Congressional primary campaigns reveal the fault lines that run through both parties

One week from today we’ll know for sure who’s running for Congress. Well, that’s barring any recounts in next Tuesday’s primary elections.

Some nominees we know now because there aren’t contested nominations in four districts: In the 3rd Congressional District in Hampton Roads, it’s Republican challenger Edwin Rivera against Democratic incumbent Bobby Scott. In the 4th from Richmond south to the North Carolina line, it’s Republican challenger Robert Murray against Democratic incumbent Jennifer McClellan. In the 6th District from the Roanoke Valley up through the Shenandoah Valley, it’s Democratic challenger Beth Macy against Republican incumbent Ben Cline. In the 11th in Northern Virginia, it’s Republican challenger Arthur Purves against Democratic incumbent James Walkinshaw.

In the other seven districts, there are primaries on one side or another, although in most there are some clear favorites, based on name recognition or fundraising prowess or endorsements or any of the usual metrics we apply in politics. If you need a map to know which district you’re in, it’s below. You can also go to our Voter Guide and look up your county or city.

On the night he won the presidency, George H.W. Bush had this to say about elections: “A campaign is a disagreement, and disagreements divide. But an election is a decision, and decisions clear the way for harmony and peace.” His first sentence was certainly true; the second more dependent on subsequent events. As for the disagreement side of that ledger, one thing that this year’s primary campaigns have done is to expose some fault lines that run through both parties. That’s especially true among Democrats, where the tensions between the center-left and more left-leaning party activists are a running theme nationwide, although there are sometimes splits between Republicans, as well.

You can see some of those disagreements in the answers the congressional candidates gave to our Voter Guide questionnaire. We asked all the primary candidates across the state the same set of questions. Some didn’t respond at all, despite multiple prods (most notably front-runners Republican John McGuire and Democrat Tom Perriello in their respective 5^th District primaries). Most candidates did answer, though. To see their responses in full, go to our Voter Guide and look up your locality to see the candidates on the ballot. Here’s a summary of some of the answers you’ll find:

Democrats are divided about an arms embargo against Israel

One key split among Democrats is a growing estrangement from Israel, in the wake of that country’s military actions in Gaza. We see this most clearly in the answers from Democratic candidates in the 1^st District, where seven candidates are seeking the nomination to challenge Republican incumbent Rob Wittman.

Shannon Taylor, the presumed front-runner, did not directly answer the question, saying (in part): “U.S. military aid must be used responsibly, consistent with American values, international law, and the protection of civilian lives.” Elizabeth Dempsey Beggs’ answer was also unclear on this point.

Salaam Bhatti, Tim Cynwinski and Ericka Kopp all support an arms embargo. Jason Knapp and Melvin “Mel” Tull do not.

We see a variation of this divide in the 8^th District, where four candidates are challenging Democratic incumbent Don Beyer. Beyer points out that he voted against military aid to Israel, while Mo Seifeldein goes further, rhetorically: “Israel is an apartheid state that is committing genocide against Palestinians.” He also says “I support the Palestinian right of return,” which would allow families of those who fled when Israel was created in 1948 to return to their ancestral homes. Palestinians insist this is their right under various United Nations resolutions; Israeli leaders have often called this “a recipe for Israel’s destruction.”

Democrats are also divided on whether to impeach President Trump for a third time

A reminder: An impeachment is essentially an indictment by the House of Representatives; only the Senate can remove a president, after an impeachment trial and by then a two-thirds vote. The previous Trump impeachments resulted in Senate votes that didn’t come close to the two-thirds requirement.

Not surprisingly, all the Democrats running are critical of Trump but not all support a third impeachment. “I am going to Washington to clean up corruption and lower costs,” said Taylor in the 1^st District. “Not to impeach the president.” Knapp, one of the other Democratic candidates there, agreed: “If impeachment is your number one issue, the affordability crisis probably is not hitting your family very hard. Without a Senate willing to convict, proceedings would end in acquittal and embolden this administration yet again — and even success would deliver a President Vance, not relief at the kitchen table.”

Other Democrats see it differently. Kopp in the 1^st District said Trump has “committed many impeachable offenses” and vowed, “I support impeachment and will file articles of impeachment against Trump on day one in office.”

Republicans are divided on Ukraine

The differences between Republicans do not appear as sharp as those between Democrats — or, at least, just aren’t as visible. One of those is over U.S. military aid to Ukraine, which is defending itself against a Russian invasion. In a previous era — under, say, Ronald Reagan — Republican support for Ukraine would have likely been unquestioned. Now, under Donald Trump, many Republicans have adopted what some might see as the more isolationist viewpoint that dominated the party pre-World War II.

Republicans have three candidates seeking the U.S. Senate nomination to challenge Democratic incumbent Mark Warner. Among those three, Kim Farington and David Williams are the clearest in support of military aid to Ukraine.

Farington: “The United States has a strong interest in supporting Ukraine as it defends itself against Russia’s unprovoked invasion. We cannot allow authoritarian regimes to believe they can redraw international borders through military force without consequences. If Russia succeeds in claiming Ukrainian territory by force, it will encourage further aggression, undermine our allies, weaken global stability, and increase the risk of future conflicts involving the United States and our NATO partners.”

Williams: “We should provide aid to Ukraine so that Russia is not emboldened to take more territory or violate any international agreements.”

Bert Misusawa is less clear in his answer: “Europe is finally picking up their part of the tab that U.S. taxpayers were paying, and any further U.S. assistance must have U.S. interests in mind,” without detailing what those U.S. interests might be or whether an independent, pro-Western Ukraine is in U.S. interests. Perhaps this is merely a rhetorical difference, but it does seem notable when a candidate passes up an opportunity to discuss the strategic implications of what would happen if Russia were to succeed in grabbing a piece of Ukraine or overrunning it altogether.

Republicans are also divided on tariffs

This is yet another example of how Trump has changed the Republican Party. Historically, Republicans were more pro-free trade while Democrats were the ones more supportive of tariffs. Now that’s reversed — at least partially.

Misusawa and Williams are the most rhetorically supportive of tariffs. “Tariffs have leveled the playing field in the international economy,” Williams says. Misusawa says much the same: “President Trump correctly sees tariffs as an instrument to level the playing field with other nations whose import policies unfairly treat U.S. goods and services.”

Farington gives a more nuanced answer: “Tariffs are a tool, not an economic philosophy. When used strategically, they can protect critical industries, counter unfair trade practices, strengthen supply chains, and provide leverage in trade negotiations. However, tariffs also increase costs for manufacturers, small businesses, and consumers if they remain in place longer than necessary or are applied too broadly.”

Of the three Republican candidates, she was the only one who addressed how tariffs increase prices for American consumers.

Other answers of note

Whether those policy disagreements in either party make a difference in the outcomes is impossible to know in advance — or maybe even afterwards. It’s possible that voters might nominate a candidate who feels differently simply because other issues are more paramount.

Meanwhile, our questions did prompt some answers that I’m simply categorizing as notable:

Nationalizing utilities: Seifeldein, one of the Democrats challenging Beyer in the 8^th District, used an answer on energy to declare that “we should be considering nationwide public ownership of utilities to truly benefit payers.”

A $25-per-hour minimum wage: Seifeldein says he backs “raising the federal minimum wage to at least $25.” At 40 hours a week, that works out to $52,000 a year. That’s higher than the median household income in 17 Virginia localities, mostly in Southwest Virginia. In the district he seeks to represent, the lowest median household income is in Alexandria at $119,681, with the highest being in Fairfax County at $153,637.

Referendums on data centers: Patrick Mosolf, one of four Democrats seeking the nomination in the 2nd District to challenge Republican incumbent Jen Kiggans, says he would “support holding local referendums where citizens in local jurisdictions have the right to decide on the deployment of new data centers.” He does not address whether that would extend to other types of industries.

A 21^st-century Bill of Rights: Adam Murphy, one of three Democrats seeking his party’s nomination in the 9th District to challenge Republican incumbent Morgan Griffith, used his answer on “other issues” he’d like to address to talk about technology. He concluded: “We will need a 21^st Century Bill of Rights to fix everything.”

As noted, for now the Voter Guide questionnaires only cover the primary candidates. Once the primary is over, we’ll be sending out questionnaires to all the candidates on the fall ballot, both for federal offices (Senate and House) and for local offices that are on the ballot in some communities. Do you have questions for some of those candidates? You can let us know here.

For even more political news and analysis, sign up for West of the Capital, our weekly political newsletter that goes out on Friday. This week, I’ll take one last look at the early voting trends, plus whatever other news comes up.