On a sunny Saturday afternoon in late October, Janelle Stelson, the Democratic candidate in Pennsylvania’s 10th Congressional District, entered Broad Street Market, a historic food hall in Harrisburg. “If I seem a little off,” she explained to me and another reporter, she had just come from a funeral. But now, grasping campaign signs in one hand, she was looking for breakfast among the Caribbean food stalls and Amish bakeries—and some voters.  

Stelson made her way through the market with relentless friendliness, calling out “hey sister!” with her free hand outstretched. After a decades-long career as a local television anchor, she was a familiar face to many. As Stelson greeted passersby, Richard Utley, a retired government employee, told me that he’s “known Janelle a long time,” both from the evening news and from politics. “She’s got the best chance to beat Scott Perry,” he said.

Stelson has tried to make this race a referendum on Scott Perry, the firebrand conservative and six-term incumbent. She argues that Perry has lost sight of his constituents’ needs and come to exemplify the dysfunction in Congress. “The fact that Washington is broken resonates with everyone,” Stelson told me. “They want somebody who’s going to attend to their basic needs.”

In the market, she talked to voters about issues ranging from the rising cost of living to the shortage of reproductive healthcare providers. As Stelson nimbly navigated conversations, I could see how television journalism could provide transferable skills for electoral politics. As an anchor, she reported on these same issues dozens of times. Stelson had also covered this story before: the story of a political challenger making a case for ousting the incumbent. In her black funeral wear, Stelson was warm and effusive, doling out good sound bites. She expertly framed shots for the news photographer, pivoting so her campaign signs always faced the camera as she cooed over babies, hugged the elderly, and examined cookies.  

Pennsylvania has emerged as the center of the political universe, as both presidential campaigns identified it as crucial to their Electoral College math. Doors are brimming with campaign literature, highways are crowded with competing billboards, and voters inundated with automated texts. In the state’s 10th district, Perry is facing his most difficult race yet, and one that may help to determine whether the GOP can hold onto its slim majority in Congress. 

A retired Pennsylvania Army National Guard brigadier general, Perry made a name for himself as a Trump loyalist and former chair of the far-right House Freedom Caucus. As my colleague David Corn wrote in 2021, a Senate Judiciary Committee report revealed that Perry played a crucial role in former president Donald Trump’s effort to recruit Justice Department officials to investigate and overturn 2020 election results. Though the FBI briefly seized his cell phone, Perry has maintained his innocence and insisted that he was never under investigation. Still, his involvement has been costly—FEC reports show that Perry has spent at least $300,000 from his campaign donations on legal fees. Undeterred, Perry has continued to sow doubts about the 2020 election, and, during his only debate with Stelson, repeated false claims that the post office had illegally shredded mail-in ballots. In response, Stelson reiterated that mail-in voting is a “tried and true method.” 

Perry also made national headlines as the Freedom Caucus made it increasingly difficult for the GOP to govern, threatening government shutdowns over spending bills and forcing Kevin McCarthy through 15 rounds of voting to become Speaker of the House—an ultimately short-lived tenure.    

Perry was initially elected in 2013 to the solidly Republican 4th Congressional District. In 2018, Pennsylvania’s congressional districts were completely redrawn by the state Supreme Court, making Perry’s new 10th district much more competitive, and he was reelected by less than three points. In 2022, the district lines were redrawn once again, though much less dramatically, condensing the district around Harrisburg and York. Perry fended off Democratic challengers in 2020 and 2022, both by around seven points. 

The district is fairly emblematic of the state at large: it is 70 percent white, with a median household income of $75,000 and about 35 percent of residents have at least a bachelor’s degree. Democrats say that the population is shifting in their favor. Cumberland and York counties, which are partially included in the district, are among the fastest growing counties in the state. “We’ve seen a lot of farmland convert to housing,” Matt Roan, chair of the Cumberland County Democratic Committee, said. “These people tend to be younger families with higher levels of education.”

Still, Republicans lead Democrats by almost 6 points in party registration, while 14 percent of registered voters are not affiliated with a political party. Trump won the district by 4 points in 2020, but Pennsylvania’s Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro won the newly redrawn district by 12 points in 2022. That was likely in part because Shapiro’s opponent, Doug Mastriano, ran a chaotic and poorly funded campaign and, despite being a Trump stalwart, was largely abandoned by the national party. “I would not underestimate Scott Perry,” Berwood Yost, director of the Floyd Institute for Public Policy Analysis at Franklin & Marshall College, told me. “He is a polished political operator. He knows his district and knows how to talk to voters here.” 

“I would not underestimate Scott Perry. He is a polished political operator. He knows his district and knows how to talk to voters here.” 

Stelson has run a commanding race against Perry, having significantly outspent and outraised him. Campaign finance reports show that Stelson has raised almost $2.5 million this year to Perry’s $800,000. The Cook Political Report just shifted the race towards Democrats, calling it a “toss up,” and one recent poll had Stelson leading by nine points. National Republicans seem to be concerned. Earlier this month, House Speaker Mike Johnson appeared in the district to campaign on Perry’s behalf. The Congressional Leadership Fund, a Johnson-sponsored super-PAC, has spent more than $2 million on advertising for Perry ahead of Election Day, according to AdImpact. One of the group’s ads frames Stelson’s immigration stance as extreme, citing a candidate Q&A in which Stelson calls for fixing the asylum system and ensuring pathways to citizenship for Dreamers and “those who have been paying taxes for decades.” The ad’s voiceover declares, “Illegals get the invite, we foot the bill. That’s liberal Janelle Stelson.” 

Perry is the only Freedom Caucus member from the Northeast, and he is among the most vulnerable of the hardline Republicans up for reelection this year. Despite this, Perry has largely doubled down on his positions. “Should I just go along with Washington, DC, as most of my other colleagues did, just to moderate myself?” Perry said to the Associated Press for a recent story on the race. “No, I’m going to do the right thing every single time I have the opportunity.”

If Perry can be beat, Democrats are convinced they finally have the right candidate to do so. Stelson spent 26 years as a broadcast journalist at WGAL, an NBC affiliate based in Lancaster, where she became a mainstay on televisions across the Susquehanna Valley. Throughout the campaign, Stelson has leaned on her journalism experience, arguing that it has given her a unique vantage point on the problems afflicting the region. It also gave her a big boost in recognition: voters knew her name and face long before she announced her candidacy. Stelson won a crowded Democratic primary by twenty points, beating a former US Marine and the Democrats’ 2022 candidate, despite concerns that she lives a few miles outside of district lines. (She has promised to move if she wins the election.)

Stelson has attributed her decision to enter politics to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which she covered as the evening news anchor. “I had to look out into the camera and tell every woman watching that her rights have been rolled back 50 years,” Stelson told me as we sat at a picnic bench outside of the market. She ended up buying some cookies and a berry smoothie, which she periodically sipped while we spoke. She described Perry’s reaction to the Dobbs decision as “ecstatic”—he called it a “monumental victory for the unborn” on X—and pointed out that he has co-sponsored a restrictive abortion measure.

“I just realized at some point that I needed to move from the public service of telling about all our issues and concerns,” Stelson said, “to actually trying to do something about them.”

Stelson seems to relish coming off the sidelines and into the political arena. In an interview with Pod Save America’s Jon Lovett, Stelson said that, as a television anchor, she had moderated two of Perry’s previous debates. “I know where his soft underbelly is,” Stelson told Lovett, laughing. “Imma get him.” 

Stelson was a registered Republican until early 2023 and described her voting history to me as “independent”—she told the Washington Post that she had supported both John McCain and Mitt Romney’s presidential bids. This biographical detail has been helpful in convincing voters that she is a moderate Democrat. When I asked where she differed from the Biden administration, she said to me, “I think even in a really good marriage, you’re never going to agree with the other person all the time.” Stelson critiqued the president’s handling of the southern border, telling me that “we have to secure the border” and increase funding for law enforcement agents. 

As surveys show that Americans are increasingly exhausted by and skeptical about the federal government, both candidates have presented themselves as political outsiders. Stelson’s campaign website calls for fewer “career politicians,” and she says there are few better examples of this particular creature of Washington than her opponent, whom she argues has become more interested in “grandstanding” than addressing the needs of his district. She has pointed out that Perry voted against bills funding healthcare for veterans exposed to toxic burn pits and housing homeless veterans—he was the only member of the Pennsylvania delegation to vote against the housing bill. When asked about it during their debate, Perry noted that he had been deployed in Iraq and argued that the bills would have bankrupted the VA, saying, “If everybody’s going to jump off a cliff, are you going to jump off a cliff?”

Perry has long presented himself as a maverick, telling voters in a recent ad that he “didn’t go to Congress to make friends.” He has argued that he is willing to vote his conscience even when it means angering other Republicans. During their debate, Perry defended his history of voting against spending bills, arguing that uncurbed government spending is contributing to inflation. Perry recently told the Atlantic, “When the stuff that is unaffordable, unnecessary, unwanted, outweighs the stuff that we need, I’m going to vote the way I need to.” 

“When the public sees you as this firebrand, controversial figure, making a pitch that ultimately you are constituent-driven becomes challenging,”.

But when your political brand is built on opposition and obstruction, it’s not easy to point to concrete accomplishments. “When the public sees you as this firebrand, controversial figure, making a pitch that ultimately you are constituent-driven becomes challenging,” Christopher Borick, Director of Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion, told me. And Perry has alienated at least some of his Republican base, according to Craig Snyder, a Philadelphia-based consultant who is the director of Republicans Against Perry. The group is funded by the Welcome PAC, which supports moderate Democratic candidates. Snyder said that crossover Republicans will be motivated by a range of issues, from Perry’s election denialism and anti-abortion stance to his “constant support for shutting down the federal government.” 

In addition to appealing to independents, Stelson will need a number of these Republican voters to win. In the time we spent together in Harrisburg, a Democratic stronghold, Stelson encountered no Republican supporters. She likes to say that, “I’m a Republican, and I’m voting for you” are her “favorite words in the English language.” But I did get a sense of how the encounter would go when, outside of the food hall, Stelson met several older women in a tour group from Alabama. “I am running as a Democrat, but I used to be a Republican. So really I’m an American, is what I say,” Stelson told them. “I wish we’d stop this nonsense and work together and get something done.”

In a Southern drawl, one of the women said, “Amen.”

When J. Vasquez was incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison in California, he worked as a porter—sweeping, mopping, and taking out the trash. It paid less than 15 cents per hour and, as the “third watch” porter, he worked from 2 to 9 p.m. The timing of his shift often coincided with prison programming, which was a source of continual frustration for Vasquez. He had entered prison at 19 and was looking to “take accountability for [his] life.” But he was not allowed to take time off his job to attend classes. When a group of crime survivors came to the prison to speak with incarcerated people, Vasquez told me, “I thought about just putting down that broom and going anyways.” But he feared that if he refused to work, it could result in a disciplinary violation, which would eventually appear on his parole application. 

California’s penal code requires that most incarcerated people work while they are in prison, and if they refuse to do so, they can be disciplined—ranging from losing access to phone calls to being placed in solitary confinement. This is because California’s state constitution has one caveat to its ban on involuntary servitude: It is allowed “to punish crime.” Proposition 6 will give California voters an opportunity to decide whether to remove this exception from the constitution. 

For advocates of Prop 6, the exception in the state constitution is a clear, and troubling, remnant of slavery. “The practice of involuntary servitude is just another name for slavery in our California prisons and jails,” Carmen-Nicole Cox, an attorney at ACLU California Action, told Mother Jones.

“The practice of involuntary servitude is just another name for slavery in our California prisons and jails.”

But the movement to abolish involuntary servitude has not been as straightforward as one might imagine in California, and advocates face an uphill battle. A statewide poll conducted in early September found that 50 percent of voters said they would vote against the proposition, while 46 percent would vote for it.

Of the 95,600 people incarcerated in state prisons in California, around 65,000 work. This reflects the national trend: A 2022 ACLU report estimated that two out of every three people incarcerated in state and federal prisons work. In California, the majority of jobs involve the day-to-day operations of prisons: preparing food, doing laundry, or completing janitorial duties. Some jobs are unpaid, but most pay between 8 and 37 cents per hour.

Around 7,000 incarcerated people work manufacturing and service jobs—such as making license plates, processing eggs, and fabricating dentures—through the California Prison Industry Authority. Those jobs are coveted because they pay more—their range is between 35 cents and $1 per hour. Around 1,600 people work in conservation camps, where they respond to fires and other natural disasters. They’re paid between $1.45 to $3.90 per day and paid an extra $1 per hour for emergency firefighting. 

Currently, at least 15 states have constitutions that allow involuntary servitude as punishment for crime. Lawmakers around the country have moved to ban forced prison labor by amending their state constitutions. In 2022, voters approved amendments in Alabama, Oregon, Tennessee, and Vermont—joining Colorado, Utah, and Nebraska. 

In 2020, Sydney Kamlager-Dove, then a California Assembly member, introduced an early version of a ban on forced prison labor. But it failed to pass the state Senate after the California Department of Finance opposed it, writing in a report that given the broad language of the amendment, its financial impacts were largely unknown. The report warned that it would cost taxpayers around $1.6 billion to pay incarcerated workers California’s minimum wage, which was $15.50 in 2023. Plus, the report said, the measure could make the state vulnerable to potential litigation from incarcerated people. In Colorado, for instance, incarcerated people sued in 2022 because they still were forced to work despite a constitutional amendment banning involuntary servitude in prisons.

The report also pointed out the broad definition of involuntary servitude. Judges can sentence someone to community service instead of a fine or jail time—because that work is unpaid, it might also be considered involuntary servitude. 

Democratic state Sen. Steve Glazer voted alongside five Republicans against the measure. After it failed, Glazer said in a statement that the issue of forced prison labor was better suited for the legislature to take up. He argued that unilaterally banning the work requirement would “undermine our rehabilitation programs” and “make prisons more difficult to manage safely.” 

This time around, a companion bill—intended to address concerns about prisoner pay—would allow the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to set wages for incarcerated workers if a constitutional amendment passes. 

In January, Assembly Member Lori Wilson brought back the measure, which was included in a package of bills recommended by the California Legislative Black Caucus as part of reparations for the descendants of enslaved Americans.

Although the current version of the ballot measure easily moved through both the state Assembly and Senate—with the support of Glazer—many of the same concerns persisted. Glazer recently told Capital Public Radio that he is still worried about “unintended consequences” for prisons. There has been speculation that if incarcerated people refuse to work in laundry and kitchen positions, prisons will find it difficult to function. Glazer told the radio station that he had been assured that the state could still compel people to do “chores.” 

In particular, financial concerns linger. Even if incarcerated people are not paid minimum wage, the amendment may still result in higher prison operation costs. A summary prepared by the attorney general’s office cautioned that prisons might have to find “other ways of encouraging working” if incarcerated people are not disciplined for refusing to do so. This might include raising pay or offering “time credits” off a prison sentence. 

Advocates say these concerns reflect a misunderstanding of life inside prison. Vasquez, who is now a policy and legal services manager at Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, said incarcerated people frequently want to work, even if only to get out of their cells. There also are some “fringe benefits” to working, he explained. As a porter, Vasquez was able to get some spare cleaning supplies, and extra food might be available for those who work in the kitchen. And given that there are positions available for only about two-thirds of incarcerated people, there are sometimes waiting lists for jobs. 

Moreover, advocates say it is misguided to calculate the cost benefit of Prop 6 only in terms of the burden on taxpayers. Brandon Sturdivant, the campaign manager for Prop 6, says eliminating forced prison labor will give incarcerated people the opportunity to pursue rehabilitation and better prepare themselves to return to their communities. Sturdivant said his father spent 12 years in prison, where he spent time making license plates instead of “getting the tools he needed to come out and be a father and a pillar of his community.” 

Proponents of Prop 6 also point out that education and rehabilitation programs have been found to reduce recidivism. And this has its own economic benefit—it now costs $132,860 per year to incarcerate someone in California. To Sturdivant, the biggest hurdle in passing Prop 6 is reaching and educating voters, which the coalition of organizations supporting the ballot initiative has been attempting to address through phone banks. When talking to voters, they try to dispel misconceptions and frame the issue in personal, humanitarian terms. Esteban Núñez, a formerly incarcerated consultant and strategist, said that fundamentally, Prop 6 presents voters with a “moral issue” and a chance to “restore dignity to those inside.” 

The suburbs of North Dallas were once the headquarters of a very particular pre-MAGA version of the Republican Party: genteel, gun-toting, and churchgoing. The men wore beaver-fur cowboy hats, and the women were hairsprayed to the high heavens. As we reported in 2011, the 75205 zip code—some of which falls into the 32nd Congressional District of Texas—was the “most enthusiastically Republican enclave in the country.” But then, changing racial demographics made the district ripe for Democratic picking. In 2018, a 35-year-old Black civil rights lawyer named Colin Allred ousted Pete Sessions, an 11-term Republican congressman. Allred, a stocky former NFL linebacker, has been reelected to the seat twice since, campaigning on his moderate sensibilities and willingness to reach across the aisle. 

Now, Allred is running that same play against US Sen. Ted Cruz, a hard-line Republican, in an ever-tightening race. At the Texas Tribune Festival in September, Allred seemed to be nostalgic for that fading Republican archetype who once populated the district he now represents. He described growing up with the “real conservatives,” whom Cruz, he said emphatically, is not. Allred paints Cruz as a divisive extremist and has been courting Republicans who “don’t see themselves reflected in this version of the Republican Party.” 

And that strategy seems to be working—last week, the Cook Political Report shifted the race to “lean Republican.” Most polls show Allred within single digits of Cruz, and one has Allred leading by one point. With Democrats defending incumbents in Ohio and Montana, flipping Texas could make the difference in maintaining their governing majority in the Senate. After some Democrats pushed the party to invest more in Allred’s campaign, both the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic National Committee announced investments in Texas.  

But Texas Democrats have not won a statewide election since 1994. The closest they have come was former El Paso Rep. Beto O’Rourke’s freewheeling 2018 campaign against Cruz. O’Rourke famously campaigned in all 254 counties, crisscrossing the state in his maroon Dodge Caravan. He livestreamed his every move on Facebook: chatting while getting a haircut, skateboarding in a Whataburger parking lot, and going on predawn jogs with supporters. O’Rourke ultimately lost by fewer than three points—which some Democrats count as a victory—and won a place as a mythic figure in the state party. He is the ghost haunting Allred’s campaign. Every dollar raised, poll conducted, and door knocked inspires comparisons to 2018’s high-water mark.

By most measures, Allred is a strong candidate and has assembled quite a war chest, having outraised Cruz this year. And the junior senator from Texas certainly appears concerned about the race—Cruz’s campaign has called the election the “fight of our lives.” And in a surprising twist, the hyperpartisan Cruz, who built his career as a culture warrior, has attempted to gain an advantage by arguing that he has a bipartisan record. 

Allred, who can come off as stiff and overly scripted, hasn’t inspired the kind of Democratic fervor that O’Rourke enjoyed. But he has been appealing to moderate Republicans and independents who may be alienated by Cruz’s MAGA approach, talking openly about Democratic failures to address the border crisis. The central question: Is running a middle-of-the-road campaign the strategy for winning a race that O’Rourke so narrowly lost? 

Campaigning for statewide office in Texas, which is slightly larger than France and has a population of 30 million, is comparable to running for president of some countries. Hispanics are now the largest population group in the state, and the numbers of Black and Asian residents are also growing. Texas contains four of the most populous cities in the US and some of the most expensive media markets. Allred’s robust campaign coffers have made it possible for him to blanket urban centers with television ads. But a more difficult challenge is what veteran journalist and editor of the website Quorum Report Scott Braddock called the “imagination gap”: Texans under the age of 30 have never seen a Democrat win a statewide election. 

The last Democrat to do so was Bob Bullock, who was reelected as lieutenant governor in 1994, the same year that former President George W. Bush first became governor. Since then, there have been a series of high-profile losses. From the “dream team” of statewide candidates in 2002 to popular Houston Mayor Bill White’s gubernatorial campaign in 2010, Democrats have routinely raised their hopes, only to be crushed by Republicans. In 2014, they thought they had a real shot at the governor’s mansion with Wendy Davis, the state senator who rose to national prominence when her marathon filibuster delayed a restrictive abortion bill. Bolstered by Battleground Texas, a new PAC launched by two Obama campaign alums, Davis ran on a compelling biography as a single mother who wound up at Harvard Law School. But her campaign struggled to stay on message and was outraised and outspent by Greg Abbott in his first gubernatorial campaign. She lost by 20 points. 

In 2018, Texas Democrats found a new standard-bearer in O’Rourke, the lanky, indefatigable 46-year-old US congressman from El Paso. He made a point of throwing out the Democratic playbook, initially pledging to go without pollsters and consultants and to refuse donations from corporations and super-PACs. O’Rourke was a kind of political Rorschach test. Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University, said, “O’Rourke was successfully able to be everything to everyone.” He had progressive bona fides, supporting universal health care, abortion rights, and an assault rifle ban. He capitalized on Democratic outrage around former President Donald Trump’s family separation policies, leading a Father’s Day protest outside a detention facility for immigrant children. But he could also be, as Jones put it, a “post-partisan pragmatist.” He had a centrist voting record in Congress and a long-standing friendship with Republican US Rep. Will Hurd—the two livestreamed their road trip from San Antonio to Washington, DC, in 2017. Ignored by Cruz for the first several months of the campaign, O’Rourke’s shifting and sometimes contradictory narratives went largely unchallenged. 

“O’Rourke was successfully able to be everything to everyone.”

With an army of volunteers and record-breaking fundraising from both inside and outside the state, O’Rourke came tantalizingly close to defeating Cruz, losing by 2.6 points. As Gus Bova wrote in the Texas Observer, O’Rourke “broke the mold” in 2018, defying political gravity and reinvigorating Texas Democrats. But after disappointing showings in the 2019 Democratic presidential primary and the 2022 gubernatorial race, some have wondered whether O’Rourke’s political career is over. O’Rourke now leads a voter registration PAC and recently joined second gentleman Doug Emhoff on a fundraising turn through Texas—including a stop at his beloved Whataburger. 

When it comes to the prospect of a blue Texas, one can’t blame Democrats for feeling like Charlie Brown winding up to kick the football again, despite knowing that Lucy is going to yank it away every time. And it might be hard to rustle up enthusiasm for a candidate who is decidedly less compelling than O’Rourke. 

For the last eight years, Democrats have harbored hopes that, eventually, Trump and his allies will become so extreme that they will alienate their own base. And for many, Cruz could be the perfect example of a Republican who should have been jettisoned by the GOP long ago. When he arrived in the Senate in 2013, fueled by the insurgent tea party, he made a name for himself as a far-right obstructionist with a penchant for showmanship. That year, his long-shot attempt to undercut the Affordable Care Act—involving a 21-hour Senate speech and a reading of “Green Eggs and Ham”—led to a two-week government shutdown and was harshly criticized by other Republicans. Then there was his ill-fated and embarrassing presidential primary bid in 2016, which culminated in a surprising speech at the Republican National Convention during which he urged delegates to vote their consciences and declined to endorse Trump. But Cruz walked back his condemnation of Trump when it became apparent that it would irreparably harm his political career. And, of course, there is Democrats’ favorite Cruz gaffe of them all: jetting off to Cancun, Mexico, during a deadly winter storm in 2021. (He apologized upon his return.) These days, Cruz also makes time to record his thrice-weekly podcast.

Nonetheless, polling finds that Cruz remains popular among Texas Republicans, and he may be bolstered by Trump’s appearance on the ticket. But a June poll found that only 25 percent of self-identified independents, a key voting group, approved of him. His recent attempts to rebrand as an effective legislator and unsung bipartisan hero may speak to that concern.   

Early in the race, Allred’s campaign was so lackluster that it inspired a great deal of grumbling from within the Texas Democratic Party. “Where is Colin Allred?” a prominent West Texas lawyer and Democrat asked on X in August. Allred had done few public events and made even fewer media appearances before the final night of the Democratic National Convention, when he gave a speech shortly before Vice President Kamala Harris. For most people outside Texas (and even some within it), this was likely the first time they heard that Cruz was facing a challenger. In the weeks since then, Allred’s campaign has picked up its pace. But Allred has mostly opted for smaller meetings over large rallies and town halls, and his campaign has organized mostly identity-focused coalition groups—including women, Asian Americans, and Black Texans. Last week, his campaign announced “Republicans for Allred,” chaired by former US Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a prominent anti-Trump Republican who also endorsed Harris.

The Allred campaign declined to make the candidate available for an interview and instead suggested I speak to Olivia Julianna, a social media activist who is advising the campaign on youth voter turnout. When asked why larger rallies haven’t been a focus of his campaign, she replied, “This is a more strategic, targeted way of reaching people and bringing them in on these very issue-focused events that are about [what] they care about the most.” 

At the Texas Tribune Festival, Allred was asked about a note from O’Rourke, who said in an interview that he’d like to see more of Allred, particularly in “unscripted” moments. It’s difficult to campaign in such a large state, Allred said, a bit defensively, and pointed out that he had made 50 stops in 22 cities in the past month.

Allred’s restraint is underscored by comparisons with O’Rourke, who was endlessly available to voters. Even Cruz, perhaps relieved to know that he will not have to face O’Rourke again, has spoken with some admiration about O’Rourke and noted that he and Allred are “very different candidates.” In August, Cruz told the Texas Tribune: “Beto O’Rourke was charismatic. He was tireless. He campaigned all over the state, and he became a phenom.”

Matt Angle, a longtime Democratic political strategist in Texas, said Allred’s more traditional, buttoned-up campaign can still be successful, as having high message discipline is usually considered to be a good thing in a candidate. “Some people like the excitement of someone who is spontaneous, [and] there’s a lot to be said about leading a pep rally,” Angle told Mother Jones. “But I like candidates who are trying to figure out how to win.” 

“Democrats in Texas always face this a no-win situation: The more they appeal to moderate voters, the greater the risk they run that the base doesn’t turn out for them…The more they focus on the base, the more they alienate moderate voters and push them over to the Republicans. ”

Some Democrats have worried that Allred is taking the base for granted and focusing too much on moderates. Even though he endorsed Harris’ presidential bid, he’s largely kept her and other national Democrats at arm’s length. In fact, it sometimes seems as though Allred would rather voters not view him as a Democrat at all. In May, he told Texas Monthly that the race is “not about voting for Democrats. This race is about me versus Ted Cruz specifically.” 

Jones, the professor from Rice University, said the best strategy, which Allred seems to be employing, is relying on Harris to mobilize progressives while he targets moderate Republicans and independents. “Democrats in Texas always face this a no-win situation: The more they appeal to moderate voters, the greater the risk they run that the base doesn’t turn out for them,” Jones said. “However, the more they focus on the base, the more they alienate moderate voters and push them over to the Republicans. You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”

Allred’s policies are generally consistent with those of the Democratic Party: He wants to expand Medicaid, codify Roe v. Wade, and reduce gun violence. But he has attempted to distance himself when it comes to immigration and border security, which have become the centerpieces of his campaign. A June poll found that 47 percent of Texans strongly disapproved of President Joe Biden’s approach to immigration and border security. Immigration has become a weak point for Democrats at large, as border crossings have risen to record levels and strained federal and local resources. To combat accusations of being weak on the border, Democrats have begun to support some immigration policies that they opposed under Trump, and, as many have pointed out, are sometimes indistinguishable from Republicans in their rhetoric of being “tough” on the border.

Allred is not an exception, and he has been willing to go further than other members of his party. In January, he voted alongside two other Texas Democrats in support of a Republican-led congressional resolution that condemned Biden’s border policies. On the campaign trail, he often cites his family connection to the Rio Grande Valley—his maternal grandfather was a customs agent at the Gateway International Bridge in Brownsville—and he’s said current immigration policies have placed an undue “burden” on border communities.

But Allred’s rhetoric on border security was not always so tough. In 2018, when he was running for the House of Representatives, he called Trump’s border wall “racist” and pledged to tear it down. Yet last October, he commended Biden’s decision to continue border wall construction, describing it as a “necessary step.” In a recent TV spot reminiscent of a Ford F-150 ad, Allred emerges from a white pickup truck to survey the border wall. The law enforcement officials accompanying him declare that Cruz has been “all hat, no cattle” on border security, while Allred has been “tough” and “[stood] up to extremists in both parties.” 

Allred’s campaign declined to respond to specific questions from Mother Jones on border security. His campaign website says he supports “common-sense” immigration measures and pathways to citizenship for those who are “obeying the law, working hard, [and] paying taxes.”

I asked Joaquin Castro, the Democratic congressman from San Antonio, about Allred’s position on the border. He said his congressional colleague is trying to strike a “reasonable balance,” disagreeing “with the dehumanization of people” while pushing for more funding for border security.

Earlier this year, a bipartisan border security bill failed to pass because of pressure from Trump. Described by Biden as the “strongest border deal the country has ever seen,” the measure was the result of negotiations with some of the most conservative members of Congress, including Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford. It would have increased funding for enforcement, restricted asylum applications, and expanded the government’s authority to deport migrants. The bill’s failure presented a unique opportunity for Democrats to turn the border blame game back on Republicans. Allred has campaigned widely on Cruz’s opposition to the deal, saying Cruz voted against it only because, like the former president, “he wanted to have the issue to run on in November.”

A persistent Democratic mantra is that Texas is not so much a red state as a non-voting blue one. In 2020, Manny Garcia, who was then the state Democratic Party’s executive director, told Reuters, “Texas is in play because there are more of us than there are of them.” But organizers emphasize that electoral transformation takes time and investment. Michelle Tremillo, co-executive director of the Texas Organizing Project, said her group focuses on engaging Black and Latino first-time voters and “building that cycle of participation is long-term work.” Democrats already have made progress in county and district elections—such as with Lina Hidalgo, a 27-year-old Colombian immigrant who defeated a popular Republican incumbent to lead the Harris County Commissioners Court in 2018. “With each election cycle, we are chipping away at a statewide gap,” Tremillo said. 

Such voter mobilization efforts are relatively new in Texas, particularly on the statewide level. A decade or so ago, political infrastructure for Democrats in Texas was like “actual infrastructure in Afghanistan,” said Braddock, the journalist. There were Democrats concentrated in large urban counties, but there was “nothing to connect them,” he said. State-level campaigns were largely left to do everything on their own: fundraising, coordinating events, and organizing volunteers for phone banks and door-knocking. Angle, the political strategist, told Mother Jones that back then, “the resources to expand and coordinate to win a statewide race weren’t available.” 

The 2018 O’Rourke campaign showed Democrats that a statewide grassroots effort was both possible and effective. There are now more progressive voter groups in Texas—some run by O’Rourke campaign alums. Katherine Fischer, who worked on O’Rourke’s Senate campaign and now runs Texas Majority PAC, said, “There’s now a much stronger network performing organizing work, which lessens the campaign’s burden.”

“Success this year is not measured by who wins. It’s measured by watching how much closer they get.”

This past summer, Texas Democrats announced that Allred’s campaign would bundle its efforts with downballot Democratic candidates, coordinating volunteers and sharing data. Called the “Texas Offense,” the campaign described it as the “first statewide coordinated grassroots effort in 20 years.” A recent press release reported that the coalition had logged 600 events and 3,000 volunteer shifts. 

Democrats like to call Texas a “game-over” state—if they secure its 40 Electoral College votes, Republicans will find it very difficult to win the presidency. Although Jimmy Carter was the last Democratic presidential candidate to win in Texas in 1976, Democrats are quick to point out that the margins have progressively narrowed in the last decade. In 2012, Barack Obama lost Texas by 15.8 points. Hillary Clinton lost by nine, and Biden lost by 5.6. This year, Democrats are simply hoping to move the needle closer in the presidential race. “Success this year is not measured by who wins. It’s measured by watching how much closer they get,” said Tory Gavito, president of Way to Win, a Democratic advocacy group. 

However much Democrats may hope for an Allred victory, not many are expecting one. After 30 years of being proven wrong, Democrats are tempering their optimism—and their low expectations might prove to be a real liability for Allred. On a recent episode of the Bulwark Podcast, O’Rourke told journalist Tim Miller that politics is a “confidence game.” 

“Can [Allred] generate enough excitement to convince people that he can win?” O’Rourke asked. “If people believe this is possible, then they’ll act like it’s possible.” 

The Teamsters union has decided not to endorse a candidate in the 2024 presidential election—reflecting a growing political rift within one of the country’s most powerful labor organizations and delivering Trump a political victory.

The union announced its decision on Wednesday afternoon, shortly after releasing the results of a poll conducted of members after both parties’ conventions. Almost 60 percent of members supported Donald Trump while 34 percent supported Kamala Harris. (A sample size was not provided.) The results show a significant shift from the union’s straw polling earlier this summer, completed prior to President Joe Biden’s announcement that he would not seek reelection, in which 44 percent supported Biden and 36 percent supported Trump.  

“The union was left with few commitments on top Teamsters issues from either former President Donald Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris—and found no definitive support among members for either party’s nominee,” the Teamsters union said in a press release. 

With 1.3 million members, the Teamsters are one of largest unions in the United States, and they have supported Democrats in the recent past—endorsing against Trump twice. But the union also has a history of being out-of-step with the labor movement’s embrace of Democrats: they were the only major union to back Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, and George H.W. Bush in 1988. 

The Teamsters are an outlier among other influential labor unions, who have largely rallied behind Harris. The UAW, AFL-CIO, and NEA all endorsed Harris shortly after she stepped up as the Democratic nominee. 

Trump was quick to claim the poll results as a win. His campaign wrote in a press release that the “vast majority of rank-and-file working men and women in this important organization want President Donald Trump back in the White House.”

Labor unions are no longer the “behemoth” political forces they were in the 20th century, said David Macdonald, a political science professor at University of Florida. Still, their endorsement in the presidential race can influence undecided members in key swing states.

Teamster president O’Brien had spent several months courting Trump despite the former president’s staunch anti-labor record, a decision which drew public outcry from some members, including vice president at-large John Palmer. O’Brien spoke at the Republican National Convention in July, praising Trump’s “backbone.” Though O’Brien said that he had requested a speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention, he was conspicuously absent from the podium. 

Harris met with union leaders on Monday, an encounter which the New York Times reported was “sometimes tense.” Palmer told the Times that the vice president said, “I want your endorsement, but if I don’t get it, I will treat you exactly as if I had gotten your endorsement.”

The Teamsters union has decided not to endorse a candidate in the 2024 presidential election—reflecting a growing political rift within one of the country’s most powerful labor organizations and delivering Trump a political victory.

The union announced its decision on Wednesday afternoon, shortly after releasing the results of a poll conducted of members after both parties’ conventions. Almost 60 percent of members supported Donald Trump while 34 percent supported Kamala Harris. (A sample size was not provided.) The results show a significant shift from the union’s straw polling earlier this summer, completed prior to President Joe Biden’s announcement that he would not seek reelection, in which 44 percent supported Biden and 36 percent supported Trump.  

“The union was left with few commitments on top Teamsters issues from either former President Donald Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris—and found no definitive support among members for either party’s nominee,” the Teamsters union said in a press release. 

With 1.3 million members, the Teamsters are one of largest unions in the United States, and they have supported Democrats in the recent past—endorsing against Trump twice. But the union also has a history of being out-of-step with the labor movement’s embrace of Democrats: they were the only major union to back Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, and George H.W. Bush in 1988. 

The Teamsters are an outlier among other influential labor unions, who have largely rallied behind Harris. The UAW, AFL-CIO, and NEA all endorsed Harris shortly after she stepped up as the Democratic nominee. 

Trump was quick to claim the poll results as a win. His campaign wrote in a press release that the “vast majority of rank-and-file working men and women in this important organization want President Donald Trump back in the White House.”

Labor unions are no longer the “behemoth” political forces they were in the 20th century, said David Macdonald, a political science professor at University of Florida. Still, their endorsement in the presidential race can influence undecided members in key swing states.

Teamster president O’Brien had spent several months courting Trump despite the former president’s staunch anti-labor record, a decision which drew public outcry from some members, including vice president at-large John Palmer. O’Brien spoke at the Republican National Convention in July, praising Trump’s “backbone.” Though O’Brien said that he had requested a speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention, he was conspicuously absent from the podium. 

Harris met with union leaders on Monday, an encounter which the New York Times reported was “sometimes tense.” Palmer told the Times that the vice president said, “I want your endorsement, but if I don’t get it, I will treat you exactly as if I had gotten your endorsement.”

Around 10,000 hotel workers went on strike over Labor Day weekend, picketing for better pay and working conditions in 25 hotels across nine cities, including Boston, Baltimore, San Francisco, Seattle, and Honolulu. UNITE HERE, the country’s largest hospitality union, had conducted several months of unsuccessful contract negotiations with leading hotel chains such as Marriott, Hilton, and Hyatt before escalating the dispute. The strikes, which lasted between one and three days, took place over the last holiday weekend of the summer and involved housekeepers, front desk attendants, bellhops, restaurant staff, and other hotel workers.

At issue, union officials say, is that while the hospitality industry’s profits have recovered from the extreme downturn during the pandemic, it has maintained the service and staffing reductions from that period. As a result, workloads for employees have increased while pay has stagnated. 

“Many [workers] can no longer afford to live in the cities that they welcome guests to, and painful workloads are breaking their bodies,” Gwen Mills, the international UNITE HERE president, said in a statement. “We won’t accept a ‘new normal’ where hotel companies profit by cutting their offerings to guests and abandoning their commitments to workers.”

The weekend strikes could herald more to come—potentially also in New Haven, Providence, and Oakland—if contract negotiations continue to be difficult to resolve. In press releases, UNITE HERE highlighted last summer’s rolling strikes that impacted 65 hotels in Los Angeles, during which the union conducted brief work stoppages around the city over several months. Eventually, workers won wage increases of up to $10 more per hour over the five-year contract.  

As the Labor Day weekend strike unfolded, Michael D’Angelo, Hyatt’s head of labor relations for the Americas, told AP, “We are disappointed that UNITE HERE has chosen to strike while Hyatt remains willing to negotiate.” The AP also reported that a Hilton spokesperson said that the chain was “committed to negotiating in good faith.” 

The Covid pandemic all but halted the hospitality industry, as occupancy rates hit historic lows. The union says that the industry has largely rebounded, with gross profits in 2022 surpassing those from 2019. But, the union found that staffing has not returned to pre-pandemic levels, which they say creates a higher burden for those who remain in the industry. And while responsibilities have increased, many workers say that wages have not kept up with rising costs.  

Edwin Solis, who works in the housekeeping department at the Grand Hyatt in San Francisco, said that life in the Bay Area has become increasingly expensive. “Everything goes to groceries and gas,” Solis said. Over the weekend, Solis was among hundreds of union members who were demonstrating downtown, some of whom wore signs that read “respect our work” and “one job should be enough.” Solis told Mother Jones that to make ends meet many of his coworkers have taken on second jobs. He was frustrated that the industry’s increased profits have not translated to higher wages for employees. 

The industry trade organization, the American Hotel and Lodging Association, said that a May survey of hoteliers revealed that 86 percent of respondents had increased wages over the past six months—though they did not specify by how much—and 67 percent said they were experiencing staffing shortages. 

As the cost of living has surged in the aftermath of the pandemic, higher pay has become a top priority for UNITE HERE. Josh Stanley, a union leader in Connecticut, explained that “while wages have grown somewhat, in terms of real buying power, they are lower than they were in 2020.” The union’s Hawaii chapter said that a survey of nearly 4,000 members found that 76 percent could not afford an unexpected bill of $500. 

The “decentralized” hospitality industry poses a unique challenge for labor unions because each hotel negotiates its own contract with workers, according to Richard Hurd, a professor emeritus at Cornell’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations. In recent decades, UNITE HERE has made an effort to coordinate contracts across all the unionized hotels in each city. This has also given the union a leg up, Hurd said, as several contracts negotiated before the pandemic have ended around the same time. “Now they have a critical mass of cities where contracts had expired, where they believe they can use some leverage by staging strikes,” Hurd says.

“Now they have a critical mass of cities where contracts had expired, where they believe they can use some leverage by staging strikes.”

Hurd also noted that UNITE HERE, in line with the hospitality industry at large, has a high proportion of women and immigrant members, which has been reflected in the union’s leadership and priorities. Mills, the union’s first female president, noted in a statement about the strikes, “Hospitality work overall is undervalued, and it’s not a coincidence that it’s disproportionately women and people of color doing the work.”

In Honolulu, about 5,000 workers from seven hotels went on a three-day strike, from Sunday to Tuesday. Nerissa Acdal, who has been a housekeeper at the Westin Moana Surfrider for nine years, was among them. She said that she regularly works “exhausting” ten-hour shifts, cleaning sixteen rooms in a day. Acdal told Mother Jones that mandatory overtime has become commonplace after the pandemic, and she often skips lunch to finish her work on time.  

During the pandemic, many hotel guests chose to opt out of daily room cleaning—a practice that continues today. In fact, union members say several days without housekeeping creates even more work when a guest checks out, but managers often don’t offer staff additional time to finish the job. “We don’t have any choice,” Acdal says. “We have to rush.” 

UNITE HERE has pointed out that the pressure to compensate for inadequate staffing can result in worker injuries. Francisco Tobin, who runs banquet events, has spent thirty years working at the Hyatt Regency in Greenwich, Connecticut. He went on strike with around 125 of his coworkers this past weekend. He told Mother Jones that his responsibilities expanded after the pandemic because he needed to cover for positions, like those who bring food to waitstaff, that had been eliminated. Two years ago, he slipped and fell while delivering food from the kitchen, and tore his quadriceps tendon, which required surgery. 

The impact of the strikes on contract negotiations is still unclear, but members like Solis, the housekeeper in San Francisco, are optimistic about returning to the bargaining table soon. Members hope that hotel chains can meet their demands for higher wages and better workloads. If they don’t, Solis says, “we are ready” to return to the picket line. 

Around 10,000 hotel workers went on strike over Labor Day weekend, picketing for better pay and working conditions in 25 hotels across nine cities, including Boston, Baltimore, San Francisco, Seattle, and Honolulu. UNITE HERE, the country’s largest hospitality union, had conducted several months of unsuccessful contract negotiations with leading hotel chains such as Marriott, Hilton, and Hyatt before escalating the dispute. The strikes, which lasted between one and three days, took place over the last holiday weekend of the summer and involved housekeepers, front desk attendants, bellhops, restaurant staff, and other hotel workers.

At issue, union officials say, is that while the hospitality industry’s profits have recovered from the extreme downturn during the pandemic, it has maintained the service and staffing reductions from that period. As a result, workloads for employees have increased while pay has stagnated. 

“Many [workers] can no longer afford to live in the cities that they welcome guests to, and painful workloads are breaking their bodies,” Gwen Mills, the international UNITE HERE president, said in a statement. “We won’t accept a ‘new normal’ where hotel companies profit by cutting their offerings to guests and abandoning their commitments to workers.”

The weekend strikes could herald more to come—potentially also in New Haven, Providence, and Oakland—if contract negotiations continue to be difficult to resolve. In press releases, UNITE HERE highlighted last summer’s rolling strikes that impacted 65 hotels in Los Angeles, during which the union conducted brief work stoppages around the city over several months. Eventually, workers won wage increases of up to $10 more per hour over the five-year contract.  

As the Labor Day weekend strike unfolded, Michael D’Angelo, Hyatt’s head of labor relations for the Americas, told AP, “We are disappointed that UNITE HERE has chosen to strike while Hyatt remains willing to negotiate.” The AP also reported that a Hilton spokesperson said that the chain was “committed to negotiating in good faith.” 

The Covid pandemic all but halted the hospitality industry, as occupancy rates hit historic lows. The union says that the industry has largely rebounded, with gross profits in 2022 surpassing those from 2019. But, the union found that staffing has not returned to pre-pandemic levels, which they say creates a higher burden for those who remain in the industry. And while responsibilities have increased, many workers say that wages have not kept up with rising costs.  

Edwin Solis, who works in the housekeeping department at the Grand Hyatt in San Francisco, said that life in the Bay Area has become increasingly expensive. “Everything goes to groceries and gas,” Solis said. Over the weekend, Solis was among hundreds of union members who were demonstrating downtown, some of whom wore signs that read “respect our work” and “one job should be enough.” Solis told Mother Jones that to make ends meet many of his coworkers have taken on second jobs. He was frustrated that the industry’s increased profits have not translated to higher wages for employees. 

The industry trade organization, the American Hotel and Lodging Association, said that a May survey of hoteliers revealed that 86 percent of respondents had increased wages over the past six months—though they did not specify by how much—and 67 percent said they were experiencing staffing shortages. 

As the cost of living has surged in the aftermath of the pandemic, higher pay has become a top priority for UNITE HERE. Josh Stanley, a union leader in Connecticut, explained that “while wages have grown somewhat, in terms of real buying power, they are lower than they were in 2020.” The union’s Hawaii chapter said that a survey of nearly 4,000 members found that 76 percent could not afford an unexpected bill of $500. 

The “decentralized” hospitality industry poses a unique challenge for labor unions because each hotel negotiates its own contract with workers, according to Richard Hurd, a professor emeritus at Cornell’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations. In recent decades, UNITE HERE has made an effort to coordinate contracts across all the unionized hotels in each city. This has also given the union a leg up, Hurd said, as several contracts negotiated before the pandemic have ended around the same time. “Now they have a critical mass of cities where contracts had expired, where they believe they can use some leverage by staging strikes,” Hurd says.

“Now they have a critical mass of cities where contracts had expired, where they believe they can use some leverage by staging strikes.”

Hurd also noted that UNITE HERE, in line with the hospitality industry at large, has a high proportion of women and immigrant members, which has been reflected in the union’s leadership and priorities. Mills, the union’s first female president, noted in a statement about the strikes, “Hospitality work overall is undervalued, and it’s not a coincidence that it’s disproportionately women and people of color doing the work.”

In Honolulu, about 5,000 workers from seven hotels went on a three-day strike, from Sunday to Tuesday. Nerissa Acdal, who has been a housekeeper at the Westin Moana Surfrider for nine years, was among them. She said that she regularly works “exhausting” ten-hour shifts, cleaning sixteen rooms in a day. Acdal told Mother Jones that mandatory overtime has become commonplace after the pandemic, and she often skips lunch to finish her work on time.  

During the pandemic, many hotel guests chose to opt out of daily room cleaning—a practice that continues today. In fact, union members say several days without housekeeping creates even more work when a guest checks out, but managers often don’t offer staff additional time to finish the job. “We don’t have any choice,” Acdal says. “We have to rush.” 

UNITE HERE has pointed out that the pressure to compensate for inadequate staffing can result in worker injuries. Francisco Tobin, who runs banquet events, has spent thirty years working at the Hyatt Regency in Greenwich, Connecticut. He went on strike with around 125 of his coworkers this past weekend. He told Mother Jones that his responsibilities expanded after the pandemic because he needed to cover for positions, like those who bring food to waitstaff, that had been eliminated. Two years ago, he slipped and fell while delivering food from the kitchen, and tore his quadriceps tendon, which required surgery. 

The impact of the strikes on contract negotiations is still unclear, but members like Solis, the housekeeper in San Francisco, are optimistic about returning to the bargaining table soon. Members hope that hotel chains can meet their demands for higher wages and better workloads. If they don’t, Solis says, “we are ready” to return to the picket line. 

A year after a union contract won “historic heat protections” for UPS drivers, the Teamsters are still pushing the company to do more to protect workers in vehicles that can reach up to 120 degrees. Multiple employees told Mother Jones their vehicles are still hot—and dangerous.

For Jeff Schenfeld, a UPS driver working outside of Dallas, a typical shift requires more than 200 stops, sometimes involving multiple packages—entering and exiting the truck at least 400 times a day. “You’re back and forth, back and forth,” he said. In July and August, when the average high temperature in Dallas is 96 degrees, Schenfeld dreads rummaging for packages in the back of his truck. 

Because of climate change, summer temperatures have risen significantly across the country. A recent study found that heat waves are hotter, last longer, and cover larger areas than they did 40 years ago. 

Last August, a 57-year-old UPS driver named Chris Begley collapsed during his shift in McKinney, Texas, and died at a hospital four days later. An OSHA investigation summary said that he died of heat stress, a description that a UPS spokesperson claimed was inaccurate. But regardless of the official cause of Begley’s death, it underscored the potential dangers of working in extreme heat for many union members.  

The Biden administration recently announced an OSHA rule proposal to set a national heat safety standard for both indoor and outdoor workers. Delivery drivers, like workers in construction and agriculture, are uniquely vulnerable to extreme heat. A Politico analysis of OSHA data from 2015 to 2022 found that after construction workers, delivery and mail workers had the second-highest rates of heat-related illness. Drivers for Amazon and FedEx contractors have raised concerns about working in the heat, and lawmakers recently urged the US Postal Service to expand heat protections. 

Last summer, the Teamsters union, which represents more than 340,000 UPS workers, made heat a centerpiece of prolonged contract negotiations with the shipping company. The agreement, which averted what could have been an economically devastating strike, promised to raise full-time pay to $170,000 by the end of the five-year agreement. The company promised to increase airflow and lower temperatures in their iconic brown package trucks and ensure that all vehicles purchased after January 1 of this year would have air conditioning. UPS also vowed to replace 28,000 existing trucks with air conditioned ones—though the prospect was once described by a company spokesperson as unfeasible because of frequent stops. Today, only a small portion of the existing fleet has air conditioning. 

“Workers across industries and in virtually every geography are saying [heat] is a new danger that we are confronted with more and more days of the year,” Anastasia Christman, a policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project, said. The UPS agreement is likely the first private-sector contract to explicitly include heat protections, she said, calling it “first in class.” 

But promising change and implementing it are two different things, and one year later, some UPS employees say that ratifying the contract has not improved their working conditions in summer temperatures. Many workers who spoke to Mother Jones described feeling pressure to keep up the pace and take fewer breaks, even in extreme heat. 

While the company has made good progress on installing more fans, heat shields, and induction systems in trucks, air conditioning appears to be the most intractable change. Teamsters spokesperson Kara Deniz says the company’s lag in replacing trucks with air conditioned ones is “unacceptable.” 

“The safety of our employees is our top priority,” Genneviev Bowman, a UPS spokesperson, told Mother Jones. The company said that managers “are monitoring to make sure they take their breaks, particularly in hot weather. We’re confident that our policies are followed by an overwhelming majority of our drivers and management. And we take corrective action when we become aware that a policy is not being followed.”

UPS spokesperson Jim Mayer said that the company will also “continue to purchase and deploy new vehicles with AC as quickly as possible.” UPS said that some trucks with air conditioning had been purchased this year—though the company would not say how many. In late June, CNN had reported that no new vans had been purchased. 

The union contract also required that the company conduct heat safety training and allow workers to follow best practices. The company suggested that I speak with Jeff Wigglesworth, a driver in Phoenix, Arizona, where average summer temperatures are above 100 degrees. Wigglesworth is a member of the safety committee at his center and told me that supervisors are attentive to employee wellbeing—providing ice and fresh fruit, and conducting “lunch box checks” to see if people are eating properly. Still, even he said there are limitations. “We can educate all we want,” he said. “But it’s their body. They know their body better than I would.” 

Doing strenuous activity in extreme heat can be dangerous. “If you combine heavy levels of exertion with exposure to high heat, then the body can rapidly overheat,” said Robert Harrison, an occupational health specialist at the University of California, San Francisco. Harrison said it’s particularly a risk for outdoor workers.

Multiple employees told Mother Jones that their supervisors keep a close eye on productivity metrics like the number of stops made per “on-road” hour. Kyle Burroughs, a driver outside of Denver, described being chastised by a manager for slowing his pace on a hot day. Burroughs said that experiences like that “discourage people from being safe” and get in the way of following advice laid out by the company’s own training, such as taking additional breaks when overheated. 

Dallas-area UPS driver Reginald Lewis said that delivery loads often increase during the summer, which, combined with the heat, makes it difficult for drivers to complete their routes on time. Lewis said requests for help often go unmet. “There is a pressure to get the job done,” he said. “We’re told, ‘We don’t have that many people on hand. You gotta go out there and try to do it on your own.’” 

Mayer, the UPS spokesperson, said that “package volumes go up and down for a variety of reasons, many beyond our control, and we do our best to manage workloads.”

Nathan Morris, a physiology professor at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, explained that the heat will inevitably affect worker productivity: “If you try to keep the same work rate and stress the body out, it’s going to put a huge strain on the heart. At a certain point, people just can’t work as fast.” And workers who aren’t given scheduled breaks will likely take unplanned ones, as one study of occupational heat stress Morris worked on found. “You’re losing that worker efficiency anyway,” Morris said. 

In interviews, employees emphasized the gap between contract language and the day-to-day reality of the workplace—which the union is working to close. Organizers said many UPS workers don’t know the full extent of the protections guaranteed by last year’s agreement. Teamsters for a Democratic Union, the organization’s progressive wing, has distributed wallet heat safety cards to drivers around the country, reminding them that the contract “protects your right to protect yourself from heat illness.” 

Asserting those rights can be difficult for some employees because enforcement of those rights happens through the potentially risky process of filing grievances with the union. After the complaint travels through a formal adjudication process between the union and the company, it can result in a monetary payout. Burroughs, the driver in Colorado, said that employees are often afraid that filing a grievance will negatively affect their career.

Isolated in their own trucks, some delivery drivers might feel that they are “experiencing the heat alone,” said Beth Breslaw, an organizer with Teamsters for a Democratic Union. When heat-related illness is framed by management as an issue of “personal responsibility,” said Breslaw, it is easy to overlook that workplace safety is the result of companywide policy. Organizers have been holding parking lot meetings, before or after shifts, to talk about heat-related issues, hoping to show workers that extreme heat is a collective problem—with a collective solution. 

As global temperatures continue their perilous climb, it’s likely that extreme heat will increasingly become the subject of labor disputes. Christman, from the National Employment Law Project, said that climate change is challenging the preexisting framework of workplace safety. Traditionally, workers have organized around “specific safety issues”—like a dangerous piece of equipment—but extreme heat is a pervasive, external problem, unconfined to a single workplace or geographic area. 

Extreme heat is likely to reshape all workplaces, and it will bring with it what Christman called an “ideological challenge” on a new scale. Soon—sooner than we may think—workplaces will not be able to continue with business as usual. “There’s going to come a point where those packages aren’t going to get delivered and those trucks aren’t going to be rolling out, because there’s not going to be any workers healthy enough to do it,” Christman said. “If workers aren’t kept safe, companies won’t be able to continue to function.”

Correction, August 27: This article has been updated to clarify that UPS has promised trucks will be replaced with air-conditioned ones.

On Tuesday evening, Gov. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) began his speech by turning back to his new running mate, Vice President Kamala Harris, and said, “Thank you for bringing back the joy.”

At the rally in Philadelphia, there was a Democratic excitement that was palpable. Despite the potential for disarray from President Joe Biden dropping out of the race, the party quickly assembled behind a candidate. One could see the common stereotypes of the Democratic voter outside the Liacouras Center at Temple University—even in shirt selection: a sea of union apparel appeared (most notably, dozens of people donning bright purple SEIU shirts); a few “Kamala is brat” ones; many women calling out Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) for his comments about “childless cat ladies.”

Most everyone I spoke with was very happy that Biden had dropped out. In fact, thrilled. But that did mean, for many, much more than standing the Democratic party as a whole with an easier candidate to back. Harris was still introducing herself to them as a candidate in 2024.

Michael Parella, a student at the University of Pennsylvania, saw Harris as a dramatic improvement over Biden, whose candidacy felt like a “losing ballot.” Parella had been a Harris supporter in 2020, when she was a contender in a crowded primary candidate. Now, he said, “the crowd is standing behind her.”

Sherisse Laud-Hammond, a higher education administrator, had a more mercenary view of things, telling Mother Jones that she is voting for the party platform, not the person. “I’m voting for the Supreme Court… Biden or Harris—who cares?” she said. “As a Black woman, I have to vote in my own interest.” 

The rally served as a national introduction to Walz. After Harris and Walz emerged to an uproar, the current vice president addressed the crowd first while Walz stood behind her, good-naturedly grinning. In her introduction, Harris emphasized Walz’s working-class background and history as a popular high school teacher and football coach. Reproductive freedoms, voting rights, and the working class were recurring themes throughout the night.

Many of the young attendees with whom I spoke were excited by Walz’s selection. Makayla Speers, a student from Delaware, said that she felt Harris’ choice of Walz over Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro was an indication that she’s listening to young voters—and that Harris may take more action regarding Israel’s war in Gaza. (As I previously reported, some critics knocked Shapiro for his comments on student protesters.)

Shapiro, who was reportedly the other finalist in the veepstakes, side-stepped the elephant in the room when he spoke, promising to help Harris win Pennsylvania. And Walz and Harris, who both have described Shapiro as a friend, took care to thank him in their remarks. 

“There is no one you would rather go to a Springsteen concert in Jersey with,” Walz said. (To loud chants of “Bruce!”—and, maybe, a few boos from Philadelphians to the mention of a New Jersey legend.)

Some rallygoers had hoped for—and expected—Shapiro. David Durnell, an organizer with Laborers’ International Union of North America, said that he was a Shapiro supporter. But, Durnell said, the settlement of a sexual harassment complaint against a top aide would have been a liability. 

Union support was notable at the rally. During Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey’s speech, he told the crowd: “I know we have some union members in the audience”—and was met with a rousing cheer.

John Boberick, a steward at the local International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees chapter, said unions will play a “supremely important” role in the election—and that Harris clearly had a better record on labor. But, Boberick said, members of his local are split “50-50” politically. (He said that the IATSE has begun canvassing for the election.) “This election is really important,” Boberick said. “Is democracy going to hold on or not?”

Kris Anderson, a political coordinator for IBEW, said that Walz has been “phenomenal” for union members in Minnesota, and hoped that those policies would translate nationally.

The key question now is how that translation happens. Harris and Walz have emerged as the Democratic ticket over a hectic, weird, and (at times) fun few weeks. Can they actually convince Americans they’re the right choice and win? It seems they have a key tactic for doing it: Having fun. The rally was a noticeably jubilant affair.

On Tuesday morning, news began to leak: Vice President Kamala Harris selected Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota as her running mate. According to reporting, it had been down to Walz and another rising star in the Democratic party: Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania.

Shapiro was an early favorite for the vice presidential slot. Pennsylvania’s 19 electoral votes are crucial to a Democratic victory in November, and Shapiro is popular in his home state. He won a resounding gubernatorial victory over the Republican Doug Mastriano last year, outperforming Biden’s 2020 win in every county.

But the governor is largely unknown to American voters at large: A July poll found that 6 in 10 adults did not know enough about him to have an opinion. Over the last week or so, as news trickled out, Shapiro was hit with a series of blows that seemed to set back his chances. His introduction to the rest of the nation was not easy—or at least not as smooth as Walz’s. Shaprio is still scheduled to speak with Harris at her Pennsylvania rally this afternoon. And there is a possibility he could take a role in the next administration.

A moderate Democrat, Shapiro leans center on key issues, and, in many ways, his policy positions are unmemorable (with the notable exception of school vouchers, which he supported as part of a strategy to raise education funding overall). Instead, Shapiro has been repeatedly described, in reports and by those who have worked with him, as a shrewd and calculating politician. He has broadcast this approach as a sensible pragmatism, adopting the slogan “Get shit done.” 

Michael Coard, a Philadelphia-based lawyer and columnist, called Shapiro a “political chameleon” who “changes his colors as the situation calls for.”

“I’ve never seen Shapiro out front on any political issue,” Coard told Mother Jones. “It seems to me that he’ll wait to see how the wind blows.”

As speculation swirled around Harris’ vice presidential pick, progressive critics zeroed in on Shapiro’s outspoken frustration with protesters pushing against the Israeli war in Gaza. It is one of the few issues that Shapiro has not seemed to massage for his audience. Like many Democrats, Shapiro criticized campus protests, but, as Jonathan Chait noted in New York magazine, his tone has been particularly strong.

Shapiro earned his reputation for being ambitious through a swift ascent from the Pennsylvania Statehouse (2005 to 2011) to the Montgomery County board of commissioners (2011 to 2017) to the state attorney general’s office (2017 to 2023)—leaving amid his second term to assume the governorship. Shapiro is known for being competent and far-sighted. Former Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter told the Philadelphia Inquirer, “I tease him all the time: ‘Josh has been trying to figure out how to be governor since about fifth grade.’” 

Shapiro had positioned himself well in advance of his run for governor. Two years before announcing his candidacy, then-Gov. Tom Wolf endorsed Shapiro as his successor. And as the Inquirer reported, Shapiro might have fended off his most high-profile potential primary challenger, then–Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, by changing his position on clemency applications from people serving life sentences. (Shapiro denied that there were political motivations behind his votes on the Board of Pardons.) 

By the time Shapiro made his move for governor, said Robert Saleem Holbrook, director of the Philadelphia-based Abolitionist Law Center, he “shut down any type of challenge” from both Democrats and independents. And despite his shaky record as attorney general, Shapiro drummed up support from the left. Shapiro won the backing of Philadelphia state Sen. Nikil Saval, a progressive who has been one of the most vocal proponents of a ceasefire in Gaza, to move forward on some criminal justice reforms. 

“He cleared the field by making those strategic decisions and alliances,” Holbrook said. 

During the Republican primary for governor, Shapiro singled out Mastriano from a crowded field, running ads that connected Mastriano to former President Donald Trump, seemingly in an effort to pick his opponent. Mastriano, an election denier, was seen as an unviable candidate from within his own party and ran a poorly funded campaign with little support from the GOP.  

With a far-right opponent and no Democratic primary challenger, Shapiro wasn’t pushed on any particular issues. As Mother Jones previously reported, this allowed him to define the race on his own terms:

As a gubernatorial candidate, Shapiro took the perhaps strategically vague stance of “common sense” criminal justice reform. During his campaign, Shapiro touted his creation, as attorney general, of a statewide police misconduct database. But he also ran as a self-described “pro-police crime fighter” and won endorsements from law enforcement unions. 

As the only governor presiding over a divided legislature, Shapiro has framed himself as a savvy bipartisan legislator. Last summer, he won praise for marshaling a quick response to the collapse of a portion of Interstate 95 outside of Philadelphia. 

But this tendency toward deal-making has also been criticized. Last year, to the surprise of teachers unions, he backed a Republican-led private school voucher program on the condition that public school funding would also increase. SpotlightPA reported that vouchers had big-money GOP backers, who also helped Shapiro during his political career, including mega-donor Jeffrey Yass. The Democrat-led Statehouse refused to support the program, so Shapiro ultimately vetoed it and angered both parties. The Inquirer called it a “rare misstep.” (Education advocacy groups around the country wrote a letter to Harris urging her not to pick Shapiro because of his stance on vouchers.)

In a race that will highlight Trump’s sexual misconduct, Shapiro’s handling of his office staff could have been be a hiccup, too. Last year, his office agreed to a $295,000 settlement for a sexual harassment complaint made against Mike Vereb, a top staffer. The agreement included a confidentiality clause, which, in light of Shapiro’s vice presidential prospects, some criticized. 

Perhaps the most divisive aspect of the debate over Shapiro’s record was his response to pro-Palestinian activism. In the New Republic, David Klion warned that Shapiro could be the “one vice presidential pick who could ruin Democratic unity.” Shapiro, an observant conservative Jew who has described himself as a Zionist, denounced University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill’s congressional testimony about antisemitic speech, joining a Republican-led push that led to her resignation. Shapiro suggested that some pro-Palestinian protests involved “antisemites camped out, yelling antisemitic tropes.” Shapiro also called for Penn to disband a student encampment and “restore order and safety on campus”—which, the Inquirer reported, came only after he knew plans to do so were already in process. 

Though he sharply condemned the protests, some have pointed out that Shapiro has not gone further than other of the VP contenders in responding to campus protests, and that he publicly rebuked Netanyahu and voiced support for a two-state solution. Yair Rosenberg, of the Atlantic, called the criticism of Shapiro antisemitic; many, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, questioned that conclusion. Last Friday, the Inquirer unearthed an editorial Shapiro wrote in college in which the eventual governor wrote Palestinians are “too battle-minded” for there to ever be peace in the Middle East. (A spokesperson told the paper his views have shifted over the last 30 years.)

Coard, the Philadelphia-based lawyer, said that despite his misgivings about Shapiro, he would nonetheless “hold his nose” in November and would have voted for the Harris-Shapiro ticket. Now, he will not have to.

In the days since Kamala Harris stepped into the role of the Democratic party’s presumptive presidential nominee, the names of several white men, some of whom hold public office in key swing states, have been floated as possibilities for the vice presidential slot. One top contender, many outlets have reported, is someone who was also a prosecutor: Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. A moderate Democrat, Shapiro has earned his reputation for being politically ambitious through a swift ascent from the Pennsylvania statehouse, where he was a representative from 2005 to 2011, to the governor’s mansion. 

Much of Shapiro’s political record, however, was built while he was Pennsylvania’s attorney general from 2017 to 2023, before leaving to assume the governorship. Harris was California’s attorney general before she entered the US Senate in 2017, and Shapiro noted their shared background when he endorsed her for president: “I’ve known Kamala Harris for nearly two decades—we’ve both been prosecutors, we’ve both stood up for the rule of law, we’ve both fought for the people and delivered results.”

During the 2019 presidential primary, Harris’ prosecutorial record was a liability, despite her efforts to highlight her support for reforms. Her attempt to retroactively claim the title of “progressive prosecutor” was rebuked from within the movement. This time around, Harris seems more eager to lean into a law-and-order reading of her history, particularly in contrast to Donald Trump’s recent felony convictions. 

Vice Pres. Kamala Harris says she took on "predators," "fraudsters" and "cheaters" in her roles as California attorney general and a courtroom prosecutor.

Harris then referenced Donald Trump, calling out his "type." https://t.co/i50BJzEzZL pic.twitter.com/CHgqLnEuug

— ABC News (@ABC) July 23, 2024

If Shapiro is tapped for vice president, Democrats would run a double-prosecutor ticket in a party where criminal justice reform is increasingly gaining traction. Progressive prosecutors—promising to reform the bail system and provide more police accountability—have won elections in cities across the country. But some experts say that such platforms could falter in battleground states like Pennsylvania. Rebecca Goldstein, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley law school told Mother Jones in a statement, “Although Democratic primary voters and delegates may be wary of those with prosecutorial experience, such experience is likely helpful nationally for distancing Harris (and any former prosecutor she might choose as VP) from left wing criminal justice policy positions that are nationally unpopular.” 

Having been elected to statewide office in Pennsylvania three times, Shapiro is good at framing his criminal justice record as he sees fit. As a gubernatorial candidate, Shapiro took the perhaps strategically vague stance of “common sense” criminal justice reform. During his campaign, Shapiro touted his creation, as attorney general, of a statewide police misconduct database. But he also ran as a self-described “pro-police crime fighter” and won endorsements from law enforcement unions. 

Robert Saleem Holbrook, the executive director of the Philadelphia-based Abolitionist Law Center, described Shapiro as a “shrewd political operator.” While Shapiro “defaults to the center,” he could be convinced to take some reform positions. “If you can show him that a shift is beneficial to his political ambitions, he will make it,” Holbrook said. 

“If you can show him that a shift is beneficial to his political ambitions, he will make it.”

As attorney general, Shapiro sat on the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons, which hears commutation cases, mostly from people serving life sentences. A unanimous vote from the five-member board—which included then-Lt. Gov. John Fetterman—was required to grant clemency. An analysis from the Pennsylvania Capital-Star found that, in 2019, Shapiro cast the fewest votes in favor of commutation. 

At the time, Shapiro told the Capital-Star that his record showed that he believed in “second chances,” and that he had supported hundreds of pardon applications, which expunge old, often nonviolent criminal convictions. 

Brandon Flood, who served as the board’s secretary—a non-voting position—during Shapiro’s tenure, said that Shapiro was “more cautious” than other board members when it came to commutation cases. “I wouldn’t say he wasn’t considering the merits of the case,” Flood said. “He was also considering the political implications—particularly that someone may potentially re-offend.”

Later in his term, Shapiro supported more commutation cases—perhaps as the result of a different political calculation. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Fetterman, frustrated with how few commutations the board granted, said he would run against Shapiro in the 2022 Democratic primary for governor unless more cases were approved. (Shapiro’s spokesperson denied that such a conversation occurred.)

Shapiro was ultimately unopposed in the Democratic primary for governor and, with the support of key progressive groups, handily defeated his Trump-endorsed but poorly-funded opponent, the election-denier Doug Mastriano. According to Holbrook, the Abolitionist Law Center’s director, progressives were able to leverage their base to get Shapiro to support more reforms. Shapiro made campaign promises to create more pathways for geriatric parole and continue Pennsylvania’s moratorium on the death penalty—a reversal of his previous stance. “He knew that he needed this progressive constellation that we were a part of to win,” Holbrook said.

Nikil Saval, the progressive state senator who represents Philadelphia, had a more generous reading. Seemingly in response to Shapiro’s vice-presidential prospects, Saval wrote on X, “[Shapiro] has shown a strong willingness to build coalitions with people that he also disagrees with, and to change his views and policies through that act of coalition-building.” 

I disagree with Governor Shapiro on some major issues, as he does with me. But he has shown a strong willingness to build coalitions with people that he also disagrees with, and to change his views and policies through that act of coalition-building. 1/

— Nikil Saval (@NikilSaval) July 25, 2024

To some, Shapiro’s political agility would be an asset should Harris select him as her running mate. Mustafa Rashed, a political consultant, said that Shapiro’s record shows his ability to “get things done in Pennsylvania.” Though Biden won the state in 2020, the number of registered Republicans in Pennsylvania has since increased as the number of registered Democrats has decreased. A recent poll found that about half the voters in this crucial battleground state think crime is a major issue. The poll—conducted before Biden announced he would not seek reelection—also showed that 51 percent of Pennsylvania voters thought that Trump would do a better job on crime, while 42 percent thought Biden would. 

Shapiro recently side-stepped a question about whether he is being vetted for the vice presidential slot. CBS reported that Shapiro said, “That’s a question to be directed to the Harris campaign.” Meanwhile, on Saturday, he is set to appear with Harris at a campaign event in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.  

On Monday night, after the triumphant entrance of former president and GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, Teamsters Union general president Sean O’Brien addressed the Republican National Convention.

“I refuse to keep doing the same things my predecessors did,” O’Brien said. “Today, the Teamsters are here to say: ‘We are not beholden to anyone or any party.’”

As president of the 1.3 million member union, O’Brien has proved to be willing to work with Republicans even as the rest of the labor movement has rallied around Democrats. While the AFL-CIO, NEA, and UAW endorsed President Joe Biden’s reelection bid, O’Brien met privately with Trump and donated $45,000 to the Republican National Committee’s convention fund. (According to the Washington Post, it was the Teamsters’ first major donation to the GOP in years, though they also donated $135,000 to the Democratic National Convention last December.) O’Brien’s appearance at the RNC further signaled his willingness to break from recent Teamsters history—the union supported Trump’s opponents in 2016 and 2020.

But, on an economy-themed night at the convention, O’Brien did not endorse Trump and it’s unlikely his union ever will. O’Brien did praise Trump’s “backbone” for inviting him, over the objections of anti-labor Republicans. And, in the wake of the attempt on Trump’s life, O’Brien said, “He has proven to be one tough S.O.B.”

The Teamsters president, who has described himself as a “lifelong Democrat,” faced criticism from within his union over his budding relationship with Trump. As Mother Jones recently reported:

O’Brien’s critics from within the union argue that his appearance at the RNC will set a dangerous precedent at a potential turning point for American labor. Teamsters vice president at-large John Palmer has repeatedly publicly rebuked O’Brien’s involvement with Trump. In a recent op-ed in New Politics, he wrote that O’Brien’s speech at the RNC “only normalizes and makes the most anti-union party and President I’ve seen in my lifetime seem palatable.”

On Monday night, O’Brien acknowledged that the Teamsters and the GOP seldom agree on issues, but said that a “growing group” is willing to consider the union’s perspective. He named both Missouri senator Josh Hawley and vice presidential nominee, Ohio senator J.D. Vance. Hawley and Vance have both appeared at picket lines despite a history of opposing pro-union policies. They both spoke out against the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which would strengthen collective bargaining rights.

Not all of O’Brien’s points landed well with the convention’s audience. His urge for both parties to put “American workers first” elicited cheers, but the crowd’s enthusiasm waned as he described the need for legal protections for unionizing workers and labor law reform. “The biggest recipients of welfare in this country are corporations, and this is real corruption,” O’Brien said.

Trump, in particular, has proven to be weak on pro-union policies. As Mother Jones previously reported his administration dealt a series of blows to organized labor:

[Trump] reshaped the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency that enforces labor law and investigates unfair labor practices. Led by a Trump appointee, the NLRB made what the Economic Policy Institute described as an “unprecedented” number of decisions “overturning existing worker protections.” The rulings constrained employees’ ability to form unions, organize at the workplace, and bargain with management. 

Trump’s appointees to the Supreme Court have supported a series of anti-labor rulings. In 2018, the court rejected a legal precedent that allowed public-sector unions to collect mandatory fees from nonmembers to support the cost of collective bargaining—a crucial source of revenue. Earlier this year, the Court sided with Starbucks in a case involving workers fired while they tried to form a union. The decision overturned an NLRB order to reinstate the workers.

It’s unclear if O’Brien will be given a chance to speak when the Democrats meet next month in Chicago. On Monday afternoon, O’Brien told Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto that he had not received a reply to his request to speak at the Democratic National Convention. “Crickets,” he said to Cavuto.

Later that day, Reuters reported that the Teamsters’ leadership is considering endorsing no one in the 2024 presidential race, because of “deep internal divisions” within the union. Such a decision would be a rebuke to Biden, who has campaigned on his pro-labor record. A Teamsters spokesperson told Reuters that no final decision has been made.

“At the end of the day,” O’Brien told the crowd gathered in Milwaukee, “the Teamsters are not interested if you have a D, R, or an I next to your name. We want to know one thing: what are you doing to help American workers?”

On Monday night, after the triumphant entrance of former president and GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, Teamsters Union general president Sean O’Brien addressed the Republican National Convention.

“I refuse to keep doing the same things my predecessors did,” O’Brien said. “Today, the Teamsters are here to say: ‘We are not beholden to anyone or any party.’”

As president of the 1.3 million member union, O’Brien has proved to be willing to work with Republicans even as the rest of the labor movement has rallied around Democrats. While the AFL-CIO, NEA, and UAW endorsed President Joe Biden’s reelection bid, O’Brien met privately with Trump and donated $45,000 to the Republican National Committee’s convention fund. (According to the Washington Post, it was the Teamsters’ first major donation to the GOP in years, though they also donated $135,000 to the Democratic National Convention last December.) O’Brien’s appearance at the RNC further signaled his willingness to break from recent Teamsters history—the union supported Trump’s opponents in 2016 and 2020.

But, on an economy-themed night at the convention, O’Brien did not endorse Trump and it’s unlikely his union ever will. O’Brien did praise Trump’s “backbone” for inviting him, over the objections of anti-labor Republicans. And, in the wake of the attempt on Trump’s life, O’Brien said, “He has proven to be one tough S.O.B.”

The Teamsters president, who has described himself as a “lifelong Democrat,” faced criticism from within his union over his budding relationship with Trump. As Mother Jones recently reported:

O’Brien’s critics from within the union argue that his appearance at the RNC will set a dangerous precedent at a potential turning point for American labor. Teamsters vice president at-large John Palmer has repeatedly publicly rebuked O’Brien’s involvement with Trump. In a recent op-ed in New Politics, he wrote that O’Brien’s speech at the RNC “only normalizes and makes the most anti-union party and President I’ve seen in my lifetime seem palatable.”

On Monday night, O’Brien acknowledged that the Teamsters and the GOP seldom agree on issues, but said that a “growing group” is willing to consider the union’s perspective. He named both Missouri senator Josh Hawley and vice presidential nominee, Ohio senator J.D. Vance. Hawley and Vance have both appeared at picket lines despite a history of opposing pro-union policies. They both spoke out against the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which would strengthen collective bargaining rights.

Not all of O’Brien’s points landed well with the convention’s audience. His urge for both parties to put “American workers first” elicited cheers, but the crowd’s enthusiasm waned as he described the need for legal protections for unionizing workers and labor law reform. “The biggest recipients of welfare in this country are corporations, and this is real corruption,” O’Brien said.

Trump, in particular, has proven to be weak on pro-union policies. As Mother Jones previously reported his administration dealt a series of blows to organized labor:

[Trump] reshaped the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency that enforces labor law and investigates unfair labor practices. Led by a Trump appointee, the NLRB made what the Economic Policy Institute described as an “unprecedented” number of decisions “overturning existing worker protections.” The rulings constrained employees’ ability to form unions, organize at the workplace, and bargain with management. 

Trump’s appointees to the Supreme Court have supported a series of anti-labor rulings. In 2018, the court rejected a legal precedent that allowed public-sector unions to collect mandatory fees from nonmembers to support the cost of collective bargaining—a crucial source of revenue. Earlier this year, the Court sided with Starbucks in a case involving workers fired while they tried to form a union. The decision overturned an NLRB order to reinstate the workers.

It’s unclear if O’Brien will be given a chance to speak when the Democrats meet next month in Chicago. On Monday afternoon, O’Brien told Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto that he had not received a reply to his request to speak at the Democratic National Convention. “Crickets,” he said to Cavuto.

Later that day, Reuters reported that the Teamsters’ leadership is considering endorsing no one in the 2024 presidential race, because of “deep internal divisions” within the union. Such a decision would be a rebuke to Biden, who has campaigned on his pro-labor record. A Teamsters spokesperson told Reuters that no final decision has been made.

“At the end of the day,” O’Brien told the crowd gathered in Milwaukee, “the Teamsters are not interested if you have a D, R, or an I next to your name. We want to know one thing: what are you doing to help American workers?”

Teamsters union general president Sean O’Brien is set to speak at the Republican National Convention next week—the culmination of several months of courting former president Donald Trump despite his anti-labor record. 

With 1.3 million members, the Teamsters are one of largest and most powerful unions in the United States—and its leaders have not yet issued an endorsement in the 2024 presidential race. Representatives have emphasized that O’Brien’s speech at the RNC does not amount to one and that O’Brien also requested to speak at the Democratic National Convention in August. Spokesperson Kara Deniz told Mother Jones that the DNC has not responded to their request. 

Still, O’Brien’s planned visit to the RNC sets the Teamsters apart from other influential labor unions, who have largely rallied behind President Joe Biden’s re-election bid. Biden, who claimed the title of “the most pro-union president in American history,” has already been endorsed by several other major unions, including the AFL-CIO, NEA, and UAW.

O’Brien’s speech at the RNC “only normalizes and makes the most anti-union party and President I’ve seen in my lifetime seem palatable.”

Experts say it’s unlikely that the Teamsters’ endorsement—which requires a poll of the general executive board—will go to Trump. Nevertheless, O’Brien’s critics from within the union argue that his appearance at the RNC will set a dangerous precedent at a potential turning point for American labor. Teamsters vice president at-large John Palmer has repeatedly publicly rebuked O’Brien’s involvement with Trump. In a recent op-ed in New Politics, he wrote that O’Brien’s speech at the RNC “only normalizes and makes the most anti-union party and President I’ve seen in my lifetime seem palatable.”

The Trump administration dealt a series of blows to organized labor—the effects of which are still felt today. Yet an NBC poll conducted in January found that, while Biden is still faring better than Trump in union households, his lead is slimmer than it was in 2020. Some pundits say this slip is an indication that Biden is out of touch with the working class. After Biden met with AFL-CIO leaders on Wednesday, FOX Business host Larry Kudlow predicted that cost-of-living increases under Biden will drive rank-and-file members to vote for Trump. “Biden will win the union leaders, but Trump is going to take most of the rank-and-file who go to work every day, play by the rules, work with their hands and proudly wear their hard hats,” he said. “You can bet on that.” 

In January, O’Brien met privately with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, where the two posed for a photo with matching thumbs up. Later that month, the former president sat down with Teamsters leadership and rank-and-file members as part of a series of “presidential roundtables” at the union’s headquarters in Washington, DC. Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Trump teased the possibility of a Teamsters endorsement, despite the union, under O’Brien’s predecessor, endorsing Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020. 

“Stranger things have happened,” Trump said. 

Labor unions are no longer the “behemoth” political forces they were in the 20th century, said David Macdonald, a political science professor at University of Florida. But their endorsement in the presidential race still carries weight and could influence undecided members in key swing states. 

The Teamsters have a history of endorsing Republicans even as the labor movement embraced Democrats. The Teamsters were the only major union to back Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, and George H.W. Bush in 1988. 

Though Trump touts his support for the American working class, his record is staunchly anti-union. He reshaped the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency that enforces labor law and investigates unfair labor practices. Led by a Trump appointee, the NLRB made what the Economic Policy Institute described as an “unprecedented” number of decisions “overturning existing worker protections.” The rulings constrained employees’ ability to form unions, organize at the workplace, and bargain with management.  

Trump’s appointees to the Supreme Court have supported a series of anti-labor rulings. In 2018, the court rejected a legal precedent that allowed public-sector unions to collect mandatory fees from nonmembers to support the cost of collective bargaining—a crucial source of revenue. Earlier this year, the Court sided with Starbucks in a case involving workers fired while they tried to form a union. The decision overturned an NLRB order to reinstate the workers.   

Biden’s progressive appointees to the NLRB included Jennifer Abruzzo, who has been hailed as a champion of worker’s rights. The board has worked to undo decisions made under Trump and, according to an analysis from the think tank Center for American Progress, reinstated more workers in one year than during the entire Trump administration. Additionally, Biden appeared at a UAW picket line in Michigan last year and signaled support for workers unionizing at Amazon in 2022. 

“Biden [has been] arguing that unions are an important part of a healthy democracy and a healthy economy, and urging workers to unionize,” said Joseph McCartin, a professor of labor history at Georgetown. “We haven’t seen that kind of leadership from the White House, arguably, since the New Deal era.” 

Trump, meanwhile, has tried to drive a wedge between union leadership and rank-and-file members over Biden. Last October, while the UAW was on strike, Trump addressed a recorded message to auto workers about Biden’s push for electric vehicles, arguing that union leaders who support Biden do not have workers’ best interests in mind. “And it doesn’t matter how bad they are, they’ll endorse a Democrat,” he said, “even though the Democrat’s selling you down the tubes.” 

O’Brien, weighing the chances of a second Trump presidency, may be making a calculated decision to develop a relationship with Trump. Or he could simply be responding to the significant number of Teamsters members who are Republicans. In a press release about Trump’s visit to Teamster headquarters, O’Brien noted that the union’s members “represent every political background.” Palmer, the union’s vice president, told Mother Jones that straw polls of members showed that around 46 percent supported Biden while around 37 percent supported Trump.

Straw polls of Teamsters members showed that around 46 percent supported Biden while around 37 percent supported Trump.

Nelson Lichtenstein, a professor of labor history at University of California, Santa Barbara, said that O’Brien may be hoping to justify an eventual Biden endorsement to his Republican members. Some members found this idea distasteful. “They should not be catering to these Confederates within our union,” said Chris Silvera, secretary-treasurer of a Teamsters unit in Long Island City, New York. 

Richard Hooker, secretary-treasurer of a unit in Philadelphia, told Mother Jones that leadership should instead focus on “aggressively educating” members on how another Trump administration could harm the labor movement. He hopes O’Brien will have a “mic drop” moment at the RNC. If O’Brien doesn’t condemn Trump, Hooker says, the Teamsters need to have “some tough conversations” about how to move forward.