Beating Jeff Van Drew Is Personal. Can Democrats Finally Do It?

You’re reading The TNR Blue Book. Get daily scoops, strategy, and developments inside the liberal ideas factory delivered right to your inbox. Sign up for free.

Inside Washington

Democrats seriously dislike Jeff Van Drew: The Republican representative of New Jersey’s 2nd congressional district used to be a Democrat until 2019, when he switched his party affiliation after voting against the impeachment of President Donald Trump. Now, Democratic Cape May Mayor Zack Mullock thinks he could finally unseat Van Drew. Earlier this year, that seemed impossible. But amid near-nonexistent public polling in the district, Mullock claims that internal numbers give him a chance. In a sign of the times, Sabato’s Crystal Ball on Tuesday shifted the race in Democrats’ favor, from “safe R” to “likely R.”

Van Drew has been untouchable for years. In 2024, he won reelection by 17 points. But experts say that three national trends this year might undermine his support: affordability struggles, disillusioned Hispanic voters, and data center blowback. “Our internal polling shows that we’re within one, which is huge,” Mullock told supporters in Vineland on October 17. The most recent public poll was conducted in May 2025 and showed Van Drew up by 10 points against a generic Democrat.

Van Drew’s campaign dismissed Mullock’s claim. “Every cycle the Democrats get together, commission a fake poll saying this seat is in play to use as a fundraising ploy, and every year Congressman Van Drew proves them wrong—this is nothing new,” Ron Filan, Van Drew’s campaign manager and director of political affairs, wrote in a statement. But in early October, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) added the race to its list of districts in play, a sign that internal polling might actually be stronger than Van Drew’s team suggests. “Either one point or 10 points is a shift from two years ago, when Van Drew carried the district by 17 points,” said Micah Rasmussen, the director of the Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics, who managed a handful of Van Drew’s state legislator campaigns between 1994 and 2001.

Mullock’s appeal hinges on his moderate messaging and past successes in the conservative Cape May area. On his website, he describes himself as “an independent voice for working families,” and it’s hard to find a mention of party affiliation. That’s important in the 2nd congressional district, explained Matthew Hale, a professor of political science at Seton Hall University. In New Jersey, he said, there isn’t “an enormous number of far-left or far-right folks compared to the rest of the country.” But they do have some far-right voters, he said, “and most of them live in the 2nd district.”

Hale thinks those voters will likely sink Mullock. “There’s a wall there for the Republican incumbent,” agreed Benjamin Dworkin, the founding director of the Rowan Institute for Public Policy & Citizenship at Rowan University. “Whether the Democratic wave is big enough to go over it is unclear.” But Mullock may be able to gain some appeal among the district’s Hispanic voters, who are concentrated in Atlantic City, Vineland, and Millville. Nationally, Hispanic voters have trended away from Trump and Republicans. They were a critical part of Trump’s 2024 coalition, but now about six in 10 disapprove of his handling of the presidency.

Mullock could also benefit from Van Drew’s past support for a data center project in Vineland, which has been the focal point of grassroots organizing. Vineland residents are deeply concerned about the data center’s noise pollution, local water quality, and their electric bills, The New Republic’s own Kate Aronoff wrote in September. Like many politicians, Van Drew was originally supportive of data center development, but he changed his tune once the political winds shifted. One developer involved with the project called Van Drew’s support for it “critical”—a detail that Mullock has highlighted in social media posts. Neither candidate immediately responded to The New Republic’s inquiries about data centers.

As in other parts of the country, New Jersey residents are tying data centers to their affordability concerns, which are particularly acute in a “hardscrabble” area like the 2nd district, Rasmussen said. Plus, there are environmental concerns: Rasmussen’s own mother lives four miles from the data center and can hear it humming at night. The center runs on diesel generators that release pollution into the air without state permission.

Van Drew might well prevail despite all this. But Democrats are hungry to hand him a loss. “He has certainly earned the everlasting animosity of Democrats in the district,” Rasmussen said. “There’s a tremendous sense of betrayal.”

—Emma Janssen

Outside Washington

Julian Curo-Churata’s family is still waiting for answers about how the 47-year-old died of “cardiac arrest” due to “septic shock” while at an ICE detention center on September 29, two days after reportedly being in perfect health on a phone call with his wife. Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen has demanded a “full independent investigation” into the death, which is one of “at least 59” that occurred in ICE custody under the second Trump administration, according to The Washington Post’s tally. The Post’s Liam Bowman reports the troubling details of the case: from ICE arresting the father of three in Laurel, Maryland, on his way to work; to Curo-Churata’s three-month detention in Louisiana; to his daily attempts to reassure his six-year-old daughter via video call that he was just working on a construction job and would be back soon; to him actually volunteering to self-deport to Peru so he could “reunite” with his family (a judge denied this request); to a drive between the detention center and the hospital that should have taken seven minutes and inexplicably seems to have taken almost two and a half hours. Bowman reports that, as of Monday, the local coroner still had not completed an autopsy report.

The Texas Tribune reports that 288 new data centers currently planned for the state could raise nitrogen oxide emissions (famously bad for the respiratory system, in addition to causing acid rain and combining with other molecules to increase fine particulate pollution) by 35 percent by 2031, erasing “decades of progress.” But if the centers rely largely on natural gas, nitrogen oxide levels could rise by 146 percent, alongside large spikes in volatile organic compounds and particulate matter. Data centers have become an unexpectedly large issue in the governor’s race. Texas now has 419 of them, making it second only to Virginia (490). Democrat Gina Hinojosa has called for a moratorium on the centers until the government can pass protective legislation. In recent months, Governor Greg Abbott has declared his support for regulations to curb the industry. But a recent report from FracTracker and Public Citizen found that, despite his very public ordering of a “pause” on permits in late August, state regulators are still processing permits. (The Abbott administration responded to the report by insisting that no permits have been “approved.”) On Monday, the Tribune calculated that Abbott has received some $9 million from “data center-related donors” since July 2025.

—Heather Souvaine Horn

The Ideas Factory

At the Center for American Progress, Angelo Villagomez and Beth Pike review the Trump administration’s proposed policy changes on fishing in protected marine national monuments and explain the potential impact. Their takeaway: “Nationally, the five rollbacks threaten to eliminate 87 percent of the nation’s highly protected ocean waters; at the same time, they account for a staggering 21 percent loss in high-level marine protection globally. The United States would be left with only 3 percent of its marine waters protected and likely to support biodiversity benefits.”

Groundwork Collaborative and The Century Foundation estimate that the price of “Halloween candy favorites have jumped 15.3% over the past year, more than four times the rate of overall inflation.” You might assume that’s just due to the global increase in chocolate prices, but no: The company behind Sour Patch Kids and Swedish Fish raised prices by an eerie 39 percent.

—Heather Souvaine Horn

In Closing

Book of the Week: The Creativity Con
By Thomas Frank

THE GIST: The Baffler founder and “scoffer by trade” is back, and this time it’s with a book aimed at innovation—which is to say at America’s very self-conception.
PRAISE: Publishers Weekly says that “Frank’s wry critique exposes how creativity and innovation are ‘a marker of ghastliness,’ wielded as a justification for policy that benefits only the so-called enlightened few. It’s a sharp look at how prized American values mask inequality.”
CRUISING THE INDEX: Like many of Frank’s books (including What’s the Matter with Kansas? and Pity the Billionaire), The Creativity Con is sweeping—part history, part sociology, part exposé. It’s not shocking that the tech industry comes under special scrutiny, but Frank’s target is larger than Silicon Valley: It encompasses Lockheed Martin, Madison Avenue, Donald Trump, and Richard Florida.
TNR’S QUICK CRITICAL ASSESSMENT: “Creativity and innovation are essential to the story of how our modern economic order was cemented into place,” Frank writes. That’s what this book is really about: not just the con at the heart of innovation, but how elites use innovation as a tool to ensure an economic order that benefits them—and leaves everyone else behind.

—Alex Shephard

Political Trivia Question of the Day   

According to howstuffworks.com, the most offensive political ad of all time (arguably until today, that is) was a 2011 right-wing attack ad on Democratic Los Angeles-area congressional candidate Janice Hahn in a special election. What kind of activity did the ad try to tie her to? (Sign up for The TNR Blue Book to find the answer in tomorrow’s newsletter.)

—Michael Tomasky

You’re reading The TNR Blue Book. Get daily scoops, strategy, and developments inside the liberal ideas factory delivered right to your inbox. Sign up for free.

Inside Washington

Dems and GOP differ in one big way when it comes to cash

With just two weeks to go until the midterm elections, competitive races are blowing through cash at unprecedented rates. “This is a whole new world, even in the post-Citizens United era,” said Jake Grumbach, a professor at UC Berkeley, about the amount of money raised and spent in the 2026 cycle. More than $15 billion has already been raised, and AdImpact predicts ad spending will hit a record-shattering $11.6 billion.

So far, Democratic candidates in the most competitive races have raised the most money. In some races, the difference is massive: In the Georgia Senate contest, Senator Jon Ossoff has outraised his competitor, Representative Mike Collins, by more than a factor of 10. But add super PACs and party spending into the mix, and suddenly Republicans have the advantage. “Republican megadonors and the super PACs they’re funding are more than making up that gap, and in our system, money matters,” said Eric Petry, counsel in the Brennan Center’s elections and government program. “It’s helping to keep Republicans in some of these key states, key races, competitive.”

Elon Musk is one such Republican megadonor. Musk, the richest person in the world, has poured more than a quarter of a billion dollars into super PACs and Republican groups. Over the summer, Musk gave $158 million to the Senate Leadership Fund, the GOP’s PAC for Senate candidates. That single donation was more than the Democratic-aligned Senate Majority PAC raised from all its donors during that quarter.

The flood of money from wealthy donors like Musk has made this a uniquely expensive election. “In the past, it’s typically been not complete parity between Democratic and Republican candidates, but by and large, the two parties have kind of raised and spent relatively equal amounts,” Petry explained. “So far this election cycle, Republicans are on track to dramatically outspend Democrats in a way that we just really haven’t seen before.”

Super PACs like Fairshake, which is aligned with the cryptocurrency industry, and AI-focused Leading the Future, which is backed by tech giants like OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman and Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, have also spent millions to support their preferred candidates and oppose those they see as hostile to their agendas. Experts worry that this unbridled industry spending will ultimately affect the legislation that Congress pursues, particularly now, when Americans want to see the AI industry regulated. “When you’ve got major tech titans spending just gobs of money to influence the political process, that sends a real message to members of Congress to think twice about how they’re approaching these issues,” said Michael Beckel, the director of money in politics reform at Issue One.

PAC money has been a lifeline to Republicans like Ken Paxton, the Republican nominee for Senate in Texas, who has raised far less than his opponent, James Talarico. Between July and September, the GOP’s main Senate super PAC, the Senate Leadership Fund, raised a record $272.9 million, about $122 million more than its Democratic counterpart. In turn, the Senate Leadership Fund funneled $158 million into Texas PAC, which backs Paxton.

Republicans have also benefited from a June Supreme Court decision that struck down limits on the amounts that parties could spend in coordination with candidates. National parties, like the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), can accept much larger donations than individual candidates can, and they can now coordinate their spending of that money with their preferred candidates. At the end of August, the RNC had more than seven times the amount that the DNC had in cash on hand, and the June decision made that advantage all the more powerful.

“Both parties feel like they’re in a political fundraising arms race that they don’t want to fight with one hand tied behind their back, and so they’re using every weapon available,” Beckel said. That’s led Democrats to engage in some strategies that others find unsavory, such as constant spam texts asking for donations and an embrace of their own megadonors like George Soros. (He and his family have  given $103 million to support Democrats this cycle.)

Whether Republican spending is enough to counter the mounting blue wave remains to be seen. But no matter the outcome, experts say, this election should change how we think about money in politics. “This election cycle is really kind of shining a spotlight on just how unequal our campaign finance system has become,” Petry said.

—Emma Janssen

Outside Washington

Josh Turek had a busy weekend in his campaign for Iowa’s U.S. Senate seat, knocking on doors with former Senator Tom Harkin. Talking to the Iowa Capital Dispatch’s Robin Opsahl, both politicians argued that they don’t see Iowa as an inherently red state: “I just think that a lot of Iowans felt—rightfully so—that people maybe in both parties were not really paying attention to their basic needs,” Harkin told Opsahl. “They then sort of said, ‘Well, we’ll try something new and maybe flashy, like Trump.’” Turek added: “I think that Iowans, more than almost any other state, they vote for the person, not just the party.” He contends that Trump “accurately identified the problem” that Iowans face, with lots of talk on the campaign trail about bringing prices down. But then he did “the opposite.”

Turek has been polling neck and neck with Republican Representative Ashley Hinson so far—some polls putting one a couple points ahead, some the other. Democrat Rob Sand, who is running for governor, by contrast has consistently polled between four and 12 percentage points ahead of Republican Zach Lahn. Newsweek’s Anna Skinner on Monday tackled the question of why Turek seems to be lagging behind Sand right now. One big factor that experts identified was name recognition—not just for Turek and Sand but for their opponents. Many people don’t know who Lahn is, which gives Sand an advantage. Turek’s opponent, Hinson, on the other hand, is much better known, since she currently holds one of the state’s four seats in Congress, while Turek as state legislator represents a “district on the far western part of the state,” University of Iowa professor Timothy Hagle told Skinner.

Elsewhere:

• A new Washington Post/ABC News poll finds, alongside the usual dismal Trump approval rating, that 66 percent of likely voters think the president “is using the presidency to enrich himself, up from 56 percent last fall.” Also of note: For the first time since this poll began in 2014, more voters trust Democrats than Republicans to handle the economy—but that’s only 40 percent of people trusting Dems versus 33 percent trusting Republicans. A more useful way to think about this might be that voters think neither party is especially good at managing the economy!

—Heather Souvaine Horn

The Ideas Factory

On Wednesday at 10 a.m., the Brookings Institution hosts “AI on the ballot: Data centers and the 2026 midterms,” an in-person and online conversation with Elham Tabassi, Representative James A. Himes, Kyle Chan, Anthony F. Pipa, Mark Muro, Thomas Wright, Valerie Wirtschafter, and Sanjay Patnaik, probing “how decisions about where AI is built and how it is used have become part of the choices facing voters this fall.”

Government watchdog Public Citizen releases a report quantifying the strangeness of the Make America Healthy Again movement’s alliance with the Trump administration. In May 2025, Public Citizen notes, the Trump admin published a “MAHA report” on the dangers of various environmental contaminants. Yet “for 20 of 21 environmental chemical substances that the MAHA report focused on,” Public Citizen notes, “the administration has either moved toward loosening regulations that protect public health (nine chemicals), done nothing (ten chemicals), and endorsed one chemical’s use despite its links to cancer.”

—Heather Souvaine Horn

In Closing

Political Trivia Question of the Day  

For a few days in October 2008, Ashley Todd seemed like she might loom large in that year’s election. But her story turned out to be false. What did she allege happened to her, and what was the bizarre tell that she was lying? (Sign up for The TNR Blue Book to find the answer in tomorrow’s newsletter.)

—Michael Tomasky

* An earlier version of this piece misstated the tool used to create the charts.

You’re reading The TNR Blue Book. Get daily scoops, strategy, and developments inside the liberal ideas factory delivered right to your inbox. Sign up for free.

Inside Washington

Can a former climate and housing activist make it to the halls of Congress? Will Lawrence’s opponents are trying to paint him as too radical for Michigan’s swingy 7th district. But as Lawrence races to eight town halls in six days, he told The New Republic that his background as an organizer has helped him win voters’ trust on the hottest topic of the 2026 election cycle: data centers.

The 7th district, which includes the state capital, Lansing, and its surrounding area, is currently represented by Republican Tom Barrett, who won with just over 50 percent of the vote in 2024. Before Barrett, the seat was held by now-Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat who also won in a tight race. Limited polling suggests that the 2026 race could be just as tight.

Lawrence, who co-founded the youth environmental advocacy organization Sunrise Movement in 2015 before going on to found a tenant advocacy organization in Michigan, has become a well-known figure in the district since launching his campaign a year ago. “Will Lawrence has been spending every day in the district—extremely open and public throughout,” said Matt Grossman, a professor of political science at Michigan State University. 

2026 is the perfect environment for an activist and organizer to win in a purple area, Lawrence argues: “People feel that nobody in D.C. gives a damn about them, and nobody in Wall Street or Silicon Valley gives a damn about them, either,” he said. In that context, he views his organizing background as a plus. “Being able to motivate and inspire people to take action to win the better life that we deserve, that’s what I’ve been doing all along.” He also thinks his campaign has benefited from an active volunteer network; during the primary, over 800 volunteers knocked on 100,000 doors, his campaign said.

Still, not everyone is eager to elect a former organizer. Attack ads have portrayed Lawrence as too radical for the district. Grossman compared it to Michigan’s Senate race, where Republicans have similarly been trying to portray Abdul El-Sayed as too radical to represent the state. Lawrence also came under fire in July when The Huffington Post published comments from a podcast episode in 2024 when Lawrence said that “the older generation of Black political leadership” holds up capitalism and “defangs the white left.” And during the general, Lawrence has been somewhat more cautious about leaning into his background in climate activism, instead focusing on issues with broader appeal.

“One of the ways he did that early on was, of course, being among the most strident in taking on data centers,” said Grossman. Indeed, Lawrence began talking about data centers before they became a key issue in campaigns across the country. I asked Lawrence how he was able to identify a firebrand issue—one that caught many politicians by surprise—so early on. “It’s because I know how to listen,” he said. “That’s what an organizer’s job is: to listen to people and to take them seriously. And I started hearing last fall that people were very concerned about hyperscale data centers proposed in various corners of my district.” 

The fight against data centers makes sense for the former climate activist. Though data centers aren’t just an environmental issue, Lawrence said, they raise concerns about emissions and water usage. If elected, Lawrence said, he’d like to focus on making sure diesel-fueled data centers don’t “blow a hole in the climate.” He also said he wants to address pollution in the Great Lakes. 

But Lawrence has had to walk a fine line between leaning into his background as a climate organizer and avoiding coming across as a political radical. “It’s not like he runs away from it or distances himself from it,” said Grossman. But “he doesn’t want to run as the climate activist.” That’s particularly true in 2026, when climate politics have fallen precipitously out of the national discourse. Lawrence acknowledged that himself: “The climate crisis is no less urgent now than it’s ever been, and urgent action is still necessary,” he said. “And also, we’re dealing with other acute crises.” He pointed to democratic erosion, the cost of living, and existential threats from AI. 

Data centers have become a flashpoint for all of these issues. While Lawrence supports a full moratorium on data center construction, Barrett has said that he doesn’t think the federal government should be involved. As locals face off against powerful industry forces in their backyard, they’ll be voting, at least in part, on whether they want their leaders to stand back—or instead join the fight.

—Emma Janssen

Outside Washington

A Harris/Guardian poll released Thursday finds that 72 percent of Democrats, 61 percent of independents, and 50 percent of Republicans currently believe the country to be in a recession—up from 67-54-39 in May–June. Economists, by contrast, do not rate the economy as being anywhere close to a recession—although BlackRock CEO Larry Fink conveniently insisted this week that a data center moratorium would trigger one. (Current Chicago Fed president and former Obama-era chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Austan Goolsbee has argued that an AI slowdown would do no such thing.) 

Amid the panoply of recent attempts to lower fuel prices—note the gas tax holidays in multiple states, the loosening of restrictions on certain types of diesel, etc.—it’s worth noting that neither candidate running in Iowa’s intensely agricultural 4th congressional district can bring themselves to back Trump’s diesel deal. “I have not spoken with any voters who believe that one of the solutions ought to be working with a dictator from Russia,” Republican Chris McGowan said in a televised debate this week. Democrat Dave Dawson called the deal illegal. You can read Iowa Capital Dispatch’s coverage of the debate here. While Cook Political Report has recently suggested that Dems might be ahead in the state’s 1st and 3rd districts, and might even have a shot at the 2nd, McGowan is heavily favored to win the 4th. (There hasn’t been much public polling.) In that context, it’s tempting to read his insistence on distinguishing himself from Trump—he also heavily implied during the debate that he might take action to end the war in Iran—as a sign of the president’s deep unpopularity even among staunch Republican voters.

—Heather Souvaine Horn

The Ideas Factory

Monday at 10:30 a.m., the Brookings Institution will host an online panel discussion about the upcoming midterms. William Galston, Erin Covey, Christopher S. Warshaw, and Kathryn Dunn Tenpas will talk about “potential election outcomes, the role of public opinion, the impact of mid-decade redistricting, and the consequences of new majorities in the House and Senate.”

At the Brennan Center for Justice, Celina Avalos Jaramillo and Joanna Zdanys explain the significance of California’s Proposition 4, a public campaign finance proposal on the November ballot. “Public financing programs currently exist in at least 14 states and 26 localities, including five California charter cities,” write Jaramillo and Zdanys, “but state law currently bans other localities and the state from creating similar programs. Prop 4 would repeal that ban, giving the legislature and local governments the opportunity to create new public financing programs.” The pair call public campaign financing “one of the most powerful” tools to give candidates options outside of courting billionaires and powerful industries.

—Heather Souvaine Horn

In Closing

Good Week: Greece

For the past year, the proud people of Greece have had to politely endure one of the most unqualified U.S. ambassadors of the Trump era (and that’s saying something!). True to her reputation, Kimberly Guilfoyle has been nothing but a fame-seeking party animal since she washed ashore in Athens. But now that Trump has ditched her over the “honey please” scandal, the Greeks have cause to celebrate.

Bad Week: Katie Zacharia

The new White House press secretary’s first week at work has been one for the ages. On Tuesday, Zacharia held her inaugural briefing, and the reviews were unkind. Then her questionable claim of being a lawyer was exposed, prompting a complaint by the California bar. She only made things worse by saying she passed the bar exam in China, backtracking on that answer, and then revealing on Fox News that she’d failed the California bar exam and has been relying on the distinction between “lawyer” and “attorney.” And her first week isn’t even over yet.

—Ryan Kearney

Political Trivia Question of the Day  

Name all of Trump 1.0’s White House spokespeople, in order.

(Sign up for The TNR Blue Book to find the answer in tomorrow’s newsletter.)

—Michael Tomasky

You’re reading The TNR Blue Book. Get daily scoops, strategy, and developments inside the liberal ideas factory delivered right to your inbox. Sign up for free.

Inside Washington

Western Montana, home to one of the country’s most competitive House races, is witnessing a test: In a bare-knuckles political brawl, which one wins—economic populism or the culture war? Supporters of Democratic candidate Sam Forstag, a smoke jumper who looks the part of a working-class Montanan, are betting it’s the former. But as Forstag taps into Montanans’ economic frustrations, his Republican opponent’s personal attacks are getting more aggressive.

The race has drawn so much attention that President Donald Trump visited the state on Wednesday to campaign in Montana’s 1st congressional district with Forstag’s opponent, former conservative radio host Aaron Flint. “I’d be happy to take some time to sit down with him and share some stories about the pain this administration’s policies are causing people across this state,” Forstag said in a statement about Trump’s visit. “For better or worse, I look forward to passing bills for the president to sign into law once we win this race to help those Montanans. I’ll work with the president or whoever it takes to get that done.” Polling shows a tight race. Some polls show Flint up by one point, while others show Forstag up by three. The Cook Political Report in late September shifted the race from “likely Republican” to “lean Republican,” a move in Forstag’s favor.

Tuesday’s debate between the two candidates got heated. Forstag and Flint are similar in many ways—both are young white men, both were student body president at the University of Montana, and both emphasize aspects of their careers (Flint is a veteran). But while Forstag focused on economic issues, Flint seemed more eager to portray Forstag as a radical on issues of gender and sexual orientation. “Phony Forstag, unfortunately he pretends to be this poor, blue-collar, working-class guy,” Flint said at one point in the debate. “He was a high-paid LGBTQ lobbyist from Portland who lobbied for all the crazy stuff.” At another point, Flint used a line that other Republicans, like Maine’s Paul LePage, have deployed so far this cycle: “common sense versus crazy.”

Forstag was able to brush off Flint’s attacks, said state Representative Zooey Zephyr. “You know what they say: Don’t wrestle with pigs; you’ll wind up covered in mud,” she said about how Forstag handled Flint’s rhetoric. Zephyr, who is one of the state’s two transgender representatives, told The New Republic that anti-trans rhetoric isn’t the right strategy to win over Montanans. “In 2025, Montana was the only Republican-controlled state where half of Republicans joined us at times to vote down anti-trans legislation. We killed the majority of our anti-LGBTQ legislation. Only red state in the country to do that,” she said.

“He hauls an axe and a chainsaw in his real day job,” said state Senator Ellie Boldman about Forstag, who spends the fire season jumping out of planes to fight wildfires in remote places. Forstag also served as a union leader and a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union in the offseason. “His ability to keep the focus on everyday issues that really affect everyday Montanans and not some of the culture-war issues are what have been winning the day for Sam,” she added. And she, like Zephyr, thinks Montana’s voters aren’t going to buy Flint’s attempt to graft national identity politics onto this race. “In Montana, even Democrats have guns,” she said. “We voted for Donald Trump, and we also enshrined a woman’s right to choose in our constitution from ballot initiatives. We have a long history of rugged individualism.” Voters would rather hear a candidate address pocketbook issues than infringe on individual rights, she argued.

And those pocketbook issues—like the cost of housing and fuel—have played a major role in the race, as they have across the country this cycle. “The lack of affordable housing is [issue] number one, two, and three that comes up almost without fail,” when Forstag talks to voters, said Brandon DeMars, Forstag’s campaign manager.

During the debate, both candidates spoke about the need to make housing more affordable. Housing costs are a major crisis in the state, which has seen a boom in population in the years since the Covid-19 pandemic. New housing construction hasn’t caught up, and private equity buy-ups of existing housing units have made rent more expensive for everyone. Forstag argues that private equity firms shouldn’t be allowed to buy up mobile home parks, while Flint blamed the housing crisis on big government and inflation.

Forstag’s debate performance, Zephyr said, showed why he might be able to pull off a win this year. “What makes Sam an exceptional candidate is he is very clear in telling the story of how these politicians have picked our pockets, telling the story of how the rich have gotten richer,” she said, “while people like him, and the state employees, and the public lands employees have lost their jobs and lost their ability to afford homes.”

—Emma Janssen

Outside Washington

In case you’ve missed the significant political scandal that’s been playing out in Massachusetts in recent weeks: Regulators this week finally canceled the nursing home licenses for the RegalCare company—one of the largest nursing home operators in the state—following late September reporting from The Boston Globe’s storied “Spotlight” team, which alleged an appalling degree of neglect of the elderly residents. Owner Eli Mirlis had already had his license revoked in New Jersey in 2018, and he had been the subject of a whistleblower complaint filed with the U.S. Court for the District of Massachusetts in 2020. (The case that resulted from this complaint—over Medicare and Medicaid fraud—was settled mere days before the Globe report was published.)

Why all this didn’t result in a rapid investigation of the facilities is unclear. Patricia Jehlen and state Representative Thomas Stanley have sharply criticized Democratic Governor Maura Healey’s administration in recent weeks, particularly for having failed to implement a two-year-old law that requires the state to look at out-of-state complaints and other issues before approving new licenses. The Healey administration announced its intention to implement the new regulations shortly after the Globe report appeared and has defended Department of Public Health Commissioner Robbie Goldstein, despite the Globe’s Kay Lazar and Neena Hagen finding “little evidence of meaningful vetting of nursing home operators in the past few years, including their performance within Massachusetts.” The state reportedly hasn’t denied or canceled a license in at least seven years.RegalCare’s Massachusetts nursing homes will apparently continue operating with enhanced oversight while the company appeals the decision. Demand for skilled and long-term nursing facilities is projected to rise dramatically in coming years, with some estimates suggesting a greater than 75 percent increase in residents by 2030. So getting oversight sorted is rather urgent.

Elsewhere:

• Don’t miss the Ohio Capital Journal’s piece about Cincinnati Public Schools’ “first-in-the-nation” program that offers a safe parking lot for families experiencing homelessness to sleep in their cars. Beneath the feel-good narrative lies a grim implicit indictment of the nation’s insufficient support for households facing precarity. The program, which was started in response to a noticeable uptick in unhoused students and families sleeping in cars, also helps get the families on a waiting list for a shelter spot and a hotel stay. However, it will cease operating for the season in November.

—Heather Souvaine Horn

The Ideas Factory

Public Citizen released a new analysis that found that the majority of super PACs active this cycle are funded by a single wealthy donor or very small group—the watchdog offers Elon Musk, George Soros, Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz, and Richard Uihlein as examples. “Super PACs have created a parallel political system in which a handful of ultra-wealthy people can pour unlimited money into elections and gain an outsized role in determining which voices can be heard,” said organization co-president Robert Weissman in a press release.On Thursday at 1 p.m., the Roosevelt Institute will host an online “book club” conversation with Paul Osterman about his new book, Disposable Workers: The Transformation of Employment. The Roosevelt Institute’s principal economist, Michael Madowitz, will talk with Osterman about his study of the erosion of “stability and benefits” for twenty-first-century workers.

—Heather Souvaine Horn

In Closing

Here’s Why That’s B.S.

Watch TNR’s Edith Olmsted unpack the speech in which Trump seemed to suggest it would be okay for Iran to nuke southern California.

Political Trivia Question of the Day

During World War II, a notable New York GOP congressman was credibly accused of having pro-Nazi sympathies. He was part of a trio of New Deal foes whom FDR liked to mock by repeating their names in a jocular way. Who was he? (Sign up for The TNR Blue Book to find the answer in tomorrow’s newsletter.)

—Michael Tomasky

You’re reading The TNR Blue Book. Get daily scoops, strategy, and developments inside the liberal ideas factory delivered right to your inbox. Sign up for free.

Inside Washington

Minnesota leaders are decrying the raid on Representative Ilhan Omar’s D.C. home as a blatant attack on their state ahead of the midterms. “The purpose is to animate their base, which is incredibly demoralized and deflated because we are in a war no one wanted to be in” said Minnesota state Senator Erin Quade about why HSI agents, who work for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, raided Omar’s home just 22 days before Election Day. 

“Trump and his DOJ have a bizarre obsession with tearing down Minnesota, our leaders, and our communities,” Minnesota Senator Tina Smith said in a statement to The New Republic.

Several Minnesotans who spoke to The New Republic see the raid on Omar’s home as a continuation of the Trump administration’s anti-Somali racism and xenophobia, which has long been a part of the president’s playbook. The raid came four days after President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social and urged Minnesotans to “fight back” against the Somali community. 

“It’s not just xenophobic,” said Jay Young, the senior policy director of civil rights and civil liberties at the nonprofit watchdog Common Cause, about the rhetoric coming from the Trump administration. “It’s tantamount to almost a race war.”

In conversations with The New Republic on Tuesday, community leaders expressed concern about the electoral and political consequences of the raid, but some also spoke about their concern for Omar’s personal safety. “It was only months ago that a person attacked Ilhan during an event in Minneapolis,” said Minnesota state Representative Leigh Finke, who is the first openly transgender member of the state’s legislature. “These things are not abstract concepts in our lives. People want to kill us because of the things that are said by this administration.”

Republicans have attacked Somali Americans for political ends before. In the aftermath of a number of statewide fraud cases, some of which involved Somali American perpetrators, the Trump administration began repeatedly referring to “Somali fraud,” despite the fact that the main perpetrator of one of the most prominent fraud cases was a white woman. 

In Minnesota’s Senate race, Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan is running against Republican Michele Tafoya, who has attacked Flanagan over her role in state leadership during the fraud scandals. The goal of Trump’s rhetoric and the raid on Omar, Young said, “is to chill all of his political enemies, to let them know that this administration is not above weaponizing all of the power at its disposal.”

Politicians, civil society groups, and everyday Minnesotans have rallied around Omar. On Monday night, Minneapolis residents and leaders held a rally in a city park to show support to the lawmaker, who has represented the city and some of its suburbs in the House since 2019.

Attacks on Omar are likely to backfire in Minnesota. Quade described something truly surprising to anyone who has been following politics lately: On Monday, she was knocking on doors in the suburban district that she represents and said that every voter she spoke to cited concerns about ICE and Trump as their top priorities for the election. That’s a marked shift from recent months, she said, when affordability concerns were top of mind. Suburban voters are exactly the demographic that Tafoya needs to clinch a victory in the state.

“It’s certainly stoking the same kind of unity feeling that people felt during Metro Surge more than it is anything else,” Quade said about the attacks on Omar and other Somali Americans. 

The best response to the attacks is to vote early, said Minnesota state Senator Omar Fateh in a statement to The New Republic. “We endured collectively Metro Surge, and we continue to be the target for this administration. And it’s because that you know we are everything that they can’t fathom,” she said. “We’re an inclusive, loving state where we care about our neighbors, even if they don’t look like us, even if they don’t pray like us.”

—Emma Janssen

Outside Washington

A new poll shows Democrat James Talarico still ahead of Ken Paxton—but not by much. In results published by ReconMR on Tuesday, Talarico appears to be up four percentage points in Texas’s Senate race, with a +/- 4.4-point margin of error; the polling outfit’s senior research analyst Lindsay Hendren notes in a press release that Talarico has lost some ground, specifically in the San Antonio area since ReconMR’s September poll. Gina Hinojosa’s numbers also appear to be slipping: In September, she led Republican Governor Greg Abbott by four points, while the recent poll shows her trailing him by one point.

The poll was conducted prior to new revelations about Paxton. Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal reported that the candidate attended a New Year’s Eve party in Dubai in 2024 “with two fugitives from U.S. justice and a woman who wasn’t his wife.” That Paxton has had extramarital affairs is not news at this point, but the “fugitives” in question had been indicted for health care fraud and had donated to Paxton’s campaign funds. In response to the Journal’s query, Paxton senior adviser Nick Maddux said, “Ken Paxton has been politically persecuted for years, and every time, voters have seen through it and sent him back to office.” Paxton voters do seem unfazed by a remarkably long list of imbroglios. In ReconMR’s press release, Hendren offered a succinct assessment of where things go from here: “The race for Senate will come down to three things: turnout, turnout, turnout.”

—Heather Souvaine Horn

The Ideas Factory

On Wednesday at 1 p.m., the Bipartisan Policy Center will host an online discussion about policies to reform the Food and Drug Administration—particularly adjustments to “processes that may safely deliver effective treatments to patients faster.” Speakers will include Zach Gaumer, Rohini Kosoglu, Andi Lipstein Fristedt, Ryan Long, Janet Woodcock, and Lauren Gardner.

The Center for Biological Diversity, CU Maurice River, Hackensack Riverkeeper, Delaware Riverkeeper, New Jersey Conservation Foundation, and Project Terrapin on Tuesday petitioned New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection “to require simple bycatch-reduction devices on blue crab pots statewide” to keep turtles from being caught in the traps and drowning. The groups are particularly worried about the state’s diamondback terrapins, a vulnerable species inhabiting brackish coastal marshes and estuaries. Current regulations only require these protective devices to be used in around 5 percent of the relevant habitat, the groups estimate. Diamondbacks have previously been something of a bipartisan cause in the state: In 2016, Republican Governor Chris Christie signed a Democratic bill sponsored by then-Assemblymembers Bob Andrzejczak, Bruce Land, Eric Houghtaling, and Reed Gusciora (now mayor of Trenton) to ban hunting of the turtles and require the state to monitor diamondback terrapin populations.

—Heather Souvaine Horn

In Closing

Book of the Week: An American Problem: How the Country Built—and the Supreme Court Broke—the Voting Rights Act

By Michael G. Miller and Kevin T. Morris

THE GIST: Miller and Morris tell the story of how the U.S. got the landmark achievement of the Civil Rights Movement—and how decades of conservative political and legal activism tore it down.

PRAISE: “An American Problem is a must-read for scholars, practitioners, and anyone who cares about voting rights,” says University of California Berkeley professor Jake Grumbach.

CRUISING THE INDEX: The book’s second half, which traces the aftermath of the fateful 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision, which gutted the Voting Rights Act, is particularly compelling (and extremely damning). The authors meticulously chronicle the return of discrimination in American voting.

TNR’S QUICK CRITICAL ASSESSMENT: Miller and Morris focus convincingly on “preclearance”—the idea that localities and states with a history of discrimination had to get federal permission before changing their voting laws—a requirement that was gutted by the 2013 Supreme Court decision. President Lyndon B. Johnson, urging Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act in 1965, said: “There is no Negro problem. There is no Southern problem. There is no Northern problem. There is only an American problem.” An American Problem is the story of how that particular American problem reared its ugly head again.

—Alex Shephard

Political Trivia Question of the Day  

 Who was the first woman to serve as White House press secretary?

(Sign up for The TNR Blue Book to find the answer in tomorrow’s newsletter.)

—Michael Tomasky