Is One Party's Politicians More Or Less Corrupt Than The Other's?

Hard Ball by Nancy Ohanian

In terms of political parties, it was once clearer who the good guys were and who the bad guys were in the Dark Money world or legalistic, systemic bribery. Now... not so much. Poke a Democrat about taking legalistic bribes and he or she will start screeching about "unilateral disarmament." But as new report by Alex Seitz-Wald for NBC News makes it clear that if the Dems were once the party opposed to Dark Money, they are now the party getting the most out of it. Progressives tend to reject corporate PAC money, for example, but corrupt Democratic Party leaders like Pelosi and Hoyer scoop it up with alacrity and then buy loyalty within the House caucus by spreading it around. Seitz-Wald may be a fool but he's correct when he writes that "Democratic super PACs are spending more than Republican ones" and that Democratic Super PACs outspent conservative Super PACs in 2018. Russ Feingold's prediction has come true that Democrats would "lose our soul" if they allowed Big Money into the party. Just look at Chuck Schumer. There isn't a person on earth who would say he has anything even resembling a soul-- and he's one of (many) go-betweens connecting the Wall Street banksters with the Democratic Party.

Advocates are concerned with super PACs, which can accept donations of unlimited size but have to reveal the names of their donors and regularly disclose their activity. But they're more worried about dark money groups: nonprofit organizations that can't be as explicitly political as super PACs, but can keep their donors secret forever and don't have to reveal much about activities before elections.

While concerns about campaign finance reform that once animated Democratic voters have been eclipsed by the desire to oust President Donald Trump, advocates are left to wonder if the party can really be trusted to follow through on its promises to dismantle a system that may help them get elected.

"If Democrats were to win the Senate and the White House, there is reason to be concerned that they may not carry through with their commitments," Holman added. "I have no doubt that we are going to have to hold their word over their head."

The Democratic National Committee adopted a platform last month calling for a ban on dark money, and Joe Biden says one of his first priorities as president would be signing the sweeping reform bill House Democrats passed last year that would, among other things, match small donations 6-to-1 to encourage grassroots giving.

But his campaign also says they'll take all the help they can get for now and that bill, known as H.R.1, would have to compete for limited legislative bandwidth with efforts to address the coronavirus pandemic, the economy and much more.

Republicans, who generally oppose major campaign finance reform efforts, cry hypocrisy.

"It's just like everything else Biden stands for. He believes it until it's of political benefit to reverse himself," said Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh.

Democrats, however, argue that the only way they can rein in big money in politics is to first use big money in politics to win.

"We aren't going to unilaterally disarm against Donald Trump and right-wing conservatives, but look forward to the day when unlimited money and super PACs are a thing of the past, even if it means putting our own PAC out of business," said Guy Cecil, the chairman of Priorities USA, the super PAC first founded to support Obama's re-election.

On principle, Democrats opposed Citizens United, the Supreme Court's landmark 2010 decision that opened the floodgates to virtually unlimited money in politics. But they also were against it because they were sure Republicans and their big-business allies would outspend them.

At first, Obama set the example for his party by trying to keep his hands clean of the super PAC game. "It was just this slog to try to get Democrats to think there was any benefit at all to giving to outside groups," said a Democrat involved in early efforts to raise money for a super PAC.

Quickly, though, party leaders concluded their position against unlimited donations and dark money wasn't tenable, and it turned out there was plenty of it flowing on the Democratic side, too. Obama eventually blessed Priorities USA, which helped kick off a proliferation of liberal big-money groups.

"If Democrats don't compete, it would be like preparing for a nuclear war by grabbing your fly swatter," said Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic operative who has worked for both campaigns and outside groups.

Democrats at first said they felt sick about doing it and vowed to hold themselves to a higher standard. They would support super PACs, which publicly disclose their donors, but railed against dark money groups, which don't. But that standard eventually eroded, the apologies grew more perfunctory and they ended up diving in head-first, looking for new loopholes to exploit. And Trump's election has supercharged the spending.

...Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, which runs the campaign finance data warehouse OpenSecrets.org, said her group has tracked liberal groups "taking dark money in politics to a new level of opacity" and caught them trying new tricks, such as creating faux news sites to make their attack ads seem more credible.

While overall dark money spending is roughly even between the parties right now, Democrats have a clear edge in congressional races, Krumholz said. Around 65 percent of dark money TV ads in 2020 Senate races and 85 percent of dark money TV ads in House races are sponsored by liberal groups, according to Krumholz.

"Unfortunately, there has been comfort with this that has grown over time on both sides of the aisle," Krumholz said. "Nobody wants to be the sucker that is playing by the rules when someone is getting away with murder."

One large dark money group, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, has funneled millions of dollars to more than 100 liberal groups, accepting individual donations as large as $51.7 million and $26.7 million, all without having to reveal any information about who is behind those donations.

Amy Kurtz, the Sixteen Thirty Fund's executive director, said they're just playing by the rules.

"We support and have lobbied in favor of reform to the current campaign finance system (through H.R. 1), but we are equally committed to following the current laws to level the playing field for progressives in this election," Kurtz said in a statement.

Now, many super PACs, which disclose their donors, are routing money through allied nonprofits, which do not have to make their contributors' names public, further obscuring the ultimate source of the cash.

"For a voter who simply wants to know where the money is coming from and going to, you almost have to be a full-time researcher or investigative reporter to connect all the dots," Krumholz said.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) remains one of the fiercest opponents of campaign finance reform, not only blocking bills like H.R.1 and disclosure measures, but even intervening in legal battles to overturn state campaign finance rules.

He sees it as a free speech issue, hailing the Citizens United decision as "an important step in the direction of restoring First Amendment rights."

All this leaves campaign finance reform advocates dependent on Democrats winning in November-- even if it takes some dark money to get them there.

"We are on the cusp of having the best opportunity to repair the campaign finance system since the Watergate scandal of the 1970s," said Fred Wertheimer, a veteran good-government advocate and president of Democracy 21. "But that depends on how the elections come out."

What a crock of crap. "Depends on how the elections come out?" Why? Are the corrupt conservatives the DCCC and DSCC recruited going to suddenly become reformers? It takes real effort and real talent-- of a kind most politicians don't possess or even strive to develop-- to raise campaign cash without resorting to criminality. Two grassroots progressives who are not owned an operated by the DC Democrats are Kara Eastman in Nebraska and Julie Oliver in Texas. Neither accepts Dark Money and both are likely too be in Congress next year. It's worth contributing to womanlike Kara and Julie (which is what I included the thermometer below.

Last night Julie told me that she doesn't take a dime from any PAC, unlike Roger Williams. We need to get corporations and big money out of our politics and out of our democracy, and that's why it's so important that we're taking this stance."

Kara's campaign has been very much driven by a desire to get dark money out of American politics. Her opponent reeks of corruption. "Don Bacon must be spooked because the Republican dark money machine recently went into overdrive in Nebraska’s Second. We’ve seen dark and grainy TV ads accusing me of all sorts of hellfire and brimstone in the Omaha suburbs, paid for by secretive groups like “Defending Mainstreet” (ironic name from a DC-based right-wing Super PAC). When I talk to voters in the district they tell me the ads aren’t landing. My concern is that, like another right wing authoritarian once said, “if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes truth.” Unlike the dark money ads propping up Bacon, my voter communications are all based on fact and the Congressional record. It’s easily to do since Bacon votes with Trump 94% of the time."

Progressive Challengers Need To Come Up With New Campaign Strategies-- STAT

Ask a progressive challenger to lay out a roadmap to beating a conservative incumbent and inevitably you will hear about a muscular voter registration drive. That becomes a lot trickier with a pandemic raging. But not impossible. In Arizona there are quite a few organizations that work to register people who are likely to vote for Democrats. Unfortunately there is far more likelihood that these voters will skip primaries and vote in general elections only. From the first time I spoke with Eva Putzova, she has always told me she is focussing on likely primary voters. Yesterday, I asked Eva, the progressive candidate taking on reactionary Blue Dog-- and "former" Republican-- Tom O'Halleran. She  reminded us that she "ran 3 successful campaigns before I embarked on this journey in Arizona's first congressional district: in 2014, I won a seat on the Flagstaff's City Council; in 2016, I lead a local initiative raising Flagstaff's minimum wage to $15 per hour; and in 2018, I successfully defended that initiative against an attempt by the local chamber of commerce and the Koch brothers' network money to repeal it. None of these campaigns were easy and there's no magical recipe for success. But in all three campaigns, I planned the strategy in advance, started early with voter outreach, stayed focused for a prolonged period of time, and intentionally pursued a consistent message platform that was authentic and rooted in facts. I took these lessons and the discipline from the last six years into my congressional campaign and recruited a very competent team. We launched the campaign in January 2019 and the long campaign cycle allowed us to learn a lot about what works and what does not in a vast district like ours. Even without the pandemic, our campaigning has looked differently because we can't physically reach a critical mass of voters by simply knocking on their doors. Because we are running a grassroots campaign without any corporate PAC money, we have to be very strategic in how we spend our lean budget. I'm not going to pretend that raising funds a few dollars at a time is not difficult but how we run our campaign is important, because it's indicative of how I will legislate: with integrity and for the people."

One candidate told me that he and his team are "still trying to figure out how we'll proceed over the coming months, honestly. We need to attract the youth and working class voters who never show up, and the team is meeting regularly via Zoom, trying to work out some ways to do that electronically, but it's in early stages. A lot of our planning was built around a massive ground game that's now impossible."

Reporting for NBC News, Alex Seitz-Wald wrote yesterday that "Presidential elections are typically prime time for bringing new people into the political process, but the coronavirus pandemic is making voter registration more difficult than ever, prompting concerns that many young Americans and other nonvoters might miss their chance to get onto the rolls before November." His concern is the presidential race. Ours is for congressional contests. There's next to no enthusiasm for Biden and unless he can get non-voters in their 70s and 80s to register, voter registration drives don't matter for him anyway. But they certainly do for West Virginia progressive Paul Jean Swearengin, who is taking on Trump rubber stamp Shelley Moore Capito, for the Senate seat Capito has basically given over to Trump. My team has been amazing during this time to expand voter outreach. "Our county captains," she told me, "are making phone calls, texting and sending postcards. We have expanded our digital marketing strategy, are hosting virtual townhalls, and expanding fundraising to air a commercial. It's challenging but it can be done." Seitz-Wald:

"This is the moment when we historically see people take action to register to vote," said Kristen Clarke, the president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. "The public health crisis has brought all of that activity virtually to a grinding halt."

Voter registration happens year-round, but the months leading up to a presidential election are crucial as interest in politics spikes and funding for registration efforts flows in.

In the runup to the 2016 presidential election, Americans filed more than 77.5 million voter registration applications, according to the Election Assistance Commission, a federal agency that helps states administer elections, and total registration topped 200 million.

That still left tens of millions of eligible Americans who are not registered to vote. And this year, millions of new Americans will become eligible by turning 18 as Generation Z (born between 1997 and 2012), the most diverse in history, is expected to surpass the silent generation (born between 1928 and 1945) as a share of the electorate.

Millions more Americans have moved and need to re-register at a different address, while others have been purged from the rolls for not voting in recent elections, including in key battleground states such as Wisconsin and Georgia.

But now, all the traditional ways of signing up voters are out the window, prompting concerns that a large swath of Americans will miss their chance to participate in this year's elections.

"Registration is going to be an issue for everyone," said Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), who along with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) is pushing for emergency voting reforms to respond to the coronavirus crisis.

"Both parties typically register people at events," Klobuchar added on a call with reporters. "And if there's no events, and no way to go door to door, that's going to be a problem."

Voter registration activists typically seek out crowds, but there are none now.

Students are not on campuses. Churches are not holding regular services. Fairs, parades and community events have been canceled. And even setting up a table outside a grocery store or a shopping area on a warm weekend afternoon is questionable.

Departments of motor vehicles are the source of about 45 percent of all voter applications nationwide, thanks to the Motor Voter Act, but they, too, are closed in many parts of the country. And so are other places where registration forms are typically available, such as libraries, high schools and government offices.

Another big source of registrations in states that allow same-day registration is polling places, but many of them will be closed in upcoming primaries and it's not clear how many will be open by November as states try to shift to mail-in balloting.

Groups that would typically be sending hundreds of canvassers into the field to sign up voters right now have shut down in-person operations and switched entirely to digital organizing.

Over the last month, we noticed that small dollar contributions had dropped off noticeably for our candidates through Blue America. Yesterday we started an online fundraiser for Texas progressive Mike Siegel and we're seeing slightly more normal patterns of contributions than what we've been seeing since the financial uncertainty that was engendered by the pandemic and the stock market crash. Associated Press reporter Brian Slodysko wrote yesterday that presidential candidates have backed off aggressive asks. "What used to be a routine request for political cash," he wrote, "could now come across as tone-deaf or tacky. The two also run the risk of competing for limited dollars with charities trying to raise money for pandemic relief. With a recession potentially on the horizon, there's a question of whether wealthy donors are in a giving mood and whether grassroots supporters who chip in small amounts will still have the wherewithal to keep at it. That presents a delicate challenge as both candidates try to stockpile the massive amounts of cash needed for the general election campaign. 'It’s hard to have a conversation with someone right now to ask how they’re getting by, and then ask them for financial support in the next sentence,' said Greg Goddard, a Democratic fundraiser who worked for Amy Klobuchar's presidential campaign before the Minnesota senator dropped out of the Democratic race. To Tim Lim, a Democratic consultant who worked for both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, 'it's a world where no one has a good answer.' He said that 'on the fundraising side, we are going to take some massive hits as a party.' The task is particularly acute for Biden. The former vice president is trying to pivot from the primary to the general election in a race essentially frozen by the virus."

Biden-- and his status quo platform-- have virtually no grassroots enthusiasm anyway and he's been dependent on ultra-wealthy donors and corporately-funded SuperPACs, even more so than Trump. Slodysko wrote that "The pandemic has put all big-dollar fundraisers on hold, like all in-person political events. That's forced Trump and Biden, for now, to rely on online fundraising. Biden is holding virtual fundraisers via video conferences. But they lack the exclusivity and tactile nature of an in-person event, where donors can network, see and be seen. Biden and Trump continue to send out fundraising emails and texts."

“It isn't easy for me to ask you for money today,” Biden campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillon said in a fundraising email Thursday, seeking contributions as low as $5. “There are so many deserving charities and small businesses in your community where your money makes a huge difference right now. And of course, your own needs and the needs of your family take precedence.”

But, she continued, "we have to keep fundraising because we have to keep campaigning. And we have to keep campaigning because it's the only way we can defeat Trump in November.”

...Sanders has earned praise for turning to his army of small-dollar donors to raise $3.5 million for virus relief instead of his campaign. The senator, whose campaign is fueled by grassroots online donors, has stopped sending out fundraising emails.

"Right now my focus is on this extraordinary crisis,” Sanders told The Associated Press on Wednesday, after declining to discuss the future of his campaign.

Bloomberg also shelved plans to leverage his billions of dollars of personal wealth to run an outside group aimed at preventing Trump's reelection. Instead, he recently promoted a $40 million philanthropic effort aimed at curtailing the spread of the virus.

While the virus has disrupted many facets of life, Democratic fundraisers are optimistic that a degree of normalcy will return eventually. That will be a benefit to Biden.

And "normalcy" is all Biden has to campaign about-- hoping that few voters realize that his version of "normalcy" is what made Donald Trump feasible for tens of millions of voters in the first place. Meanwhile... over the weekend, Michael Stipe released a demo of his new solo song, "No Time For Love Like Now."





Two weeks ago, Michael released a comforting end of the world message... that may sound familiar.

Who Is Beto? And Why Is He Running For President?

One of my friends called the other day and reminded me that I had first met Barack Obama when he was a state senator, soon after I had discovered that he wasn't an Israeli Irishman. He was running for the U.S. Senate and conventional wisdom said he had no chance at all. He was in 4th place in an 8 person race. Some friends and I put on a fundraiser for him here in L.A. where his presentation stunned everyone in the room. I recall that it cost $75 to get in. After he was done speaking, there was not a single flat surface in the house that wasn't taken by someone writing another check. He was just a state senator no one had ever heard of and you could hear the word "president" be uttered. (He went on to win the primary with 53% of the votes, his closest opponent, Illinois state Comptroller Dan Hynes, taking 24%.) The reason my friend brought him was because he wanted to ask me if I saw any resemblance between Beto and Obama. I thought about it for a moment before responding that they were both males.

I also got to know Beto a bit before he was in Congress. He was making the jump from the El Paso City Council to Congress-- successfully primarying a corrupt, conservative Democrat, Silvestre Reyes, a Pelosi crony. Blue America endorsed him and helped him win the primary. I like Beto, even if he's not what I had hoped for in a rockin' young congressman and even if he's sketchy on policy and-- as it turns out-- not as good, at least in practice, on the campaign finance reform issues he's always shouting about. Still... a nice guy, always willing to talk through policy differences in a respectful and open way, more than I can say for many politicians. But a president of the U.S.? I don't see it.

Yesterday, a couple of NBC reporters, Lauren Egan and Alex Seitz-Wald, wrote how Beto could be a threat-- to Biden on his right and Bernie on his left. They start by interviewing some old dumbbell ex-Republican worried about Biden and Bernie being old and Bernie being a socialist. Apparently Setz-Wald picked his typical man on the street who's no longer a Republican but still watches Fox News. "Beto's theme of bringing people together really resonates with me. This division is very unsettling," sayeth the idiot.

While Sanders' allies have worried that O'Rourke could eat into the Vermont senator's base of young progressives, Biden may end up being the one with the most to lose among mainline Democrats more concerned with electability than political revolution.

Instead of shoring up his progressive bona fides in the face of left-flank attacks, O'Rourke has emphasized a Biden-esque message of civility while making a case that he can win the White House by stumping in the very Midwest states that Biden allies argue "Middle-Class Joe" is most capable of carrying.

"Because he generates so much excitement, a lot of people think Beto is a real threat to Bernie Sanders," said Bill Press, a liberal talk radio host who has hosted meetings of Sanders' kitchen cabinet. "Actually, for that very reason, plus the fact that he's closer to Biden than Bernie on the issues, I think Beto's much more of a threat to Joe Biden."

"Some Democrats are asking: If you already have a more exciting, younger, centrist white male in the race, why do you need Joe Biden?" Press said.

...The core of O’Rourke's stump speech is about inclusion, sounding more like Biden, who has been dinged by the left for speaking warmly of Republicans, than Sanders or Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) who portray their campaigns as us-versus-them fights against a corrupt political system.

The former Texas congressman has repeatedly declined to call himself a "progressive," saying he doesn't like labels, and refused to adopt ideological litmus-test issues, like Medicare for All.

You can always count on a fool like Seitz-Wald to portray Medicare-for-All as an "ideological litmus-test issue," rather than as policy as crucial for the development of the country as Social Security once was. There were people just like him who had nothing to say about it beyond it being an ideological litmus-test issue. Time for more already familiar pablum from Beto:

"Let's make sure that before we are Democrats or Republicans, we see each other as Americans and human beings and treat one another accordingly," O’Rourke said in Cleveland, repeating one of his common refrains.

And O'Rourke, who draws comparisons to Barack Obama on the stump, is even challenging one of Biden's chief assets-- his association with the popular former president.

"People underestimate how difficult it is to run from the lead position," said Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis.

"The real challenge for Biden and Sanders," he continued, "is going to be how do they keep people energized and excited about their candidacy, which really puts the onus on their ideas. Whereas for new candidates like Beto and (Kamala) Harris, it can be about their candidacy and their ideas."

Older white voters who turned out to O’Rourke's events in the midwest nearly universally expressed fondness for Biden, but also concerns about the former vice president, even if they weren't fully sold on O'Rourke.

Beto's fans seem as superficial and vapid as he comes across on the stump. While I was putting this post together, I got an e-mail from Beto's slick, inauthentic campaign. "In just six days, we have a chance to do something really big together, Howard. Something important-- for our country and our campaign to elect Beto. Please stick with us for a few moments while we unravel this." What did they unravel? Just that Beto will continue to imply he supports Bernie's and Elizabeth Warren's issues-- which he doesn't-- in order to raise money from low-info voters on his mailing list.

Seitz-Wald quoted one of the infatuated Beto supporters, a woman named Carolyn Harryman, who came to Beto's first campaign event in Keokuk, Iowa, and said beating Trump is her biggest concern in 2020 "I think Biden is smart and a superb human being, but I think we need new ideas." A superb human being? The conservative old racist?

Seitz-Wald also dug up Sharon Quinn, a 70-year-old retiree from Scranton, Pennsylvania, Biden's hometown, worried what a run would do to the former vice president's family. "Trump will eviscerate his family, his past, everything. I think he could be an excellent secretary of state, or something like that. We have a lot of fear for him if he runs," she said. "Beto is a blank slate,” Quinn continued. "He has intellectual curiosity and authenticity that we're looking for." Yeah, Blank Slate For President. Nice bumpersticker! Or something like that.

The new Emerson poll of Iowa registered Democratic voters shows Beto still struggling to get out of the also-ran category. At 5%, he has less than half the support Mayor Pete has (11%) and also trails, Biden, Bernie, Kamala, Elizabeth Warren and even Cory Booker. Gillibrand is back at zero and Klobuchar has sunk to 2%. In terms of momentum, Biden has sunk from 29% to 25% since January, Bernie has climbed from 15% to 24% and Kamala sunk from 18% to 10%. At that point Mayor Pete was polling zero, so his sprint to 11% is pretty amazing. Among voters under 30, only Bernie has more support than Buttigieg. In head to head matchups, the only Democrats who would beat Trump in Iowa at this point are Biden and Bernie.

Is David Brock's SuperPAC A Bridge To Nowhere?

American Bridge is a SuperPAC founded by David Brock, one of the oddest ducks in American politics. Once a right-wing journalistic assassin-for-hire and purveyor of Bill Clinton conspiracy theories, he turned against the GOP after coming out of the closet and was reborn as some kind of super-operative for the Republican-wing of the Democratic Party. Despite being one of the least trustworthy characters in American politics, he has been allowed to infiltrate multiple layers of the Democratic Party establishment to a degree that nearly every Democratic failure since the early 2000s has his fingerprints on it. Brock has been an especially effective Bernie saboteur and Edward Helmore used an article in The Guardian to note "residual unease among some liberal operatives that Brock's conversion story fits into a pattern of opportunism and self-promotion rather than ideological transformation." I don't know if he's a Republican mole or not, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out he's been enriching himself while sabotaging the Democratic Party from within for years.

Of the $20,460,398 American Bridge 21st Century collected in 2018, almost nothing was spent helping candidates, while $13,864,849 was spent on salaries, close to $3 million of administrative costs and over a million and a half on consultants. Everything about their balance sheet screams SCAM. It was the same pattern in 2016-- $19,894,876 raised; $143,186 to help candidates; $12,598,727 for salaries; and the rest for consultants, administrative costs and so on.

Yesterday, NBC News reported that one of his operations, American Bridge "is embarking on a $50 million effort designed to soften President Donald Trump’s support among the group that cost Democrats the White House in 2016-- white working-class voters in the Upper Midwest." Reaching out for cash from naive, wealthy Democratic donors, his memo states that "We understand that we may not win these voters back entirely, but if we don’t make inroads into these areas, we will win the popular vote, lose the Electoral College, and the Senate could be lost for a decade." He plans to drain $80 million from legitimate Democratic Party vehicles into his own super-shady SuperPAC, a $50 million expansion he claims will help the Democrats win rural and exurban voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and possibly Florida via commissionable and very profitable paid advertising campaigns on TV and radio and via digital dissemination.

The NBC News piece was written by an exceptionally inept reporter, Alex Seitz-Wald, who's never successfully grappled with the distinction between journalism and p.r.

"We're going to focus on real-life testimonials and putting them in front of voters," Brock said.

Trump has already spent tens of millions of dollars on his reelection campaign and held dozens of rallies while Democrats are just beginning the year-and-half-long process of selecting their nominee.

"While the strongest Democratic field in history brings their messages to primary voters and the American people, we are going to take the fight to Donald Trump, who has sold out hard-working Americans," said Andrew Gillum, the former Tallahassee mayor who ran for Florida governor last year.

Gillum is joining the board of American Bridge’s 501(c)4 non-profit arm, which is chaired by former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. New additions also include former DNC Chair Ed Rendell and operative Jessica Mackler, who ran the independent expenditure arm of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in last year's midterm elections.

Since Hillary Clinton lost the formerly solidly blue Midwest states, Democrats have debated whether to focus on winning back those voters or doubling down on their more diverse base.

Progressives within the Democratic Party have instead focussed on making sure the party's next nominee is not another version of Hillary Clinton-- so an Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders (or even a Mayor Pete) rather than a Biden or Beto or Gillibrand. In other words, someone whose policy agenda will appeal to those Midwestern blue collar voters rather than chase them to a carnival barker like Trump again.