The Stop Bernie Movement Is Inherently Anti-American

He Can Do It, detail, by Nancy Ohanian

We should know results from Iowa soon but an AP VoteCast just released within the hour indicates that "The first voters to make their choice in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination are desperate for fundamental change to the political system. Roughly two-thirds of Iowa caucusgoers said supporting a candidate who would transform how the system in Washington works was important to their vote." And the two big issues are both Bernie issues-- healthcare and the Climate Crisis. Only a third of caucus-goers said that they would prefer restoration of the political system to the way it was before when Status Quo Joe was VP.

Yesterday, our old friend Tim Canova, a progressive Democrat who took on status quo establishment hack Debbie Wasserman Schultz, only to see her political machine rig the election against him, wrote to his supporters that "The past few days have brought news that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is stacking the deck again in its 2020 presidential nomination process, much like the DNC did in 2016. First, Tom Perez, the DNC chair, announced a tidal wave of appointments of corporate lobbyists to the party’s Convention Committee-- a practice started at the DNC by Debbie Wasserman Schultz when she was putting both thumbs on the scales against Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primaries. Several days later, the DNC announced it was relaxing its own debate rules to make room for billionaire candidate Michael Bloomberg in the next debate. This comes after months of DNC strict adherence to debate rules to undermine the candidacies of Tulsi Gabbard, Corey Booker, Kamala Harris, and just about anyone else outside the top tier of candidates – even though nearly half of Democratic voters remain undecided in many key states. Next came news reports that the DNC may amend its rules to allow superdelegates to vote on the first ballot at the Convention– clearly aimed at blocking Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard, if need be, at the Convention."

He wrote that he is "not among those surprised or suddenly outraged by the DNC’s latest actions. Nothing much changed after 2016. The party remains owned by and under the control of the same powerful corporate interests that have selected past presidential nominees and have impeded all kinds of progressive reforms under Democrat and Republican administrations alike. Our fight in South Florida is the same fight across this country, to restore democracy by first restoring integrity and justice to our elections. We need a system of 100% hand-marked paper ballots counted by hand in public, as was done in the United States for more than two centuries. With the Iowa Caucus just days away, it’s good to remember why it’s difficult for the DNC or anyone else to steal Iowa. It’s because Iowa is a caucus, and therefore by its very nature, the votes are made publicly and counted in public. The same cannot be said of primaries, all of which use electronic voting machines that are inherently vulnerable to outside hacking and insider manipulation of the software. It’s important to also remember that the DNC establishment has not changed its stripes. Since the 2016 election, lawyers for the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have even argued in open court that the DNC has the right to rig its own presidential primaries and nominations process, and that it has no duty to abide by its own rules in its own corporate charter. Anything to rig elections against the party’s own grassroot supporters."

It isn't just the Republicans and Vladimir Putin who are out to steal U.S. elections. Establishment Democrats can be just as self-interested and ruthless. That said, I do want to add that Christine Pelosi, one of the loudest progressive voices on the DNC told me that there is virtually no chance that the Stop Bernie plot to allow superdelegates to vote on the first ballot will succeed. "This," she said, "was a handful of DNC members who griped about having to go to a second ballot and wondered if they could change the call to convention and roll back our reforms. WILL NOT HAPPEN... as the most prodigious author of DNC Resolutions, I know the members very well and am aware of their concerns about decisions made without transparency and about a repeat of 2016." I trust her judgment on this.

I also trust Luke Savage's view, written out yesterday for Jacobin, about the impetus behind the Stop Bernie Movement. He wrote that "'electability' is the public rallying cry of the Stop Bernie campaign. But look a little closer, and the real issue becomes clear: the establishment fears having a democratic socialist in the White House."

Bernie Sanders’s recent rise in the polls has elicited an entirely predictable reaction from all the usual suspects who make up America’s op-ed pages. But, personally offended as the chatterati are, there are signs that the prospect of a Sanders victory in the Democratic primary contest is awakening an altogether more vicious beast that’s long been in the Vermont senator’s crosshairs.

This week, NBC, the Associated Press, and Politico all reported on the emerging anxiety within elite Democratic circles about Sanders’s ascent in the polls and nascent efforts by operatives to arrest his momentum. As journalist Andrew Perez noted, all three reports cited one Matt Bennett, cofounder of the organization Third Way, who issued boilerplate warnings about the supposed dangers of a Sanders nomination. In a pattern that is almost certain to be repeated in the coming weeks and months, Bennett’s intervention was framed as an earnest expression of concern by a moderate Democrat mindful of taking what he believes to be a major political risk

But it was actually something else, given Bennett’s job at a self-identified “think tank” that has received extensive contributions from corporate patrons, including health insurance company Humana and Koch Industries. Washington is packed with groups like Third Way and others in the same mold, the function of which is to provide a layer of institutional sediment separating corporate interests from the mouthpieces they fund to advance their interests. In the gelatinous mass of lobbyists, megadonors, corporate spokespeople, and political operatives resulting from this arrangement, it can often be difficult to tell where the private sector ends and the public sector or party apparatus begins.

Nonetheless, Bennett’s anguished intervention is a telltale sign that panic about Sanders is starting to spill outside the op-ed pages and into the boardrooms of corporate interests-- from pharmaceutical companies to Wall Street investment firms-- who have an immediate pecuniary interest in opposing his program. If Sanders’s performance in the first round of primaries and caucuses matches current expectations, big business will undoubtedly intensify its efforts to stop him-- likely aided, as in this case, by centrist Democrat operatives who sit at the noxious juncture of party politics and corporate agitprop.





A more overt harbinger came in the form of a recent MSNBC appearance by former Obama administration adviser, Wall Street financier, and Narandra Modi enthusiast Steve Rattner-- who currently works as Michael Bloomberg’s personal money manager and is reportedly worth well over $100 million. Though he took care to repeat the meta argument so fashionable among neoliberal Democrats that Sanders “can’t win,” Rattner’s primary concern seemed to be something else:

The more that Bernie Sanders rises... the more people are getting scared about a Bernie Sanders candidacy, for two reasons. First, because they think he’ll lose. And second, they think if he wins, he’ll implement the kinds of policies... which are so far away from the center of the Democratic Party. So there’s a lot of activity around trying to quote “stop Bernie,” although it isn’t called by that just yet.

Rattner is, of course, quite correct to suggest that a Sanders presidency would move to implement policies opposed by the “center of the Democratic Party”-- an innocuous-sounding phrase leveraged to obscure the vast web of Wall Street firms, pharmaceutical giants, insurance companies, and other corporate interests that have long found a home within the Democratic establishment, dictated the limits of the party’s policy agenda, and stuffed the upper echelons of its donor and consultant class.

More than any expressed concerns about his viability in a general election, opposition to the Sanders program and what it would mean for corporate balance sheets is what Stop Bernie is really about.

The anti-Bernie smear ads on TV in Iowa and New Hampshire could easily be seen as... well, almost pro-Bernie. David Doel showed them on his show and explained why they're so patently ridiculous and utterly ineffective. Spoiler: "Bernie Sanders wants to give everyone health insurance. He's more radical than Obama was!"

What About California? Can Democrats Win Congressional Seats There?

Laura Oatman would be a great replacement for Dana Rohrabacher

Ted Lieu, the hero of today's Jeff Sessions grilling at the House Judiciary Committee hearing, is also the West Coast regional vice-chair of the DCCC. He's the only one who's doing a good job. This evening he told us that "One of the key takeaways from recent elections in Virginia, New Jersey and Oklahoma is that Democrats should not shy away from expanding the map wherever possible. We are going to pick up at least 15 seats in the Virginia legislature, many in districts no one thought we could win. Next year is shaping up to be a wave election year and if we can harness the grassroots energy and recruit strong candidates we can compete anywhere. This includes traditional Republican strongholds like CA-22 or CA-50. The House is absolutely in play in 2018. Things are moving in our direction, but we can’t take anything for granted, and we must all work to earn the trust of voters and fight for every last vote."

Monday morning, the L.A. Times’ California politics editors ranked the hottest congressional races in the state by the intensity of the fight ahead for the congressmen (and one congresswoman). I'd love to see their methodology, because "the intensity of the fight ahead" sounds suspect. And their list generally sounds like the more traditional ranking from most endangered (Darrell Issa and Steve Knight) to vaguely endangered (Devin Nunes plus clock-punching crap-Democrats, Salud Carbajal, Ami Bera, Scott Peters and Raul Ruiz). Here's the full list, from more endangered to not very endangered, along with the 2015 and 2017 PVIs:

• Darrell Issa- R+4 to R+1

49th District-- Southern Orange County and Northern San Diego

Our take: Issa won his last election by 1,621 votes in a race that became unexpectedly tight. This time around, he’ll be prepared for a tough contest. His district is changing politically and in its demographic makeup.

Issa’s near-loss to Democrat Col. Doug Applegate in the closest congressional election in the nation last year remains fresh in the political world’s mind and the dynamics are not improving for the nine-term incumbent. Issa is desperate to find another district to run in and just leave CA-49 to Applegate.

• Steve Knight- R+3 to Even

25th District-- Northern Los Angeles County and Simi Valley

Our take: With Los Angeles County becoming more and more Democratic, Knight has become the last congressional Republican to represent it, and he has a number of well-qualified candidates challenging him.

Katie Hill is the viable candidate who can finally beat Knight. "People are tired of politics as usual," she reminded us. "Our system is broken and it is time for a wave of new leadership that will prioritize people over playing politics. Steve Knight has voted to strip health care away from tens of thousands of people in the district, he voted to raise taxes on middle and working class families, and we will vote him out of office in November. I’m running because my friends, family, neighbors, and all of the residents of the 25th district deserve someone that will put their interests ahead of getting re-elected."

• Jeff Denham- R+1 to Even

10th District-- Central Valley including Modesto

Our take: According to the numbers political prognosticators typically rely on, Denham should have lost last year. Hillary Clinton and Denham each won the district by 3 percentage points. Denham has had the secret sauce to keep his constituents happy even as Democrats have salivated to flip a district seemingly so perfect for their party. An ingredient to his success: His attention to water issues critical in the Central Valley. A factor that has Democrats feeling more confident: His vote in favor of the American Health Care Act as a replacement for Obamacare.

Dotty Nygard is, far and away, the best candidate the Democrats have ever run in this district. As long as the DCCC doesn't shove a self-funding multimillionaire carpetbagger down the throats of the local activists, Denham will finally be toast.

• Dana Rohrabacher- R+7 to R+4

48th District-- Coastal Orange County Our take: The congressman’s affinity for Russia and his questionable relationships with figures involved in the various Russia investigations have become prominent news, raising his profile in his district. While he has always had huge winning percentages, he has never faced a serious challenger. And although he can see this fight coming, Rohrabacher’s fundraising has been weak. The vast number of qualified challengers coming forward suggests there’s plenty of energy among people hoping to oust him.

Rohrabacher is more vulnerable than the Times has figured out yet. The Democrats are fractured at this point, with many candidates but only one inspiring one. There's one imbecile, Omar Siddiqui, running by calling himself a "Reagan Democrat," presumably hoping to split some of the Republican votes with Rohrabacher and the 2 other Republicans in the open primary. Hans Keirstead is the DCCC candidate but this super on-paper candidate hides a real life dud. He and another self-funder, Harley Rouder, have both been endorsed by the New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. The DCCC invited the two of them to their candidates' week in DC and left out the progressive woman in the race, Laura Oatman. Laura was undaunted and used the time they were away in DC to campaign on a grassroots level, "Dana Rohrabacher," she told me this morning, "has long been known as 'Putin’s favorite Congressman', so it’s really no surprise that our pro-Russia Congressman is the first member of Congress to be named in Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in last year's election. The people who live here in California’s 48th district deserve a true representative who actually represents them and their concerns, not Putin and his concerns.

• David Valadao- D+2 to D+5

21st District-- Central Valley including part of Bakersfield

Our take: Though the voter registration in his district is lopsided against Republicans-- Democrats have an 18-percentage-point advantage-- he outran Trump by 16 percentage points and even Clinton by 2 percentage points. So far, he has attracted just one opponent-- Emilio Huerta, who is looking for a rematch despite losing by double digits in 2016. Still, Democrats will try their best to get over the line in a place that, by the numbers, seems winnable for a Latino candidate.

Only the DCCC could loss a district this blue-- and could well lose it again. They don't like Emilio Chavez but they've been unable to recruit another candidate. So they should embrace Emilio, right? And make him a better candidate and prop him up, right? It's a deep, deep blue district. Instead, they just shake their virtual head hopelessly. They suck so bad.

• Ed Royce- R+5 to Even

39th District-- Northeast Orange County, eastern Los Angeles County and part of San Bernardino County

Our take: Royce is chairman of the powerful Foreign Affairs Committee, has served 13 terms in Congress, and has millions in the bank-- but other numbers suggest he’s vulnerable. Clinton won by 9 percentage points in his district, which has a growing population of Latino and Asian voters, making it a majority-minority district. He won by 10 points in 2016, but that was against a weak opponent. Now, there is a long list of qualified and ambitious challengers vying to run against him in November.

This is the Orange County district that Hillary did best in against Trump, but the DCCC is screwing the district up by asking self-funding multimillionaires who live in CA-48 to run in CA-39 instead, including the most singularly incompetent DCCC recruit on the cycle, Gil Cisneros, the "ex"-Republican lottery winner. And the Democrats already have a pretty ideal candidate, Sam Jammal. If they lose this district someone should put Ben Ray Lujan's head on a pike, figuratively speaking (I guess), and parade it from Hacienda Heights across to Diamond Bar and down through Brea and Yorba Linda to Fullerton.

• Mimi Walters- R+7 to R+3

45th District-- Inland Orange County including Irvine

Our take: Walters has kept a fairly low profile and has enjoyed the support of her district by large, albeit shrinking, margins in previous elections. She won with 65% of the vote in 2014 and 58% last year. She has been dogged by energized activists who want her to appear at town hall meetings, but her fundraising is strong, suggesting she is taking the long list of Democratic challengers eager to unseat her seriously. Of the lawmakers Democrats in Orange County are attempting to oust, Walters is the newest, and in such a large media market it is harder for her to become well-known by her constituents.

It might help if she lived there, instead of in Dana Rohrabacher's district. There are two exceptional progressive candidates in this race, Kia Hamadanchy and Katie Porter. Katie: "I am furious that Mimi Walters supports Donald Trump’s disastrous tax plan instead of standing up for middle-class families here in Orange County. These devastating tax changes could tilt our entire system even more towards the top 1% at a time when multinational corporations are parking record profits offshore, a handful of top-tier billionaires are getting richer and richer, and when the middle class is getting squeezed by cuts to public education, public health, and other vital social services." And Kia: "Mimi Walters continues her tone-deaf approach in 'representing' the people of California’s 45th District. You can’t even find her back in the district. Given that she doesn’t live here it might just be too inconvenient for her. Instead she is either meeting with lobbyists or in DC rubber stamping whatever Trump wants. Now, she’s championing a disastrous tax plan that would raise taxes on the majority of residents here in the 45th. Even as her conservative colleagues in other vulnerable suburban districts back away from this plan, she refuses to do so. I wish I could say I’m surprised that Mimi is putting the interests of her billionaire donors ahead of the people of our district, but it is just more of the same from Mimi." Either one of these candidates should be able to beat Walters next November and either would make a really good member of Congress.

• Duncan Hunter- R+14 to R+11

50th District-- Inland San Diego County

Our take: Hunter’s solidly Republican district is changing, but not as fast as Issa’s neighboring district. He’s facing potential legal and ethics troubles that will be exploited by his opponents. His seat got a second look as a potential pickup only after it was revealed that the FBI was investigating allegations that he had misused campaign funds. Democrats will give it some attention, and believe the challengers are strong. Odds are this seat stays Republican, but Democrats are on offense in the state and want to be prepared for the unexpected.

He'll be ousted if he's indicted; otherwise not. Issa would like him to resigns he could move to the much safer territory, knowing full well he can't win in his own district. Hunter is a crook but unless he's indicted in the next couple ion months, the Feds will put a prosecution on hold until after the election.

• Devin Nunes- R+10 to R+8

22nd District-- Fresno and Tulare counties

Our take: Despite a bizarre, high-profile fracas in which Nunes gained national fame at the start of the House’s Russian election meddling investigation, this district is very Republican and it’s unlikely most of his constituents will factor in Russia-related notoriety when they go to the polls. Plus, Nunes outran Trump in his district by 16 percentage points in 2016. It would be a very, very good night for Democrats if they were to win here in November 2018.

I'm more optimistic; if the Democrats nominate an inspiring relatable candidate. Andrew Janz is the DCCC fave but he's a hapless very conservative Blue Dog who didn't know what the terms "single payer" or "Medicare-For-All" when I spoke with him back when he first announced. He's the worst candidate I spoke to this cycle anywhere and told me the two issues that motivated him to run were protecting the Second Amendment and the death penalty (as in making sure it's used more frequently). He was more aggressively right-wing than many Republicans I speak to and when I asked him if there's a member of Congress he would model himself on, he immediately answered Jim Costa, the very worst Democrat in the California delegation, the one who votes most frequently with Ryan and Trump. Ricardo Franco looks like a far better choice. This is what he told us this morning:

To local voters here in the Central Valley, Devin Nunes is in more trouble than many would think after his last election results. A strategy that’s all about Russia misses the mark. As a Democratic challenger to Devin Nunes, I can tell you that the harshest criticism of our congressman comes from his fellow Republicans. The discussion of Russia from folks outside the Central Valley focuses too much on his actions rather than his character.  For local voters, it is the latter that is currently under scrutiny.

Those of us that choose to live here have a lot of pride in the Central Valley. From feeding the world, to supporting Fresno State athletics, to being the guardians of our greatest national parks, we are immensely proud of who we are. However, we still have scars we are trying to overcome: deep poverty and stark income inequality. Anytime issues come up in the national media that put us in a negative light, Valley citizens don't take kindly to it.

And that's what irks people about Nunes. It's not that he may be right or wrong, but that he is an anchor to the image of the Central Valley that is dragging us back into the mud of despair. He's not seen as someone who is seasoned politician fighting for something he believes in, but rather as a tool of the party whose only spine is created from the mounds of money poured into him from wealthy donors outside the Central Valley.

The L.A. Times also misses a very important point: the majority of voters are not Republican, but rather "No Party Preference." So how does he keep winning re-election? Despite poor job reviews reflected in low approval ratings of Congress, constituents let him keep his job.

My campaign understands the dynamics of the Central Valley better than any other competitor and, most importantly, understands the issues facing voters here as well. From the deepest red Republicans to the most progressive liberals, there are still things that unite all of us here as proud Valley citizens. Getting that very message out effectively is what is key to winning this election. That's why my campaign leadership team is made up of Valley locals. That's why my campaign has extremely talented volunteers spanning a diversity of race, gender, age, and background that are an army for us to get that message out.

And that's why we'll win this election.  No campaign has more local pride. That's something money can't buy-- and Central Valley citizens know that.

The other 4 candidates the L.A. Times mentions are pretty awful Democrats, but none of them is worth talking about in this context since, unfortunately, all 4 are going to win reelection without much struggle.

I asked Christine Pelosi, a dedicated party activist, a progressive and the daughter of you-know-who, for her take on the L.A. Times story. They should have hired her to write it. She told me she thought they should add these essentials:

1. Volunteer Shifts

Who has a grassroots army willing to walk in the rain, talk to strangers, and open their homes to the campaign? In a climate where CA governor, senate and ballot measures will occupy billions of dollars in TV ads, who has the people power to connect with voters in the precincts? How many phone bank hours and precinct walking hours and house meetings did the campaign log last month? Those metrics tell me where I would send people and dollars.

2. Grassroots Coalitions 

Who built coalitions with the grassroots already mobilizing for universal healthcare, raising wages, immigration, women's rights, civil rights, and environmental justice? More than looking at who's registering as a Democrat look at who is mobilizing with the Democratic candidates. With new groups like sister district and our revolution working with longtime allies like labor unions and Planned Parenthood, Democrats with a more issue-focused call to service campaign will inspire voters to hire us not just fire Republicans. Hot issues like saving the ACA and advancing Medicare for All, free college not massive student loan debt, jobs and careers not gigs without a safety net, criminal justice reform, and fighting climate change not drilling and fracking are top of mind for young people and bring enthusiastic volunteers. Together we saved the ACA with Democratic volunteers and new coalitions of healthcare voters including veterans, people with disabilities, and "little lobbyists" children with complex medical needs taking the lead in saving Medicaid. Candidates who are excited-- not threatened-- by these coalitions will win.

3. War and Peace

Congress has the power to declare war and Trump is threatening military action. Where Congressional candidates stand on sending their constituents to combat and how they receive veterans as voices for peace will loom large. Positions on the use of force and privatizing the VA matter a great deal to military families who are the margin of victory in many swing districts-- and will matter to all voters if Trump leads us into another war. That's probably the biggest wild card.

Should The 2018 Midterms Just Be A Referendum On Trump? Or Do Democrats Have To Be Offering A Viable Alternative?

You thought the SNL sketch was funny? David Wade a former John Kerry chief of staff, now makes his living as a lobbyist (GreenLight Strategies) and Democratic strategist; über--establishment. He says Democrats can win back Congress next year "by making Donald Trump the issue in [suburban] districts. You can't allow any Republican incumbent to separate themselves from Trump's brand, period. Whether it's his failed promises, or his inability to do anything for the suburbs on basic quality of life issues from middle class taxes to health care costs to wages, you need to draw a straight line from the Republican incumbent to Trump."

Although Wade acknowledges that "Having acceptable candidates who fit their districts is important," he insists that Democrats "not pretend this is going to be anything but a referendum on Donald Trump. Ralph Northam didn’t just win out of abundance of charisma or because he had a vision. He won because Donald Trump was a millstone around Gillespie’s neck and Northam himself was acceptable to voters. We can’t be afraid to do that everywhere because with a president whose approval ratings are at a historic low, that’s how you win."

I asked Nancy Pelosi's daughter Christine, a savvy political operative in her own right, if she sees 2018 shaping up the same way. "I don't believe that," she told me. "I do believe this: Democrats win by showing voters how Trump's tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires, and big corporations slash Medicare, Medicaid, and education and cause harm in the daily lives of the American people." I asked a couple dozen Democrats the same question-- incumbents, candidates, campaign staffers, former members of Congress, etc. Each one said they disagree with Wade. One top Senate staffer, who asked for anonymity, told me that Schumer's pick of Kyrsten Sinema in Arizona shows that top Dems "still don't get it" and they think the wave will sweep even the worst Republican-lite candidates into office. "That worked out badly for us last year... [but] these know-it-alls never can't seem to admit their mistakes and therefore can't learn from them."

David Keith, currently residing in Racine and running Randy Bryce's camapign, is one of the most in-demand managers in the country. "What's fundamentally wrong about this line of thinking," he offered, "is that it takes voters for granted. It assumes voters don't have a soul, conscience, or values. This line of Beltway thinking goes part and parcel with the strategic flaws of 2016. We owe it to our better history to make something of this moment rather than use it as a moment to default. Voters are now-- more than ever-- very adept at calling bullshit. They may be calling Trump an irresponsible maniac now, but real soon they'll be looking for a remedy. Doing nothing is no remedy. It's a cause for an eye roll."

Tim Canova is working hard to unseat one of the evil forces propelling the Democratic Party in all the wrong directions, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. He has seen very clearly what happens when the party gives up its role as the vehicle for the legitimate aspirations of working men and women. "The surge of Democratic victories in last week’s elections shows what’s possible when candidates and voters organize around the issues and rally around a progressive agenda. We should be skeptical of claims by the Democratic establishment that the party can win back Congress by simply making 2018 a referendum on Donald Trump. They've been wrong so often in the past that we should question their assumptions, as well as their motives. The 'Trump referendum' strategy would serve the interests of the party’s corporate backers since, win or lose, it will have ensured a negative campaign that ignores progressive policy alternatives. The way back for Democrats is to embrace the party’s progressive roots to offer a compelling vision for our country. That’s what Philip Murphy did in winning the governor’s race in New Jersey, he campaigned for a state-run bank as part of his call to reject outdated economic ways and embrace innovative approaches. Yes, it’s important to oppose Trump and his regressive agenda. But at the same time, Democrats must offer voters real progressive alternatives."

Yesterday, Derrick Crowe, the top candidate for the open TX-21 seat, made a similar point. The primary pits him against a conservative "ex"-Republican multimillionaire, Joseph Kopser. On Saturday Bexar County (San Antonio) Democrats held their primary straw poll and Crowe beat Kopser better than 2 to 1. Saturday he told us that he had spent all day Friday in the heart of Texas Hill Country, "talking to voters about progressive policies like a $15/hour minimum wage and Medicare for All. Democrats and progressives respond to that message everywhere we go. Stating the obvious: this is a midterm, and midterms are about exciting, organizing, and turning out the base. Centrism crashes and burns this year. Progressive messages will be the winners."

Kara Eastman is running against the ultimate DCCC candidate-- a failed Republican politician, EXTREMELY conservative, who switched party registration and pretends to be a Blue Dog Democrat now, Brad Ashford, the perennial flip-flopper. He managed to fake his way into the Omaha congressional seat but was the worst Democrat in Congress, always voting with his Republicans brothers on every important issue. He lost his seat last year because Democrats refused to vote for him again. He just got fired from the job he took after that and decided he might as well run again. Kara is running on a progressive-populist platform. "People in districts like the Nebraska's 2nd," she told us, "are not interested in hearing what candidates are running against. They want and deserve to hear who candidates are, what they have accomplished and what they will do for their constituents."

Sam Jammal is taking on Ed Royce-- if he can get by the 4 self-funding multimillionaires running as Democrats in his Orange County district. "Trump," he told us, "is on the top of everyone's mind-- he is dangerous and impossible to ignore. But what he does is create an opening for voters to look at their options. We still need to give voters a reason to hire us. The voter's decision won't solely be about firing the incumbent-- most of them are too entrenched to just be fired because of Trump. We need to be careful to look at the election as a hiring-- not firing decision. Trump creates the environment for change, but won't drive it without quality candidates and a message that resonates." The DCCC prefers someone else-- Gil Cisneros, an ex-potato chip taster for Frito-Lay's who won $266 million in the lottery and is spreading it around among Democrats who agree to endorse him. Cisneros lives in a $10 million beachfront mansion in another district-- CA-39 has no beachfronts-- and has shown himself to know absolutely nothing about any of the issues people care about. And, of course, he's another "ex"-Republican the DCCC always gravitates to.

Patrick Hope is a Virginia state legislator and he is more in agreement with Wade than anyone else I spoke with. He reminded us that "Democrats across the country should take notice of what happened last week in Virginia. Voters are angry about the hateful and divisive policies coming out of the Trump White House and they are directing that anger squarely at Republicans. Many Virginia Republicans tried unsuccessfully to separate themselves from the failed promises of Trump or the divisiveness of Washington but they couldn’t escape the comparison. They could run but they couldn’t hide from the fact that Trump is the Republican Party. This will be even more pronounced in the 2018 mid-terms and is the secret formula to a Democratic victory and their retaking of the House of Representatives."

I also spoke with Andy Millard, a North Carolina Democrat who ran for Congress in a red district and didn't win. He watched that same Saturday Night Live skit last night and mentioned that all the Democrats in it "looked tired and old. The Nancy Pelosi character slowly intones, 'We won because you love our fresh, new ideas delivered by fresh, new faces.' The irony was what made it funny. I agree that candidates should pin Trump to incumbent Republicans, but I think we’ll need a lot more to win back the House. We have to demonstrate that we can lead in a new direction. Trump’s win should have shown us that Americans want something different, so much so that some are willing to roll the dice to get it. We’re not going to win by getting the band back together. I’ve met some great candidates as I plan the conference, and each one has to create their own positive brand and message independent of the national figureheads. I think that’s what it’s going to take."

Brad Miller was the last great Member of Congress from North Carolina. The Republican legislature used partisan gerrymandering to erase his district. This morning he told us that "Most of establishment-wing Democrats argue that all we have to do in 2018 is ride the wave of revulsion for Trump because that’s all they want to do. They think the pre-Trump status quo was perfectly satisfactory, and Trump voters already regret their vote. The permanent Democratic establishment thinks they'll just restore that status quo if a suitable Democratic is elected president in 2020 and everything will be fine. They graciously will not demand a formal apology from the American people for how ungrateful and disrespectful we have been to them." And Brad was just getting started:

Democrats may in fact not have to do much more than not have "R” by their name to do well in 2018. But if Democrats are just the party of the old status quo, then things might not go well for Democrats after that. And the battle lines of American politics will remain the same: two tribal parties that are both okay with corrupt oligarchy but fight the latest culture war in every election.

I don’t want to minimize the real harm that Trump and his appointees are doing, but it would be much worse if he were even minimally competent. We might face a version of Trump who is not a petulant, clownish dumbass, and that is truly scary. Pence could be a plausible celebrity spokesman for a Trumpist Republican Party and government as early as 2020, and maybe even before. A Democratic Party that promises just to restore the status quo of the last generation might struggle against that.

This whole debate reminds me of the discussions I read on North Carolina basketball fan websites. Should we go with our traditional lineup of big men in the paint, or with a smaller but quicker lineup? In basketball, I want to go with what wins, and I’ll leave that decision to our coach. I see no intrinsic virtue of a lineup with two bigs, two wings and a point if something else works better. Just win. Don’t cheat, play within the rules, but win.

I think Democrats can win in 2018 and beyond as the party of economic reform, but that’s not why I’m for those policies. I support structural economic reform because that’s what I think the country needs. Badly. Our economy needs to be dewormed. I want someone to attack the injustice and dysfunction in our economy, and the corrupting concentration of economic and political power, and Democrats still seem like the best bet. Yes, I think Democrats will be rewarded by voters if they do, but I want that for it’s own sake.

Our candidates might not have to wring their hands over how to seem “authentic” if they actually believed what they said and acted on their beliefs in office. Why do voters think so many candidates are empty careerists? Because so many are.

I want to close this out with comments from two of the savviest political leaders I know, California activist Norman Solomon and former-- and future-- Florida Congressman Alan Grayson. Alan was as succinct as Norman was thorough. He told us that "Donald Trump’s old reality show was called The Apprentice.  His 2018 reality show will be called The Biggest Loser." Norman went on for some length-- but important stuff:

Overall, this kind of approach-- prioritizing a quest for supposedly “persuadable” suburban GOP voters-- has proven to be a failure. That’s a big reason why Trump got elected. We should not forget that Chuck Schumer was expressing the conventional Democratic Party wisdom when he said in July 2016: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia. And you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

As the Autopsy points out, “Schumer’s boast demands scrutiny not just because of the disastrous results in three of those four states, but because of the people it overlooked. It illustrated a fundamental assumption underpinning Democratic voter outreach: that to defeat Trump, the party could depend on white suburban voters and give short shrift to working-class voters-- including the voters of color who form 46 percent of the party’s base. This badly flawed assumption went much deeper than an offhand remark by a leading Democrat. The Democratic spending in the 2016 election focused enormous resources on white voters to the relative neglect of people of color.”

That neglect had devastating effects. The drop-off in votes for the Democratic ticket among people of color included a 5 percent plunge among Latino voters for Clinton compared to Obama’s total four years earlier-- despite the fact that Clinton was running against a virulently anti-Latino candidate who labeled Mexican immigrants “rapists” and all the rest of it.

Yet the repetition compulsion of largely targeting white “moderate” suburban voters still festers at the top of the Democratic Party. It fits in neatly with the persistent illusion-- fondly and disastrously embraced in 2016-- that Trump will defeat himself and Democrats need to mainly help him do that by continually hammering on how horrendous he is.

But that’s not how you get a very big turnout from the Democratic Party base-- and a very big turnout from that base is absolutely crucial if we’re going to take back Congress and then the White House. As Jim Hightower put it a few days ago, "Voter turnout is based on voter turn-on-- so, rather than stale robo-calls, let's give to working class people of different backgrounds a slate of progressive candidates and proposals that make them want to elect Democrats."

A lot more than just tactical differences is going on here. There’s a vision for the future behind many of the claims that the next election must be almost all about Trump and that white suburban voters hold the key. That vision, consciously or not, sees a de facto division of roles: wherein the Democratic Party’s base delivers a requisite number of votes while the party largely focuses its actual policies and outreach spending priorities on “moderate” white voters. And that vision looks forward to the corporate donor class retaining its hold on the party, while the base gets minimal attention with election outreach and minimal help from Democrats in power.

As the Autopsy concludes: “Operating from a place of defensiveness and denial will not turn the party around. Neither will status quo methodology... What must now take place includes honest self-reflection and confronting a hard truth: that many view the party as often in service to a rapacious oligarchy and increasingly out of touch with people in its own base… The party must learn how to speak a populist tongue that is in sync with real advocacy for a clear agenda, putting public needs above corporate profits. An imperative is to find common political denominators that are inspirational and practical, cutting across demographic lines while building foundations for social advancement and a humane future.”