Republican strategists and lawmakers are hoping that when voters head to the polls in November to elect the next U.S. Senator of Minnesota, they’ll be forced to choose between either a Republican candidate — or Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan.

In a Democratic primary that has yet to play out, House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., believes Flanagan would give Republicans better odds than her opponent, Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn.

“You’ve got the radical Left that is really upending the party. It’s that crazy Marxist anarchist group that is in Minneapolis, especially with a primary,” Emmer said in an interview with local media.

“Think about this. You’ve got Angie Craig, who will have all the money. But she knows that her numbers are in the tank against this radical, wild, wild-eyed Peggy Flanagan, the current lieutenant governor. So, guess who shows up [to the primary]? All the crazies from Minneapolis.”

EX-NFL REPORTER LAUNCHES GOP SENATE BID, REVEALS HOW SHE WILL FLIP SCRIPT ON STATE’S ‘CRISIS OF LEADERSHIP”

“Peggy Flanagan is likely going to be their candidate, and that is good for us,” Emmer said.

The assessment isn’t unique to Emmer.

The Democratic race began in February of last year when Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn., sparked a four-way Democratic primary with news that she would not pursue reelection in 2026.

In addition to Craig and Flanagan, Billy Nord, an anti-establishment activist, and Melisa López Franzen, a former minority leader of the Minnesota Senate, announced bids for the seat. But it didn’t take long for Craig and Flanagan to emerge as the clear-cut frontrunners.

Craig, a former journalist, businesswoman and a current four-term U.S. congresswoman, has $4.8 million in cash on hand, according to FEC records.

Flanagan, Minnesota’s lieutenant governor for the past seven years, has $1.1 million cash on hand.

Nord has not reported contributions with the FEC and López dropped out of the race in May of last year.

DEMOCRAT IN KEY SENATE PRIMARY SAYS SHE ‘REGRETS’ VOTE ON LAKEN RILEY ACT, DRAWS GOP BACKLASH

While Republican onlookers believe both frontrunners can be described as “far-left,” many have pointed out Flanagan shares platform similarities with more polarizing, high-profile Democrats — such as New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and has shared the same platform as Gov. Tim Walz, who she has called an “incredible partner.” Walz was hammered during his failed 2024 vice presidential bid for all of his far-left proposals.

In the view of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, that makes for a Republican advantage.

“She, too, supports Medicare for All, wants to ‘re-imagine’ policing and attended anti-ICE protests where she called on people to “put their bodies on the line” to defend illegal immigrants from ICE,” the NRSC said in a press release.

More notably, Republicans believe Flanagan’s greatest liability is a tenure that overlaps with recent revelations of up to $9 billion in fraud through government benefit programs.

Through scores of schemes, fraudsters in Minnesota allegedly siphoned funding from government programs like daycare centers and health clinics while returning no benefits, greatly exaggerating their services and pocketing government funding.

The fraud revelations made national news last year, raising questions about how state leadership could have missed the sheer size of the losses.

DFL party Chair Mike Erlandson told the Minnesota Star Tribune he believes fraud will remain front-and-center in the minds of voters.

“I don’t think there’s any way that this issue isn’t still being talked about in November. And anybody that was a party to it, whether you’re a legislator or Lt. Gov. Flanagan, if she’s the nominee, is going to have to answer questions around it,” Erlandson said.

NRSC Chairman Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., echoed that sentiment.

“From allowing billions of dollars in fraud to vilifying law enforcement, the Walz-Flanagan administration has failed Minnesotans,” Scott wrote in a post to X.

For her own part, Flanagan’s campaign told Fox News Digital she likes her chances to win in a general election, pointing to Minnesota’s solidly-blue track record of sending Democrats to the U.S. Senate.

“Minnesota hasn’t voted for a Republican statewide in over 20 years – with Trump in the White House and the chaos ICE inflicted on Minnesotans, this is not going to be Craig’s or the GOP’s year,” Alexandra Fetissoff, a Flanagan campaign spokeswoman, said.

“Peggy Flanagan is the only candidate in this race who has won statewide, the only candidate not taking corporate money and the only candidate that hasn’t enabled Trump’s ICE. Minnesotans know Peggy and trust her leadership and that’s why she’ll be the next Senator from Minnesota.”

MICHELE TAFOYA SAYS MINNESOTA NEEDS POLITICAL OUTSIDER ‘WITH A SPINE’ IN REPUBLICAN SENATE BID

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

When asked if he stood by his comments on the Minnesota primary, Emmer said he believes Republicans will run a competitive race, regardless of the Democratic nominee.

“Minnesotans will reject both of these far-left, fraud-enabling radicals who would only dig our state into an even deeper hole than it’s already in. Good luck to Flanagan and Craig as they continue fighting tooth and nail to win over the cop hating, open-border extremist base while alienating commonsense Minnesotans,” Emmer said.

Craig and Flanagan will face off in the primary on Aug. 11. Fox News Digital reached out to Craig for comment.

Until recently, President Trump always found a way to fail forward, through a combination of spin, threats, payoffs and bluster.

OK, that’s the simplistic interpretation. The fine print tells a less-glamorous story: a man born on third base who spent decades insisting he’d hit a triple.

Still, it’s hard to argue with success. When Trump entered politics, he redefined the rules of the game. Rivals who tried to outflank him on policy detail, ideological consistency and institutional norms found themselves either vanquished or assimilated by the Borg.

By my lights, only once during Trump’s admittedly chaotic first term did he run into something that his playbook couldn’t at least mitigate or parry: the COVID-19 pandemic. For the final year of his presidency, reality refused to negotiate, and political gravity reasserted itself. It turns out, viruses aren’t susceptible to the Art of The Deal.

But then, miraculously, Trump wriggled through legal jeopardy, bulldozed his way past more conventional Republicans and Democrats, and re-emerged victorious in 2024.

If anything, that comeback reinforced the idea that Trump could survive anything by virtue of his playbook.

By the start of his second term, he’d made impressive headway in co-opting not only individuals but also major institutions within big tech, the media and academia.

Even in foreign affairs, Trump’s sense that any problem could be solved via force, intimidation or money was confirmed when he captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and installed Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, as a sort of puppet leader. Everyone has a price, right?

Unfortunately for Trump, no. Not everyone does.

Lately, the president has encountered a different kind of resistance — adversaries motivated by something bigger and more transcendent than money, power or the avoidance of pain.

In dealing with Iran, for instance, Trump has confronted people operating under a wholly different set of incentives. It’s a regime guided by a mix of ideology, radical religious doctrine and long-term strategic interests that don’t always align with short-term material gain.

(Now perhaps, having punished Trump enough already, Iran will finally come to the negotiating table. But even if that happens, it will have occurred after exacting a steep price — so steep, in fact, that it may already be too late for Trump to plausibly claim a win.)

It turns out, you can’t easily intimidate or pay off a true believer who isn’t afraid to die and believes they have God on their side.

A similar (though obviously not morally equivalent) dynamic is now also on display in the form of Trump’s skirmish with Pope Leo XIV, a man who commands moral authority. He opposes the war in Iran (“Blessed are the peacemakers”) and has demonstrated a stubborn refusal to back down to Trump’s attempts at bullying.

“Woe to those who manipulate religion and the very name of God for their own military, economic and political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth,” Leo said during a tour of Africa. It’s a remark that the American pope seemed to implicitly be aiming at the American president.

Here’s what Trump doesn’t understand: There are still pockets of the world where concepts like faith and national identity outweigh tangible incentives. Where sacrifice and suffering are an accepted part of the plan.

When facing these sorts of foes, Trump’s usual operating system starts to look less like a cheat code and more like a category error.

But he can’t see this because Trump is always prone to a sort of cynical projection — of assuming everyone views the world in the same base, carnal, corrupt way he sees it.

Whether it was his incredulity that Denmark wouldn’t sell Greenland, rhetoric that seemed to discount the motivations of those who serve and sacrifice in the military, or his affinity for nakedly transactional gulf states, the pattern is familiar: a tendency to view decisions through a cost-benefit lens that not everyone shares.

To be fair, that lens has often served him well. In arenas where power, money and leverage dominate, Trump’s approach is eerily effective.

But after years of taming secular, “rational” opponents, he is fighting a two-front war against people who see their struggles as moral and spiritual.

They aren’t stronger in a conventional sense. But they are, in a very real sense, less susceptible to Trump’s methods.

For perhaps the first time in his life, Donald Trump finds himself facing adversaries who aren’t just immune to his usual Trumpian playbook but are playing a different game altogether.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”