 I want to give you an update on Nina Turner's campaign. Early voting is coming up very soon. So if you live in the 11th congressional district of Ohio, make sure you are, you know, keeping track of dates and whatnot. But there's some good news and there's some bad news with regard to Nina Turner's campaign. The good news is that she continues to rack up endorsements, both locally and nationally. She was just endorsed by Ed Markey. He tweeted out, there's only one climate champion in the race to represent Ohio's 11th congressional district. And it's Nina Turner. Our intersecting crises must be met with ambitious solutions. Nina Turner is the kind of progressive we need in Congress to get things done. Now that's the good news, but the bad news is something that you're probably already aware of. Lobbyists, corporate lobbyists, to be specific, have declared an all out war on Nina Turner. And you know, also the Democratic Party establishment is pulling out all the tricks to stop Nina Turner. Now unfortunately for them, they're kind of backed into a corner because whenever the establishment takes really large steps to try to stop Nina Turner, they bring out someone like Hillary Clinton to endorse Nina Turner's opponent that backfires on them, right? Nina Turner ends up having a record breaking fundraising day. So on one hand, if they just sit back, then Nina Turner is going to cruise to victory. But on another hand, if they speak out and try to defeat Nina Turner, well, that is also going to help Nina Turner. But all of this, it really tells you what the Democratic Party prioritizes. Right now, there was a really limited window for Democrats nationally speaking to act and prove to everyone that they have what it takes. And more specifically, prove to everyone that being more moderate, more incrementalist in your approach to politics is actually more feasible. But they're blowing all of that to focus on defeating Nina Turner. And I say that because they tried it out Hillary Clinton. That didn't work. And then they bring out another very big figure in the Democratic Party establishment politics, who is usually the kingmaker. I'm, of course, talking about Jim Clyburn. And there's a really great article from Luke Savage of Jacobin who explains how this is Democrats essentially inadvertently in a very roundabout way going mask off because they're telling you that they care more about defeating Nina Turner than actually accomplishing things in Congress right now as their window to act closes. So before we go any further, let's read what he has to say. Last week, Brown, Nina Turner's opponent, secured another high profile endorsement from none other than Jim Clyburn, the third ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, a development that is striking for a number of reasons. As The New York Times noted in its reporting on the race, the congressman rarely intervenes in primary contests. In publicly justifying the move, Clyburn invoked his now familiar opposition to what he called the slogan nearing of the Democratic Party's left wing, citing as an example, among other things, the issue of Medicare for all. As Julia Rock and David Sarota of The Daily Post have observed, Clyburn actually cosponsored Medicare for all legislation when it was first introduced in 2017 before ultimately coming to vilify it a few years later. His stated reason was that the issue would hurt Democrats electorally, though it's hard not to think that the more than $1 million he's received in donations from Big Pharma, an amount that as of last year put him firmly ahead of other members of Congress, may have had something to do with it. As Rock and Sarota have pointed out, Medicare for all is incredibly popular in the district, which for almost 30 years has elected lawmakers supportive of single payer legislation. It's also become a hot button issue in the election courtesy of Turner herself, who has campaigned vigorously on the idea and run television spots in support of Medicare for all. For her part, Brown has been attending fundraisers put on by corporate interests, one of which was quite literally headlined by a registered lobbyist for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which is part of a powerful alliance of special interests pouring money into a national effort to defeat Medicare for all. Following Hillary Clinton's endorsement of Sean Selle Brown, Turner's campaign raised an astonishing $100,000 in 24 hours, its best single day hall to date, and a figure it reportedly matched more recently after Clyburn's intervention. It seems probable that Turner's momentum will carry her to victory in August 3rd in spite of the recent rearguard action undertaken by the Democratic establishment. That such an effort is even happening in the first place, however, says a great deal about what tends to preoccupy the minds of those in the party leadership. Absolutely none of which is good. So the Democratic Party establishment in short has dedicated a lot of time, energy and resources into stopping Nina Turner. And they're doing this because they've long maintained that if you want to be successful in politics, you can't be this sort of utopian who believes in, you know, unicorns and these pie in the sky ideas. Sure, you want Medicare for all. Well, guess what? We want that long term as well. But you can't just run on Medicare for all. You have to start more incrementally and slowly, but surely build up the momentum for Medicare for all. This is what they've argued and they've used this as justification to elect more moderate Democrats because these moderates, they're actually pragmatic. They're more realistic. They're actually going to move us closer towards Medicare for all than, you know, these loud progressives who obnoxiously huff and puff about the need for Medicare for all, except this whole primary campaign is proving that this is all bullshit. They care more about defeating progressives than actually moving us closer to the goals that they purport to support. So I want to share with you most of a paragraph from this same article because it is fascinating to me. So progressive policies or civil line goes might be all well and good, but will never attract the support or secure the votes in Congress necessary to become law. Ergo, it's better to support smaller, more incremental reforms over big and ambitious ones and presumably Democratic candidates synonymous with the former rather than the latter. There's a remarkably circular logic at work here. Progressive policies we are ceaselessly told will never pass because they lack the required support in Congress. A major reason they lack said support is that the Democratic establishment almost invariably defends right-leaning incumbents from progressive primary challenges and actively works to elect more conservative lawmakers, even in districts like Ohio's 11th among the most solidly blue in the entire country. So what Luke Savage is getting at here and there's a couple of tweets that I want to share with you that he references in this article that really highlight this is that for all of the screaming about why we need to elect moderates because they're more effective, they know how to legislate more effectively and they get things done, they're not doing that right now. And it seems as if one could argue they're putting more energy into stopping insurgent campaigns like Nina Turner's from the left. And in a district like Ohio's 11th that is very solidly Democratic Party-leaning, they don't have the usual excuse that they trot out in purple districts about how well you know what, in this district you've got to be more moderate because if you're not too moderate then you're going to turn off voters and the Republican is going to win. That's not something that you have to really consider here. Once the primary is over for all intents and purposes this election is over in the 11th congressional district of Ohio but now since they can't use Republicans as like this boogeyman, now they're just saying, well, look, it's the case that progressives, they're not as effective. People like Sean Tell Brown actually know how to legislate in a realistic way. But this tweet that Luke Savage shares I think really puts everything into perspective in a perfect way. Democrats are almost certainly going to lose their house majority, their top legislative priority, lowering prescription drug prices, which they've run on for six years is on life support and party leadership is busy trying to big foot a special election in deep blue Ohio's 11th. Leadership successors, meanwhile, are busy launching a PAC to protect conservative and moderate incumbent Democrats not from Republican challengers but from progressive primary challengers. This is what the party is doing with its mandate to govern. And that last tweet references something that we talked about last week on the program and that is Hakim Jeffries who was in line to be the next speaker of the House for Democrats. He launched a super PAC not to help Democrats who are running against Republicans but to shield incumbent Democrats from progressive primary challengers. So Nina Turner's election inadvertently is forcing the Democratic Party establishment to go mask off and confirm what progressives have long suspected progressives such as myself that they care more about defeating progressives than they do Republicans. Because if you are in a position of leadership for you to launch a super PAC to stop Democrats from Democrats that kind of gives away the game, does it not? Your number one priority if you are in a position of leadership in theory should be to make sure that Democrats beat Republicans. This is what party leadership is literally supposed to do. That's their whole goal, right? That's the purpose of these individuals and the positions that they hold but they're not doing that. They're worried about incumbent Democrats. So rather than proving that their theory of change has been correct by lowering prescription drug prices not that all Democrats haven't tried but most people see that these goals aren't likely going to pass. I mean, if they don't lower prescription drug prices if they can't even lower the age of Medicare then their whole reasoning for electing moderates over progressives is being undermined. But they don't care how bad it looks. The goal of many members of the Democratic Party's leadership is not to beat Republicans but instead to be progressives. And they're showing their cards right here and people need to remember this because if you have a party that cares more about the next generation taking over than Republicans and the threat that they pose as a party then that really says a lot and it really gives people even more incentive to get active and take over this party before it's too late before they drive it further into the ground.