SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
new jersey
Democrats Can Win Back Trump Voters—If They Don't Blow It
The message from the 2025 election is clear: Some Trump voters will back Democrats if the candidates reach them where they are and talk to them about the issues that they care about most.
Nov 11, 2025
While the media has covered extensively Democratic successes in the 2025 off-year elections, there is one story that has been dramatically undercovered. This is the fact that the 2025 Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races show that Democrats can win over Trump voters. Granted, these are not dramatic slices of the Trump coalition, but they are enough in these hyper-polarized times to win elections.
According to CNN polling, in New Jersey Rep. Mikie Sherrill in her race for governor was able to win 7% of those who had voted for Donald Trump in 2024. Interestingly, the Virginia exit polling data shows that Rep. Abigail Spanberger won the identical (7%) of Trump voters.
The New York Times’ Nate Cohn is one of the few journalists who has pointed to the New Jersey and Virginia Democrats’ ability to win over Trump voters. He concludes that:
Instead, the two Democrats won so decisively because they also flipped a crucial sliver of voters who said they supported Mr. Trump in 2024. Ms. Sherrill and Ms. Spanberger both won 7 percent of Mr. Trump’s supporters, according to the exit polls. It may not seem like much to flip 7 percent of Mr. Trump’s backers, but consider: When a voter flips, it adds one voter to one party and also deducts one from the other, making it twice as significant as turning out a new voter.
Looking at the exit polling data makes it clear that while the Democrats margins in New Jersey and Virginia were helped by increased Democratic turnout, winning over 2024 Trump voters was critically important.
One of the key parts of the Trump coalition has always been strong and even almost overwhelming support from rural voters. An analysis by Politico of the Virginia gubernatorial race shows that:
Spanberger’s victory was largely driven by massive turnout in northern and eastern Virginia’s urban areas. But she picked up support across the state’s deep-red central and western counties, where Trump’s tariffs have hit the manufacturing and agricultural industries especially hard. Even as her GOP opponent won most of those places, Spanberger posed the best performance by a statewide Democratic candidate in several cycles, according to a POLITICO analysis of voting data in the localities classified as “rural” by the federal government.
To her great credit, Spanberger targeted rural voters and consistently hammered away on how the Trump administration’s tariff policies were hurting them. In comparison with former Vice President Kamala Harris’s performance in 2024, Spanberger outperformed Harris’ margin in 48 of Virginia’s 52 rural localities. The exit polling shows that Spanberger won 46% of rural voters—an eight-point deficit to Republican candidate Lieutenant Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, and a 19-point swing from 2021 gubernatorial Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffe’s 27-point disadvantage.
There is also data in the exit polling data indicating that Democrats won back in 2025 Hispanic voters who backed Trump in 2024. The Washington Post reports:
This year, most Democratic statewide candidates won Latino voters by at least 30 points in exit polls, re-creating the margins their party held before 2024. In New Jersey, 18 percent of Latino voters who backed Trump last year cast their ballot for the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, exit poll data showed.
The fact that Democrats won over Trump voters in 2025 has profound implications for Democrats in both the 2026 midterms and the 2028. The message is clear: Some Trump voters will back Democrats if the candidates reach them where they are and talk to them about the issues that they care about most. To assume that all Trump voters are absolutely committed to Trump no matter what the circumstances is a mistaken assumption that only hurts Democrats. Successful politics is always about addition.
Hopefully, Democrats learn from their success in 2025 and realize that they can make some Trump voters part of their winning coalition.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Trump Weaponizes DOJ, NJ and California Poll Monitoring Called Election Interference
"Deploying these federal forces appears to be an intimidation tactic meant for one thing: Suppress the vote," said California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Oct 24, 2025
With a majority of Americans now recognizing that President Donald Trump is weaponizing the US Department of Justice, the DOJ's Friday announcement that it will send election monitors to California and New Jersey is generating alarm.
Republicans in both states had written to the DOJ, requesting monitors for the November 4 general elections in which Californians will vote on Proposition 50, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's answer to Trump's mid-decade gerrymandering in GOP-led states, and New Jersey residents will pick their next governor.
While the DOJ's statement noted that its Civil Rights Division "regularly deploys its staff to monitor for compliance with federal civil rights laws in elections in communities across the country," and US Attorney General Pam Bondi insisted that her department "is committed to upholding the highest standards of election integrity," legal experts have accused the Trump appointee of "serious professional misconduct that threatens the rule of law and the administration of justice."
The head of the Civil Rights Division, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, has also faced scrutiny, including for gutting the Voting Section—which, as the DOJ pointed out Friday, "enforces various federal statutes that protect the right to vote, including the Voting Rights Act, National Voter Registration Act, Help America Vote Act, Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, and the Civil Rights Acts."
This DOJ deployment of poll watchers targets New Jersey's Passaic County and five California counties: Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside.
Newsom's office said on social media Friday that "this is not a federal election. The US DOJ has no business or basis to interfere with this election. This is solely about whether California amends our state Constitution. This administration has made no secret of its goal to undermine free and fair elections. Deploying these federal forces appears to be an intimidation tactic meant for one thing: Suppress the vote."
Rusty Hicks, chair of the state's Democratic Party, said that "no amount of election interference by the California Republican Party is going to silence the voices of California voters."
Democratic New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin was similarly critical, saying in a statement that "the Trump Department of Justice's announcement that it is sending federal 'election monitors' to Passaic County is highly inappropriate, and DOJ has not even attempted to identify a legitimate basis for its actions."
"The Constitution gives states, not the federal government, the primary responsibility for running elections, and our state's hardworking elections officials have been preparing for months to run a safe and secure election," he added. "We are committed to ensuring that every eligible voter is able to cast their ballot and make their voices heard."
Early voting in New Jersey begins Saturday. In the gubernatorial race, former Republican state legislator Jack Ciattarelli is facing Democratic Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill. As the Associated Press pointed out earlier this month, "New Jersey is one of two states, along with Virginia, electing governors this fall—and the contests are widely seen as measures of how voters feel about Trump's second term and how Democrats are responding."
Democracy Docket reported Friday that "already in recent months, voting rights advocates and leading Democrats have warned that the administration is laying the groundwork to deploy troops or law enforcement to the polls in key cities next year and in 2028. Friday's announcement has intensified those fears."
After the DOJ's election monitoring announcement, journalist Keith Olbermann said on social media: "Trump has started his direct assault on local elections. This fascist interference must be prevented."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Third Court This Month Blocks Trump's 'Flagrantly Unconstitutional' Birthright Order
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of Massachusetts found an exception to the Supreme Court's recent limit on nationwide injunctions.
Jul 26, 2025
For the third time since the U.S. Supreme Court used the case to limit nationwide injunctions in June, a court has blocked U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship from going into effect.
U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of Massachusetts ruled on Friday that a nationwide injunction he had granted to over 12 states still applied under an exception laid out in the Supreme Court decision.
"We are thrilled that the district court again barred President Trump's flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere," New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin, whose state took the lead on bringing the case, said in a statement.
Trump issued an executive order in January ending birthright citizenship for children born to parents with no legal status, a move widely decried as unconstitutional. Several lawsuits followed, resulting in a nationwide injunction blocking the order from taking effect.
"American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history."
In June, the Supreme Court weighed in by limiting the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, but declining to comment on the constitutionality of the order itself. However, the nation's highest court did say that states could receive nationwide injunctions if it was the only way to offer full relief, which Sorokin determined Friday was indeed the case.
The states had argued that the birthright order, in addition to being unconstitutional, would put millions of dollars for citizenship-dependent health insurance assistance at risk, according to The Associated Press. Sorokin determined anything less than a nationwide ban would not provide full relief to the states, given that people often move across state lines.
"The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer if the unlawful policy announced in the Executive Order takes effect during the pendency of this lawsuit," Sorokin wrote in his decision.
His ruling followed two others blocking the order since the Supreme Court decision: A July 10 ruling from a federal New Hampshire judge establishing a nationwide class in a new class-action lawsuit, and a determination from a federal appeals court in San Francisco on Wednesday that the order was unconstitutional and the block could stay in effect to offer states relief.
In his decision Friday, Sorokin said the Trump administration was "entitled to pursue their interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question," adding, "But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional."
In response, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Newsweek, "These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment," adding, "We look forward to being vindicated on appeal."
Patkin, however, celebrated the ruling: "The district court's decision, consistent with the Supreme Court's own instructions, recognizes that this illegal action cannot take effect anywhere without harming New Jersey and the other states who joined in these challenges. American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history. The president cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular