John Fetterman Gets Good News From Republicans in His Home State
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Democratic Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman is more popular among Republicans than Democrats in his home state, according to a new poll.
Newsweek reached out to Fetterman's office, as well as the Pennsylvania Republican and Democratic parties, for comment.
Why It Matters
Fetterman, first elected in 2022, has faced growing criticism from his party in the state due to his stance on issues like border security and his support for Israel.
However, he has downplayed questions about party loyalty and whether he could switch parties. In an interview with The View earlier this year, he pointed to stances on abortion and LGBTQ+ rights as reasons he would not fit in with the GOP. Some Democrats have called on him to face a primary challenge in 2028.
The new poll from Susquehanna Polling suggests that Fetterman remains narrowly above water among Democrats, but that Republicans view him even more favorably. These polling numbers, if they hold over the next few years, could have key implications for his political future.
What To Know
The Susquehanna poll showed that Fetterman remains more popular than not with Pennsylvania voters, with 41 percent approving of him, compared to 37 percent disapproving.
Among Democrats, only 40 percent gave him positive marks, compared to 39 percent who disapprove of his job performance. An additional 21 percent were unsure of their feelings toward Fetterman.
Senator John Fetterman speaks during a hearing in Washington, D.C., on May 8, 2025.
Senator John Fetterman speaks during a hearing in Washington, D.C., on May 8, 2025.Republicans, however, gave him stronger approval. Forty-five percent approved of Fetterman, while 37 percent disapprove of him, according to the poll. Eighteen percent said they were not sure. Meanwhile, 30 percent of independents approved of Fetterman, while 27 percent disapproved; 41 percent were not sure.
The poll surveyed 713 likely voters from June 17 to June 21, 2025, and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.
Fetterman has faced growing criticism from Pennsylvania Democrats, with his name being booed during a "No Kings" protest held in Philadelphia earlier this month. His comments about Israel amid its conflicts with Iran and Hamas, as well as his more moderate positioning on the U.S.-Mexico border, have drawn criticism from the party's more left-leaning wing.
Fetterman defeated Dr. Mehmet Oz, who is now the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, in the 2022 Pennsylvania race by about five points; however, Pennsylvania remains a critical battleground, with roughly equal support for Democrats and Republicans.
President Donald Trump won the state by nearly two points against former Vice President Kamala Harris last November, and it's likely to be a battleground again in the 2028 race, when Fetterman will also be on the ballot if he chooses to run for reelection.
What People Are Saying
Susquehanna Polling and Research President James Lee told PennLive: "It's hard to say how he fares in a reelection contest, which is still a few years away, but based on this latest poll his real vulnerability seems to be in a Democratic primary."
Senator John Fetterman said on The View in January: "I would make a pretty terrible Republican because, you know, pro-choice, pro really strong immigration, pro-LGBTQ...I don't think I'd be a good fit. So, I'm not going to change my party, and if I am...I'll give you the exclusive."
What Happens Next
Fetterman's reelection is years away, and he has not confirmed whether he intends to run again. Some Pennsylvania Democrats are hoping for a primary challenge in the race.
Former Representative Conor Lamb, who ran against Fetterman in 2022, has been floated as a potential rival but told Politico earlier this year he is "not considering any campaign right now."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The White House makes its closing argument for Trump's Big Beautiful Bill: ‘Very big' economic benefits
The White House is making its closing argument for President Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' and it involves some eye-popping projections for the US economy that don't line up with predictions of independent economists. How eye-popping? Try economic growth of 4.9% in the short term and up to $11.1 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade if the Senate bill is passed and Trump's agenda is enacted. "Those are very big numbers," acknowledged Council of Economic Advisers Chair Stephen Miran on a call with reporters as he laid out a 27-page report. The findings were immediately met with skepticism by economists who have come to very different conclusions. The report nevertheless concludes that Trump's entire 'suite' of policies — from the bill itself to unilateral deregulation efforts to tariffs — could lead in Miran's words to 'very material increases in GDP growth, very material increases in investment activity, and very material increases in real wages and take-home pay.' The case is essentially that certain provisions in the bill — especially deductions for businesses around things like research and development — will lead to a spike in corporate investment that will then fuel 4.6% to 4.9% in additional GDP growth over the next four years. It's an aggressive projection to say the least. For context, a recent Tax Foundation estimate pegged that figure at 1.1%. But that outsized 4%+ growth will then fuel, the White House says, a reduction in federal deficits by roughly $8.5-$11.1 trillion over the standard 10-year budget window. That would lead to thousands of dollars in additional income for a typical family and stabilize America's debt-to-GDP ratio, according to the report. The rosy predictions from the White House were immediately slammed by a range of economists. 'Well I guess if you are going to make stuff up, go big or go home,' offered former Democratic Congresswoman Carolyn Bourdeaux. 'No credible economist believes this bill is going to reduce the deficit,' she added, noting that 'it adds $3+ trillion.' Bourdeaux currently runs the Concord Coalition, a group focused on the national debt. A range of independent projections — from the Congressional Budget Office to the Tax Foundation to the Penn-Wharton Budget Model — have looked at different versions of the bill and reached a similar conclusion of much lower economic growth and a price tag in the neighborhood of $3 trillion over the next decade. The back and forth comes after the House passed a first version of the bill last month that was then followed by amendments in the Senate. Majority Leader John Thune hopes to finalize those amendments and put the entire package up for a series of votes starting Friday. The deliberations are also being closely watched by Wall Street with the mega-bill also responsible for raising a debt ceiling that is ticking towards a government default as early as Aug. 15, the Bipartisan Policy Center projected in a new report also released Wednesday. The problem for Thune and other Republicans is that a series of fights over different pieces of the bill remain unresolved, with GOP leaders facing a daunting to-do list in the days ahead before another round of voting can begin. In addition to lawmaker objections over issues like state and local tax (SALT) deductions and Medicaid cuts, recent Senate changes already appear likely to increase the price tag further and have further inflamed the concerns of fiscal hawks. A look at the tax provisions of the bill in recent days from the Joint Committee on Taxation offered a new price tag that tops $4 trillion. Wednesday's White House report offered a breakdown of how officials say the top figure of $11.1 trillion is achievable, suggesting that roughly $2.1-2.2 trillion in deficit declines come from the bill itself. Other cost savings will come from additional reductions in discretionary spending (about $1.8 trillion) and more tariff revenue (another $3.2 trillion). The tariff revenue figure is an increase from a recent Congressional Budget Office calculation of $2.8 trillion in revenues, but only if tariffs stay at current levels for the next decade. The final piece of the report focused on deregulatory and energy policies. The White House concluded those steps could reduce the deficit somewhere between an additional $1.3 and $3.7 trillion over the coming decade. The new numbers further reinforced a divide between between economists and the White House. After the House bill was released, there was an $11 trillion chasm between what economists said the bill's effects would be and what the White House said Trump's agenda will bring. The divide is now now even wider, with $15 trillion separating projections released in recent days from each side. The bill is "far from deficit neutral" added Heather Boushey, a former member of Joe Biden's Council of Economic Advisors on Wednesday afternoon. "There are a lot of shenanigans in how they are calculating their numbers." Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
JD Vance Flips the Bird at Trump Critics During GOP Dinner Party: ‘That Means We're No. 1, Right?'
In an effort to make a joke about anti-Trumpers, Vice President JD Vance decided to flip the bird at attendees during the Ohio Republican dinner party on Tuesday. The moment happened while Vance was delivering a keynote speech, during which he started discussing the challenges that come with being a political figure, as well as the slew of 'pink-haired' critics he claimed have approached and/or confronted him since his time in office. 'I know it's not easy to be a political candidate, trust me. In Washington, D.C. they have this thing where— I think it means 'we're No. 1' in Washington, D.C., but all the pink-haired people throw up this sign,' Vance said. He then lifted his hand to flip the bird to the listening audience. Keeping his middle finger in the air, he continued on, joking that the one finger up must mean naysayers are labeling the Trump administration as No. 1. 'That means we're No. 1, right? I choose to take that as that symbol in Washington,' Vance said in jest. LMAO! JD Vance throws up the MIDDLE FINGER live on TV"In D.C., they have this thing where – I think it means we're number one – all the pink-haired people throw up this sign… *throws up middle finger*" — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) June 25, 2025 Vance's crude behavior happened the same day Trump went viral for dropping the F-bomb while criticizing both Israel and Iran for their cease-fire deal. President Trump on Israel and Iran: "We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing." — CSPAN (@cspan) June 24, 2025 'We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the f—k they're doing,' Trump told media on Tuesday. As TheWrap previously reported, after speaking to reporters, the president told Israel on his Truth Social platform it would be a 'MAJOR VIOLATION' if it bombed Iran. He then called on Israel to 'BRING YOUR PILOTS HOME, NOW!' About 40 minutes later, the president was seemingly in a much better mood, posting that Israel would not attack Iran. 'All planes will turn around and head home, while doing a friendly 'Plane Wave' to Iran. Nobody will be hurt, the cease-fire is in effect! Thank you for your attention to this matter!' Trump posted on Truth post JD Vance Flips the Bird at Trump Critics During GOP Dinner Party: 'That Means We're No. 1, Right?' | Video appeared first on TheWrap.
USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
Newark congresswoman pleads not guilty to federal charges over ICE facility
New Jersey Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver appeared in court June 25 to face federal charges after her visit last month to the Delaney Hall detention center. New Jersey Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver pled not guilty in federal court June 25 to charges of "assaulting, resisting, and impeding' Homeland Security investigators while visiting the Delaney Hall detention center in Newark in May. The trial date has been set for Nov. 10. 'l pleaded not guilty because I am not guilty," she said to supporters and press outside the courtroom, flanked by her lawyers Paul Fishman and Lee Cortes. "We will fight this.' She then rushed off to go back to Washington, D.C. McIver, who appeared by Zoom at an initial hearing on May 21, was present for the June 25 hearing in the courtroom of Judge Jamel Semper. It was two weeks after a three-count indictment announced by Alina Habba, the interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey. An indictment is a formal accusation by a grand jury, which leads to a formal plea being entered. Supporters of McIver filled the courtroom — which was without air conditioning but somehow bearable on a sweltering 90-degree day — as the judge spoke for a few minutes. Newark Mayor Ras Baraka said the charges against McIver had nothing to do with justice or the law. McIver and her fellow New Jersey Democratic Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez visited the Newark detention facility on May 9 as part of their congressional oversight duties to inspect the treatment of detainees, accompanied by Baraka. The 1,196-bed Delaney Hall is the first immigrant detention center to open during the second term of President Donald Trump, during which the president has vowed to deport at least 11 million undocumented immigrants. In February, the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency awarded GEO Group a contract to hold migrants facing deportation at Delaney Hall. In May, the detention center opened. During that visit, Baraka was arrested by Department of Homeland Security agents after an argument with the agents. He was later charged with trespass by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey, but that charge was dropped on May 19. Baraka, who was running in the Democratic primary for New Jersey governor, filed a lawsuit against Habba and Homeland Security Special Agent Ricky Patel over his arrest. The same day that Baraka's charge was dropped, McIver was charged. In the complaint filed by Homeland Security Special Agent Roger Tansey, he said that McIver "attempted to thwart the arrest" of Baraka as she "slammed her forearm" into the body of one agent and forcibly grabbed him. Tansey then said in the complaint that following Baraka's arrest, McIver pushed another federal agent and used "each of her forearms to forcibly strike" that agent. Video shared by the Baraka gubernatorial campaign with and the USA TODAY Network after Baraka's arrest shows Watson Coleman and McIver — and later Menendez — attempting to stop federal Homeland Security Investigations agents from detaining Baraka. At one point, a federal agent put his hands on McIver to reach Baraka with handcuffs. McIver, 38, who represents the 10th Congressional District that includes her hometown of Newark, said in a statement issued May 19 that the charges against her are "purely political" and "mischaracterize and distort my actions." Paul Fishman, who served as U.S. Attorney in New Jersey during former President Barack Obama's term, issued a statement calling the decision to charge as "spectacularly inappropriate," and that she was doing her job of congressional oversight to ensure when federal agents "chose to escalate what should have been a peaceful situation into chaos." "Congresswoman McIver pleaded not guilty because she is not guilty," he said in a separate statement on June 25. "On May 9, she was at Delaney Hall to carry out her responsibilities as member of Congress. She was there to inspect an ICE detention facility and to see for herself whether the Trump administration is obeying the laws and Constitution of the United States. ICE responded by creating a risky and dangerous situation, and now the Justice Department is doubling down by trying to punish the Congresswoman for doing her job. We are eager to challenge this case on multiple grounds and we are confident that the legal process will ultimately vindicate the congresswoman."
