In “The Left Needs More Working-Class Leaders,” Jake Triola writes at Jacobin: “Two factions of the American left that ought to be allies remain estranged. In their new report entitled The Left’s Coalition Crisis, Joan C. Williams, author of Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back, and Jared Abbott, the director of the Center for Working Class Politics, argue that a “massive divide” between working-class people and college-educated liberals is undermining the majority the Left needs to govern. And it’s playing out now across the country: as liberals double down on an obsession with defending democracy, Democratic candidates more attuned to the needs of working Americans are winning on a platformcentered on day-to-day tangibles like rent, wages, and safety…Williams and Abbott’s report, which can be real in full here, dissects the results of a poll the authors conducted earlier this year and lays out the contrasting political priorities of respondents based on their backgrounds. From there, they offer insight into how the language and moral posturing (“Do the Work,” “Check Your Privilege”) of the middle class repeatedly fails to strike a chord with working-class perspectives. One of their findings is that college-educated liberals lack what the authors call “class competence”: the ability to speak persuasively to working-class values. And with the class divide as sharp as it is today, it’s not a skill that can be faked. Williams and Abbott’s prescription is more practical: listen to what working-class people say they want, drop the moralizing vocabulary, and cede real influence over the progressive agenda to working people.” More here.

From “Sherrod Brown bets again on working-class voters” by Harry Leigh at spectrumnews1.com: “WASHINGTON, D.C. — Out of office but back on the campaign trail, former Sen. Sherrod Brown is maintaining his decades-long focus on the working-class, betting voters will give him a different answer than they did two years ago, when Brown lost to Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno…Brown spent his entire career building a political brand around the working class and workers’ rights. In his four previous Senate campaigns, Brown’s “dignity of work” message helped him secure the endorsements of dozens of labor unions…Unions represented 11.6% of Ohio’s workforce in 2025, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, the power of endorsements has not necessarily aligned with the voting behavior of union rank-and-file…Historically, union members have tended to align with the Democratic Party. In recent elections, union members have still favored Democrats, but by a much smaller margin. For example, Barack Obama won 66% of Ohio’s union vote in 2012, according to exit polls, while Kamala Harris won 51% of Ohio’s union vote in 2024…That smaller margin of union support contributed to Brown’s 2024 loss to Moreno. That year, 55% of union members voted for Brown, according to exit polls.” More here.

An excerpt from “Trump’s Midterm Convention Will Yield a Bounce All Right—for Democrats” by Michael Tomasky at The New Republic: “A president at 35 percent in the polls presiding over $4.15 a gallon gas and thinking he’s doing something neat by trying to change New Mexico’s name (“Oh, hell, no,” blared a headline in the Albuquerque Journal) will now go before the nation for two nights spewing lie after lie about the economy. Pass the popcorn…Here’s the thing about economic lies. There are many things in the political arena you can shade or obfuscate. You can hide your falsehood in a thicket of complexity. You can play on people’s fears and prejudices. But you start telling people that the skyrocketing cost of everything isn’t happening? They will see right through that. So Trump can lie about, say, what’s going on with Iran, or what he’s allegedly doing behind the scenes vis-à-vis Russia-Ukraine, or what ICE is getting up to, and some people will believe him. Or if they don’t quite believe him, they have a difficult time proving that he’s lying…But people know that economic lies are lies because they live the economy every day of their lives. You can’t tell people who just shelled out $8 a pound to grill the kids some burgers on Labor Day that affordability is a Democrat hoax. So I feel pretty confident in saying not only that Trump won’t get a bounce from this convention. Indeed, if there is a bounce, it will be for the Democrats generally and for James Talarico specifically (the convention will take place in Dallas, the idea being in part to shore up corrupt Ken Paxton’s low-energy Senate campaign).” More here.

Federal Judge Nancy Gertner shares some insights from her interview by Robert Kuttner at The American Prospect: “Robert Kuttner: Which of the possible strategies that the Trump administration is likely to pursue to undermine the election are you most concerned about? Much of the remedy boils down to what the courts will do, whether the courts will act in a timely fashion, and whether the Supreme Court will do its usual slow roll…Nancy Gertner: To overgeneralize somewhat, there are three buckets here. One is what they’re doing in advance of the elections, the other would be what they were doing after the elections, and the third would be what they do during the elections. What I most worry about is what they do during the election…For instance, suppose they send in ICE to intimidate voters, or the FBI to seize ballots; or suppose they try and harass election officials, like they did in some red counties last time. In principle, you have federal district judges standing by to issue injunctions, but they might not be able to act in time…There are rules within each election jurisdiction about what people can or can’t do near the polling place. Assuming an ICE agent tries to pull someone out of line or otherwise tries to intimidate voters, arguably there are rules in each of the states. Local DAs can even arrest and bring charges against federal officials. To be sure, as Hennepin County [Minnesota] has shown, it is not easy to do, and it will require a district attorney with some guts…The best protection may be an overwhelming Democratic vote. The model, you might say, is Hungary. The repudiation of Orbán was so total that he stood down.” More here.

Some revelations from “Poll: Working-class voters prefer progressives, moderate Republicans” by Zamoine Perez at Public News Service: at “Working-class Virginians are still up for grabs in this year’s midterm elections, according to a new poll from Politico…More than half of voters believe politicians are just trying to get their votes when they campaign on helping the working class. Both political parties struggle with Americans who identify as working-class, with 38% saying Democrats best represent them compared to 32% saying Republicans do…Kayla Mock, secretary-treasurer of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 400, said the results show politicians have a lot of work to do to make working-class voters feel visible…”They don’t feel heard. They don’t feel listened to by candidates. They feel talked at by politicians but not heard and then they certainly don’t feel politicians are taking action to actually address their issues,” Mock explained. “It’s a lot of talk with no substance.”…The results come as Republicans work to solidify inroads the party made with working-class voters in 2024, particularly Black and Latino voters, while establishment and progressive Democrats struggle over which political direction the party should go in appealing to voters…Despite the lack of trust of politicians, the poll noted progressive Democrats and moderate Republicans received the highest marks of trust to represent working-class voters, at 21% and 18%, respectively…Mock pointed out the results were not surprising, as both camps tend to have consistent economic messaging to the working-class voting bloc…”You see a lot of young progressive Democrats starting to win talking about those economic issues. I think moderate Republicans are also talking about those issues in a very different way. You have these not radical Republicans who are focusing more on economic and not social issues,” Mock observed…Only one in four Americans who identify as working-class believe politicians genuinely want to help them.”

One of  five charts from “Voters Define ‘Working Class’ by Workforce Participation, Economic Situation, and Job Type — Not Education” at Data for Progress:

From “Everyone wants to win working-class voters. But have they realized many are women?” by Chabeli Carrazana at The 19th: “It’s a group that is more diverse now than it’s ever been. Gone are the days when the only image of a working-class voter was a blue-collar White man who works in a factory and drives a truck, though that is still who politicians often pander to…Political messaging that speaks to the everyday needs of the diversifying working class could recapture the interest of the group, which has long been disillusioned by political candidates who don’t actually understand them…Definitions of what makes a working-class voter differ depending on who you ask. If it’s education — those who have less than a bachelor’s degree — then nearly half of the working class is women; in parts of the country, most of them are also people of color, said Valerie Wilson, a labor economist at the Economic Policy Institute who has studied working-class people. If working-class voters are those working low-wage jobs, then they are already majority women, who occupy two-thirds of the 40 lowest-paid occupations…Trump indeed has not delivered on many of his economic promises. His second term has been dominated by war in Iran and aggressive tariff policies that have driven up prices rather than balanced trade, as he promised. That has eroded Trump’s advantage with his strongest working class supporters, White people, who now disapprove of his handling of the economy…The evidence is in the gender pay gap: After years of shrinking, the gap actually widened over the past two years for the first time since the 1960s. ” More here.

From “Republicans are attacking unions at exactly the wrong time” by Andrew Mangan at Daily Kos: “The GOP seems to think that attacking labor unions is a winning strategy ahead of this year’s midterm elections, but new data shows that even fewer Americans are likely to be on their side…Republicans on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce escalating investigationsinto many major unions, including the American Federation of Teachers and United Auto Workers, over claims that union dues are illegally being used to directly support Democratic candidates and causes…But this fight is heating up at a bad time for the GOP, with Americans’ approval of labor unions now near an all-time high…Seventy-one percent of Americans approve of unions, according to new Gallup data. That matches the level of support seen in 2022, though before that, approval hadn’t hit 71% since May 1965…More impressive, though, may be the firm’s finding that 47% of Americans now want labor unions to have more influence in the United States—an all-time high since Gallup first asked the question in 1999. And the share that wants unions to have less influence has hit a new low of 23%…The second Trump administration has also laid waste to the federal workforce, much of which is unionized, by firing thousands of civil servants, persuading them to resign, or eroding their workplace protections. As a result, the administration has often found itself being sued by unions, such as the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 820,000 U.S. government workers…Despite all of that, union membership in the nation actually grew last year. A February analysis from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute found that 16.5 million U.S. workers were represented by a union in 2025, marking the highest level in 16 years. This follows many years of declining union membership among both public- and private-sector employees.” More here.

A. nugget from Fareed Zakaria’s “Democrats need to face their real liability” in the Washington Post: “The dilemma: The left has the passion, but the middle still has the votes Democrats need to win in general elections…The progressive answer is that Democrats can solve this by becoming more economically populist — attacking billionaires, expanding benefits and thus appealing to the working class. But these ideas don’t appeal to the actual working class. Among Democrats, a Pew survey shows 41 percent of college graduates say they like politicians who call themselves democratic socialists, compared with only 26 percent of those without degrees. Upper-income Democrats are also much more favorable toward democratic socialists than lower-income Democrats, 40 percent to 24 percent…But the Democratic Party’s problem is not that it is seen as too centrist on economics. Democrats routinely lead Republicans on issues like health care and, even now, the cost of living. Their liabilities are cultural and social issues — crime, immigration, the border and the “woke” agenda. One example: According to a poll by the Argument, among voters who disapproved of Trump but still leaned toward voting Republican, the GOP led on trust over crime 47 percent to 1 percent…The answer is not for Democrats to imitate Trump, abandon minorities or become reactionary. It is to stop imagining that Medicare-for-all and wealth taxes will restore the New Deal coalition. That world and that coalition are gone…Democrats need to show culturally moderate voters that liberalism can distinguish compassion from permissiveness, openness from disorder, and equality from ideological conformity. ” More here.

Yes, people power sometimes overcomes financial advantage. But it’s not an unalterable  rule of politics, and the 2026 midterms money gap is so large that it will provide the most instructive illustration of the power of money vs. all other campaign factors to date. From “Republicans have a big midterm cash advantage. Democrats have alienated billionaires without winning back the working class” by Matthew Yglesias at Slow Boring: “Democrats’ current midterm polling feels almost too good to be true, and there’s a theory that summer polls are producing an illusory result. That may be the case…But rather than posit polling error, I would like to raise the concern that, while James Talarico and Mary Peltola really would win if the election were held tomorrow, between Labor Day and Election Day every Dem running in a “reach” seat is gonna get hit with a barrage of ads aiming to amp up polarization and keep these seats red, all powered by a resurgence in Republican fundraising…If your mentality is “well of course there’s always a lot of ads but who cares,” you may not be prepared for how much the financial balance of power has shifted.”  More here.

In “Democratic socialists’ next hurdle: Winning over Black voters,” Bianca Flowers, Nolan D. McCaskill and Kat Stafford write at kelo.com: “After a summer of victories for Democratic Socialists of America-aligned candidates, the movement faces a new test: whether it can win over Black voters, a constituency central to Democrats’ hopes of regaining control of Congress in November…Florida state Representative Angie Nixon, who could become the first Black lawmaker elected to represent Florida in the U.S. Senate, may offer part of an answer. She overcame a more than 16-to-1 fundraising disadvantage to defeat retired Lieutenant Colonel Alex Vindman in the Democratic primary contest, running up large ​margins in Black communities while focusing on affordability and other everyday concerns…The debate underscores a challenge for DSA-backed candidates seeking to build on their primary successes. While Black voters have long criticized Democrats ‌for paying attention to their communities mainly at election time, activists, strategists and community leaders interviewed by Reuters said some democratic socialists and progressive candidates face a different hurdle: persuading voters they are focused on housing, healthcare and rising living costs rather than  ideological issues such as Gaza and defunding the police. More here.

“Unions gain ground among voters in both parties,” Morgan Chalfont reports at Semafor, via Yahoo, and writes: “Union support in the US is at a modern-day high, with majorities of both political parties expressing positive views about organized labor, according to Gallup polling…Seventy-one percent of American adults approve of unions, matching a 2022 peak; the reading hasn’t been higher than that since the 1950s. Notably, 52% of Republicans said they approve of unions, marking the second time in the last 25 years that a majority of the party has held this view…However, partisans differ in how much influence they want labor to have. Seventy-three percent of Democrats want unions to wield more influence, compared to only 19% of Republicans…Still, the polling underscores unions’ growing political might, as candidates from both parties compete for their leaders’ and members’ backing. President Donald Trump deepened the GOP’s support among union voters, but working-class Americans remain skeptical of either party, a new Politico poll found.”

Erin Doherty and Karen Wiederkehr write in “Poll: Working class voters are still up for grabs” at Politico:  “Only one in four Americans who self-identify as working-class say politicians genuinely want to help them…That wariness comes as both parties increasingly see working class voters as key to their winning coalitions. But The POLITICO Poll results show both parties face serious challenges to doing so…Neither party does particularly well with Americans who identify as working class: 38 percent of them say Democrats best represent them, while 32 percent say Republicans. Americans, broadly, are almost identically split, with a 37 percent plurality saying Democrats best represent the interests of the working class, while 30 percent say Republicans…Democrats wrestling with how to win back voters who have drifted toward the GOP — as their coalition has grown increasingly dominated by college-educated Americans — are locked in an intraparty battle over which wing of the party, progressives or moderates, best speaks to these voters…“We’ve struggled with the working class for quite a while and it’s been a combination of being out of touch with working class values on a lot of culture issues and being seen as either not helpful or not helpful enough on economic issues,” said Jim Kessler, executive vice president for policy at the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way.” More here.

From “How DSA and Democrats Can Win the Working Class (and How Not To)” by Les Leopold at Common Dreams: “The Democratic Party and the Democratic Socialists of America share a problem. As organizations largely run by and involved with college-educated voters, they are physically and psychically removed from working people without four-year degrees. Both the Democrats and DSA claim they are speaking for the working class, but they are not, at present, political organizations of the working class…The Democrats have tried to avoid their working-class problem by embracing suburban Republicans and independents who have been repulsed by the GOP’s extremism. The Democrats’ embrace of Wall Street and Hollywood big money—and NAFTA—has pushed working people out of the coalition…For DSA, on the other hand, the easiest way to address the problem is to define it away. DSA uses a broad definition of the working class that includes underpaid college-educated graduate students, unemployed and underemployed college graduates, and a host of other college-educated workers who suffer from insecure jobs and the high cost of living. While these educated workers are sometimes financially akin to the working class, the majority of working people—nearly 60 percent—do not have four-year college degrees…And that’s the way the 2024 vote went. Trump had a 14-point advantage among voters without college degrees, while Harris carried college graduates, 56 percent to 43 percent. If DSA and the Democrats remain organizations largely of the highly educated, they will lose.” More here.

From “How Dems Can Win on Immigration in November” by Adrian Carrasquillo at The Bulwark: “IMMIGRATION WASN’T JUST ONE of the issues that secured a second term for Donald Trump—it was virtually the issue that launched his electoral career back in 2016. He said that Mexican immigrants were criminals and rapists, and he never looked back. But now he might want to. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll shows just 37 percent of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of immigration, against 56 percent who disapprove. That’s a major opening for Democrats heading into the midterms—if they can exploit it without alienating the working-class voters they’re desperate to win back from Trump’s coalition…As Republicans prepare to dust off their rickety anti-immigration talking points ahead of the midterms, a memo from the Democratic-aligned group Winning Jobs Narrative Action, obtained exclusively by The Bulwark, argues that Democrats can message loudly on immigration and win in November—as long as their message is cast within a pro-worker, pro-immigrant narrative that avoids certain pitfalls Democrats regularly stumble into…One finding spelled out in the memo: As uncomfortable as it might be to hear, some of the messages and messengers that are most cathartic to Democratic voters—and familiar to regular readers of this newsletter—aren’t the most persuasive to former Trump voters. A good example of a losing message would be an immigration attorney and activist demanding an end to deportations in absolutist language, calling Donald Trump and his policies “un-American” and “unlawful,” according to the memo.” More here.

In “Texas and Georgia races show voters are finally sick of MAGA corruption. Jon Ossoff and James Talarico are polling well with a clean government message,” Amanda Marcotte writes at Salon: “It’s easy to see why Ken Paxton thought he could waltz right into the role of senator from Texas. Sure, the state’s Republican nominee and current attorney general is widely seen as one of the most corrupt men in politics, a man with so many scandals that even his fellow Republicans impeached him. (Sadly, the Texas Senate refused to convict him.) Still, Donald Trump won over 56% of the vote in Texas in 2024, despite the Jan. 6th riot and his felony convictions for fraud in New York, so it seemed voters don’t care about corruption. Paxton has been so sure it would be simple to beat his Democratic opponent, state Rep. James Talarico, that he even blew off campaigning over much of the summer in favor of a luxury European vacation with his alleged mistress, a conservative Christian influencer named Tracy Duhon…Now Paxton is starting to worry. He even brought Trump to Texas on Aug. 27 to lead a fundraiser for his campaign. Talarico is ahead in the polls, which hasn’t been true for a Democrat in a statewide race for decades. The Cook Political Report, which tends to be reluctant to buck historical trends, nonetheless changed the election rating from “leans Republican” to “toss-up” in late August. Perhaps even more shocking is that Talarico is pulling this off by making issues of character and corruption central to the race, positioning himself as a genuinely pious Christian, in contrast with Paxton’s seemingly endless hypocrisy and debauched behavior.” More here.

From “How Working Class Voters Respond to Non-Cost Messages” by the Working Class Project at The Working Class Weekly: “Tariffs and the war in Iran are raising prices at the grocery store and gas pump, and cuts to Medicaid and the expiration of ACA tax credits have made healthcare increasingly hard for working class voters to afford. Corruption is also a salient issue with this group, particularly when it’s tied to the cost of living and healthcare cuts…But we’ve also tested non-cost messages to gauge which, if any, other Republican negatives move these voters. This week we’re highlighting some of our findings on other messaging across the battleground — and what Democrats should do with it…Non-cost messages such as the ballroom landed broadly as demonstrating how Republicans are out of touch. In Iowa, infrastructure cut sharply with the men in our focus groups. The top performing non-cost message among these men was “A Republican who opposed billions of dollars in investments to repair bridges, roads, and rural broadband projects, even though Iowa’s infrastructure is ranked among the worst in the country.” This message was potent specifically with these voters given Iowa’s distinct infrastructure challenges.

“Our roads are f***ing horrible. They’re so bad…For someone to not see that there’s a glaring need is not something that I would be supportive of that person’s stance at all.” — White Man from Iowa

In the same vein, avoiding town halls also resonated as a sign of Republicans being out of touch, particularly with men in Iowa, where town halls and infrastructure are a generally more meaningful part of the political culture than in other places.” More here.

In “The Supreme Court Is Helping Trump Rig the Midterms: Trump’s order limiting mail-in voting is patently unconstitutional—but that didn’t stop the court from giving it the green light,” Elie Mystal write at The Nation: “In an emergency decision, issued through the shadow docket, the Republican supermajority gave Trump permission to limit voting by mail in the upcoming midterm elections. In doing this, the six GOP justices well understand that the president is trying to give himself the ability to manipulate the vote. They’re not confused by his plan. They’re not being obtuse. They’re simply aiding and abetting Trump’s assault on democratic self-government…The entire executive order is unconstitutional. Voter registration and the maintenance of voter rolls is handled on the state level, not the federal level. The Trump administration has no constitutional authority to tell the states whom can be sent a ballot. It has no constitutional authority to tell the Postal Service whom it can deliver mail to. It has no legal authority to prosecute state officials who follow their own state’s procedures for producing that mail…A group of 23 states sued the Trump administration and, in July, US District Judge Indira Talwani blocked Trump’s unconstitutional executive order. But then Trump appealed to his Supreme Court—and, on Monday, the Republican supermajority dutifully stayed the district court order and allowed Trump to proceed with his election-rigging plans…That argument is every bit as preposterous as it sounds. State election officials are being harmed, right now, by the threat of prosecution should they follow their state’s procedures for issuing mail-in ballots. Voters in those states are being harmed, right now, by the confusion Trump is causing over whether they can expect to receive a ballot. Either the court thinks that such harms can be stopped at some point in the future or, more likely, they think that Trump’s attempts to suppress the vote and rig the election aren’t “harms” at all.” More here.

“More than 160,000 Ohioans have lost Affordable Care Act insurance since Republicans in Washington allowed Covid-era subsidies to expire — nearly a third of the Obamacare market and the biggest coverage dropoff of any state,  Alice Miranda Ollstein writes at Politico. “Another 360,000 are poised to lose Medicaid next year due to cuts Congress passed last year. As Republicans either avoid discussing health care on the campaign trail or dismiss those losing insurance as fraudsters or undeserving of public assistance, Democrats are offering sympathy and pitching solutions…“When Republicans pass legislation that spikes health care premiums and kicks a bunch of people off of the health care they need to survive, that’s a kitchen table issue and it gives us a strong offensive argument,” said CJ Warnke, the spokesperson for House Majority Forward, a PAC aligned with Democratic leadership that plans to run millions in ads in the Dayton and Columbus suburbs to try to flip districts long held by Republicans…Amy Acton, the state’s former health director who hopes to become the state’s first Democratic governor in 15 years, and Sherrod Brown, who is gunning to win back the Senate seat he lost in 2024, told POLITICO that at nearly every campaign stop, voters tell them stories of insurance denials, premiums that have doubled or tripled, monthly pharmacy bills totalling hundreds of dollars, and long drives for health services due to provider shortages and hospital closures…Democrats’ fresh hopes of victory in the bellwether state after years of losses is something Brown, Acton, their supporters, and neutral policy experts attribute in large part to voters’ health care woes.” More here.

J.Miles Coleman reports the good news in “Three Rating Changes in Texas, All Towards Democrats” at The Center for Politics: “The open Texas Senate race moves to Toss-up, as state Rep. James Talarico (D) leads in polls more often than not against state Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), who will need a rescue operation from national Republicans…Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX), though much better-positioned than Paxton, is no longer in a completely Safe Republican race…s strange as it may seem, Rep. Monica De La Cruz’s (R, TX-15) reelection bid in a Trump +18 district now appears to be a genuine Toss-up…If Democrats were to win a statewide race in Texas, or even come reasonably close, one of the several factors that would have to align for them would probably be the state’s Latino vote snapping back to them. While the movements in Latino precincts in places like Houston and Dallas will probably be consequential, the three “classic” South Texas U.S. House seats may also tell a story on this front…Democrats are entering the election with 2 of the 3 South Texas seats. Despite a Republican-driven redistricting effort, Rep. Henry Cuellar (D, TX-28) got, arguably, a more favorable district while Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D, TX-34) still seems to have a path to reelection; we rate the former as Leans Democratic and the latter as a Toss-up. The third district, which sits geographically in between those two, is TX-15, held by two-term Rep. Monica De La Cruz (R). TX-15 is also, by presidential partisanship, the reddest of the trio—it was the only one to vote for Trump in 2020, although it only did so narrowly, before it backed him by 18 points in 2024. Though De La Cruz ran a little behind Trump in 2024, she still won by 14 points that year…South Texas Democrats have a heralded recruit in TX-15 this year with Tejano music star Bobby Pulido. We did get a rare public poll of the race earlier this morning: the Barbara Jordan Public Policy Research and Survey Center at Texas Southern University found Democrats leading in all three South Texas seats, with Pulido up 50%-45%. Whether Pulido is actually leading is debatable, but our understanding is that this is indeed a highly competitive contest…While we would usually not rate a Trump +18 seat as a Toss-up, the area just may be more elastic than most districts, and while the region is likely moving right in the longer term, there may be a significant snap back to Democrats in the short term.” More here.

From “Polls Show 5 Democratic Socialist Positions Have Traction With Republicans” by Dan Gooding at Newsweek: “As Republicans and some moderate Democrats increasingly portray democratic socialists as out of step with mainstream America, polling suggests a more complicated reality—a majority of Republican voters support several of the economic policies championed by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and prominent figures on the party’s left flank…The disconnect highlights a recurring feature of American politics. While “socialism” remains a negative label for many conservatives, specific policy proposals often perform far better when voters are asked about them directly…Recent polling has found notable Republican support for ideas including paid family leave, raising the minimum wage, taxing billionaires, expanding government health coverage and slowing the rapid expansion of AI data centers…The findings come as the rise of democratic socialist-backed candidates such as New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed has fueled renewed debate inside both parties about how far left Democrats should move ahead of this year’s midterms…Republicans have frequently sought to tie Democrats to the DSA, arguing the organization’s agenda is outside the political mainstream.” More here.

In “US-Canada trade war could make these everyday items pricier,” Elizabeth Buchwald writes at CNN Politics: “The United States and Canada are barreling toward a deeper trade war after last-ditch efforts to strike a deal collapsed Friday…The failed efforts resulted in President Donald Trump enacting 50% tariffs on roughly $20 billion worth of Canadian goods early Saturday morning. Canada is preparing to retaliate with “dollar-for-dollar” tariffs starting September 8, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced over the weekend…American businesses have a few options: stop importing the impacted goods altogether until they run through their inventory, pay the exorbitant tariff or switch suppliers…However, Canada may have been selected in the first place because it offered a cost or logistical advantage that isn’t easily replicated elsewhere. Companies that move their purchases, when possible, could therefore end up paying more anyway…And with the war in Iran already driving up energy and transportation costs, businesses have less room to absorb another hit. That increases the chances that at least some of the tariff costs ultimately land on consumers…If Ottawa proceeds with its retaliatory duties, Trump is all but certain to fire back, making the trade war with America’s second-top trading partner even more painful for both sides…For now, though, here are three areas where Americans could start to see goods get more expensive: (More here).

Ali Bianco’s “Why Mikie Sherrill thinks vets can build back power for Democrats” puts a fresh take on Democratic strategy at Politico. As Bianco explains, “If Democrats are searching for a figurehead to lead the party back from the brink, they may start looking more toward someone like New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill…The former Navy helicopter pilot has enlisted for a new mission: to establish herself as an influential operator for the midterms, with an eye toward putting Democrats back on the right footing with voters as the 2028 presidential election looms. Just seven months into her tenure, she’s kicking off a fall of cross-country travel with a slate of endorsements in some of this cycle’s most competitive districts…Following a summer primary season that’s pitted the insurgents against the establishment, Sherrill’s betting that a group of veterans with backgrounds rooted in public service like her, eschewing ideological identities or factions, could be the path back to power come November — and beyond…“The fight isn’t moderates versus DSA candidates,” Sherrill told POLITICO on the road this week. “The fight is if we are going to have strong people in the Democratic Party that are going to actually make change to make people’s lives better, or people who you can just expect more of the same.”…Sherrill’s fixation on veterans as the way to rebuild power for the Democratic Party comes down to a universal truth she’s identified among voters across the political spectrum right now: a desperate desire for change.” More here.

Many political commentators will find “‘I Was Surprised!’ CNN Data Guru Reveals ‘Most Likely’ Midterm Election Outcome” by David Gilmour at Mediaite via AOL a revealing read. As Gilmour writes,  “CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten found a Democratic sweep of Congress is now the single “most likely” midterm outcome after crunching thousands of polls, a result he admitted surprised him…Enten laid out four possible scenarios for control of Washington in a video uploaded to YouTube on Monday, assigning a 52% chance to Democrats winning both the House and Senate…“I was surprised by this before we started cracking the numbers, but that is why we do it,” Enten said. “It’s the numbers. Don’t blame me. The numbers are the numbers.”…The projection rests partly on Senate polling that Enten said shows Democrats competitive even across states that have recently leaned Republican. He pointed to Democratic leads of 9 points in North Carolina and 3 points in both Maine and Ohio, along with a 2-point advantage in Texas and a competitive race in Iowa…Under the map Enten presented, Democrats could emerge with a 52-48 Senate majority. Even if Republicans captured Michigan, he said, Democrats could still finish with 51 seats…Enten also pointed to President Donald Trump’s political standing as a major factor facing Republicans. He showed polling showing just 24% of Americans believe Republican policies have “helped” their cost of living, compared with 55% who say they have “hurt” their financial position…“That is very, very bad news,” he warned, pointing out the issue as one that got Trump elected in 2024…Additionally, the president’s net approval rating, Enten added, is 20 points underwater and the analyst said he’d gone back through the “history books” to find “there were only two other presidents who had a sub-20 net approval besides Trump at this point of midterm cycle.” More here.

New Republic Editor Michael Tomasky writes in “Why Don’t Leftie Candidates Do Better Among Working-Class Voters?” linked here via Yahoo News, that “Non-college working-class voters are more skeptical than more educated voters are. I say that not to praise or damn one group or the other. It’s just, I think, the reality. It stems from the fact, more glaringly true in this country with each successive generation, that for the educated class, things like opportunity and advancement and the confidence that one’s children will live better lives are far more real than they are for working-class people. Working-class people’s lives in these last couple of decades have just gotten much harder, inching ever closer to the precipice of job loss, default, indignity. Working-class people live in regular if not constant fear of these things. Educated people, in an economy that leans more and more toward rewarding them, do not…Therefore, educated voters and non-college voters hear politicians’ promises through very different ears. To educated voters, big promises about government improving people’s lives sound great, or at least plausible. To non-college voters, those promises sound like just more empty talk. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that to non-college voters, the bigger the promise, the phonier it sounds. They hear promises about free health care for all, and they think yeah, right, that’s never gonna happen in this country. Their experience has taught them not to believe, and for the most part, you can’t blame them…It’s true that it’s not fair that social democrats—and again, most of these candidates are really social democrats, not democratic socialists—should pay the electoral price for this…”

Tomasky continues, “After all, it wasn’t they who’ve been screwing over the working class for four decades. But they’re stuck with the reality that the screwing has made working-class people extremely suspicious of those promising them big things…So what’s the solution? Well, the only real solution is to win office in sufficient numbers to deliver on the promises to the point that working people do see genuine improvement in their material conditions. But that’s going to take a lot of time. A decade, maybe more… “In the meantime, I think the best progressive candidates can do is first and obviously, stay away from topics like prison abolition; but second and more importantly, really just explain things to working-class voters in a way that understands and assumes their skepticism. Aspirational rhetoric appeals to educated voters. To non-college voters, it just sounds like more fluff. Tell them, specifically and concretely, why their rent keeps going up, who’s doing it to them, and how you’re going to go after the people doing it. And explain clearly and specifically how your Republican opponent is on the side of the rent-raisers. Dot-connecting of that sort seems to me more likely to win working-class votes than lofty rhetoric and big promises.”

From “How Not to Defeat Authoritarianism” by Adam Bonica and Jake Grumbach at The Boston review: “Democrats can keep debating whether to stand five degrees or fifteen degrees left of center, fine-tuning messages drowned out by the latest Trump spectacle. They can chase moderate voters our data shows won’t materialize while their base stays home. They can maintain faith that reasonableness will eventually triumph…Or they can accept the evidence: the old rules are dead. In a nationalized media environment with an authoritarian movement capturing one major party, electoral politics has become existential conflict. This requires not moderation but mobilization, not positioning but purpose, not just messaging but genuine reform to prove that Democrats will fight for democracy itself by first attacking the corruption that rots it from within…Scholars of democratic breakdown know that moments like this demand institutional coordination, civil society mobilization, and the political courage to name and confront the authoritarian threat on its weakest flank. Every democracy facing this challenge has learned you don’t defeat authoritarians by being more reasonable. You defeat them by being more determined and by uniting the country against their most visible vulnerability: their corruption.” More here.

As one of the respondents to the Boston Review article, William A. Galston writes in “Public Opinion Is Only Party Malleable” that “I am sympathetic to Adam Bonica and Jake Grumbach’s argument that the term “moderation” conceals more than it reveals and threatens to mislead party reformers who seek to strengthen the Democratic Party as a bulwark against autocracy. I fear, however, that much of their argument is open to the same criticism…The authors lead off by intimating that Kamala Harris might have won with a less moderate campaign. Maybe so, but they offer no evidence. In reality, she lost for several reasons: because she was the successor to an unpopular president from whom she did nothing to separate herself; because the issue of reproductive rights, on which she bet heavily, receded in importance compared to the 2022 midterm elections; because the Biden administration was seen (rightly, in my view) as having botched the two issues—inflation and immigration—whose salience rose the most relative to 2020; because her campaign did not even try to counter Trump’s “Kamala is for they/them” attack ad that served as effective synecdoche for a host of unpopular progressive stances on cultural issues; because Trump was seen as a stronger leader more likely to bring needed change and better equipped to handle a crisis; and finally, because messaging about democracy being “at risk” did not work the way her campaign expected. Some 73 percent of voters regarded democracy as “threatened,” but Trump beat Harris by 50 to 48 in this group. He did even better among the 4 in 10 voters who saw democracy as “very threatened,” carrying them by 52 to 47.” More here.

Nobel laureate Paul Krugman makes “The Case for a Medicare Buy-In Option” at paulkrugman.substck.com and writes: “Abdul El-Sayed won the Democratic nomination for Michigan Senate on a platform advocating Medicare for All, aka single-payer health insurance. As I argued Tuesday, this makes a lot of sense in policy terms. Many healthcare experts would choose single-payer if designing a healthcare system from scratch. That’s not a hypothetical: my friend the late Uwe Reinhardt, who taught me much of what I know about healthcare economics, played an important advisory role in creating Taiwan’s highly regarded healthcare system — where he really could start from scratch — and argued successfully for single-payer…Furthermore, as I pointed out Tuesday, the United States is already most of the way to single-payer in terms of dollars spent: the government de facto pays for about two-thirds of health insurance and extensively regulates the rest. Except as providers of supplemental care, there is really no net positive added by private insurers. In fact, for basic health insurance coverge, private insurers are a net negative because they impose excessive administrative costs and often engage in fraudulent overbilling.”

Krugman continues, “The political obstacles to replacing private health insurance with a Medicare-like system are formidable, although arguably less formidable now than they were when Obamacare was created. As I’ll argue shortly, there’s a strong case for a soft transition in which people can choose to be covered by Medicare via a public option. But before I get there, let’s talk about why, in the realm of healthcare, there’s tension between good policy and political realism…Why won’t making the legitimate case that Medicare for All is the best system be enough to win the political argument? The pervasive corruption of our political environment by corporate and right-leaning money is part of the answer. Health insurers may be parasites, but parasites make campaign contributions. Other players will also spend big to fight single-payer. Drug companies, in particular, don’t want to see the U.S., like healthcare systems almost everywhere else in the world, bargain down their prices and reduce their monopoly power. And MAGA is against anything that would improve the health and well-being of average Americans…But it’s not just about money-driven corruption. Ordinary voters are inherently conservative, not in the left-right sense, but because they are understandably wary of change. El-Sayed does a very good job of making the case that most of the 183 million Americans now covered by private insurance would get better coverage under Medicare for All, and would pay less in additional taxes than they now pay in insurance premiums. But expecting most Americans to trust that promise is overoptimistic…Although Americans are extremely negative about what they think the federal government does, however, they are much more positive about what the federal government actually does. And no major government program is as popular as Medicare, which has an 82 percent favorable rating.”

Krugman adds, ” So it may be possible to defuse attacks on a single-payer healthcare system by portraying the plan as more Medicare, not bigger government…However, Americans suffer a disconnect between the general and the specific on the topic of private healthcare insurance. Americans have strongly negative views, verging on hatred, about the insurance industry. Luigi Mangione, who is expected to plead guilty to the murder of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO, has become a folk hero in some quarters. Yet 77 percent of Americans with private health insurance report being satisfied with their coverage. So any mandate that moves Americans away from private coverage to a government system they haven’t yet experienced is likely to face stiff resistance…What, then, should Democrats of good will — that is, people who want their fellow citizens to have affordable access to quality healthcare like citizens of every other advanced country — support? Should they call for an all-out effort to implement the best policy – Medicare for All — that is likely to face significant pushback and political roadblocks, albeit unjustified? Or should they settle for a strategy that is likely to involve a more drawn-out process to achieve universal coverage, but is also more likely to turn into reality?…For what it’s worth, I don’t believe that Medicare for All is as unrealistic politically as it was even a decade ago. Americans really do deeply distrust the health insurance industry, and a massive advertising and lobbying campaign by that industry, like the one that helped kill the Clinton health reform in 1993, might well backfire. ”

Krugman concludes, “And the right-wing propaganda apparatus has surely been damaged by its fealty to Trump, which would hamper any attempt to demonize healthcare reform the way the right demonized Obamacare in its early years…That said, a rapid transition to Medicare for All looks unlikely. Bear in mind that such a transition would require higher taxes, so that it would be necessary to persuade people that these taxes would be more than offset by lower premiums. And this would be a hard sell…But there is an alternative: A public option, better described as Medicare Buy-In. Allow individuals, and possibly more important, employers, to sign up for Medicare benefits, paying actuarially fair premiums to Medicare reflecting the health status of their workers. There’s no obvious reason a public option would be any harder to implement than payments to the Medicare Advantage plans offered by private insurers, which are also supposed to be actuarially fair…A healthcare system in which many Americans under 65 buy into Medicare would not immediately deliver all the advantages of full Medicare for All. Some people and employers, despite the disadvantages, might retain private insurance. And some people, who currently either choose to be uninsured or fall through the cracks, might remain uninsured. It would lack the clarity of a system in which every citizen knows that they are entitled to care…But it would be far better than what we currently have. Moreover, a system in which private health insurance is a rump industry, covering a dwindling fraction of the population, would be a better starting point for a full transition to universal coverage…So that’s my idea of how we should proceed. But I’m not going to denounce people who want to be more ambitious, to push more quickly for full Medicare for All. For now, the crucial thing is to elect people who really are committed to providing Americans with the healthcare they deserve.”

From “Samuel Alito gained up to $2.9m from oil and gas assets since joining supreme court, analysis shows” by Dharna Noor at The Guardian: “The supreme court justice Samuel Alito gained up to $2.9m from his fossil fuel interests between 2005 and 2024, a new review of financial disclosures shows…The analysis from the non-profit advocacy group and judicial watchdog Court Accountability, shared exclusively with the Guardian, found that even at the lowest range of estimates, Alito gained almost $400,000 from his oil and gas interests since being tapped for the high court by George W Bush in 2005…The findings come as the supreme court prepares to take up a case in which the oil companies Suncor Energy and Exxon asked the justices to find that federal law prevents subnational governments from filing lawsuits against fossil fuel producers for the climate-warming effects of their products…The supreme court said this month it will hear oral arguments in the case on 5 October, the opening day of its new term. The Trump administration, which is siding with the oil companies, has asked for 10 minutes of argument time. Court Accountability and other groups have called for a Senate committee to investigate Alito, the sole supreme court justice with holdings in energy companies, and said he should recuse himself.” More here.

In”Four takeaways from Tuesday’s primaries in six states,” Maham Javaid writes at NPR.org: “Democratic primaries in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Connecticut signaled what the party’s base may want from new leaders: a harder line against President Trump’s immigration crackdown and younger, more progressive nominees, as a 14-term congressman was swept aside by a candidate under 50…On the Republican side, the night tested how far Trump’s endorsement still carries, even with his approval at a second-term low, and the answer was mixed. His endorsements won in some states and stumbled in others…The competitive Democratic Senate race in Minnesota was being looked at as a litmus test deciding if the party has enough spine to effectively oppose Trump’s immigration policies and enforcement operations…With Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan’s primary win against Rep. Angie Craig Tuesday night, in a race called by the AP, it appears the base wants their party leaders to oppose ICE and Operation Metro Surge, a large-scale immigration enforcement operation launched by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in December 2025 which heavily impacted the Twin Cities and shaped much of this Senate race…For weeks, Francesca Hong, a 37-year-old chef, state lawmaker and democratic socialist, had been leading the polls against David Crowley, the Milwaukee County executive and more mainstream candidate, in a state that is purple in presidential elections. But after being locked in a tight race on Tuesday night, Crowley was declared the winner, in a call made by the AP early Wednesday…The tight race, despite Hong’s controversial track record of statements, which included canceling Thanksgiving, and lack of endorsement from Sen. Bernie Sanders, signals the Democratic base is looking for change…Hong’s high-energy grassroots campaign has been fueled by progressives who are drawn to her unusual background and left-wing politics. She backs Medicare for All and universal childcare, and has called for a moratorium on data centers, a key issue for midterm voters.” More here.

Oren Oppenheim, Gaby Vinick and Diana Paulsen saw it this way in “Primaries key takeaways: A centrist win, questions about Trump endorsement” at ABC News: “Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, a centrist Democrat, narrowly won the Democratic primary in a major upset in the race for governor, the Associated Press projects. He defeated Wisconsin assemblywoman Francesca Hong, a democratic socialist, in what became a high-stakes test for progressives who pinned their hopes on winning a major party nomination in a crucial battleground state. A former state lawmaker, Crowley pitched himself as the candidate best-positioned to defeat Republican Rep. Tom Tiffany, endorsed by President Donald Trump, in November. He campaigned on his executive experience running the state’s most populous county. It’s the final shakeup in what became a messy primary and a major comeback for Crowley, who had quit the race on July 8 as his campaign struggled to gain traction. But with Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez’s exit days later, it set off a scramble for Democrats to coalesce around a moderate opponent to Hong. He rejoined the race on July 17, bolstered by late support from outgoing Democratic Gov. Tony Evers…Crowley’s narrow victory also suggests that division over the party’s direction — and the split over support for progressives or more moderate candidates this midterm cycle — remains ever strong. It follows a handful of electoral victories for progressives in congressional primaries in Colorado and New York and, most recently, in Michigan’s closely-watched Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate. Hong branded herself as a fighter for the working class, advocated for universal childcare and called to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement. She argued voters were ready for “transformational change.” More here.

Kyle Kondik and J. Miles Coleman shared their view of the primaries at The Center for Politics: “Leading up to Election Day, polls showed Hong with a big lead, but Crowley rallied, leading by tenuous margins for much of Election Night before the belated release of Milwaukee’s absentee votes made it clear that Hong had no path to overtake his small lead. What exactly happened with the polls is hard to say: It may be the case that the white progressives who power left-wing candidates are responding to polls at greater rates, which may skew the results even with weighting. Wisconsin, like Michigan, does not have registration by party, so its primaries are open, and figuring out who is going to vote from year to year is a real challenge. This also was, as we just said, a crazy race, and there likely was a lot of change in the closing days. It may have even been the case that progressive Abdul El-Sayed’s (D) victory in the Michigan Senate primary, and subsequent Democratic handwringing about his electability, contributed to a shift toward Crowley in Wisconsin. Aside from the fact that Hong did not run any of her own television ads, the media hits that she did during the final stretch of the campaign did not dispel the notion that she would have been a very risky nominee for Democrats. All in all, the Democratic “establishment” has clearly taken some hits this cycle, but party leaders retain the ability to nudge voters…In what was reminiscent of how Rep. Haley Stevens (D, MI-11), another “establishment” Democratic candidate, held up much better than what her polling suggested last week, Crowley carried a majority of the state’s counties. Both Crowley and Hong carried their home counties, Milwaukee and Dane, respectively, although they each did so by margins that could be called underwhelming…Crowley’s coalition included the city’s Black wards, and he also posted a relatively strong showing in more established and monied neighborhoods along the county’s North Shore. Meanwhile—and in a way similar to how we found the aforementioned El-Sayed held up in Detroit—the pro-Hong coalition showed up in younger, whiter areas of the county as well as the city’s Latino pockets.” More here.

Cassidy’s cave lights up the corrupt heart of the Republican Party for all to see. There are a lot of articles you can read about it. Try “Spineless Republican Gives Jaw-Dropping Reason for Folding to Trump” for starters. Sen. Cassidy had the choice of providing a “profile in courage” his grandkids could one day be proud of. Instead he turned his back on honor and put his political career way ahead of any of the ethical or moral principles that America is supposed to be about. He chose the Hall of Shame that showcases political cowardice. But it’s too easy to blame just him. His entire party, with just a couple of exceptions, now stands well-lit in the bright light of corruption. He is just the emblematic example of all the Republican senators who decided that Todd Blanche, the guy who engineered Ghislaine Maxwell’s transfer to a “country club” prison, was fit to rule over American justice. No doubt Cassidy didn’t want to be the front man for this tawdry drama. It makes you wonder, where is the grimy bottom of the Republican Party? Does it even have one? Many once thought Pam Bondi was as bad the DOJ could get. Somewhere she is breathing a long sigh of relief. The victims in the Epstein files will never cave like the GOP senators. They will continue their fight until a semblance of justice has been achieved. It could take a while. But Epstein enablers and the party that feeds them will not only have to answer to history. They will have to answer to the voters in November. Their short-sighted politics of distraction will not save them then. In just a few short months the bill for Republican corruption comes due.

To add some clarity to what the new A.G. is all about, read “Todd Blanche Wants to Finish What Dobbs Started” by Rachel Rebouche at The Nation. As Rebouche writes, “When the Supreme Court handed down Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2022, overturning Roe v. Wade, its defenders insisted the ruling was an act of judicial restraint and a decision that returned the question of abortion to democratic majorities in each state. The United States’ top lawyer, Todd Blanche, apparently has other ideas…On a July 30 conference call hosted by the White House Faith Office —not meant for public ears, though the audio later surfaced on YouTube—the acting attorney general told religious leaders that the administration is working to ensure that the Dobbs decision “becomes permanent in every single state.” He acknowledged that “we don’t have complete victory yet,” but promised the faithful, “Victory will be soon and it will be permanent.”…Blanche seems to have in mind a project that goes far beyond enforcing existing federal law or upholding current state abortion laws. Trump’s pick to lead the Justice Department could use the agency as a tool to impose abortion restrictions on all states, even those that protect reproductive rights through their own democratic processes and state Constitutions…The confirmation of Todd Blanche as attorney general will represent a new facet of the post-Dobbs landscape. The debate over abortion access has been primarily a story of state-level politics: ballot measures, state constitutional amendments, legislative sessions, and court challenges fought state by state and county by county. That landscape could change…” More here.

If you had any doubts about where Republican leadership stood on the data centers issue, you can put them to rest in the wake of President Trump’s recent clarification. As Julia Manchester reports in “Trump: It’s a ‘mistake’ to go against data centers” at The Hill, “President Trump touted what he said were the benefits of data centers in an interview that was published Friday, potentially pitting himself against a number of Republicans and Democrats on the growing issue…“I saw Texas the other day sort of is against data centers. I think it’s a mistake,” Trump told Punchbowl News…“I’m not taking positions,” he continued. “I just think it’s a mistake because there are other communities that want it. When a community wants it, it means a lot of money is going to come into that community.”…“Taxes are going to go way down because this is a tremendous source of income,” the president said…Trump also pushed back on criticism of the data centers, including that they’re unsightly…“I don’t think they’re unsightly. I mean, I’m looking at some of these data centers, the most incredible buildings I’ve ever seen,” the president said…“They are tremendously important for the economics. I mean, this is — for Texas to say no to data centers is a mistake in the sense that it could be bigger than oil,” he said.” More here.

In “The Disintegration of the U.S. Military Under Trump and Beyond,” Mike Lofgren writes at Washington Monthly,  “I have written before that even in a so-called “conventional” conflict at which it is supposed to excel, the U.S. military has serious deficiencies. The Pentagon’s habit of purchasing high-tech weapons that are too expensive, take too long to build, and are too few to be sustained amid normal attrition has left us with a force that will quickly run out of munitions. The ill-advised war against Iran greatly exacerbated this deficiency, confronting the Pentagon with the stark reality that conflict with China would empty the U.S. arsenal in a few days. It also became clear that our military was unprepared to deal with drone warfare: Ukrainian advisors were dispatched to the Persian Gulf to teach Americans the new realities of war…During Trump’s second term, his misuse of the military has accelerated. The employment of the National Guard, and occasionally active-duty military, for policing assistance in American cities has been justified by dubious emergency declarations. Still, the real reason appears to be an impressive show of military force to cow the politicians and citizens of Democratic-run jurisdictions…A meddling president with a history as a fly-by-night developer who stiffs his vendors, tolerates shoddy work if it has surface glitz, and declared six bankruptcies. In his second term, Trump’s fingerprints are all over Pentagon contracting…Trump’s sons have invested in more than a dozen tech startups that received at least $3.2 billion in direct government business (mostly with DOD) and $3.1 billion in future contract options. Five of the firms had never done business with the federal government until the Trumps invested after their father became president—a notable achievement because of the difficulty in qualifying as a first-time federal contractor, particularly with DOD.” More here.