Dirty Deeds, Done Dirt Cheap... California

Progressive woman, Katie Porter, vs Dave Min, backed by the corrupt reactionay New Dems

Do you want to hear something funny? Last week I was talking with someone about Dave Min, a truly reprehensible New Dem, trying to claw his way into Congress by telling everyone he meets whatever he thinks they want to hear. He actually managed to use some really gross tactics to win the California Democratic Party endorsement just over a week ago. My DCCC contact told me the DCCC should back him now out of respect for the California Democratic Party. Min won their endorsement, which was disputed by all the other candidates, by 1 vote. On the same day, Emilio Huerta won the endorsement of the California Democratic Party in a massive landslide. That triggered an avalanche of DCCC activity to pressure Huerta out of the race for a ghost candidate. Among the congressmembers who landed on Huerta-- or chatted with him respectfully-- were Zoe Lofgren, Jim Costa, Pete Aguilar and DCCC regional vice chair Ted Lieu.

Min was also able to use that "respect for California" argument to block progressive Katie Porter from being endorsed by the Congressional "Progressive" Caucus. So what about these reprehensible tactics Min has been using. If you're following the race, you know Min and his backers-- including Rep. Mark Takano-- used intimidation against signature gatherers at the Democratic state convention. Republican Mimi Walters has already started advertising Min's vile behavior towards progressive Democrats at the convention She sent out this video of Min in action in an e-mail which also used these tweets (among others):







But that's out there already and it isn't what I want to discuss today. This I believe hasn't been reported previously. Although when he was caught Min has been trying to worm out of this by claiming it was done by an unaffiliated supporter of his, I know from first hand experience with him that this has his stink all over it. He had one of his staffers call Katie Porter's Asian law students to see if they had been discriminated against. And now there are rumors that the dean of the law school got win of it and flipped out and demanded Min apologize. I haven't been able to get my hands on whatever apology he sent to the students but this is the bullshit he sent to the convention delegates:

So how do I know this isn't just campaign gossip? Min is an asshole. As soon as he noticed I was writing about him being a New Dem-- long before I had ever called him an asshole-- he went whining to friends of mine in DC that I'm an anti-Asian racist. I got three calls about that in one day-- from Asian friends.

More DCCC skuttlebutt that I just heard, although this sounds like it is wishful thinking from another conservative candidate, gun-nut and death penalty fanatic Andrew Janz. The rumor he's spreading is that the DCCC is trying to get Ricardo Franco, the progressive running against Devin Nunes, to run against Valadao. Total bullshit. And the good California progressives running for Congress this cycle are easily found by clicking on the ActBlue congressional thermometer in the right. I asked Ricardo if he has anything of the rumors Janz and his allies are spreading. He hadn't. He did send me a statement though:

I was made aware of Emilio Huerta's resignation from his race this morning through various media outlets. I was saddened to see my friend Emilio would no longer be fighting for labor rights, income inequality or better healthcare as a candidate for congress, but am confident he will still find a way to serve the good people of his district in another fashion as he always has. He and his family always have been and will continue to be an inspiration for all of us working-class folks from the Central Valley.

I also want to clarify that I have not had any contact with any members of the DCCC regarding my campaign jumping ship from CD-22 over to CD-21. I have great respect for CD-21; our districts are incredibly similar. However, the communities in CD-22, specifically Fresno, Dinuba, Clovis and Visalia have played an important role in my family's history for the last 100 years. I buried my uncle last year in Dinuba and have already purchased my burial plot in Fresno. My god-children live in Clovis and my cousins are in Visalia. These are the faces I will remember when I am making tough decisions in Congress. Theirs, along with the faces of countless volunteers that have supported me over the last 9 months with their blood, sweat and tears remind me why we cannot give up nor get distracted by issues out of our control.

I did not enter this race to simply win. I got into it to improve lives. Until we have Medicare for all, clean air in our valley, affordable housing, water with which to live, repatriated deported veterans and provided affordable means of housing for all of our citizens I will not stop fighting. Hasta la victoria!

And now, despite the DCCC, some good news for 2018-- another poll. Voters are pissed off at Trump and his Regime and at the Republicans who enable him-- and they're looking towards 2018 as a way to remedy that. That's what a wave is and that's what we've been seeing in those tremendous red to blue swings in special elections in every part of the country. Republicans are happy enough... but normal Americans are out for blood. Sure Democrats are anti-Republican and that accounts for gigantic voter enthusiasm. But even more important is that independents have turned away from the GOP in staggering numbers. USA Today reported that "Seven in 10 Republicans say the country is headed in the right direction. But more than eight in 10 Democrats say it's off on the wrong track, and seven in 10 independents agree with them... If the election were held today, though, those surveyed say they are more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate for Congress than the Republican one by 47%-32%-- a yawning 15 percentage-point advantage. Democrats need to flip 24 seats now held by Republicans to gain control of the House of Representatives. Winning control of the Senate is more difficult in a year in which 26 Democratic seats and just eight Republican seats are on the ballot.

Sixty percent of those surveyed say they disapprove of the job Trump is doing as president, his highest negative rating in the USA TODAY Poll since he was inaugurated last year. Thirty-nine percent "strongly" disapprove; just 16% "strongly" approve.

Ratings for the Republican-controlled Congress are even worse: 75% disapprove of the job its doing. Thirty-six percent "strongly" disapprove and just 5% "strongly" approve.

That intensity of feeling could affect efforts to convince voters to go to the polls. Turnout traditionally is lower in midterm elections than in presidential years.

...The Republican Party has a dismal rating: 27% had a favorable opinion of the GOP; 60% an unfavorable one. That's a net negative rating of 33 percentage points.

That's not to say voters have a rosy view of the Democratic Party. Its favorable-unfavorable rating was 37%-48%, a net negative of 11 points.

Attitudes toward the nation's two major parties are so dyspeptic that even a share of partisans who claim membership in them express a dim view. One in five Republicans and one in five Democrats say they have an unfavorable opinion of their own party. Among independents, half have an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party; two-thirds have a negative view of the GOP.

Can The DCCC Mess Up The November Election? That Is, After All, Their Expertise

Kyle Layman, the worst DCCC staffer says the DCCC doesn't care about TX-07 at all and the only reason they savagely attacked Laura Moser was to send a message to Orange Co. Dems that they're going to get the same treatment

More catastrophic midterm indications for the GOP yesterday as Democrats flipped 2 more Republican state legislative seats-- one in Connecticut and one in New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, Democrat Phil Spagnuolo beat Republican Les Cartier in a special election in Belknap Co. District 3, 968-841 (54%-46%). State Rep. Donald Flanders (R) had died in September. Trump beat Hillary there 54-41%. That represents another swing of over 20 points. In Connecticut Democrat Phil Young beat Republican Bill Cabral in Connecticut's state House District 120-- a seat the GOP has controlled for 40 years-- after Republican Laura Hoydick resigned to become mayor of Stratford. (Hillary had won the district narrowly.) Meanwhile, a new CNN/SRSS poll finds Democrats leading Republicans in the generic congressional ballot by a large margin, 54% to 38%.

There are a couple of important, related factors here. Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are more enthusiastic about voting in November (51%) than Republicans and Republican-leaners (41%). This enthusiasm gap has been apparent in the shocking Democratic wins in red legislative seats since Putin put Trump into the White House. Independents are sick of Trump and sick of Republican leadership in Congress. That isn't going to help Democratic candidates in deep red districts where Republicans don't need independents to win. Here are a dozen hopeless Republican districts where the average IQ is far below normal and the vast majority of voters are addicted to Fox and Hate Talk Radio. These districts are drawn to guarantee Republican victories and they are all be beyond contesting:

• AL-04 (Robert Aderholt)
• AZ-04 (Paul Gosar)
• FL-01 (Matt Gaetz)
• GA-09 (Doug Collins)
• GA-14 (Tom Graves)
• KY-05 (Harold Rogers)
• MO-08 (Jason Smith)
• OK-03 (Frank Lucas)
• TN-01 (Phil Roe)
• TX-13 (Mac Thornberry)
• UT-01 (Rob Bishop)
• WY-AL (Liz Cheney)

These are safe seats. Not one of them gave Hillary 30% of the vote-- and in most of them her vote was in the teens and low twenties. But the good news is that there aren't many more like these. Most Republicans can't win without support from independent voters. And most independent voters-- especially those outside of the old slaveholding states-- are not interested in voting for Republicans this year. Focus group data that tested independent voters who supported Trump in 2016 are shocking. These voters have already made up their minds. They will not vote for a Republican in November and they are no longer hearing GOP messaging.

The poll also suggests that the issues on which Republicans have largely pinned their electoral hopes-- the economy, taxes and immigration-- are carrying less weight with voters than are health care and gun policy-- two issues where the Democrats typically have stronger backing from the public overall.

Health care and gun policy are deemed deeply important by about half of voters (53% and 49%, respectively, call them extremely important), while about four in 10 say they are as motivated by the economy (43%) and immigration (38%). Sexual harassment is a sharp motivator for 36% of voters. Taxes, an issue Republicans have said will move voters as they realize the benefits of the tax changes passed last year, is extremely important for 35%. The investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election rounds out the list, with just about a quarter (26%) calling that extremely important to their vote.

A significant plurality of voters are telling pollsters they will not vote for anyone who takes money from the NRA. [NOTE: the clueless DCCC operatives have dug their heals in on right-wing recruits who have been supported by the NRA-- Jeff Van Drew, Anthony Brindisi and Ann Kirkpatrick for example-- and refuse to cut this dead weight loose.] Do candidates matter? Yes... less than in a non-wave election, but they still matter. And the DCCC specializes in finding teh worst candidates possible, conservatives like the people in power at the DCCC. So far, with just a few exceptions, almost all of their endorsed candidates are shitty New Dems and shittier Blue Dogs.

Dave Dayen was down in San Diego over the weekend for the California Democratic Party convention. The biggest news was how progress state Senate President Kevin De León, an unabashed progressive, outpolled conservative Dianne Feinstein in the party nomination process. But, as Dayen reported for The Intercept yesterday, in some of the congressional races, conservatives triumphed over progressives in the battle for the party nomination. He focused on Orange County sleaze bag and New Dem, Dave Min, one of the very worst Democratic candidates running anywhere in California. Min used to work for Schumer when Schumer was selling out the country to Wall Street. In fact, Wall Street was Min's bailiwick in Schumer's office, which helps explain why he's a New Dem, the Wall Street owned and operated caucus. His top opponent in an Elizabeth Warren Democrat, Katie Porter-- you can contribute to her campaign here-- is a full-fledged progressive and nothing like Min. She's also the Democrats' best hope to beat GOP incumbent Mimi Walters.

Under state party rules, candidates who get more than 60 percent of the vote of delegates in the district at the endorsing caucus win the endorsement, which entitles them to a spot on party slate mailers and, potentially, fundraising support. Indeed, the state party endorsement can make a decided difference in races for House seats with low-turnout primaries. A 2012 study from UC San Diego found that the party endorsement in downballot campaigns increased the candidate’s vote total by about 10 percent.

Min got 30 of the 50 votes cast at the caucus-- exactly 60 percent-- but just barely. One delegate who supported a different candidate showed up five minutes late to the caucus; if he were on time, the endorsement wouldn’t have gone through.

Because of that narrow margin, Min’s challengers had a second option. If a candidate gets between 60 and 66 percent at the endorsing caucus, the rivals can gather 300 signatures to force a fight on the floor of the convention to pull the endorsement. UC Irvine professor and foreclosure fraud expert Katie Porter, former Sherrod Brown aide Kia Hamadanchy, and Obama administration science and technology official Brian Forde decided to do so.

The signature-gathering process, done late at night while delegates partied in hospitality suites at the San Diego Convention Center, was marred by accusations of Min staffers interfering with their opponents. An Asian Pacific Islander caucus supporting Min told delegates not to sign petitions “to overturn the will of local delegates.” Hamadanchy claimed that his sister, collecting signatures on his behalf, was screamed at by Min and shoved by staffers. Videos of Min campaign staffers sprinting with signature gatherers appeared online; the Min campaign said they were merely trying to clear up “false information” being presented to delegates. Another video charged that Min was “intimidating” female Porter staff members. The video, which includes Porter’s field director, appears to begin after any alleged intimidation started, but Min can be seen telling staffers to “make sure she doesn’t get signatures.”

The videos don’t exactly confirm intimidation, and the highly charged environment and tight deadlines of petition gathering can lead to misunderstandings. Sources inside the Min campaign even report that their volunteers were being harassed, and that opposing volunteers tried to capture their people in moments that might make them look bad. “Volunteers were there to make their case for the petition to be presented to delegates accurately,” said Min campaign manager Paige Hutchinson. “The paid staff of our opponents were deliberately stirring up controversy.” Hutchinson cited several petitions that were thrown out because they did not include proper information.

Whatever happened, it didn’t stop the successful signature gathering, and the fight moved to the floor of the convention. Supporters and opponents of Min each offered up three speakers for one minute to state their case, and here fissures between the ideological wings of the party emerged.

“It’s not just about electing any Democrat, it’s about electing a Democrat who will act like a Democrat,” said Porter in her speech. “My opponent in this race is endorsed by the New Democrat coalition, the former Blue Dog caucus.” Indeed, the New Dem PAC has put Min on its “candidate watch list.” Porter has been endorsed by Democracy for America, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.

Opponents have also criticized Min for trying to have it both ways on single payer health care. Min consistently says he’s “fighting for universal health care,” which is not exactly the same thing. Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif., was seen pulling delegates out of the convention hall during the endorsement caucus to make the case for Min. He said that while he had not endorsed in the race, running on more conservative ideas would have the best chance of success in the district.

This is a false line pushed by the DCCC and conservative Democrats. Takano is a progressive, a progressive who is always trying to elect Asian-Americans to Congress even if they're more conservative than other candidates-- and more conservative than he is. I guess it's politically incorrect to call it reverse racism but I've seen Takano at it before and Min has been sneaking around DC telling Asian friends of mine that I'm an anti-Asian racist... friends who have immediately called me to tell me what a scumbag he is. Back to Dayen:

“Dave is not the candidate who is furthest to the left,” said Paige Hutchinson, Min’s campaign manager. “Do we think that better represents the district? Yes. No Democrat has won here. It’s a conservative district that’s rapidly changing, but people here care a lot about their taxes, and single payer would be a tremendous tax increase.”

Rep. Ro Khanna, who represents California’s 17th District, rebutted that theory in an email released by the PCCC today. “Democrats don’t have to sacrifice progressive values to win this district,” Khanna wrote. “In fact, what we have seen over and over again is that Democratic performance improves when we give voters something inspiring to come out and vote for. Katie is the most reliable leader on progressive issues we care about.”

The DCCC, often criticized for blocking more progressive candidates, has identified California’s 45th District as a “majority maker” seat, but has not gotten involved in choosing sides in the race, according to Porter. “We’ve had the freedom on the ground to run our race and deliver our message,” she said in an interview.

Orange County Democratic Party Chair Fran Sdao and popular State Controller Betty Yee spoke on Min’s behalf; both stressed unity and listening to local leaders. Delegates from across the state, who had little information about one Orange County House race, then had to vote on whether to pull Min from the endorsement calendar. Historically those delegates are reluctant to get involved in a local matter. State Party Chair Eric Bauman called a voice vote and determined that Min won, keeping his name on the endorsement calendar. No roll call vote of the 3,000 delegates was taken.

Dayen wonders why the party gets involved so early to pick winners and losers, rather than leaving it to the voters. Maybe because they want to make sure no progressives get elected. I just read that a really detestable former congressman, Blue Dog Joe Baca, is trying for another comeback. If the DCCC was sane, they would put a lot of effort into keeping him from winning.

Baca is a 70-something year old corrupt conservative who represented part of the Inland Empire from 1999-2013 when he lost to another Democrat, state Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod, primarily because of his fealty to the NRA. He tried again 2 years later but came in just fifth in the primary with 11.2%. Then he ran for mayor of Fontana and got wiped out. In 2015 he joined the Republican Party-- which is where he and the rest of the Blue Dogs belong anyway-- and ran for his old seat as a Republican. In the jungle primary he came in third (with 12.4%) after incumbent Democrat Pete Aguilar (43.1%) and Republican Paul Chabot (22.7%). Now he's switching back to calling himself a Democrat and running against Norma Torres in CA-31, a New Dem. I feel sorry for that district which is bright blue (D+8) and deserves a decent member of Congress.

And while we're on the DCCC, Zaid Jilani had a killer post up at The Intercept yesterday, DCCC Internal Polling Presented To Members Of Congress Panned Single-Payer Healthcare. The DCCC "made clear where the party wants its candidates to stand when it comes to health care reform: preferably nowhere, but certainly not with single-payer advocates." If you look at the list of DCCC endorsed candidates, most of them are against single-payer. And Daniel Marans, writing for HuffPo did something of a companion piece, DCCC Advised Candidates Not To Discuss Gun Control Policy Right After Vegas Shooting. The always clueless, never tuned in DCCC "said Democrats should focus on offering thoughts and prayers." The DCCC needs to be put out of its misery. They are the reason why the Republicans control Congress-- not gerrymandering... Rahm Emanuel, Chris Van Hollen, Steve Israel, Ben Gay Lujan and, more than anyone, Nancy Pelosi.

The DCCC Is Giving Folks In Orange County A Terrible Idea About Who Democrats Are-- Meet Dave Min

Republican-lite Dave Min and his mentor

Do you know how many candidates are competing for the Democratic nomination to run in Orange County against Trump rubber-stamp Mimi Walters, who doesn't even live in her own district? Even if you think you know, you don't, since there are 2 or 3 more (including Brian Forde and Rachel Payne) than the already 5 declared candidates, getting ready to jump in. So far there are 3 progressives-- Katie Porter, Kia Hamadanchy and perennial candidate Ron Varsteh-- and a couple of standard centrist Dems. CA-45 is an inland Orange County district that goes from Anaheim Hills, Villa Park and Tustin in the north, through Irvine and Lake Forest to Laguna Woods, Mission Viejo and Rancho Santa Margarita in the south. Mimi has refused to move out of her $8 million mansion in Laguna Beach in Dana Rohrabacher's district. The weather is much better there and, apparently, she has little interest in experiencing first hand what her constituents experience in their everyday lives. The DCCC has never contested CA-45 before but because Trump lost to Hillary there last year-- 49.8% to 44.4%-- its a big priority. Imagine if they run another non-resident like Rachel Payne or Eric Rywalski!

Since we've talked a lot about Katie Porter and Kia Hamdanchy, a few people have asked me about the Chuck Schumer guy in the race, Dave Min. He was Schumer's chief banking counsel when Eric Lipton wrote the classic NY Times piece on Schumer and his disgraceful relationship with Wall Street, A Champion of Wall Street Reaps Benefits at the very end of 2008, right when Schumer's bankster buddies were tanking the economy and bringing on the Great Recession. That was when Chuck was frantically working with Senate Republicans to deregulate everything he could for Wall Street. So either Min agreed and worked on everything Chuck was doing at this time, or he didn’t and lost every internal argument, not a good sign for his effectiveness. So he was either an incompetent staffer or he helped push through policy that weakened regulations and helped lead to the financial crisis. Whatever he says about what he might or might not do now in Washington if he wins the race, we already have a pretty clear demonstration of it.

Min is a centrist, perhaps something like Schumer, maybe not as bad... maybe worse. Hard to tell. He's been telling everyone he is the "moderate" in the race, which generally means he looks forward to taking his place in the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. At the climate march he refused to say he was progressive while on camera was on because a tracker was there. He's said that one must be a "moderate" to win CA-45 and that’s his vision for the future of this country and the Democratic Party. You know he's a DCCC boy because he really stays away from talking about issues, just like they tell their candidates to. But it means that OC voters don’t know where he stands on a the specifics of key policy items. Is he for single payer, for example? He won't say.

Worse yet, everyone in and around the campaign tells me he's a real asshole personally who never has anything nice to say about anyone else, especially Katie Porter. Maybe he's identified her as his top opponent or maybe he just hates women but he trashes her every chance he can get-- in the district and in DC. People in the district are starting to notice his little smear campaign-- and they don’t like it. He can't seem to help himself and his attacks are going to eventually backfire against him. Yesterday his well-connected p.r. guy, Achim Bergmann, got him into the NY Times. When he talks to Republicans he calls himself "a fiscally responsible Democrat," usually short-hand for New Dem, Blue Dog and/or Republican-lite.

In some places, like many districts in California, the Republican voter advantage has shrunk in recent years; in the district that includes Anaheim, where Representative Mimi Walters, a Republican, is seeking re-election, that edge has dropped from 43 percent in 2014 to just shy of 40 percent now.

“If Republicans are telling you they are on offense this cycle, they are delusional,” said Meredith Kelly, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “They had to spend $25 million to hold on to Kansas, Georgia, Montana and South Carolina. If they have to spend even a fraction of that money to defend their incumbents, they won’t be able to go on offense.”

...“There are a lot of people in this district who don’t like Trump but don’t like the national Democratic Party either,” said Mr. Min, who is one of a handful of Democrats hoping to unseat Ms. Walters, who is in her second term here and is closely aligned with Mr. Trump on contentious issues like health care.

...“I am telling people I am not a Hillary person,” said Mr. Min, who has his eyes fixed carefully on nonaffiliated and Republican voters-- Asians and parents in particular-- who voted for Mrs. Clinton last year.

Not a Hillary person... OK, but he's really not a Bernie person. So what is he? From what I'm seeing, he's just an nasty opportunist looking for a career in Congress with no fixed set agenda other than a vague and easily corruptible centrism-- the worst thing we find among House Democrats.

Clearing The Congressional Field... In California

America needs REAL Dems to push us forward, not more corrupt New Dems

One of the ways the Democratic establishment-- usually led by the DCCC-- advantages its corrupt conservative candidates is by clearing the field. A week or so ago we looked at how one of the big players in this game-- the execrable corporate whore Steny Hoyer-- is trying to do it for Jason Crow in Colorado. It's interesting that this year, when you look at the list of garbage candidates the DCCC is pushing-- mostly New Dems and Blue Dogs from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, there's no one from California. Why's that? The DCCC lists 10 districts in California on their 2018 target list. I'm guessing that the reason the DCCC isn't playing dirty in California, the way they are in every other part of the country, is because the Democrats in Congress elected Ted Lieu DCCC regional vice-chair for the West Coast and he believes the DCCC should be neutral in primaries. So the DCCC seems to be pretty neutral in this state, something the party establishment doesn't seem that happy about.

The corruptionists, led by vicious anti-Bernie Sanders fanatic Zoe Lofgren in the House and by local machine bosses and paid political hitmen from the New Dem campaigns, are trying to undo Lieu's policy of primary neutrality with their clearing the field stratagems. I'll come back to this in a second but allow me a brief tangent first. The world of political operatives is hardly a church choir but it is generally recognized in that sleazy industry that the bottom of the barrel is a firm called BergmannZwerdling Direct. They're as low as it gets, a veritable poison factory, working hand-in-glove with the very worst of the DCCC staffers, Kyle Layman, an overt woman-hater who the DCCC has working in California and doing an especially terrible job. In past elections Bergmann and Zwerdling were the slime bags responsible for most of the lies circulating online about Alan Grayson on behalf of their fake-Democrat New Dem client Patrick Murphy. That's what they specialize in-- scraping the bottom of the toilet for Republicans pretending to be Democrats. This cycle their clients include 6 of the worst Democraticish candidates in California: "ex"-Republican lottery winner Gil Cisneros (CA-39); New Dem and former Chuck "Wall Street" Schumer aide Dave Min; Josh Harder, the anti-progressive careerist, fucking up the race against Jeff Denham in CA-10; Brian Caforio, Zoe Lofgren's candidate to stop progressive Katie Hill from being able to beat Steve Knight; self-entitled Hans 'it's all about me, me, me' Keirstead in CA-48; and, the funniest of all, the Qualcomm heiress and Clinton volunteer who parachuted into CA-49 from Brooklyn expecting to be crowned princess/congresswoman, Sarah Jacobs.

So while Lofgren, the Bernie-hater, is demanding the DCCC clear the field (of progressives), Achim Bergmann has his detestable whispering campaigns zipping around the Democratic caucus in DC and Sacramento as the California Democratic Party prepares for pre-convention endorsement meetings. In Orange County's CA-45, for example, they are desperate to knock out Katie Porter, the progressive candidate endorsed by Elizabeth Warren, in favor of Schumer's pointless corporate shill, New Dem Dave Min. Why desperate? New polling from Global Strategy Group shows that Min isn't exactly resonating with likely primary voters. From the Global Strategy Group memo: "Katie Porter’s profile and message not only make her the best-positioned Democrat to emerge from the CA-45 jungle primary, but also the one most likely to defeat Mimi Walters in the general election. In a largely unknown field of Democratic challengers, Porter starts out ahead of the other Democrats. More important, the poll reveals Porter’s profile to be especially resonant in this competitive Clinton-won district, driving her to a large advantage over the other Democrats in a simulated race and demonstrating her ability to not only consolidate Democratic support but appeal to NPP voters and moderate Republicans as well." Their findings are NOT what BergmannZwerdling and the New Dems want to see:

Meanwhile, Achim Bergmann is just making up ridiculous crap to persuade California Democratic Party pre-convention delegates that only conservatives like Min can win against Walters, the old truism that conservative Democrats have used since Rahm Emanuel popularized it in 2006 and has led the Democrats into near political oblivion. There's one thing you can be sure of-- if a candidate is a client of BergmannZwerdling the chances that they represent Democratic values and principles is almost nonexistent. On the other hand, there are no New Dems, no Blue Dogs, no clients of BergmannZwerdling on the list of California progressive candidates you'll find by clicking on the ActBlue congressional candidates thermometer on the right. And if you want to keep more careerist creeps from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party from sneaking into Congress, please consider supporting any of the candidates you find on that list. Take a look.

This doesn't look like a field that will be easily cleared by a corrupt old DC politician and a couple of sleazy campaign operatives

Russian Hacking Is Very Real-- Who's In Charge Of Directing The U.S. Targeting? Kushner?

Rohrabacher-- a poor fool doomed by his own inept allies?

The Republican gubernatorial candidate in Pennsylvania, Scott Wagner, joked that the Russian government will help him beat Tom Wolf in November. Polling indicates that that's basically the only way he would win. It's not actually that funny-- especially when Putin-Gate has spawned Putin-Gate II and that the GRU is now targeting conservatives as well as normal candidates. Microsoft claims to have uncovered broadening threats to Democracy. Microsoft president Brad Smith: "It’s clear that democracies around the world are under attack. Foreign entities are launching cyber strikes to disrupt elections and sow discord. Unfortunately, the internet has become an avenue for some governments to steal and leak information, spread disinformation, and probe and potentially attempt to tamper with voting systems. We saw this during the United States general election in 2016, last May during the French presidential election, and now in a broadening way as Americans are preparing for the November midterm elections."

Microsoft's Digital Crimes Unit, he wrote, is on the case. They're making headway against Fancy Bear (aka- APT28 and Strontium). "We’re concerned," he wrote, "that these and other attempts pose security threats to a broadening array of groups connected with both American political parties in the run-up to the 2018 elections." So what's this all mean?

A group affiliated with the Russian government created phony versions of six websites, including some related to the US Senate, with an aim to hack into the computers of people who were tricked into visiting, according to Microsoft.

...The effort by the notorious APT28 hacking group, which has been publicly linked to a Russian intelligence agency and actively interfered in the American 2016 presidential election, underscores the aggressive role Russian operatives are playing ahead of the midterm congressional elections in the US.

APT28 specialises in information warfare or hacking and disinformation operations. "APT" refers to "advanced persistent threat" in cybersecurity circles.

US officials have repeatedly warned that the November vote is a major focus for interference efforts.

Trump and his GOP enablers are purposely leaving the back door open for the Russians, refusing to fund statewide efforts to protect American voting systems and firing top level specialists in cyber-security. A question I've always had-- and will ultimately be answered (or not) by the Mueller investigation-- is who in Trump-world has been helping the Russians with their targeting? I had to laugh when the first reports came out that hackers-- presumably Russians-- interfered in two Orange County Democratic primaries, one to pick a candidate to run in CA-45 against lockstep rubber-stamp Mimi Walters and one to pick a candidate to run against Putin's favorite congressman (and possible Kremlin spy) Dana Rohrabacher in CA-48. Both operations were badly botched.

They were botched because of the targeting. Whomever told the Russians to go after Hans Keirstead in CA-48 and Dave Min in CA-45 were not doing anything to help their Republican opponents. Both Keirstead and Min looked good-- at least inside the Beltway-- on paper. But both turned out-- in real life outside the Beltway-- to be abysmal candidates. Keirstead has a great resume and the DCCC recruited him, but he was a total stiff on the campaign trail and the DCCC abandoned him and leaked opposition research about a sex scandal. Early on, someone clueless inside the Beltway could have easily imagined he would be the strongest candidate against Rohrabacher. As a consequence, they may have blundered into harming Rohrabacher's chances by boosting the much stronger candidate, Harley Rouder, who neat Keirstead narrowly and is likely to beat Rohrabacher in November.

A similar thing happened in CA-45, where a Schumer puppet, Dave Min, may have been perceived in DC (and thereby Moscow) as the stronger Democrat against Walters. But as the campaign unfolded, he turned out to be a miserable politician, way too nasty and vicious to win anything. If the Russian hackers were trying to help Walters, they doomed her by knocking out Min. Instead, Katie Porter, who won the primary, is likely to end Walters' political career in November. Sounds like Kushner-in-law's work. His fingerprints are all over these two collusion operations.


UPDATE: Will Putin Save The GOP From The Voters?

Trump seems to think so. Writing for Yahoo News today, Alexander Nazaryan reported that Trump asked the Senate to block a bill to strengthen the country's defenses against electoral interference. Trump got Roy Blunt (R-MO) to stop the bill in committee yesterday. To me this is way more impeachable than paying off hookers with campaign cash.

The Secure Elections Act, introduced by Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) in December 2017, had co-sponsorship from two of the Senate’s most prominent liberals, Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) as well as from conservative stalwart Lindsey Graham (R-S) and consummate centrist Susan Collins (R-ME).

...As it currently stands, the legislation would grant every state’s top election official security clearance to receive threat information. It would also formalize the practice of information-sharing between the federal government-- in particular, the Department of Homeland Security-- and states regarding threats to electoral infrastructure. A technical advisory board would establish best practices related to election cybersecurity. Perhaps most significantly, the law would mandate that every state conduct a statistically significant audit following a federal election. It would also incentivize the purchase of voting machines that leave a paper record of votes cast, as opposed to some all-electronic models that do not. This would signify a marked shift away from all-electronic voting, which was encouraged with the passage of the Help Americans Vote Act in 2002.

“Paper is not antiquated,” Lankford says. “It’s reliable.”

A paper trail is exactly what Putin and Trump-- and apparently, the Republican Party-- don't want. This is treason.

How Many Democratic Senators Joined Wall Street And The GOP To Screw Bank Customers?

Just before Tuesday's vote to further gut Dodd-Frank and open the U.S. up to another bankster greed-driven economic catastrophe, Orange County law professor and congressional candidate Katie Porter wrote to her supporters that "As a consumer protection attorney, I've spent nearly 20 years fighting powerful special interests like Wall Street lobbyists. I've collaborated extensively with Elizabeth Warren on ways to protect the middle class from being scammed by powerful institutions and corporations. Unfortunately, I have to alert you to a new attack on consumers coming later this week. The Senate is days away from voting on a bill called the 'Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act,' though the actual bill will do none of those things. This bill would roll back or eliminate key protections that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act put in place after Wall Street's recklessness caused a global recession. I'm urging the Senate to Vote NO on this legislation."

Porter is running in CA-45 for a seat held by Wall Street shill Mimi Walters. But before she can take on Mimi, she has to get through another Wall Street shill, New Dem, Dave Min, who ran Chuck Schumer's Wall Street operation when Schumer was working hand-in-glove with the banksters to set them loose on consumers. Schumer has taken more in bribes than any other politician in American history who was not a presidential candidate-- and more than some presidential candidates. As of now Schumer the Finance Sector has given Schumer $26,754,908, compared to $12,338,704 to McConnell and $12,165,694 to Paul Ryan... so more than both of them together! Min has been part of Schumer's "success" in that scheme.

Which candidates are being backed by Wall Street this cycle? It's worth noting which non-incumbents they're making their biggest contributions to so far. Of course their biggest bribes in the House went to half a dozen crooked incumbents who are already serving their every interest:

• Speaker Ryan (R-WI)- $2,649,603
• Majority Leader McCarthy (R-CA)- $1,500,400
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- $871,524
• Patrick McHenry (R-NC)- $867,506
• Kevin Brady (R-TX)- $867,225
• Kyrsten Sinema- $792,137

Of course, these 5 men and one woman should all be in prison but these are the crooked politicians who aspire to be just like them and are already taking large bribes as banksters bet on their chances to be able to kick their own constituents to the curb while carrying Wall Street's water. Austin Frerick, the progressive candidate running for the Iowa congressional seat occupied by GOP money grubber David Young, cut right to the chase: "I cannot believe that Democrats can support this bank deregulation bill after what we went through as a country a decade ago. But this is what happens when Democrats take money from corporations and lobbyists. This is also why I refuse that money."

David Gill's primary is coming up in less than two weeks. He's been fighting for the kind of economic fairness Elizabeth Warren is talking about for decades, not just for his campaign. “As is almost always the case on such issues, I stand with Senator Warren here. It amazes me that our elected representatives have so quickly forgotten the financial crisis which brought so much pain to so many ordinary Americans only 10 years ago. I suspect that those representatives never actually felt the pain, given their place in life. The ordinary men and women that make up the majority of IL-13 certainly did feel the pain of that recession, and they are the ones who will be hit hardest by a recurrence of our economic woes. The regulations within Dodd-Frank should be strengthened, not weakened. I look forward to getting to Washington early next year and working to protect Americans from bankers whose greed knows no bounds.”

The half-dozen worst non-incumbent candidates(so far):

• Josh Harder (D-CA-10)- $229,094
• Perry Gershon (D-NY-01)- $222,866
• Dan Koh (D-MA-03)- $199,818
• Mikie Sherrill (New Dem- NJ-11)- $178,578
• Pat Ryan (D-NY-19)- $171,879
• Matt Haggman (D-FL-27)- $158,790

It's essential to stick with progressives like Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) on this issue and to support candidates like them-- like Katie Porter, Austin Frerick and David Gill. Mimi Walters (R-CA) has already gobbled up $400,108 from the Finance Sector this year. David Young (R-IA) has taken $124,350 and Rod Davis (R-IL) took $174,652-- just this cycle!

The only other California candidate besides Josh Harder to have taken over a hundred grand from the finance sector is the sleaze bag in CA-49, Mike Levin, who has managed to vacuum up $124,232. Wall Street knows who they can count on. And it isn't Elizabeth Warren. In fact, when Mark Takano was strong-arming California convention delegates to vote for Dave Min, one of his arguments was that no one endorsed by Elizabeth Warren could win in Orange County. Strange thing for a progressive to say. Here's Elizabeth Warren talking about the bill Katie Porter was campaigning against this week:

[H]ere we are-- on the verge of making the same mistake Congress has made so many times before.

The banks don't want you to know what's in this bill-- because if you did, they know you'd fight back. It was written by Senators in back rooms and jammed through the Banking Committee, where its authors voted down every single amendment, every single idea, to make the bill even one smidge better or protect consumers just one tiny bit more. They voted against every amendment, even if they agreed with it, because Republicans and Democrats had locked arms to do the bidding of the big banks.

There's a lot of dangerous stuff in this bill. Today I want to focus on the harm it will do to America's consumers.

But I'll start with what's not in the bill because what's not in this bill should make Congress ashamed. Strong consumer protections. Banks get their wish list, but consumers get next to nothing. This bill is called the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, but in all 148 pages, there's only a few watered down provisions that help consumers.

Equifax loses data for nearly half of all adults in America, lies about it, and this Congress-these Senators-still can't manage to pass a bill with some teeth to hold the company accountable. That says it all-this is a bill written by big banks to help big banks, not a bill to help American families who are still getting cheated by the companies that make huge profits off them.

So what's actually in this bill? Start with the first part of the bill-- Section 101, "Improving Consumer Access to Mortgage Credit."

When you get a mortgage, your lender usually spends some time combing through your financial records to make sure you can repay the loan. That's good-- American families don't want to take out loans they can't afford and banks don't want to make loans that won't get repaid.

Bailout Caucus

Before the financial crisis, that whole process went haywire. Lenders were making crazy loans with ballooning payments and exotic features that consumers didn't understand. Lenders didn't care if customers could repay-they got their fees up front, then sold the loans to distant investors and the original lender was long gone before the homeowners got in trouble. But the families were stuck. Eventually, the payments skyrocketed, and homeowners who couldn't keep up defaulted, losing those homes.  After the crisis, Congress changed the rules. They told lenders that they had to start underwriting their loans again to protect consumers and the economy. But since this takes time and money, Congress told the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to write a rule that says that there's no need for the lender to investigate if this is a super-safe, boring, plain-vanilla loan.

That's reasonable.

But Section 101 of this bill is not reasonable. It takes the CFPB rule and stretches it in all directions, tearing open big, dangerous loopholes. This bill says banks, have some fun. Bring back the greatest hits of financial crisis housing scams. Scoop up the profits on the front end, and leave families holding the bag on the back end.

I understand breaks for banks that make straightforward loans, but these loans are too risky. And they come at a bad time. Rising interest rates mean that exotic products like adjustable rate mortgages are making a comeback. Bank lobbyists are dragging us back to the bad old days when banks had free reign to scam consumers.

Here's another section: Section 104 makes it harder to enforce anti-discrimination laws by telling loads of institutions that they don't have to comply with a law called the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, or "HMDA." HMDA requires most financial institutions to tell the public and the CFPB who they're lending to and at what rates and terms. Regulators and law enforcement use the data to make sure that American families don't have a harder time getting a loan because of who they are or where they come from.

This bill takes a sledgehammer to HMDA by exempting 85 percent of institutions from reporting HMDA data. If this bill passes, there will be entire communities where there will be no data whatsoever-- which means there will be no ability to monitor whether people are getting cheated because of their race or their gender.

Again, this couldn't come at worse time. Lending discrimination is real. A new comprehensive report that looked at housing markets all over the country just came out from the Center for Investigative Reporting and Reveal, and its findings should make us all sick to our stomachs.

In 2015 and 2016, nearly two-thirds of mortgage lenders denied loans to people of color at higher rates than for white people. According to Reveal, in the Washington metro area. "In 2016, Native American applicants were 2.3 times as likely to be denied a conventional home mortgage as white applicants. For black applicants, it was 2.2 times as likely. For Latino applicants, it was 1.9 times as likely. For Asian applicants, it was 1.6 times as likely." The Reveal report showed that this problem happens in giant banks, but also in small banks.

Here's the thing. None of that analysis would have been possible without HMDA data from big institutions and small ones. Without the data, we'd all be sitting here in the dark, maybe wondering if some mortgage lenders discriminated against African Americans or women or Native Americans, but we wouldn't have any way to know-and no way to change it if they were. Gutting HMDA allows us-- actually forces us-- to look the other way when discrimination happens. And that's disgraceful.

...Only a bunch of bank lobbyists-- and their friends in Washington-- would call this a consumer protection bill.

American families weren't in the back room when this bill was written. They don't have millions of dollars in campaign cash to get senators' attention. They don't keep an army of lobbyists on their payroll. No, American families are busy going to work, helping the kids with homework and trying to catch up on a thousands things. They are trying to pay off student loans or maybe to save a little for their kids to go to college. Some are trying to put aside a few bucks for a mortgage.

They trust us to stand up for them and make sure they have a fair shot at homeownership-- at the American dream. And they trust us to make sure that we're not turning over the keys to our economy to the same people who crashed it ten years ago and ran over a bunch of American families on the way.

I know we're outnumbered, but this fight isn't over. Make no mistake, I'm going to do whatever I can to convince enough other senators that this is a bad deal for American families, and a dangerous one. I'll push and tug and talk to anyone who will listen about how this bill will hurt the people we were sent here to represent. And maybe, just maybe, maybe for once the Senate will start listening to voters instead of donors.

Why Using Identity Politics As A Filter Is A Road To Nowhere

Last cycle, the two biggest self-funders looking to buy House seats were David Trone in Maryland, who spent a phenomenal $13,414,225 of his own and took 35,400 votes (27.1%) in his primary, and Randy Perkins in Florida who spent $10,127,029 of his own and then lost to a Republican, by over 10 points 53.6% to 43.1%. The only million dollar Democratic self-funder who won in 2016 was Vicente Gonzalez, a real sleaze from south Texas, who spent $1,850,000 of his own dough. Although he's a real conservative piece of crap who joined the Blue Dogs as soon as he got into Congress, he knew which lever to pull to get an endorsement from the Congressional Progressive Caucus. You can't trust anyone in DC these days.

And the CPC did it again this week, although there's no indication any money changed hands on this one. Just some shitty identity politics. Two Orange County candidates were up for endorsement-- strong progressive Katie Porter and shifty New Dem Dave Min. Porter was strongly backed by Elizabeth Warren, who sent out a letter just before the CPC vote Thursday:

Progressive ideas are good for working people across this country AND progressive ideas win!

That's why Democrats need to nominate candidates who believe in policies like Medicare For All, expanding Social Security benefits, debt-free college, higher wages for workers, and strong consumer protections.

Katie Porter is one of the boldest and most progressive candidates for Congress in 2018. I've known Katie and worked with her for years, and I'll tell you this: she's tough as nails. When she gets into a fight to help out families who have been cheated, she doesn't give up.

Katie is running for Congress in Orange County, California in one of the most flippable districts in the nation... A new poll shows Katie defeating Republican incumbent Mimi Walters if the general election were held today. In fact, the numbers aren't even close.

That's because Katie is fighting for working families, and she is running a grassroots campaign. And while Republicans in Congress are doing their darnedest to rig our economy and our political system even more for folks at the top, people get that they're the ones paying the price.

During the recent tax fight, Katie's Republican opponent voted for more than a trillion dollars in tax giveaways to giant corporations. But here's what really is a show-stopper: she also voted to eliminate a provision of the tax code that would help her own constituents who were hit by recent wildfires. When people say the system has been bought by big donors, this is what they are talking about.

After she was my student almost 20 years ago, Katie became an expert in the complex law of bankruptcy.

We worked together for years studying why millions of American families were in so much financial trouble. She became a law professor herself out in California. And in the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis, then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris appointed her to be California's top consumer watchdog-- fighting to hold the big banks accountable and help Californians who lost their homes.

About a year ago, I had breakfast with Katie. We were all still reeling from the election. After talking about her kids, Katie said, "This is terrible. The banks, they're gonna let them go at it again. They'll roll back the regulations on pollution, poison our children." And then she said, "Elizabeth, I'm thinking about running for office." And I said exactly one thing in return, "If you run, I will be there every step of the way."

I've seen Katie's commitment and grit up close and personal. Sending Katie to Congress in this winnable district would put us one seat closer to taking back the House in 2018 and give us another incredible strong ally.

Sounds good, right? So where does the problem come in? In the House, Mark Takano is a progressive voter. But, as with too many people, identity politics is more important to him than progressive, values-based politics. He knew his New Dem Dave Min could never be endorsed but he organized around race to keep the vote from Porter, potentially jeopardizing the ability of the Democrats winning the seat. One of the congressmembers he organized-- one I respect too much to name-- claimed that when she sees two candidates vying for endorsement, who are both progressive, she always goes with the person of color. That's her right. She could have just as easily said that when she sees two candidates who are both progressive, she always goes with the woman. But the fact of the matter is that in this particular case, one candidate is a real progressive and the other is a corporate New Dem who is as forthright and honest as... Donald Trump. He'll say whatever it takes to persuade whoever is listening to him. The worst of the worst. And he succeeded-- in great part because of Takano-- in blocking Katie Porter from getting the CPC endorsement. That has help prompt us to move Katie Porter from just our California Act Blue page to a full fledged endorsement on our congressional page (which you can see by tapping of the thermometer on the right.) Please help us send the DC Dems a little message by contributing to Katie's campaign today.

This week the political director of a group I admire very much was trying to get me to endorse a candidate in Texas. I said the candidate hadn't persuaded me she will be a progressive if she wins the seat. "But she's a lesbian," was the response. That's horrifying. Indentifying as a lesbian doesn't say anything to me about how someone will prioritize Climate Change, banning assault weapons, holding Wall Street banksters accountable or dealing with economic inequity. Look at Krysten Sinema (AZ). She's the single most right-wing Democrat in the House-- and head of the Blue Dogs to boot-- and she identifies as a lesbian. Or look at Sean Patrick Maloney-- a happily married gay man with a wonderful family-- but the most right-wing New Dem in Congress, completely in Wall Street's pocket. (Obviously, another married gay man, Mark Pocan from Wisconsin, is what the political director would have liked me to see when I considered the quality of the Texas candidate. Mark has the best voting record in Congress. He should be the model for every Democrat, regardless of sexual identity, race, religion, gender, country of origin or whatever identity group anyone wants to look use as a filter.)

Medicare-For-All? Not All Democratic Candidates In Orange County Back It

The jumpy video above is from a CA-45 (Orange County) Democratic Forum hosted by the Laguna Woods Democratic Club. Notice Brian Forde, an "ex"-Republican using Republican talking points about "access." Access means anyone can buy health insurance-- if you're rich enough to afford it. Forde may have switched his party affiliation a few weeks or hours or months ago and may be trying to appeal to low-info Democrats but... he's still just a Republican. Right after he spoke, Kia Hamadanchy, a former staffer for Sherrod Brown, talked. He gave the answer all Democrats should give to the question about Medicare-For-All. Notice he was interrupted with applause when he stated unequivocably that he's for single-payer-- no, ifs, ands or buts.

Next up was Dave Min, a former Chuck Schumer staffer, and he knows how to frame his arguments well without committing for Medicare-For-All. He was followed by Katie Porter, the person who worked on banking issues with Elizabeth Warren. Like Min, she knows how to talk about healthcare to Democratic audiencess without just coming out and saying "I am for Medicare-For-All," although she confirmed to us in writing today that she does back Medicare-For-All. 

When we did reach out to Porter and she got back to us with this definitive 2-sentence statement: "Mimi Walters’ whole-hearted support for Donald Trump’s plan to rip health care away from 24 million people is unconscionable, and defending health care is one of the top reasons I’m running for Congress. I believe health care is a fundamental right, and I support Medicare-for-All."

Min had a longer explanation in an e-mail to us:

I've talked with over 10,000 people in my district, and I can tell you that almost everyone-- Democrats, Republicans, Independents-- all agree on the basic policy outcomes we want.  We all want universal coverage at affordable prices-- and by that I mean true coverage, including preexisting conditions, and true affordability, including prescription drug prices and copayments.

But there's not clear consensus on how we get to this goal. Obviously many countries have had great success with single payer, and that may ultimately be where we should go. What I'm proposing in the near term (assuming we can first stop the Republican attacks on Medicaid and Medicare) is three steps that will bring us close to our goal of universal and affordable coverage: 1) open up Medicare as a public option for everyone to help address some of the problems with ACA (sometimes referred to as the "Medicare for all public option"); 2) expand Medicare down to those 55 and older; and 3) expand the Children's Health Insurance Program to help more children of working poor households. These measures are ones I believe we can implement immediately with a Democratic Congress, and they also create a strong bridge to a potential single payer system, if that's where we want to go.

On H.R. 676 specifically, I am not opposed but I'd like to see more details and independent analysis, including to make sure that transition to the single payer system envisioned under HR676 does not dilute existing Medicare-funded health care.

And Kia Hamadanchy was the most plain-spoken of all. No one can read what he said and walk away without a very clear idea of his support for Medicare-For-All. This is what he told us today: "Healthcare is a universal right.  We have a responsibility as a society to make sure that there is not a man, woman, or child in America that lacks access to healthcare and that no person in this country ever goes bankrupt just because they get sick. There is a simple way of doing this and it is single payer. That is why I unequivocally support Medicare-For-All and why I won't stop just just at cosponsoring the bill.  What I'll do is go to Washington DC and fight to get the job done and to do it the right way. Because we spend more then any other country in the world on our healthcare system and get terrible value for all that spending. Its time we put an end to that, enact single payer, and guarantee healthcare for every single American."

Martin Wisckol is covering all the Orange County races this cycle and he did a story for the Orange County Register yesterday on the candidates' stands on healthcare, not just CA-45, but all the Republican held districts in the county. He started with CA-39, Ed Royce's district-- and the one Hillary won with the biggest margin.

Buena Park’s Julio Castaneda, a longtime Democrat, went all-in for Bernie Sanders last year, working as a “super volunteer” in central Orange County. When Hillary Clinton prevailed in the primary, the 33-year-old defected to the Green Party and ended up voting for that party’s nominee, Jill Stein.

But he became disillusioned with the Greens too, concluding that they were not a viable option and changing his registration to independent, officially known in California these days as “No Party Preference.”

Then, on May 4, he launched his own longshot challenge of Rep. Ed Royce, R-Fullerton.

“We need a real message,” said Castaneda, a business systems analyst working toward a degree in business administration at Fullerton College. “The Democrats’ message is only ‘Russia’ and ‘anti-Donald Trump.’ I want to have a very progressive message.”

When Castaneda got in the race, there was just one other challenger to Royce-- businessman and former chemistry professor Phil Janowicz, a Democrat who also supported Sanders. The field has since ballooned to seven, with millions of dollars already being bankrolled. Royce himself has $3.1 million in his campaign account. Democratic businessman Andy Thorburn has put $2 million of his own money behind his bid. Two other Democrats have raised a combined $400,000 and another, who won a $266 million lottery prize in 2010, displayed his willingness to spend money on campaigns in 2016 when he and his wife gave $150,000 to Hillary Clinton PACs.

Castaneda, meanwhile, has yet to meet the $5,000 fundraising threshold that triggers the federal financial filing requirement. He has largely adopted Sanders’ platform, emphasizing the need for single-payer “Medicare for all” healthcare, free public college tuition, a $15 per hour federal minimum wage, more incentives for renewable energy and stronger programs to address homelessness. He said he’s organizing a network of Sanders volunteers to work on his race.

“I know my odds of winning are astronomical. But I’m very motivated because I know the progressive movement needs a real voice for what the people want,” Castaneda said.

Voters look like they’ll have a broad range of alternatives to Royce, who remains favored to be reelected but is considered vulnerable because Republicans have less than a 2-percentage point advantage in the district, which reaches from Fullerton into Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, and because Clinton outpaced Donald Trump there last November.

Castaneda and Janowicz aren’t the only ones who backed Sanders. Navy vet Gil Cisneros, the lottery winner [and an "ex"-Republican and compulsive liar on a Trumpian level], says he did too, though he is listed by the Federal Elections Commission as giving $50,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund in the primary and none to Sanders. Another $100,000 went to Clinton PACs for the general election cycle.

Cisneros’ campaign says the primary money actually was spent by Cisneros’ wife, Jacki, although she doesn’t show up on the FEC site as a donor.

“It came from a joint bank account and perhaps the committee listed Gilbert Cisneros because of past political donations from them to other campaigns being generally listed under his name,” said campaign spokesman Andrew Childs. “Jacki supported Hillary Clinton in the primary. Gil had not made a decision on which candidate to support at that point, and he later decided to vote for Bernie Sanders in the primary.”

"Ex"-Republican lottery winner is exactly what Pelosi's DCCC is all about

...Castaneda is hardly the only candidate in that race to support Medicare for all. Janowicz, Cisneros, Jammal and Thorburn back that approach, although all note that it will take time to make such a transition.

The only Royce challenger who doesn’t stake out unambiguous support is also the only medical doctor in the race, Tran.

“We need someone representing this district that will find the best ways to expand coverage, whether it’s Medicare for all or another solution,” she said in an email that went on to condemn Royce’s vote to repeal and replace Obamacare.

All of Orange County’s GOP House members voted for the replacement, which then died in the Senate. All oppose a Medicare-for-all plan, as do the two non-Democrats running against Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Costa Mesa-- Libertarian Brandon Reiser and Republican Stelian Onufrei.

Of Rohrabacher’s seven Democratic challengers, Boyd Roberts, Harley Rouda, Laura Oatman, Tony Zarkades and Omar Siddiqui back a move to Medicare for all. Hans Keirstead, a pioneering stem-cell researcher, and Nestle executive Michael Kotick didn’t take firm positions on Medicare for all, instead emphasizing a more immediate need to improve Obamacare.

In the race against Rep. Mimi Walters, R-Laguna Beach, three of the six Democrats emailed unambiguous support for single-payer, Medicare for all: Kia Hamdanchy, Ron Varasteh and Eric Rywalski. Katie Porter initially emailed that she supported “the idea of making Medicare available to every American whether that’s through a public option or Medicare-for-all.” Asked to clarify whether that was support for “a single-payer, ‘Medicare for all’ type healthcare system,” the campaign responded, “Yes.”

Dave Min favors expanding Medicare to those 55 or older, and  allowing everyone to “have the option to buy into Medicare or some other public option at an affordable price,” according to campaign manager Paige Hutchinson. Min believes his position and Porter’s are similar, while Porter’s campaign says she’s more supportive of Medicare-for-all. If that’s left you scratching your head, try Brian Forde‘s statement:

“I believe health care is a human right and every American deserves equal access to high quality, affordable health care and I support the interests of those who advocate for ‘single-payer,'” emailed the technology entrepreneur.

All three Democrats challenging Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista, favor Medicare for all.

We asked Sam Jammal to expand on Wisckol's assertion that he supports Medicare-For-All. He told us that "Medicare for All is the way forward. For starters, find me a senior who doesn't want or like their Medicare. That person does not exist. In business, you invest in what works and then scale it. Republicans like to say we should run government like a business, so why not actually act like someone in business would-- invest in what works and scale it.  his is what I learned as an executive. Somehow that gets lost when it comes to health care. As Democrats, we are the party of bold ideas and moving the country forward. We shouldn't shy away from solutions that work. It may take time to build towards Medicare for All, but we must be unequivocal about investing in what works and fight today to guarantee universal health care."