability?’ It was a word they devised—affordability. They never used that word before.”

There’s just one problem: “Affordability” was a mainstay of Trump’s own 2024 campaign.

“Starting on Day 1, we will end inflation and make America affordable again,” he said in Montana in August 2024.

See that word? “Affordable.”

Here he was again in Pennsylvania, on Aug. 17, 2024:

“Starting the day I take the oath of office, I will rapidly drive prices down, and we will make America affordable again. We’re going to make it affordable again.”

Not just one “affordable,” but two!

Of course, Trump had heard the word. Democrats didn’t invent it. The press didn’t invent it. And Democrats certainly weren’t eager to make affordability the defining issue of the 2024 election when they were the ones taking the blame for inflation.

Trump made that promise himself—over and over and over again. Americans heard him loud and clear, and too many of them voted for him believing he would deliver on it. Now he wants everyone to forget.

So yes, please, Donnie: Hit the campaign trail. Have your stupid September “convention.” Force Republican candidates to share a stage with a president sporting dismal job approval ratings. Make them sit there while Trump mocks the very idea of “affordability” after campaigning on it relentlessly. Let him tell Americans struggling with their bills that $4 gas is “okay.” And let him do it while defending a war the public hates and that he insists they should be happy to pay more to support.

Republicans have to spend the next three months trying to convince voters that everything is going great. Meanwhile, Trump apparently wants to spend those same three months reminding them that it isn’t.

The more he keeps this up, the more November could look like this:

Markos Moulitsas is founder and editor of the blogging website Daily Kos and author of three books.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

MIke Lawler and Saul Anuzis 60 Plus Association

Vulnerable Republican Incumbents Tout Endorsement By Social Security Privatization Outfit

Several Republicans in competitive House races are touting endorsements from a group that exists to cut Medicare and privatize Social Security.

The 60 Plus Association was created in 1992 as a far-right alternative to the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). The group claims to represent the interests of American retirees over 60. It was started with seed money from the far-right billionaire megadonors Charles and David Koch.

In 1997, the 60 Plus Association boasted that it was “the first national senior citizens group to endorse privatization of the Social Security program.” More recently, it has backed efforts to turn Medicare into a voucher system.

Health policy experts warn that these changes could force seniors to spend more out of pocket for health care and imperil the long-term solvency of both programs. The 60 Plus Association acknowledged in 2011 that its goal was to gradually phase out Medicare for future generations.

California Rep. Kevin Kiley, an independent who caucuses with House Republicans, accepted awards from the 60 Plus Association in 2025 and 2026. The award, which recognizes lawmakers as “Guardians of Senior Citizens,” is essentially a campaign endorsement. On both occasions, Kiley posed for photos with 60 Plus Association President Saul Anuzis, a former Michigan GOP chairman.

Other recipients this year were Iowa Reps. Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Zach Nunn, Michigan Reps. Bill Huizenga and Tom Barrett, New York Rep. Mike Lawler, and Pennsylvania Reps. Ryan Mackenzie and Scott Perry, all Republicans. Each of these lawmakers also posed for photos with Anuzis.

Past GOP recipients include New Jersey Rep. Tom Kean Jr., Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, and Texas Rep. Monica De La Cruz.

Virginia Republican Rep. Rob Wittman received the award in 2025. In June, Wittman was caught faking a phone call to avoid answering a reporter’s questions about Republican proposals to cut Social Security and Medicare.

The 60 Plus Association has also put up numerous social media posts recognizing the birthdays of various Republican lawmakers, including Virginia Rep. Jen Kiggans, California Rep. David Valadao, Florida Reps. Anna Paulina Luna and Maria Elvira Salazar, Minnesota Rep. Brad Finstad, Ohio Reps. Mike Turner and Mike Carey, Pennsylvania Rep. Rob Bresnahan, and Wisconsin Rep. Bryan Steil.

Anuzis also advocates repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has included all of these lawmakers on its list of most vulnerable incumbents facing reelection in 2026. And all of these Republicans supported the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), which will impose a $1 trillion cut to Medicaid over the next decade.

“Slashing Medicaid, cutting the ACA tax credits, and shutting down rural hospitals was just the warm-up act for House Republicans’ true mission: ending Medicare and Social Security as we know it,” said DCCC spokesperson Liam Buckley. “They’re beholden to their dark-money backers and they can’t be trusted in November.”

Reprinted with permission from American Journal News

Ashley Hinson

Vouchers? Cutbacks? GOP Senate Candidates Threaten Medicare And Medicaid

Medicare and Medicaid have been around for 61 years, but they may not make it to 62 if the GOP retains control of the U.S. Senate.

Several Republicans competing in marquee Senate races have expressed an interest in cutting or eliminating both programs, which provide health insurance to more than 123 million people. Medicaid covers low-income Americans, while Medicare is for those 65 and older or with disabilities. About 13 million people are enrolled in both programs.

Medicaid took a major hit last year when House and Senate Republicans passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), a sweeping budget law that will cut $1 trillion from the program to fund tax breaks for the wealthy. About 12 million Americans are expected to lose health insurance as a result.

Florida GOP Sen. Ashley Moody celebrated OBBB’s passage, even though it will rip health insurance away from 2.2 million of her own constituents.

“Today is a historic moment for the American people—especially Florida families who will have thousands of their hard-earned money back in their pockets,” Moody said in a July 2025 press release, shortly before OBBB became law.

The law also hit hospitals and health care providers that depend on Medicaid reimbursements for revenue. These providers are often in rural or low-income areas where patients are more likely to be Medicaid recipients. A Health Justice Project analysis found that 23 percent of Florida’s rural hospitals were at risk of closure before the cuts took effect, making the outlook even worse.

A similar dynamic is at play in Alaska, where OBBB has put at least seven hospitals, clinics, and nursing homes into dire straits. GOP Sen. Dan Sullivan supported OBBB, promising it would “unleash Alaska’s private sector economy” and “benefit hard-working families.”

Sullivan has also cast multiple votes threatening Medicare, including voting to advance a 2017 budget resolution that sought to turn it into a voucher program.

Under the current system, Medicare reimburses hospitals and providers that treat Medicare enrollees. Under vouchers, Medicare recipients would receive funds directly to pay for care or purchase private insurance plans.

Health policy experts say vouchers would be unlikely to keep pace with inflation, forcing seniors to spend more out of pocket. Vouchers would also further reduce revenues for providers that treat Medicare beneficiaries.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine also voted to advance the voucher proposal. She cast a similar vote to advance OBBB, but did not support the bill in its final iteration.

Georgia Rep. Mike Collins, who is now running for the U.S. Senate, helped whip votes to get OBBB over the finish line in the House. In June, WDRW reported that the law’s Medicaid cuts were endangering access to therapy for hundreds of special-needs kids.

“I don’t know what to tell these patients and I hate it for them,” said Kate Phillips, director of patient services at TOTS, an Atlanta clinic offering pediatric speech and occupational therapy. “This is going to be catastrophic for them.”

Iowa Rep. Ashley Hinson also backed OBBB and was a member of the House Republican Study Committee when it proposed turning Medicare into a voucher program.

All of these lawmakers have also shown a willingness to cut or eliminate the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), which could put both Medicaid and Medicare at risk. Obamacare expanded access to Medicaid and extended the solvency of Medicare.

A KFF tracking poll finds that Medicaid and Medicare are extremely popular with American voters. About 82 percent have a positive view of Medicare, while 75 percent view Medicaid favorably. About 62 percent rank health care costs as their top economic concern.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), which works to elect Democrats to the U.S. Senate, is making Republican hostility to Medicaid and Medicare a theme of the upcoming midterms.

“Across the map, Senate Republicans are on record supporting cuts to Medicaid and Medicare, and now that they’ve put these programs on the chopping block in order to grant tax giveaways to their billionaire campaign backers,” said DSCC spokesperson Maeve Coyle.

The Cook Political Report, which evaluates the competitiveness of elections, currently ranks control of the Senate as a tossup.

Reprinted with permission from American Journal News

mike lindell

Minnesota Republicans Seeking To Squash Trump Pick Lindell's Candidacy

Poor, poor Minnesota Republicans. All they want to do is install a hardliner MAGA chud like their endorsed candidate for governor, Kendall Qualls, atop a blue state that has vexed President Donald Trump mightily. But Trump himself created the problem they now face, and that problem is named Mike Lindell.

Trump endorsed the hapless pillow salesman/world champion election denier for the governor gig, and Lindell has proved nothing but trouble. Hilarious trouble.

Now, with Minnesota’s primary only one week out and Lindell leading in multiple polls, the state GOP has to do something. In a hilarious bit of political theater, they are now begging the Democratic Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, whom they loathe, to rescue them from Lindell.

The state GOP chair wrote to Simon late last month to “request urgent guidance from your office regarding the constitutional residency standard applicable to candidates for Governor.”

Wait, is this about how Lindell seems to have been registered to vote in Texas, and not registered in Minnesota, up until just a few weeks ago? Nope! This is a different Lindell problem.

Per the chair, “serious questions” have been raised about Lindell’s residence eligibility and the GOP is very concerned about “the need to ensure that the standard applied is clear, uniform, and consistent with the text of the Minnesota Constitution.”

LOL, come on. You know full well that if Lindell were not a walking chaos machine and stood an actual chance of winning if he got the GOP nod, the state Republicans would be howling with rage if anyone besmirched the honor of Lindell and where Lindell insists he lives. Instead, they’re performatively fretting, informing Simon that “the Lindell Campaign appears to rely on a constitutional provision that does not exist rather than dispute whether they meet the actual standard in the Minnesota Constitution."

A … constitutional provision … that does not exist. Whew. We’re gonna have to work up to that. Let’s start where the state GOP starts instead.

Minnesota’s residency requirement in the affidavit for candidacy for governor reads “I will be at least 25 years old on the first Monday of the next January and a resident of Minnesota for not less than one year on Election day.”

Much as it pains us to agree with Minnesota Republicans, that seems pretty straightforward: Lindell would have to be a resident of Minnesota for not less than one year come Election Day, November 3, 2026.

But Lindell’s lt. governor running mate, Phillip Parrish, has advanced a novel reading of this, saying that Lindell’s fine and only needs to have been a resident one year before the date he takes office, because of the actual text of the Minnesota Constitution, Article V, Section 3, which Parrish quotes:

The governor and lieutenant governor shall be elected for a term of four years. They shall be elected on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in the year 1958 and every four years thereafter. They shall be elected by the qualified electors of the state. To be eligible for the office of governor or lieutenant governor a person must have attained the age of 25 years and, at the time of taking office, must have been a resident of Minnesota for one year.

Article V, Section 3 of the Minnesota Constitution is actually about the powers and duties of the governor and says nothing about residency requirements at all, but maybe Parrish just got his cite wrong?

Urm, nope. Article V, Section 2 is about qualifications, but doesn’t say what Parrish says it does. Rather, it says this:

The term of office for the governor and lieutenant governor is four years and until a successor is chosen and qualified. Each shall have attained the age of 25 years and, shall have been a bona fide resident of the state for one year next preceding his election, and shall be a citizen of the United States.

Setting aside the fact that it seems like kind of a big problem that your running mate is just making up constitutional provisions, what’s the big deal about whether Lindell is required to have lived in the state for one year before Election Day in November 2026 versus one year before when he would assume office in January 2027?

And you see, the state GOP is doing this for everyone, out of the goodness of their heart, stating:

The Republican Party of Minnesota anticipates that the D.F.L. Party will file a complaint before the Minnesota Supreme Court challenging Mike Lindell’s residency and eligibility to hold office. The Republican Party of Minnesota does not want Minnesotans who vote for any candidate for Governor to find, after the fact, that their vote was effectively wasted because the candidate did not meet a constitutional qualification that could and should have been clarified in advance.

Translation: Dear Democratic Secretary of State, please, please, please save us from ourselves and our cult leader whom we won’t stand up to and get rid of this walking nightmare on a residency technicality so we don’t have to openly defy Trump.

Of course, Lindell has far more problems than this: He was uncertain whether he was registered to vote in Minnesota. He’s drowning in millions in court judgments. He’s facing a credible campaign finance complaint. He’s a real winner all around.

Trump sure can pick 'em.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos


Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Trending

World