The Midterm Field Has Expanded In California-- Thank Ted Lieu

L.A. Times this morning: "Republicans are at risk of a wipeout in California’s six most hotly contested congressional races, a new poll shows-- a result that could radically reshape the state’s political map, with major consequences nationally... The Democratic tide threatens to swamp congressional districts in Southern California’s suburbs that Republicans have controlled for decades. That would significantly boost Democrats’ chances of gaining the additional 23 seats they need to win a majority in the House."

The story behind the story, a story beyond the ken of the mass media. After years of abject DCCC failure, the members of the Democratic caucus in the House demanded reforms from Pelosi before agreeing to give her another term as leader. That was in 2016. Reluctantly, Pelosi agreed to giving up the right to pick the DCCC chair and she agreed to allow the election of six DCCC regional vice chairs.

Big victory for reformers, right? Bullshit! When it came time to vote, the only candidate running for DCCC chair was Pelosi's handpicked, bumbling incompetent, Ben Ray Luján. So he was elected. There were no contested battles for the DCCC vice chairmen jobs either. And that has turned out to be a complete disaster. More than half the candidates outside of the West Coast have told me they didn't know their region even had a regional vice chair. One vice chair told me he didn't know why he ran or what the job was and asked me to help him figure out what he was supposed to do. Two years on and he hasn't done a thing. Another resigned a couple of months after being elected and, despite promises from Luján and Pelosi that he would be replaced, there is still no regional vice chair for the Rocky Mountain states and Texas (one of the crucial battlegrounds of 2018, where the unsupervised DCCC staff has fucked up race after race). In the end, two regional vice chairs get a passing grade, Joe Kennedy (B) and Ted Lieu (A+). The rest have been abject, embarrassing failures.

And that brings us back to this morning's L.A. Times story. "With the Nov. 6 midterm election less than five weeks away," wrote David Lauter, "none of the Republicans in the state’s six most competitive races have a lead. The Democrats lead strongly in one race and narrowly in three others, and two are dead heats, the Berkeley IGS Poll shows. Reaction to President Trump appears to drive the results more than any specific issue and, in most cases, more than the individual candidates. 'Trump appears to be the main motivator for voters in these districts,' said Mark DiCamillo, the veteran pollster who directs the Berkeley IGS Poll. 'He’s the central figure.'" Yes, he has that right. Recall, Ted Lieu's comments here at DWT yesterday: "The 2018 midterm elections are primarily about one thing: Donald Trump. November will be a referendum on the job the President and his party are doing.  Americans express their support or displeasure with the governing party. During a time of relatively low unemployment it is unheard of for the party in power to be so despised. But this is where we are-- Trump’s numbers are under water in purple districts across the country. This tells me that Americans are anxious about other things besides the economy. They are concerned about Trump’s temperament and lack of basic decency, the instability he creates around the globe, and his assault on our democratic norms and institutions. Voters are smart. They know that Trump inherited a pretty darn good economy from Barack Obama; and yet what did he do with it? Did he increase workers wages with a big infrastructure package? Did he tackle the student debt crisis? Make healthcare more affordable? Pay down the national debt? Nope. He and his Republican enablers in Congress passed a hugely unpopular tax cut for the wealthiest Americans and continue to undermine the Affordable Care Act. So on top of issues with Trump’s character and temperament, these policies are also very unpopular (and don’t even get me started on Russia)."

Even if he was hampered by the usual DC-directed DCCC staffer-clowns stepping clumsily and ineptly all over recruitment efforts, Lieu has demonstrated how the DCCC could turn into an organization that actually helps elect Democrats-- instead of existing as a pocket-lining disaster that benefits only the Republican Party. Unlike his co-vice chairs, he has raised millions of dollars for his region's candidates, helped the West Coast candidates find their footings for their races and helped create the environment that journalists and pundits marvel over as they write about the West Coast races.

Trump is unpopular across most of the targeted districts-- four covering parts of Orange and San Diego counties, one in Los Angeles County and one centered on Modesto in the Central Valley. That’s especially true among college-educated white voters, whose alienation from the president has turned suburban districts across the country into risky territory for the GOP, and among Latinos and women.

The share of voters who approve of Trump serves as a ceiling for Republican candidates, with none able to surpass Trump’s level by more than a few percentage points. That’s a significant problem for Republicans; in five of the six districts, a majority of likely voters disapprove of the president’s performance in office.

In several districts, the president’s opponents appear more motivated to vote than his supporters, with self-identified liberals and registered Democrats more likely to say that they view this year’s election as more important than previous contests.

Strategies that the Republicans had hoped would bolster their campaigns and make up for the undertow from the president appear to have had limited effect, at best.

A ballot measure to repeal the recent increase in the state’s gas tax, which Republican operatives had hoped would spur turnout on their side, trails in each of the six highly competitive districts. Money for the repeal campaign has largely dried up as Republicans have diverted funds elsewhere.

A national effort by Republicans to portray untested Democratic candidates as unacceptably liberal appears also to have come up short in these California districts. Several Democratic newcomers have maintained favorable images with voters, the poll showed.

As a result of those factors, Republicans lag behind in two of the four congressional districts that cover most of Orange County, long the heartland of California conservatism. The other two contests are dead heats.

A longtime Republican incumbent, Rep. Steve Knight of Palmdale, is narrowly trailing in the only remaining L.A.-centered district the GOP holds.

Farther north, Republican Rep. Jeff Denham of Turlock, who has survived previous attempts by Democrats to oust him, is behind by a slim margin in his Central Valley race.

The poll’s findings in those districts are generally similar to other recent nonpartisan, publicly released surveys.

In addition to those six districts, the poll also surveyed the races in two Republican-held seats that have not been top Democratic targets but have attracted considerable attention.

Rep. Devin Nunes of Tulare, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has a 53%-45% lead in his race against Andrew Janz, a county prosecutor. Nunes’ role as a defender of Trump has opened a gusher of money for Janz, despite the district’s heavily Republican tilt.

But in another heavily Republican district, Rep. Duncan Hunter of Alpine has only a 49%-47% lead over Democrat Ammar Campa-Najjar, a result well within the poll’s margin of error.

Let me butt in here for a moment. According to Janz, the DCCC has been unhelpful and even hostile to his efforts to replace Nunes. Lieu has gone out of his way to help Janz even though Luján and Pelosi have refused to even add him to their Red to Blue list. With Lieu's help he has raised more money than any of the DCCC-favored candidates. And Lieu includes him in all his joint candidate events and fund-raising efforts. The DCCC has also ignored-- and viciously undermined-- Ammar Campa-Najjar. Lieu? He's helping him raise money and, in fact, is hosting a major fundraising event for him (and Randy Bryce) in two weeks.

49th District

Democrats have their strongest shot in the 49th District, covering northern San Diego County and the southern Orange County coast up through Dana Point. Mike Levin, the Democrat, has a 55%-41% lead over Republican Diane Harkey, the poll shows. Republican Rep. Darrell Issa decided not to run for reelection in a district that Hillary Clinton carried by just more than 7 points in the 2016 presidential election.

White voters with college degrees make up 45% of the likely voters in this mostly affluent, suburban district, and they back Levin 60% to 35%. Latinos, who make up about 1 in 8 likely voters here, back him by about a 3-1 majority. While men are divided almost evenly between the two, women favor Levin 60% to 34%.

Perhaps most important, likely voters disapprove of how Trump is doing as president 61% to 39%, with more than half, 55%, saying they strongly disapprove. Democrats and liberals were significantly more likely than Republicans and conservatives to say that it was “very important” for them to cast a vote to show their position on Trump.

48th District

Next door to the north, the 48th District, which spans the rest of the Orange County coast from Laguna Niguel to Seal Beach and inland to Westminster and Fountain Valley, is a couple of clicks more conservative. Clinton carried the district by less than 2 percentage points.

There, longtime Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of Costa Mesa and his Democratic challenger, Harley Rouda, are in a dead heat, each with 48%. Voters also split almost evenly on whether they approve of Trump.

As in the 49th District, college-educated white voters and Latinos back the Democrat, but they make up a slightly smaller share of the electorate: 39% of likely voters in the 48th District are whites with college degrees, and about 1 in 10 are Latino, the poll found.

Rohrabacher also benefits from significant support among Asian Americans, who make up about 1 in 8 of the likely voters. Elsewhere in California, Asian Americans lean heavily toward the Democrats, but this district includes a large, conservative Vietnamese population. Asian American voters overall divide almost equally between Rohrabacher and Rouda, the poll found.

Among whites without a college degree-- the heart of Trump’s voting base-- Rohrabacher leads by nearly 20 points, 58% to 39%, almost twice the size of the Republican’s margin with that group in the 49th District. Women support the Democrat, but men back the Republican by an almost equal margin.

The more Trump-oriented conservatism of the 48th District also surfaces when voters said what issues they care about most. Among Republicans in the 49th District, taxes were the top issue; in the 48th, it was “securing the nation’s borders.”

As the two sides vie to break the Rohrabacher-Rouda tie, the poll found a couple of weak spots.

Latino voters in the district were slightly less likely than others to say they viewed this election as more important than usual. That could hold down the Democratic vote.

Rohrabacher, however, has been dogged by controversy over his friendliness to people connected with Russia’s government. Unsurprisingly, an overwhelming share of Democrats said his contacts with Russian officials made them less likely to vote for Rohrabacher. So did 10% of registered Republicans. Among the small number of undecided voters, 45% said the Russia issue made them less likely to vote for him.

45th District

The 45th District, which covers a swath of Orange County from Irvine east through most of the foothill communities, resembles the 49th in its affluent, college-educated demographics. Clinton carried the district by 5 percentage points.

The Republican incumbent, Rep. Mimi Walters of Laguna Beach, had confidently predicted she could ride out the national tide flowing against her party, but the poll shows her Democratic challenger, UC Irvine law professor Katie Porter, leading 52% to 45%.

This race illustrates the failure so far of GOP strategies. Walters put money into helping get the gas tax repeal measure on the ballot, hoping it would spur GOP turnout. But the poll shows the measure getting only about a third of the vote in the district.

Republicans have also put millions into ads attacking Porter as too far to the left. That effort has had limited impact. By 50% to 38%, likely voters have a favorable opinion of Porter; self-identified moderates view her favorably 52% to 37%. By contrast, 50% of the district’s voters have a negative view of Walters, compared with 45% who see her positively.

39th District

Only a very, very strong wave could drag Cisneros into Congress

The GOP may have had more success with negative ads in the 39th District, which covers much of northern Orange County as well as parts of Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties. Gil Cisneros has battled accusations that he sexually harassed a former Democratic state Assembly candidate, Melissa Fazli. A Republican super PAC allied with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-WI) has run advertisements in the district about the charge.

Fazli withdrew the accusation this week after a meeting with Cisneros, saying it was based on a “misunderstanding.” The super PAC said it would stop running the ads.

The poll can’t directly measure the impact of that issue, but 45% of likely voters have a negative view of Cisneros. That includes 10% of registered Democrats. Just 41% of likely voters view him positively.

Cisneros and Republican Young Kim are locked in a dead heat, the poll showed, with the Democrat holding a nominal 49%-48% edge.

25th District

The demographic picture looks somewhat different in northern Los Angeles County, where Republican Rep. Steve Knight hopes to hold off a challenge from Katie Hill, the 31-year-old former executive director of PATH, a nonprofit organization that provides services to homeless people.

Hill has a slight edge, 50% to 46%, within the poll’s margin of error.

The district, which covers Simi Valley, Santa Clarita and the Palmdale area, has fewer college-educated white voters than the wealthy Orange County suburbs. But it has a higher share of minority voters.

Latinos make up a bit more than 1 in 5 of the district’s likely voters and support Hill by nearly 2 to 1, the poll found. Hill also benefits from a significant gender gap, with women backing her 53% to 44% over Knight, while men split almost evenly. Just over half of the voters have a strongly negative view of Trump

10th District

Similar factors have put Republican Rep. Jeff Denham’s career at risk as he seeks a fifth term in a district centered on Modesto in the Central Valley, where Latinos make up more than 40% of the district's population, but about a quarter of the likely voters.

Denham’s Democratic opponent, Josh Harder, has the support of roughly two-thirds of Latinos, the poll found.

White voters split 52% for Denham, 43% for Harder. Together, that’s enough to give the Democrat a 50%-45% edge in a district that Clinton narrowly carried in 2016 and where 57% of voters say they disapprove of Trump.

Here on the right is the Blue America "California-- Not Blue Enough" thermometer for 2018. To win Congress, Democratic voters are stuck with whichever candidates the primaries advanced to the general election. There are some really good candidates and some really bad candidates-- and mostly candidates in between. The DCCC put its finger on the scales in many districts to make sure New Dems and "ex"-Republicans from the Republican wing of the party would be the general election candidates. To stop Trump, we are now stuck with a situation where we have to vote for them too. But that isn't what Blue America is about. We're raising money only for the progressive candidates. Sure, vote for the Democrap candidates to help put Trump in check, but only contribute money to the progressives who will actually help solve America's problems when they get into Congress. Isn't that what this is ultimately all about? So, who, precisely, are they? Tap on the thermometer and you'll see.

How Much Did Self-Funding Help In The California Congressional Races?

Gil Cisneros, the DCCC's staff's idea of a candidate

There were a lot of candidates willing to spend over $500,000 of their own money to buy a place in the general election run-off. None of the big spenders came in first and most of them failed to come in second, which is what they would have needed to get into the general election. These are the 3 districts, all in Orange County, where multimillionaires spent over half a million in the effort. All but one of the big self-funders are Democrats, in part due to the DCCC's repulsive obsession with recruiting wealthy self-funders. In some cases they actually hurt themselves by recruiting more than one self funder in a single district. The DCCC recruited both Gil Cisneros and Mai Khanh Tran in the 39th and Harley Rouda and Hans Keirstea in the 48th, a race that still hasn't be called.

Worse yet, in the 39th, Cisneros is such an abysmal candidate that unless the blue wave is an absolute tsunami, he's unlikely to be able to win the general election. What the DCCC has done is cede the best target in Orange County to the Republicans just because Cisneros is such a big spender, his only "qualification" for office.

The vote counts are as of last Saturday, June 16 and the money totals are of May 16

CA-39

• Gil Cisneros (D)- 25, 291 (19.3%)- $3,552,762
• Andy Thorburn (D)- 12,046 (9.2%)- $2,785,900
• Herbert Lee (D)- 5,456 (4.2%)- $800,000
• Mai Khanh Tran (D)- 6,793 (5.2%)- $730,000

CA-48

• Harley Rouda (D)- 29,178 (17.2%)- $1,130,500
• Omar Siddiqui (D)- 8,384 (5%)- $764,820
• Hans Keirstead (D)- 29,292 (17.3%)- $730,400

CA-49

• Paul Kerr (D)- 7,707 (4.5%)- $4,112,728
• Sara Jacobs (D)- 27,154 (15.7%)- $1,587,831
• Brian Maryott (R)- 5,133 (3.0%) $700,000

A Worse California Candidate Than Gil Cisneros-- Meet Mike Levin

A friend listened in on a phone call between Pelosi and a very well-paid-- and very sleazy-- Mike Levin consultant. The guy, who has rounded up a gaggle of really slimy members of Congress to endorse Levin against Doug Applegate, asked Pelosi to get the DCCC to do likewise. She assured him she would. She was unable to deliver, although she was able to prevent the DCCC from endorsing Applegate, very much inline with what the DCCC is doing in other California districts where the is a chance that 2 Republicans could emerge from the jungle primary in 2 weeks, leaving no Democrat in the general election competition. It was the same way the DCCC screwed over Applegate in 2016 when they stalled until the last minute to endorse him, giving him the most minimal help as he came close to defeating Republican super-villain Darrell Issa. There were so many counts and recounts that it was the last election finalize-- and the final score was:

• Issa- 155,888 (50.3%
• Applegate- 154,267 (49.7%)

Had the DCCC not waited 'til the end of the cycle to jump in against Issa-- and perhaps wasting so much time and resources fighting against progressives instead of fighting Republicans-- Applegate would be an incumbent now and not going into a crazy primary with a dozen candidates including 2 especially vile self-funders, Paul Kerr-- who just wants to get his name out there for his race for the campaign in a neighboring district when rich conservative Scott Peters retires to run for mayor-- and Qualcomm heiress Sara Jacobs who parachuted into the district from Brooklyn to spend a load of daddy's money yelling nothing but he's a woman and deserves the seat. By the May 16 FEC filing report Kerr has lavished $4,112,728 of his own on his campaign and Jacobs had spent $1,587,831 of her own (plus $1.7 million more from her family) on her campaign.

Aside from Applegate, none of the other candidate had shown the slightest interest in defeating Issa in the past. Mike Levin was the head Orange County fundraiser for Hillary's 2016 campaign but never contributed a nickel to Applegate's campaign. As soon as Issa announced his retirement, fearing he could never fend off another challenge from Applegate, The 2 other clowns sensed an opportunity to get a business card that said "Congressmember" and jumped right in. Levin already had his plans in the works before the final count between Doug and Issa was close to being done. Since then "the Janus-faced quality of the Levin campaign--  publicly unctuous and privately defamatory--  was not only repugnant, but also, more importantly, extremely effective. This was immediately obvious to me as Doug’s campaign manager, and I made efforts to force the surreptitious negativity of Levin’s campaign into open public conflict."

Keep in mind that 5 San Diego County Democratic clubs-- including the Democrats of MiraCosta College, Saddleback Young Democrats, Palomar College Democrats, San Diego Democrats for Equality, and Democratic Woman’s Club of San Diego County-- have all taken the unprecedented step of rating Levin "unacceptable" or "unqualified" because of the thuggish nature of his campaign.

A couple of weeks ago Cody Petterson, President of the San Diego County Democrats for Environmental Action, spilled the beans on Levin with a long and powerful post at Medium, Square Deal. It hasn't had enough attention and with the primary coming up on June 5, I figured I'd give it a boost. Levin's character and campaign, he wrote "bear the lion’s share of the responsibility for the demoralizing toxicity that currently plagues the 49th. I believe that his brand of politics has no place in a revitalized, community-rooted Democratic Party, and that exposing it is essential to preventing it from thriving in the future." He couldn't be more correct and sees sees Levin's deceitfulness as nothing less than Trumpish and very much following "the Cohn/Stone dictum, 'Admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack.'

It’s not a mystery what Levin’s plan was prior to 2016: 1) use his work in corporate government affairs to take home tidy paychecks while developing relationships with donors and government officials, 2) bundle campaign donations to secure an appointment in the HRC administration, 3) climb his diligent way to an undersecretary position, and then 4) run for the 49th in 2020 alongside an HRC re-election bid. It wasn’t a bad plan, as plans go, though a more pious man would have remembered that plans anger the gods. Doug’s wildcat run in 2016 must have been an unsettling disruption of his program, and it’s telling that in spite of multiple direct asks from Doug, Levin, by his own admission, didn’t give a dime or lift a finger to help him. Bear in mind, Doug was a Democratic challenger, neck-and-neck with an eight-term Republican incumbent, in Mike’s own district. It doesn’t take a priest to guess that Mike wasn’t just praying for Hillary’s victory when he knelt beside his bed, Fall 2016.

Though Doug’s narrow loss was undoubtedly some consolation, one can only imagine Mike’s existential terror standing there in Javits Center watching his meticulous plan to jump from corporate government relations (i.e., lobbying) to appointed office implode. By his own account he decided to run on the flight home from New York --  weeks before, it should be noted, the outcome in the 49th was declared. Hillary’s loss dramatically disrupted Levin’s strategy and timeline. The narrowness of Doug’s loss meant that he would have to accelerate his timeline or risk Doug beating Issa and holding the seat for the foreseeable future. But Hillary’s loss meant that Mike would have to run on his corporate career, rather than as an appointed official, as he had planned, and he knew that eight years of directing corporate lobbying would not endear him to voters.

Levin’s strategy was thus born of necessity and haste. The vacuum left by the loss of those four planned years of appointed office is the defining factor in Levin’s campaign. Robbed of the centerpiece of his campaign, Levin settled upon the only strategy available to him: 1) avoid all mention of his career, 2) clone Doug’s 2016 platform in order both to align with the ascendant progressive base of the Party and to force the primary race to center around fundraising and tone, rather than clear differences of values and priorities, and 3) peddle Doug’s decade-old divorce and custody battle behind every closed door. However invidious and unscrupulous I may find the strategy, I can’t fault Levin’s SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis for leading him to it. The 49th has suffered immeasurably for it, and it has put Democrats at much greater likelihood of defeat in November, but it was rational for him personally... The misrepresentations and prevarications of Levin’s “Record on Clean Energy” provide a perfect illustration of the deceit upon which his campaign is predicated.

The first “myth” that Mike set out to ‘debunk’ was that he “is not a ‘real’ environmental attorney, because he didn’t litigate many cases, and there is no record of his advocacy prior to 2016.” Classic misdirection. Levin’s claim to the title of ‘environmental attorney’ isn’t weak because he hasn’t litigated ‘many’ cases. Mike Levin has a law degree and standing before the California State Bar. There’s no reason he shouldn’t be able to lay claim to being an attorney. It is his claim to being an environmental attorney that is weak and deceptive. The only litigation of which LexisNexis has record were three cases at the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009, Hernandez v. Countrywide, Gallegos v. Countrywide, and Arenas v. Countrywide. Unfortunately for Mike, he was not valiantly representing struggling Latinx victims of Countrywide’s predatory lending; on the contrary, he was defending Countrywide against them and, in the event, was able to help Countrywide successfully foreclose on their homes.

All three San Diego County homeowners had alleged predatory lending, unfair debt collection, and RICO violations. Levin pleaded these cases in the immediate aftermath of the financial collapse and three months after the announcement of Countrywide’s $8.68 billion settlement of predatory lending suits, the largest in history. For precisely the activities alleged in the suits. Levin defended Countrywide against San Diego County Latino foreclosure victims with contracts that were predatory on their face. The Arenas contract had a 2% teaser rate that ballooned after the first month. The first allowable Interest Rate Change Date was the first day of December, 2006--  a month after the contract was signed. The change was determined by adding 3.7% to the twelve-month average yield of US Treasury Securities, which was around 5% in late 2006. That’s potentially an 8.7% interest rate six weeks after signing a contract for a 2% interest rate. Classic predatory lending. The Hernandez contract featured a 6.5% rate-- to a man who had previously been foreclosed upon.

At least one of the plaintiffs, by their own report, was subsequently selected for inclusion in the $335 million settlement of claims against Countrywide of discriminatory lending to Latinos and African Americans. Whatever his private objections may have been, Levin remained at the firm until September 2010. Now, I don’t approve of holding youthful mistakes unduly against any individual, including candidates, if their subsequent conduct reflects contrition and maturation. Unfortunately, the expedient, mercenary quality that these cases demonstrate is the hallmark of Levin’s career, rather than an aberration or youthful error.

The second ‘myth’ that Levin attempted to debunk in his rejoinder was that he “supports a fossil fuel-based energy future.” This is a remarkably clumsy dodge. There is no Democrat, in the current political climate, who actively supports a fossil fuel-based energy future or opposes eventually transitioning to 100% renewable energy. The question is, and has been for the last decade, how aggressive that transition should be. Levin’s challenge here is that, his youth notwithstanding, he is himself a fossil. Levin’s career unfolded in the context of a protracted struggle within the Democratic community between climate hawks who demanded the immediate transition to renewables, and moderates who believed fracked natural gas could serve as an affordable, less carbon intensive alternative to coal.

Levin’s career choices put him firmly on the moderate side of the argument, along with Obama’s ‘all of the above’ energy strategy and HRC’s globetrotting fracked-gas junkets. In September 2010, Mike became Director of Government Affairs for FlexEnergy, which at the time was focused on developing a proprietary technology that oxidized rather than combusted natural or coal gas. Several months after Mike’s arrival, however, FlexEnergy acquired rights to Ingersoll-Rand’s MT250 microturbine, which could, ostensibly, be powered by their oxidizer, but which soon became the primary focus of their manufacturing and sales. At the end of 2012, FlexEnergy spun off their gradual oxidizer technology and focused exclusively on microturbine sales, buoyed by $400 million in projected sales to the Russian oil and gas industry, backed by the US Export-Import Bank, which, however, collapsed in the wake of the Russian annexation of Crimea and US Ex-Im’s moratorium on financing for sales to Russia (See Russia, Notes 12a and 12b). Levin’s participation and equity position in FlexEnergy post-spin-off is unclear, as it became a private corporation and ceased filing publicly available financial reports. Although he was listed as an officer and shareholder in their final Form D filing, V. John White Associates, which FlexEnergy retained as its outside lobbyist in California, lists him as ‘terminated’ as FlexEnergy’s Responsible Officer in their 2012 filing.

Levin continued on as Secretary and VP of Legal and Regulatory Affairs of the gradual oxidizer spin-off, Ener-Core, as it continued to hemorrhage venture capital: FlexPower had lost $7.6 million in 2011, $6.5 million from January to November 2012, and then, after the spin-off, Ener-Core lost $6,923,000 more from November 2012 to December 2013. Levin jumped ship abruptly in mid-March 2014--  three days after the Russian annexation of Crimea--  and it’s likely that he sold his 105,510 of vested shares before the 10-K for 2013 dropped on April 15th, which precipitated a steady decline in stock value. If so, he would’ve gotten out at around $36, a hundred times the value of the stock today.

Levin landed with premeditated ease at FuelCell the following month, where he served through September 2017 as Director of Government Affairs. FuelCell researches, designs, manufactures, and distributes large-stack fuel cell power plants, which run predominantly on natural gas, the majority of which, in the US, is fracked. All evidence suggests that Mike did for FuelCell what he had done for Ener-Core and Flex-Energy before that. When he avers that he “has never been a registered lobbyist,” it reinforces how deceptive the man habitually is. I want to be perfectly clear: Michael T. Levin has spent most of his career lobbying. Some of it was spent planning and directing the lobbying of others. FuelCell has hired a rogues’ gallery of lobbyists over the years. You can search the California or Connecticut registries, where they had legislative and regulatory interests, or the federal registry: Albertine Enterprises, Cassidy & Associates, Podesta Group, Foley & Lardner, White Associates, Evans & Associates, Global Strategy Group, and others. If you select “Financial Activity/Filing History” under “View:” you can see what his corporations were lobbying on: California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Energy Commission (CEC), California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), AB-327, AB-1228, AB-1466, AB-1478, AB-1624, AB-1935, AB-1953, AB-2229, AB-2649, SB-699, SB-874, the AB-32 Scoping Plan, etc). Almost exclusively energy legislation or regulation with the potential to impact FuelCell’s access to subsidies, exemptions, and other government benefits.

But Levin was also himself lobbying. FuelCell apparently decided that he was spending less than “one-third of his…compensated time in a calendar month engaging in direct communication with qualifying officials,” and that he therefore did not meet the FPPC’s threshold for qualification as an in-house lobbyist. Nonetheless, he was certainly lobbying, as can be easily verified by his submissions to various government agencies, primarily the California Public Utilities Commission, California Air Resources Board, and California Energy Commission. Now, lobbying isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I myself have lobbied (without compensation) at the city, county, and state level on affordable housing, smart growth, habitat conservation, and other progressive and environmental issues. Maybe Mike was just doing that?

Except he wasn’t. Mike was lobbying to slow California’s transition to renewables and to preserve taxpayer-funded ‘incentives’ for his company’s fossil fuel-based technology. If you think I’m distorting or exaggerating, get ready for some strong medicine. Mike had done some lobbying of California’s energy agencies at FlexEnergy. As mentioned previously, he is listed as the Responsible Officer for the lobbying firm V. John White & Associates, which had lobbied on FlexEnergy’s behalf before the CEC, CPUC, and CARB. FlexEnergy had been lobbying the CPUC to expand the Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) to include their natural gas-fired combined heat and power (CHP) turbines. In the event, CPUC President and former president of Southern California Edison Mike Peevey--  notoriously favorable to investor-owned utilities--  issued a decision in 2011 that did, indeed, expand SGIP to include their turbines and FlexEnergy was quick to applaud him for it (note that Mike is listed as the company contact on this rapturous bit of corporate fluff).

...With California’s green pastures drying up, FuelCell struck upon a different strategy. In May of 2016, ExxonMobil invested an undisclosed sum in FuelCell, and the two entered into a cooperative agreement to develop carbon capture and ‘clean coal’ technology. Throughout 2016, Trump drew on initiatives like these to tout ‘clean coal’ as a way of bringing jobs back to places like Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Days before the general election, FuelCell and ExxonMobil announced their intention to develop a carbon capture pilot project at Alabama’s mixed-use coal/gas James Barry Generating Station, with support from the US Department of Energy.

In the year and a half following Trump’s election, the company’s enthusiasm for ‘clean coal’ has only grown. Anthony Leo, FuelCell’s Vice President of Advanced Applications and Technology Development, shared the podium with Trump’s Secretary of Energy, Rick Perry, at the National Coal Council’s 2017 Annual Spring Meeting (his presentation can be seen here). In 2017, FuelCell derived 9% of its revenue from ExxonMobil (up from 3% the previous year), and 9% from USDoE, in part from its work on the Barry carbon capture project. All told, the ExxonMobil joint venture probably accounted for around 15% of FuelCell’s revenue in 2017. Presumably Levin, as Director of Government Affairs, helped to secure some of the US Department of Energy funding for the FuelCell/ExxonMobil joint venture at the Barry Facility. Perhaps he was also involved in the international negotiations surrounding FuelCell’s joint venture with Alberta Innovates to develop carbon capture technologies for the Canadian tar sands, announced the week after the 2016 general election.

In spite of these injections, FuelCell fell from $31 to $1.50 during Levin’s tenure. The ongoing slide in FuelCell’s valuation undoubtedly reflects the fact that government subsidies are drying up and genuinely carbon-neutral solutions are advancing in capacity and declining in price so rapidly that carbon capture technologies will never be commercially viable at an industrial scale, even if they are one day technically feasible. Attempts like FuelCell’s to make hydrocarbon energy more sustainable are not only consistently failing at great expense to taxpayers, but also retarding our transition to 100% renewable energy by misdirecting government and private sector investment and providing cover to corporations and their Republican servants to prolong our dependency on fossil fuels.

This is Mike Levin’s career. In lieu of a legislative record, this is all we have to go on. Robbed by Donald Trump of three glorious years of kissing up and kicking down in our nation’s capital, Mike had to run on a decade at the trough with predatory lenders, ‘clean tech’ hucksters, and ExxonMobil. From the time he left Bryan Cave in 2010, to his departure from FuelCell in September 2017, Mike has never held a job that was not intimately tied to fracked natural gas. In a world without natural gas--  in a world of 100% renewable energy--  Mike could not have worked a day at any of his jobs. Period. It takes a certain kind of audacity to run on a platform of 100% renewables on the proceeds of a career in fossil fuel ‘bridge’ technologies. A lesser man would have folded under the weight of the irony.

Well, that’s my say. I don’t intend to sway the election with these words. Levin’s done. He needed the California Democratic Party endorsement, which is why he was willing to stoop to attempting to strip the 11 hardest working Democratic activists in the 49th of their delegate status in order to cheat his way across the finish line. Failing that, he’s now just a guy who lost his investors a million bucks, which is chump change compared to the six or seven million he’s helped lose investors every year of his ‘clean energy’ career. No, the couple hundred folks who read this--  only a third of them in the 49th--  won’t change much. But it’s important to send a message to candidates who believe they can deceive their way to power.

I don’t blame his staff, supporters, donors, or endorsers. He surely didn’t come clean to any of them about his career. He didn’t take them into his office and slide his Countrywide defense, or his CPUC comments, or FuelCell’s 10-K across the table, as he did with Doug’s divorce documents to one of the Colonel’s earliest and most faithful supporters. Maybe they should have done a little more due diligence, particularly Sierra Club and other environmental organizations who endorsed a man who has dedicated his career to lobbying against their efforts to remove fossil fuels from California’s energy grid.

Some have pointed the finger at Levin’s General Consultant, Parke Skelton, who by all accounts is among the best in the business. While general consultants are not famed for their strict adherence to principle, they also aren’t paid to offer spiritual counsel. If Mike wanted help distinguishing right from wrong, he could have headed down to lovely Mission San Juan Capistrano and talked to a priest. There’s no political trick, dirty or clean, that Parke Skelton hasn’t learned in the course of a storied career, and he undoubtedly presented to Levin all those strategies and potential activities that he thought advantageous. Mike alone, however, bore the responsibility for maintaining the campaign’s adherence to principle, and failed to do so.

Levin, to me, is cut from the cloth of an old world courtier (in this regard, read de Tocqueville on the “courtier spirit” in American democracy): ambitious, calculating, unscrupulous, sycophantic. A flatterer of donors and doyens. An exploiter of asymmetries of information. Fundraising and endorsement favor those who are willing and able to adapt their self-presentation to the audience in front of them. People of goodwill are often so busy with their own lives and struggles that they must largely rely on candidates’ self-representations. It must be acknowledged, in this regard, that Levin is exceptionally well-equipped. He is diligent in his research, hard-working, ingratiating, and adept at massaging his message to make it palatable to various--  predominantly white, affluent, liberal--  audiences.

The problem, however, is that this is precisely the kind of candidate that undermines faith in our political process. Precisely the kind of candidate that is ill-equipped to provide the authenticity and genuine depth of feeling that citizens crave in this populist turn. And a Democratic Party that continues not only to tolerate, but to aggrandize these candidates is a significant contributor to the calamity in which we now find ourselves. A Democratic Party that slips a velvet glove of social and cultural liberalism over the hand of corporations and their servants. Voters are tired of these Janus-faced parties and their bland, Janus-faced candidates. Of the bundlers, and bagmen, and backroom dealers.

Dishonesty and deceit are commonly considered hallmarks of politics. Over the last year and half, however, I’ve had the opportunity to develop personal relationships with most of the elected officials, candidates, and activists in the San Diego County Democratic Party and have found the vast majority to be principled and sincere. Calculating, cagey, carefully composed--  as is appropriate to the calling--  but not unscrupulous or deceitful. Some of them will present difficulties for me and other progressives when they win. Most will have to be lobbied from time to time to ensure they vote in a manner consistent with our vision and values. But I can’t think of any but Mike Levin to whom I have deep moral objections.

How Badly Has The Corrupt Stench Of The DCCC Spread Across America? Now It's Infected California

Imagine if the DCCC did something useful instead of trying to destroy progressive candidates

Monday morning Emily Cadei updated her Sacramento Bee story about how the establishment intends to further marginalize Democratic voters in selecting party candidates for Congress. First a warning: poor Emily used the phrase "liberal groups" to describe corrupt conservative establishment operations. I don't think she understands the difference; maybe she wasn't paying attention at school that day. Take the first "liberal group" she mentions, Fight Back California. This is ex-Congresswoman Ellen Taucher's group. She was a Democrat so she must be "liberal," right? Wrong. Tauscher was once the head of the New Dems, a vice chair of the DLC, and a proud Blue Dog. Tauscher is working with her original campaign manager, strategist Katie Merrill, who loses all her races, and, as you should expect, they've been hiding who has been funneling 6-figures into their SuperPAC-- just what you would expect of a slimy character like Tauscher: dark money fueling her efforts to sucker the grassroots into contributing to a gaggle of dreadful right-of-center Republican-lite candidates just like herself. Their main goal will be to make sure no Berniecrats win any nominations, just Tauscher-like offal from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. One source told me she’s getting money from Gill Cisneros, the "ex"-Republican lottery winner the DCCC wants to sell the CA-39 nomination to. That has been impossible to confirm since Tauscher takes advantage of the dark money Supreme Court rulings to hide her sources.

My history with Tauscher goes back a ways. In 2006, she recruited another “ex”-Republican to run against the grassroots candidate in California who she and Rahm Emanuel, then chair of the DCCC, were eager too defeat, Jerry McNerney. They decided McNerney was too liberal to beat Republican Natural Resources Committee chair Richard Pombo and they dug up a Republican masquerading as a Democrat instead. McNerney slaughtered the interloper in the primary and Tauscher and Rahm put a hex on the district, calling donors and telling them not to contribute to McNerney in the general. That’s how Rahm taught the DCCC to play-- a practice continued by Steve Israel and whoever tells the hapless Ben Ray Lujan what he should do. In any case, McNerney pulverized Pombo, shocking the GOP (and Tauscher’s and Rahm’s Republican wing of the Democratic Party). It was one of the biggest races of the year and McNerney, propelled by grassroots enthusiasm, took 109,868 votes (53.3%) to Pombo’s 96,396 (46.7%). Pombo spent $4,629,983 that year, to McNerney’s $2,422,962. The NRCC came to Pombo’s defense with a then-massive $1,442,492, while Rahm grudgingly allowed the DCCC to spend a mere $295,366, less that the Sierra Club or even the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund. The media has always white-washed Tauscher and given her favorable treatment. But she's a monster-- and far from "a liberal." Luckily for Emily, you don't have to actually know anything to write for the Sacramento Bee.

Katie Merrill, advisor to the Democratic Super PAC Fight Back California, still intends to target Republican incumbents in key California congressional races-- its original purpose. “But if it looks like we’re in danger of a Democrat not advancing to a general election as we get closer to June, we might have to-- and other groups might have to--focus on supporting a particular Democratic candidate.”

Did you contribute to Tauscher's and Merrill's PAC, thinking you were helping "liberals?" Too bad. They back the worst conservative garbage, just like themselves. We warned you.

Now let's look at sleazy right-wing Democrat Kyle Layman, who I'm certain Cadei was referring to when she wrote this:

An aide at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) confirmed that the party committee hasn’t ruled out supporting or even attacking a particular Democratic candidate in California, despite the backlash that produced in Texas last month. The DCCC sparked outrage from liberals after it publicized negative research on Laura Moser, one of a handful of candidates running in the Democratic primary for a Houston-area congressional seat. Their rationale was she was not a good fit for the moderate district.

Cadei's very biased sources claim that the "problem for the party stems from the fact that many of these races have also drawn more than one well-funded Republican." Really? "Many?" Looks like Cadei was also asleep in her math class. Not "many." Perhaps 3, a problem created by the DCCC itself by recruiting and encouraging too many corrupt conservative self-funding candidates in CA-39 and (thanks to Layman's incredible incompetence; he recruited Harley and DC recruited Hans, two nearly interchangeable New Dems) CA-48. The DCCC never believed they could win CA-39... until GOP incumbent, Ed Royce, who did believe and withdrew. So the DCCC asked candidates looking to run in CA-48, Republican lottery winner Gil Cisneros and a very random, very wealthy lady doctor from CA-48, to run in CA-39 instead. So they're stuck juggling candidates instead instead of fighting Republicans, the same old position the spectacularly failed GOP is always in. What the DCCC is whining about now is that California's ridiculous top-2 jungle primary could produce outcomes where the Democratic vote is splintered and two Republicans proceed to the general.

Kyle Lameman (DCCC)

Zoe Lofgren, chair of the California Democratic congressional caucus, commenting on DCCC bullying tactics to clear the field for their preferred corrupt conservative candidates: "I think people don’t like that, I don’t like it. I would expect to at least be consulted." Note, for example, that there was no reason to push Emilio Huerta out of his race (at least not that fit that criteria) against David Valadao-- the only Republican running in CA-21. What the DCCC really wants to do is make sure they could guarantee the nomination for the fake Democrat lottery winner, Gil Cisneros, who bribes them and their members-- bigly. He's a fool and can't win but the DCCC would rather lose than not deliver for Cisneros. He only got one vote (1) is the district pre-emdorsement convention and 4% in the Indivisble poll. The DCCC is now manufacturing their own absurd polling that shows him with a chance. It's really disgraceful especially when you take into account that Cisneros lives in a multimillion dollar beach mansion nowhere near CA-39 and has a life that is nothing like the people in the district that the DCCC parachuted him into. "Party officials and lawmakers," wrote Cadei, "say they’ll continue to have conversations with other candidates they think could play a spoiler role, even though it’s virtually impossible for a candidate to get his or her name off the primary ballot once they’ve filed to run. But they and other strategists believe that the party’s best chance to influence the California races is to get involved directly in the campaign." But they won't ask the worst candidate they have, Cisneros, to drop out. Instead Kyle the Lame is threatening to destroy Andy Thorburn's reputation if he doesn't get out of the race.

Yesterday one of these dip-shits (who backs Brooklyn big spending Qualcomm heiress Sarah Jacobs) told me Applegate-- who ran the closest congressional election in America last quarter and nearly beat Darrell Issa and then drove him into announcing his retirement-- "can't win" in the CA-49 general election. These are the public polls that have come out this year:

DCCC should stand for Democratic Corrupt Conservative Crap

If the DCCC cared in the slightest about policies, they would either be staying out of the CA-39 primary or be fighting tooth and nail for Sam Jammal, the local, progressive non-self funder. Yesterday Sam issued a position paper on protecting the environment. The DCCC staffers never would, but you should read it-- and then consider contributing to the California candidates who aren't involved with the DCCC. It's called Jumpstarting A Clean Energy Revolution. He writes that he's running to be a champion for our environment and to help us reach our still untapped potential when it comes to clean energy innovation. Nice sounds, right, but in Sam's case that's no cliche, but a plan for action:

Save Our Open Spaces in the 39th District: Whether listening to the will of our voters and preserving Coyote Hills, keeping Tres Hermanos available to everyone or preserving the hills above Yorba Linda Blvd., our open spaces are a community treasure. We have a long history of open spaces throughout our community, but, as areas have been developed, we are losing our natural beauty. The reality is that once land becomes developed, we don’t get it back and the next generation misses out on hiking the trails and having the needed escape from busy urban areas. While I am not opposed to development and support addressing our housing shortage, we can do this without removing the hills and open spaces that make our community a destination. Protect Our Beaches from Drilling: In January, the Trump Administration announced its plan to expand offshore drilling on California’s coast. Our coastline sets our state apart from the rest of the world. In Congress, I will use every means available to block attempts to open drilling on our beaches and will work with policymakers in the state to slow any efforts to drill. Whether it’s through litigation or restricting funds for implementation of Trump’s plan, we must stop this extreme attempt to destroy our coast.

Fund the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): We all remember the days of smog alerts and, while we have made progress, we cannot let Republicans undermine the EPA. The EPA has helped transform the air we breathe and the water we drink for the better. Under President Trump and climate denying Scott Pruitt, there is an active attempt to dismantle this organization and take us back to days where going outside or drinking tap water can make one sick. We should not allow what is happening in places like Flint to occur anywhere in America in 2018 and beyond. Whether its undermining Obama-era regulations or cutting funds for enforcing environmental protections, the mission of the EPA is under attack. In Congress, I will fight to make sure the EPA is fully-funded and we are holding Scott Pruitt accountable.

Transition to 100% Clean Energy: We have the technology today to begin the transition to 100% clean energy. The biggest hurdle we face is politics. The Koch brothers and fossil fuel industry have overpowered Republicans and even some Democrats at the expense of our environment and economy. This is why I have pledged to reject any donations from the oil and natural gas industries. I have also pledged to do all I can to move our nation towards 100% clean energy. This means transitioning away from fossil fuels and investing in the next generation of jobs.

Lead on Clean Energy Innovation: According to the non-profit Solar Foundation, there are over 100,000 solar jobs in California. This includes thousands of solar jobs and small businesses throughout Orange, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. Solar is creating middle class jobs throughout our district. Across the country, the solar industry already employs more people than coal and natural gas. Combined with a rapidly growing energy storage sector and growth in electric vehicle adoption, our state is leading on clean energy innovation and we are just getting started.

The key is making sure we have smart policies that encourage competition, deployment and job creation. This starts by removing Trump’s anti-competitive tariffs on solar panels as well as steel and aluminum. While we must encourage American manufacturing, the use of tariffs is an outdated solution that only serves to drive up the costs of solar panels. Instead, we should look for targeted incentives to encourage solar and battery storage manufacturing and deployment to help these industries compete and promote American leadership in clean energy innovation. The fossil fuel industry enjoys millions in subsidies that, along with their political influence, creates an uneven playing field, which hurts our ability to lead. It’s time we correct this and promote the industries and technologies that represent our future.

Promote Clean Energy Adoption: As noted earlier, the technology is here to build a clean energy future. The challenge is building political will. We can do this if we focus on solutions encouraging local adoption. Here are my ideas for building a clean energy future:

• Green School Infrastructure Bank-- Earlier this year, the City of Anaheim Public Utilities announced a partnership with the Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District to build shade structures over schools’ parking spaces and picnic tables and cover them with solar panels that generate energy for the utility. The schools will receive a lease fee for use of their campuses. This is the type of program Congress should be encouraging. In Congress, I will introduce legislation to establish a green school infrastructure bank funded by matching public and private dollars to promote the deployment of solar, wind and battery storage to power our schools. This fund will support projects that provide energy to our schools, which will enable schools to sell excess power back to the grid and utilize their energy cost savings to fund our schools.
• Veterans in Clean Energy-- Modeled after the U.S. Department of Energy’s Solar Ready Vets program, I will draft legislation to create a job training partnership between our military, community colleges, apprenticeship programs and the clean energy sector to train veterans for jobs in clean energy. Today, the U.S. solar industry employs 13,000 veterans of the armed forces, a figure which represents 9.2% of all solar workers in the nation, exceeding the percentage of veteran employment in the overall economy. As clean energy adoption expands, we have an opportunity to help those who served once more serve our nation by leading the fight against climate change. It is critical we make sure local training resources are available to train our veterans for these jobs.
• Community Solar and the Post Office-- The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) maintains more than 25,300 leased spaces in its facilities inventory nationwide. These facilities encompass thousands of acres and unutilized roofs that could be the site for solar projects. I will introduce legislation to promote using USPS facilities to provide solar power in the communities they serve. Solar produced at the facility can be used to power the USPS, which will lower their operating costs, and excess power generated can be used for community solar projects that power surrounding neighborhoods.
• Electric Vehicles Adoption-- According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, cars and trucks account for nearly one-fifth of all U.S. emissions-- emitting around 24 pounds of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for every gallon of gas. These emissions are also a leading cause of respiratory illness. While electric vehicle adoption continues to grow as cars become more affordable, we do not have sufficient infrastructure to support purchase of these cars. We also have incentives that promote foreign manufacturing over domestic suppliers. In Congress, I will propose inclusion of funding for electric vehicle charging stations in any infrastructure bill. I will also work to fix the electric vehicle tax credit to apply to make sure American manufacturers are not disadvantaged and we are promoting middle class adoption of electric vehicles.

Budget and Plan to Adapt to Climate Change

Climate change is real and it comes with significant costs. We have already seen these costs in Puerto Rico, Houston and South Florida as a result of massive and unprecedented hurricanes. We have to put a price on climate change now, which means we must begin to budget for our response to natural disasters made worse by climate change, as well as prevention; otherwise, we will continue to absorb “unexpected” costs, which will be a drain on our budget. As Trump’s tax reform severely tightens our federal budget, we must double down on adaptation programs in order to avoid the high costs of catastrophe.

In Congress, I will introduce a matching grant program geared to support state and local climate adaptation efforts. For the 39th district, these funds can help with efforts to wildfire prevention efforts in our hills and canyons already underway by our local fire departments. Funds can also be used to address droughts that will likely be the new normal in the coming years. We must increase water conservation efforts, supporter waste water treatment and water recycling and invest in rebuilding our aging water infrastructure. Climate change is already causing catastrophic financial burden which will only get worse, we must begin making these investments for the future now.

Or vote for some out-of-touch "ex"- Republican, serially untruthful lottery winner who only knows one thing: tasting potato chips for Frito-Lays and bribing grotesque corrupt Democrats in return for endorsements.

A Unified San Diego Progressive Community Calls Out A Congressional Progressive Caucus That Seems To Be Merging With The New Dems These Days

Skelton, Levin, Lechner-- California bad guys

Mike Levin represents all the worst of the Democratic Party. He was a Countrywide attorney who worked on cases to kick people out of their homes. Now he's running for Congress at the urging of sleazy plutocrat Ira Lechner and Parke Skelton, California's shadiest political consultant-- and his congressional puppets. Levin, a Hillary Clinton fundraiser in 2016, never did anything to help in the battle to oust Darrell Issa. But once Lechner explained how "easy" it would be to beat Issa after Doug Applegate had so grievously wounded him, he suddenly jumped into the race. With Lechner working the Pelosi circles and Skelton slithering around and spreading his poisonous lies about Applegate, Levin managed to secure the endorsement of the recently less than stellar Congressional Progressive Caucus, which has been endorsing cruddy New Dems and Blue Dogs of late, from free-spending Vicente Gonzalez to NRA fanatic and New Dem Darren Soto. San Diego's progressive community sent the Congressional Progressive Caucus an open letter asking them to rescind their ill-advised endorsement of Levin.

We, the progressive community of San Diego County, as represented by the San Diego Progressive Democratic Club, the California Young Democrats Progressive Caucus, the Executive Board of the California Democratic Party Progressive Caucus, the California Democratic Party Veterans Caucus, California Democratic Party Arab American Caucus, Our Revolution-San Diego, and the undersigned Democratic clubs, are extremely disappointed in the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ decision to endorse Mike Levin for the 49th Congressional District. This is the latest in a string of endorsements for Mike Levin from well-respected progressive organizations, including the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America, the California League of Conservation Voters, and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus BOLD PAC, and we feel we can no longer remain silent on this trend.

The CPC has chosen to wade into a highly competitive primary in which the California Democratic Party was unable to make an endorsement, and backed a candidate who lacks both the approval of the progressive grassroots and the support of the voters. Furthermore, the candidate in question has been engaged in conduct wholly unbefitting of the CPC’s backing. Since entering the race last year, Mike Levin has engaged in a persistent whisper campaign against Doug Applegate, the frontrunner who nearly defeated Darrell Issa in 2016. In an attempt to consolidate the support of CDP delegates to earn the party endorsement, he and his staff have continually stoked the same malicious slander and false rumors Issa employed against Applegate in the last cycle- even as these rumors have been debunked time and again by those involved.

However, local Democratic clubs have seen this conduct for what it is. The Democratic Woman’s Club of San Diego County, the Palomar College Democrats, Democrats of MiraCosta College, Saddleback Young Democrats, College Democrats at CSU San Marcos, and Mission Vista High School Democratic Club, additionally citing persistent bullying and intimidation on the part of staff and surrogates throughout the endorsement process, have all rated Mike Levin unacceptable: believing his conduct to be unbecoming of a Democrat seeking federal office.

In addition, despite consolidating support from elected members of Congress and Democratically-aligned PACs, Mike Levin consistently polls well behind Doug Applegate, who came within 1,621 votes of victory last cycle. No publicly released poll has shown Levin in the lead, and he fares worse than Applegate in head-to-head matchups with any of the potential Republican opponents according to every single poll carried out for this district. Throughout the California Democratic Party Convention, speaker after speaker stressed the importance of unifying behind the frontrunner to ensure we avoid splitting the vote. The CPC’s choice to endorse Mike Levin, rather than the frontrunner, renders these words hollow.

Lastly, Doug Applegate’s bona fides are self-evident. His proud embrace of Medicare for All and other progressive priorities during the 2016 cycle-- when the 49th was still believed to be a “moderate Republican” district-- speaks louder than any call for such policies this time around. The California Nurses Association, State Senate pro tem Toni Atkins, Justice Democrats, VoteVets, and a wide swath of labor unions and Democratic clubs all across San Diego and Orange County have thrown their support behind Applegate. And his experience as a retired Marine Colonel adds weight to his call to end our wars abroad and connects with our 50,000 plus military households (see Census Bureau data) in CA-49.

In conclusion, the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ choice to endorse Mike Levin is wholly unrepresentative of the progressive community here in Southern California and appears to be entirely based on fundraising and connections. But no matter how much money he raises, he cannot buy the support of the grassroots.

We, the undersigned, ask the CPC to withdraw their support for Mike Levin.

San Diego Progressive Democratic Club
California Young Democrats Progressive Caucus
California Democratic Party Progressive Caucus – Executive Board
California Democratic Party Veterans Caucus
California Democratic Party Arab American Caucus
Our Revolution-San Diego
San Diego Democrats for Equality
Palomar College Democrats
Democrats of MiraCosta College
Saddleback Young Democrats
College Democrats at CSU San Marcos
Mission Vista High School Democrats