I know that title is shocking. Are National Democrats working to sabotage their own candidates?

Yes, that is a rhetorical question. The establishment of Democratic Party wants unity, but on only its own terms. Obviously we saw that in the primary fight between Sanders and Clinton, but it alos extends far beyond who received the party's nomination for President. National Democrats would rather lose seats it could win than elect candidates who promote progressive values. Hillary vacuumed up all the cash allegedly donated to help state parties elect down ballot candidates for her own campaign. At the same time, the DNC chose not to even run candidates in winnable Congressional districts.

Now, after most of the local state primaries for Congress are completed, we are seeing an utter lack of support by the Democratic Party for anyone running on a progressive platform. Look no further than the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, or DCCC for short. If you are a progressive, you immediately become persona non grata as far as the DCCC is concerned, even if you pledged to support Clinton. Two examples from Down With Tyranny:

Tom Wakely, (D-TX 21st District) running against incumbent Lamar Smith



It seems that every time a progressive wins, the DCCC decides the district is "not winnable" and they immediately abandon the winner and the district. Steve Israel and Ben Ray Lujan have mandated this for every part of the country, from Long Island and the Philly suburbs, up to Wisconsin's north woods and down to Texas' Austin-San Antonio corridor. Let's take a look at Tom Wakely's case in Texas. [...] His primary victory over a self-described conservative Democrat was substantial and decisive-- 59-41%, in part because two of Bernie's biggest Texas wins were in the district: Travis County (Austin) and next door Hays County. But the DCCC has an odd definition of "party unity" and has never so much as returned a call from Tom. TX-21 includes deep blue downtown Austin and traditionally Republican suburbs of that city and San Antonio that have turned away from Trump. Maybe they feel Wakely's progressive message is too strong for Texas-- although Texas Democrats found it pitch-perfect. [...] Tom is promising to work to ban fracking. "There is no middle man fuel if we're pumping any amount of excess carbon into our atmosphere. Banning fracking is essential in keeping drought-prone places (like in my home state of Texas) free from predatory corporations who cannot adequately return even a fraction of the water used back to our environment.

Lamar Smith's most noteworthy accomplishments have been a relentless attack on science and his endorsement of the increasing unpopular Donald Trump. Yet the DCCC doesn't consider it worth their while to help a progressive Texan unseat him.

Then there is the case of Richard Reichard (D-NY 11th Dist.) running against "Republican racist Daniel Donovan" elected in 2015 special election after the incumbent was convicted:

The DCCC basically just gave up on NY-11. They didn't contest it then and they're not contesting it now. They simply ceded it to the GOP, which makes no sense at all. In the more conservative Staten Island part of the district, 34,067 Democrats voted for Hillary and Bernie in the primary while only 23,688 people turned out to vote for Trump, Kasich and Cruz. But the DCCC brain surgeons declared it [unwinnable]. [...] The Democrat running for the congressional seat in November is Richard Reichard. The DCCC is basically ignoring his campaign. As of the June 30 FEC reporting deadline he had raised $14,115 compared to incumbent Dan Donovan's $1,570,735. The NRCC is already bolstering Donovan while the DCCC is nowhere to be seen. There's only one way for them to win back the House-- winning districts that have shown a willingness to vote for Democrats in recent years-- like NY-11. But the DCCC hasn't figured that out yet. Reichard is a progressive who favors a public option, removing the Social Security cap, investing in reversing climate change and in stricter gun safety laws. He told us he "wants to change Washington by reducing big money's influence." The DCCC would rather put money into more difficult New York districts where conservatives are running.

Indeed, the Democratic establishment's favoritism toward corporate-backed, conservative Democrats has been well documented. Here are some examples where establishment money is being poured into races featuring hand-picked ConservaDems in tough races against incumbent Republicans while ignoring winnable races by progressive candidates:

NJ-05 Bergen County - Scott Garrett (R)

Obama lost narrowly there both times and the heinous Garrett is pretty firmly entrenched, beating all his Democratic opponents by double digits. This cycle the DCCC recruited a Wall Street-friendly insider, Josh Gottheimer, who has outraised Garrett $2,899,643 to $1,357,412. Pelosi's House Majority PAC has already thrown $773,303 into the district attacking Garrett, by far the most her PAC has spent in any race this year. In fact, it's more than all the money the House Majority PAC has spent on all candidates combined so far this year. The DCCC prefers conservative insiders and spends on them while starving progressives, populists and outsiders of campaign funds.

NY-01 - Lee Zeldin (R)

Pelosi's PAC ... spent $163,716 against incumbent Lee Zeldin. After a bitter primary between two extremely mediocre and meaningless candidates, Anna Throne-Holst, who switched her party registration weeks before the deadline, emerged as the winner over Dave Calone, 5,446 to 5,417. EMILY's List poured $728,467 into the race to beat Calone. Throne-Holst is a weak candidate who, if she wins, will be a horrible member of Congress who would find it expensive and nearly impossible to hold the seat. The DCCC is likely to spend over $2 million on her behalf. Obama won the district both times, narrowly, but Zeldin beat centrist Democratic incumbent Tim Bishop 54-46% in 2014.

So the big buck Dem SuperPacs are placing their bets are electing a former Republican to defeat the current Republican. Makes a hell of as lot of sense if you're goal isn't to elect better Democrats but to maintain the status quo. Which may be why the Democratic progressive challenger to Steve King (R-NY 02) is being shunned and cut off from any money support by the Democratic Party establishment:

NY-02 is a better bet for a Democrat. Obama won the district 51-48% against McCain and 52-47% against Romney. The district has been re-drawn to include more of blue-leaning Suffolk and less red areas of Nassau. The incumbent, Peter King, isn't well known in Suffolk and the progressive Democrat running, DuWayne Gregory, is the presiding officer of the Suffolk County legislature. He's the Democrats' best bet on Long Island except for one little problem: Steve Israel. Israel is pals with Peter King and protects him and has blackballed and undercut Gregory. Israel is a virulent racist who opposes African-Americans running in "white" districts and has told institutional Democratic donors to not waste their money on Gregory, who has only raised $263,058 to go up against King's $3,088,146 war chest. Israel persuaded the DCCC to blackball Gregory.

Sound familiar? It should considering this was the same shit Debbie Wasserman Schultz pulled to protect her Florida Republican "friends" in Congress, rather than run aggressive Democratic campaigns against them.

Which raises the question, why do progressives still believe they can change the Democratic Party from within? Time after time progressive candidates have been marginalized, underfunded and defeated in primaries where the DCCC, DNC and local state parties have placed a heavy thumb on the scale for the Party's preferred choice of Republican-Lite candidates. From a post Gaius Publius at Americblog in 2013:

The DCCC is the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the group of congresspeople and staff supposedly responsible for electing House Democrats. It’s led by “ex”–Blue Dog and New Dem Steve Israel, Nancy Pelosi’s hand-picked choice for the job. We’ve written about Israel before. To the world his job is simply to elect Democrats, but to the moneymen and -women behind the corporate wing of the party, his job is to: ▪ Elect corporate Democrats to the House

▪ Keep progressives out of office

▪ Make sure pro-corporate Republican leaders like Cantor and Paul Ryan never face credible challenges {...]

Six House Dems voted No to raising the minimum wage; four are on the DCCC “extra help” list. [...]

Here’s Klein on the Frontline list (my emphasis): Most of the money the DCCC collects from donors is spent on reelecting incumbents– but not just any incumbent. They have a list of Democrats who they say most need the help. The majority of the Democrats on that list [are] on it because they can’t raise money from the Democratic base on their own because they vote with the GOP so frequently on the most important issues. And wouldn’t you know it– all the ConservaDems who voted against the minimum wage increase (except Collin Peterson and Kurt Schrader who [fund] their campaigns by extorting legalistic bribes from lobbyists with business before their committees)– are on the DCCC’s Frontline list. That’s pretty straightforward, isn’t it? When you give money to the DCCC, they give lots of it to people who vote with Republicans. And they protect Republicans like Paul Ryan, whom they pretend to hate. And again, Nancy Pelosi put Israel where he is, twice.

So, does anyone expect the current Democratic leaders to change anything, in light of their naked display of dirty tricks, lies, voter suppression and election fraud to select Hillary as the Democratic nominee? Despite the rhetoric of this year's platform being the "most progressive" in Democratic Party history, actions speak louder than words. And the Dem establishment has, and is, showing by its actions that it likes things just the way they are, with Progressives on outside of the party looking in at the establishment Dems partying with their lobbyist buddies.

For all the hubbub and enthusiasm over Bernie Sanders' "Our Revolution" and groups such as "Brand New Congress" who are dedicated to electing progressive Democratic candidates, they face an uphill, if not impossible task, and one that will become even harder once Hillary wins the general election, which at the moment is looking ever more like a sure thing.