KEEP MSNBC ON THE AIR: SUBSCRIBE

 

When the polls close in New Hampshire on Tuesday night, the primary season will unofficially be over.

A few primaries remain, including Rhode Island’s competitive governor’s race on Wednesday, but both parties will have chosen their nominees for the races that will determine control of Congress.

Since the primaries kicked off in earnest in early March, strategists from both parties and independent analysts have pored over results looking for answers. But every theory has proved only provisional.

Are Democrats facing a Tea Party movement of their own? Not exactly. Are voters concerned about older politicians? Sometimes.

Still, the primaries offered some clear lessons about how voters are responding to President Donald Trump and national Democratic leaders, the role age can play and the unusual map that awaits in November.

Trump put himself on the ballot

Facing a tough midterm environment, some presidents might have stepped back and let candidates run their own races. Not Trump. His endorsements helped unseat two Republican Senate incumbents — John Cornyn of Texas and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana — and gave every other GOP candidate reason to seek his approval or fear a similar fate. Now, even as some Republicans quietly scrub his name from their websites for the general election, Trump is staging an unprecedented midterm convention built around two speeches of his own.

Democratic voters did not take orders from D.C.

National Democrats had clear preferences as the primaries began. Party leaders rallied behind Haley Stevens in Michigan, Angie Craig in Minnesota and a string of House candidates the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee considered better bets for November. But in several of the year’s most closely watched contests, voters went with someone else. Although sometimes that meant a more liberal pick, it was hardly a progressive revolt. Sometimes, as in Wisconsin, Democratic voters chose the more moderate candidate backed by party leaders. But voters made clear it was their choice to make.

Age was a concern, but not a deal breaker

Americans broadly support the idea of putting a maximum age limit for members of Congress. But the primaries showed that age alone was not disqualifying. Democratic Sen. Ed Markey, 80, beat a younger challenger in Massachusetts, as did Reps. Bennie Thompson, Richard Neal and Stephen Lynch. But younger challengers prevailed when they were able to make a broader case for generational change, as Luke Bronin did with Rep. John Larson and Melat Kiros did with Rep. Diana DeGette. On the Republican side, the highest-profile incumbent losses were more about loyalty to Trump than age.

Democrats shifted tactics on gerrymandering

For years, many Democratic-led states have pursued reforms intended to curb gerrymandering, while the GOP has generally been less interested. But Trump’s push for mid-decade redistricting in Republican-controlled states prompted a shift in Democratic strategy. The party still opposes gerrymandering in principle, but it has become more willing to support counter-maps meant to offset a Republican advantage in another state. California voters approved a new map explicitly designed to counter the Texas GOP redraw. And in Virginia, a poll found that voters narrowly backed a Democratic-backed map even though many also said it was unfair.

The Senate map is still hard for Democrats

An already difficult Senate map grew more complicated when Democratic senators in Michigan and New Hampshire announced their retirements. To win a majority, Democrats need a net gain of four seats, requiring them to hold those open seats, defend Sen. Jon Ossoff in Georgia and flip several Republican-held seats. The primaries produced an unusual map in which toss-ups include Texas, where Democrats haven’t won a Senate race since 1988; and Ohio, where former Sen. Sherrod Brown is seeking a comeback. But even a strong November would most likely leave Democrats with only a narrow majority.

This is a preview of MS NOW’s Project 47 Newsletter. As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda, get expert analysis on the administration’s latest actions and how others are pushing back sent straight to your inbox every Tuesday. Sign up now.

The post The primaries are almost over. Here’s what we learned. appeared first on MS NOW.

This post was originally published on this site

KEEP MSNBC ON THE AIR: SUBSCRIBE

 

In recent decades, federal agencies have sometimes utilized polygraph tests as part of a background-check process for applicants seeking sensitive positions, but the idea of using them more broadly to crack down on media leaks is unprecedented.

At least, it was.

In the spring, MS NOW reported that FBI Director Kash Patel has ordered the polygraphing of more than two dozen former and current members of his security detail, as well as other staff, as part of an apparent panic about alleged leakers among his team. There was a similar controversy late last year about the use of polygraphs at the Department of Homeland Security.

But to fully appreciate the scope of these efforts, look no further than the Pentagon. The New York Times reported:

U.S. government investigators have taken the extraordinary step of subjecting roughly 50 members of the U.S. military’s Joint Staff to polygraph tests over leaks to journalists, including about how the Iran war has created a shortage of crucial munitions, according to officials briefed on the move.

The investigators asked military officers and civilian employees on the Joint Staff if they disclosed classified information to members of the press, and about whether they provided information about diminished U.S. munitions stocks.

The Times’ report, which has not been independently verified by MS NOW, added that the polygraph tests were conducted last month in the wake of multiple reports about “diminished stocks of crucial munitions” as a result of the war with Iran. (The White House has repeatedly suggested those reports were false, though the search for leakers suggests it was the denials that were actually untrue.)

To be sure, there have been reports for months about the Defense Department utilizing polygraphs more broadly, but it’s worth appreciating just how unusual these circumstances are. Indeed, the Times explained, “The scope of the investigation is without parallel. Mass polygraph tests have never been administered to the top ranks of the U.S. military in modern history.”

The article quoted Rear Adm. Donald J. Guter, a retired top judge advocate general for the Navy, who added, “I’ve never seen polygraphs employed this broadly or at this seniority level. In my experience, it’s unprecedented.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had already earned a reputation for creating a culture of fear at the Pentagon. There’s fresh evidence that the hapless Cabinet secretary is making matters worse.

The post Pentagon imposes polygraph tests on military officers as Hegseth’s culture of fear grows appeared first on MS NOW.

This post was originally published on this site

KEEP MSNBC ON THE AIR: SUBSCRIBE

 

The Trump administration wants to hear nothing about the public’s opposition to data center protests. Indeed, it has proposed to gut a critical portion of the Clean Air Act requiring states to notify the public about applications for air pollution permits from alleged “minor” industrial sources. Instead of those notifications and opportunities for public comments on applications remaining mandatory, they would be completely up to an individual state.

The proposal making public comments optional is one in a suite of actions proposed in recent months by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin to allow unfettered construction of data centers fueled by the artificial intelligence boom.

Zeldin proposes to let data centers start construction even before receiving pollution permits to meet the Trump administration’s goal of making the United States the “AI capital of the world.”

Zeldin proposes to exempt data centers that purport to generate their own electricity from accountability for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions under the Acid Rain Program. He also proposes to let data centers start construction even before receiving pollution permits to meet the Trump administration’s goal of making the United States the “AI capital of the world.”

None of this is surprising. Zeldin continues his feckless plunge from the EPA nominee who at his Senate confirmation hearing said climate change is real to a Trump puppet who repealed the landmark finding that carbon dioxide, methane and other global warming gases endanger public health. After that repeal, he spoke before the climate-denying Heartland Institute to “celebrate vindication” of the Trump administration’s rollbacks of federal environmental policies related to global warming.  

Zeldin’s level of tone-deafness is rivaling that of his boss. Just as Trump’s Iraq quagmire is sabotaging his “Day One” promise to fix inflation, Zeldin’s actions are likely only to inflame the passions that have made data centers the one environmental issue uniting communities across party lines: from the bluest parts of New England and the West Coast to the reddest parts of the deep South and Midwest.

Zeldin calls data centers a “minor source” of pollution, reportedly in the same league as a gas station or a laundromat. Put that in the Trojan horse department. The World Resources Institute says that a single average data center in 2024 took up the space of 450 football fields. A current AI data center uses the power needed to light up 100,000 homes. The noise involved in the construction and the roar of operations can harm human health by raising blood pressure, stress levels and causing sleep deprivation.

Then there’s water and air. The Environmental and Energy Study Institute says the daily water consumption of a large data center can be up to five million gallons, equivalent to towns of 10,000 to 50,000 people. There is growing scientific evidence that emissions of fine particulate matter and nitrogen oxides from gas-fired turbines and backup diesel generators will contribute to higher rates of asthma and untold overall health costs.

A Harvard School of Public Health study said that just one data center in Virginia, which currently has the most data centers in the nation at nearly 700, is responsible for between $53 million and $99 million in annual health damages from associated air pollution and between 3.4 to 6.5 premature deaths a year in the affected area.

A Harvard School of Public Health study said that just one data center in Virginia is responsible for between $53 million and $99 million in annual health damages from associated air pollution.

Author Michael Cork said his study demonstrated that “when large data centers use fossil fuel turbines for power in populated areas, even modest increases in air pollution can have real health consequences.” Cork said the findings were also important because, outside of academic efforts such as his, data center air pollution permitting is occurring “without any clear accounting of their public health costs—and that gap means health damages are systematically left out of these important decisions.”

Such accountability is precisely what Zeldin is trying to eliminate, a year and a half after pledging in his Senate confirmation hearing that the EPA would be “transparent and accountable to Congress and the public.” Actually, it is overkill. Data center developers need little help from Zeldin as they are quite successful on their own in negotiating secretly with local politicians and sealing their lips with nondisclosure agreements.

Developers promise economic development before the public can consider the environmental and energy effects and the relatively miniscule level of permanent employment for “factories” 450 football fields in size. Large data centers can employ roughly 25 to 150 permanent workers, according to Business Insider, while Brookings puts the figure at 100 to 200. Workers in data center communities see overall “little gain,” Brookings said, as area wages are unaffected while home prices rise. 

The playbook is so easy to understand, the public gets it and is taking matters into its own hands. A nationwide day of action this summer against data centers claimed 142 protests in 42 states. The U.S. Data Center Moratorium Tracker is currently showing more than 650 active or proposed local moratoriums across 44 states, especially on hyperscale projects.

The website Data Center Watch claims that the first quarter of 2026 saw a record grassroots victory of 75 data center project delays or cancellations worth $130 billion. Even in Texas, another data center behemoth, Gov. Greg Abbott has paused data center build-outs until the state can better audit grid connectivity.

A July Politico poll found that support for data centers among Trump voters has dropped from 45% to 34% over the past six months.

Such is the rise in opposition to data centers in one’s backyard that several polls, including a new Economist/YouGov survey, are finding majority opposition by Republicans. A July Politico poll found that support for data centers among Trump voters has dropped from 45% to 34% over the past six months.

A Brookings analysis last month predicts that data centers could be an important issue in the fall midterm elections, saying, “With income inequality at record levels, billionaires maintaining close relationships with political leaders, and tech firms paying relatively low tax rates, a ‘techlash’ is building that poses substantial risks both for AI and data centers.” As an example of the critical eye that even some conservatives are casting on data centers, a Virginia Republican activist told The American Prospect Magazine, “I don’t care if President Trump is pushing it. I don’t want it. I don’t care if Biden is pushing it. It’s bad for our communities. They take our water, they take our power. They give us no jobs.”

Zeldin can do all the streamlining he wants to create a glide path for data centers. Across the nation, the people know what’s in this Trojan horse. They trust no part of it. As much as Zeldin wants to silence the public, the protests are rising to the decibels of data centers themselves. 

The post The EPA doesn’t think your opposition to data centers needs to be heard appeared first on MS NOW.

This post was originally published on this site

KEEP MSNBC ON THE AIR: SUBSCRIBE

 

Donald Trump is in a hurry. He cannot wait for cumbersome bureaucratic processes, slow-moving courts or even the law itself. 

He must have his arch, and he must have it now.

On Thursday, Interior Secretary Douglas Burgum announced that excavation will begin over the next two weeks for the gargantuan, garish arch Trump has been yearning to install near Arlington National Cemetery. The president calls it a “Triumphal Arch,” though what triumph it is supposed to commemorate is unclear. It will stand as a 250-foot monument to his ego, his insecurity and his bad taste. 

For the dozens of existing monuments and memorials in the area, “the undertaking would result in adverse effects,” the National Park Service acknowledged in a legally mandated report.

But there could still be a happy ending to this story — if the next president has the courage. Yet just as an executive order can be revoked or a piece of legislation revised, what Trump constructs can be deconstructed. We are not stuck with the monuments to his narcissism. 

The president now spends a great deal of his time working on his vanity construction projects, especially his ballroom. He is desperate to leave a physical mark on the D.C. area, so that generation after generation will know how great he was. Policy successes are for lesser presidents; his legacy will be cast in stone and adorned with gold. 

There are obvious problems with almost all of these efforts, from the comically disastrous resurfacing of the Reflecting Pool to the blinding gold leaf he lathered on a pair of statues on the Memorial Bridge — at a cost of $5 million. But the “Arc de Trump,” as some have taken to calling it, is uniquely vulgar. 

The arch will be made of granite and (of course) gold. For the dozens of existing monuments and memorials in the area, “the undertaking would result in adverse effects,” the National Park Service acknowledged in a legally mandated report. “It would alter significant views, vistas, designed spatial relationships, commemorative axes, cultural landscape features, circulation patterns, setting, feeling, association, or nighttime visual character.” 

The next Democratic president and Congress will confront a complex and challenging project of de-Trumpification.

Most significantly, a straight visual line currently runs from the Lincoln Memorial to Arlington National Cemetery, symbolically linking the president who saved the Union with the sacrifices of those buried there. Trump’s arch, when completed, will blot out that view from either end.

The next Democratic president and Congress will confront a complex and challenging project of de-Trumpification. Agencies that Trump has gutted or neutered, like the Agency for International Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, will have to be rebuilt. Those he has corrupted to their core, such as the Department of Justice, will have to undergo a kind of decontamination process: removing the hacks and cronies he has installed, rebuilding their ranks with professionals and recommitting the federal workforce to an ethic of service to the country, not to one man or party.

Alongside these practical steps, it will be important to give the nation a symbolic, visual representation of the transition underway. They must see that the recklessness, lawlessness and corruption of the Trump era are being put behind us so something better can take its place. And there is no better way to do that than to remove the monuments Trump has erected to himself.

Some cases will be easier than others. Where he has affixed his name, from the Kennedy Center to the Institute of Peace, a Democratic administration can simply remove it. Tear down and shred those North Korea-style banners hanging from federal buildings. Cancel the Trump Gold Card, revamp and rename the Trump Accounts and TrumpRX. Put “Gulf of Mexico” and “Lake Ontario” back on the maps and “Department of Defense” back on the documents. Cancel the “Trump Class” battleships. Melt down the gold $1 coins bearing Trump’s face that the administration illegally produced.

Trump’s second administration, with its many attacks on the federal government’s capacity, has reminded us that it’s easier to destroy than to build.

Not everything can simply be destroyed. For Trump’s ridiculous ballroom, a renovation would probably be better than simple obliteration. The space can be repurposed into something useful, such as offices and meeting rooms. Maybe name it the Barack Obama Center for American Diversity.

But there is only one solution for the arch. 

The project has not yet received final approval from the National Capital Planning Commission, though he has stocked it with sycophants who will sign off at some point. But he has begun the work anyway. After all, who’s going to stop him? We saw what happened with his ballroom, where he similarly began construction before getting approval. The Supreme Court has let work continue while it considers the legal questions. 

When the time comes, the next president can follow all the precedents on executive authority that Trump has established and the Supreme Court has all but rubber-stamped. Fire the relevant commission members and appoint new ones who will approve the changes, repurpose whatever funds are required and squeeze through any necessary legal loophole to get the work underway.

The president will likely get his arch, in all its gold-plated garishness. But like everything about this presidency, it need last only as long as those who come after him allow. Trump’s second administration, with its many attacks on the federal government’s capacity, has reminded us that it’s easier to destroy than to build. So let’s get those wrecking balls ready.

The post Trump won the battle over his awful arch. The next Democratic president can win the war. appeared first on MS NOW.

This post was originally published on this site

KEEP MSNBC ON THE AIR: SUBSCRIBE

 

New Hampshire is one of the final states to hold its primaries this year, and there is no doubt that the road to a successful midterms will be paved in the Granite State.

While more and more states have become more uniformly Republican or Democratic, in New Hampshire, split-ticket voting remains common, even routine, despite Republican control of the governor’s office, Executive Council and both chambers of the state Legislature. Yet Democrats hold both Senate seats and both House seats. In a state where diversity of ideas and thought is still reflected at the ballot box, candidates and campaigns matter more, and voters can shake hands and speak directly with those running multiple times throughout the campaign.

With senior Sen. Jeanne Shaheen retiring, the open Senate seat is a must-hold for Democrats to flip the chamber as a whole, and a big opportunity for Republicans.

Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas is now running for the Senate. He is a four-term congressman who has won in a GOP-leaning district, including beating Karoline Leavitt in a general election in 2022. But in order to make it to the general, he must prevail in Tuesday’s primary against a relatively unknown progressive challenger, scientist Dr. Karishma Manzur. Polls show Pappas with a lead but a recent University of New Hampshire poll showed his margin shrinking. Add in the unpredictability of primaries this year, and this contest is worth watching closely, at least as a test of Pappas’ strength ahead of a competitive general election.

On the Republican side are two former senators who have both lost races against Shaheen. Scott Brown, who represented Massachusetts in the Senate, moved north after losing to Elizabeth Warren in 2012, and ran unsuccessfully against Shaheen in 2014. His opponent, John E. Sununu, is looking to regain the seat he lost in 2008. In addition to his term in the Senate and three terms in the House, Sununu is part of the state’s political royalty: His brother just finished eight years as a popular governor, and his father served as governor and White House chief of staff to George H.W. Bush.

Thanks to his name and a Trump endorsement, Sununu is almost assured a primary win. But the president’s backing could be problematic in a general election, since Trump’s approval ratings in New Hampshire are negative by 20 points or more. Recent polls of a Sununu-Pappas matchup show a close race, ranging from a 7-point Pappas advantage to a 2-point Sununu lead.

The race to replace Pappas in the state’s first congressional district is heating up, too. The Democratic field of eight candidates includes Shaheen’s daughter Stefany Shaheen, former Obama administration official and Marine veteran Maura Sullivan, and union activist and teacher Carleigh Beriont. The race has been somewhat ugly with accusations of AIPAC influence, nepotism and which candidates are authentic progressives. Polls show Sullivan with a narrow lead over Shaheen, but with many voters undecided and a large field, anything could happen.

In the Republican primary, the two major candidates are Trump-backed developer Anthony DiLorenzo and metal fabrication business owner Hollie Noveletsky, who finished second in the 2024 GOP primary. Recent surveys show nearly half of voters undecided.

Two years ago, Pappas carried this district by roughly 8%, and Kamala Harris carried it by just 2%. Whoever emerges from Tuesday’s contests, Democrats simply have to win this district if they hope to win a House majority.

Finally, New Hampshire’s outsize influence on presidential nominations makes it attractive for ambitious out-of-state politicians. Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., will be at the Democrats’ Labor Day Breakfast, as will progressive California Rep. Ro Khanna. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg will attend a fundraising dinner for the state party. Other potential Democratic candidates have already made stops in the state, including Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., will visit the state the day after the primary and his fellow Republican Rick Scott will be there the following week for a dinner.

New Hampshire may be the ultimate skeleton key to GOP or Democrat majorities. But it is also clear that some are eager to help their party’s fortunes now in order to increase their own fortunes in the future. Election Day this year is Nov. 3. The presidential race in New Hampshire begins Nov. 4.

The post Why the road to House and Senate majorities runs through New Hampshire appeared first on MS NOW.

This post was originally published on this site

KEEP MSNBC ON THE AIR: SUBSCRIBE

 

Campaigning in battleground North Carolina over the weekend, California Governor Gavin Newsom slammed President Donald Trump’s push to restrict mail-in voting ahead of the midterms as “rank corruption and election-rigging.”

Newsom, who has been stumping for down-ballot Democrats in several southern states, was in Charlotte on Saturday, just after North Carolina election officials began sending out ballots statewide and one day after a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction again blocking Trump’s new mail-in ballot requirements. 

Trump issued an executive order in March calling for strict limits on how voters can mail their ballots. The U.S. Postal Service then created a new rule in August that would require states to submit voter information via a portal and add new requirements for mail ballot envelopes, including special barcodes, among other updates. The rule prompted a lawsuit brought by attorneys general from several Democratic-led states to halt the changes. 

Since then, a flurry of legal activity has ensued over whether the rule can be enacted ahead of the midterm elections. On Sunday, the Trump administration again appealed to the Supreme Court after previously appealing the judge’s 14-day block.

“The absurdity of this, with these ballots already going out, that he is trying to put sand in the gears of that process to completely manipulate that process to self-select his voters,” Newsom said at the Charlotte event.

Newsom, who is considered a likely 2028 democratic presidential contender, has been vocal critic of Trump. In California, county election officials are set to begin mailing ballots to all active registered voters on or before Oct. 5.

“Can you [imagine] the U.S. Postal Service deciding who gets the ballots and when, when they’re sent back, whether or not they’re even counted because they’re sent back a day late. ‘Oh, too bad,’” Newsom said. “That’s happening in real time, trying to nationalize these elections, trying to take the voting rolls. It’s happening in real time. Donald Trump is ruthless.”

Jane Whitley, chair of the Mecklenburg County Democratic Party’s 44th precinct, echoed similar concerns about the changes possibly disenfranchising voters if they’re allowed to take effect. 

“A lot of the people who vote by mail are some of our most vulnerable citizens, and it includes those people who are serving our country … overseas. It includes our military, for heaven’s sakes…But it also includes a lot of our seniors, people who cannot get out,” she said.

Sue Block, who moved to North Carolina from Georgia, said she used to vote by mail but no longer feels confident doing so.

“At this point, with what they’re trying to do, I wouldn’t chance it myself. I’m going to go vote early,” she said.

Block also worries that the rapidly developing legal saga could lead to confusion surrounding mail-in voting. 

“I think that the more people that are out there confused, the fewer people that are going to come out and vote,” she said. 

The post Gavin Newsom calls Trump’s attempt to limit mail-in voting ‘rank corruption’ appeared first on MS NOW.

This post was originally published on this site

KEEP MSNBC ON THE AIR: SUBSCRIBE

 

MANCHESTER, N.H. — At least two Democratic members of Congress are moving closer to a 2028 presidential run, telling MS NOW at campaign events in New Hampshire that they plan to talk to their families about whether to mount a bid for the White House.

Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Rep. Ro Khanna of California campaigned across the Granite State ahead of its primary on Tuesday, both speaking at an AFL-CIO union breakfast and appearing at separate campaign stops for various downballot Democratic candidates.

“I don’t know yet,” Kelly told MS NOW when asked if he would be spending more time in the early primary state ahead of 2028. “Maybe.”

Kelly’s decision to run for president hinges on two factors: getting the buy-in of his family and meeting the moment.

“It’s getting my family like 100% on board with this,” he said of his calculation on whether to run.

“Our country has serious problems right now, and as you think ahead to what this country is going to be like in 2029, what are the challenges?” he asked, musing on whether the Iran conflict would be resolved by then and what China’s posture toward Taiwan would be. “Who is the best person to handle that?”

Kelly, an astronaut, Navy veteran and member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees, is frequently targeted by President Donald Trump. He would be campaigning in a moment in which national security issues are paramount for American voters. 

As for Khanna, he’s ready to embrace another moment: voters’ economic concern.

“What I’m hearing is that the economy of the future isn’t working for them,” he said, touting what he calls his vision of “new economic patriotism.” Khanna, an outspoken progressive, could be well-suited to perform well in a state like New Hampshire, where Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) twice won the Democratic primary. 

While he’s been testing his “roadmap for economic security for families” across the country, Khanna noted the decision to run is “a very personal” one.

“It’s brutal on people, it’s brutal on their families,” he said. “And I’ll talk to my family over Thanksgiving or Christmas. But regardless of whether I run, I want my economic vision to be something that the Democratic Party adopts.”

Over Labor Day weekend, the lawmakers tested out potential stump speeches in front of voters. 

“It’s really hard for me to say this because I spent 25 years in the Navy, but what we need is an army to win this election,” Kelly told volunteers at a canvassing launch for Senate candidate Rep. Chris Pappas, D-N.H.

Speaking to a room of union workers at the Labor Day AFL-CIO breakfast, Khanna said: “My belief is that the Democrats have a very simple way forward: We need a vision in this country that calls for the biggest economic mission in a generation. The times don’t call for tinkering around in incrementalism.”

By touting his Pennsylvania roots and support for a billionaire tax, Khanna addressed what could be a weakness on the presidential primary campaign trail: He represents Silicon Valley, home to one-third of the nation’s wealth.

“The point of this country is it’s supposed to work for every place in every community,” he said to applause. “I believe the Democrats’ highest priority should be to build a future economy that works and has success for every American in every community, not just for a few billionaires in a few places. It needs to be America’s next move.””

Though one is a moderate and the other a progressive, both are concerned about corruption among Trump and his allies and say their mission is to improve the lives of the American people.

“We need to chart a different path,” Kelly said. “We need to get on a better trajectory.” The astronaut added, “I know a little bit about trajectories, and the one we’re on kind of sucks right now, and we’ve got to fix it.” 

The post Sen. Mark Kelly, Rep. Ro Khanna to ask families about White House bid appeared first on MS NOW.

This post was originally published on this site