The Democratic Party is once again facing infighting over a critical choice between electability and radical ideology. The party’s progressive wing is currently up in arms over the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s (DCCC’s) decision to support mainstream Democratic candidate Jasmeet Bains, a California assemblywoman, over far-left Randy Villegas, a political science professor at College of the Sequoias, in California’s congressional primary race.

According to Fox News, the DCCC added Bains, as well as seven other California Democrats, to its “red to blue” list, aimed at unseating incumbent Republicans. If she succeeds in her primary, Bains will then go on to challenge Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.), who has served in Congress since 2012. Valadao has repeatedly defeated Democratic challengers over the years, except when Democrat T.J. Cox narrowly beat the Republican in 2018; Valadao was promptly returned to Congress in 2020. Notably, Valadao has distinguished himself as a “moderate” and was one of only 10 Republicans to vote to impeach President Donald Trump in January of 2021. Of that cadre, only two have been re-elected, including Valadao. The congressman was also one of the 35 Republicans who supported forming the House January 6 Committee.

Bains, a former medical professional, has served in the California State Assembly since 2022 and has been identified as one of the most moderate Democrats in the chamber, even siding with Republicans on a number of issues. She was the only Democrat in California’s legislature to vote against last year’s redistricting measure. Villegas is a newcomer to politics but has already been backed by Democrat-aligned socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and the left-wing Working Families Party.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC condemned the DCCC’s decision to endorse Bains over Villegas in a statement this week. “We disagree with the DCCC’s decision to attempt to tip the scales in this race,” the group, which includes Reps. Greg Casar (D-Texas), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.), Chuy Garcia (D-Ill.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), wrote. “Voters, not the DCCC, should pick Democratic nominees.”

The Working Families Party similarly expressed its scorn for the DCCC decision. “Just like they did in Maine and Michigan, the Democratic establishment is again putting its thumb on the scale — not to support the stronger candidate, but the candidate who will bend to party leadership and its corporate donors,” the organization’s national press secretary, Ravi Mangla, said in a statement. Mangla added that Villegas is “the only candidate with the energy and momentum to beat David Valadao in November.” Villegas himself also issued a statement, calling the DCCC’s decision “undemocratic.” He continued, “Voters have the power to choose who represents our community, not DC elites and corporate interests.”

In another instance, the DCCC backed former broadcast journalist and ex-Republican Marlene Galán-Woods over former state representative Amish Shah in Arizona’s first congressional district. While both Galán-Woods and Shah are vocal abortion supporters, Shah has been labeled a socialist due to his support for universal single-payer health care and other economic positions. Notably, Shah won his party’s primary in the same district in 2024 (Galán-Woods placed third) and was only narrowly defeated by incumbent Republican David Schweikert (51.9% to 48.1%) in the general election.

One unnamed congressional progressive told Axios, “Shah won the primary last time, seems like he is the favorite this time,” questioning whether or not the DCCC even did any polling before throwing its support behind Galán-Woods. Another House Democrat shared, “I think the DCCC owes House Democrats an explanation, and I would not be surprised if a number of members decide to put their DCCC giving on hold.” The unnamed legislator added, “Some of these decisions … are very perplexing.”

In comments to The Washington Stand, FRC Action Director Matt Carpenter said, “The Democrats benefit from a highly energized base. This is why we’ve seen them overperform in special elections and off-year elections since 2024. However, it remains to be seen if the party can capitalize on this energy writ large, across the entire map.” He explained, “It’s one thing for the party to spend half a million dollars in a special election for a state senate race when it’s the only election that month, as they’ve done. It’s another thing entirely to coordinate resources for hundreds of Congressional races and thousands of state races across all 50 states.”

“The base has the energy, but the national party sees the resources they have and must choose whether to spend more to defend progressive candidates, or choose a candidate packaged more moderately, who may require less investment,” Carpenter observed. “When you consider how close congressional majorities are these days, and how the mid-decade redistricting fight is making an already uphill fight to take back Congressional majorities even steeper, you can sense the pressure building on organizations like the DCCC to find the most appealing candidates to run in the most competitive races, something that will leave the most energized progressive voter holding their nose while filling out their ballot.”

The progressive-led uproar comes in the midst of an ongoing division within the Democratic Party as a whole, centered on whether or not the party should promote far-left policies and positions, despite their evident unpopularity with the general public, or moderate its more progressive factions in an effort to appeal to voters. Following President Donald Trump’s historic victory over then-Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, where issues like immigration, gender transition procedures, and affordability dominated, Democrats were forced to reckon with the possibility that their left-wing agenda may be ballot box poison. A broad number of voters reported that they viewed Harris’s policies as “too extreme,” while Trump pledged to restore safety and tame the cost-of-living crisis which spiraled out of control while Harris and her boss, Joe Biden, were in the White House.

Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is refusing to resolve the feud between the party’s more moderate and more progressive wings. DNC Chairman Ken Martin has repeatedly rejected calls to release a 2024 “autopsy” examining why Democrats lost on such a massive scale. “It raises more questions than it answers to conduct an autopsy and then not release it,” Democratic strategist Christy Setzer said, according to The Hill. “Why make the diagnosis if you’re not going to tell the patient what they have? Did Kamala Harris punch above her weight but fall victim to a too-short campaign, or did she vastly underperform, and for what reasons?”

“Get all of the dirt out of the wound now so we can all heal,” said Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons. “Ignoring it is never the best way to solve a problem. This is politics and in politics trust, confidence and perception matter more than facts, and if you’re the new chairman, you should tell the story because you weren’t involved.”

Martin has said that releasing the report would amount to “navel-gazing” for the party, claiming that there is no “smoking gun” demonstrating why Harris and other Democrats were trounced at the ballot box. “I don’t have a time machine. I don’t think you do. No one does. So we can’t change what happened in ’24,” the DNC chairman said in a recent podcast interview. “The only thing we can do is actually change what happens in the future, including the ’26 election cycle, ’28 and beyond.”