The DNC (Yay), The DSA (Boo) July 28, 2026July 28, 2026 But first . . . Warren Buffett on Donald Trump (2 minutes). Tracker PAC: RFK Jr.’s 29-year-old son just landed a $100 million investment fund for an AI healthcare startup . . . The kid has no known experience in healthcare but what does that matter when his father is an anti-vaccine crank with zero medical background who somehow ended up in charge of the nation’s health? The Epstein Files will haunt Trump through the midterms: Judge Emmet Sullivan has ordered the DOJ to hand over a batch of contested, redacted Epstein files by Thursday so he can review them privately before deciding whether they go public. What’s in them? Emails discussing the exploitation of very young women and girls, with the identities of Epstein’s correspondents redacted… FBI notes on an accuser’s allegation that Donald Trump himself assaulted her in the 1980s, which Trump denies… and a 2007 draft indictment listing Epstein’s co-conspirators, where only Ghislaine Maxwell’s name survived the redaction pen. Interesting that there’s an entire page of names and the Trump DOJ only wants you to see one of them. And now . . . THE DSA I’m guessing you were as shocked as I was if you saw: DSA leader admits group wants to abolish prisons, borders and lots more in kooky TV true-or-false. Sure, it would be nice to live in a world where there was no need for prisons. Or borders. And where Idaho didn’t have as many Senators as California. (She wants to abolish the Senate, too.) But the no-doubt-well-meaning co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America (of whom no one had ever heard, but whom every MAGA talking head will now be quoting to the end of time) handed tax-averse billionaires, racists, Putin, and fascists everywhere a fat gift by allowing them to suggest that Bernie Sanders, AOC, and Zohran Mamdani — let alone mainstream Democrats — are on board with these things. The Democratic Party no more espouses open borders than Ronald Reagan did when he famously praised immigration and granted amnesty to millions who were here illegally. Likewise, “defunding the police,” which was just an angry way to say reform the police, provide better training and management, issue body cams. And likewise, too, the other “kooky” things in the DSA platform. Anyone who says otherwise is either misled himself or else purposely misleading you. But as the Washington Monthly put it: The next campaign finance report from the Republican National Committee may need to report an in-kind contribution from the Democratic Socialists of America. Carl isn’t right about much, but he’s certainly right that — again, in the words of the Washington Monthly — The DSA Platform Would Destroy American Democracy. Where he’s wrong is in believing — as he truly seems to — that I, or any other mainstream Democrat, disagrees with him. THE DNC It’s so easy to pile on. See, for example, Is Ken Martin the Worst Party Chair in US History? by Michael Tomasky, editor of the New Republic. Or my friend David Hogg’s latest fundraising email for Leaders We Deserve. It’s not entirely fair, in my view; but he’s on a righteous mission, and being entirely fair is not the way to maximize receipts. There are a few points I’d like to make. > On the fundraising front, even after adjusting for inflation, the DNC is well ahead of where it was the last time Trump was in office facing a mid-term. > It might have looked better to just pile up that money in a savings account, rather than spend it to support state parties and special elections and the governors’ races in Virginia and New Jersey — and to build infrastructure that will benefit most of our candidates nationwide — but would that really have been the smartest use of the funds? Just hoarding them? > The $840,000 that’s gone to the party committees of territories like Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam — which have no impact on winning back Congress or the White House — is not something I would have done. > The highly visible “autopsy” fiasco was just that. (But was there some magic answer to why Trump won that, if only it had been revealed, would have assured future success? There were a lot of reasons Trump won, some of which will not apply going forward — or will apply in Texas but not in Ohio. The whole idea of a public autopsy, as I’m sure Ken would agree in hindsight, was . . . unfortunate.) > Most people don’t know what the DNC does or is supposed to do or which chairman was at the helm when. E.g., why didn’t the DNC get Biden to drop out a year earlier?! Well, for one thing, that’s not how it works. In China, the party chair tells the president (and everybody else) what to do. Not here. Also, Ken wasn’t DNC chair then; he was busy finishing 14 very successful years as chair of the Minnesota Party. > Nor was he chair when there might have been a quickie primary to give our nominee — Kamala or some other — more legitimacy in some eyes. > Nor was he chair when she lost and left her campaign in debt. > Nor was he chair when his predecessor left him a DNC $14.8 million in debt. (When I was treasurer, we would frequently draw down our credit line at the end of a cycle to “leave it all on the field,” lest we lose by a hair and regret it for the rest of our lives.) > If the reason people have decided to stop funding the DNC is that they’re angry it hasn’t piled up a big savings account . . . well, the solution to the money problem is not make the problem worse. It’s to chip in to solve it. (Which, thankfully, tens of thousands of donors continue to do.) > Because whether Ken stays or goes, we’d be idiots not to fund the Democratic Party. What could better serve MAGA and Trump and Putin? > It’s not a good idea to shut down the Party when we’re discouraged . . . or in between elections even if we’ve won . . . only to try to ramp it up all over again four years later. Better, in my view, to have a consistent, professional operation — never perfect, but always trying to do a good job — especially because, in the scheme of things, it costs so little. In a non-presidential year (when the DNC is just a conduit for huge sums controlled, effectively, by the candidate), about $150 million would do nicely. A lot to you or me, but — by way of context — an estimated $260 million was spent by Democrats this past year in the California gubernatorial primary! Not to fight Republicans — to fight Democrats! An extreme case, to be sure (Tom Steyer spent $201 million of that) — but still. If you’ve gotten this far, you’re a great American. If you can, chip in a little to give the story a happy ending.