DCCC Fundraising Requirements Make Decent Candidates Not Want To Run

House party fundraiser

PA-07-- Pat Meehan's super-gerrymandered suburban Philly district-- has been a big pain the the butt for Blue America this cycle. There are a bunch of fake Democrats in the race and two excellent progressive Democrats Blue America has endorsed in past races (Mary Ellen Balchunis and state Senator Daylin Leach) and a novice candidate, Paul Perry, who we met with early open and who impressed us as the kind of idealistic true believer sorely needed in a corrupted and dysfunctional Congress. Recently Meehan was caught stealing tax-payer funds as hush money in a sexual harassment case and, as news of the state Supreme Court, insisting that the state un-gerrymander districts like PA-07 before November, Meehan announced he's retiring. Blue America still hasn't endorsed anyone in the race yet. And, Paul Perry dropped out even before Meehan, citing an inability to raise enough money to undertake a competitive race.

By the end of the last FEC reporting cycle on September 30, Meehan had raised $1,007,569 and 5 Democrats had raised almost that much combined. The leading Democratic fundraiser was Leach ($397,663) but the second highest Democratic fundraiser ($303,117, $82,000 of which was self-funded), Dan Muroff, seems to have engineered a #MeToo scandal for Leach and Leach suspended his campaign. The big self-funder in the race was Molly Sheehan ($170,000, virtually her entire war-chest) and another candidate, Elizabeth Moro, is a Republican pretending to be a Democrat. Mary Ellen Balchunis still hasn't jumped into the race. Paul Perry had raised $90,893 before dropping out. In a guest post for The Intercept yesterday, he wrote that he "left [the race] in part because the money game rules every part of the process. It shapes the types of candidates, even progressives like myself, into becoming the types of politicians we should be fighting against. The time spent courting donors disconnects you from voters by design. The process itself de facto disqualifies millions of Americans-- based on wealth, connections, economic class-- from realistically seeking elected office to represent their communities. I came to realize that no matter how good my intentions were, getting elected wouldn’t fix that broader problem gnawing away at our democracy." Paul is a smart, courageous and personable guy with great ideas. America needs him and more people like him in government-- and fewer people like money-grubbing crooks like Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, Steny Hoyer and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. He agrees:

On paper, I was an ideal candidate for the Democrats. Born and raised in the district, a successful career in education and nonprofit work, Ivy League graduate, young, Black, with gay parents and therefore, a compelling family story. But the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee didn’t take an interest in me until they started to have doubts about the other top candidates: two white men who had already raised hundreds of thousands of dollars and a white woman who would loan her campaign $170,000. I also started raising significant money, putting me on their radar. Besides a polite if not cautionary phone call with one of their Northeast operatives, the first official communication I received from them was... [a form letter telling him to raise $200,000 for the quarter, pretty much the same letter they send everyone running].

In other words: We don’t give a shit who you are, young man. Just show us the money. In two short weeks at the very outset of my campaign, they directed me to raise $200,000. I failed their first Rolodex test, but pressed on into the third quarter nonetheless. As the campaign dragged on and their sense of the weakness of the field and my campaign gathering strength, my finance director started getting more calls from their finance people. They wanted weekly numbers, down to the number of hours I had spent on the phone with donors each week, how much money I had raised on a weekly and daily basis, and even average contribution estimates. I went back and forth with my team about how much to play ball with them considering they weren’t doing much for us.

As the campaign picked up steam, the DCCC invited me to attend a fundraiser for Rep. Dwight Evans from the nearby 2nd District. The representative was immensely generous and ushered me around the room introducing me to folks (literally sharing donors with me). He encouraged me to keep my head down and stay tough. People like me stand on the shoulders of giants like him. I cannot imagine what trials and tribulations he has been through as a Black politician during the past few decades and now as the only Black member of his state’s congressional delegation.

Now, this is a hard thing-- writing about people who were nothing but kind to me, as is the case with Evans. Nevertheless, I still felt herded like cattle at that party. I worked the room, swatting away consultants looking for contracts, absorbing cheap shots from white-haired trial lawyers who scoffed at my youthful candidacy, always seeking out the fattest wallets in the room. The DCCC was tossing me softballs and seeing how far I could hit them. As I drove back to Philadelphia that night, I reflected on what a bizarre rite of passage I had just been through. How would functions like that make me a better legislator for people like Geraldine [the first constituent he met when he was door-knocking and who he promised he would help make sure conservatives didn't steal her Obamacare money which was keeping her alive]? It wouldn’t.

At another point during the campaign, I was invited to meet with former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell. He had visited my high school back in 2003, and I had asked him a tough question about education policy that he had embedded in his education stump speech. When I got to his office, he immediately showed me his poorly named memoir, A Nation of Wusses. Our interaction from years back was on Page 108. He let me leave with a copy of the book, but not before we talked shop. I now had another tough ask for him: his support for my newly launched congressional campaign. Things had come full circle as the young kid who challenged the governor was now an adult running for Congress.

Rendell had already publicly endorsed another candidate in the race. He encouraged me to drop out and run for state House or Senate. I told him I had no plans to do so and was just getting started. Then I told him my strategy for victory. He believed my argument and offered some help. We sat there as he made a few calls to influencers on my behalf and rapidly rifled off names of people I should reach out to for donations. His secretary pulled together a donor list and sent it over to my team. Rendell invited me to meet a top Obama bundler, Tony Welters, a few nights later at a restaurant in South Philly. He would set up a brief introduction for 10 minutes before their meal.

I showed up at Serpico on South Street a few days later to find Rendell and two older African-American men tucked into a booth in a mostly empty room with dark wood décor. Rendell waved me over to sit down next to the man across from him and I shook all of their hands. He introduced me and noted that Welters is a top executive for a major health care company and a top fundraiser for Obama. The three men then began to grill me on my stance on fracking.

I’m against it, I told them, especially the pipeline they were trying to run past schools and homes in my district. Rendell boasted about how he had personally brought fracking to Pennsylvania. Welters shared how frustrated he is by Democrats who are “doctrinaire” on the issue. He wished they’d open up to fracking. (Welters, I learned later, is involved in the fracking industry.)

Sensing that I was not about to let up, they moved on. (“That’s exactly right,” Rendell told The Intercept when asked for comment on the conversation.) Rendell asked me if I’ve been to Israel. I said I have not. The bundler immediately chimed in, “Well, we need to get you over there because it would make it a helluva lot easier to raise money for you.” Rendell followed up with, “Call my office and we’ll get you set up for a trip over there.” I remained silent. Welters brought the conversation to a close by saying that he would gladly host a house party for me. Rendell had previously indicated that such a party would likely bring in $100,000 to $200,000, at least. I offered some polite goodbyes and alighted out of the restaurant, stunned and gleeful. After dozens of calls to the bundler, the party never materialized before I left the race.

On reflection, I realized that I was only a pawn in a larger play for influence. Rendell had publicly endorsed one candidate in the race, told a second candidate he would support him once he won the primary, and told me that he’d support my campaign by connecting me with donors. I was astounded by the unabashedly noncommittal plays for power. I was ashamed of myself for going along with it seeking an advantage. I felt myself leaning, hedging, and contorting to fit the mold my elders and those with more money, resources, and experience were asking me to do to gain their favor.

I want to be clear that I felt and deeply appreciated the support I got from everyone who gave time, money, mentorship, and other resources that were generously offered to me during my short-lived campaign. One of the great joys of running for office is that you basically put out a call to everyone you know and quickly find out how many people truly love and support you despite all the stupid things you’ve done in your life. That said, I came to the conclusion that it wasn’t enough for me to potentially win and just be another healthy cog in a fundamentally sick system. I’d rather challenge and have some hard conversations with those perpetuating that system-- one that is dangerous for our democracy. I’d rather step away and find ways to transform that system, which is what I chose to do.

As a candidate, there was no escaping the endless drumbeat of the pressure to raise funds.

At all levels, examples abound. The Democratic state representative on the county committee set up to endorse a primary candidate, who blatantly stated, “Money is money. We need a candidate who has or can raise a lot of it so we can win.” The county party chair who wouldn’t return my calls and emails presumably because they had already backed the wealthiest Democrat in the race. The well-known “progressive” interest groups who withheld their endorsements despite my (and others’) strong alignment with their causes because they were “waiting on the numbers” and wanted to assess “viability.” At every juncture, the message was clear: “Show us the money.” Few other indicators of candidate strength existed at all.

As an educator, I have come to believe that most of our problems are problems of learning. How and what we learn, and from whom, are the processes by which we come to understand and shape the world around us. All that I’ve just shared with you, each and every moment, taken together, are examples of how we train our leaders in this country. This should horrify all of us. It should spur us to action to rid our politics of this money-drenched culture. When we let wealth and connections drive who gets elected in the country, we get the dismal politics we now awake to every morning. As with everything in a true democracy, it’s on us to fix this. I still believe we can if we have the will to fight. Our friends, families, and neighbors-- the Geraldines around the corner from us, praying they get to keep their health care-- they are counting on us.

I have seen and continue to see the DCCC chewing and spitting out candidates like Paul all the time and everywhere in the country. The people who unit are horrible and the staffers who work for them are even worse-- much worse, in fact. Reformers in Congress, aware that the basic problem with the DCCC is Nancy Pelosi (and Steny Hoyer) blackmailed Pelosi that if she wanted to be party leader again she would have to allow the DCCC chair to be elected rather than appointed by her. Reluctanly, she agreed, after the latest DCCC debacle in 2016. Her candidate, an inept and utterly incompetent Ben Ray Lujan-- the identity politics candidate who is Hispanic, western and gay (albeit closeted gay which Pelosi doesn't understand doesn't "count" as gay)-- had just botched the 2016 election, laying back and waiting Hillary to sweep their incredibly shitty recruits into office. They also forced her to agree to have the Democratic caucus elect 5 regional vice chairs. So first off, no one ran against Ben Ray. So he's the chair again and as incredibly incompetent and unfit as he was in the last cycle, maybe worse. As for the vice chairs... there's one good one: Ted Lieu, who basically keeps the DCCC from interfering with primaries in his area and encourages all the candidates who ask for his advice and help. None of the candidates in the Midwest region are aware that Betty McCollum is the regional vice chair and she does nothing at all. Ditto for Don McEachin in the southern district. Neither is any better than the regional vice chair for the Texas/Colorado area-- and Pelosi and Lujan have made sure there would be no regional vice chair for that area after Jared Polis resigned almost immediately after being elected last year. That leaves the Northeast where Joe Kennedy III is the regional vice chair. Nice rebuttal to Señor Trumpanzee Tuesday night, but if he's doing a better job that McCollum and McEachin, I haven't noticed-- and neither have the candidates in his region. He's pretty much a non-factor who thinks he can become president by making flashy speeches but without doing any of the work. Sorry kids, but I see the difference between someone who takes a job seriously and someone who wants something on his résumé. I had asked Paul to reach out to Kennedy-- as I do with all candidates in the Northeast. They never spoke.

Is It OK To Campaign For Congress On "Medicare-For-All?"

The other day I was talking with a first-time Democratic candidate who has a bit of a reputation as a centrist, although he insist-- at least to me-- that he's a progressive. I'm not persuaded. He says he's kind of, sort of good with Medicare-For-All but there's no way he'd say he's going to co-sponsor John Conyers Medicare-For-All bill. He claims the district isn't ready for that yet and maybe he can lead them in that direction and maybe we can go to it incrementally. I do like one argument he makes, which I find refreshingly sincere: he says he doesn't want to pivot after he wins the primary and that whatever he backs now-- to appeal to Democratic audiences-- is exactly what he wants to say to general election audiences. His swingy red district is one of those districts where independents determine who goes to Congress.

Thursday L.A. Times reporter Sarah Wire posted a provocative piece about messaging: How does a progressive Democrat try to unseat a Republican? Step one: Don't talk about single-payer healthcare. And the piece was about a Blue America-endorsed candidate, Katie Hill. Katie was "sitting around a kitchen table with a local activist group last spring when one of the attendees asked her a question: Will she have to 'soft pedal' her stance on any issues to unseat Republican Rep. Steve Knight in the 25th District?"

The progressive Democrat started to answer, then paused to ask a person livestreaming the meeting on Facebook: “This isn’t going to be something that I’m going to be blasted all over Facebook for, right?”

After getting assurances that the video would only be available to a private group, Hill said one of the issues she can’t discuss directly is single-payer healthcare.

"I shouldn't go into the district and talk about single-payer, right? Like, that word by itself is going to be something that just immediately turns off a lot of people," Hill said. "But, if I talk about how we need to make sure that everybody has access to healthcare and that it's affordable for everybody and how having a government option [is needed] at the very least, that is something people can really get behind. It's more about the way we talk about things than being very far apart on issues."

The video, which was posted online to the storage site Dropbox and shared with the Los Angeles Times this week, shows the delicate line some Democratic candidates are walking as the national party goes after the more than 30 seats it needs to win back control of the House. The idea of a single-payer healthcare system, in which the government pays for a base level of healthcare for all citizens, has been growing in popularity in party circles since it became a major policy plank in Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. But it remains a nonstarter for many conservatives, and is unlikely to catch on in a Republican-controlled Congress and White House.

The path to a House Democratic majority goes through the seven California Republican-held districts that backed Hillary Clinton in 2016. That includes places like the 25th District, where voters have sent Republicans to Congress for decades, but Democrats have a 3-percentage-point voter registration lead and voters there chose Clinton by nearly 7 percentage points in 2016.

Hill said in an interview that she believes the country will eventually have single-payer healthcare, but using the term puts off people in a district with a large number of conservative voters. Hill said she asked whether the video-- shot during a May 2 gathering for the liberal activist group Indivisible-- would be widely shared because talking to a liberal group is different than talking to the general public.

“Look, is it the best idea to be talking about the strategy for how we frame conversations? Probably I wouldn’t be advised that’s what I should say,” Hill said.

Hill has spoken publicly about her wish for every person to have healthcare, and paying out of pocket for her teenage brother’s drug addiction treatment. But she said achieving a single-payer healthcare system shouldn’t be prioritized over working for healthcare solutions in the interim, including practical fixes to the system that both sides can embrace.

“It comes down to having nuanced discussions,” Hill said. “As purple districts, we have the opportunity to say, ‘No, we can’t have these binary conversations.’”

Healthcare is expected to be a key issue in the 2018 contests.

Democrats are already lambasting GOP lawmakers, including Knight, for backing their party's House healthcare bill in May. Knight has said it was a tough vote, but he thinks it was the right bill to address changes needed to the Affordable Care Act, and he isn’t worried about Democrats using it against him.

At the same time, some have threatened to make support for single-payer healthcare a litmus test for Democrats. Our Revolution, a political group inspired by Sanders, threatened primary challenges this week against Democrats who aren’t vocal about it.

Former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner, president of Our Revolution, told Politico, "We're not going to accept no more hemming and hawing. No more game playing. Make your stand."

Backers of single-payer healthcare in California are also trying to recall Democratic Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon because he shelved a bill to create a state system earlier this year.

But the National Republican Congressional Committee is trying to use single-payer healthcare against Democrats. Just last week, it went after another Democrat in the race against Knight, Bryan Caforio, over whether he supports a single-payer system. He has said for months that he does, although Caforio, like Hill, doesn’t use the phrase. He’s more likely to refer to “Medicare for all.”

“This is a universal human rights issue and I’m going to talk about that in the district,” Caforio said.

Caforio lost to Knight in 2016 by 6 percentage points. Three other Democrats have announced challenges, but Caforio and Hill have an early fundraising lead.

DCCC messaging gurus-- they literally only hire morons-- insist that candidates not campaign on "Medicare-For-All." So I asked some of the candidates who Blue America has endorsed and some of the ones we are currently vetting. The question, in fact, is part of the vetting process. We started with Katie. She told me she hasn't gotten any backlash, "Anyone who actually reads the article as opposed to just the headline knows that my comment was about messaging only. And most people who are paying attention have heard me over and over again talk about Medicare for all so they know it's something taken out of context in an attempt to make me look bad. My mistake was asking if the video was going to be shared (or thinking for a second that it wouldn't be). Everything else I said is consistent with what I have said everywhere throughout this campaign, both in public and in private."

I caught up with Randy Bryce just as he was flying back to Wisconsin from having given the keynote speech at Netroots Nation. He reminded me that he talks about Medicare-For-All-- and using that phrase-- in virtually every speech he gives. Then I asked a go-to progressive I know I can always trust to give me an unadulterated progressive perspective, Hawaii state legislator Kaniela Ing. Here's what he told me:

The consultant class is obsessed with having candidates try to sound like America's most popular politician while somehow not upsetting their donors. Unfortunately for them, authenticity matters, and voters are smarter than they think.

A silver tsunami of aging boomers is approaching, and single-payer, Medicare-for-all is America's only sensible and sustainable healthcare solution. Anything short will continue to allow big-pharma, corporate hospitals, and insurance companies to exploit the sick and their cash-strapped families into paying way too much for needed services. This in turn could have devastating effects for our overall economy.

Democrats know that healthcare is a human right. If you want to reach Republicans, add that Medicare is the most efficient system we got, and that Medicare-for-all will save taxpayers $17 trillion. We have facts on our side and shouldn't run from them.

Voters in both parties recognize that the pharmaceutical industry, insurance companies, and corporate hospitals have too much power. The People's trust will go to the party or set of candidates willing to take them on.

Wendy Reed is running in a much redder district than Katie's though they both share part of the Antelope Valley in southern California. Wendy's opponent is the Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and she told us that she disagrees "that talking about single-payer is a campaign no-no, totally disagree. As candidates, we must talk with voters about good policy, and provide the breadth and depth of information on these issues that might not be provided on mainstream media. Moreover, the only thing that wins elections is integrity. We must never shy away from our commitment to good policy. Health care is a human right and Medicare For All will save us all money. It is good policy. Of course we should have these discussions with those we hope to represent."

Two Blue America-endorsed candidates in Orange County, Doug Applegate and Sam Jammal, progressives opposing, respectively, GOP entrenched incumbents Darrell Issa and Ed Royce. Doug pointed out that "I’ve argued and my platform has always fought for single payer Medicare-for-All. That’s why I’m so proud to have earned the National Nurses United endorsement, and I’ll always have their back." Sam Jammal said simply, "I strongly support Medicare for All, because (1) I believe health care is a human right; and (2) Medicare works and we should invest in what works. Try finding a senior who hates their Medicare and wishes to get rid of their Medicare; that person doesn't exist. As a former business executive, you invest in what works and scale it. Government should be doing the same when it comes to health care. People want quality, affordability and access  Medicare provides all of this for our seniors, which is why we need to protect it and expand it. Additionally, we aren't talking enough about out of pocket costs and how they are crippling our families. This is why I will campaign on universal health care and, in particular, Medicare for All because its the best approach for lowering health care costs. Voters want solutions that will work for them, not millionaires or special interest. My campaign is about voters in my community and finding solutions that will improve their lives. This is why I will continue to campaign on Medicare for All."

Kia Hamadanchy is running for the Orange County seat occupied by Trump pawn Mimi Waters. A young attorney who once worked for Sherrod Brown in Washington, he values clarity and honesty and abhors the kind of murky approach that leaves voters trying to sift through the verbiage to understand where a candidate really is. "When I talked about healthcare," he told us, "I use the terms single payer and Medicare-for-All, because I want to make it clear to everyone as to what kind of healthcare system I believe we need in this country and to make clear then when I'm elected to Congress I will sign on as a co-sponsor of John Conyers' Medicare-for-all bill. And its also important that people know what exactly we stand for as a party and we aren't just against Donald Trump. Mimi Walters voted for a bill that would take healthcare away from 22 million people and she needs to be held accountable for that vote. But at the same time there are real issues with healthcare in this country and its important to demonstrate to the people of Orange County that we as a party have solutions to address these issues."

We also spoke to an Orange County candidate who we haven't endorsed yet but is being looking at closely. Harley Rouda was a Republican, then an independent and now he's a Democrat. Our experience with "ex"-Republicans is horrible. They get into Congress and then revert to their old conservative ways and prove to be more Republican than Democrat. All feel most comfortable joining the Blue Dogs and New Dems. Look at Charlie Crist (FL), Patrick Murphy (FL) and Tom O'Halleran (AZ)-- "ex"-Republicans with horrible voting records on core Democratic issues across the board. HOWEVER, once in a very blue moon we find an Elizabeth Warren, once a Republican who truly saw the light and did not convert for opportunistic career calculations. Is Rouda more like Elizabeth Warren or more like Charlie Crist? He says so. That's what we have to figure out as he runs for the seat currently occupied with Putin-prone GOP nut Dana Rohrabcher. His statement on healthcare was clear and straight-forward: "I support Universal Healthcare across the United States and the development of a Medicare-for-all system. It’s the right thing to do-- and it’s also the smart thing to do. There are 40 industrialized, developed nations in the world. Of these 40 countries, 39 have Universal Healthcare. Only one does not. The United States of America. The United States spends almost 19% of its annual GDP on healthcare insurance, and healthcare needs. That is 2.5 TRILLION dollars a year! The other 39 industrialized countries that do have universal healthcare spend around 10% of their annual GDP on healthcare expenses. These countries are providing better healthcare services to their citizens-- and at half the cost. Something is just not adding up in America. In addition, healthcare expenses are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States and a leading cause of homelessness. This is why I support Universal Healthcare across the United States and a single-payer system. Developing a Medicare-for-all system is right for the American people-- and right for the American economy.

We spoke to three Blue America-backed candidates in Illinois, Marie Newman who is primarying anti-healthcare Blue Dog Dan Lipinski; Geoff Petzel who is taking on Trump/Ryan rubber-stamp Peter Roskam; and Dr. David Gill in the central part of the state, who's challenging another rubber-stamp, Rodney Davis. Marie reminded us that she uses "Medicare for all" everywhere. "I also use say: 'Medicare for all is the most logical way to achieve single payer for now.' This is not new. I also say that 65-70 percent of the country wants single payer. I believe in single payer and now, most of the country does too."

Pretzel was just as clear, even if his response was more involved. "Personally I agree with Our Revolution. Dems who don't publicly support single payer should get a primary challenge. I strongly support single payer, have since I ran in 2011, and proudly show my battle scars for taking that stance. Because I support single payer I was not endorsed by local media in 2011. In a bigger picture, Dems lack of vocal support for single payer is my biggest personal issue with the party. Just the other day I had a serious discussion about running as an independent instead of a Democrat because the party isn't pushing progressive policy positions like they should. The reason I'm not running as an independent, other than the prohibitive ballot requirements in Illinois, is that I believe we need to re-set the Democratic party and place it back on a track that supports progressive ideas proudly and loudly. [Democrats who] fear to proudly promote single payer makes me believe they're not real progressive and represent the status quo we have been served by the DCCC over and over again."

Dr. Gill was reluctant to offer advice to other candidates-- but never reluctant to talk loudly and clearly about what he believes in. "As an individual who hasn't yet won a general election, far be it from me to try to advise other candidates. But I have had some relative success: I lost in IL-13 by only 0.3%, compared to other Democrats who have lost here by 18 to 20%. And I think the most important part of my ability to appeal to people across the political spectrum, even those who disagree with one or more of my progressive positions, is the fact that I am genuine. I simply say what I believe-- I don't try to tailor my talk or be particularly nuanced. I've been a physician for 29 years and I've been a member of Physicians for a National Health Program for 25 years, and I'm sick and tired of watching the vast majority of Americans get ripped off by a for-profit private health insurance industry that doesn't provide them with one iota of health care or actually give a damn about their well-being. I use that type of language while also incorporating the terms 'single payer' and 'improved Medicare for all', and I make it clear that I'm running because I ACTUALLY CARE about their well-being. The same caring instinct that drove me into a career in medicine is what drives my desire to be a leader in Congress. Each candidate has a unique set of circumstances, but I think that demonstrating a passion is ultimately even more important than the particular words that we put forth."

The progressive running in the Oklahoma City district (OK-05, where Trump beat Hillary 53.2% to 39.8%) is Tom Guild, who Blue America has endorsed. "A single payer Medicare-for-All health care system," he told us, "ensures that every American will have essential health care coverage. Since health care is a right and not a luxury, it is tragic that the United States is the only major world class nation without a health care system that covers everyone. Our system is one of the most expensive in the world, yet isn’t one that enjoys the best health care outcomes for its citizens. The current system leaves millions without coverage every year. Australia, Canada, and Great Britain all have national health care plans, that are considered three of the best health care systems in the world. The cost of health care is much higher in the U.S. than in any of these three western democracies. Single payer cuts paperwork and takes the profit motive of current insurance mega corporations out of the equation. It also reins in the huge profits and sky high prices of prescription drugs manufactured by Big Pharma. If we can cover every American for a lower cost, it makes sense to do so. We can use the trillions saved by not fighting the next expensive and endless wars and put that savings towards providing universal health care for our fellow Americans. For now, it makes sense to shore up the Affordable Care Act, and strengthen the individual market. Adding a public option would go a long way towards making the ACA function at a higher level. However, certain politicians have made a living and guaranteed their elections and re-elections recently by demonizing what they distastefully refer to as Obamacare. It is unlikely that they can get beyond their strong dislike or even hatred of anything named after former President Barack Obama, and take a mend it, don’t end it approach. If so, their inability to move forward hastens the day when America will join the rest of the world and adopt a single payer universal coverage Medicare-for-All system. When we have a majority of progressives in the U.S. House and Senate, and a new president we can make single payer a reality. As  the simple prayer goes, God grant me patience, and please hurry!"

South of Oklahoma City is Texas and one of the districts worth targeting is the Austin-San Antonio corridor seat held by crackpot science denier Lamar Smith. The progressive running against him-- likely to be Blue America's next endorsee-- is Derrick Crowe. He told us "I support Medicare For All in virtually every speech, in front of every audience. It's in our literature and is one of our main platform planks. Democrats shouldn't shy away from it for any reason. Most Americans think our country should make sure everyone has health care coverage, and among those under 30, a stunning 89 percent support that statement, with 66 percent of those young people saying they want a single national government program. Nearly two-thirds of Americans have a positive reaction to the term, 'Medicare For All.' If Republicans want to try to attack you for supporting Medicare For All in public, hand them a microphone, because we'll take their seats. Beyond the polling, it's just simply time for America to get back into a leadership role on health care. We spend more money on health care and have worse outcomes than virtually any other well-developed nation. Of the 35 countries in the OECD, we rank 27th in life expectancy, despite spending the most on health care-- so for those worried about the cost of a single-payer system, I'd challenge them to prove the value of a private system. Tell me why we should die earlier so insurance CEOs and pharma bosses can get richer off our misery."

Paul Perry is one of the Democrats running in a crowded primary in the Philly 'burbs in the hope of running against Pat Meehan. "Yes," he said, "I use Medicare for All. There's still plenty of nuance in terms of process that progressives (and folks on all sides really) can work with even when we use that term. It's about how we get there. Medicare for All is an identifiable program that successfully provides healthcare already for millions of Americans, so expanding it to cover more just plain makes sense to a lot of folks. I don't think we should be compromising on our destination which is a system that truly covers every single person in this country affordably and effectively. But the nuance on how we get there, the process, is fine. It'll of course be a phased approach."

Running in the same district is state Senator Daylin Leach who calls for Medicare for all in his platform and agrees that the way you do that successfully is embrace it openly, and defend it aggressively. "Health care," he told us, "is a basic human right. And a 'right' is something you are born with and keep until you shuffle off this mortal coil. The only way to guarantee that right is with a universal health-care system that can never be taken away from you. Medicare for all does that. Currently, we spend 25% of every health care dollar on insurance company profits. We should instead use that money to improve access to care and quality of care. I will fight to make sure that happens."

Hey, Hey! Ho, Ho! Ben Ray Lujan's Got To Go!

I've been mad at the DCCC since Pelosi named Rahm Emanuel chairman in 2005. It's barely over a decade and other people are starting to catch on as well. The latest shit from this assholes: Pelosi and Ben Gay Lujan now admit the DCCC recruits and funds Blue Dogs and anti-Choice freaks and passes them off on unsuspecting Democratic voters as normal Democrats, Monday. Becca Andrews, reporting for Mother Jones used the DCCC p.r. shop's deceitfully-crafted messaging: "The Democrats will not withhold financial support from candidates who oppose abortion, according to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) chair Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM)." Oh... "not withhold?" As if they ever did! Conservatives always get the biggest share of DCCC money.

Democratic party leaders, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have also said the Democratic party should not draw a hard line when it comes to abortion. In June, DNC chair Tom Perez met with Democrats for Life of America who demanded that abortion not be a “litmus test” of the party. The 2016 Democratic platform stated that the party believed “unequivocally” that “every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion.”

At a time when the Democratic party is searching for a coherent identity and program after its resounding defeat in 2016, the debate over whether the party openly supports abortion rights will likely continue to heat up as the 2018 races loom.

“Throwing weight behind anti-choice candidates is bad politics that will lead to worse policy,” Mitchell Stille, who oversees campaigns for NARAL Pro-Choice America, told The Hill. “The idea that jettisoning this issue wins elections for Democrats is folly contradicted by all available data.”

I asked a couple dozen incumbents and some 2018 candidates what they think of the new controversy Ben Ray has blindly and stupidly stumbled into. I mean can you imagine how fast Ryan would fire NRCC chairman Steve Stivers if he announced they are going to start recruiting and funding progressive pro-Choice candidates? The first coherent response I got was Paul Perry, a progressive Democrat running for the PA-07 seat in the Philly suburbs currently held by Pat Meehan (R):

Yesterday, the DCCC stated publicly that it would compromise women’s reproductive freedom in a misguided attempt to win elections. This is dangerous nonsense. A woman’s right to bodily autonomy is not a bargaining chip; it is a fundamental part of what should be every Democrat’s commitment to economic justice and healthcare for all.

Therefore, in order to transform words into actionable solidarity, I am using my resources to support the Women’s Medical Fund, an organization that provides financial assistance to economically vulnerable women seeking reproductive care in Philadelphia, Montgomery, Chester, Delaware, and Bucks counties-- and I am encouraging my supporters to do the same. If elected to Congress, I'll ensure that programs like this have the necessary funding and support to provide full access to quality care for all women.

Because access to quality, affordable care for women should not depend on their financial circumstances nor the whims of party leaders. Period.

#TrustWomen #WeWon’tGoBack

Mary Ellen Balchunis was the Democratic candidate for PA-07 last cycle and the DCCC sabotaged her race. Sh'e thinking about running again next year. This morning she told me that "I understand supporting candidates crossing the finish line in the primary. If I had the support of the DCCC after my huge primary victory, I believe that I could have gone much further. However, I disagree with supporting candidates who win the primary and do not support the Democratic platform. As a Political Scientist, I believe if the DCCC goes through with this, you will see numerous women and Progressive men supporting Independent candidates. The DCCC may be giving several victories to Independents; and if the Independents don't win, the DCCC will be giving the election to the Republicans. In either case, the Republicans will maintain their majority. Haven't we learned anything from the 2016 election? The people want candidates who help them with jobs, wages, healthcare and education. It is why Sen.Sanders had such 'huge' support!"

The next post to come in was-- surprise, surprise-- from a woman candidate, Katie Hill, running against GOP crackpot and Trump rubber-stamp Steve Knight in CA-25, an evenly split district leaning blue.

I have spent my whole life in one of those long-held Republican districts that Democrats have to flip next year in order to get back a majority in the House. A Republican has been in the seat for 42 out of the last 50 years. The instinct among Democrats at the national level that we need to be talking to people in those districts differently to be able to win them over is absolutely correct. But that does not mean we should compromise or go backwards on some of our most fundamental values, including women's rights.

Many members of my community have strong religious ties that affect their views on abortion. However, the vast majority of them-- including members of my immediate family-- acknowledge that, while they may not agree with a woman's choice to have an abortion, it is not their place or the government's place to get involved in one of the hardest decisions a woman will ever make in her life. They also almost universally agree, in my experience, that the best way to prevent abortions (and/or the devastating cycle of kids entering the foster care system) is by preventing unplanned pregnancies. So education and access to birth control are absolutely key in that. There is national polling and research that shows that 80% of people support a woman's right to choose, if not morally, then at least from the perspective that it's not a decision that the government can be making for her. We need to be appealing to that overwhelming majority of people-- not the 20% or less who want to strip away the rights we've worked so hard to protect.

A woman's right to choose is something that our party, and progressives in general, have been fighting to earn and to protect for generations. We cannot give that up because of a mistaken belief that this is somehow the way we will win over conservative voters, and more conservative-leaning districts. As a woman, and someone who fundamentally understands the culture and the dynamics of purple districts, I can say with utter confidence that this is the wrong tactic.

The best Democrat running in IL-13, David Gill, is a stalwart, no-nonsense progressive. I knew the DCCC announcement would sound unpleasantly familiar to him. Last night a good feminist Democrat was complaining on twitter that "liberal men" were willing to throw women under the bus and back Lujan on this. Well, not any of the liberal men I know! Dr. Gill sure had a different perspective than that too! "I would have no way of knowing what the DCCC is doing all around the country," he told us, "but I am intimately aware of their actions here in IL-13. I lost this seat in 2012 by three-tenths of ONE point (with the handicap that year of having a liberal independent on the ballot who was expressing all the same views as myself), after defeating the moderate DCCC-backed candidate in the primary (despite being outspent 5 to 1). Subsequent Democrats have lost the seat by 50 to 60 times as much as I lost it by, and Senator Durbin lost in this district by 20 times as much as I lost it by. But in spite of the fact that I have so vastly outperformed other Democratic candidates, I am unable to interest the DCCC in getting behind my 2018 campaign. I suspect that they do not like the fact that some of the main planks in my platform are driven by my 25 year membership in Physicians for a National Health Program (a leading single-payer advocacy group) and my 20 year membership in Physicians for Reproductive Choice. I also speak frequently and passionately about the need for true campaign-finance reform, and the need to end the corporate ownership of our politics and government. These are the issues which have resulted in my relative success here in the district, and yet these same issues seem to keep the DCCC from embracing my campaign. There will not be a liberal independent protecting the Republican who squeaked by me in 2012 this time around (Illinois' bizarre ballot access laws only make that a realistic possibility in years that end in a '2'), so I intend to make up that 0.3% next year and get to Congress, whether the DCCC likes it or not. Of course, first I will have to defeat another moderate DCCC-backed candidate in the Democratic primary next March, a candidate who has not expressed any public support for single-payer or tuition-free public universities or a $15 per hour minimum wage."

Doug Applegate, a former Marine Corp colonel and not someone who gets pushed around by political hacks told us that "the DCCC sets it's own policies and I set the policies for my campaign. Supporting women's hard-won right to choice is a core value of mine and-- a value shared by the majority of San Diego and Orange County voters-- and Beltway strategists aren't the folks I'm looking to for advise on the subject. Women who live in CA-49 are." Doug is likely to replace anti-Choice fanatic Darrell Issa in Congress. Up the road a bit Wendy Reed is running for a deep red seat held by Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. She's another candidate unenthusiastic about the DCCC's latest move. "Ben Ray Lujan's willingness to toss off a Constitutionally protected right of women for political expediency exemplifies the rotting of DCCC strategy," she told us. "Lujan seems to have passed his expiration date, and I stand with Tom Perez and Howard Dean on this. Only principles, platform integrity, and informed conversation will win elections in 2018."

Tom Guild is a progressive Democrat in exactly the kind of "red state," Oklahoma, where the DCCC wants to run anti-Choice Blue Dogs. Of course, they're wrong... and are unlikely to back Tom. He told us that "The progressive coalition is made up of many disparate interests. Environmentalists are often primarily concerned with climate change and the future of our planet. Progressive populists may be most concerned with raising the minimum wage, Wall Street Reform, and the reduction of college student loan debt. Women’s health issues are at the forefront of the concerns of many women and men in the progressive movement. Seniors may emphasize increasing Social Security benefits and protecting Medicare from being reduced to worthless vouchers, leaving older Americans without meaningful affordable health care. There is an abundance of other groups constituting the progressive movement and each has issues crucial to them. To undercut women’s health is offensive and is no more acceptable than the undermining of other values important to diverse elements of our movement. We need candidates who run the gamut and mutually support our progressive allies on issues essential to them. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. so eloquently said, injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together. We must support our coalition partner’s progressive causes, along with our own. Anti-Choice=Anti-Progressive. Together we win, and as Abe Lincoln, also eloquently, opined, a house divided against itself cannot stand."

Harley Rouda is one of the 40 or so Democrats running for GOP-held seats in Orange County. He wants to replace Dana Rohrabacher, an anti-Choice nut. "A woman's right to choose is non-negotiable. We can compromise on many things, but not on a woman's right to autonomy over her own body. I’m in complete agreement with 70% of Americans who, regardless of their personal feelings on abortion, recognize it is a woman’s fundamental right to control her reproductive decisions and that government has no place in deciding for her. I’m disappointed that the Democratic Party won’t stand up without hesitation and in unanimity on this very important issue."

Another Orange County candidate, Andy Thorburn-- who is eager to replace Ed Royce-- jumped into the race yesterday. He told me that "I'm 100% pro-choice, and I believe that the government should not tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body. I do not believe that the national party should actively recruit anti-choice candidates."

I asked a whole slew of Democrats in Congress. A few cursed out Pelosi and Lujan or told me off the record how angry they are and how divisive this is for the party-- but no one was willing to speak on the record except Bay Area progressive freshman Ro Khanna, who said simply and right to the point, "I believe being pro-choice is about gender equality and a core value. The DCCC should not support anti-choice candidates." BOOM!

Dotty Nygard is the progressive candidate taking on Jeff Denham in northern California. Again, clear and right to the point: "There is zero reason for our party to invest in fringe, anti-Choice candidates. Americans are tired of politicians who feel more compelled to regulate a woman's body than Wall Street corruption. 70% of Americans support safe access to abortion services, it's clear now more than ever that members of congress need to accurately represent our values and defend the health of Women."

And Derrick Crowe, the progressive in the Austin-San Antonio corridor district occupied by anti-Choice freak Lamar Smith sums up with all the candidates I spoke with said: "The DCCC should retract this statement, apologize to the women they were selling out when making this statement, and issue instead a new statement in which they make it clear that women's rights are not negotiable."

Rep. Kaniela Ing is the most progressive Democrat in the Hawaii legislature. He may not be running for federal office-- I hope he does-- but he's certainly paying close attention to what Pelosi and Lujan have been saying. I like his response a lot: "Embracing candidates who do not support every woman's right to choose is a huge step backward for our party, both morally and strategically. Roe v. Wade was nearly 45 years ago. So abortion should not be framed as a new fight between progressives and moderate Democrats. It's a pillar of what Democrats stand for. We can and should learn from Republicans, who have recently dominated American politics on every level by running unapologetically conservative candidates. People vote when they are inspired by candidates who stand for something. Our advantage is that more folks share progressive values and support our issues. We have dignity, fairness, and equality on our side. When we run on our values, and not from them, we win."

Want to watch some good ideas from the Democratic Party? This guy was speaking at Politicon in Pasadena this last weekend-- and there was nothing in what he had to say about taking away women's right to choice. One has to wonder why party leaders like Pelosi and Lujan aren't on the same page as this DNC spokesperson. They should be if they're serious about winning back Congress:




UPDATE: From Crowley's Opponent

Alexandria Ocasio is running or the Queens/Bronx seat occuried by the corrupt conservative Pelosi has picked to run the House Dems after she's gone, Joe Crowley. "The United States has the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world," she told us. "Women across this country already suffer in their access to healthcare. The very idea of the Democratic Party compromising on healthcare for half of Americans is tantamount to becoming the very Republicans we are trying to overturn. Our focus should be on expanding healthcare to all Americans, not taking it away."

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."

Does The Most Corrupt Man In Congress Really Support Medicare-For-All?

The Republicans in each house of Congress have voted literally dozens and dozens of times over the past 7 years to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a top priority of an avaricious donor class that doesn't like the idea of helping to pay for poor peoples' healthcare. In all those years the Republicans were voting in lockstep to repeal, there was either a Democratic-controlled Senate to stop it or a Democrat in the White House to veto it. Now the Republicans control the Senate, the House and the White House. So where's the repeal? Reality is a bitch! The repeal is the most massively unpopular bill in living memory. Something between 12% and 20% of Americans approve of it. Bush's TARP Wall Street bankster bailout was more popular with American voters than TrumpCare. Republican legislators can't deal with it and are panic-stricken. Ha, ha, ha?

Let's look a little closer to home-- right here in blue, blue California where the Governor is a Democrat and both the state Senate and the state Assembly have massive Democratic majorities. Both houses of the legislature passed single payer legislation-- TWICE-- in the past-- when there was a Republican governor to veto it-- and now...

Tuesday, Lydia O'Neal and David Sirota, reporting for the International Business Times, points to similarities that Republicans in Congress and Democratic in Sacramento face in regard to healthcare. "Democrats,' they wrote, "are facing allegations from progressive leaders that after a decade of promising to create a single-payer health care system, the party is now succumbing to the kind of corporate fealty that national party leaders routinely ascribe to Republicans" and the scumbag and traitor to all things American who has managed to slip into the White House.

As many Democrats enthusiastically promoted single-payer to Golden State voters, the party indeed engineered a complete takeover of the state’s government, giving them unprecedented legislative supermajority power to enact the legislation-- even over a governor’s veto. Yet, as health care industry money flooded into the coffers of the Democratic Party’s candidates for California office, Brown has turned negative about the idea, and late last month, California Democratic Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon halted a single-payer bill in its tracks, preventing it from being voted on by his Democratic supermajority before the legislature’s self-imposed July 14th deadline.

Amid calls for Democratic unity in the Trump era, the party’s move in a deep blue state to block a health care initiative it previously supported has prompted labor movement protests-- and promises of primary campaigns or recall efforts to unseat recalcitrant Democrats. More broadly, eight years after Barack Obama mounted a populist presidential campaign and then did not prosecute any major Wall Street executives, the episode has resurrected progressives’ allegations that while Democrats may talk a good game, they are not nearly as committed to bold action as their rhetoric suggests.

“Talk about fake news-- this is fake politics: stick it to the Republican governor but we’re going to leave dear old Jerry untouched so he doesn’t have to veto this bill,” said Democrat Gloria Romero, a former California Senate Majority Leader who helped pass the single-payer bills in 2006 and 2008. “Probably most of these Assembly members ran for office supporting single payer healthcare. But now that what they ran around promising the people actually has a chance of passage, they don’t dare do what they promised. This kind of thing undermines any integrity from the Democratic Party that is supposed to stand up for the little guy. It creates a disconnect and a distrust.”

In an era that has seen voters enthusiastically respond to populist crusades in both parties, Brown and Rendon have offered technocratic arguments. Both have raised questions about how the most recent single-payer bill, SB 562, would be financed in California, where one previously passed ballot measure constrains the state budget and another requires a set percentage of the budget to be devoted to education.

...[A]n International Business Times review of campaign finance data found that in the intervening years, health insurers and pharmaceutical companies substantially boosted their donations to California Democratic candidates in gubernatorial election years.

In all, donors from the health services sector and major health insurers gave more than $16 million to Democratic candidates and the California Democratic Party in the 2014 election cycle-- almost double what donors from those industries gave in the 2006 election, according to data from the National Institute on Money In State Politics. Donors from those sectors collectively donated more than $3 million to Brown and Rendon since 2010.

In light of that history, longtime single-payer proponents argue that this is a watershed moment for Democrats in advance of the 2018 election. They assert that the California fight will demonstrate whether or not Democrats in the Trump era are willing to use the power they still retain at the state level to defy their major corporate donors and enact the policies they tell voters they support.

“We’ve been talking about this forever,” said Jamie Court, the president of Consumer Watchdog, which has supported the legislation. “When there’s a Republican in charge, Democrats take action,” he said, and with ostensibly pro-single-payer Brown replacing Schwarzenegger, “now it’s time to put up or shut up.”

“It’s a litmus test for whether progressive Democratic politicians can talk the talk and walk the walk,” Court told IBT. “This is about the soul of the Democratic Party as much as it’s about health care.”

Kia Hamadanchy, a former Sherrod Brown staffer, currently running for the House seat Trump's pet congresswoman in Orange County, Mimi Walters, holds told us that "Top to bottom the Democratic Party is in the worst shape its been since right before the Great Depression. Whether its Congress, state legislatures, city councils, or school boards we've continued to lose across the board and across the country time and time again. Donald Trump does not become President of the United States without a massive institutional failure by the Democratic Party. Whatever we've been doing its clear that its not working and we need a complete rebuild from the ground up, with a focus on what we actually stand for and who we actually represent. And as a party how can we possibly win the argument and actually convince people to come along with us if we're constantly running away from ourselves and don't strongly stand behind progressive policy, whether its single payer or whether its anything else."

Dotty Nygard is the progressive nurse running for the blue-trending Central Valley seat held by 100% Trump backer Jeff Denham. She supported Bernie in the primary and is running on similar policies and values now. She told us that "one thing is clear: we need more union members, women, and people of color elected to Congress. These underrepresented groups can better relate to the struggles working families face every day, and as representatives they are more likely to recognize the insanity of winding the income inequality divide amongst Americans, both through messaging and actions. Democrats are supposed to represent the people-- fight for the people-- and lift them up... Leadership cannot idly stand by while only those with money are elected into positions of power within a system that champions money over grassroots support. As Democrats, we must proactively fund, endorse, and otherwise work to elect working-class folks if we want the public to engage in politics again."

So who's the most corrupt man in Congress and what's he got to do with all this? Yes, time to talk about Queens County machine boss, Joe Crowley, a Wall Street scumbag and "former" chairman of the corporately owned and operated New Dems who Pelosi and Hoyer have selected as the next leader of the House Democrats. Crowley has never had a contested election. He was given his seat by a legalistic trick/inside job pulled off by the last Queens machine boss, Tom Manton, as he suddenly resigned from Congress and handed off the prize to his sleaze bag protégée, Crowley.

Progressives have been trying to pass Medicare-For-All since Truman was president. This year, when John Conyers introduced the latest version-- H.R. 676-- in a situation where Trump is president and McConnell and Ryan decide what gets voted on in Congress-- there were 51 original co-sponsors, basically all fervent progressives like Partial Jayapal (D-WA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Katherine Clark (D-MA), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Jose Serrano (D-NY), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), Judy Chu (D-CA), Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Matt Cartwright (D-PA). That was on January 24. As the months rolled on more progressives read the bill and signed on as well-- like Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Alan Lowenthal (D-CA) in February, Mike Capuano (D-MA) and Karen Bass (D-CA) and Nanette Barragan (D-CA) in March. By April, even conservative Democrats from the Republican wing of the party started smelling the roses and signing on as co-sponsors, even slimy characters like Gene Green (TX), Lou Correa (Blue Dog-CA), Darren Soto (New Dem-FL), Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN), Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX), and then on May 5-- soon after a progressive primary opponent, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez jumped into the primary against him, Crowley signed on as a co-sponsor too. What a joke! No one in Congress thinks Crowley supports single payer, Medicare-for-All or anything else remotely progressive beyond what he needs to work on his personal goals wrapped up in naked careerism and grotesque opportunism. But Crowley's signal was quickly picked up up conservative New Dem Adam Schiff who has Dianne Feinstein's Senate seat dictating every decision he makes. Maybe this is the kind of sausage-making it's going to take to finally get this passed. Or maybe opportunists like Crowley and Schiff will betray America as easily as Rendon and Jerry Brown betrayed California.



Let's go back to Lydia O'Neal and David Sirota for a moment. They pointed out that Rendon's Democratic and corporate allies lauded him "for blocking the single payer legislation, even after fellow Democrats had previously passed it."

“I think Speaker Rendon gets a lot of credit for protecting his members from a very stupid idea and making them all politically vulnerable for something that’s not going to happen anyway,” political consultant David Townsend, who works for Democrats and insurance companies, told the Sacramento Bee.

Assembly Democrats have set July 14th as the deadline for policy committees to consider legislation this year, and CNA is continuing to stage protests demanding lawmakers allow the bill to be debated.

Whether or not it advances this year, the legislation faces persistent questions about Proposition 98, which mandates a set percentage of spending on education, and the so-called “Gann limit,” which limits overall state spending. A senate analysis of the bill asserted that those measures “would prevent the legislature from creating the single-payer system envisioned in the bill without voter approval” of exemptions.

Rendon’s move, though, has effectively prevented lawmakers from voting the legislation onto the ballot. Kuehl, meanwhile, rejected suggestions that lawmakers could not find creative ways to work within existing constitutional limits.

“That theory won’t fly,” she told IBT, asserting that there is likely breathing room within the Gann limit. She said after a decade of debate over single-payer, lawmakers should be able to come up with ways to deal with Proposition 98.

“I don’t think it would actually be a problem,” said Kuehl, who is now a Los Angeles County Supervisor. “You would craft it so that it would not be part of the state budget. It would create a separate state health plan.”

As for the political dynamics, Kuehl compared the Democrats’ refusal to pass a long-supported health care policy to Republicans repeatedly voting to repeal Obamacare but now having trouble passing a replacement bill under their own party’s president.

“It’s much more realistic when you’re faced with having something happen or not happen,” she said.

Fabian Nunez, a Democrat who served as Assembly Speaker when Kuehl’s SB 840 first passed both houses, said he believes single-payer simply is not feasible at the state level.

“You could do some things at the state level to improve the quality of care, but you need the cooperation of the federal government,” he said. “The only way to do single-payer well is at the federal level.”

Nunez’s position exemplifies the Democratic Party’s shift on the issue now that it has full legislative power. As Assembly speaker in 2006, he supported the California single-payer bill.

Some single-payer proponents in California say that after multiple attempts to pass a bill, Democrats themselves have become the major obstacle-- and the only way to get the party to restore its credibility and act on its promises is through threats of revenge at the ballot box.

“There have to be electoral consequences for these Democrats,” said Michael Lighty of the California Nurses Association. “The whole basis of their politics is pro-industry, pro-Wall Street. Those folks are driven by their donor agenda and not by popular demand. There just in general has to be a greater grassroots surge to hold these elected officials accountable.”

Primarying Anthony Rendon is an absolute must. Drafting state Senate president Kevin de León to run for Feinstein's seat-- and not Adam Schiff-- is just as important. This is California, not Mississippi and if we let the establishment, primarily Democratic careerists, get away with this kind of crap here, they will be emboldened to rub our faces in shit for eternity. And nationally... Crowley is a DEAD end for Democrats. Contrast his incoherence on healthcare policy with what Ro Khanna, who represents the Silicon Valley and parts of the East Bay, (see tweets above) told me today:

"When Republicans mislead voters into thinking that a single payer health care system costs $32 trillion, Democrats must point out that our current system already costs $49 trillion. A single payer system would actually save Americans $17 trillion. A single-payer system reduces administrative costs and will lower drug prices and hospital costs through bargaining. Ultimately, a single payer system would help reduce our deficit and ease the burden on both businesses and middle class families.

"For decades, the GOP has made economic arguments regarding health care and Democrats have made moral arguments. But we shouldn't be afraid to make the economic case. Expanding health care through single payer isn't just the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do. Let's not let the GOP get away with fake math, Democrats must point out that a single payer system is fiscally responsible."

Ro Khanna sounds like a credible leader, unlike Joe Crowley, who sounds like what he is: and opportunist and a careerist hack who will sell out the grassroots as easily as he yawns when a staffer tries explaining policy to him.

We've been mentioning that two of our old progressive friends, Mary Ellern Balchunis and Daylen Leach, are both running-- in a crowded field-- for the Democratic nomination to take on Ryan rubber stamp Pat Meehan in PA-07. But there's another excellent progressive in that race too, Paul Perry, a former Obama staffer and a school teacher. I was talking with him yesterday and mentioned that "It's deeply ironic that the DCCC released a series of stickers encouraging voters to 'look at the other guys' when our party would actually be best served by taking a good, hard look in the mirror and changing the cast of characters that we see in it. If we are to learn anything from this last election cycle, it's that Americans are hungry for a new generation of leaders to step up and take tough stances that deliver progress for Americans, like single-payer healthcare and tuition-free college. These are ideas whose time has come and we need the next class of progressive leaders to pave the way for this badly-needed change that most Americans favor by wide margins." Paul Perry knows something about messaging too. Just take a look at this incredible video:



Remind you at all of how Randy Bryce introduced himself? I have no double we're going too be hearing more from Paul as this cycle heats up.