There's been a bit of discussion about which Democratic candidates the DCCC and the DNC support and why they're supporting them. Establishment rhetoric says they're supporting the candidates they believe can defeat Republicans, which means in traditionally red states/districts, they support the moderate Democratic candidate over the more progressive one. The argument being that voters in said states/districts will be more accepting of moderate ideals over progressive ones, despite polling ..But why does the DCCC/DNC put their support behind moderate candidates in progressive states/districts, like Dianne Feinstein? She's unarguably one of the most conservative Democratic Senators in congress who is supposed to represent one of the most progressive states in the union. She supports the illegal domestic NSA spying program on Americans, she supported the Iraq War, deregulating Wall Street, etc. So why would the Democratic establishment push for corporate candidates in one of the most progressive states in the union instead of an actual progressive voters support? Why try to slander an actual progressive in Texas, Laura Moser, before the Democratic primary? Why does it appear as if the Democratic establishment is actively supporting/conducting campaigns that oppose actual progressives while propping up the candidates that hold more moderate positions on business? If you disagree with this assessment, that's fine. But I doubt you can name a single actually progressive candidate who supports populist left positions like universal healthcare or debt free college the Democratic establishment supports over the establishment candidate the business community, billionaires, and the 1% support. If you can, please do, but you can't, because they don't, because they're supporting candidates that they know are unlikely to support any kind of change to the status quo that keeps them employed.