If The DCCC Continues To Pick Congressional Nominees, Instead Of Voters, The Democrats Will Never Win Back Congress

The only primaries these 4 should be involved with is defending themselves

Forget that you may have an inkling that here at DWT we feel Pelosi's incompetent and corrupt DCCC has become a source for both evil and failure over the last decade, rather than a worthwhile and constructive party organ. One of my first beefs with them-- under Rahm-- is how they tried to dictate-- despite their own "rule" to the contrary-- who Democratic nominees should be. They claim they don't, but they do-- all the time.

I asked a couple of dozen candidates for their views on the DCCC endorsing in primaries. First I spoke to some who either have DCCC tacit backing or are close to getting it. One told me that he wants DCCC backing in the general election when he has to face a Republican incumbent loaded with corporate special interest money. He told me he feels the voters in his district should pick the candidate, not some power-players in DC. I've never heard a candidate who the DCCC wants to back in a primary not wanting their backing before. This would be an historic first if it actually happens.

Another candidate, in a similar situation said this to me off the record: "We're now hearing they might interfere on our behalf... apparently they had some consultant meeting in DC and a question was asked about if there's a candidate who, on paper, looks like the right one (pedigree, fundraising, etc.) but it's becoming clear that there is a better candidate for the district with a better chance of winning, what would they do, and they acknowledged this openly and said they would use data to try and push the other person out, use the delegation, and spend against them in the primary if needed. I've heard more from other members that it is looking like this as well. Obviously I think this is what they should have been doing all along-- supporting the candidates from the communities with the best chances of winning. Maybe there are signs they are learning?"

I don't agree with him at all. He's a good candidate and I understand why he wants their help in clearing the field but it's anti-Democratic and I urged him to reject their help until after the primary.



Paul Perry is in an excruciatingly tough primary in swingy PA-07, with at least 7 vying for the Democratic nomination to take on Ryan rubber stamp Pat Meehan. There are several DCCC-type candidates-- including an "ex"-Republican-- and there are also 2 other progressives besides Paul Perry, state Senator Daylin Leach and last cycle's candidate Mary Ellen Balchunis. Last cycle, the DCCC didn't want Mary Ellen as the nominee and spent $14,500 on some manufactured establishment candidate, Bill Golderer, who they helped raise $351,551 to depend against Mary Ellen, about $300,000 more than she spent in the primary. But she whipped his ass from Worcester, Whitemarsh and Blue Bell down through Radnor, Wayne, Marple Township, Springfield and down and around to Intercourse and the suburbs south of Reading-- 52,792 (74%) to 18,509 (26%). The DCCC was confused about how someone they judged as not able to win votes could beat the well-funded corporate candidate they parachuted into the district. What did they learn? Absolutely NOTHING! In fact, instead of rallying around Balchunis to defeat Meehan, Pelosi-- who in her more and more difficult to cover up dotage is always babbling her nonsense about "when women win..."-- led a campaign to sabotage Balchunis' fundraising ability. The DCCC pulled out of the district entirely and, allowed Mary Ellen to be swamped with Meehan's cash while Hillary won the same day Meehan beat her. That's what they do. They lie and tell sappy donors they don't interfere in primaries and what they did to Mary Ellen is what they have always done since Rahm was Pelosi's first tragic pick as DCCC chair. And they're doing the same thing today-- picking, for example, Pelosi's 2018 DCCC mascot to run in CA-39.

Here's how Mary Ellen explained what happened to her: "When I taught Political Parties & Elections, I told my students that primaries were when the electorate selected who they wanted to represent the party in the general election, not who the DCCC wanted to represent the party! Although, that is what the DCCC did in my 2016 congressional campaign. They went outside the district and found a wealthy candidate who angered many political committee people and leaders. In Chester County, the Kennett Area Democrats sent numerous emails to the DCCC Chair saying we have a candidate; and it is Mary Ellen Balchunis. As someone, who has worked for the party for decades and ran when the party asked me to run in what many described as the most gerrymandered district and knowing I would lose with the idea 2016 would be better, it was very demoralizing to have the DCCC put someone up against me, rather than support me. I went on to defeat their candidate who outspent me by hundreds of thousands of dollars, 74% - 26%. If the DCCC wants to be the people's party and win, they should let the people select the candidate in the primary and support that candidate in the general!"

Anyway, let's get back to Paul Perry. Yesterday he told us that he believes "the DCCC should be leading the hard work that many grassroots and independent organizations are doing to build a strong bench of progressives candidates, beyond those who can simply self-fund or raise millions in corporate PAC dollars. While it's fine to have high expectations of candidates in terms of community resources they can leverage to win elections, we need Democratic Party leadership to consider and plan for the long game of building the capacity of local leaders while empowering them to win elections and govern as just leaders. Any backdoor influencing of primaries should be brought to light and ended in order for the playing to be leveled for candidates across all lines of difference if we're aiming to build a truly egalitarian Democratic Party."

With Gabriel McArthur's decision yesterday to withdraw from the CO-06 congressional primary and run for Colorado Secretary of State, Levi Tillemann is left as the progressive alternative to the shady establishment candidate the DCCC is pushing, Jason Crow. He wants the DCCC to stop pushing Crow and let the Democratic voters of the district decide who their nominee should be. "This primary," Levi told us this morning, "should be about ideas, public service and what's best for the people of Colorado-- not the preferences of unaccountable political operatives in Washington. Too often, the DCCC gets behind candidates that are simply the most likely to funnel cash into the coffers of the DCCC. They're great at raising money, but not at winning hearts and minds."

Another candidate who has extensive experience with the DCCC from the inside, practically wrote a whole post on the topic but asked that I skip the name part. "When I'm elected I'm perfectly happy to go on the record in terms of the DCCC but for now if we could not associate my name with any of..."

What the DCCC is doing is a disservice to us finding the best candidates for each Congressional District in Orange County. They clearly have picked their candidate in the 48th district and while he looks great on paper and he may end up being a good candidate, it doesn't do anyone good to push out all the other candidates before we actually know whether he's the real deal or whether he's going to completely fall on face.  We've seen lots of people who seem like they are great candidates on paper who have failed miserably. Running for office is hard and no matter the resume its hard to predict who is going to be good at it, especially when none of them have run before. If you are the DCCC you should be trying to find as many good candidates as possible, make sure they all have the tools to succeed, and let them fight it out amongst themselves to see who is actually the best candidate. And you shouldn't just be looking for rich people just for the sole reason that they are rich and that they have lots of rich friends who can help them raise money. Who knows for instance if they actually represent the party's ideals? This obsession with rich people and the donor class is at the very root of are party's problems. It's like no wonder as a party we don't have the ability actually talk to working people.

It's also a terrible idea to push people away from a district like 48, where they actually might be the best candidate, to places they don't actually live. In the 39th congressional district in particular the DCCC seems to have a complete lack of understanding in terms of what a bad idea it is to run someone not from that district. If they had paid any attention to the Sukhee Kang/Josh Newman race they would know what a bad idea it is. If the candidates who live in 48 and who are running in 39 are as good as people think they are, let them run in the district that they actually live in. Look at what happened with Ossoff in Georgia; whatever his reasons in terms of not living in the district and no matter how good they were, he gave Republicans a free attack line to use against him and I don't know if that's why he lost but it certainly didn't help.

There are candidates who are potentially announcing soon in 45 who actually live in 48 and preferred to run there and were told not to. How does that help anyone run against Mimi Walters, who herself doesn't live in 45 but instead lives and is registered to vote at her $8 million dollar home in Laguna Beach in the 48th district? The real problem is they do not seem to understand that Orange County is not a monolithic place and each of these communities are incredibly unique and separate from one another. It's not the game of musical chairs they think it is.

One of the things I noticed when I was running is that no one seems to have learned any lessons from our past failures. Since 2010 whatever we've been doing as Democrats hasn't worked and there all kinds of failures across the country that demonstrate that. In California we continue to fail cycle after cycle to unseat vulnerable Democrats in territory that should be very favorable to us. The fact that Steve Knight, David Valadao, and Jeff Denham are still members of Congress is a demonstration of that. And yet when I asked people who are part of the party's political apparatus what we had done wrong in those seats or in other places around the country and how I could avoid making the same mistakes, no one seemed to have any idea or have any other advice other than "raise a ton of money and hope the national environment is in your favor." That seems extremely problematic to me that no one seems to have any other ideas.

I very much tried to reach out and find out who in the Democratic Party was being the most innovative when it came to campaign strategy and what are the things that I could be doing differently to make sure that I would actually win, and no one had anything to offer. The only advice anyone has is always just to raise as much money as humanely possible. I'm not complaining about that because you can't win without money but just because you have it doesn't mean that you are going to win. More fundamentally we just completed an election where Donald Trump is now the President of the United States and nobody seems to have any idea as what we should be doing differently when it comes to campaigns.

And the thing is it has nothing to do with who is in charge of the DCCC. You can keep changing the staff and keep changing the person in charge and things aren't going to change. Because the way you rise in a place like DC is by learning to be like the people in charge and developing the skills that they have. That's how we as a party have trained an entire class of political operatives and consultants. They are where they are and have risen in politics because they learned how to be like their predecessors and mentors. And when you put them in a position of authority, they are never going to do anything differently. Because they've never learned any other skill-set and doing it the way they know has gotten them where they are. And they also know by continuing to do it that way, even if they lose races, that's the way to avoid blame (as everyone will just blame the political environment instead).

The other thing I've learned is that when you talk to actual members and ask them about their experiences with the DCCC when they first ran, none of them have anything good to say about it. There is something wrong whenever even the members themselves have nothing good to say about the institution and when they give you advice along the lines of "don't let the DCCC push you around."

Bob Poe has been a major Democratic donor from Florida who was once chairman of the Florida Democratic Party and got a taste of what the DCCC is all about when he ran for Congress last cycle and was successfully opposed by a Pelosi New Dem pick, Val Demings, who predictably, has turned out to be one of the worst Democratic freshmen in Congress. It was hard to get Poe to tell his story but he did share a few words he thought would be helpful for DWT readers to understand. "From the day Democrats became the minority in the House of Representatives in 2010 until today, I have received literally thousands of emails from the DCCC asking, begging and pleading for contributions to defeat Republicans and regain the majority. Countless donors large and small have donated millions in pursuit of that noble effort. But, what most donors don't know is the dirty little secret that the DCCC spends a significant amount of of their scarce resources not defeating Republicans but in defeating Democrats. Each cycle, the DCCC involves itself in Democratic primaries-- even in races that are safely Democratic regardless of who wins the primary. This practice is dishonest and it needs to stop."

Doctor David Gill is running in an Illinois district the DCCC keeps losing. He explained to use this morning that "Perhaps no Congressional district in America better reflects the deep schism within the Democratic party than IL-13. As we saw during last year's Presidential primaries, there is a deep divide between the corporatist Democrats and the Berniecrats. I defeated the DCCC's hand-picked candidate in the 2012 primary in IL-13, and I went on to lose the general election that year by just three-tenths of one percent. I was handicapped by the presence of a liberal Independent on the ballot that year, a man who expressed all of the same views as me, arguing in support of campaign finance reform, single-payer healthcare, gay marriage, a woman's right to make her own reproductive health choices, and aggressive action against climate change. That liberal Independent received a little more than seven percent of the vote, and Republican Rodney Davis went off to Washington as an accidental Congressman.

"The progressive positions that I support actually won in this district by approximately seven points in 2012. However, the DCCC insisted that my progressive stances had cost me the election, and they chose to run a candidate with much more 'moderate' views in 2014. The result: the 'moderate' Democrat lost by 50-60 times what I had lost by two years earlier.

"And did the DCCC learn anything from the 2014 debacle? Hardly-- rather than supporting my current campaign, they have once again recruited a more 'moderate' Democrat, a woman who has not expressed any public support for issues such as single-payer, a $15 per hour minimum wage, or tuition-free public universities. One can only theorize about the DCCC's motivation in spurning a physician who outperformed President Obama in this district, but one certainly has to wonder if the DCCC's primary goal is to win seats for Democrats. Are they more interested in having lukewarm 'moderate' candidates that they can control, but who subsequently lose decisively, or do they truly want to attain majority status in the U.S. House?"

UPDATE: Lou Vince Would Have Beaten Knight In CA-25

The DCCC pushed a progressive police officer and local elected official, Lou Vince, out of the CA-25 race last cycle to make room for some rich guy-- a Beverly Hills attorney, Knight never stopped emphasizing, from far off Orange County-- and that ended catastrophically. While Hillary was decisively beating Trump in the district, Caforio sat around waiting for her coattails to sweep Knight away... something that didn't happen. Caforio says he wants to try again though polls show he would lose again with almost exactly the same numbers. This morning Lou Vince, who isn't running again, told us that "The DCCC is the reason that we have lost so many races in the last few cycles. They fail to learn any lessons from their losses and that's the primary reason we lost in CA-25 in 2016. Rather than focus on candidates that understand issues and connect with the voters, they'd rather have candidates that function as ATMs and use D.C. talking points like robots. Their meddling needs to stop and they need to stop importing carpetbaggers to lose in winnable districts. They need to stop inserting their vanilla centrist candidates claiming to be progressives."

Hillary Wants Democratic Party Unity? Let Her Prove It

In 2008 Doug Schoen and his equally despicable partner, Mark Penn, were forced out of the Clinton campaign

Doug Schoen is a Fox Democrat who seems to consider himself a Democrat in a tribal sense but whose policy affinity is conservative. When Thomas Frank writes about how the Democratic Party changed from the party representing the interests of working families to the party representing the interests of the top 10%, he's talking about conservaDems like Schoen, now even a Clinton-wing reject. Schooner opposed Obamacare and hated Obama. Fox News is his ideological home. His column for Forbes Thursday puts forward a Republican delusion that Trump is taking "voters under 29 years old, independents, moderates and even liberals" away from Hillary, although the Republican/Schoen perspective that "just because she’s mathematically cinched the nomination doesn’t mean [Bernie's] devotees will go willingly over to Clinton’s camp" is more or less correct. What the GOP-- and Schoen-- don't understand is that what he calls "Bernie devotees" are not supporting Bernie because of his personality but because of his policies and worldview and may not vote for Hillary-- either by staying home or by voting for Jill Stein (or even Gary Johnson)-- but that they are not going to vote for a repulsive proto-fascist who is daily proving himself to be both misogynistic and racist. Schooner can twist the facts all he likes; he may well have never met a "Bernie devotee," even if he claims that "a colleague of mine spoke to Sanders supporters waiting in line at Sanders’s recent speech in Santa Monica" and found that "their distaste for Clinton was nearly unanimous and fundamentally rooted in a strong distrust of her and her policies... There was a tremendous emphasis on the importance of changing the system. Indeed, they support changing the system and opposing the status quo more than they support the Democratic Party. To this end, many of them said they would write in for Sanders or vote for Trump in the general election if Sanders were not the Democratic nominee." Write in... some will. Voting for Trump... only in the minds of Republicans and Republican-like creatures like Doug Schoen. He marvels that Bernie supporters who are realistically saying they'd vote for Hillary over Trump as the "lesser of two evils," but of course Doug Schoen wouldn't understand that, his entire career been immersed in lesser-of-two-evils politics without even understanding that that's what it always was.

Convinced of their candidate’s righteousness as ever, Sanders supporters continue to cite his better-than-Clinton’s lead over Trump in national general election polls. In the last few weeks, polls have shown Clinton and Trump to be within two or three points of each other. Trump, however, consistently trails Sanders in a general election matchup: five polls in May found Sanders leading Trump by upwards of 10 points on average. And Sanders is the only one of the three candidates with a positive approval rating.

It has become abundantly clear that to defeat Trump in an election that seems to be breaking his way with each day that passes, Clinton must woo Sanders supporters and independents.

No, the election-- outside of the Fox cocoon he's so firmly ensconced in-- does not seem to be breaking Trump's way. In fact, Americans seem to be more and more revolted by who and what Trump is.

In terms of winning over Bernie supporters, there are probably several routes Clinton could take: naming Elizabeth Warren, or perhaps Jeff Merkley, as her running mate would be the easiest (and most superficial). Persuading Bernie voters that the policies he pressured her into adopting during the campaign-- like opposition to the TPP for example-- are real and heartfelt. This is the least easy (and least superficial)... and the most unlikely approach (since her adherence to these policies is neither real nor heartfelt).

I suspect she may try to woo Bernie supporters with something about process, that won't trouble her inevitable shift towards the right for the general election. Last week, Tim Dickinson, interviewed Bernie for Rolling Stone and Bernie brought up "changing the rules that govern the Democratic Party."

[T]he American people, more and more people, are looking at their politics as outside the Democratic and Republican parties-- for a variety of reasons. Some of them think the Democratic Party is too conservative. But whatever, they are independents. Three million people in New York state could not cast a vote in the Democratic or Republican primary for the president of the United States. On the surface, that's absurd. You really could almost raise legal issues. You're an independent in New York, you're paying for that election, it's conducted by the state. But you can't vote? Think about it. And from a political point of view, it is absurd, because independents do vote in the general election. So what you're saying is, "You can't vote now, and we don't want you to come into our party. But you can vote later on." I think that's dumb. Given that so many young people are independent, we ought to welcome them in.

Issue number two is the whole issue of superdelegates. The deck is stacked in favor of the establishment candidate... I think 450 superdelegates committed to Hillary Clinton before the process began. You need less than 2,400 delegates to win. You have an establishment candidate who goes to the governors and the senators and the Congress people and the money people. It would be very, very hard for the best insurgent candidate-- a candidate who did really well among the people-- to take that on. Does that make any sense?

Furthermore, we have to deal with the way that the party raises money. It really is quite amazing. And I feel sorry for her in a sense. Hillary Clinton spends an enormous amount of time-- look at her schedule-- running all over the country. You know what she does? She goes to wealthy people's homes-- and she raises money! Here you are in the middle of a campaign, and she's out raising money. I'm talking to 10,000 people. She's out raising money. We have got to figure out a way in which the Democratic Party has the ideology and the positions that excite ordinary people who are prepared to contribute to the Democratic Party or the candidate.

I think to some degree, we have proven in this campaign, having received 7.6 million individual campaign contributions, more than any candidate in history at this point, it can be done. Last night, we were in Sacramento. We had 16,000 people, OK? How many Democrats are out there talking to thousands of people as opposed to being at some rich guy's house talking to 10 people and walking out with $30,000? This has got to be the goal: to communicate with people, bring people into a political movement. Not just spend your whole life hustling money.

...Let me just give you an example: We were in Denver. We had a rally at 5:00 in the afternoon. We had 18,000 people. People who are passionate about wanting to change America, wanting to be involved in the political process. My guess is that 95 percent of those people had never gone to a Democratic Party meeting-- or ever dreamed of going to a Democratic Party meeting. Two hours later, I walk into a [Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson fundraising] dinner where there are 1,000, maybe 2,000 Democrats, who are contributors to the party, who are lawyers and whatever, local politicians. Older people, upper-middle-class and professional people-- who are active in the Democratic Party.

There are two different worlds. So the question is: What happens when that 18,000 marches into that room with 2,000 people? Will they be welcomed? Will the door be open? Will the party hierarchy say, "Thank you for coming in. We need your energy. We need your idealism. C'mon in!"? Or will they say, "Hey, we've got a pretty good thing going right now. We don't need you. We don't want you"? That's the challenge that the Democratic Party faces. And I don't know what the answer is.

The danger is, when you bring people in, the whole composition of the Democratic Party begins to change. It becomes much younger. It becomes more working-class. Its emphasis will be less on raising money from Wall Street and big-money interests than on transforming America. That is the dynamic that we're lookin' at.

...Many working-class people in this country no longer have faith in establishment politics. And, of course, that's what Trump has seized upon. He's a phony and an opportunist. But he has seized upon that and said, "I am not part of the establishment." He's only a multibillionaire who has worked with Wall Street and everybody else. But he claims not to be part of the establishment, right? That has created a certain amount of support for him.

Why won't Pelosi back Democratic candidate Mary Ellen Balchunis in PA-07?

That's relatively easy for Hillary to "give in" on without jeopardizing her inevitable rightward lurch. I'd like to add another suggestion for how Clinton could woo progressives. As I mentioned before, the DCCC has steadfastly refused to back progressives who win Democratic Party congressional primaries. When Mary Ellen Balchunis beat the DCCC's lame Red-to-Blue candidate-- in a 74-26% landslide-- the DCCC removed PA-07 from their Red-to-Blue list, wrote off the district and continued trying to sabotage progressive candidates across the country-- CA-25 being a perfect example, where DCCC demands on California congressmen to back their hackish corrupt candidate so offended Adam Schiff that yesterday he gave the progressive in the race, Lou Vince, use of his office for a day of phone banking with California's State Controller, Betty Yee. Even though the state Democratic Party endorsed Lou Vince in a hotly contested contest-- Vince won with over 80% at the state convention-- the DCCC and corrupt establishment Democrats like Gavin Newsom, Zoe Lofgren, Pete Aguilar, Tony Cárdenas and Scott Peters have continued trying to impose Bryan Caforio on the district's Democrats. The DCCC has helped make sure Caforio spent $292,126 on the primary while sabotaging Vince's fundraising efforts-- he's raised $88,674 (you can help him here). Tuesday, will the DCCC abandon the district if Vince wins, the same way they abandoned PA-07 when Balchunis won?

Hillary wants party unity? She should start by ending this kind of anti-progressive wing behavior by the party organs. This cycle, Schumer and Tester have made sure the DSCC has spent more money and resources fighting progressives and nominating corrupt party hacks than they have on fighting Republicans. The DCCC is even worse-- much worse. When Bernie-supporter Tom Wakely won the TX-21 primary against self-described conservative Democrat, the DCCC made the decision that they'd rather have Trump backing, science denier Lamar Smith (chair of the House Science Committee) than help a progressive win. If Hillary wants to prove she's a unifier, let her call Pelosi and tell her to stop sabotaging progressives and to get behind Balchunis, Vince and Wakely. (Balchunis, by the way, has a policy agenda virtually identical with Bernie's-- she defines herself as being from the Warren-wing of the party-- but is an old friend of Hillary's and endorsed her and campaigned for her during the Pennsylvania primary.) And what's with the DCCC's refusal to back Zephyr Teachout right in Hillary's neighborhood?

DuWayne Gregory is the presiding officer of the Suffolk County legislature,and he's running for the blue-leaning South Shore Long Island district Peter King occupies. Hillary won this area when she ran for the Senate and both Nassau and Suffolk counties were Hillary territory in the recent primary; she won Nassau County with 62.6% and Suffolk with 54.7%. Gregory is an admirer of hers and he endorsed her. But the DCCC has refused to get behind DuWayne's run against Peter King, largely because of Steve Israel's loyalty to his Trump-supporting Republican crony, who he has helped keep in office for years. Hillary can put a stop to this kind of bullshit by having one of her assistant's assistants call Pelosi and tell her to "cut it out." If the Democratic Party establishment wants party unity, they better start realizing that it is not a one-way street.

If you'd like to support some of the progressives the DCCC is opposing and undercutting, you can do it here:

Who Will Protect Social Security From Paul Ryan? Not Trump-- And Not Any Corrupt Conservatives From Either Party

Over the weekend, the NY Times speculated that the "early optimism" in the Clinton camp for an easy landslide win against a Trump campaign weighed down with so much baggage "is evaporating." The hopeless party hacks and mercenary lobbyists who control her dull, utterly conventional campaign have no idea how to fight Trump. "In the corridors of Congress, on airplane shuttles between New York and Washington, at donor gatherings and on conference calls, anxiety is spreading through the Democratic Party that Mrs. Clinton is struggling to find her footing. While she enjoys many demographic advantages heading into the fall, key Democrats say they are growing worried that her campaign has not determined how to combat her unpredictable, often wily Republican rival, to whom criticism seldom sticks and rules of decorum seem not to apply." Today one of the world's most brilliant men, Stephen Hawkings told a British TV audience that Trump is a demagogue who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator." Does anyone doubt what Trump's pre-adolescent respond is likely to be?

In any case, Bernie would make a far more formidable opponent to Trump, and not just because independent voters-- as much as 40% of the electorate-- find Bernie the most appealing candidate at a time when they find Hillary and Trump about equally unappetizing. Bernie is a credible opponent for the Establishment Trump and Hillary personify. When Daniel Marans excoriated Trump for his flip-flops and lies on Social Security, he outlined a field of attack that Bernie would use effectively and with fluency against Trump that probably couldn't be carried off by a candidate like Hillary who's lives in a space halfway between Bernie's and Trump's. If Bernie is an FDR Democrat and Trump is an opportunist with fascist tendencies, Hillary is an Eisenhower Republican, all positions going back to each of the candidates' upbringings.

Marans reported that at their May 12th fence-mending meeting, "Trump supposedly told House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) he supports cutting Social Security but will not admit it publicly because it would hurt his election chances, according to a report in Bloomberg Business Week."

“From a moral standpoint, I believe in it,” Trump said of cutting Social Security. “But you also have to get elected. And there’s no way a Republican is going to beat a Democrat when the Republican is saying, ‘We’re going to cut your Social Security’ and the Democrat is saying, ‘We’re going to keep it and give you more.’”

Trump’s professed opposition to cutting Social Security and Medicare has been both a hallmark of his campaign and one of his greatest departures from traditional conservative ideology. And Ryan, who repeatedly criticized Trump before the mogul effectively secured the GOP nomination, has made proposing dramatic reductions in the popular social insurance programs a defining feature of his congressional career.

Many conservative House Republicans told The Huffington Post shortly after the May 12 meeting that that they were unconcerned about Trump’s public posture on the programs. Several members interpreted him as wanting to extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare solvency through some combination of the benefit cuts and other reforms that conservatives favor.

Trump policy advisor Sam Clovis had already appeared to reverse course on May 11, indicating that Trump would be willing to consider cuts as president.

Of course, what Trump reportedly said to Ryan is consistent with what he told Fox News host Sean Hannity back in 2011.

“Things have to be done, but it has to be done with both parties together,” Trump said at the time. “You can’t have the Republicans get too far ahead of this issue.”

Trump may very well be running his campaign according to beliefs he espoused years ago: Social Security and Medicare must be cut, but telling people that should be avoided, because it is too politically unpopular.

“It is really clear: Donald Trump would 100 percent go along with the Republican donor class position of cutting Social Security,” said Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, a group that promotes benefits expansion. “He openly says he will lie to the people about it because he knows that the people are against it.”

“In his eyes the ‘moral’ thing to do is to steal people’s hard-earned benefits and not talk about it,” Lawson added.

Social Security, the United States’ public retirement, disability and life insurance program, faces a funding gap beginning in 2034. Without congressional action to either raise the program’s revenues or scale back benefits there will be an across-the-board benefit cut of approximately 20 percent.

The Democratic party has adopted steadily more progressive positions on Social Security in recent years, arguing not only that the shortfall should be closed entirely through revenue increases-- such as lifting the cap on earnings subject to Social Security taxes-- but also that benefits should be expanded to address a growing retirement income deficit.

Of course the first congressional candidate we went to for some insight was Eric Kingson, Syracuse University professor and founder of SocialSecurityWorks. Eric is the progressive candidate vying with 2 random establishment Democrats to take on Republican freshman John Katko. (Needless to say, the DCCC, Pelosi, Schumer, Israel, Gillibrand and the rest of the Democratic Party shitheads are supporting the conservative Democrats.) "No surprise, Donald Trump is now telling Speaker Ryan that he's willing to cut Social Security," Eric told us today. "What else would you expect from the political sociopath who's captured the lunatic fringe and what's left of the Republican Party? He knows that Americans-- conservatives moderates and progressives-- do not want to see our Social Security cut. So he simply lies and says he won't do it. It's the same game many Republican representatives play, like Representative Katko in my district. But when Speaker Ryan demands their vote to cut Social Security, they'll gladly give it."

Bill Ostrander is another Bernie-supporting progressive, like Eric Kingson (above) and Lou Vince (below), who is adamant about protecting and expanding Social Security.He's running for the open seat in Santa Barbara/San Luis Obispo against a gaggle of conservative establishment candidates from both political parties. This morning he told us that "Given that Donald Trump inherited more wealth from his father at a young age than most people earn in a lifetime, and has never suffered from want, he is uniquely unqualified to offer perspective regarding social security. Those among us who choose, or are often confined, to our communities less skilled jobs and services, are still filling necessary functions of our community and deserve to have a basic financial safety net of dignity, gratitude, and access to health care. The contempt and lack of compassion shown to our elderly is not only economically short sighted-- the cost will not go away but be born elsewhere, it reveals a lack of social maturity among us."

Lou Vince, in the district next door, is the progressive opponent to Social Security and Medicare slasher Steve Knight in a district spanning northern L.A. County and eastern Ventura County. Lou is the official nominee of the California Democratic Party but is being violently attacked by a now tragically unhinged Nancy Pelosi and her whacked-out and fully destructive DCCC on behalf of some rich conservative guy the DCCC parachuted into CA-25 from Orange County. Lou has been vocal about protecting Social Security and Medicare from Republicans and from conservative Democrats who make common cause with Republicans. "Steve Knight," he told us, "is one of the biggest dangers to Social Security in Congress. He went so far to say Social Security was a mistake at a recent debate with me. Not only did I disagree, I called him out for his belief that Social Security is an entitlement. It's no such thing. It's an earned benefit that our seniors worked hard for and paid into. With the likes of Congressman Knight in office, Social Security will always be under threat. I will be a steadfast defender of Social Security and attempts to undermine it, like the idea of 'chained CPI' which is just another way to take money from our seniors. I also stand for raising the payroll tax cap so that everyone pays their fair share."

Protecting Social Security-- and Medicare-- isn't going to be easy. That's why it's absolutely essential that we elect members of Congress who are unequivocally committed to doing just that. No one gets on this list unless, like Lou Vince, they are:

De-Criminalizing Marijuana-- Long Overdue

Lou and Lieu

The vote in the House to approve the ability of doctors in VA hospitals in states that have legalized medical marijuana-- 41 and counting-- to prescribe it to patients is a tiny baby step along the road to legalization. There have been many baby steps in recent years. But 14 congressmembers have decided to go for a giant step. I'll explain in a moment. These are the Members:

• Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
• Jared Polis (D-CO)
• Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
• Ted Lieu (D-CA)
• Barbara Lee (D-CA)
• Mark Pocan (D-WI)
• Dina Titus (D-NV)
• Sam Farr (D-CA)
• John Conyers (D-MI)
• Eric Swalwell (D-CA)
• Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)
• Steve Cohen (D-TN)
• Denny Heck (D-WA)
• Ed Perlmutter (D-CO)

So the giant step is a letter to President Obama asking him to remove marijuana from Schedule I and reassign it to Schedule III or lower, or consider de-scheduling altogether. Among other things, the letter also asks the Obama Administration to allow for more marijuana research and to fix the federal impediments to problems legalized marijuana companies are having with banking issues.

Ted Lieu, one of the leaders in legalization efforts: "It is far overdue for the Obama Administration to bring an end to a draconian marijuana policy. Forty-one states have legalized medical cannabis to varying degrees, and four states and the District of Columbia have fully legalized marijuana. As other states look to legalize this fall, including California, it makes zero sense for marijuana to still be placed on Schedule I, a group which includes dangerous substances such as heroin and LSD. With a majority of the American public now embracing legalization, I hope the federal government will follow their lead."

Ted endorsed Lou Vince in the neighboring 25th CD-- Simi Valley, Santa Clarita and the Antelope Valley. And Lou sees the way forward on marijuana very much the way Ted sees it. This morning he told us, "In my 21 years as a police officer, I've had more encounters with marijuana than probably any member of Congress. I know first hand how devastating it is to have marijuana listed as a Schedule I drug, right there with heroin. Any cop can tell you that there is a huge difference between dealing with marijuana-related crimes versus other drug crimes. Not only do we need to de-list marijuana, the federal government needs to stop interfering in states that have legalized medical marijuana and recreational marijuana and permit greater research into the benefits of marijuana. Unlike Congressman Knight, who panders to his base and completely disregards the evidence and research, I know that marijuana policy is completely broken. While Congressman Knight will never say it, the War on Drugs has failed and it needs to be re-thought. Our money is far-better spent on prevention and tackling addiction, not incarcerating our citizens and breaking up families over a little bit of pot. Those costs to society are enormous. I know that in November, I will personally be casting a vote in favor of legalizing marijuana here in California. I think the legalization of recreational marijuana is a decision best left to the states to implement for now and I will support that initiative in California."

If you'd like to help make sure Lou replaces crackpot wing-nut Steve Knight in Congress, please consider making a contribution to his campaign by clicking on the thermometer:

Paul Ryan, Self-Proclaimed Champion Of The White Working Class, Declares War On Overtime Pay Expansion

Hispanic voters, fearful of what a Trump presidency could do to their families and communities, are registering to vote at unprecedented rates. Some Republican operatives and stategists think they can overcome that by selling themselves as the party looking out for the interests of the white working class. Well, there's an element of truth in that-- if you're talking about the segment of the white working class that puts a premium on KKK membership and rabid xenophobia. In terms of policies that actually impact the working class... not so much. Last Tuesday, when the White House announced new rules expanding overtime pay for as many as 4.2 million white collar workers (many of them, presumably, as white as their collars). Republican obstructionists immediately objected and started threatening law suits.

Unfortunately for Republicans who have to face the voters in November, Speaker Ryan has vowed to lead the House GOP in a battle against the overtime expansion. Long Island Republican Peter King represents exactly the kind of district that would benefit most from the new rule, but King is a zombie-like ideologue who goes wherever Ryan leads him. The progressive Democrat contesting the South Shore congressional seat this year, DuWayne Gregory, understands the rule change will help a lot of families who live on Long Island. "This new rule will potentially have a profound impact on thousands of Long Island families," he told us this morning. "It is my hope that Peter King will not do as he usually does and go along in lock step with the obstructionist Republican agenda that is so destructive to hard working families. King needs to show some leadership on this issue and not be a lap dog for a failed agenda. I applaud the President's move to expand overtime pay for salaried workers. This new rule will have a profound impact on millions of families and will help the economy. We can't allow this Republican anti-working class Congress to hurt the families that will be impacted by implementation of this rule." In an editorial last week, the NY Times game-planned how Republican opposition could manifest itself in terms of the November elections.

Under federal law dating to 1938, an employer does not have to pay time-and-a-half when salaried employees work more than 40 hours a week if they earn enough to qualify as executives, professionals or administrators. The problem is that the salary threshold that defines a white-collar job-- at least $455 a week, or $23,660 a year-- has not been fully updated for inflation since 1975. As a result, workers who earn modest salaries are often deemed ineligible for overtime pay.

The new rules, which take effect on Dec. 1, 2016, raise the threshold to $47,476. An estimated 4.2 million workers will become newly eligible for overtime and another nine million who should be earning overtime now (because of the nature of their work), but often don’t get it, will no longer be denied the pay that is rightfully theirs. In all, about one-third of salaried employees will be eligible for overtime pay under the new threshold, compared with a mere 7 percent currently.

Opponents of the new rules include retailers and low-wage employers who often require unpaid overtime from low-salaried employees. They have said that employers will cut base pay if forced to pay overtime, but that appears to be an idle threat, since pay cuts would be deeply unpopular with workers and would very likely create more turnover. If a business does not want to pay overtime, it could hold salaried employees to no more than 40 hours a week. Or it could hire new people to do work previously performed by those who put in unpaid overtime. Alternatively, it could raise the pay of salaried workers above the new threshold, and thus be exempt from the overtime rule.

The Labor Department originally proposed a new threshold of $50,440, which would have accounted more fully for inflation. That proposal also called for annual updates to the threshold; the final rule calls for adjustment every three years. These changes were made to respond to objections from low-wage employers, mostly in Southern states, who said the new rules would be too onerous.

Because the rule has been issued near the end of the Obama administration, Republican leaders in Congress could try to use end-of-session maneuvers that would let them vote next year to repeal it. A repeal would be vetoed if a Democrat won the White House, but it is unclear what the presumed Republican nominee, Donald Trump, would do. For now, in a rare victory for fair pay, the new rules are on their way to becoming a reality.

If American voters replace Ryan-stooges like John Katko (NY-24) in November, with progressives like Eric Kingson, even if Trump winds up as president, he won't be able to use that maneuver. And there's no doubt that Trump, Hillary or whomever, Kingson, will be unrelenting in his fight for working class families-- in Central New York and across the country. Last night he told us that "Raising the overtime threshold from $23,660 to $47,476 is good policy, good economics and good for the country. On December 1, 4.2 million white collar workers will become eligible for time-and-a-half pay when working more than 40 hours a week. That means more money in the hands of low-and moderate income workers, more money circulating in the economy and greater reward for working long hours. Though not appreciated by Speaker Ryan who immediately announced that he will fight the overtime rule, it’s long past time to restore the rights of working people, relative to corporate profits and billionaire greed. President Obama’s directive to the Department of Labor is a modest step in the right direction. It fits well with other changes that would reward hard work and address unsustainable economic inequality-- a $15 minimum wage, paid family leave, Medicare for All, closing the gender wage gap and supporting unions."

Steve Knight, represents California's 25th congressional district that runs from Simi Valley through Santa Clarita and out into the Antelope Valley. He's a union-hating Tea Party extremist who can be counted on by Ryan to back his efforts to thwart expansion of overtime eligibility. The progressive Democrat running against him this year is Lou Vince, a union member himself. Yesterday Lou told us why he's enthusiastic about Obama's rule change on this. "During the 1950s and 1960s, overtime allowed Americans to thrive and achieve their American dream. Labor unions and overtime pay are the two biggest contributors to allowing a vibrant middle class to exist. I'm proud to stand with the President as he expands eligibility for overtime, allowing over 4 million Americans to earn more money and stimulate our economy. Given Congressman Knight's willingness to vote against the residents of the 25th district on all sorts of issues, I'm proud to embrace this initiative and promise to defend it once elected to Congress. With our growing income inequality and stagnating wages, we need to make sure we support our American workers and allow them to earn a decent living. As the only middle-class challenger to Congressman Knight this cycle, I understand this issue on a personal level and will be steadfast in my support."

Pat Murphy is the progressive Democrat running against reactionary multimillionaire Rod Blum is northeast Iowa. The former Speaker of the state House who pushed through an agenda centered on working families, Murphy is a big supporter of the new rule. "Too many employers are abusing loopholes to avoid overtime rules. The administration is right to expand overtime protections to millions more workers to ensure employees get fair pay for their work. This will have have a major impact on working families here in Northeast Iowa. In Congress, I will keep working to raise the minimum wage and pass paycheck fairness."Please consider helping progressive congressional candidates like Eric Kingson, Pat Murphy, Lou Vince and DuWayne Gregory beat obstructionists like Katko and King.

House Republicans Take A Stand: For Bigotry Against LGBT Families

Paul Ryan needs to understand bigotry is not wonky

Sean Patrick Maloney, a New Dem from New York's Lower Hudson Valley (parts of Orange, Dutchess, Putnam and Westchester counties) has two functions in Congress: to slavishly serve the interests of the Wall Street banksters and to push LGBT equality; he's a gay conservative. Generally speaking, he's one of the most right wing Democrats in Congress, except where it comes to bills relating to his own sexuality. Kyrsten Sinema is even worse, but Maloney is, in general, pond scum. Wednesday night around 1am, though, he was awesome... for him. He managed to trick the tired and weary Republicans into letting him add a last minute amendment to the Veterans and Military Construction Appropriations bill the House was debating.

The Republicans could have ruled it out of order but they missed the chance and it made it onto the schedule and got voted on Thursday morning. The purpose was be to prohibit federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT people and the vote was such a squeaker that the GOP almost had to drag Paul Ryan into voting. (He's trying to not vote like a bigot when he can get away with it and that's part of the prerogative of being Speaker.) After holding the amendment open way after it was within the rules of the House to do and twisting several Republican arms to switch votes-- Republican southerners were running round like their wigs were on fire and the world was ending, screeching how they had to defeat Maloney's amendment-- it finally went down. But it only lost BY ONE VOTE: 212-213. Whew... contractor bigots are safe to discriminate against the gays! Steny Hoyer's office exposed the Republicans who voted NO and then weakly switched their votes when they were pressured by the extremists: Jeff Denham (CA), David Valadao (CA), Mimi Waters (CA), Darrell Issa (CA), Greg Walden (OR), David Young (IA), and Bruce Poliquin (ME).

For once there were no Democrats joining the GOP on this-- 183 Democrats voted NO... and so did 29 Republicanos, many of them in blue and purple districts where their constituents don't go for the bigotry thing the way people in Mississippi and Alabama do. These are the Republicans who voted with the Democrats and against bigotry:

• Justin Amash (MI)
• Mike Coffman (CO)
• Ryan Costello (PA)
• Carlos Curbelo (FL)
• Charlie Dent (PA)
• Mario Diaz-Balart (FL)
• Bob Dold (IL)
• Dan Donovan (NY)
• Tom Emmer (MN)
• Mike Fitzpatrick (PA)
• Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ)
• Chris Gibson (NY)
• Richard Hanna (NY)
• Joe Heck (NV)
• Will Hurd (TX)
• David Jolly (FL)
• John Katko (NY)
• Leonard Lance (NJ)
• Frank LoBiondo (NJ)
• Tom MacArthur (NJ)
• Martha McSally (AZ)
• Pat Meehan (PA)
• Erik Paulsen (MN)
• Tom Reed (NY)
• Dave Reichert (WA)
• Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL)
• Elise Stefanik (NY)
• Fred Upton (MI)
• Lee Zeldin (NY)

The bolded names are vulnerable Republican incumbents who have relatively together opponents in November capable of making bigotry into an issue. Other vulnerable Republicans were just unable to get beyond the homophobia that's been ingrained in them for so long. Long Island Congressman Peter King represents a normal, decent area of Suffolk and Nassau where people are not prone to discriminate against groups of people. King's hate-filled vote yesterday isn't something DuWayne Gregory, his progressive opponent, is likely to let go unnoticed. Gregory was an Army officer who led a platoon of soldiers and prejudice isn't something that works in the military. This morning he told us, "My son, Julian, is gay so I understand the impact of today's vote all too well. For the life of me I can not understand how an elected member of Congress would vote to allow discrimination of any worker regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation to exist."

We asked Carol Shea Porter about Frank Guinta's vote to allow discrimination and bigotry in a state, New Hampshire, where people don't go for that kind of thing. This morning she told us "Congressman Frank Guinta can add still one more shameful and dscriminatory vote to his already very long record. Forcing people who don't hate to send their tax dollars to those who practice hate at work is disgusting and immoral."

Madison Congressman Mark Pocan told his constituents yesterday that after Maloney had initially secured enough votes for passage, the "GOP leadership cajoled several of their members to switch their votes to defeat the amendment. In an unprecedented move, House Republican Leadership refused to release the names of the individuals who switched their vote." He pointed out that Paul Ryan's "image of inclusion was shattered as he, not once but twice, led his majority to deliver bigoted votes against the LGBT community in America. Apparently, Ryan thinks it’s OK to fire someone simply for who they are or who they love. The actions this week show why the GOP majority under the leadership of Ryan and Donald Trump are clearly out of touch with the majority of American people. I personally was sad to see Ryan’s leadership show its true face. I’ve always had a cordial relationship with the Speaker, but when he so easily is willing to see people be discriminated against and fired simply because of who they are shows what Paul really thinks of me and so many of his own constituents. If he thought differently, he could have stopped the actions that occurred. The GOP majority’s willingness to so openly discriminate against the LGBT community underscores why the fight for equality in America is not over. We must continue to fight to ensure everyone can go through their daily lives without facing the threat of discrimination, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity."

Antelope Valley Congressman Steve Knight represents a normal, suburban area of L.A. and Ventura counties where people are not prone to discriminate against groups of people. Knight's hate-filled vote today isn't something Lou Vince, his progressive opponent is likely to let go unnoticed. Vince was in the U.S. Marine Corp, where prejudice isn't something that functions well. This morning he told us that Knight's "vote is absolutely disgraceful. It's un-American to allow discrimination to take place in this country anymore, especially towards our LGBT brothers and sisters. Two of my three staff members are part of the LGBT community and it is simply wrong that we don't have a federal law protecting them from discrimination. This is one of the major reasons I decided to run-- Congressman Knight is so out-of-touch with our district, he consistently votes against common-sense measures that are supported by a majority of people here. One of the very first things I plan to do once elected is to sign on as a co-sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) as Congressman Knight had promised to do when he was running in 2014. This is just one of the many empty promises Congressman Knight hasn't kept. It's time to get a progressive elected."

If you want to contribute to Mark's re-election campaign, you can do it here and you can contribute to our progressive challengers like Carol Shea Porter, Lou Vince and DuWayne Gregory at the thermometer:

UPDATE: From The Lone Star State

Lamar Smith represents a central Texas district that includes parts of Austin and San Antonio, areas where homophobia and bigotry don't go over all that well. Our new friend Tom Wakely, a Berniecrat running for the seat, doesn't countenance votes like the one Smith took yesterday. "Once again the majority of House Republicans are using social wedge issues to distract from the fact that their platform has all but evaporated," he told us. "Congressman Smith is more concerned with being on the wrong side of history than the right side of his constituents." 

Conservative Democrats Ready To Deal With Dirty Donald? Sure-- The Hillary Wing

Never Trump For Real

Alex Law, a progressive reformer, is running for Congress in a South Jersey district dominated by the worst of the corrupt Democratic bosses, the Norcross Machine. He is also a leader of the Bernie for President movement in New Jersey and is all in for Bernie as the June 7 primary appraoches, but last night he acknowledged that "While Hillary Clinton is a flawed candidate, she would still make an excellent President. As Robert Reich has said, Clinton would be the best President for the system we currently have and Bernie would be the best President for the system we deserve. I agree with that sentiment. Donald Trump has proven himself to be a racist, sexist, bordering on fascist leader and is preying on the fears and insecurities of those who have been displaced and left behind by corruption in government. He is making wild promises that would be an absolute impossibility to fulfill and has buoyed his candidacy by being the best school yard bully from a pool of bullies. A President Trump would be a disaster for the United States and would undo all of the progress President Obama has made. We cannot allot that to happen." That's the kind of language you would expect to hear from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party as the dangers posed by a Trump presidency come to the fore.

Yesterday, though, Politico ran a piece about the right-of-center Democrats-- all Hillary backers, of course-- from red and red-leaning states who say they'll be able to work with Trump if he wins. According to ProgressivePunch, North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp has a 42.11 crucial vote score this session, the worst of any Senate Democrat. She and Claire McCaskill (MO) nseesaw back and forth weekly on who is the least progressive Democrat in the Senate. McCaskill's score is currently 42.67. The only other Democrat voting more frequently with the GOP against progressive initiatives than Heitkamp and McCaskill is Joe Manchin (WV), although Blue Dog Joe Donnelly (IN) and Mark Warner are close, respectively with 52.63 and 56.0 scores. They're the 5 most right-wing Democrats in the Senate and they are all Clinton backers who are also ardent anti-Bernie crusaders. In fact, they seem more comfortable with Trump's "ideas" than with Bernie's.

If Donald Trump is elected president there will be a great opportunity to sit down and have a conversation about what that agenda looks like,” explained Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), who has long backed Hillary Clinton. “If he’s president, we’re going to have disagreement. But we’d better all figure out how to come up with an agenda for the American people.”

...“I believe in the 80-20 rule... Let’s find the 80 percent that we agree on and work to focus on that, and set aside the 20 percent and we’ll worry about that later,” said Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware. “Work with a President Trump might be a little more challenging. Might be 20-80.”

Nevada's crooked Democratic senator, Harry Reid, who's been losing his mind since he was badly beaten up and forced to announce his retirement, refuses to even imagine, he claims, Trump winning the presidency. "I can’t even discuss such a disgusting idea, OK? No. You’re saying if he’s elected president? Oh, I’m not going to talk about that," he brayed at Politico. "I can’t imagine something so horrible."

Like Alex Law, Oklahoma City's Tom Guild is both a congressional candidate and a dedicated and committed Bernie supporter. "I fervently hope," he told us yesterday, "that whatever series of events necessary to lead to the nomination of Bernie Sanders for President comes to pass. I just saw a poll out of Georgia today that shows Bernie winning the state by 5 points, with Trump beating Hillary Clinton by 4 percent. Bernie winning Georgia and other longtime red states would be a profound game changer. It could lead to a landslide and a revolution the likes of which American has rarely experienced. However, if Bernie doesn’t win the Democratic nomination in 2016, Bernie has strongly stated that beating Trump is job #1. Trump is not only misogynist, xenophobic, and racist, but also crass, rude, crude, and ignorant. He acts like the spoiled child of the billionaire class… which he is. Clinton is not my ideal candidate. However, she is well versed on the issues and much better than Trump on women’s rights, immigrants, racial justice, disabled people’s inclusion, and more welcoming by a mile than Trump. She is experienced and understands the need for diversity that strengthens America. If push comes to shove, I’ll support and vote for Hillary in the general election. I love Bernie and want him to be President of the United States with every fiber in my body. However, we can’t trust the childish and erratic Donald Trump on a vast array of issues important to our country’s future. If need be, and despite the incredible and unprecedented success of Bernie and Bernie’s supporters efforts,  I’ll be ready for Hillary in November. Our country is too fragile and the stakes are too high to let a charlatan and con man take the reins of power in our beloved America and destroy all progress we have made over the years.  We can’t let an arsonist have his first book of matches. I feel the Bern, but I don’t want to gamble on having to feel the Donald’s burn!" Bernie won Oklahoma 174,054 (51.9%) to 139,338 (41.5%) and Hillary didn't do well in Guild's district-- 50.1% in Oklahoma County, 39.1% in Seminole County and just 37.5% in Pottawatomie County. Nor did Trump do that great. Rubio won Oklahoma County with Cruz second and Trump a distant third with 25%. And Cruz took both Pottawatomie and Seminole counties.

In interviews with Democrats, long-term fiscal problems generated the most enthusiasm among centrist lawmakers as areas of collaboration with a President Trump. But equal motivation may come from the idea of throwing away preconceived notions and entrenched partisan bickering that has defined the past six years in Washington.

Manchin, who represents a state in which Obama is very unpopular and that is poised to be a landslide for Trump, said his constituents are eager for someone that understands what’s become of manufacturing cities and coal country.

“My people are really hurting,” Manchin said. “They don’t believe this administration or Barack Obama really cares about them.”

And while Manchin is one of Clinton’s most vocal backers, she was just throttled by Sen. Bernie Sanders in the West Virginia primary. Manchin said he’s ready to deal with Trump should things go the other way-- and he thinks Trump is ready to as well.

“What you see in the campaign and if he would be elected at that level, what you’re going to see is a little different,” Manchin said. “He didn’t get to where he got to by making a lot of bad deals.”

Up in Syracuse, New York, Eric Kingson is clearly focused on where the greatest threat to America lies  "We are in the midst of the most perilous presidential election of our times," he told us. "A dangerous and disingenuous demagogue is the presumptive Republican nominee. By words and deeds, Donald Trump has positioned himself far outside the boundaries of decency and democracy. We Democrats, and the nation are fortunate to have two excellent people-- Senator Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton-- vying for the Democratic nomination. I am a strong Bernie Sanders supporter, but if he’s not the nominee, I will work hard to elect Hillary Clinton. Like Bernie, she has a positive agenda and will take strong stands, political and personal, against the politics, fear, divisiveness, and disregard for working families and the poor that is so evident among today’s Republican Party."

And in the L.A. area, Lou Vince, who's running against Trump-supporting Steve Knight and a wishy-washy Democrat the DCCC is trying to inflict on the district, told us he sees Trump as "one of the greatest threats that has ever faced American democracy. Not only would his presidency be a disaster for the United States's image abroad, his presidency would be devastating on domestic policy. With the Democrats likely to gain control of the Senate, it is unlikely Trump will be able to accomplish anything in the next four years-- leading to stagnation and a halt to any progress, not to mention losing the chance for mainstream opinion to gain control of the Supreme Court. While Bernie has my vote June 7th, and I will continue to support him as long as he stays in the race, I will not have a problem voting for Hillary in November. She is a far less dangerous alternative to Trump. While Hillary isn't perfect on the issues, she is a lot closer to Bernie than Trump will ever be and much better for the future of America."

Please consider contributing to the campaigns of Alex Law, Tom Guild, Eric Kingson, Lou Vince and the other Bernie Democrats who are ready to make sure Trump is never elected to the presidency and that right-wing Democrats like Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin are aware that there is still a vibrant Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

UPDATE:

A Member of Congress e-mailed me today after reading the post, somewhat disappointed in the conservative Democrats like Heitkamp and Warner for making nice with Trump in the press. "I can tell you that there is A LOT of unspoken hostility among House Republicans toward Donald Trump. It shows just how far these Dems have their heads up their asses that they feel that they need to capitulate to him in advance."

How Do You Make The Criminal Justice System Fairer? Ted Lieu Is Working On It

Ted Lieu: "We cannot both be a nation that believes in the principle of innocent until proven guilty, yet incarcerate over 450,000 Americans who have not been convicted of a crime"

When Blue America endorsed Ted Lieu for Congress in 2014 we didn't expect him to just kick back in his prestigious new job and vote correctly. His record of achievement in the California legislature made us certain he would go to Congress as a leader, not a follower. And his peers saw him the same way; he was immediately elected president of the freshman class. And we were right about him. Ted's the opposite of a go-along-to-get-along backbencher and has already been working to solve real problems for real people in his new role, while many of his colleagues get bogged down in partisan bickering that leads nowhere.

In February, Ted introduced the No Money Bail Act, not exactly something any class of wealthy campaign donors is going to get all excited about-- and not an issue Congress has considered before. But it is an issue constituents back in the Los Angeles area have talked with him about. Now there are 27 co-sponsors who have signed onto the bill, including some of Congress' most senior members on issues of criminal justice, like Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Mike Honda (D-CA), Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), John Conyers (D-MI) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL). This week, Ted wrote an OpEd at Talk Poverty about the injustices of the current system and how his bill addresses the problem.

After reading about the recent death of 26-year-old Jeffrey Pendleton-- who was being held in a New Hampshire jail simply because he couldn’t afford to pay $100 in bail-- my reaction was anger.  Why was Mr. Pendleton held in jail in the first place?  He had not been convicted of a crime, nor did he appear to pose a flight risk or danger to the public. He was locked up simply because he was poor. And he died in a jail cell.

Tragically, stories like his are far too common in America, and they are the reason I have introduced the No Money Bail Act of 2016 to reform our system of pretrial detention.

Last July, Sandra Bland was pulled over for failing to signal while driving in Texas. She was put in jail and bail was set at $5,000, an amount she could not afford to pay. Three days later she was found hanged in her cell.  And Qiana Williams, who shared her story at the White House last December and on Capitol Hill this past February, spent weeks in a St. Louis jail because she couldn’t afford to pay court and traffic fees.

Across the country, it comes down to this: People of means are able to pay their way out of jail, while the poor remain behind bars awaiting their day in court.

Even for those who can muster the funds, the money bail system is unfair.

In San Francisco, 29-year-old Crystal Patterson, who gets by on a $12.50-an-hour job, paid a bail bondsman $1,500 plus interest to post her $150,000 bail so she could return home to care for her grandmother.  She also signed an agreement to pay back the $15,000 bond posted by the bail bondsman. Afterwards, the District Attorney dropped the charges, but, though the bail bondsman would have been returned the $150,000 bail, Patterson is unlikely to ever see the money she paid to the bail bond company.

At any given moment, more than 450,000 Americans are locked up without ever having been convicted of a crime.  In my home state of California, more than two-thirds of those in jail haven’t been convicted, a total of more than 42,000 people.

Moreover, even a few days in jail can be devastating for families-- especially those that are already fighting to make ends meet.  Perversely, money bail gives inmates a strong incentive to plead guilty, even when innocent, because they cannot afford bail and need to get back to their families, jobs, or education. Being locked up can also increase an individual’s risk of suicide and depression.

Finally, unnecessary pretrial detention of low-risk defendants is expensive. State and local governments in the U.S. spend an estimated $14 billion annually to incarcerate people who haven’t been convicted of a crime. In contrast, pretrial systems based on risk, rather than wealth, cost on average $7 per day.

For these reasons, most nations consider money bail an obstruction of justice. In fact, the only other country that maintains a large commercial bail bond industry is the Philippines. In the case of our disgraceful bail system, American exceptionalism is decidedly not a good thing.

Any serious effort at criminal justice reform must address our feudal-like bail system, which amounts to modern-day debtors’ prisons.  The “No Money Bail Act of 2016,” which I introduced earlier this year, would eliminate the payment of money as a condition of pretrial release at the federal level, and also would give states three years to switch to alternative systems or else forfeit law enforcement grants.

Justice in America should not be bought and paid for.  For the sake of Jeffrey Pendleton, Sandra Bland, Qiana Williams, and the countless other Americans who have suffered at the hands of our unjust money bail system, it is long past time that the United States join the rest of the civilized world when it comes to pretrial incarceration.

Ted's No Money Bail Act has been endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), The Pretrial Justice Institute, The Drug Policy Alliance, The Sentencing Project, The National Legal Aide and Defender Association, and the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies. If you'd like to help Ted in his reelection campaign, he's one of a tiny handful of incumbents Blue America has endorsed this year.

With Republicans running the show in the House, H.R.461 is sitting in the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, which is chaired by Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and populated primarily with right-wing GOP crackpots-- like Louie Gohmert, Trey Gowdy,and Ken Buck-- who don't see the Justice system in terms of fairness but in terms of retribution and revenge. Two members of the subcommittee, Karen Bass and Judy Chu, have signed on as co-sponsors, but legislation of this nature isn't ever going to get out of committees and subcommittees to even be debated ad voted on until the Republican grip on Congress is broken. That's why we spend so much time here at DWT railing against the incompetent corrupt conservatives who run the DCCC and prevent Democrats from winning back the House. Both Blue America and Ted Lieu have endorsed Lou Vince for the congressional seat currently held by right-wing Republican Steve Knight, who hasn't signed onto Ted's bail bill. Lou Vince, an L.A.P.D. detective, explained why he will sign on and help Ted pass it:

After 21 years on the streets of Los Angeles, I know that our criminal justice system is in sore need of reform. The money bail system is the perfect place to start. The current system disproportionately harms low-income people that often times don't have the means to pay the lowest amount of bail, forcing them to remain in jail. The United States is one of the very few countries in the world that even have this type of system. In the state of California, where our jails are already overcrowded, we can solve two problems with one bill. We can reduce prison overcrowding and take a serious, meaningful step towards addressing the many injustice of our criminal justice system. I would be glad to join Congressman Lieu as a co-sponsor of this important legislation and use my background and experience in the criminal justice system to push strongly for this bill.

But it isn't just congressives Republicans uninterested in helping reform the system. Ostensibly, New Jersey machine candidate Donald Norcross is a Democrat. Like Steve Knight, he has signed on as a co-sponsor of the bill either. The progressive running against him in the Camden/Cherry Hill area of South Jersey, Alex Law, in eager to work with Ted on passing this bill. This morning he told us "I fully support Ted Lieu's No Money Bail Act of 2016. Ted is taking courageous action to help those less fortunate in our country. It is plainly obvious that our criminal justice system is broken. Plans like this are an excellent start to make sure not only our criminal justice system improves, but also in that the bill moves our governing philosophy as a nation towards one with more compassion in it. When I get to Washington, this is exactly the kind of policy I would support."

I doubt anyone thought Debbie Wasserman Schultz would ever consider co-sponsoring Ted Lieu's legislation, or even votung for it. She stands firmly behind her campaign donors in the private prison industry and their business model requires keeping cells full, guilt of innocence be damned. Wasserman Schultz's primary challenger this year, reformer Tim Canova, offers South Floridians an entirely different perspective. "I support Ted Lieu’s bill, H.R. 4611, the No Money Bail Act of 2016," he told us yesterday. "The present money bail system punishes the poor, is applied in a racially discriminatory manner, and according to research, fails to prevent nearly half of the most dangerous pretrial detainees from being released without supervision. The present bail system costs taxpayers $14 billion a year, while lining the pockets of the private for-profit prison industry and the politicians who support the prison privatization agenda. According to the bill, pretrial detention should not be based on the ability to pay money as a condition of pretrial release, but instead 'on whether the accused is likely to fail to appear in court is a threat to public safety.' Public safety and the interests of taxpayers both demand that we rethink our costly and ineffective money bail system."

And that's exactly why we're trying to help reform-minded Democrats like Lou Vince, Alex Law and Tim Canova win their races. If you'd like to help, you can follow the thermometer: