No Good Deed: CNN Platforms Democratic Insiders Smearing Progressives Trying To Help Dems Win

The Democratic party apparatus and the “Democratic leadership” in congress control and direct a massive money-machine that, in theory, exists solely to support Democratic candidates around the U.S.. This election season has seen a groundswell of support for progressive Democratic candidates, but while that machine is falling down on the job, CNN just acted as a stenographer for bitchy party insiders attacking progressives.who are trying to help Democrats win in the midterm elections.

The background: In Florida, Democratic Senate nominee Angie Nixon, backed by the state Democratic Socialists of America, rolled over Clintonite-right pick Alex Vindman in the Dem primary only to see the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and the rest of that big Dem machine leave her general-election campaign to die--a campaign that could dictate whether or not Democrats gain control of the Senate. MS NOW writes up the tale and slaps a headline on it, "'Gun-shy' after 2024: Angie Nixon says Democratic leaders are wary of backing Black women candidates," which inexcusably buries the lede. While it references something Nixon said, it focuses on giving the affair an identity spin, whereas if one reads the story, Nixon correctly identified the real problem with why she isn't getting support:

"Nixon has two explanations for why she believes party leaders are holding back. The first is ideological.

"'I am a progressive Democrat, and I am very vocal about putting working-class families first. I am very vocal about progressive values,' she said. 'So I think that may be the main issue.'

"The second is her race and gender. 'Folks are a little gun-shy because, unfortunately, Vice President [Kamala] Harris lost as a Black woman, and so people are being very hesitant in terms of funding Black women, especially in the South.'"

One can't help but suspect MS NOW chose to headline the second because it provides the Democrats with some sort of rationale, however bad, for ditching Nixon, whereas the second raises some more disturbing questions about the "Democratic leadership." Because what makes the freezing out of Nixon most striking is that the race is demonstrably winnable. Polling has Nixon essentially tied with her Republican opponent Ashley Moody, a corrupt crackpot, despite Moody holding a massive money advantage. Instead of backing Nixon, Senate "Democratic leader" Chuck Schumer has been directing donors to contribute to the far more conservative and far-less-likely-to-win Mississippi Senate contender Scott Colom, who, as if entirely deaf and blind to this moment in history, mouths platitudes about supporting law enforcement and strong borders and has offered voters no concrete platform.

Progressive Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who does more for Democratic candidates and causes than anyone else in the Senate, has stepped up to fill this void, providing and pledging to provide money and assistance to Nixon, whom he has endorsed, and other progressive contenders, whom he's backed throughout this cycle.

CNN's Sarah Ferris and Patrick Svitek immediately tried to turn this, a story about Sanders providing support for progressive Dems abandoned by the "Democratic leadership," into a story about Sanders--who is, after all, just a single senator and 85 years old--allegedly not doing enough.

"Sanders’ handpicked candidates are battling it out in some of the toughest--and most expensive--races of the general election. And top Democrats privately believe that the Vermont senator and other left-wing groups are not investing enough to get them over the finish line, particularly in the costly battleground state of Michigan, according to nearly a dozen people familiar with internal conversations."

Reading down into the article, one learns that Sanders' contributions to Nixon's campaign and to the Attorney General's race in Minnesota are Sanders' "largest direct candidate contributions ever," and it covers some of his other work on behalf of other candidates and quotes some of his defenders but it privileges and is built around, rather than seriously interrogating, this notion, offered up by one Dem insider after another, that Sanders isn't doing enough, uses money as the only metric for this and never properly contextualizing any of this by pointing out that there exists that big Dem machine controlling vastly more resources than Sanders that is supposed to be supporting Dem candidates in such races. Ferris/Svitek note that Sanders has a "roughly $23 million war chest" and assert that while Sanders and unnamed "other progressive groups" spent $2.5 million on progressive candidates in the primaries, they've spent "just $384,000 as of late September" on those candidates in the general. They don't note that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Senate Majority PAC--only 2 of the Dem machine orgs that, again, literally exist to handle this kind of business--had between them over $180 million at last reporting and haven't spent a penny on the Florida race (and don't address how much they've spent on the same set of race).

The absurdity of this absent imbalance is highlighted by the article's focus on that Michigan Senate race, where Sanders-endorsed Abdul El-Sayed is battling it out against Republican Mike Rogers.

"Within hours of Sanders' announcing that he'd spend to support Senate candidates in Minnesota and Florida, many Democratic operatives were quick to note that he is not spending in Michigan, where many in the party feel the money is most needed."

Ferris/Svitek spend a great deal of time on this race, because that's the one about which the anonymous Dem insiders they're transcribing are bitching, but leave on the cutting-room floor the fact that the Senate Majority PAC just committed $30 million to the Michigan race, more on just that single race than the entirety of Sanders' "roughly $23 million war chest." While parroting Dem insiders insisting this is where money is most needed and that El-Sayed "is being buried by outside spending from GOP groups," Ferris/Svitek never question how El-Sayed's campaign, which has been "buried" so deep that every poll is showing is ahead of Rogers (though in some, just barely), needs help more than Angie Nixon in Florida, who--again--is tied with her far-better-financed Republican opponent and--again--has gotten nothing at all from the Senate Majority PAC.

The fact that the progressive Working Families Party, which endorsed Nixon, "plans to spend seven figures to help progressives it backed in primaries win in November"--a fact that seems rather relevant to the larger indictment of progressives the article is making--is just added to the end of a sentence, as if an afterthought, with no details.

Ferris/Svitek repeat this:

"One Democratic operative involved in the Michigan Senate race said it was 'absurd [Sanders is] spending in a safe election'--referring to the Minnesota contest--'before showing up for El-Sayed.'"

But the last two polls on that "safe election" before CNN went to press showed Keith Ellison, a longtime Sanders ally running for reelection as state Attorney General, tied with his Republican opponent and, most recently, losing to him by 2 points (still basically a tie). Ferris/Svitek don't mention it.

What do the candidates--the ones these Dem insiders insist are being shortchanged by Sanders--think of Sanders? A spokesman for Abdul El-Sayed said "Sanders' support is 'critical as we build a broad coalition to beat Mike Rogers in November.'" Ferris/Svitek focus in on 5 Dem House contenders Sanders backed in the primaries and write that "some--but not all--have welcomed his help." But the journalists were unable to come up with even a single one who said they didn't. The journalists find only another unnamed "Democratic operative" who "said the senator may not be as helpful in the general election" as in the primaries. And even he conceded Sanders

"still has value. His anti-establishment, working-class message aligns with the case that Democrats are increasingly making against Republicans in battleground districts, the operative said, and he remains a turnout booster for young people who are hard to galvanize in any election."

Perhaps in desperation to justify their "but not all," Ferris/Svitek turn to this:

"In Montana’s 1st Congressional District, which is more of an uphill battle for Democrats, Sanders endorsed Sam Forstag in the primary. But since then, Forstag removed Sanders’ endorsement from his campaign website as part of a section on national endorsements that was entirely scrapped."

But if the fact that the entire "national endorsements" page, which, in fact, showed endorsements from 6 other Dems besides Sanders, was scrapped doesn't take the wind out of the claim that Forstag dumped it because he was now specifically backing away from Sanders, the fact that Forstag continues to tout his endorsement by Sanders when campaigning--which, again, Ferris/Svitek don't mention--leaves it thoroughly becalmed. Ferris/Svitek conclude their article by noting that "[Angie] Nixon’s campaign in Florida has been especially appreciative of Sanders..."

There are several news stories in all of this. That the party apparatus that exists to support Democratic candidates has abandoned an utterly winnable race that may be critical to their taking the Senate? That's a huge one. That Bernie Sanders is stepping up to try to help where that apparatus isn't? Another story, though a smaller one. The difference between piles of money and low-fi grassroots organizational support? A very important story re:the premise of the article. Instead of going with these or any of the other obvious ones that can be pulled from all of this, CNN is just acting as stenographers for a bunch of Democratic insiders who are yet again slandering Bernie Sanders and progressives, even as Sanders and those progressives try to help where that party apparatus--the one all those insiders are inside--isn't.

When it comes to progressives, no good deed, it seems, will go unpunished by the corporate press.

-j.

---

A concluding note: Appallingly, CNN allows party insiders to take swipes at Sanders' anti-corruption stance. "There is an inherent tension in the calls for Sanders to spend more for his candidates," write Ferris/Svitek, because "Sanders' longtime opposition to big money in politics leaves him with few options" to finance their campaigns.

"Democrats in Washington... see Sanders’ anti-super PAC crusade as mostly quixotic in the final weeks before the midterms."

Ferris/Svitek don't interrogate--or even point out--that these particular "Democrats in Washington" are taking a pro-corruption position, arguing that Dem political hopefuls should prostitute their potential future offices to the entrenched interests behind super PACs, that opposing that--something that even all of the candidates who wallow in that corruption say they oppose (because otherwise, they wouldn't be politically viable in the Democratic party)--is "quixotic."

This writer has long argued that progressive candidates shouldn't look to the Democratic Establishment for help in their campaigns. Angie Nixon's plight provides an excellent example of why. Another is found in Troy Jackson's Senate campaign in Maine, where, coming out of the gate very late and under very unusual circumstances, Jackson looked to the party for help and ended up turning over his campaign almost entirely to Establishment management. The result was something that looks vaguely like a real-life version of Robert Redford's THE CANDIDATE but without the "happy" ending. Jackson, a candidate who was on track to defeat Republican incumbent Susan Collins, has been utterly neutered to the point that he's now losing to her. Nathan Bernard and Ryan Grim have the ugly story on that.

Any bargain with the party Establishment is likely to be strictly Faustian.