The Redemption Project Newsroom

The toxicology report showed cychlorphine.

The person had died from an overdose.

Those two facts may appear to settle the question.

They do not.

A laboratory can determine that a drug was present in someone’s blood. It cannot decide, by that result alone, whether the drug caused the death, contributed alongside other substances or was present without playing a meaningful role.

That decision requires more than a positive test

.

It requires the circumstances at the scene, the person’s medical and drug-use history, the autopsy findings, the specimen tested, the measured concentration, the presence of other substances and the medical examiner’s or coroner’s judgment.

This distinction becomes especially important with an emerging opioid such as N-propionitrile chlorphine, commonly known as cychlorphine.

Early reports have described deaths “involving,” “linked to” or “associated with” the drug.

Those words can be appropriate.

They are not interchangeable with “caused by.”

The first article in this series explained why routine toxicology systems may not identify every emerging synthetic opioid.

The next question is what the identification means once the drug is found.

Detected is the laboratory finding

The narrowest term is detected.

It means a laboratory identified the substance in a biological specimen such as blood or urine.

That is an analytical finding.

It answers:

Was the drug present?

It does not automatically answer:

Did the drug kill the person?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System, known as SUDORS, deliberately separates those categories.

SUDORS collects information about all drugs detected through postmortem toxicology. It separately records which drugs the medical examiner or coroner determined caused or contributed to the death.

That separation exists because toxicology reports can contain substances that did not cause the fatal event.

A report might identify caffeine, nicotine metabolites, a prescribed medication taken at a therapeutic level, an over-the-counter pain reliever and several illicit drugs.

The fact that each substance appears in the report does not mean each belongs in the cause-of-death statement.

The laboratory reports what it found.

The death investigator determines what mattered.

“Involved” requires a causal judgment

Public-health researchers often use the term drug involved when a medical examiner or coroner has identified the drug as causing or contributing to the overdose death.

That is stronger than simple detection.

Paid subscribers receive early access to every article because their support helps make this work possible. If you’d like immediate access — and want to support independent, systems-focused journalism — consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Read more

The numbers are interesting.

They are also easy to overread.

A poll can tell us something useful about public opinion at a particular moment. It cannot guarantee what voters will do weeks or months later, predict every change in a campaign or turn a small lead into a certain election result.

In this Season 4 Civic Conversation, Brandon Burley speaks with pollster Mark Cunningham about what polls actually measure, how scientific surveys are constructed and why the public should be cautious when campaigns, media outlets and social media accounts turn numbers into narratives.

Cunningham is the director of polling at Overton Insights and the original founder of the Beacon Poll. He explains sample sizes, margins of error, toplines, crosstabs, likely-voter models and the difference between public polling, internal campaign polling, online surveys and straw polls.

The conversation also examines push polling, question wording, demographic weighting and the ways even a professionally conducted poll can be selectively quoted or misunderstood. A topline may show the overall result, while the underlying groups reveal a much more complicated story. A candidate may lead today and lose later—not necessarily because the poll was fraudulent, but because voters, events and conditions changed.

Brandon and Mark also discuss prediction markets, exit polling and why people become defensive when polling does not support the candidate or outcome they want.

The most important lesson is not that every poll is right or that every poll should be trusted.

It is that polls should be read carefully.

Who paid for the research? How were the questions worded? Who was surveyed? Does the sample resemble the population being discussed? What is the margin of error? Does the polling organization have a reliable record?

Before celebrating a poll—or dismissing it—slow down and look at what the numbers actually say.

A poll is a snapshot in time.

It is not the election result.

Subscribe now

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.

Subscribe now

The Redemption Project Newsroom

The blood had already been collected.

The death had already occurred.

The drug was already there.

But finding it required someone to understand that an ordinary toxicology result might not tell the whole story.

By June 2026, the Knox County Regional Forensic Center said N-propionitrile chlorphine — better kno…

Read more

The Redemption Project Newsroom
Commentary / Civic Analysis

Americans rarely vote directly on “freedom.”

They vote for presidents, governors, lawmakers, judges, prosecutors, sheriffs, school boards and city councils. Those officials then decide what freedom means in practice: when police need warrants, when emergencies justify new powers, when schools can restrict speech, when agencies can collect data and when public safety outweighs personal liberty.

That is the part of civic life voters can miss.

Freedom is not only written in founding documents. It is expanded, limited, protected, narrowed and reinterpreted through legislation, courts, emergency powers, budgets, agency rules and elections.

The Constitution protects speech, religion, due process, privacy, arms, property, jury trials, voting rights and equal protection. But the practical boundaries of those rights are often set later, in places voters may not watch closely.

A legislature can protect liberty by requiring warrants, limiting executive power, protecting voting access, barring discrimination or strengthening due process. It can also narrow liberty by expanding surveillance, creating vague criminal offenses, limiting protest, increasing emergency authority or allowing government agencies to collect more information with less oversight.

That does not mean safety is unimportant.

Government exists, in part, to protect people. Schools, airports, courts, voting places, public buildings and critical infrastructure all need security. Police need tools to investigate real threats. Intelligence agencies need authority to monitor foreign adversaries. Emergency officials need room to act when lives are at risk.

But the better question is not simply “freedom or safety?”

The better question is: What power is being given, to whom, for how long, under what oversight, with what evidence, and what happens when the emergency is over?

That question became unavoidable after Sept. 11, 2001.

Before 9/11, the United States already had surveillance laws, intelligence agencies, airport screening, immigration enforcement and anti-terrorism tools. But the attacks exposed failures in intelligence sharing, aviation security, interagency coordination and threat detection.

After 9/11, the federal government changed quickly.

Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act. Airport security was federalized through the creation of the Transportation Security Administration. The Department of Homeland Security was created by combining all or part of 22 agencies. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence was later created to improve coordination across the intelligence community.

Subscribe now

Read more

The Redemption Project Newsroom
Commentary / Civic Analysis

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. — It is easy to hear a candidate talk about Christianity and assume the story is simple.

One side hears courage.

Another side hears danger.

One voter hears a candidate finally saying out loud what they believe America and Tennessee were built to be. Another hears government inching toward religious power it was never supposed to hold.

Both reactions miss part of the truth.

Religion has always been present in American public life. The Declaration of Independence speaks of a “Creator,” “Nature’s God,” the “Supreme Judge of the world” and “divine Providence.” Public officials often take oaths on Bibles. American money says “In God We Trust.” Legislatures open with prayer. Candidates talk about faith because many voters care about faith.

That history is real.

But it is not the whole story.

The U.S. Constitution did not create a national church. It does not require a president, governor, legislator, judge or juror to be Christian. Article VI says “no religious Test shall ever be required” for public office or public trust under the United States. The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law “respecting an establishment of religion” or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Those two First Amendment protections matter together.

Government cannot establish religion.

Government also cannot erase religious exercise.

That is why the old argument over “separation of church and state” is usually too shallow. The phrase itself is not in the Constitution. The principle comes from several constitutional pieces working together: no official church, no religious tests, no government-imposed worship, free exercise of faith, freedom of conscience and a long line of court cases trying to decide where accommodation ends and establishment begins.

Subscribe now

So when candidates for governor speak openly about Christianity, voters should not pretend that is irrelevant.

They also should not pretend it answers every question.

The real issue is not whether a candidate has religious beliefs. Most candidates have some kind of moral framework, whether religious or not. The real issue is how that framework would shape the use of public power.

At Friday night’s East Tennessee Young Republicans gubernatorial forum in Knoxville, religion was not a side issue. It was part of the candidates’ governing arguments.

State Rep. Monty Fritts spoke in direct Christian language, identifying himself as a “Christ is King” Christian and saying Tennessee needs leaders willing to stand for Christian culture, constitutional rights and less government. He tied his faith to his positions on abortion, public education, state spending, immigration, Second Amendment rights and opposition to what he sees as government overreach.

U.S. Rep. John Rose also spoke directly about his Christian faith, describing his conversion as a young boy and saying a personal relationship with Jesus Christ should matter in choosing leaders. Rose tied his faith to his pro-life record, his view of public-school curriculum, his opposition to taxpayer support for organizations he says conflict with Tennessee values and his broader argument that Tennessee needs executive leadership rooted in conservative principles.

Leave a comment

Those answers may comfort some voters.

They may alarm others.

But they should not surprise anyone.

Legislators, governors and members of Congress do not enter office as blank slates. They bring moral beliefs, religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, family histories, business experience, military experience, cultural assumptions and political commitments with them. Those beliefs affect what bills they support, what budgets they prioritize, what laws they veto, what agencies they direct and what advisers they trust.

That is not unique to Christianity.

A secular progressive brings beliefs about justice and equality. A libertarian brings beliefs about individual liberty and state power. A religious conservative brings beliefs about God, family, moral order and the limits of government. A populist brings beliefs about elites, institutions and ordinary people.

The voter’s job is not to demand that candidates have no worldview.

The voter’s job is to understand the worldview before handing that candidate power.

That is especially important in a governor’s race because the governor is not a pastor, judge, school board member or member of Congress. A governor cannot rewrite the U.S. Constitution. A governor cannot create a national church. A governor cannot personally overturn Supreme Court precedent. A governor cannot alone pass a bill.

But a governor can shape state priorities.

A governor proposes budgets. A governor signs or vetoes legislation. A governor appoints commissioners. A governor directs agencies. A governor uses public influence to pressure the Legislature. A governor helps decide whether education, health care, law enforcement, economic development, religious liberty, civil rights and family policy are treated as urgent or secondary.

That is why voters should listen carefully when candidates talk about faith.

Share The Redemption Project Newsroom

Not because faith disqualifies anyone.

Not because faith automatically qualifies anyone.

Because faith, like every serious worldview, can become policy when voters give someone the power to govern.

Read more

The Redemption Project Newsroom

Tennessee’s Republican and Democratic primaries for governor are happening on the same ballot calendar, but they are not telling the same political story.

Both races are voter-information stories.

Both ask whether Tennesseans have enough public evidence to compare candidates before voting.

Both involve questions about money, polling, access, campaign messages and what the next governor would actually control.

But the shape of the two races is different.

The Republican primary is about whether a powerful frontrunner is being tested. The Democratic primary is about whether the field is visible enough for voters to make a serious choice.

That distinction matters.

In the Republican race, U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn remains the frontrunner in the public evidence. The strongest late-spring public benchmark came from the Beacon/TennSight May 2026 poll, which showed Blackburn at 63%, U.S. Rep. John Rose at 10% and state Rep. Monty Fritts at 5% among Tennessee Republican primary voters.

The Republican race changed publicly in late June when Rose released an internal McLaughlin & Associates poll, reported by NewsChannel 5, showing Blackburn still leading but by a smaller margin: Blackburn 44%, Rose 29%, Fritts 12% and 15% undecided. Full crosstabs were not public in the reporting reviewed

Share The Redemption Project Newsroom

That makes the Republican polling story one of contrast: a long public polling record showing Blackburn with large leads, followed by an internal campaign poll suggesting a tighter race.

The Democratic polling story is different.

The key public marker in the Democratic primary came from the Beacon Poll May 2026 results, which showed Jerri Green at 14%, Kevin Lee McCants at 11%, Carnita Atwater at 8%, Tim Cyr at 3% and Adam “Ditch” Kurtz at 2%.

But the dominant number was 62% not sure.

That means the Democratic race is not a frontrunner-under-pressure story in the same way. Green appears to be the best-positioned Democrat by campaign organization, money, endorsements and elected-office experience. But the available poll showed most Democratic primary voters had not chosen a candidate.

The money picture also separates the races.

Read more

The Redemption Project Newsroom

A governor’s race is not only a contest over who runs the best campaign.

It is a decision about who will run the executive branch of state government.

That is the final question in Tennessee’s Republican primary for governor. After the polling, money, ads, access questions and campaign messages, voters still have to decide what kind of governor they are choosing — not just what kind of candidate they prefer.

The next Tennessee governor will shape budget priorities, agency leadership, education policy, public safety strategy, health care access, infrastructure, emergency response, economic development and the state’s relationship with local governments and the federal government.

Republican primary voters are choosing more than a message.

They are choosing who gets executive power.

One of the clearest issue divides in the Republican field is education. The TRP intel packet identifies the Education Freedom Scholarship program as a defining policy split, with Marsha Blackburn and John Rose supporting expansion and Monty Fritts opposing it as fiscally irresponsible. Tennessee Firefly’s governor race tracker also identifies education and school choice as a major dividing line in the race

Share The Redemption Project Newsroom

That matters because education is not only a campaign talking point. A governor can shape budget proposals, appoint education leadership, support or oppose legislation, influence accountability rules and use the office to push a statewide education agenda.

For voters, the question is not only whether a candidate supports or opposes vouchers.

It is what that candidate would do with state power.

Would the next governor expand the program? Change accountability rules? Protect rural school funding? Shift more state money toward scholarships? Ask lawmakers to revise the system? Leave Gov. Bill Lee’s education agenda largely intact?

Affordability is another issue voters should compare through the lens of governing power. TRP’s May 20 remote digital roundtable included questions on housing, groceries, utilities, insurance and health care. Those issues affect families directly, but not all of them are equally controlled by a governor.

Read more

The Redemption Project Newsroom

A governor’s race is not only a contest over who gets through a primary.

It is a decision about who would run the executive branch of state government.

That is the final question in Tennessee’s Democratic primary for governor. After the ballot access, polling, money, visibility and campaign messages, Democratic voters still have to decide what kind of nominee they want to send into a difficult general election — and what kind of governing agenda that nominee would carry.

The next Tennessee governor will shape budget priorities, agency leadership, education policy, health care access, public safety strategy, infrastructure, emergency response, economic development and the state’s relationship with local governments and the federal government.

Democratic primary voters are choosing more than a name on the ballot.

They are choosing a governing direction.

Education is one of the clearest places to compare the Democratic field. Jerri Green’s campaign materials call for fully funded public schools, respected teachers, honest education and expanded Pre-K. The Democratic intel packet says Green opposes the Education Freedom Scholarship program. Her campaign website also lists public school funding among her policy priorities.

Adam “Ditch” Kurtz is also running in a public-school investment lane. The packet says Tennessee Firefly describes Kurtz as supporting higher teacher pay, teachers’ unions and marijuana tax revenue for schools. The packet lists broader education and disparity language for Carnita Atwater, while noting that detailed education positions for Tim Cyr and Kevin Lee McCants were not found in the reviewed sources.

That distinction matters

Share The Redemption Project Newsroom

A governor cannot improve schools only by saying education matters. A governor can propose budgets, appoint education leadership, support or oppose legislation and shape the state’s relationship with local school systems.

Voters should ask what each candidate would actually do with that power.

Health care is another major governing question. Green’s campaign platform includes Medicaid expansion, rural health care access and women’s health. Kurtz’s listed positions include affordable health care. McCants’ campaign website presents a health care model tied to artificial intelligence, workforce change and economic restructuring. The packet found fewer detailed health care specifics for Atwater and Cyr in the reviewed materials.

Read more

Voting can feel complicated long before anyone reaches the polling place.

People register, but then struggle to find reliable information about the candidates. They may not understand what will appear on their ballot, where to research a local race or whether it is acceptable to admit that they have questions. For some voters, that uncertainty becomes embarrassment. Eventually, embarrassment becomes disengagement.

In this Season 4 Civic Conversation, Brandon Burley speaks with Katie Growden, Tennessee state manager for Save the Children Action Network, about helping people move from uncertainty to informed civic participation.

Katie explains how her organization connects registered voters with practical resources, encourages people to examine the races that affect their daily lives and helps communities understand the influence they already possess. The conversation explores local elections, primary participation, sample ballots, candidate events, social media research and the importance of asking candidates open-ended questions about how they intend to govern.

Brandon and Katie also discuss something increasingly absent from political conversations: curiosity. Instead of treating disagreement as hostility, voters can ask clarifying questions, examine why a statement produced an emotional reaction and seek spaces where policy can be discussed without personal attacks or partisan performance.

This conversation is not about telling anyone how to vote.

It is about helping people understand what they are voting on, where to find trustworthy information and why school boards, sheriffs, county mayors, city commissions and other local offices may influence their lives more directly than the national races receiving most of the attention.

Because the smaller the race, the greater your voice.

Editor’s note: This article is part of TRP’s side-by-side series on Tennessee’s Republican and Democratic primaries for governor. Each installment applies the same civic question to both races while recognizing that the two primaries are not the same kind of contest.

Every campaign is trying to define the race before voters define it for themselves.

In Tennessee’s Democratic primary for governor, the candidates are not only competing over policy. They are competing over visibility, experience, biography, party infrastructure and whether voters know enough about the field to make a serious choice.

Jerri Green is asking voters to see organization and elected-office credibility. Carnita Atwater is asking voters to see Memphis advocacy and prior statewide experience. Tim Cyr is asking voters to see a rural veteran, farmer and practical problem-solver. Adam “Ditch” Kurtz is asking voters to see a grassroots outsider rejecting corporate politics. Kevin Lee McCants is asking voters to see an unusual state-and-federal campaign built around economic change, artificial intelligence and workforce disruption.

Those are not just descriptions.

They are campaign narratives.

Green’s message begins with organization. She is a Memphis City Council member, and Tennessee Firefly describes her as the only Democrat in the 2026 governor race who has won elected office. Her campaign website describes her as a lifelong Tennessean, lawyer, public servant, educator and mother of three who has lived in Memphis, Nashville and Knoxville

Share The Redemption Project Newsroom

Her campaign message uses the phrase “One Tough Mother” and emphasizes common sense, compassion, courage, working families, public schools, health care and fundamental freedoms. Her campaign site lists policy priorities including paid family and medical leave, affordable child care, a living wage, labor rights, public school funding, Medicaid expansion, background checks, red flag laws, gun locks, reproductive freedom and clean air and water.

Green is also the candidate with the clearest public campaign structure. Her events page lists statewide “Meet Jerri” events across Tennessee communities, and her campaign site lists endorsements from elected officials, labor groups and progressive organizations.

Atwater is asking voters to see a different story.

Read more

The Redemption Project Newsroom

Every campaign is trying to define the race before voters define it for themselves.

In Tennessee’s Republican primary for governor, the candidates are not only competing over policies. They are competing over identity, trust, experience and frustration with government.

U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn is leaning into national conservative credentials, Trump alignment, China, immigration and parental rights. U.S. Rep. John Rose is presenting himself as a conservative outsider, businessman and farmer who can gain ground when voters compare candidates. State Rep. Monty Fritts is running in a grassroots, constitutional-conservative lane built around frustration with the system and a willingness to appear in side-by-side formats.

Those are not just slogans.

They are campaign narratives.

Blackburn’s message begins with trust and familiarity. She entered the race with statewide name recognition, two recent statewide Senate victories and a national conservative profile. AP reported when Blackburn entered the race that she could become Tennessee’s first female governor and could run without risking her Senate seat after winning reelection in 2024

Share The Redemption Project Newsroom

Her campaign also leans heavily on national conservative themes. Reuters reported that Blackburn launched as a Trump-aligned candidate, with messaging tied to immigration, conservative social policy and national Republican priorities.

In the final stretch, Blackburn’s campaign also moved toward China and land ownership. Her campaign released a July 8 television ad focused on China, communism and foreign ownership of Tennessee land. The ad drew national criticism over its imagery, including coverage from Yahoo and The Daily Beast.

That controversy should not swallow the whole race.

But the ad shows how Blackburn’s campaign is trying to define threat, identity and strength quickly. Campaign ads are not built to explain every policy detail. They are built to tell voters what to fear, whom to trust and what kind of leader the candidate wants to appear to be.

Rose is selling a different story.

Read more

The Redemption Project Newsroom

As early voting approaches, Tennessee’s Democratic primary for governor has developed a different kind of access question.

The issue is not whether one powerful frontrunner is avoiding pressure.

The issue is whether Democratic voters have seen enough of the field to make a serious choice.

Five Democrats are listed on the Aug. 6 primary ballot: Carnita Atwater, Tim Cyr, Jerri Green, Adam “Ditch” Kurtz and Kevin Lee McCants, according to the Hamilton County Democratic sample ballot. But ballot access is not the same as voter information.

A candidate can appear on the ballot and still remain unfamiliar to voters. A candidate can have a website and still lack a visible statewide campaign. A candidate can lead the available poll and still face questions about whether voters have heard enough from the full field.

That is the Democratic access story

Share The Redemption Project Newsroom

TRP invited gubernatorial candidates to a May 20 remote digital roundtable under the same format, timing and rules. The format was designed as a structured comparison, not a debate.

According to TRP’s invitation records, Adam “Ditch” Kurtz accepted and participated. Jerri Green declined. Carnita Atwater and Tim Cyr did not respond. Kevin Lee McCants’ invitation status still needs verification.

Those facts should be stated carefully.

A decline is not the same as no response. A no response is not the same as refusal. And one forum does not decide a race.

But the result for voters still matters.

Only one Democratic candidate in the confirmed record accepted TRP’s comparison format.

Green remains the best-positioned Democrat in the public record. She is a Memphis City Council member, has the strongest finance operation in the public tracker, the clearest endorsement list found, and a campaign site with policy material, donation infrastructure and public messaging. Her events page lists statewide “Meet Jerri” events across Tennessee communities.

Read more

The Redemption Project Newsroom

As early voting approaches, Tennessee’s Republican governor primary has developed an access question.

Which candidates are showing up for side-by-side comparison?

Which are taking local media questions?

And which are keeping tighter control of the campaign message?

The issue is not whether a campaign is allowed to be cautious. Campaigns make strategic decisions all the time. They choose which forums to attend, which interviews to accept, which questions to answer and which settings to avoid.

The voter question is different.

Are Republican primary voters getting a meaningful chance to compare the candidates before voting begins?

U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn has done selective media appearances and campaign events, but she has faced questions over debates and local media access. U.S. Rep. John Rose and state Rep. Monty Fritts accepted NewsChannel 5’s July debate. Fritts also accepted TRP’s May roundtable, while Blackburn and Rose did not respond to TRP’s invitation.

Share The Redemption Project Newsroom

TRP invited gubernatorial candidates to a May 20 remote digital roundtable under the same format, timing and rules. The format was structured for voter comparison rather than debate theatrics. Candidates received the same invitation, same question framework and same opportunity to participate.

According to TRP’s invitation records, Monty Fritts, Lauren Pinkston and Adam “Ditch” Kurtz accepted and participated. Jerri Green declined. Marsha Blackburn, John Rose, Tim Cyr and Carnita Atwater did not respond.

That distinction matters.

A decline is not the same as no response. A no response is not the same as a refusal. But the result for voters was still the same: some candidates appeared in a shared comparison format, and others did not.

A second access test emerged when NewsChannel 5 announced a July 20 Republican gubernatorial debate. The station reported that Rose and Fritts accepted the debate invitation. Blackburn was awaiting response at the time of the report.

That debate announcement came after Blackburn faced questions over campaign access.

Read more

Editor’s note: This article is part of TRP’s side-by-side series on Tennessee’s Republican and Democratic primaries for governor. Each installment applies the same civic question to both races while recognizing that the two primaries are not the same kind of contest.

The Tennessee Democratic primary for governor is not only being shaped by ballot access, polling and candidate visibility.

It is also being shaped by money.

And right now, the public finance picture is sharply uneven.

Jerri Green has the only clearly visible fundraising operation at scale in the Democratic field. Tim Cyr shows minimal fundraising in the public tracker. Carnita Atwater, Adam “Ditch” Kurtz and Kevin Lee McCants did not have TREF disclosures listed in the tracker at its last refresh.

That does not mean the race is over.

It does mean voters should understand which campaigns have the financial infrastructure to communicate statewide.

According to the Tennessee Firefly campaign finance tracker, Green had raised $398,939, spent $316,985 and had $81,953 cash on hand as of the tracker’s July 9 refresh. The same tracker listed Cyr with $40 raised, $0 spent and $0 cash on hand.

For Atwater, Kurtz and McCants, the tracker listed no TREF disclosure on file at the last refresh.

That phrase matters.

“No TREF disclosure on file” should not be written as “no campaign activity whatsoever.” It means no disclosure appeared in the tracker at the time reviewed. A campaign may have activity that is not visible in the tracker, local organizing that is not captured by finance reports or later filings that need to be checked through official records

Share The Redemption Project Newsroom

But based on the public finance picture reviewed in the Democratic intel packet, this is not a close money race.

Green dominates the visible Democratic finance lane.

That gives her campaign a practical advantage. Money can pay for staff, travel, events, signs, mail, digital outreach, voter contact and basic campaign infrastructure. In a statewide race, those things matter because Tennessee is geographically large and politically difficult for Democrats running for governor.

Green’s financial position also matches other signs of organization. Her campaign website includes policy material, donation infrastructure and public campaign messaging. Her events page lists statewide “Meet Jerri” events across Nashville, West Tennessee, East Tennessee and Middle Tennessee communities. Her campaign site also lists a public endorsement slate that includes elected officials, labor groups and progressive organizations.

That does not prove she will win.

Read more

Editor’s note: This article is part of TRP’s side-by-side series on Tennessee’s Republican and Democratic primaries for governor. Each installment applies the same civic question to both races while recognizing that the two primaries are not the same kind of contest.

The Tennessee Republican governor primary is not only being shaped by polls and candidate appearances.

It is also being shaped by money.

And the money is not all moving through the same kind of account.

U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn has a large donor network and supportive outside PAC activity. U.S. Rep. John Rose has major cash available, driven heavily by personal loans. State Rep. Monty Fritts has a much smaller fundraising operation and is running in a lower-money, grassroots lane.

That makes campaign finance one of the clearest ways to understand the race — as long as voters keep the categories separate

Share The Redemption Project Newsroom

According to the Tennessee Firefly campaign finance tracker, Blackburn had raised about $6.745 million, spent about $2.357 million and had about $4.388 million cash on hand. Rose had raised about $6.606 million, spent about $2.156 million and had about $5.863 million cash on hand. Fritts had raised about $193,000, spent about $120,000 and had about $73,000 cash on hand.

At first glance, the Blackburn and Rose totals look close.

But the source of the money matters.

The same Firefly tracker lists Rose with $5 million in personal loans. That means his campaign has substantial money available, but much of his total is self-funded rather than built from outside donors. That does not make the money less usable. A campaign can still spend loaned money on ads, staff, travel, mail, voter contact and digital outreach.

But it changes what the number tells voters.

A large donor network shows one kind of campaign strength. A large personal loan shows another. Both can make a candidate competitive. They do not mean the same thing.

Read more

Editor’s note: This article is part of TRP’s side-by-side series on Tennessee’s Republican and Democratic primaries for governor. Each installment applies the same civic question to both races while recognizing that the two primaries are not the same kind of contest.

The polling story in Tennessee’s Republican primary for governor has two parts.

The first part is stable: U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn led by wide margins in public and tracked polling from early 2025 through late April 2026.

The second part is newer: U.S. Rep. John Rose released an internal poll in late June showing a tighter race.

Both parts matter.

They should not be treated the same.

Polls are useful only when readers understand what kind of poll they are looking at, who released it, when it was conducted, what sample was used and what information is missing. Without that, numbers become campaign weapons instead of voter information.

The strongest late-spring public benchmark in the race came from the Beacon/TennSight May 2026 poll, fielded April 20-27. TennSight reported Blackburn at 63%, Rose at 10% and state Rep. Monty Fritts at 5% among Tennessee Republican primary voters.

That result fits the broader public polling pattern.

Subscribe now

A Tennessee Firefly polling tracker lists a January 2025 likely Republican primary benchmark from Fabrizio Lee & Associates showing Blackburn at 71% and Rose at 13%, before Blackburn formally entered the race. After Blackburn entered, Beacon reported in August 2025 that she led Rose 66% to 14%.

The same tracker later listed Blackburn at 58% in late October 2025, 60% in November, 56% in the Beacon January 2026 poll, 61% in a February TSS result, 58% in a March Cygnal result and 63% in an April Targoz result.

Those numbers vary.

The basic story does not.

Every major public or tracked poll listed in the packet before late June showed Blackburn with a large lead.

Then Rose’s campaign released an internal McLaughlin & Associates poll, reported by NewsChannel 5, showing Blackburn at 44%, Rose at 29%, Fritts at 12% and 15% undecided. The poll was conducted June 28-30 among 600 likely Republican voters, according to the reporting cited in the TRP packet.

That poll is not useless.

It is also not self-proving.

Internal campaign polls can show real movement. They can also be released because they tell the story a campaign wants voters, donors and media outlets to hear. The public topline does not answer several important methodological questions: What was the full questionnaire? What was the likely-voter screen? Were candidate names rotated? What was the regional breakdown? How were voters weighted? What were the full crosstabs?

Read more

Editor’s note: This article is part of TRP’s side-by-side series on Tennessee’s Republican and Democratic primaries for governor. Each installment applies the same civic question to both races while recognizing that the two primaries are not the same kind of contest.

The most important number in Tennessee’s Democratic primary for governor is not Jerri Green’s 14%.

It is the 62% who were not sure.

That number comes from the Beacon Poll May 2026 results, the key public polling marker identified in the Democratic primary intel packet. The poll, fielded April 20-27, showed Green leading the Democratic field at 14%, followed by Kevin Lee McCants at 11%, Carnita Atwater at 8%, Tim Cyr at 3% and Adam “Ditch” Kurtz at 2%.

But with 62% undecided, the poll says less about a settled race than it does about an unformed electorate

That is the first thing voters should understand.

Polling can help explain a race, but only if readers know what kind of question the poll is answering. In the Democratic primary, the available public polling does not show a dominant frontrunner in the way Republican polling has shown Marsha Blackburn leading her primary. It shows one candidate ahead, one surprising second-place result and a large majority of likely Democratic primary voters still not choosing anyone.

That makes this a voter-information story.

Read more

The Redemption Project Newsroom

Tennessee’s Republican primary for governor is becoming harder to describe with one word.

For much of the race, the public evidence pointed in the same direction: U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn was the clear frontrunner. She entered with statewide name recognition, two Senate victories, national conservative credentials and a political profile few Tennessee Republicans could match.

That remains the safest read of the race.

But it is no longer the whole story.

Subscribe now

As early voting approaches, the Republican primary has become a voter-information test involving polling, campaign money, candidate access, debate participation and whether voters get a meaningful side-by-side comparison before casting ballots.

The public polling still favors Blackburn. The strongest late-spring public benchmark came from the Beacon/TennSight May 2026 poll, fielded April 20-27, which showed Blackburn at 63%, U.S. Rep. John Rose at 10% and state Rep. Monty Fritts at 5% among Tennessee Republican primary voters.

Read more

Editor’s note: This article is part of TRP’s side-by-side series on Tennessee’s Republican and Democratic primaries for governor. Each installment applies the same civic question to both races while recognizing that the two primaries are not the same kind of contest.

Tennessee Democrats have a primary for governor, but the public evidence shows a race many voters may not yet understand.

Five Democrats are listed on the Aug. 6 primary ballot: Carnita Atwater, Tim Cyr, Jerri Green, Adam “Ditch” Kurtz and Kevin Lee McCants, according to the Hamilton County Democratic sample ballot. The same ballot also lists McCants in the Democratic U.S. Senate primary, making him an unusual dual statewide candidate.

That makes the Democratic race different from the Republican primary.

Subscribe now

The Republican race is largely about whether a powerful frontrunner is being tested. The Democratic race is about whether the field is visible enough for voters to make a serious choice.

The public record points to Green as the best-positioned Democrat. Green is a Memphis City Council member, and Tennessee Firefly describes her as the only Democrat in the race who has won elected office. Her campaign website presents her as a lifelong Tennessean, lawyer, public servant, educator and mother of three who has lived in Memphis, Nashville and Knoxville.

Green also has the clearest campaign organization in the public record reviewed. Her campaign site lists a public endorsement slate, policy platform and statewide events, and her campaign events page shows “Meet Jerri” events across Tennessee communities.

The money picture also favors Green. Tennessee Firefly’s campaign finance tracker listed Green with $398,939 raised, $316,985 spent and $81,953 cash on hand as of its July 9 refresh. The same tracker listed Tim Cyr with $40 raised and no TREF disclosure on file for Atwater, Kurtz or McCants at the tracker’s last refresh.

That does not settle the race.

The available polling shows a field that remains largely unformed. The Beacon Poll May 2026 results showed Green leading the Democratic field at 14%, followed by McCants at 11%, Atwater at 8%, Cyr at 3% and Kurtz at 2%.

But the largest number was not Green’s 14%.

It was the 62% who were not sure.

That means the Democratic primary is less a traditional horse-race story than a voter-information story. Green appears best positioned by money, endorsements, organization and elected experience. But most Democratic primary voters in the available poll had not chosen a candidate.

Read more

The Redemption Project Newsroom

Safety is not the same thing as privacy.

Security is not the same thing as freedom.

A healthy republic needs all four. The danger comes when government, vendors or citizens start treating one as proof of the others.

Read more