Klaus Marre 05/07/26 (whowhatwhy.org)
Establishment Democrats don’t trust their own voters to make the decision of who should represent them in some of the races that will decide who controls Congress next year.
There is little doubt that, if it were up to the Republicans across the country who are working hard to gerrymander their opponents out of existence, or the GOP lawmakers in Congress pushing the SAVE America Act, every Democratic voter would be disenfranchised. Sometimes, however, it seems as though establishment Democrats have the same goal.
Time and time again, they are trying to take decisions that ought to be made by voters away from them. We have seen this in presidential primaries and also when former Vice President Kamala Harris was anointed to take on Donald Trump in 2024 (although, to be fair, Joe Biden’s stubborn insistence to run for a second term and his refusal to drop out of the race sooner was a big part of that problem).
The most recent example of this dynamic came this week courtesy of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), which added eight candidates to its “Red to Blue” program — an initiative that identifies particularly vulnerable Republican-held districts that Democrats hope to flip.
That in itself is hardly controversial.
The program, which now includes 20 names but will likely be expanded in light of the favorable political climate for Democrats, is meant to give promising candidates a boost in races the party believes they can win. And, usually, being part of “Red to Blue” does translate into more fundraising opportunities from donors who want to make sure that their money has a maximum impact on which party controls Congress.
The problem, however, is that some of the newly added Democrats haven’t even sewn up their nominations yet, which means that the DCCC is trying to pick winners and losers in competitive primaries and deprive the party’s voters from choosing their preferred candidates.
To those familiar with the machinations of the Democratic Party, it will come as no surprise to learn that the congressional hopefuls being disadvantaged in those cases are more progressive.
One is Randy Villegas, who is running in California’s 22nd district and has been endorsed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Instead of letting Californians decide who is the best candidate in a fair fight, the DCCC instead added Jasmeet Bains to “Red to Blue.”
This drew heavy criticism from the party’s left wing.
“Establishment Democrats want a big tent party until it starts to include real progressive fighters who don’t answer to corporations and billionaires,” stated David Hogg, an activist who co-founded the progressive group “Leaders We Deserve.”
CPC leaders were slightly more diplomatic.
“We disagree with the DCCC’s decision to attempt to tip the scales in this race. Voters, not the DCCC, should pick Democratic nominees,” they said in a joint statement. “The Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC and our members have consistently advocated for DCCC neutrality in competitive House primaries, and the DCCC should have observed that policy in this race.”
In Maine, where the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee already whiffed when it endorsed Gov. Janet Mills (D), who recently ended her campaign, the DCCC backs Joe Baldacci. That move drew criticism from two of his primary opponents.
“It’s undemocratic for national establishment Democrats to put their thumb on the scale in any primary,” said Matt Dunlap, who has released a poll showing him leading the race. “Just like in certain other races across Maine this year, they won’t decide this one — the people of Maine will.”
And Jordan Wood, the leading fundraiser in the race, noted that he was not surprised by the news but rather energized.
“Maine does not want DC political elites deciding our primary,” he said before arguing that the DCCC’s endorsement shows that change is needed in the nation’s capital. “It’s a reminder of how desperately we need change in Washington, not just to stop [Donald] Trump and hold him accountable, but also to fix our broken party, which is so out of touch with people that it thinks it knows better than them.”
And that gets to the heart of why the DCCC’s move is so short-sighted.
In a midterm election, which usually features lower turnout, voter enthusiasm is crucial, especially in close districts like the “Red to Blue” targets.
Therefore, alienating any voter bloc, such as progressives in this case, by trying to influence the primary and disadvantage certain candidates, is extremely short-sighted.
In addition, it makes Democratic leaders in Congress sound disingenuous when they talk about Republicans trying to disenfranchise voters. Because, albeit on a different level, this is exactly what they are trying to do: make sure that the voices of certain voters don’t get heard.
- Klaus Marre Klaus Marre, a former congressional reporter, is a senior editor for US politics at WhoWhatWhy. He writes regularly here, and you can also follow him on Bluesky and Substack.
