Senate Democrats' campaign chief says 'every state's on the table' in fight for majority
Democrats will have to win some red states if they have any hope of taking control of the Senate next year, and the senator tasked with leading that effort believes President Donald Trump has given them an opening after he won those states easily months ago.
'I look at the map, and every state's on the table because of this growing backlash that President Trump's decisions have created, with his cuts to Medicaid and his unwillingness to address affordability issues,' Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., told NBC News in an interview at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee headquarters on Wednesday.
Gillibrand also said she isn't ruling out taking sides in Democratic primaries as her party looks to net four Senate seats to take control of the chamber, saying that she is 'definitely not ruling out anything in any state.'
'We're going to look at every state on a case-by-case basis and make our assessment as to who's the best candidate in that state, and then make decisions based on that,' Gillibrand said.
Democrats' ripest targets in 2026 are GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, which Trump lost by nearly 7 percentage points in November, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, which Trump won by 3 points. Both incumbents are battle-tested, winning contested races in their last cycles on the ballot.
Former Democratic Rep. Wiley Nickel has already launched a run in North Carolina, while former House staffer Jordan Wood is running in Maine. But Democrats are still eyeing Maine Gov. Janet Mills and former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper as possible recruits.
While Cooper is weighing a run, Mills has not exactly sounded enthusiastic about challenging Collins, telling the Maine Trust for Local News in April, 'I'm not planning to run for anything. Things change week to week, month to month, but at this moment I'm not planning to run for another office.'
Asked if it has been difficult to recruit against Collins, who has a record of winning tough races, including victory in 2020 even as Trump lost Maine decisively, Gillibrand said negative reaction to Trump's policies is 'changing the thinking of a lot of potential candidates.'
'So I am certain we will have formidable candidates in North Carolina and Maine because of this growing backlash that President Trump has created,' Gillibrand said.
Even if Democrats win those two states, and hold on to their current seats in other battlegrounds, they would still need to flip two additional Senate seats in states Trump won by double digits last year to get to a majority. That could mean targeting ruby red states like Texas, Iowa, Alaska, South Carolina and others.
Democrats do not currently hold a single Senate seat in the 24 states that Trump carried in all three of his presidential runs, after several red-state losses in 2024. And Trump won each of those states by double digits last year.
Gillibrand said the 'magic formula' for Democratic success involves a combination of 'deep Republican backlash' to Trump and some of his policies, like slashing social safety net programs and imposing steep tariffs, and 'extraordinarily strong candidates who represent their states well,' as well as boosts from the DSCC to help those candidates build up their campaigns.
Contested Democratic primaries are already taking shape in Iowa, where GOP Sen. Joni Ernst is up for re-election, as well as in competitive states where Democrats are defending open seats, including Michigan and Minnesota.
Ernst has also been in the spotlight for responding to a constituent at a town hall who suggested the House Republicans' proposed Medicaid cuts could cause people to die and saying, 'Well, we all are going to die.'
Asked if such comments give Democrats a better shot at defeating Ernst next year, Gillibrand said Ernst's remarks exemplify Trump's 'very callous approach towards health care, cutting seniors, cutting people with disabilities, children, pregnant women and veterans off of their Medicaid.'
Gillibrand said those cuts are creating 'a significant backlash that certainly puts a state like Iowa in play' along with 'many other red states around the country.'
Democrats, meanwhile, are going to be focused on 'commonsense, kitchen table issues' of affordability and public safety, Gillibrand said.
The New York Democrat argued those were winning messages for successful candidates in her home state last year, where she led a coordinated campaign with Gov. Kathy Hochul and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to boost Democratic House candidates.
Democrats flipped three GOP-held House seats in New York even as Trump made gains throughout the state. Trump ultimately lost New York but improved on his 2020 election margin by 11 points, which was the biggest swing toward Trump of any state in the country.
Republicans are looking to capitalize on Trump's gains as they target Hochul in her re-election run next year, as well as other House Democrats. (Gillibrand said she is supporting Hochul for re-election as she faces a primary challenge from Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado.)
Republicans are also looking to reprise attacks on Democrats over whether transgender women should be allowed to compete in female sports.
One Nation, a nonprofit tied to the GOP super PAC Senate Leadership Fund, already launched an attack on the issue against Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff in Georgia. Ossoff represents one of two states, along with Michigan, that Democrats are defending that Trump also carried last year.
'Each candidate will address it as they see fit,' Gillibrand said when asked how Democrats should respond to those attacks.
Gillibrand said she is 'very optimistic that Sen. Ossoff will not only win his race, but show rest of the country, you know, who he is and what Democrats stand for.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
44 minutes ago
- The Independent
Donald Trump's gamble in Iran is bad news for the ‘Axis of Autocracies'
When the Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi arrived in Moscow to coordinate Tehran's response to the massive US strikes on nuclear facilities, he met not with his opposite number Sergei Lavrov, but Vladimir Putin himself. That, in itself, speaks volumes about how wide-ranging the repercussions of Donald Trump's military intervention might be. The dramatic escalation and direct involvement of America in Iran, coupled with the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel, and Trump talking openly of regime change, puts the Russian leader in a difficult position. He was compelled to condemn the US bombing raid, as his own ordnance was falling on civilian targets in Ukraine. Whatever requests Araghchi makes of Moscow, it will have multiple competing interests and moves to consider before committing to anything beyond rhetoric. Tehran and Moscow have what might be best described as an asymmetrical relationship. Ever since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Iran has been a critical friend. Much of Putin's early success in the three-year conflict was down to Iran providing Russia with cheap weapons, including thousands of Shahed drones, which were critical in its airstrikes on Ukraine. Sources in Kyiv are cautiously optimistic that Iran may cease sending weapons to Russia, as they may be needed in its fight against Israel. It could mean North Korea is leaned on to supply even more manpower and missiles, strengthening Putin's dependence on Pyongyang. While Putin has publicly condemned the US and Israeli strikes on Iran, he knows better than almost any other world leader that talk is cheap. He has sat and listened to virtually every Western nation condemn his war on Ukraine for over three years. Without hard power to back up the words, Putin has been free to carry on with his assault on a sovereign nation. It is probably fair to assume that the Kremlin is currently in something of a holding pattern, while it watches how things develop between the US and Iran. A Western security official told me this morning that, while they expected no tangible or direct Russian support for Iran any time soon, they also feared that the Trump administration lacked 'the diplomatic follow-up that could actually make the strikes a long-term success'. Naturally, there are multiple ways the coming days could play out, ranging from full-throated American support for immediate regime change to a sudden, shock diplomatic breakthrough that ends fighting and sees an agreement on Iran's nuclear programme. More likely, my security source says, is that it will fall somewhere in the middle, where fighting continues and Trump's levels of interest become the determining factor in how long this all drags out. That's where things get complicated. Much has been made of the new Axis of Autocracies: Iran, Russia, China and North Korea. Diplomats and intelligence officials have repeatedly described this as a marriage of convenience, rather than a traditional alliance. While it's true that there is no single unifying ideology between these four other than a hatred of the US-led world order, that has been enough for them to aid one another in their geopolitical disputes, whether that's through economic support, direct military support, or, in the case of North Korea, sending troops to fight for Russia. It might be that we live in an age where traditional alliances of shared values and ideologies – especially ones led by a disruptor like Trump – are less stable than a collection of self-interested autocrats who simply have a common enemy. China and Russia will almost certainly want the situation in Iran to stabilise as soon as possible. Their sense of self-preservation and aversion to public discussions of regime change will take precedence over any desire to help a friend in need. This might be why the US has called on China, which imports more oil from Iran than any other nation, to pressure Iran to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, a critical shipping route, to avoid a global economic crisis. America likely assumes that, for the time being, stability and the ability to leverage power matters more to China than supporting Iran. But the muddier it all becomes, that calculation might change. If Trump doesn't have the diplomatic nous to capitalise on his airstrikes, his historic behaviour suggests there is every chance his Maga instincts will see him withdraw and leave others to clear up after him. It could be that Iran, Russia, China and North Korea are more than happy to mop up the mess and twist world events to their own advantage.
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Reaction to U.S. strike in Iran and OKC Thunder win NBA title: Morning Rundown
All eyes are on Iran to see how it reacts to U.S. strikes at its nuclear facilities. Polls hint that President Donald Trump's agenda bill isn't popular with registered voters. And the Oklahoma City Thunder win the city's first NBA championship. Here's what to know today. U.S. and the world await a response to strike on Iran Iran's foreign minister is expected to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow today, as the U.S. braces for potential Iranian retaliation against strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. The goal of the meeting is to bring Iran and Russia's positions closer 'under these new and precarious circumstances,' Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Iranian state news agency IRNA. The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, is also set to hold an emergency meeting today in light of an 'urgent situation' in Iran. The meetings come as the world braces for Iran's response after the U.S. entered the conflict between Israel and Iran by striking three nuclear facilities over the weekend. U.S. officials said the first 48 hours after the attack would be a particular concern. For now, it's not known whether retaliation would target overseas or domestic locations or both. It also remains to be seen the impact a retaliation might have on U.S. bases in the Middle East, on oil exports traveling through the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and Oman, or on cybersecurity. The threat, however, prompted the State Department to issue its first Worldwide Caution in over a year, warning U.S. citizens around the world to 'exercise increased caution' when traveling. The weekend strike, dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer, targeted Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. Trump claimed last night in a social media post that the biggest damage to the sites happened 'far below ground level,' adding, 'Obliteration is an accurate term,' though an Iranian official disputed the claim. Trump also appeared to call for an Iranian regime change, a departure from the messaging that members of his administration have been pushing since the strikes. Just yesterday morning, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the mission 'was not, has not been about regime change.' More on the Middle East conflict: Oil prices and stock futures slipped yesterday evening, indicating concern about the possibility of economic fallout. Vice President JD Vance said in an interview with 'Meet the Press' moderator Kristen Welker that the U.S. is not at war with Iran, but with Tehran's nuclear weapons program. His defense of Trump clashes with past arguments about being skeptical or opposed to foreign intervention. Trump's decision is the latest example of a U.S. president taking military action without first seeking congressional approval, a practice that has become routine in recent decades. A 'brain drain' in top Justice Department and FBI national security and counterterrorism units could reduce the U.S.'s ability to prevent potential terror and cyber attacks. Trump said before he wouldn't ensnare the U.S. in foreign conflicts. Now, Democrats are using his words against him in making the case that the country is becoming more dangerous on his watch. Two key Trump advisers are launching a group to unseat Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, who has a history of opposing Trump and most recently lambasted the decision on the U.S. strike. Polls show Trump's agenda bill is unpopular There are just under two weeks left until July 4 — the deadline Senate Republicans are aiming for to pass the bill for Trump's agenda. And new surveys indicate the GOP is losing the battle of public opinion, including a Fox News poll that found 59% of registered voters oppose the legislation and a Quinnipiac University poll that found 53% of registered voters who oppose it. Other polls from KFF, Pew Research Center and Washington Post and Ipsos also found that more voters oppose the bill than favor it. The bill, which would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts while slashing taxes on tips and overtime and enacting a series of spending cuts to Medicaid and other programs. The Senate is eyeing some changes to the House-passed bill, such as less aggressive cuts to clean energy funding and more aggressive Medicaid spending reductions. They're also considering a $10,000 cap on state and local tax deductions versus the $40,000 cap the House agreed to, potentially setting up a confrontation between the chambers. Read the full story here. Man killed after opening fire outside Michigan church A man who opened fire outside a Michigan church was killed by two employees who returned fire, police said. The deadly exchange at CrossPointe Community Church in Wayne, about 30 miles west of Detroit, may have prevented a tragic mass shooting, Wayne Police Chief Ryan Strong said. The unnamed suspect was described as a 31-year-old who was possibly 'suffering a mental health crisis,' Strong said, and he was virtually unknown to the church. A security guard at the church was shot twice in the leg, but his injuries were 'non-life-threatening.' A video livestream from inside the church captured the moment the congregation reacted to reports of the shooter, with people running from the room and taking cover behind chairs. Gunfire could be heard as a woman on a stage spoke. People in the pews began yelling and rushing out of view of the camera. Here's what else we know. Oklahoma City Thunder win the NBA title The Oklahoma City Thunder are the 2024-25 NBA champions after defeating the Indiana Pacers 103-91 in Game 7 of the Finals. It's the first championship for the Thunder since they relocated to Oklahoma City from Seattle in 2008. The Pacers suffered a huge setback in the first quarter when star point guard Tyrese Haliburton left the game with what his father later said was an Achilles injury. The game remained close in the first half, but the Thunder turned it around in the third quarter and didn't give up their lead, propelling the team to victory. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, the regular season MVP and now also the Finals MVP, led all scorers with 29 points. Indiana's Bennedict Mathurin finished with 24 points. See more highlights from the game. While the Thunder's win closes out this season, conversation is already swirling about the 2025-26 season. With stars Gilgeous-Alexander, Jalen Williams, Chet Holmgren and Lu Dort all under contract and all under 27 years old, there is evidence to suggest they could be the team that ends the NBA's parity era. A dangerous heat wave is predicted to hit the Midwest and East Coast today and tomorrow. Here's how to stay safe and heat exhaustion symptoms to watch for. Mahmoud Khalil described his time in ICE custody and decried Columbia University's 'hypocrisy' after his release from a Louisiana facility. The Trump administration appealed a federal judge's orders to release Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador before he was returned to the U.S., pending trial on human smuggling charges. Staff Pick: The anti-porn movement is having a moment What do feminists, religious crusaders, alpha male influencers and several politicians have in common? They're among the most prominent voices in the anti-pornography movement as the discussion around it becomes more mainstream. The Supreme Court is set to rule in a case concerning a Texas law requiring porn websites to confirm a visitor's age and whether it infringers on adults' First Amendment rights. And how 'bad' it really is has become a heated subject. So, how did we get here? How has the internet changed things? And what does the science say? News editor Pilar Melendez dives into these questions. — Elizabeth Robinson, newsletter editor NBC Select: Online Shopping, Simplified The month of June had a ton of new product releases from brands like Nintendo, Ugg, Glossier and more. Here are 33+ new products the NBC Select team thinks you should know about. Plus, our team dove into the best products to help with postpartum hair loss. Experts explain that the right routine can help set the stage for future growth. here.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Republican senators' proposed Medicaid cuts threaten to send red states ‘backwards'
Advocates are urging Senate Republicans to reject a proposal to cut billions from American healthcare to extend tax breaks that primarily benefit the wealthy and corporations. The proposal would make historic cuts to Medicaid, the public health insurance program for low-income and disabled people that covers 71 million Americans, and is the Senate version of the 'big beautiful bill' act, which contains most of Donald Trump's legislative agenda. 'With the text released earlier this week, somehow the Senate made the House's 'big, bad budget bill' worse in many ways,' said Anthony Wright, the executive director of Families USA, a consumer healthcare advocacy group, in a press call. The Senate's version makes deeper cuts to Medicaid and so-called Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) plans, 'both by expanding paperwork requirements and making it harder for states to fund Medicaid coverage for their residents', said Wright. If passed, the House-passed bill would have already made the biggest cuts to Medicaid since the program's enactment in 1965. With red tape and an expiration of additional healthcare subsidies to Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the House version would leave 16 million people without health insurance by 2034. CBO has not yet released estimates, or 'scored', the impact of the Senate proposal, but advocates and experts said the cuts are more draconian, 'punish' states that expanded Medicaid, and attack Medicaid by going after its byzantine financing structures. 'If we look at the big picture of our healthcare system that's where the inefficiencies are – not in Medicaid – but in all the groups profiting off the system,' said David Machledt, a senior policy analyst at the National Health Law Program, referring to Republicans' assertions that they are targeting 'waste, fraud and abuse' with cuts. 'What these cuts are going to do is look at the most cost-efficient program and squeeze it further, and take us backwards, and put us back at a system where the people at the low end are literally dying to fund these tax cuts for rich people and businesses.' A recent study found that expanding Medicaid, as was done during the Obama administration, probably saved an additional 27,400 lives over a 12-year period, and did so cheaper than other insurance programs. The same study found that about a quarter of the difference in life expectancy between low- and high-income Americans is due to lack of health insurance. Republicans, such as Senator John Thune of South Dakota, argue that their bill 'protects' Medicaid by 'removing people who should not be on the rolls', including working-age adults, legal and undocumented immigrants; by adding work requirements and by going after a tax maneuver states use to bring in more federal Medicaid funding. 'Removing these individuals is just basic, good governance,' said Thune. But experts and advocates argue the cuts will not only remove the targeted individuals, including many who are working but struggle to get through red tape, but will also place states in impossible situations with potentially multibillion-dollar shortfalls in their budgets. Both versions contain so-called work requirements, which analyses show will cause people to lose coverage even if they are eligible, experts said. Instead, the largest difference between the Senate and House versions of the bill is the Senate's attack on Medicaid's complex financing arrangements. Medicaid is jointly financed by states and the federal government, making it simultaneously one of states' largest expenditures and sources of revenue. The Senate's version specifically attacks two ways states finance Medicaid, through provider taxes and state-directed payments. With a provider tax, states bring in additional federal revenue by increasing payments to providers. Because the federal portion of Medicaid is based on a percentage rate, increasing payments to providers in turn increases the amount that federal officials pay the state. States then tax those same providers, such as hospitals, to bring the funding back to the state. Although this maneuver has been criticized, it has also now been used for decades. It's in place in every state except for Alaska, is legal and openly discussed. The Senate bill caps this manuever by cutting the tax rate by about half, from 6% to 3.5%, according to Machledt. In a 2024 analysis, the Congressional Research Service estimated that lowering the provider tax cap to 2.5% would effectively cut $241bn from Medicaid payments to states. Although the exact impacts of the Senate tax cap are not yet known, Machledt expects it would be in the billions, which states would then be under pressure to make up. 'We took great pains to close a $1.1bn shortfall caused by rising healthcare costs,' said the Colorado state treasurer, Dave Young, in a press call. 'To protect healthcare and education, we had to cut transportation projects, maternal health programs and even $1m in aid to food banks.' Because of taxing provisions in Colorado's state constitution, Young said: 'It will be nearly impossible to raise taxes or borrow money to make up the difference.' Similarly, the Senate bill goes after 'state-directed payments'. To understand state-directed payments, it's helpful to understand a big picture, and often hidden, aspect of American healthcare – health insurance pays providers different rates for the same service. Providers are almost universally paid the worst for treating patients who have Medicaid. Medicare pays roughly the cost of providing care, although many doctors and hospitals complain it is still too little. Commercial insurance pays doctors and hospitals most handsomely. To encourage more providers to accept Medicaid, lawmakers in some states have chosen to pay providers treating Medicaid patients additional funds. In West Virginia, a federally approved plan allows the state to pay providers more for certain populations. In North Carolina, state-directed payments allow the state to pay hospitals rates equal to the average commercial insurance rate, if they agree to medical debt forgiveness provisions. The first state-directed payment plan was approved in 2018, under the first Trump administration. These kinds of payments were criticized by the Government Accountability Office during the Biden administration. However, the Senate bill goes after these rates by tying them to Medicaid expansion – a central tenet of Obamacare – and gives stricter limits to the 41 states that expanded the program. Doing this will effectively be 'punishing them', Machledt said, referring to states that participated in this key provision of Obamacare, 'by limiting the way they can finance'. Advocates also warned of unintended knock-on effects from such enormous disruption. Medical debt financing companies are already readying new pitches to hospitals. Even people who don't lose their insurance and are not insured through Medicaid could see prices increase. When Medicaid is cut, hospital emergency rooms are still obliged to provide stabilizing care to patients, even if they can't pay. Hospitals must then make up that shortfall somewhere, and the only payers they can negotiate with are commercial: for example, the private health insurance most people in the US rely on. 'Folks who do not lose their health insurance will see increased costs,' said Leslie Frane, the executive vice-president of SEIU, a union that represents about 2 million members, including in healthcare. 'Your copays are going to go up, your deductibles are going to go up, your bills are going to go up.' Republicans hope to pass the bill by 4 July.
