Republicans are panicking. Democrats are expanding the map. A growing faction within the party’s progressive base is warning that the opportunity to change the nation’s direction could be squandered by the very forces that have long controlled the party’s purse strings.
With Trump’s approval rating at record lows and Republicans facing historic headwinds, the electoral battlefield is shifting in Democrats’ favor. But the primary season has laid bare a strategic divide that will shape not only the midterms but the party’s future.
The battlefield expands
Trump’s net approval rating stands at minus 19.5, according to the Silver Bulletin’s tracking average as of late September — far worse than any modern president at this stage before a midterm.
A CNN analysis found that 50 percent of Americans now strongly disapprove of Trump’s performance, the highest level recorded for a president before a midterm election. Among independents, 56 percent strongly disapprove, while only 9 percent strongly approve.
The generic ballot reflects the damage. Democrats hold a 9-point lead across all polls, according to RealClearPolitics, with recent PBS/NPR/Marist polling showing a 12-point advantage (53-41) and independents breaking toward Democrats by 25 to 29 points.
The Cook Political Report recently shifted South Carolina and Kansas one notch toward Democrats, and Alaska, Ohio and Iowa are now rated toss-ups.
Republicans have begun to publicly distance themselves from the president. In Michigan, Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers and Ohio Sen. Jon Husted broke with Trump by calling for an end to the Iran war — a conflict that has driven diesel prices skyward and is weighing heavily on agriculture-heavy states.
The corporate money and the primary wars
But the primary season has revealed a Democratic Party deeply divided over what to do with the opportunity.
Outside groups have spent more than $60 million in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary alone — the most expensive Democratic congressional primary in history.
The vast majority came from super PACs backing Rep. Haley Stevens, a moderate, pro-Israel Democrat, over Abdul El-Sayed, a Bernie Sanders-endorsed progressive and Israel critic.
The largest spender was the United Democracy Project, a super PAC backed by AIPAC, which spent more than $30 million backing Stevens — twice as much as it has ever spent on a single race.
A second group, A Stronger Michigan, spent more than $17 million, with funding traced to Center Forward, a nonprofit that backs moderate Democrats and Republicans and does not disclose its donors.
The pattern extends beyond Michigan.
Crypto and AI industry super PACs are spending in lockstep against progressives. Fairshake, funded by Coinbase and Andreessen Horowitz, spent $6.5 million to help crypto-friendly Rep. Christian Menefee defeat crypto critic Rep. Al Green in Texas.
AI super PACs have spent more than $52.8 million in House and Senate contests, with nearly three-quarters going into Democratic races — led by the OpenAI-tied Leading the Future network pushing for federal preemption of state AI regulations .
In North Carolina’s 4th District, Rep. Valerie Foushee edged out progressive Nida Allam by 1,171 votes — a margin made possible by more than $1.6 million from an AI-tied super PAC.
Allam had called for a 10-year moratorium on data center construction until rules could be developed; Foushee said such decisions should be made by local officials, not federal lawmakers.
The progressive counterargument
Progressive organizers argue that the corporate money flooding Democratic primaries represents an existential threat not just to the party’s electoral chances but to the future of the planet.
The crypto industry’s spending, they note, has secured favorable legislation (the GENIUS Act), friendly regulators, and pro-crypto executive orders — all while the industry continues to push the Clarity Act through the Senate.
The AI industry’s spending is aimed at securing federal preemption of state-level AI safety regulations, effectively stripping states of the ability to hold companies accountable for harms.
“The pro-genocide, crypto-currency, AI-loving corporate Democratic ‘pragmatists’ are beholden to wealthy donors whose interests are not so different from those of the right-wing maniacs who support MAGA,” one progressive organizer said, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe the internal debate. “The difference is packaging, not policy.”
The criticism echoes a broader argument: that the same corporate interests funding Republican campaigns are also funding moderate Democratic primaries, ensuring that whoever wins, the donor class is protected.
The stakes
The strategic divide is not abstract. With Trump’s unpopularity creating a rare opening, progressives argue that nominating corporate-friendly candidates would squander the moment — and that the policies those candidates would pursue (deregulation, preemption of state safety laws, continued arms sales to Israel) are indistinguishable from the Republican agenda.
The stakes, they say, extend beyond the midterms. The AI industry’s push for federal preemption, the crypto lobby’s legislative victories, and the arms sales blocked by a handful of Democrats all represent tests of whether the party can be a vehicle for meaningful change or merely a vehicle for restoring the pre-Trump status quo.
The voters will decide. But the money has already spoken.
Discover more from NJTODAY.NEWS
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.