DCCC Falls Flat On Its Face Again-- When Will They Ever Wake Up And Smell Their Own... Waste?

Progressive champion Kara Eastman defeats the DCCC, the Blue Dogs and the New Dems-- our hero

All across the country there are counties and districts where Bernie beat Hillary in 2016 (and many where Bernie got more votes on primary day than Trump as well). But the Democratic Establishment-- including the DCCC, their overpaid consultants and contractors and the lazy, feebleminded "reporters" who reprint their press releases-- repeat, ad nauseum, that only right-wing candidates (they call them "moderates, which they aren't) can win the general elections. The DCCC then tries pushing progressives out of primaries in favor of conservatives who Bernie voters certainly don't want to vote for-- Bernie voters who were more numerous than the status quo Hillary voters in 2016.

Let's look at a few counties. In Wisconsin, Bernie beat Hillary statewide 567,936 (56.6%) to 432,767 (43.1%). That say day Trump got 386,370 votes and Cruz got 531,129 votes Bernie beat both of them. Let's look at the counties that make up most of Paul Ryan's district in southeast Wisconsin, a district Trump won 52.6% to 42.3%.

• Kenosha Co- Bernie- 14,612; Hillary- 10,871; Trump- 11,139
• Racine Co- Bernie- 14,651; Hillary- 14,086; Trump- 11,756
• Rock Co- Bernie- 17,337; Hillary- 11,248; Trump- 10,264
• Walworth Co- Bernie- 8,405; Hillary- 5,174; Trump- 7,534

Nebraska's 2nd district, primarily Omaha and the rest of Douglas County went for Bernie 52.6% to 47.4% but the DCCC did all it could to undermine the Bernie-oriented candidate, Kara Eastman, in favor of the very conservative Blue Dog Brad Ashford. Despite the DCCC's poisonous efforts that made it possible for Ashford to spend $397,194 (as of April 25) to Eastman's $284,880, last night, this happened:

Pelosi, losing it, threatened to withhold DCCC general election support from progressives who beat DCCC crap candidates in primaries, so please consider contributing to Kara here. This is important. She should be able to beat freshman conservative Republican Don Bacon as long as she can get her popular progressive message out, with or without help from Pelosi and her cabal.

Let's look at CO-06 where Hoyer and Lujan are doing everything they can to force progressive Democrat Levi Tillemann out of the race to make way for corrupt conservative Jason Crow. But, again, Bernie won the district , all 3 counties:

• Adams Co- Bernie- 61.0%- 38.3%
• Arapahoe Co- Bernie- 53.0%- 46.3%
• Douglas Co- Bernie- 49.7%- 49.6%

On Monday Vanity Fair published a somewhat confused essay by Ken Stern, "There Will Be A Backlash": Will The Bernie Democrats Risk The House?. Maybe it was just bad editing... or maybe Stern is just confused. "The hard truth," he wrote, "is that Democrats could easily push too far, too fast, and lose. But while the midterms may be a poor battleground for the left-wing revolution, the general election will give the party’s insurgents all the advantages." I don't know if he has a point of view or if he's just a bad reporter, but he's all over the map. Is he celebrating Leslie Cockburn's recent win in Virginia? He doesn't seem to have been aware that the candidate he seems to have liked, Blue Dog RD Huffstetler, withdrew from the race when he realized he wasn't connecting with Democratic voters. Why should he though-- with all his Republican ideas? He denigrated the local county-wide caucuses that picked the delegates for the convention, calling them a "rump group" and claimed her progressive platform "may be too liberal," even though her ideas are very mainstream, just not the reactionary ideas which idiots in the media somehow mistake for popular. He then seems to imply Virginia isn't a coastal state.

"The realities of 2018," he wrote, "however, are forcing both parties to make some hard and cynical calculations. Democracy is always messy, and if 2016 proved anything, it can be unpredictable and infuriating as well. Which is why local decisions, like Virginia’s 5th, are enough to make party elders in Washington lose their minds. Working under the radar, national Democratic groups can certainly pull some levers that help particular candidates, and may even flip some purple districts. Ellen Zeng, the Democratic political director at With Honor, a super PAC that supports veterans running for office, candidly described to me how party committees will direct money, facilitate valuable endorsements, share research with chosen candidates, and train up their staffs in order to tip the scales. But there is only so much they can do to guide’s democracy’s hand. When party leaders have tried to be more publicly forceful about imposing their will, it has almost always backfired."

Progressive candidates I know all hope the DCCC "trains up their staffs," a definite kiss of death for the conservatives thet stand behind... "Democrat Party leaders may think they are entitled to be kingmakers, but their efforts come across as more Boss Hogg than Boss Tweed," he wrote, trying to be funny. Fact of the matter is the DCCC comes across as Boss Hogg and Boss Tweed. But then he suddenly, inexplicably turns in the right direction.

It all leads some Democratic strategists, like Peter O’Keefe, a prominent Democratic consultant and the national treasurer of the Democratic Governors Association, to urge caution: “If the national party comes in too heavy, there will be a backlash,” he told me. “It works best when the local grassroots take the political decision-making seriously.” For O’Keefe, that means finding and promoting candidates “built for the general,” whose moderate politics can appeal across party lines. But it is plain that the local grassroots think very poorly of the national strategies and the national strategists. When I asked Corbin Trent, the communications director for the Justice Democrats and the former national campaign coordinator for Bernie Sanders, about the desire to elect the centrists who are “general-election”-ready, he practically scoffed himself off the phone with his contempt for the people and strategies that have lost the White House, the Senate, the House, and in total more than a 1,000 elected offices over the past decade. It is smart politics, in his view, to do exactly the opposite of what the D.C.-consultants might advocate.

Politics matter to Trent, though the divide between him and the party establishment is far bigger than just the right strategy for taking back the House. For Trent, the choices are about more than beating the Republicans; it is about what the Democratic Party should be: a centrist party controlled by political apparatchiks who are only marginally better than the establishment of the right, or a truly progressive party in the Sanders/European Socialist mold. (Hint: it’s the latter.) Groups like Justice Democrats are angered by Trump, of course, but they are inspired by his success: that someone so antithetical to the traditional party structure can beat the Establishment with a mix of bluff, big promises, and the righteous anger of the outsider.

This is all a combustible mix because people like Trent are trying to rebuild the Democrat Party in their own image, and people like Hoyer are just trying to win the damn midterms. In truth, the midterms are probably the worst time for an intramural square off. Midterms are typically a referendum on the party in power, with the electorate seeking a correction, but not an overcorrection in the other direction. It is entirely possible, for instance, that the “universalist” wing of the party will capture the Democratic Party-- even if polls today suggest otherwise-- but 2018 is not the right time and place for that battle.

Doug Jones and Conor Lamb succeeded not because of the bold ideas they offered—I defy you to remember any of their specific ideas—but because they were calming antidotes to the personal awfulness of Trump and Roy Moore. Especially in this odd year, in which voters are both angry at the president and also increasingly believe the country is moving in the right direction, the reality is that it would at least be a tactical mistake for the Democrats in swing districts to offer their own overreach. It will make great theater, of course, especially enjoyable for the Republicans. But it will also likely mean two more years of uniform Republican control.

It is certainly conceivable that the shared goal of making Trump’s life as miserable as possible will engender some Democratic unity through the midterms, but it is equally likely that the universalist and the centrist wings of the parties will be in full-scale conflict before too long. The midterms may be a poor battleground for the left-wing revolution, but the general election is not. The nature of the election will change, at least in part, from a referendum on the past to a fight over a vision for the future. There, the insurgents have all the same advantages that Trump exploited: energy, anger, the endless fascination of the media with the brashest among us, and the appeal of a broad-brush plan for fixing all that ails America.

That plan may or may not survive scrutiny, but Americans do not appear in the mood for much careful scrutiny these days anyway. Moderate Democrats will have advantages, of course, namely money and infrastructure, but their reputation for fecklessness and a message that vacillates between muddled and missing puts them at some significant disadvantage. During our interview, O’Keefe asked me, perhaps a bit plaintively, “How do you blend energy with reality?” If there is a lesson of the last several years, however, it is that those two do not mix well at all. That is to the long-term advantage of those who would push our politics to the edge.

In last night's special election for legislative seat in a Trump districts, Democrat Helen Tai won. More great news in Pennsylvania state House races saw 3 socialists, Sara Innamorato (with 65%) and Summer Lee (with 68%), in Pittsburgh and Elizabeth Feidler in South Philly win as dod progressive Malcolm Kenyatta. Innamorato and Lee beat right-wing Democratic cousins Dom and Paul Costa, both incumbents. (No Republicans have filed for the seats but Dom was trying-- but failed-- to get the GOP nomination as a write-in candidate-- a real turd, like too many conservative Democrats in every part of the country.

There was huge turnout for progressive champion Jess King in PA-11, despite her Democratic opponent having withdrawn from the race. More great news: PA-01 (Bucks County) came through for Henry Wallace's progressive grandson Scott Wallace. He beat Rachel Reddick 56.2% to 35.6%. And in PA-07, Susan Wild, also a progressive edged right-wing lunatic John Morganelli (masquerading as a Democrat):

• Susan Wild- 14,649 (33.2%)
• John Morganelli- 13,384 (30.3%)
• Greg Edwards- 11,309 (25.6%)

Bernie and his supporters were enthusiastic about Edwards but should have little problem in voting for Wild in November.

In a 5-way race for Lieutenant Governor, two progressives came in first and second and the corrupt conservative incumbent, Mike Stack, came in 4th:

• John Fetterman- 284,089 (37.5%)
• Nina Ahmad- 179,920 (23.7%)
• Kathi Cozzone- 141,027 (18.6%)
• Mike Stack- 125,687 (16.6%)
• Ray Sosa- 26,923 (3.6%)

Funniest race of the night was in blood-red southwest Pennsylvania where poor Saccone got clobbered again. He's the poor idiot who got beaten by Conor Lamb. Lamb moved north to a newly-created swing district and PA-14 is unbelievably red (although about the same number of Democrats and Republicans voted. But Saccone lost out to state Senator Guy Reschenthaler, 23,245 (55.4%) to 18,734 (44.6%). What happened? Short version: "Former Rep. Tim Murphy, who resigned last October amid allegations that he asked his mistress to get an abortion, has been working quietly to sink Rick Saccone’s bid for Congress... [in] much of Murphy’s old turf. The fight has gotten personal: Murphy has directed hundreds of thousands of dollars from his old campaign account to an outside group supporting Saccone’s GOP primary opponent, state Sen. Guy Reschenthaler. Murphy also sent around a cropped video clip of Saccone that he believed would damage him."

Bernie Endorses Progressive Champions In Pennsylvania

Bernie's point this week, when he asked his supporters to back 3 candidates in Pennsylvania, was that "if we are going to defeat right-wing Republicans in 2018 and 2020, we need to win in states that Trump won, like Pennsylvania. And, in my view, the only way we win in those states is by supporting progressive candidates who have the guts to defend working-class families-- white, black, Latino, Asian American, Native American-- and take on the power and greed of the billionaire class."

I wonder what went on in his mind when he picked his 3 candidates. Was it more than just paying them back for backing his campaign in 2016? All of them had done exactly that. The 3 progressive reformers-- John Fetterman (Lieutenant Governor), Greg Edwards (PA-07) and Jess King (PA-11)-- are in tight races. Fetterman may be the most progressive candidate in his race-- or perhaps Nina Ahmad is-- but Fetterman supported Bernie in the 2016 primary. Blue America likes them both-- a lot-- and so far we're staying neutral. Greg Edwards (who has ignored, or been to busy to respond to, our attempts to reach out to his campaign) and Jess King (who Blue America has endorsed early on) are certainly the most progressive candidates in their primaries.

Susan Wild and John Morganelli are Edwards' main opponents. Wild seems like a garden variety Democrat and is backed by EMILY's List, which is generally anti-progressive. Similarly, Morganelli seems like an off-the-shelf Dem, OK but nothing that special. Greg Edwards is certainly the best in this race for Charlie Dent's old seat, which just flipped from R+4 to D+1.

PA-11 has a different contour. Jess King is running a powerful race and was able to clear the field of primary candidates and stay financially competitive with the Republican incumbent, Lloyd Smucker. As of the March 31 FEC reporting deadline, he had raised $564,344 and Jess had taken in $515,812. Unfortunately, the ungerrymandering of the state by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court worked better for Smucker than for Jess, as heavily Democratic Reading was taken out of the district. It was formerly PA-16, with a PVI of R+5 but it's now PA-11, which has a much more daunting PVI-- R+14. (Remember, though, Conor Lamb, not nearly as good a candidate as Jess, just won a similarly red district.). Trump works magic for Democratic candidates. Bernie wrote that "Trump represents something we have never seen before in the history of the United States. It is not just that he represents the interests of the wealthy and powerful. It's that we have never had a president with more authoritarian tendencies than him."

The 2018 midterm elections will be long remembered as a pivotal moment in American history because, if we are successful, we can put an end to the disastrous Trump agenda. If we are not, we will have at least two more years of a rapid shift toward authoritarianism, the further normalization of corruption and the continued rise of oligarchy.

But we cannot defeat Trump and the Republican Party with the same playbook, or by supporting the same kind of candidates long favored by the political establishment and financial elite. That is how we got to where we are today.

He'll be barnstorming with John Fetterman, Greg Edwards and Jess King before the primaries May 15 primaries. "Our job in 2018," he wrote, "is to take on and defeat Trump's authoritarianism, xenophobia, racism, sexism, homophobia and religious bigotry. But we can only do that if we run candidates who can rally the American people around an agenda that works for them, not the billionaire class.

For more than a decade now, John Fetterman has been an outstanding progressive leader in Pennsylvania. From early in his career he has stood with the working families of the state as he advocated for a $15 per hour minimum wage, Medicare for all, marriage equality and ending the failed war on drugs. He has been an outspoken defender of women’s health, immigrant rights, racial justice and LGBTQ equality.

For the past 25 years, Greg Edwards has worked tirelessly to organize for justice in health care, education and economic dignity. The powerful grassroots movement behind Greg Edwards is championing Medicare for all, universal pre-k, debt-free college and raising the minimum wage, and he is living his values of unwavering inclusion by building the diverse coalition Democrats need to win in his district.

Jess King has seen firsthand how the biggest corporations have hurt workers and squashed competition. In Congress, she will work to pass Medicare for all, rein in Wall Street, break up corporate monopolies, and support the real job creators: small businesses in our local economies.

Please contribute to Jess' grassroots campaign by tapping on the ActBlue congressional thermometer on the right. We agree with Bernie; she's a great candidate who would make a real difference in Congress. If the issues he's been campaigning on mean something to you, please help make sure she replaces Lloyd Smucker, someone who never strays from what Trump and Ryan demand from this puppet Congress. Jess is no one's puppet... and never will be.

A Self-Serving Democratic Establishment Still Has Its Fingers On The Levers Of Power-- And Will Continue Disadvantaging Progressives

Kara Eastman (Democrat) and Brad Ashford ("ex"-GOP Blue Dog)

Alixandria Lapp, a poster child for the DC Dem's revolving door problem worked for New Dem Adam Smith (WA) from 1997-2005 and then went to work for the DCCC. In 2007 she became executive director of the New Dems, the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. A year later she was working as a lobbyist for Parven, Pomper & Schuyler and after that as a lobbyist for Akin, Gump. In 2011 she went to work running Pelosi's House Majority PAC, where she still works, triple-dipping her time away, now extremely wealthy.

Yesterday she tweeted a batch of private PPP surveys, that mostly tested voters' reactions to aspects of the Trump/Ryan tax proposal but also testing a generic Democrat against a Republican incumbent in each district-- except one. Last night we looked into the primary in Omaha (NE-02), where a progressive woman, Kara Eastman, is facing off against a party-switching opportunist, Blue Dog Brad Ashford. Ashford has been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business, organziations that normally back Republicans and Democrats willing to sell out to Big Business.

During the 2016 cycle, Lapp spent $47,470,121 on House races. Most of it had as much impact as it would if she flushed it down the toilet. Million dollar TV campaigns against Michigan's John Bergman ($1,309,400), Colorado's Mike Coffman ($1,734,087), Virginia's Barbara Comstock ($1,909,690), Florida's Carlos Curbelo ($1,482,032), California's Jeff Denham ($1,011,635), Pennsylvania's Brian Fitzpatrick ($2,266,961), Texas' Will Hurd ($1,641,510), Maine's Bruce Poliquin ($1,863,263), California's David Valadao ($1,745,038), New York's Claudia Tenney ($2,084,879), and Colorado's Scott Tipton ($1,430,111) were ineffective and all failed. Lapp managed to help elect 4 ghastly Blue Dog turds: Brad Schneider in Illinois ($1,100,394), Charlie Crist in Florida ($1,567,917), Jacky Rosen in Nevada ($2,124,182) and Josh Gottheimer in New Jersey ($2,366,09), all of whom have earned F's from ProgressivePunch and all of whom keep voting with the GOP against progressive proposals and with the Republicans on Ryan's agenda.

Last year, Lapp spent $741,041 of the House Majority PAC's money in a futile bid to save Ashford's miserable career. (The DCCC spent $2,688,673 in the same race, almost entirely wasted on pointless, uninspiring TV ads that media buyers get a hefty percentage cut of, absolute and dysfunctional corruption.) Ashford lost 141,066 (48.9%) to 137,602 (47.7%), making him the only Democratic incumbent to lose his seat. He lost because he's a Republican masquerading as a Democrat and Democratic voters saw him spend 2 years voting with Ryan and refused to vote for him again.he helped drag Hillary down to defeat in the district-- Trump beat her by 2 points-- and establishment Democrats in DC decided to run him again this year. Brilliant! They are so brilliant. No wonder Pelosi allows the trip-dipping-- salary, a percentage of what she brings in and a percentage of the pointless media buys. The Blue Dogs and New Dems have endorsed him and the DCCC-- professing neutrality, of course-- are doing everything they can to destroy Kara Eastman's campaign while pushing Ashford the Blue Dog/Republican loser. They do it in big ways-- telling institutional donors to not give Eastman money-- and in small ways, like Lapp-dog having PPP poll for Ashford, not for a generic Democrat. From the PPP memo Lapp sent around yesterday:

In Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, Republican incumbent Congressman Don Bacon has an approval rating of 40%, and 48% of voters say they disapprove of the job he is doing. President Trump has an approval rating of 42% and a disapproval rating of 54% in Bacon’s district, while 8% of voters say they approve of the job Congress is doing and 85% say they disapprove. Speaker Paul Ryan is also unpopular with 28% of voters saying they approve of the job he is doing and a majority (62%) responding that they disapprove. These percentages, along with a hypothetical matchup between Bacon (40%) and Democrat Brad Ashford (49%), indicate that Bacon is quite vulnerable in his upcoming re-election. Also, the new tax plan is not popular in his district, and a plurality (48%) of voters indicated they would be less likely to vote for Bacon if he voted in favor of the Republican tax plan.

As long as we're here, let's take a look at some of the other flippable districts they polled, starting with California, where they singled out CA-25 (Santa Clarita, Simi Valley and the Antelope Valley). The district's 2015 PVI of R+3 is now 3 points bluer at dead even. Last time Hillary won the district 50.3% to Trump's 43.6%. But the DCCC ran such a weak uninspiring carpetbagger, Bryan Caforio, that the numbers flipped and he lost to weak incumbent Steve Knight 138,766 (53.1%) to 122,406 (36.9%). Lapp's House Majority PAC wasted $242,487 on Caforio-- the DCCC wasted another $3,164,363. And, Caforio is running again, of course, hoping to take advantage of the anti-Trump wave, as he did, unsuccessfully, last cycle. This time he's likely to lose the primary to a much stronger Democrat, progressive Katie Hill, who has what it takes to beat Knight.

In California’s 25th Congressional District, Republican incumbent Congressman Steve Knight has an approval rating of 33%, and 50% disapprove of his job performance. President Trump has an approval rating of 40% and a disapproval rating of 58% in his district, while 9% of voters say they approve of the job Congress is doing and 84% say they disapprove. Speaker Paul Ryan is also unpopular with 23% of voters saying they approve of the job he is doing and a majority (66%) responding that they disapprove. These percentages, along with a hypothetical matchup between Knight (38%) and a “Democratic opponent” (50%), indicate that Knight is quite vulnerable in his upcoming re-election. The new tax plan is not popular in his district, and a majority of voters (51%) indicated they would be less likely to vote for Knight if he voted in favor of the Republican tax plan.

The DCCC has never recognized CA-48 as an opportunity before. But Hillary won the district (narrowly) and Dana Rohrabacher, the crackpot incumbent, is all tied up in Putin-Gate and a major embarrassment to the district. Democrats are coming out of the woodwork to run against him-- 7 at last count. One, Omar Siddiqui from CA-39, doesn't want to run in his home district because he loves the racist, right-wing Republican, Ed Royce, who represents it. Siddiqui is the self-proclaimed "Reagan Democrat" in the race, a self-funder with no traction. The DCCC is pumping up two New Dems, Hans Keirstead and Harley Rouda and studiously ignoring the progressive woman in the race, Laura Oatman, the same way they're ignoring Kara Eastman in Omaha.

In California’s 48th Congressional District, Republican incumbent Congressman Dana Rohrabacher has an approval rating of 36%, and 51% say they do not approve of the job he is doing. President Trump has an approval rating of 44% and a disapproval rating of 54% in Rohrabacher’s district, while 9% of voters say they approve of the job Congress is doing and 86% reported that they do not approve. Speaker Paul Ryan is also unpopular with 28% of voters saying they approve of the job he is doing and a majority (63%) responding that they disapprove. These percentages, along with a hypothetical matchup between Rohrabacher (41%) and a “Democratic opponent” (51%), indicate that Rohrabacher is quite vulnerable in his upcoming re-election. The new tax plan is not popular in his district, and a plurality of voters (46%) indicated they would be less likely to vote for Rohrabacher if he voted in favor of the Republican tax plan.

There are several more interesting races they polled in Michigan, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Minnesota and Florida but let me skip right to the two in Texas, one in Houston and one in Dallas, both districts that went for Clinton over Trump and both with multiple candidates, good, bad and ugly. The best candidate in the Houston district is award-winning cancer doctor Jason Westin and the best one in the Dallas district is Obama's former undersecretary of Agriculture, Lillian Salerno.

TX-07

In Texas’ 7th Congressional District, Republican incumbent Congressman John Culberson has an approval rating of 31%, and 55% of voters say they disapprove of the job he is doing. President Trump has an approval rating of 37% and a disapproval rating of 59% in Culberson’s district, while 12% of voters say they approve of the job Congress is doing and 83% say they disapprove. Speaker Paul Ryan is also unpopular with 29% of voters saying they approve of the job he is doing and a majority (65%) responding that they disapprove. These percentages, along with a hypothetical matchup between Culberson (39%) and a “Democratic opponent” (49%), indicate that Culberson is quite vulnerable in his upcoming re-election. The new tax plan is not popular in his district, and a majority (53%) of voters indicated they would be less likely to vote for Culberson if he voted in favor of the Republican tax plan.

TX-32

In Texas’ 32nd Congressional District, Republican incumbent Congressman Pete Sessions has an approval rating of 36%, and 52% of voters say they disapprove of the job he is doing. President Trump has an approval rating of 39% and a disapproval rating of 58% in Sessions’ district, while 6% of voters say they approve of the job Congress is doing and 85% say they disapprove. Speaker Paul Ryan is also unpopular with 27% of voters saying they approve of the job he is doing and a majority (66%) responding that they disapprove. These percentages, along with a hypothetical matchup between Sessions and a “Democratic opponent,” where Sessions has 43% of the vote and his Democratic opponent has 48%, indicate that Sessions is quite vulnerable in his upcoming re-election. The new tax plan is not popular in his district, and a majority (51%) of voters indicated they would be less likely to vote for Sessions if he voted in favor of the Republican tax plan.

John Fetterman isn't running for Congress. He launched a campaign for Pennsylvania Lt. Governor yesterday. But the DCCC and DSCC should be looking for candidates like him, not like Gil Cisneros and not like Kyrsten Sinema. Watch this incredibly effective launch video for a future national political leader:

Will Pennsylvanians Let NY Greaseball Chuck Schumer Pick Their Senator Today?

Few people remember Joe Biden's Senate record. But I'm one who does. "Corporate whore" comes rapidly to mind. Biden was a right-of-center establishment Democratic who represented Wall Street interests while painting himself as a man of the people who road Amtrack. Outside of Delaware-- where he was a sentaor from 1973 'til 2008-- no one ever bought the hype back then, though Politico, which wasn't around then, does today. Biden's presidential bids never got off the ground. Biden's innate conservatism led him to the Republican Party, although his dislike of Nixon inspired him to register as an independent. The boss of his law firm was a Democrat and eventually, in his late 20s, Biden slipped into the Delaware Democratic Party. He won his first Senate election, an upset, against GOP incumbent Caleb Boggs, by 3,162 votes, running on a progressive platform. After a short time, he pivoted away from progressive stands and towards the very establishment, very status quo positions that have kept him from ever breaking through politically. His anti-consumer bankruptcy bills on behalf of predatory credit card companies are his top legislative achievements.

Now Biden is busy working with Chuck Schumer to make the Senate more Wall street-friendly, less progressive and less open to nay form of the kind of populism he's faked for his whole political career-- basically, his whole life. He's been the establishment's happy warrior in the ugly Democratic Party campaign against independent-minded Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania. Media buffoons never stop talking about how Biden is from Scranton, which is true, but he hasn't lived there since he was 9 years old. The establishment is using his status as son of Scranton in a vicious anti-Sestak campaign in favor of the Machine's worthless puppet candidate, Katie McGinty, who was recruited by Chuck Schumer when Sestak refused to pledge personal allegience to the power-mad Schumer.

The two other right-of-center Wall Street whores Biden has gotten behind this cycle are Schumercrats Ted Strickland in Ohio and "ex"-Republican Patrick Murphy in Florida, Wall Street's #1 priority for a Senate seat for 2016. As soon as Biden had given up on running for president himself, Schumer was all over him to help him elect more conservative Democrats to the Senate.

Within weeks, incoming Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) was at the Naval Observatory for breakfast, talking over the details. Not long after, he returned with Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chair Jon Tester (D-Mont.) for a 90-minute briefing on their top races.

“He was a man of the Senate, cared about the Senate, and we said, ‘We really need you to be our point guy,’” Schumer said. “And he has been.”

That's meant campaigning against progressives for Schumer's weak and corrupt batch of Wall Street-backing establishment shills. Patrick Murphy may be the worst Democrat running this year-- if you count the rich, spoiled GOP brat as a Democrat at all-- but Wall Street is all in on him and Biden got dragged into it by Schumer, promising presidential library contributions from banksters and from Murphy's crooked parents. Today Pennsylvania Democrats will pick between a man they know and respect and the puppet candidate of the machine. Obama has a generic ad he's cutting for the Schumercrats like McGinty. Paul Kane, in yesterday's Washington Post seems to be one of the only Beltway journalists to have figured out the destestable Schumer is pulling all the strings from behind the curtain. Here's how he described a scene with a criminal state Senator in Philly:

Katie McGinty has never been elected to anything, and her name is not well known to Pennsylvania voters. So last week, at a bustling transit stop in West Philadelphia, the unlikely Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate was relying on a local power broker to sell her to his dubious constituents.

A friend with a bullhorn beckoned commuters as state Sen. Vincent Hughes (D) insisted that McGinty would prevail in Tuesday’s Democratic primary on the strength of endorsements from powerful party leaders, including President Obama.

“There’s a crystallization, largely in the African American community, around Katie as they see folks like myself and others come out in support of her,” Hughes said.

...In Pennsylvania, the feud is more about personality than policy: Democratic leaders despise Sestak, who never stopped campaigning for the Senate after losing narrowly to Toomey six years ago.

“I don’t think anybody would call Joe Sestak paranoid if he said the Democratic Party was out to get him,” said John Fetterman, the mayor of Braddock and the third Democrat in the race.

The dispute has turned into a roughly $10 million brawl for the nomination that is likely to leave the victor broke and in desperate need of a strategy to unify the Democratic ranks against Toomey and his $10 million campaign war chest.

Polls showed Sestak, 64, with a large early lead. Now the race is neck and neck, but no one is sure whether McGinty, 52, can marshal her momentum and financial edge to overcome the reservoir of goodwill that Sestak has established during his years-long, nonstop campaign.

...McGinty has run in just one previous race, finishing a distant fourth in the 2014 Democratic gubernatorial primary. Her commercials tend to feature others talking about her-- in one recent ad, Obama’s voice made up almost the entire audio-- rather than the candidate explaining her policy proposals in her own voice.

McGinty has been willing to throw elbows. She has accused Sestak of contemplating cuts to Social Security benefits, because he once said nice things about a bipartisan debt-reduction plan known as Bowles-Simpson. And she has twisted his 2009 vote in favor of a proposal to tax Wall Street bonuses into an allegation that he supports unlimited bonuses for bank executives.

Still, it’s a measure of their deep dislike for Sestak that party leaders are backing such an unproven candidate in such a critical race.

In addition to helping McGinty’s campaign raise money, Democratic leaders have helped build an outside coalition of support that includes the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Emily’s List, labor unions and environmental groups. All told, the outside groups have so far spent an additional $4 million on McGinty’s behalf.

“This has become a campaign that is driven by Washington, D.C.,” Sestak said in an interview with the Washington Post.

For his part, Sestak says he tried to mend fences with party leaders. He says he considered their recommendations for his new campaign manager and fundraising chief. But he says he just couldn’t take it when he was given a direct order by a senior Democrat: “Sestak, whenever I tell you anything, the only answer is yes.”

In the interview, Sestak declined to name the party boss in question, but in earlier talks with local media, he made clear that it was Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.).

DWT has been reporting this for over a month. What we didn't know until we read Kane's piece though is that Philly political machine bosses, like Hughes and Robert Brady, are angry at Sestak because he refused to pay the traditional "walking around money" (half a million) to their machine the last time he ran. Kane implies Schumer and Biden are planning the same kind of treatment against Grayson and on behalf of Wall Street errand boy Patrick Murphy. HuffPo seems to have noticed what Schumer is up to as well, although none of the mainstream media is reporting about the explicit and aggressive threats to Bernie from Schumer to not interfere in the Senate races. In an interview, John Fetterman, the third candidate in the Pennsylvania Senate primary-- the real progressive in the race-- told Michael McAulife, the DSCC lied to him about remaining neutral in the race and letting Pennsylvania Democrats decide on their own. Schumer and his vile sock-puppet, Jon Tester, have spent close to $2 million boosting McGinty as of last night.

“They reneged on that promise, clearly, in a big, big way,” Fetterman said. “That’s the only conversation that we’ve had in Washington with the elites or the establishment.”

Fetterman is not especially surprised. He’s the sort of outsider whose ideas about inequality and belief in the need for fundamental change have long alarmed cautious, triangulation-prone party leaders who now worry that Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is making overly bold promises that he can’t possibly deliver. But Fetterman is also exactly the sort of candidate who, if he can win, would give Sanders a better chance of passing things like a $15 minimum wage, universal health care and free public college. And right now, not only are Democratic Party leaders not helping, they’re standing in the way... “I wanted to be a true progressive option in a race of more centrist and kind of traditional Democrats,” said Fetterman, who has endorsed Sanders.

...In the context of 2016, Fetterman’s policy aspirations are not that different from those of many left-leaning Democrats. He backs a $15 minimum wage, a woman’s right to choose, immigration reform and tighter gun laws, although he’s a gun owner.

It’s the way he approaches those issues that puts him at odds with party leaders in Washington who have cast themselves as reasonable compromisers against Republicans who are unyielding obstructionists.

Fetterman believes standing in the way can have its place.

“I’m the only candidate in this race that’s proud to say I have litmus tests for any Supreme Court nominee that I would vote for, and first and foremost of those is repealing Citizens United,” he said, referring to the 2010 court decision that paved the way for unlimited corporate spending in campaigns.

He also doesn’t believe in compromise for compromise’s sake when he views the other side as entirely unreasonable.

“This idea that you can compromise with crazy or unreasonable-- that’s not compromise, that is appeasement, and that doesn’t help anybody move it a long,” Fetterman said.

“When the other side is espousing these views that have no room for compromise, and they’re absurdist-- we don’t argue about the science of the camera that’s recording me, we don’t argue about the science of our iPhones, but why are we arguing about the science of climate?” he said. “It’s just because someone’s gut says if it snowed last week, I don’t have to worry about it-- you can’t really compromise on that.”

He allows that the divide in the country is especially broad right now, as seen in the rise of both Trump and Sanders. He sees both candidates as opposite sides of the populist coin, with Trump tapping into the destructive, dark side of populism embraced by so many in the tea party.

“This tea party, angry mindset-- they’ve just become performance artists. How many more dozens of times are they going to repeal Obamacare? How many dozens of more times are they going to scream and yell about transgender [people] using bathrooms, or that the world will spin off its axis if we grant marriage equality? The only marriage that I saw fall apart after [the Supreme Court upheld marriage equality] was Josh Duggar’s,” he said.

He also takes the unpolitician-like position of not claiming to have all the answers, including how to bridge the gaping divide. But he promises to try.

“[I’m] not guaranteeing an outcome other than to say I guarantee to work hard to achieve that outcome,” Fetterman said.

He especially can’t guarantee the outcome of this election.

One of the biggest hurdles he points to is the spending in the race, which makes his chances of taking the step up especially slim. Party insiders are determined to advance McGinty, and the combined spending on her behalf by the DSCC and other outside groups exceeds $4 million. That’s on top of almost $3 million spent by her own campaign. Sestak’s campaign and a super PAC backing him have spent about $3.5 million.

Fetterman has only raised about $600,000, and state news coverage of the contest has been dominated by the battle between the better-known Sestak and the party’s choice, McGinty.

“The money in my race has had massive, massive influence,” Fetterman said. “It’s not about ideas, it’s not about experience, it’s not about debates, it’s about how much money can you bring in from outside forces and just carpet bomb the airwaves with television ads.”

In a large state like Pennsylvania, the barrage has left very little room for Fetterman, whose polling numbers have ranged from the single digits to the mid-teens.

At the same time, neither Sestak, who generally leads, nor McGinty are getting support above the mid-30 percent range in spite of all their spending.

Fetterman still sees a chance to make up the difference by Tuesday’s election, in which he may be able to count on many Sanders supporters swinging his way while Clinton backers split between McGinty and Sestak.

Blue America has been rising money for Fetterman but our real hope to stop the complete conservative takeover of the Senate Democrats is in the race in Maryland today, where Donna Edwards may be able to beat establishment shill Chris Van Hollen today, and in Florida, where Grayson is still ahead of Murphy and beating him significantly in the race for small donor money. Only 10% of Murphy's campaign money comes from small contributions. Nearly 60% of Grayson's does. Please consider contributing to our Senate candidates here:

Schumer's Jihad Against Joe Sestak Is Making Many Senate Democrats Nervous

Tuesday is primary day in Pennsylvania. It looks like Trump will defeat Cruz and Kasich massively and that Clinton will chalk up a narrower victory over Bernie-- unless there's a massive turnout, in which case Bernie will chalk up a narrow victory over her. But many people are taking the presidential results for granted and are more interested in the Democratic Senate primary pitting former Congressman Joe Sestak-- an Admiral who is the highest-ranking military officer ever elected to Congress-- against machine boss hack Katie McGinty. Blue America has been raising money for Braddock Mayor John Fetterman, the progressive in the race, although he isn't well known, is getting virtually NO institutional support and his polling numbers are weak.

The lastest polling shows the establishment pounding Schumer is directing aagainst Joe Sestak taking a toll, as his corrupt Wall Street-oriented candidate, McGinty, creeps up. Sestak is still leading 38% to 29% among likely voters with Fetterman in single digits. Fetterman has endorsed Bernie but Schumer has threatened to take away Bernie's chaimanship of the Senate Budget Committee if he tells his voters to get involved in Senate races like Pennsylvania and Florida where Schumer is running Wall Street-approved candidates.

One well-connected Senator told me, under condition of anonymity that "the DSCC has now spent significantly more against Joe than they spent to help Michelle Nunn in 2014 and only $100,000 less than they spent against Mitch McConnell in the general in 2014. Everything you've been warning us about in regard to Chuck is turning out to be true and it's starting to worry some of us."

Democratic voters don't get a say over who the Majority or Minority leaders are in the Senate. Tuesday's primary in Pennsylvania will allow Democratic primary voters there to send a message to Washington by rejecting Schumer, the party elites and the bosses. Nominating Sestak will be a way for Democrats to rebuke Schumer and his repulsive and deceitful brand of politics. That he can't tolerate an inependent-minded and proven Democrat like Joe Sestak says a lot about with a 2017 Senate will be like if Schumer gets his grubby paws, encreusted with Wall Street filth, on the levers of power.

How Odious A Character Is Chuck Schumer? You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet

Like me, Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders are both graduates of PS-197 and James Madison High School in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn. There isn't much else, though, that Schumer and Bernie have in common. Bernie is a life-long progressive and reformer. Schumer has never had a reformist moment in his miserable political life. Bernie went from serving as mayor of Burlington to being Vermont's independent House member in 1990. He had to fight both corrupt conservative Republicans and corrupt conservative Democrats to win and keep his House seat. He started the Congressional Progressive Caucus in 1991. Their times in the House overlapped but, of course, Schumer never joined the CPC. Progressivism is as foreign to Schumer as communism... or Mormonism. In 2006 Bernie was elected to the U.S. Senate with 65% of the vote. He was reelected in 2012 with 71%. Schumer was already there.

Schumer got out of law school in 1974 and immediately ran for state Assembly. He held the district until progressive icon Elizabeth Holtzman vacated her congressional seat to run for Senate in 1980. Schumer grabbed it and immediately asked for a place on what is now the House Financial Services Committee, the fount of the most blatant corruption in government. He quickly allied with the Wall Street banksters and they helped him beat Brooklyn reformers, totally and explicitly selling them whatever he has that passes for a soul in 1982 in a tough incumbent vs incumbent battle with progressive Steve Solarz. Then, in 1998 Schumer beat Geraldine Ferraro and Mark Green to get the Senate nomination for a Senate seat and he went on to beat the notoriously mobbed-up GOP crook Alfonse D'Amato with 54%. A publicity-hound and dogged careerist, Schumer is widely considered a modern-day version of Boss Tweed, especially in the Senate, where he routinely tells candidates that it's his way or the highway.

Recently he had a run-in of this nature with Admiral Joe Sestak who he tried playing the my-dick-is-bigger-than-yours game with. Basically, he told Sestak that when he (Schumer) says "jump," the only acceptable response is "how high, sir?" That's an odd thing for some draft dodging chicken hawk to say to the highest ranking military officer ever elected to Congress. It didn't end well and Schumer went out and helped recruit an unbelievably incompetent candidate for the primary, Katie McGinty, who has no chance of ever becoming a senator but will sop up Sestak's cash so he can't compete with Toomey. That's how Schumer plays the game. Toomey, of course, is over the moon.

Once Politico or the Washington Post runs with the story I'm about to relate, it will probably be a big deal, but right now, no one knows about it who isn't a DWT reader. If Bernie doesn't win the presidency, he's up for chair of the Senate Budget Committee, something Schumer's Wall Street allies aren't thrilled about to begin with. Early into the campaign, Schumer told him-- in no uncertain terms-- that if he interfered in the Senate races in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida, he could kiss that chairmanship bye-bye. Think about that, while you read this post by Michelle Goldberg at Slate yesterday about how much John Fetterman would like some help from Bernie's revolution. (Blue America has Fetterman on our Bernie Congress page and last I checked a couple hundred Bernie supporters had contributed to Fetterman's Senate run.) Goldberg makes the point that Fetterman "is, like Sanders, a political outsider with a populist and progressive platform that overlaps Bernie's and is anathema to establishment politicians like Schumer and his Schumercrat McGinty. And like Bernie, his money comes in small increments from online donors.

Fetterman’s criticism of McGinty echoes Sanders’ case against Hillary Clinton. “When she ran less than two years ago, she was for $9 an hour instead of $15,” he says, referring to the minimum wage. “She brought fracking to Pennsylvania, and she also supported NAFTA.” She has a massive financial advantage in what is currently the most expensive Senate race in the country, with more than $17 million already spent.

Given the money and political power stacked against him, Fetterman says he needs Sanders’ help to have any chance next Tuesday, the same day as the Pennsylvania presidential primary. So far, however, it has not been forthcoming. There’s been no endorsement, no fundraising support, no joint appearances. Fetterman’s campaign finds this confounding. On the ground, he says, there’s enormous overlap between his supporters and the Sanders grassroots. (“The crowd at the Fishtown brewpub is young, liberal, urban. They rave about Sanders-- and Fetterman,” says a recent Philadelphia Inquirer story.) In a three-way race, he believes, Sanders’ backing could be decisive; Fetterman estimates that he’ll win if he gets 60 or 70 percent of Sanders’ voters.

Right now, that seems unlikely; a poll from early April had him at 9 percent of the vote, with 66 percent saying they haven’t recently seen, read, or heard anything about him, and 63 percent saying they didn’t know what his ideology was. The only ray of hope: When people had heard about him, what they heard made them like him more. Lacking the resources to get on the airwaves, he’s doing as much retail campaigning as he can, including going to Sanders rallies to talk to voters one on one. (The Sanders campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment.)

“To me, Pennsylvania represents the perfectly framed battle within the party war of 2016,” Fetterman tells me. “Untold millions in outside money and establishment endorsements versus the will of Sanders’ grassroots supporters who could, quite literally, pick the next nominee in this state. That nominee, badly outspent, represents a decimated steel town on society’s economic fringe.”

Sanders often says that his audacious agenda depends on a political revolution, one that would sweep progressives into office behind him. So far, however, he’s done notably little to make that happen. It’s not just his failure to support Fetterman; he hasn’t gotten involved in any Senate races. He made his first congressional endorsements just last week, sending out fundraising emails for three female House candidates: Zephyr Teachout of New York, Pramila Jayapal of Washington, and Lucy Flores of Nevada. In Wisconsin, a conservative Supreme Court candidate triumphed in part because 11.5 percent of Sanders voters didn’t vote in the judicial election, compared with 4 percent of Clinton voters.

“The president can do very little by him or herself,” says Fetterman. “You need Congress, too, and we could be somebody in the race that supports a lot of the Sanders agenda.” He’s still holding out hope that Sanders comes through: “I’m sitting here with my corsage, waiting.”

There are dozens of candidates running on a Bernie platform who have endorsed Bernie--candidates for the Senate, the House and even in state legislative battles. Some, like Fetterman, are the real deal. Others-- like Shawn O'Connor in New Hampshire, for example-- are frauds just trying to glom onto Bernie's success for themselves. Bernie can't get involved in vetting every one of them and he's smart to leave it to his political revolution to sort it all out. It took some guts to endorse Lucy Flores in a Nevada House race for two reasons. One of her opponents, state Sen. Ruben Kihuen, is at least as progressive as Flores, is far more effective and with a record of accomplishment that drives hers, BUT, has endorsed Hillary and-- and here's where it gets hairy-- is very much the Harry Reid candidate. Reid is pushing Kihuen and I'm sure he would have rather not seen Bernie elevating Lucy's campaign and helping her raise a reputed $300,000 last week, a figure I haven't been able to verify. But Reid is retiring and won't have any say over who does or doesn't become chair of the Senate Budget Committee-- and Schumer doesn't care who wins an obscure North Las Vegas House seat.

Think about the Pennsylvania Senate race and in a little bit I'll tell you what's happened in the Ohio and Florida races where the odious Schumer was so gung-ho that Bernie not get involved in. Meanwhile...

Demands For Wasserman Schultz To Step Down As DNC Chief Are Growing On A Grassroots Level

John Fetterman, the Bernie supporter and progressive mayor in the Pennsylvania Senate race, called on Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign as DNC chair in an interview on Pittsburgh TV station, WTAE. He then sent out a tweet (above) endorsing her South Florida primary opponent, Tim Canova. The Huffington Post reported that when he was asked by WTAE anchor Jackie Cain if his opposition to Wasserman Schultz was "a bold move," he said it was more a matter of common decency.

“I wouldn’t call it a bold move. I would call it an appropriate one given her collusion with the sub-prime, payday loan, lending machine,” Fetterman said. “I can’t imagine-- the average interest rate they charge is 309 percent-- as a Democrat, how could you get in bed with those kind of people?”

He also pointed to her campaign’s donors.

“The fact that she would take tens of thousands of dollars from that industry, and the fact that she would try to pass legislation that benefits that industry-- it’s deeply disappointing particularly for the head of the DNC,” Fetterman said.

In a letter to his supporters he wrote that "It’s ridiculous that the leader of the Democratic Party would turn her back on some of the most vulnerable members of society-- the very people that her candidates are pledging to fight for. That’s why today, I’m calling on the Chair to resign. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has made it clear that her values are no longer our values." He asked them to consider signing a petition asking her to resign from the DNC.

Payday lenders lure desperate, mostly poor customers with the promise of quick money-- but the reality is filled with hidden fees and sky-high interest rates.

So why is the leader of the Democratic Party trying to protect this industry by supporting a bill in Congress that seeks to delay the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau's pending rules on the issue?

Tell Congresswoman and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz: "You have abandoned the values of the Democratic Party and betrayed the most vulnerable members of society who depend on our party to fight for them. I urge you to resign from your position as DNC Chair immediately."

The only other candidates that I know of who explicitly called on Wasserman Schultz to resign are Alex Law, the South Jersey progressive Bernie supporter running for the NJ-01 congressional seat against the Norcross Machine and Syracuse Social Security expert Eric Kingson, who's running against Republican John Katko is a very blue district; also a Bernie supporter. This morning Alex told us that he'd like to see her leave the DNC chair. "I am calling for Debbie Wasserman Shultz to resign as DNC Chair. She has repeatedly shown that her loyalty is to party insiders rather than the party itself. To me, the Democratic Party is not those in the back rooms, it is all of us, the rank-in-file. We are the party of inclusion, and Debbie Wasserman Shultz has actively worked against that foundational principle. Whether it was the scheduling of debates, data access, registration controversies, or the myriad other legitimate complaints against her, there has been enough evidence for me to truly believe we need new leadership as a party. She may be a great fundraiser, but she has not been a great Democrat, and because of that, we as a party must move on. If I lived in her district, I would enthusiastically vote for her primary opponent, Tim Canova."

This morning Eric Kingson told us he agreed with Fetterman and Law that Wasserman Schultz had worn out her welcome among Democrats. "A corporate Democrat, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is no friend of Labor; no friend of Social Security; no friend of the progressive values and policies that made the Democratic Party great. Time for a change at the DNC. Democrats need to be led by a real Democrat, not a 'third way' clone."

You can find Fetterman, Canova, Kingson and Law together on this ActBlue page of congressional candidates who have endorsed Bernie and are running on his issues:

Obama's Endorsement Of Boss-Backed Shill, Katie McGinty, Likely To Backfire

Grubby NY ward heeler Chuck Schümer thinks he gets to decide who Pennsylvanians get as a senator

When Obama, straight off his misguided endorsement of Debbie Wasserman Schultz this week, announced he was backing Pennsylvania puppet Katie McGinty (despite-- or maybe because-- Pennsylvania Democratic voters have utterly rejected her dull, waste-of-a-Senate-seat centrism), I tweeted something about how Schumer has promised Obama Wall Street funding for his presidential library if he backs the Schumercrats Wall Streets considers essential for them to continue their jihad against the American people and their goal of "balancing" Elizabeth Warren, Bernie, Jeff Merkley, Sherrod Brown and a tiny handful of senators willing to stand up to them.

Immediately after my tweet, two Beltway journalists contacted me, one demanding to know what I know about the library and one, a more polite guy, who sent me this:

Can you help me understand why the left likes Sestak? He wasn't particularly liberal when he was in the House. I get that any Dem would be better for you guys than Specter, but is he really any better than McGinty, who would probably just be a down-the-line Dem-- almost certainly more liberal than Casey? I never got the Sestak thing. He's kind of a jerk in person-- I remember him snarling at me once in the halls-- but then again if Congress didn't have any jerks in it there would be like 5 guys left on the Hill.

Let me deal with the presidential library first. I don't know a lot about it. A trusted-- never wrong-- DC operative told me a top (like top, top, top) Biden inner circle guy told him Schumer cut the deal for bankster library funding in return for getting easily controllable shills Katie McGinty and Patrick Murphy into the Senate. There will never be any confirmation or-- what was the word-- citations. Just believe it or don't.

The second question, though, is something I can answer, although I can't purport to speak for "the left," nor was I even aware that "the left" is favoring Sestak. Tomorrow will be the 10 year anniversary of the Blue America endorsement I wrote for Joe Sestak-- right to the day! We liked Joe, thought he would make a good congressman and absolutely detested the grotesquely corrupt Republican incumbent, Curt Weldon. Joe kicked his ass-- 56.4 to 43.6%-- becoming just the second Democrat to represent these particular Philly suburbs since the Civil War! And he was a decent congressman. Alan Grayson or Raul Grijalva or Donna Edwards he was never going to be-- but he was a better-than-average Democrat. We've never endorsed him again though, not when he ran his successful reelection campaign two years later, not when he ran against Toomey in 2010 and not in the current race. Blue America is pretty doctrinaire ideologically. We're looking for hard-hitting, no-nonsense progressives-- like Bernie, like Elizabeth Warren, like Alan Grayson, like Donna Edwards, like Tim Canova, Maria Chappelle-Nadal, Eric Kingson, Pramila Jayapal and Alex Law. Sestak, Chris Carney and the Pennsylvania Patrick Murphy all ran at the same time in 2006 and Blue America backed them all. Carney and Murphy had been faking when they said they were progressives and quickly joined the Blue Dogs and New Dems and started regularly crossing the aisle and voting with the GOP. We were instantly sorry we had endorsed them, particularly Carney, who had no saving graces whatsoever. We were forced to apologize to our members for ever endorsing him and eventually to spend massively to help defeat him. He was a liar, a nasty asshole and a dangerous right-wing fake. Murphy was just a conservative trying to stay in office in a red-leaning district, more a political coward than an actual bad guy. And Sestak, who never joined the Blue Dogs or New Dems, wasn't really a conservative, more a true moderate, with a decent, if not outstanding, voting record. AND never a close-minded jerk. He was-- and remains-- always open to debate and discussion. When we disagreed on policy and votes, I always felt he welcomed hearing another side. That-- and the fact that he is totally independent and will stand up to a corrupt political boss like Schumer-- is why DWT is always editorially friendly towards him and why we'd like to see him beat McGinty, even if John Fetterman is more of a Blue America type candidate ideologically-- which explains why we're helping Fetterman raise money, but not raising money for Joe.

Joe Sestak looks like he's way ahead and will probably be the nominee. Party bosses prefer McGinty because she's so malleable, but polls show that the more Pennsylvania Democrats have gotten to know her, the more turned-off they are. Her 28% polling numbers have collapsed to 17% and she's fighting it out for second place with Fetterman-- a far better candidate... and the one who will win if Pennsylvania Democrats and independents decide to buy into Bsernie's political revolution. I know Pennsylvania Democrats aren't interested in what New York ward heeler Chuck Schumer demands from them. And I doubt the Obama endorsement will mean much either. One senator, who loathes Schumer and knows his ascension to the Senate Leader position will signal a singular disaster for the Democratic Party, suggested to me yesterday that "maybe they’ll just shut down the Senate again," and sent this:

Throughout the primary election, the Obama administration and the Democratic Party campaigned heavily against Sestak, as the President, Vice President, and numerous cabinet members and Senators hosted many fundraisers and events for Specter. On September 19, 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid even shut down the entire United States Senate, as he, the President, and many Senators instead flew to Philadelphia to host a prominent fundraiser for Specter. The event drew controversy because of its unconventional nature of closing federal business and how the money raised during the event would be given to Republicans and conservative PACs that asked for refunds of their contributions given prior to Specter's party switch. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, called "Organizing for America" during the off years, also led efforts against Sestak.

Judging by Sestak's letter to his supporters yesterday, he bears Obama no ill-will for the pointless McGinty endorsement which is unlikely to stop her pitiful slide in the polls or turn around her dreadful boss-driven campaign:

The President and I share many of the same battle scars that have gained my deep respect for him. I therefore thought it important in view of today’s announcement to highlight some of what we did in our service together for our nation, particularly when he first became Commander-in-Chief. In Congress, I needed to have the President’s 6 (a military term for “I’ve got your back”) because the nation needed him to have theirs:

• As a former Admiral, I wanted to ensure I had the President’s 6 with my military expertise and credibility for the proper drawdown from the war in Iraq, despite opposition from some military leadership and leaders of the Republican Party.
• With my Harvard Ph.d in Political Economy, I wanted to have the President’s 6 with the economic arguments to restore our economy through the Economic Stimulus bill, by saving the financial system and then placing safeguards on it, even though I represented a Republican congressional district.
• Because my then-four year old daughter survived brain cancer due to the military healthcare my nation provided my family, I brought with a passion that harrowing experience to having the President’s 6 for the Affordable Care Act, so all Americans could have what I had to save my daughter-- and I prized advancing Obamacare at town halls with the Tea Party and on FOX News.
• And on issues that had to do with our ideals-- from repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to the closure of Gitmo to the DREAM Act-- I stood steadfast in having the President’s 6 both as a Congressman and today because he had our nation’s.

I therefore have great respect for the President and the battles he and I fought together-- for people-- and we wear the same battle scars, with pride.

But that is also why I have never asked the President-- nor anyone else in a position of power-- to have my 6, not even by asking for their endorsement. As a leader, it is only about having the people’s 6, and because I have theirs, they will have mine.

Pennsylvania Democrats-- I used to be one when I lived in Stroudsburg a few years ago-- can make up their own minds. Hopefully they'll see there are two outstanding candidates, John Fetterman and Joe Sestak, and one puppet of the corrupt political bosses, Katie McGinty.