March 2, 2026, 5:11 a.m. ET
On the Monday, March 2, 2026, episode of The Excerpt podcast: Primary season is officially underway, and even though President Donald Trump isn’t on the ballot, his influence is shaping races across the country. Republican candidates either are aligning with him, challenging him, or testing the limits of his political power, while Democrats grapple with their own internal debates over leadership, strategy and how to win back voters.
USA TODAY Chief Political Correspondent Philip M. Bailey joins The Excerpt to break down the most important races, what early primary results reveal about Trump’s grip on the GOP, and what it all could mean for the balance of power in Congress and the future of both parties.
Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.
Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here
Dana Taylor:
Today kicks off primary season, and while President Donald Trump isn’t on the ballot, he’s everywhere in the primaries. Across the country, Republican candidates are running toward him, away from him and trying to redefine what MAGA even means in 2026. At the same time, Democrats are facing their own identity questions as key races heat up in places like Georgia and Maine. So what are these early contests really telling us about where both parties are headed and who’s gaining the advantage heading into the midterms?
Hello and welcome to USA TODAY’s The Excerpt. I’m Dana Taylor. Today is Monday, March 2nd, 2026 to get a handle on all of it, I’m now joined by USA TODAY Chief Political Correspondent Philip M. Bailey.
Welcome back, Philip.
Phillip M. Bailey:
Hey, Dana. How are you?
Dana Taylor:
I’m good. Give me the lay of the land here. What are the big races you’re watching this year and what’s the story of this primary season?
Phillip M. Bailey:
Well, look, I think the big story here is that President Trump, as his numbers are wobbling nationwide and his popularity is beginning to wane, he’s really worried about, and we saw this beginning really last year, of Democrats taking back Congress. Now, this happens with every president in power, where the party that’s out of power makes the referendum that the President isn’t doing what they’re supposed to do. So you should give us at least some reins in that, and that’s the argument that they Democrats are really going to lean into, particularly with affordability being the lead issue here. We’re already seeing Dana in some of these special elections, both at the congressional and state legislative level in areas that Donald Trump was very successful in Democrats prevailing like in Texas.
So look, the President has already, with those redistricting wars that he started last year trying to anticipate Democrats taking back at the very least of the house, but when we spoke with Democratic senate leader, Chuck Schumer, earlier this year when I had a one-on-one with him, he believes that the Senate is now within reach. That will require a little bit of heavy lifting for Democrats. That’s going to require them to flip states like Alaska, like Maine, Ohio, and North Carolina, and also, at the same time, defend states that they have right now, Michigan and Georgia.
So the way of the map right now is Donald Trump knowing that if Democrats take back the House and the Senate, particularly in the House, his presidency is effectively over.
Dana Taylor:
Trump has been the face of the MAGA party since the beginning, but he isn’t on the ballot, Philip. Is his hold on the Republican Party still as strong as ever?
Phillip M. Bailey:
It looks that way, initially. Look, when we look down, for example, and we’re going to have some tests here in some of these Republican primaries, let’s take for example Marjorie Taylor Greene’s old seat, the former congressman who was really the queen, the matriarch of the MAGA movement until she had some significant differences with President Trump on some issues like strikes to Iran, issues of affordability. But chiefly though, I think we should point out, the main issue the MTG had with the President was that apparently, according to reporting across the country, that the president told her that she didn’t have the numbers to run for Senate down in Georgia. So in her old seat in Georgia’s 14th congressional district, which is northern Georgia, just outside of Atlanta, going up to the border with Tennessee, we see there that there’s going to be a major test of President Trump endorsing one of those candidates there. And whether that person will end up winning that race will be a real first test of still stronghold on the MAGA base. That 14th district, Dana, is one of the most MAGA-oriented, conservative, pro-Trump districts in the country, and it looks like Mr. Fuller, the individual, the former prosecutor that he’s endorsing is considered the lead candidate.
There’s also in Kentucky fourth congressional district held by Thomas Massey, where President Trump and his allies have really leaned into and put a lot of money into Congressman Massey’s primary opponent. That, I think, even more so than Georgia’s 14th congressional district, will be a real test and real Alamo moment for Trump in terms of his party hold.
If Massey Falls, that shows that Donald Trump still is the big elephant in the room. If Massey prevails, this is man who’s co-sponsored the Epstein-Files legislation, for example, he has been a thorn in President Trump’s side for a number of years now, if he survives, you could start seeing Republicans at the House level and other Republican candidates across the country begin to buck the president realizing that, oh, I have a political future beyond him, number one. And number two, he isn’t able to simply leverage out people who don’t agree with his agenda or don’t go along with the White House.
Dana Taylor:
Philip, as you know, some Trump-aligned activists are pushing an executive order that would allow the president to declare a national emergency over alleged election interference. What would that actually mean in practice and how significant would it be for presidential power over elections?
Phillip M. Bailey:
The theme of Trump 2.0, Dana, has been the president exercising and really expanding executive authority in ways that his predecessors probably never imagined possible. When you look at the Trump 2.0 agenda, much of it has come through executive orders and executive action. Take for example DHS and the use of ICE and Border Patrol, not just in Minneapolis, but across the country. Besides the Big Beautiful Bill, Congress has really been sidelined and hasn’t been the first forethought of the president. And I think we see that in the Supreme Court’s ruling against his tariff, global tariff policies where Justice Neil Gorsuch basically said to the president in his ruling, in his affirmative opinion, saying that, “Hey, I know it’s more difficult, but go through Congress for some of these things, Mr. President.” And I think there’s a real contempt, I think sometimes that Donald Trump has for that legislative process saying, “Hey, my people elected me to do this. I’m going to do it by any means necessary.” And I think alarms his opponents and a lot of observers around the country, and we’re seeing this with this lead-up to or this speculation that there is going to be this pending executive order on elections.
This is going on at the same time, Dana, where the president’s SAVE Act that he’s very supportive of that would change and require ID for participating in other identification to participate in federal elections. Democrats and others are aghast at this legislation, by the way, but at the same time, it looks like that legislation isn’t going anywhere fast. So President Trump and his allies, particularly those outside of the White House, like Steve Bannon, who have already said on their podcast that, “Hey, we’re going to declare a national emergency and send in ICE and send people to the ballots, send the people to the ballot boxes.”
The alarm, I think, Dana, is largely because President Trump still to this day lies about winning the 2020 election. He’s never publicly acknowledged that he lost that election. He even, I think at the State of the Union, alluded to winning the 2020 election when he did not. So there is a lot of nervous speculation here on the part of Democrats and their allies, especially when considering that the Trump administration seized records in Fulton County, Georgia. There are ballots down there.
So look, legal observers have already made comment that this would be unconstitutional. The Constitution is very clear that states are in control of our elections. We don’t really have a national election. We have 50 different elections during the presidential years. So even if President Trump were to issue such an executive order, which many anticipate he will, coming from an ally that he went to military school with a pro-Trump attorney who’s coming up and conjuring up this legal idea or legal theory, I think you are going to see if that does land, this is going to be challenged in the courts, obviously, by his opponents.
But there is a lot of nervous feelings around this. The president may try to declare, “Oh, there’s foreign interference. There’s a national emergency. No more mail-in ballots,” and X, y, and Z. right? So rather than going through the legislative process, which is very difficult, you have Republicans like Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska who would not necessarily be along with the… Even Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the former Senate Majority Leader, apparently has misgivings about that legislation and the SAVE Act as well. And President Trump has made it clear in the past that when he doesn’t get his way via Congress, he’ll simply pull out his pen and do as he pleases.
So this has got a lot of nervous tension here between now and the midterms because of President Trump’s refusal to acknowledge previous election results, his efforts to overturn that 2020 election, but also, Dana, Congress not going along with him, even Republican allies not going along with him on these issues.
Dana Taylor:
Let’s zoom in on some of the races you’re watching. You mentioned Texas. And also I want to get into Maine’s Senate Primary. What can you tell us about these? Let’s start with Texas.
Phillip M. Bailey:
Right. The showdown in Texas on both sides, on the Democratic and Republican side. Let’s start with the Democrats because I think that’s the one that’s going to be the more interesting in terms of personalities.
You have Congressman Jasmine Crockett going up against state representative James Talarico. The thought initially, Dana, was that Jasmine Crockett entering this race? She was going to be this fundraising powerhouse. She’s this quick-witted civil rights attorney who took off on cable news with [inaudible 00:08:55] at Marjorie Taylor Greene and Donald Trump. Long before Democrats were doing that, Jasmine Crockett of Texas was doing that.
But then you see James Tallarico was really taken off in terms of leaning into a populist message, really laced with his more progressive, but yet Christian values, and has become really nasty primary in the sense that it’s a question of electability, which Congressman Crockett told me, and she said this to other media outlets as well, which she feels like is a dog whistle for her race and gender as a Black woman. She makes a point that, “Hey, other Democrats have taken on Donald Trump in this same way, and what’s the issue with their electability?”
I think part of it, Dana, is because Texas Democrats haven’t had a Democratic senator since 1988, so we’ll see how things are turning out there. The turnout, like I said before, is surging. There is an issue of a personality difference between the two. Congressman Crockett often talks about politics through herself, emphasizing the things that she has done, her credentials and her background, that she’s a fighter. Tallarico, talks about the group, the affordability crisis, the healthcare crisis. Even though I think in a lot of these issues, Congresswoman Crockett is actually to the left of Tallarico, he tries to have, I think, both ways where he appeals to moderates and some of his supporters say, “Oh, he’s a better person to maybe stretch Republicans in a general election.” At the same time, he still tries to say, “I’m just as progressive, maybe even more so than Congresswoman Crockett.” When you put their two records side by side, there’s some differences, but it’s really a personality test more than anything else.
On the Republican side now, this is what it gets interesting. John Cornyn, an institution in Texas politics, really comes from the George W. Bush era of Texas conservatism, long time Republican senator there, is really in a fight for his political career. Most polls show him either tied or down to attorney General Ken Paxton, who was a scandal plagued Republican out of Texas. And also running is Congressman Wesley Hunt, a MAGA firebrand who isn’t shying away from taking punches at Cornyn either. Many expect, experts are all telling me that, “Look, this is probably going to be a runoff between Paxton and Cornyn. With Paxton probably coming in ahead.” That means that President Trump, who has not endorsed in this race, is going to be pressured by all of these candidates, particularly Cornyn’s folks in the Senate leadership to get involved here.
And that’s because, Dana, it’s not because necessarily even Democrats really can win Texas, right? Even if Ken Paxton were to win with his scandals and everything as close, that might be in Democrats’ minds, the real issue is money. If Ken Paxton is the nominee for the Republicans in that race, that means they’ll have to spend a whole lot more money rather than spend it in Ohio or Alaska or other states that they want to defend or even go on offense. So the pressure is on, I think, for Republicans in the town. Again, when Donald Trump’s numbers are down, do they go with a more MAGA firebrand with scandals both in his professional and personal life, or do they go with the tried and trusted John Cornyn, who, if he’s a nominee, Democrats know that that seat is basically off the table?
Dana Taylor:
And then let’s go to Maine?
Phillip M. Bailey:
Maine, where you have Republican, Susan Collins, a more moderate Republican, who is certainly someone that Democrats feel like they do have a legitimate chance in flipping that seat. The real contest first, though, is going to be in the Democratic primary between Governor Janet Mills, who’s backed by Chuck Schumer and most of the Democratic establishment, and then Graham Platner, oyster farmer, younger 40-ish, populist left-leaning progressive, who’s got a lot of support from left-leaning groups like the PCCC and others who say, “Look, now’s the time to shake things up.” Schumer was pilloried, if you recall, last year by a lot of liberal advocates and left-leaning groups, and the activists left saying he wasn’t really up to the challenge and up to the task of challenging Donald Trump legislatively, or even culturally keeping up with the times. That’s going to be an interesting race here.
If Platner wins and beats Mills, that tells me, Dana, that across the board, Democrats are going to be leaning into more populist, even outsiders who aren’t necessarily affiliated or connected to Washington or connected to establishment Democrats, and that’s what I think we’re going to see really in these primaries For Democrats across the board, maybe more of a blue MAGA effort where you see strong, hardcore left-leaning advocates and activists running for office. I would say that when you look at last year’s races, Zohran Mamdani, now the mayor of New York City really epitomized that. At the same time, I’ll say this, at the same time, the Democrats who also prevailed in those statewide elections in Virginia, New Jersey were more kitchen table moderates who focused on affordability, who weren’t necessarily associated with the far left or left-leaning politics.
Dana Taylor:
That’s really what I wanted to drill down on. What does this primary season reveal about where the Democratic Party’s energy is right now, and are they finally ready to pass the baton to the next generation?
Phillip M. Bailey:
That’s the thing that these primaries are really going to tell us. I think that the theme of these primaries for the Democrats, this will always, I think, be the tension here. There is a growing sense of Democrats that they are too loyal to their donor base, that they are just as bad as Republicans, and that was something that was a theme both in the 2016 elections and 2024. I think what Donald Trump has done with very blitzing executive orders and executive action, I think what Donald Trump has done is put a lot of pressure on mainstream Democrats. Well, why? When you get in there, you can’t get these things done so quickly. So there is, I think, going to be an energy from a more activist left perspective of, hey, we need to get in here and really change things fundamentally, and that’s really the issue of donors.
I think that the donor class and the Democratic Party will be criticized heavily by a lot of these candidates. The real question, as many of them question and call out James Talarico questioning, calling out the billionaire class and the Epstein class, as I think Senator John Ossoff of Georgia called them in a recent speech. That tension will remain with Democrats for a long period of time, and I don’t think one primary season will wash that away, but I do think you’re going to see a continued struggle for Democrats in the future. Their numbers have not necessarily improved. It’s just that Donald Trump’s numbers have tanked. There’s going to be this continued tension between do we continue to go after Donald Trump, who is someone who generates a lightning rod on the left, anytime he’s mentioned or brought up? At the same time, Democrats feel like we have to move beyond Donald Trump. He won’t be necessarily president forever. I know there’s a lot of folks on the left who think that he might try to be president for a third term, but there is this tension here that I don’t think will be resolved just because voters pick younger, more left-leaning candidates.
Dana Taylor:
Right. Philip M. Bailey is USA TODAY’s chief political correspondent.
Philip, it’s always great to speak with you. Thank you for coming on.
Phillip M. Bailey:
Dana, no problem. Thank you.
Dana Taylor:
Thanks to our senior producer, Kaely Monahan, for her production assistance. Our executive producer is Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to podcasts at usatoday.com. Thanks for listening. I’m Dana Taylor. I’ll be back tomorrow morning with another episode of USA TODAY’s The Excerpt.
