logo
Exclusive: Democratic challenger to GOP Rep. Scott Perry raises $500k in 2 days

Exclusive: Democratic challenger to GOP Rep. Scott Perry raises $500k in 2 days

Axios16-07-2025
Janelle Stelson, a Pennsylvania Democrat who narrowly lost to Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) in 2024, raised more than $500,000 in the first 48 hours since announcing for 2026, Axios has learned.
Why it matters: For a candidate essentially asking donors for a second chance, those are encouraging numbers.
Bombshell fundraising announcements can also make other potential Democratic hopefuls think twice about jumping into the primary.
"We are building the coalition needed to win this seat and it's clear that momentum is on our side," Stelson said in a statement to Axios.
What we're watching: Stelson, like other 2024 retreads, still needs to get through a 2026 primary process, which could get messy.
The Democratic party is still processing Zohran Mamdani's shock win in New York City, with even established incumbents wondering if they'll be victims of a progressive insurgency.
Zoom in: Repeat candidates bring certain advantages to a rematch, including name ID and a donor list that can be resuscitated.
But they also enter the race having been rejected the previous cycle.
Still, Democratic party strategists are convinced that the midterm electorate will be more forgiving to their candidates with President Trump off the ballot.
They are betting that tough losses in a presidential year can turn into tight wins in the off-year.
Zoom out: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee tends to encourage repeat candidates more than their GOP counterparts, with 10 Democratic challengers running for a second time in competitive seats in 2024.
Two of them – Rep. Adam Gray (D-Calif.) and Josh Riley (D-N.Y.) – ended up prevailing in their rematches.
Rep. Tom Souzi, who left his seat to run for governor in 2022, recaptured it in a special election in 2024 and then won a full term in November.
Republicans mocked the tactic, likening it to microwaving "crusty lasagna".
Between the lines: This year, both parties already have a handful of retread candidates looking for redemption.
Former Iowa state Rep. Christina Bohannan is challenging Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa) for a third time after losing by 799 votes in 2024.
In Wisconsin, Rebecca Cooke wants to take another shot at Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.).
In California, Joe Kerr, a retired firefighter, plans to run against Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.) again.
Former Rep. Yadiro Caraveo is laying the groundwork to take back her Colorado seat from Rep. Gabe Evans (R-Colo.).
And former state Rep. Amish Shah and Marlene Galán-Woods are both running in the Democratic primary to face Rep. David Schweikert in Arizona. Shah lost in 2024 in the general election.
The other side: In Ohio, Kevin Coughlin is looking for a rematch against Rep. Emilia Sykes (D-Ohio).
And Derek Merrin is making a second run at Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio).
Former Stockton Mayor Kevin Lincoln wants to again challenge Rep. Josh Harder (D-Calif.) in the Central Valley.
Two Nevada Republicans — Marty O'Donnell and David Flippo — who didn't advance past the primary last cycle are also running again in NV-03 and NV-04.
The bottom line: Second-time candidates — and even third-time candidates — know how to dial for dollars, but they'll still face well-financed incumbents in November.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Midterms are more than a year away, but Trump is already challenging them
Midterms are more than a year away, but Trump is already challenging them

USA Today

timea few seconds ago

  • USA Today

Midterms are more than a year away, but Trump is already challenging them

Trump's DOJ and Republicans are building the machine now to meddle in the 2026 midterm elections 15 months from now. The 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act came and went on Aug. 6 amid a massive mission shift within the U.S. Department of Justice. That agency spent six decades using the Civil Rights Movement law to protect the ability of all Americans to cast ballots in elections. Now, the people President Donald Trump put in charge at the DOJ have shifted that mission entirely to protecting him from election results he dislikes. The DOJ is out of the civil rights business. Now its officials making demands, with not-so-veiled threats, for data from state election administrators while regurgitating Trump's oldest lie about elections – that hoards of noncitizens cast ballots, changing who wins and loses. They're building the machine now to meddle in the 2026 midterm elections 15 months from now. And those machinations are built on two lessons learned from 2020: Attack the election with everything you have before it happens, and stock the Trump administration only with officials who will do exactly what he says on elections, no matter what the law says. Election denial and mistrust are baked into the Trump administration Trump's team of election deniers, including Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, represent both of these lessons. The first they learned in 2020, when they failed while trying to help Trump overturn a free and fair election. It was all so careless and chaotic back then, a dizzying series of unsubstantiated claims and discombobulated news conferences punctuated by judge after judge tossing out Trump's challenges as meritless. I was reminded recently of a news conference I attended at Philadelphia's airport on the day after the 2020 election. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, then working as Trump's lawyer doing work that eventually got him disbarred, was the ringmaster for the election deniers that day. And Bondi was right by his side. I watched on Nov. 4, 2020, as Bondi started and ended her remarks by insisting twice that Trump had already won Pennsylvania … while everyone knew that the state's election officials were still counting the votes. Trump lost Pennsylvania in 2020 when the race there was called three days later. The Trump team's takeaway from all that: Set up the infrastructure to destabilize the administration of elections at the state level well before Election Day, not just after the polls close. The second lesson was to purge the team of lawyers and officials who will follow the law, even if that means an election result that infuriates Trump. He had top aides who held the line during his first term, acknowledging his loss in 2020. They're all gone now, leaving only Trump's unquestioning sycophants in the second term. And that's exactly who has been bombarding state election administrators with letters for months, demanding copies of the voter rolls for those states, along with records from previous elections when Trump was on the ballot. This is the plodding setup that will eventually lead to Trump and his team making new – and still unsubstantiated – claims that they're trying to protect the 2026 midterm elections from looming fraud. Expect Trump to bully Republicans into interfering with elections Trump has already made clear he'll use any political power he has to influence who wins control of Congress in 2026, even if that means taking actions he has no legal authority to take as president. Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at The Brennan Center for Justice, told me that Trump and his team appear to be building a "pretext" on the false claim of rampant election fraud as justification for their potential meddling in the elections. They're systematically removing "the brakes" that protect democracy during the voting process, she said. "They're taking aim at all of the brakes that applied before. And they're starting earlier," Weiser said. "That just shows you he's laser-focused on interfering in elections here by any means necessary. Bend the rules. Throw out the playbook." David Becker, a former Department of Justice lawyer who founded The Center for Election Innovation and Research, has been hosting monthly webinar meetings with hundreds of state election officials since March. Those officials – Republicans and Democrats – have plenty of questions and concerns about the "unprecedented level of federal interference in state election processes," he told me. "They're not sure where all this is leading," Becker said. "They hear the rhetoric coming out of the White House. They hear the continued false statements about past elections and election security in the United States." It's worth noting here, as Weiser told me, that presidents have no role in running or overseeing elections in America, except for enforcing voting laws passed by Congress. And Becker noted that Congress, now controlled by Trump's Republican allies, has not authorized the DOJ intrusions into state election systems. "This is not so much about election policy as it is about a completely radical rebalancing of the balance of power between the White House and the states," Becker said. "And the Constitution has said, with regards to elections in particular, that the balance of power is tilted toward the states." As with so many Trump scams in his second term, Democrats in the minority in Congress will howl but have no real power now to stop him. And Republicans in Congress have surrendered any real authority as a coequal branch of government. They just do what Trump tells them now. So it falls to election officials in the states, appointed or elected, Republican or Democrat, to engage with Trump's DOJ election deniers while insisting that everyone follows the law. These officials have faced an extraordinary increase of repulsive abuse from Trump's supporters that he egged on. That was Trump's objective, then and now, to intimidate them into submission. We can only hope they hold the line, like the Trump officials in his first term who refused to endorse his lies about the election. Follow USA TODAY columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan. Sign up for his weekly newsletter, Translating Politics, here.

End the gerrymandering wars by enlarging the US House
End the gerrymandering wars by enlarging the US House

Boston Globe

timean hour ago

  • Boston Globe

End the gerrymandering wars by enlarging the US House

Meanwhile, national Democratic Party leaders are Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up There are no saints or villains in this saga. Republicans and Democrats are engaging in a bare-knuckled fight for power, and what each side condemns is Advertisement The cause of all this drama is not inherent Republican or Democratic perfidy. It is an institutional flaw: With only 435 seats, the US House is far too small — which means each congressional district is far too large. The average district now encompasses nearly 760,000 people. That is a constituency vastly greater than any member of Congress can effectively or fairly represent. And because congressional districts are so large, each one is a political prize well worth gerrymandering. When each district must corral so many people, a single line on the map has an outsize political impact. Under such circumstances, partisan cartography becomes irresistible — and bitter, recurring fights like the one in Texas are inevitable. Happily, there is a structural remedy that would dramatically curtail the constant court fights, political retaliation, and vicious maneuvering surrounding redistricting. Congress ought to expand the size of the House from the current 435 members to 1,500. No constitutional amendment would be needed — it would require only a simple statute to restore each House district to a more manageable size, and thereby make gerrymandering far less tempting. That would be a return to what the framers of the Constitution intended. The House of Representatives was conceived as Advertisement And there it froze. Congress didn't expand the House following the 1920 census, because of a political standoff. Many members resented the A House of 435 might have been workable during the Hoover administration. It makes no sense now. If the House were expanded to 1,500 members, the average congressional district would have about 225,000 people — still larger than its counterparts in many other modern democracies, but far more manageable than today's bloated mega-districts. Granted, that would require more chairs in the House chamber and perhaps smaller offices and staffs for each member. But the payoff would be enormous: Not only would the House be more representative, it would also be less susceptible to gerrymandering. Here's why: When each congressional district contains three-quarters of a million seats, a carefully crafted border can determine the balance of thousands of votes — enough to flip a seat. That makes each boundary line a powerful political weapon. But when districts are a third or a quarter of that size, no single line carries as much weight. Shifting a few neighborhoods or towns from one district to another would affect far fewer voters, making it harder for mapmakers to engineer outcomes with surgical precision. Smaller districts mean smaller levers — reducing the scope for mischief. Advertisement And the more districts there are, the less potent those engineering tactics become. Gerrymandering works best when the map has fewer, larger pieces — which makes it easier to 'pack' opposition voters into a handful of districts, and to 'crack' the rest among multiple other districts, thinning out their numbers to ensure that they lose everywhere else. But multiply the number of districts, and that strategy loses force. The cartographer's advantage fades as the map gets more granular. When each puzzle piece covers a smaller slice of territory, the lines become less predictable and harder to weaponize. Last but definitely not least, in a 1,500-member House, voters would be likelier to know their elected representative — and to be known in return. In districts limited to 225,000 constituents, there would be room for more local voices, more diversity of all kinds, more candidates who reflect the communities they serve. Much smaller districts means much less expensive campaigns — and lower barriers to entry for challengers. It also encourages lawmakers to stay grounded in the concerns of their neighbors rather than the noise of national partisanship. Congress blundered badly when it froze the House at 435 seats. The chaos emanating from Texas is only the latest consequence of that blunder. Advertisement It doesn't have to be this way. Enlarging the House to 1,500 members would end the gerrymandering wars. Better still, it would revive the ideal of a legislature that truly speaks for the people — restoring the people's House to its constitutional roots. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at

Man charged with killing a top Minnesota House Democrat is expected to plead not guilty

timean hour ago

Man charged with killing a top Minnesota House Democrat is expected to plead not guilty

MINNEAPOLIS -- The man charged with killing the top Democrat in the Minnesota House and her husband, and wounding a state senator and his wife, is expected to plead not guilty when he's arraigned in federal court on Thursday, his attorney said. Vance Boelter, 58, of Green Isle, Minnesota, was indicted July 15 on six counts of murder, stalking and firearms violations. The murder charges could carry the federal death penalty, though prosecutors say that decision is several months away. As they announced the indictment, prosecutors released a rambling handwritten letter they say Boelter wrote to FBI Director Kash Patel in which he confessed to the June 14 shootings of Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark. However, the letter doesn't make clear why he targeted the Hortmans or Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, who survived. Boelter's federal defender, Manny Atwal, said at the time that the weighty charges did not come as a surprise, but she has not commented on the substance of the allegations or any defense strategies. The hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Dulce Foster will also serve as a case management conference. She plans to issue a revised schedule with deadlines afterward, potentially including a trial date. Prosecutors have moved to designate the proceedings as a 'complex case' so that standard speedy trial requirements won't apply, saying both sides will need plenty of time to review the voluminous evidence. 'The investigation of this case arose out of the largest manhunt in Minnesota's history," they wrote. "Accordingly, the discovery to be produced by the government will include a substantial amount of investigative material and reports from more than a dozen different law enforcement agencies at the federal, state, and local levels.' They said the evidence will include potentially thousands of hours of video footage, tens of thousands of pages of responses to dozens of grand jury subpoenas, and data from numerous electronic devices seized during the investigation. Boelter's motivations remain murky. Friends have described him as an evangelical Christian with politically conservative views who had been struggling to find work. Authorities said Boelter made long lists of politicians in Minnesota and other states — all or mostly Democrats. In a series of cryptic notes to The New York Times through his jail's electronic messaging service, Boelter suggested his actions were partly rooted in the Christian commandment to love one's neighbor. 'Because I love my neighbors prior to June 14th I conducted a 2 year long undercover investigation,' he wrote. In messages published earlier by the New York Post, Boelter insisted the shootings had nothing to do with his opposition to abortion or his support for President Donald Trump, but he declined to elaborate. 'There is little evidence showing why he turned to political violence and extremism,' the acting U.S. attorney for Minnesota, Joe Thompson, told reporters last month. He also reiterated that prosecutors consider Hortman's killing a 'political assassination.' Prosecutors say Boelter was disguised as a police officer and driving a fake squad car early June 14 when he went to the Hoffmans' home in the Minneapolis suburb of Champlin. He shot the senator nine times, and his wife eight times, officials said. Boelter later went to the Hortmans' home in nearby Brooklyn Park and killed both of them, authorities said. Their dog was so gravely injured that he had to be euthanized. Boelter surrendered the next night.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store