CPAC has long been regarded as a destination for conservative voters to network and organize. The 2026 iteration of the conference took place in Dallas on March 28, marking a notable absence of former President Donald Trump, who did not attend for the first time in a decade.

This year’s event unfolded against the backdrop of escalating military actions, as the U.S. began strikes against Iran just one month prior to CPAC 2026. A Pew Research Center survey indicated that nearly 80% of Republicans approve of Trump’s handling of the war in Iran, although younger Republicans and conservative-leaning independents showed decreased support.

During the conference, Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz openly criticized the war in Iran, stating, “A ground invasion of Iran will make our country poorer and less safe.” This sentiment reflects a growing divide within Trump’s historically loyal base, particularly as his approval rating has dropped to 36%, its lowest since his return to the White House.

Polling data reveals that 74% of Republicans supported the strikes on Iran, yet the conference featured fewer candidates treating it as a campaign stop compared to previous years. Instead, CPAC 2026 showcased many new faces in the conservative movement, focusing on Trump’s key policy priorities, culture war issues, and illegal immigration.

Attendees expressed a range of opinions on the current political climate. Joseph Bolick, a participant, voiced his feelings of betrayal, saying, “I feel betrayed because he’s promised no new wars.” Meanwhile, Harry Strine III, an 83-year-old attendee, remarked, “Israel is God’s people,” reflecting the ongoing complexities surrounding U.S. foreign policy.

As the conference concluded, observers noted the potential implications of these developments for the Republican Party’s future direction. With Trump’s absence and the internal divisions evident, the path forward for the party remains uncertain.

The post CPAC 2026: Trump Misses Conference for First Time in a Decade appeared first on cottenhamnews.

“Eligible voters should not be disenfranchised just because the postal service cannot be relied upon to deliver ballots promptly,” stated Deb O’Malley, highlighting the ongoing debate surrounding mail-in voting.

The Supreme Court has indicated it may support a Republican initiative to halt states from counting late-arriving mail-in ballots. This comes as Massachusetts allows ballots to be accepted up to three days after the election if they are postmarked by Election Day.

Currently, nearly 30 states have a grace period for counting late ballots, with Massachusetts extending this to 10 days for ballots mailed from overseas. This flexibility is crucial for many voters, especially in light of the challenges posed by mail delivery.

In the 2024 elections, 30% of voters utilized mail-in voting, a decline from its peak during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite this decrease, the method remains a significant aspect of the electoral process.

Former President Donald Trump has long opposed mail-in voting, arguing it is susceptible to fraud. However, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has documented that instances of fraud related to mail-in voting are rare.

Interestingly, Trump himself voted by mail in a Florida state representative special election on March 24, 2026, a fact that underscores the complexities of the issue.

The Supreme Court’s decision on mail-in ballots is anticipated by June 2026, with the case being heard titled Watson v. Republican National Committee. Legal experts are closely monitoring the proceedings.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson remarked, “I think we have several federal statutes that suggest that Congress was aware of post-Election Day ballot deadlines that the states had enacted,” indicating the legislative context surrounding the issue.

Paul Clement, representing the Republican Party, warned, “If the election is going to turn on late-arriving ballots in a way that means what everybody kind of thought was the result on Election Day ends up being the opposite a week later, the losers are not going to accept that result.”

Scott Stewart added, “States must make a final choice of officers by election day,” emphasizing the urgency of establishing clear ballot deadlines.

As the debate continues, the implications for voter access and election integrity remain at the forefront of discussions in Massachusetts and beyond.

The post Ballot: Supreme Court May Impact Mail-in Counting in Massachusetts appeared first on cottenhamnews.

In a significant political upset, Emily Gregory has emerged victorious in a special election held on March 24, 2026, for Florida’s 87th state house district. Gregory, a first-time lawmaker with a background in public health, defeated Republican candidate Jon Maples, who had the endorsement of former President Donald Trump. This election result is notable not only for its immediate implications but also for what it may signify for the upcoming midterm elections.

Gregory’s win came by a narrow margin of just 2 percentage points, a remarkable turnaround considering that the seat was previously held by a Republican who won by 19 percentage points in the 2024 election. The election was prompted by the appointment of the former occupant, GOP State Representative Mike Caruso, to a county clerk position, thus opening the door for this special election.

Throughout her campaign, Gregory focused on affordability issues, steering clear of direct confrontations with Trump, who himself voted by mail in this election despite having criticized mail-in voting in the past. Her strategy appears to have resonated with voters, particularly in a district that has seen a shift in sentiment towards Democratic candidates in recent years.

The Democratic Party has heralded Gregory’s victory as an “earth-shattering victory for Florida Democrats.” Heather Williams, a party spokesperson, noted that if Mar-a-Lago is vulnerable, it could indicate potential Democratic wins in the upcoming midterms. This sentiment reflects a broader trend, as Democrats have flipped 29 districts since Trump’s election, suggesting a changing political landscape in Florida.

Gregory’s campaign emphasized the pressing issues faced by Florida families, including rising costs, with gas prices mentioned at $4 per gallon. In her victory speech, she stated, “I think my opponent put it front and center, and I focused on the issues that matter most to Florida families.” This approach may have contributed significantly to her success in the election.

Political analysts view this election result as a referendum on the performance of national Republicans, particularly in light of Trump’s endorsement of Maples. Ken Martin, a Democratic strategist, remarked, “Donald Trump’s own neighbors just sent a crystal clear message: They are furious and ready for change.” This reflects a growing discontent among voters in traditionally Republican areas.

Shaughnessy Naughton, another Democratic leader, echoed this sentiment, stating, “Emily won because Floridians trust her to make decisions based on evidence not ideology.” This statement underscores the importance of trust and practical solutions in contemporary political campaigns.

As the political landscape continues to evolve, Gregory’s victory could serve as a bellwether for future elections in Florida and beyond. With the midterms approaching, both parties will be closely monitoring the implications of this election and the shifting dynamics within the state.

The post Emily Gregory Wins Special Election in Florida appeared first on cottenhamnews.

Recent Developments

Recently, Donald Trump remarked that J.D. Vance holds a different philosophical view on the war in Iran. Vance has shown less enthusiasm for launching U.S. airstrikes alongside Israel, which has been a point of contention among party members.

Despite this divergence, Vance has publicly backed Trump since the onset of the military operation in Iran. He has expressed confidence that Trump will not recklessly send Americans to fight overseas, stating, “I know he won’t recklessly send Americans to fight overseas.” This aligns with Vance’s broader stance on foreign military engagements.

Statements and Reactions

In a 2023 opinion piece, Vance articulated his support for Trump, emphasizing the importance of avoiding prolonged conflicts similar to the Iraq War. He stated there was “no chance” the United States would become involved in a prolonged war, contrasting the current military operation with previous U.S. engagements.

Vance compared the current military operation to earlier U.S. wars, highlighting a clear objective this time. He remarked, “What’s so different about this, Jesse, is that the president has clearly defined what he wants to accomplish.” This statement reflects his belief in the necessity of a well-defined mission.

Looking Ahead

As Vance is viewed as a leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2028, his stance on foreign policy will likely play a significant role in shaping his political future. Observers note that his alignment with Trump’s views, despite some differences, may influence his support among the party’s base.

Trump, who previously withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear agreement and ordered a drone strike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, described the military operation in Iran as a “short-term excursion.” This characterization has sparked discussions about the potential implications for U.S. foreign policy moving forward.

Details remain unconfirmed regarding how these differing views may affect party dynamics as the 2028 election approaches. The ongoing situation in Iran continues to be a focal point for both Vance and Trump, as well as for the broader Republican coalition.

The post Jd vance appeared first on cottenhamnews.