On Wednesday, the broadcast networks covered on their flagship morning newscasts Tuesday’s results from the New York primary election that saw the far-left, Jew-hating socialists go three-for-three in contested races for House seats (and a State Assembly candidate who has gushed over 9/11). However, they sanitized this takeover of the Democrat Party as only in the Big Apple, and their support for eradicating Jews and Israel as believing “the U.S. relationship with Israel needs to be rethought.” A supposed bastion of pro-Israel and MAGA programming, CBS Mornings was the newscast that delivered this wild understatement. It was cued up by fill-in co-host Matt Gutman boating of “a big win for progressive left” and proof New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani “is emerging, obviously, as a kingmaker, at least here in New York...with a remarkable influence on voters,” so he wanted to know what “this Democratic socialist sweep tells us about Democratic Party future[.]” WATCH: Wednesday’s ‘CBS Mornings,’ in covering the sweep of Mamdani-backed socialists in Tuesday’s NY congressional primaries, insists these candidates and others across the country believe “the U.S. relationship with Israel needs to be rethought”... “[T]hey reflect, however,… pic.twitter.com/ST39k7E2Uw — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) June 24, 2026 Without verbally naming any of the candidates, O’Keefe argued these socialist candidates are confined to New York City because Mamdani has not yet used his “incredible sway over New York City voters...outside the city.” He then alluded to the real (and only actual) difference between Mamdani’s picks and those they vanquished, which is believing the Jews have been committing a “genocide” in the Middle East. Non-compliance with that, he argued, is “disqualifying” in the eyes of many Democratic voters: [T]hey reflect, however, something that the Democratic Party is going to have a big conversation about in the coming years, especially as they get ready to nominate someone for president. And that is what exactly did Israel do in the wake of the October 7 attacks? Was it genocide? Or was it something else? Because for a growing number of far-left Democratic voters, it is genocide, and unless the candidate is saying that, it is a disqualifying characteristic[.] O’Keefe insisted, however, that trashing Israel “won’t be a factor in every race across the country, and Democrats certainly aren’t nominating socialists everywhere else,” such as New York’s 17th Congressional District with Democrat “Cait Conley, an Army combat veteran.” “The issue for her will be Republicans are going to run ads saying that she associate herself with the socialists in New York City, or does she represent you,” he continued. Putting aside the Israel part, O’Keefe said the booting of incumbents for these individuals was proof voters “are sick of the status quo” and thus demand “a different kind of politics.” Speaking moments later to co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King, O’Keefe doubled down by claiming “[n]ot necessarily the socialism part,” but candidates who believe “Washington needs to be shooken up, that the U.S. relationship with Israel needs to be rethought, those kinds of themes[.]” As our friend Breca Stroll of the Daily Wire wrote about two such candidates, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez (click “expand”): https://www.dailywire.com/news/mamdanis-socialists-upset-incumbent-dems-in-house-primary-sweep Valdez has called for abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, expanding universal healthcare, increasing taxes on higher earners, and strengthening labor unions. Chevalier has advocated abolishing police, prisons, and national borders. Mamdani’s endorsement of Chevalier drew scrutiny after several of Chevalier’s past social media posts resurfaced. In one post, she wrote, “I forgot to get napkins so I just wiped my hand on the American flag behind me.” Her former X biography also listed her location as “Lenapehoking (NYC),” a reference to the ancestral homeland of the Lenape people. Mamdani said he had not seen the controversial posts before endorsing Chevalier but stood by his decision after they became public. As for the other, Brad Lander, our pals at Townhall noted on Tuesday he “supports abolishing ICE, expanding the Supreme Court, social and public housing, Medicare for All, universal childcare, the Green New Deal, and wealth taxes.” Something O’Keefe and his competitors at ABC and NBC also failed to mention was that Chevalier stated last week she opposed deportations for all illegal immigrants, even if they’re hardened, convicted murderers. While at Columbia University, Chevalier ran her school’s Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) chapter, CU Apartheid Divest that, in a social media post, declared itself as committed to “fighting for the total eradication of western civilization” and sough “community and instruction from militants in the Global South.” One of the few good journalists at CNN, Andrew Kaczynski wrote on June 1 that Chevalier has “deleted a previous Twitter account that included thousands of posts and reposts expressing support for abolishing police, prisons and borders, as well as seizing private property and nationalizing major industries and calling into question Israel’s right to exist.” ABC’s Good Morning America at least mentioned two of them by name. Co-host Michael Strahan was cartoonishly vague: “And we’re going to go now to results coming in from high-stakes primaries. Some of the most closely-watched contests were here in New York for seats in Congress, and it was a big night for Mayor Zohran Mamdani and the candidates he backed.” Correspondent Jay O’Brien bragged of “[a] big night for New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani taking on the Democratic establishment, putting his political influence on the line and helping hand-picked candidates get to primary wins that now call into question the ideological future of the Democratic Party itself.” Check out how vague ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ was in talking about the Jew-hating socialists winning in New York City because, you see, Brad Lander merely ran “in a race that focused around the war in Gaza, and Goldman’s support for Israel”... MICHAEL STRAHAN: And we’re going… pic.twitter.com/HK189dtaja — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) June 24, 2026 Before name-checking Chevalier and Lander, O’Brien simply said the winning candidates “ran to the left of their Democratic opponents” and the latter defeating incumbent Congressman Dan Goldman by running a campaign “focused around the war in Gaza, and Goldman’s support for Israel.” Like O’Keefe, he tried to have his cake and eat it too by promoting the far-left energy while insisting it shouldn’t be confused with Democrats nationwide (click “expand”): O’BRIEN: After last night, Mamdani endorsement clear — its weight of it clear in New York City, but it’s unclear exactly how far his influence extends beyond deep blue New York City. For instance, in swing districts, Democrats need to flip those if they want to take back the House come November, voters are opting, in many cases for more moderate choices like tapping combat veteran Cait Conley last night to face off against New York Republican Congressman Mike Lawler. That race, come the fall, is going to be critical, Robin. ROBIN ROBERTS: We’ll see what — that happens ahead. NBC’s Today thought they could do their fellow lefties a solid by almost ignoring the results completely. The show only had a 25-second news brief with co-host Savannah Guthrie not even mentioning Israel or a candidate by name: Brief! NBC's "Today" notes Mamdani's three endorsed congressional candidates won, "a resounding show of force for the Democratic socialist leader. Massive blow for establishment Democrats." pic.twitter.com/YLnkmPLIYX — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) June 24, 2026 Now to those closely watched primary races here in New York City. It was a big night for Mayor Zohran Mamdani. All three of the congressional candidates he endorsed were victorious, a resounding show of force for the Democratic socialist leader, massive blow for establishment Democrats. Jack Sclsossberg — the 33-year-old grandson of former President John F. Kennedy — failed in his bid to win a congressional seat in Manhattan. To see the relevant transcripts from June 24, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).

Last month, Kamala Harris revealed a radical left wing agenda that she would like to see considered, which included  a discussion on ''how we are thinking about the Electoral College.'' Since then, the leftwing media has for the most part stayed pretty quiet on Harris's suggestions, but a discussion broke out Monday on CNN's NewsNight with Abby Phillip. Phillip began the segment by claiming that Hillary Clinton, is reigniting a debate over how America votes. She then played a short clip from the Netflix documentary series, The American Experiment, where Clinton, who won the popular vote in 2016 but lost the Electoral College to Donald Trump laughingly says, "Well, I personally think the Electoral College is an abomination, for obvious reasons." Phillip then turned to Atlantic Contributor Jemele Hill, formerly of ESPN, who immediately cried racism. PHILLIP :This is how the system works. Doesn't mean it can't be changed, but should it be? HILL: Well, here's the thing. It's better if you make the argument when you didn't lose the election. You know what I'm saying is.... From a position of strength. Anybody who studied any small bit of history knows that Electoral College is rooted in slavery. That was the entire reason that it was invented, essentially. And we should have gotten from up under it a long time ago. And not just because you have two women quite capable who lose the election. First, these two women did not lose the presidential election because of the Electoral College. Hillary did, but Kamala Harris, lost both the Electoral College and she lost the popular vote by more than 2 million votes. But Phillip didn't bother to correct Hill, or weigh in on her outrageous statement that the Electoral College was rooted in slavery. And she didn't step in when CNN's own Ana Navarro echoed Hill's slavery nonsense.. NAVARRO: The bottom line is changing the Electoral College is something that we talk about all the time, and it's archaic, it may make no sense, it's rooted in slavery. All those things are true.  No it's not true. The Three-Fifths Compromise did address the inclusion of slaves in counting a state's total population, but that wasn't the purpose of the Electoral College, which was a compromise between having Congress select a President, and a popular vote. This 2019  New York Times Op-Ed, "The Electoral College Was Not a Pro-Slavery Ploy", which has been cited by The Heritage Foundation and others spells it all out.  And while Phillip may have had no interest in debunking what Hill and Navarro were spewing, Conservative radio host Jason Rantz attempted it: "Just to be clear, it wasn't founded because of slavery. That's just factually inaccurate. The reasons behind it had a lot to do with the size of the country and the lack of technology to actually reach everyone. That's why the Electoral College came out." Rantz was then interrupted by former New York Times columnist Charles Blow, who challenged his take, and offered a concession of sorts. BLOW: Let's take the word rooted out. But you're not going to sit here and say that it has nothing to do with slavery, which is what you just insinuated. RANTZ: I'm going to say that it had nothing to do with slavery, as if it were rooted in slavery, that's just not true. BLOW: That's not true. There was no input from Phillip on this point, who then gave the floor to Blow to rant that Rantz was uneducated, and Navarro said to Rantz "your ignorance was revealed." Rantz denied that he was arguing that slavery played no role in the compromise, he was objecting to the word "rooted," like the entire Electoral College was a racist plot.   The segment continued, but Phillip, who can be very opinionated, while also allowing radical leftist views to go unchallenged, never weighed in on what Hill or Navarro had said. She did air a clip of former GOP Sen. Jeff Flake making a case for the Electoral College. Then she went after Trump, of course, for trashing the Electoral College in 2012, and praising it after it gave him the presidency in 2016. This is CNN. 

On Monday's Money, Power and Politics, MS NOW contributor Eddie Glaude declared that it is "evil to me" that Elon Musk has become a trillionaire (on paper). His comments came as the group typically compared that to the Republican push to "cut" SNAP benefits (add work requirements or proof of citizenship) and other federal spending. The segment began with a piece by correspondent Rosa Flores as she spoke with SNAP recipients in New Mexico who complained about high food prices. Ruhle turned to Glaude and posed: "Eddie, what goes through your mind when you hear people talk about their lived experiences and sort of this growing disconnect between politicians and their actual constituents' lived experiences?" He began: MS NOW's Eddie Glaude Calls It 'Evil' That Elon Musk Is a Trillionaire pic.twitter.com/TLbqqho0Y6 — Brad Wilmouth (@bradwilmouth) June 22, 2026 Greed, selfishness and hatreds have the country by the throat. I don't know what the social contract is anymore in this country. I don't know what our obligations to our fellows consist in. What we do know is this -- we have one human being that is now a trillionaire. That's evil to me. One human being! The liberal contributor continued: We know what we have. We have the Trump family making billions. We know what we have -- the country spending billions on war. We know inflation for what? And so then you have to ask the moral question. There's something about a calloused heart here. MS NOW's Ron Insana soon invoked the gilded age: No, not only that, I mean, when you look at the post-midterm environment where Medicaid is going to be cut by $900 billion; SNAP benefits are going to be cut even more; 36 to 57 percent of consumer spending is done by the top 10 percent; 75 percent of the gains in the stock market have accreted to the most wealthy Americans. So income inequality, one could argue, is at its worst since the gilded age. We have this just enormous disparity between those at the bottom and those at the top. He eventually dragged in the Coolidge years and the Reagan years: "And this is we're back to a -- almost even in excess of the 1980s or the 1920s -- a Wild, Wild West on Wall Street that has not existed for quite some time." Ruhle asked the classic MS-DNC question: "Isn't there such a strong probability that this is going to backfire politically for Republicans?" Ex-conservative Never Trumper contributor Charlie Sykes soon complained about Elon Musk's push to cut spending, including the U.S. Agency for International Development: I mean, the social contract has always been, you know, you work hard, you play by the rules, and you get ahead in America. And now people are looking at a system in which people are becoming, you know, the trillionaires and that this remarkable split screen that I can't get over, that the world's richest man, the richest man who ever lived, spent last year cutting benefits to the world's poorest people, not just in the United States, but globally. Transcript follows: MS NOW's Money, Politics, Power with Stephanie Ruhle June 22, 2026 10:10 a.m. ROSA FLORES: So do you fear that you could lose some of these services? STELLA HALLER, NEW MEXICO SNAP RECIPIENT: Yeah, I'm really scared that if we don't stand up and vote properly and vote for the people that represent us, as opposed to the people that represent, to me, the top 1 percent, we're going to lose a lot of benefits. And people that are devoted to Trump, they don't realize that they're going to lose, too. There's already people that are losing. STEPHANIE RUHLE: Rosa joins us now from Albuquerque. What surprised you most from these conversations, Rosa? ROSA FLORES: You know, Steph, it is the sacrifices that people are making and the change in their habits. I talked to some families who make their own detergent to save money -- others who ration their detergent or their Kleenex or their toilet paper just to make ends meet. And then I heard some things that you would expect some people shopping around in various stores to get the best price, some of them coming to this store where I am -- a local mom and pop -- to get certain items at a certain price. But then there was also the frustration. A lot of people frustrated with just how expensive everything is. They can't stretch their dollar enough. And then there was the disgust with the Trump administration's priorities because they think of all the sacrifices they have to make, and then they see how the Trump administration is spending their taxpayer dollars. I heard about Iran, about the ballroom, about the reflecting pool. And so Americans are upset because they're having to change their habits and change the way they do things just to make ends meet and put food on the table. And then they're seeing how their taxpayer dollars are spent. (...) RUHLE: Eddie, what goes through your mind when you hear people talk about their lived experiences and sort of this growing disconnect between politicians and their actual constituents' lived experiences? EDDIE GLAUDE, MS NOW CONTRIBUTOR: Greed, selfishness and hatreds have the country by the throat. I don't know what the social contract is anymore in this country. RUHLE: Wow. GLAUDE: I don't know what our obligations to our fellows consist in. What we do know is this -- we have one human being that is now a trillionaire. That's evil to me. One human being. We know what we have. We have the Trump family making billions. We know what we have -- the country spending billions on war. We know inflation for what? And so then you have to ask the moral question. There's something about a calloused heart here. Now, we're not asking for charity. What are our obligations to each other? What constitutes the general welfare here? And so I think it's a fundamental question to ask, right, when we are grappling with our politics, when we're grappling with these political personalities. What's happened to the moral core of the country? And we see it in stark reality -- in clear -- in clear technicolor right now. And it's not black -- just black people -- not just brown people -- not the so-called lazy folk. It's happening in red states. It's happening across the country. RUHLE: Ron, as I turn to you, I'm reading over your shoulder, the market's up 250 in the last hour while this woman -- while this woman is talking about rationing toilet paper and tissues. What's the economic ripple effect, though? When programs like this are massively reduced or cut, these Americans don't suddenly find high-paying jobs or they don't disappear from society. RON INSANA: No, not only that, I mean, when you look at the post-midterm environment where Medicaid is going to be cut by $900 billion; SNAP benefits are going to be cut even more; 36 to 57 percent of consumer spending is done by the top 10 percent; 75 percent of the gains in the stock market have accreted to the most wealthy Americans. So income inequality, one could argue, is at its worst since the gilded age. We have this just enormous disparity between those at the bottom and those at the top. And, reading a book called Strong Floor, No Ceiling, by Oliver Libby, which is about, you know, taking care of those and ensuring equality of opportunity at the bottom, but also, you know, not necessarily -- and I'll agree with Eddie to a certain extent on this -- not just disparaging those who make a lot of money, but finding a way to narrow the gap through enlightened social policies, which we currently don't in any way, shape or form have when it comes to those who need it most. And whether it's a K-shaped economy or however you want to characterize it, we have people who are falling behind rather rapidly and staying at the bottom -- that there is less upward mobility, whether it's economically or geographically, and that's a real problem for the composition of this economy. RUHLE: Isn't there such a strong probability that this is going to backfire politically for Republicans? Or do they just hope and pray that -- that people are just going to not vote or that gerrymandering will -- will -- will lead them through? CHARLIE SYKES, MS NOW CONTRIBUTOR: Well, hope always springs eternal. But, you know, to Eddie's point, you do feel that this is an unsustainable sort of, you know, instability. It's not just the gap between income -- it is this sort of vast concentration of wealth. I mean, the split screen and you were talking about the social contract. I mean, the social contract has always been, you know, you work hard, you play by the rules, and you get ahead in America. And now people are looking at a system in which people are becoming, you know, the trillionaires and that this remarkable split screen that I can't get over, that the world's richest man, the richest man who ever lived, spent last year cutting benefits to the world's poorest people, not just in the United States, but globally. That split screen -- RUHLE: And what did that do for us? SYKES: Well, it did nothing for us in terms of -- it certainly degraded the moral authority of the United States. But it has created this -- this situation in which if Americans no longer believe the system works, if they no longer believe the market is fair and free, if they no longer believe this social contract, this creates a very dangerous thing, not just for Republicans in the midterm, but you kind of wonder about what it means for the future of society, where it's not just the haves and the have nots. It's this small group of oligarchical elites who not only have massive, beyond the dreams of avarice, wealth, but also tremendous power. And the rest of the country going, "Well, wait, what about us? What about our role?" And the fact that this is occurring at a moment of alleged political populism is an incredible, incredible irony. GLAUDE: That's it. But that's precisely it. You see it across the globe. You see it not only in the United States -- you see a certain set of economic approaches that have not worked for working people. And some of them are reaching for the old languages of fascism, the old languages of populism, right, in order to articulate the fact that they're losing. They're hanging on by their fingernails, and then they're going to pass policies that's going to make it even worse. INSANA: And, you know, Charlie says something about a free and fair market. The market is completely free right now. It's wildly unregulated. It is the Wild West. It is absolutely not fair, right. There's -- I think this is critical. RUHLE: This is a really, really good point. Free and fair, right? They're free but not fair. INSANA: No. I mean, you know, you see the way in which regulators are backing off completely. We're talking about whether it's, you know, betting markets, whether you're talking about now some companies are instituting new products that really are kind of irresponsible when it comes to individual investors. And then you're talking about the CFTC investigating insider trading, but not really investigating insider trading. And these gains are accumulating to very, very wealthy individuals, not the average. There was, I think, a story about one of the betting markets where there were very illusory gains made that did not actually benefit the people who made the trades or the bets, however you want to characterize it. And this is we're back to a -- almost even in excess of the 1980s or the 1920s -- a Wild, Wild West on Wall Street that has not existed for quite some time.

Two profiles of presidential candidates in Colombia, one left-wing and one right-wing, appeared on the same page in Sunday’s New York Times, but offering two markedly different tones. With the voting over, the “right-wing outsider” appears set to win the vote tally, and these pre-election stories are seeped in a sense of impending regret for the leftist’s blown opportunity. The print headline portrayed the leftist candidate as being unfairly attacked: “Onetime Favorite Deals With Anti-Leftist Anger.” The online headline referenced Trump: “Trump Called Iván Cepeda a ‘Radical Left Marxist.’ Can He Be Colombia’s President?” (Apparently not, though Cepeda’s camp is challenging the outcome.) Bogota-based reporter Annie Correal began:  For months, the left-wing candidate in Colombia’s presidential election this Sunday seemed lulled by his lead in the polls. The candidate, Iván Cepeda, anchored by support from President Gustavo Petro and his base, largely stayed home. A senator, human rights activist and professor who favors simple, collarless shirts and looks like he just stepped out of a philosophy lecture, Mr. Cepeda, 63, turned down debates and mostly gave interviews to friendly media. “It was a catastrophic campaign,” said Juan Carlos Flórez, a Colombian political historian, a verdict shared by even Mr. Cepeda’s staunchest supporters. That became clear on May 31, the first round of voting. A right-wing outsider, Abelardo De La Espriella, stunned the left by winning the most votes, surpassing not only a traditional conservative candidate, but also Mr. Cepeda, propelled by a campaign that seized on anger at Mr. Petro and a social media blitz. Days later, Mr. De La Espriella was endorsed by President Trump, who called Mr. Cepeda a “Radical Left Marxist.” Mr. De La Espriella, 47, a criminal defense lawyer who spent much of his career in Miami, has led the polls. Mr. Cepeda, known for not giving up, has traveled across Colombia, thrown aside his carefully prepared speeches and has begun attacking Mr. De La Espriella. Credit Correal for including an anecdote about how gauzy leftist economic plans fall apart in the face of reality. Even some people who benefited from [former left-wing president Gustavo] Petro’s policies say they are worse off. Ramón Montañez, a doorman in Bogotá, said a move to increase wages had been a bald attempt to get votes, and had cost him his job. His employer — saying he could no longer afford him — was installing security cameras. “The increase to the minimum wage?” he said. “What it did was leave a ton of people without work.” But she also tried her best to make the prospect of a “right-wing” Espriella presidency sound menacing. But as an emboldened Mr. De La Espriella hardened his message and, according to Mr. Flórez, “ate Mr. Cepeda alive” with online attacks, he had scared people. By contrast with the regret Correal expressed in her profile of left-wing Cepeda, the probable losing candidate, hostility emanated from the profile she cowrote (with Patricia Mazzei and Jorge Valencia) on Cepneda’s “right-wing outsider” opponent, Abelardo De La Espriella. The print headline was the mirror image of the Cepeda profile’s headline: “The Right-Wing Outsider Who Could Become Colombia’s Next Leader.” He has divided Colombians. Supporters say his combative energy is needed to defeat cocaine-trafficking groups, while critics warn of an authoritarian threat, as Mr. De La Espriella pledges to “disembowel the left” and ruthlessly pursue opponents with the help of the United States. Many on both sides are still asking: Who is this man? His campaign has borrowed ideas from other right-wing leaders — megaprisons from President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador, cost-cutting from President Javier Milei of Argentina (along with a tiger mascot, a nod to Mr. Milei’s lion) — and has seized on anger at Colombia’s outgoing leftist president, Gustavo Petro. Mr. De La Espriella has vowed to restore security, shrink the state, take control of the health system and closely collaborate with the Trump administration. Then the paper went after a lawyer for having unpopular clients, as if the paper would ever fault a lawyer for representing Antifa, or Osama bin Laden. Mr. De La Espriella moved to Miami and took on high-profile clients, including accused drug traffickers and the mastermind of one of Colombia’s largest pyramid schemes.

Three times as many adult Democrats want their party to move further to the left than want it to move to the right, results of a new national survey by The Economist/YouGov reveal. The survey, which was conducted June 19-22 as so-called Democratic Socialists, such as New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, continued to gain media attention, asked U.S. adult citizens (18+) the following question: “Would you like the Democratic Party to move to the left or the right?” Of all U.S. citizens, more than twice as many said they want the Democratic Party to move to the right as said they’d like it to shift further to the left (35% vs. 16%). Another 25% called for the party to “stay where it is” and 23% reported that they were “not sure.” Results were similar among Independent citizens, as 31% called for a move to the right, 13% supported a shift to the left and 19% wanted no change. Among Democrats, however, 31% said they’d like their party to move to the left – three times the 10% who said it should shift to the right. Nearly half (45%) wanted to stay the course and 14% weren’t sure. The difference was even more stark among respondents who identified their ideology as “liberal,” rather than “moderate” or “conservative.” Here, 42% said they’d like the Democratic Party to move left, while only 8% said they’d like it to move right. Another 38% wanted the party to stay the same and 12% didn’t know what they wanted. Democrat citizens’ support for Democratic Socialists was evident in party primaries held on Tuesday, as The New York Times reports: “The Democratic Socialists of America formally endorsed two of Mamdani’s choices [in New York]: activist and PhD student Darializa Avila Chevalier, who beat Rep. Adriano Espaillat, and state Assembly member Claire Valdez, who was nominated to succeed retiring Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez. Brad Lander, Mamdani’s third pick, was not officially backed by the group but received significant support from its members and allied organizations on his path to unseating Rep. Dan Goldman. “The group has seen major momentum recently with a win in the D.C. mayor’s race earlier this month. A congressional race in Denver next week will test DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) appeal outside an East Coast city as Melat Kiros challenges Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colorado).” Additionally, Maine State Auditor Matt Dunlap – who has long-standing ideological ties to self-avowed Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) – won the Democratic primary in Maine's 2nd Congressional District after three rounds of ranked-choice voting, the state's Secretary of State's office announced on Friday.