Winning in a R+3 district is neat, winning in an R+40 state is extremely impressive - which is exactly what Joe Manchin has managed by holding West Virginia. In 2024 he won’t run, and the very progressives who complain about him being right wing will find out what his replacement - A Republican in an R+40 state actually looks like.
My guess is that giving off moderate vibes is more important than your de facto voting record, which 1. most voters don’t know or care to find out about, 2. can be framed in a positive way by clever PR, 3. will be attacked and lied about by Republicans no matter how you vote.
Be a normie, down to earth, folksy, patriotic. This works especially good in swing districts but will pay dividends in most districts outside of Brooklyn regardless of voter composition. Especially so for Democrats who already have a the high IQ/high information vote locked down. Keep the activist and pointy headed, elitist types far away from voters (spoken as an elitist myself, I would never dream to become a politician for precisely that reason).
So, I've got no problems with running moderate candidates in R+ districts, but I think we also have to be honest about why these people all won, and it's not just because they're more moderate.
As you noted, all of these races are not under straight FPTP, which is the first thing. But, I don't think RCV or Top 4 or Top 2 would be quite the fool proof way to put moderate candidates into office that it's thought of.
Jared Golden has always been helped out that Maine's a weird ticket splitter state, and even though he's moved off of this in recent years, he was originally pro-gun and pro-Medicare for All. So, yes, moderate, but not in the usual way people claim candidates need to moderate over Trump voters.
Pelota basically got an non-endorsement endorsement from Sarah Palin, who she seems to be close friends with, and was also helped out by a GOP Civil War and a Trumpification of the party pushing a lot of non-aligned voters toward a pro-choice pro-gun pro-fish candidate. Again, Pelota talked a lot about her support for reproductive rights, without moderating her view by supporting restrictions, in a way that even out host here thought was a good idea after Dobbs originally.
MGP has now gotten lucky twice in a row that her opponent will be an absolute crazy person named Joe Kent who is weird even to a lot of MAGA-types. I'd also point out while Top 2 was at help in MGP's initial win, it's probably not going to do much in her releection, as there's no moderate GOP candidate running really, only Kent.
But again, in both the case of MGP & Pelota, if the GOP runs a normal candidate, they win pretty easily, no matter how perfectly the Democratic candidate moderates and punches left. Golden's a more specific case.
I'd also point out that another issue is the vast majority of money in politics is coming from small donors, and those small donors are going to be pretty hesitant to support somebody they think may not support or care about the things they care about. If you're a woman who cares deeply about reproductive choice, why would you donate to somebody who might vote for restrictions? If you care deeply about immigration rights, why donate to somebody who will vote for a Trump-lite immigration package, and so on, and so forth.
Again, run all the moderate candidates you want, and good luck to them, but the reality isn't these people who were elected have some secret sauce, but it was a lot of luck, and in many different worlds, they ran the same exact campaigns that are being praised right now, and are back in Maine, Washington, and Alaska doing their old jobs.
As far as underperforming candidates go, that's the point of running in a deep blue or deep red district. For ideologues to push candidates who will shift the party on various issues, in a seat where you can bleed the votes of moderates. Yes, in a closer seat, you need to squeeze out every vote you can, but you don't have to do that in Brooklyn or on the other side, rural Georgia. You don't actually need the most efficient candidate in every seat.
After all, even Boebert's issue at the moment is more that even pretty right-leaning voters basically think she's more interested in being a conservative influencer, in a way that makes MTG look serious and professional, somehow.
But in the end, after all,, you know what they call Tilab and AOC that they don't call a lot of moderate candidates? Congresswoman. They'll also both likely be around in Congress shaping things long after a lot of moderates have lost reelection fights, just like prior Overton Window pushers like Pelosi did, who survived and rose to power while every Blue Dog all but pretended they weren't even in the same party as that black guy, and still lost.
Probably because, you do actually need the leftmost 20% of the party motivated to vote, and despite what some people here so desperately want to do, you can't actually just abandon that wing and win. Not that MGP, Pelota, or Golden have done that in any real way, but there are a lot of "centrists" who seem to want a bunch of hippie-punching Congresspeople who attack AOC & Omar more than they do the Republican's.
I basically agree with most of this, but it's worth noting that Democrats used to have a lot more moderate, rural representatives- it's just that they all lost in the 2010s as the parties polarized. Here's a lot of Dem Senators meeting that description who all lost re-election as incumbents in that decade:
Claire McCaskill, Heidi Heitkamp, Mary Landrieu, Kay Hagan, Joe Donnelly, Kay Hutchison, Blanche Lincoln, and Russ Feingold (I guess you could argue Feingold was progressive). And Manchin is retiring because there's no way he can win as a Dem.
I think the large majority of voters are voting for the party, not the person- and voting for a Democrat in some states is unthinkable. It's not like 1,721,244 Georgians really thought Herschel Walker was the most qualified Senate candidate possible, they just voted for the guy with an R next to his name. Anyways, I think Dems should run & support independent candidates in red states that they have no chance of winning anyways. There's literally nothing to lose!
It should be noted, though, that what this DOESN'T mean is that we should pour money into "RiSiNg DeMoCrAtIc StAr!!11" races or viral longshot challenges to people we hate like MTG.
Great post. Another thing I'd add is the incentive structure for a lot of the institutional funders like the DCCC or donors in The Groups orbit isn't great. Political directors and such tend to be judged by their "win rate" that is how often the candidates they decide to back win the election, not if there overall strategy can lead to broad success in the long run. It's not as clear cut as giving people a batting average but it's the same principle.
The upshot of this is that money tends to follow money and so people who excel at fundraising (usually do to a personal background and networks like say a trial lawyer etc) tend to get the most institutional funding as well. That's all well at good for political directors who can point out how smart they are for future consulting gigs but it's the opposite of what you need collectively as a party in order to maximize the number of seats you win because of the law of diminishing returns on the extra campaign dollar (that extra 500k won't change much in a 40 million dollar air war, but could have made someone else viable) and the tendency of the Dems middle class donor base of political hobbyists to throw dump trucks full of money away on unwinnable races because they think a candidate can "own Trump."
Tiny origins correction: I don't think the Matthew Effect is named for the biblical character for whom interest compounds (i.e. a tax collector). I think it's because of the verse in Matthew that says: "to those who have more will be given. And to those who do not have, even what they have will be taken from them." Still illustrates the idea well since Golden seems to have gobbled up the rest of the 2018 cast's margin and they're all gone.
- Of course we Slow Borers are into cultivating a higher tolerance for intra-coalitional ideological diversity, probably for both parties.
- As a Democrat, I am extremely open to having candidates in stretch districts (R+3-6) holding some views very out of line with party standard, or at least being comfortable expressing those views (ie, unapologetically personally opposed to abortion, but wary of using state power to coerce people)
- Biden is not "losing Maine by 20 points", that's probably his net favorables in the survey you cited
- I would be much more convinced by this column if we had a Congressperson from a traditionally deep red area - as you note, all three blue dogs are from areas with alternative electoral procedures, and also from areas with well known independent streaks.
Totally agree that we need to run candidates everywhere and dial down the stridency with which we hold candidates to certain positions, especially in stretch districts. We need to allow people to run in ways that let them win if on net they agree with us. I think overall it's just a bit more complicated than "Dems have moved left and The Groups are shouty" because it's in some ways The Groups and the more left Democrats that were going to have to convince to play along here and keep their fire focused away from the moderates and on the actual right.
I found this article a bit frustrating, because it lacks a clear thesis in the way that Matt is often cautioning against. What should be done to help candidates in R+4 districts? Why are those races often uncontested?
It feels like the actual thesis of the article is that progressive organizations should be less mean to the three named members, and that big Democratic donors should give money to the PAC, but that's a message aimed at a small number of people and made quite esotericly here.
Winning in a R+3 district is neat, winning in an R+40 state is extremely impressive - which is exactly what Joe Manchin has managed by holding West Virginia. In 2024 he won’t run, and the very progressives who complain about him being right wing will find out what his replacement - A Republican in an R+40 state actually looks like.
My guess is that giving off moderate vibes is more important than your de facto voting record, which 1. most voters don’t know or care to find out about, 2. can be framed in a positive way by clever PR, 3. will be attacked and lied about by Republicans no matter how you vote.
Be a normie, down to earth, folksy, patriotic. This works especially good in swing districts but will pay dividends in most districts outside of Brooklyn regardless of voter composition. Especially so for Democrats who already have a the high IQ/high information vote locked down. Keep the activist and pointy headed, elitist types far away from voters (spoken as an elitist myself, I would never dream to become a politician for precisely that reason).
So, I've got no problems with running moderate candidates in R+ districts, but I think we also have to be honest about why these people all won, and it's not just because they're more moderate.
As you noted, all of these races are not under straight FPTP, which is the first thing. But, I don't think RCV or Top 4 or Top 2 would be quite the fool proof way to put moderate candidates into office that it's thought of.
Jared Golden has always been helped out that Maine's a weird ticket splitter state, and even though he's moved off of this in recent years, he was originally pro-gun and pro-Medicare for All. So, yes, moderate, but not in the usual way people claim candidates need to moderate over Trump voters.
Pelota basically got an non-endorsement endorsement from Sarah Palin, who she seems to be close friends with, and was also helped out by a GOP Civil War and a Trumpification of the party pushing a lot of non-aligned voters toward a pro-choice pro-gun pro-fish candidate. Again, Pelota talked a lot about her support for reproductive rights, without moderating her view by supporting restrictions, in a way that even out host here thought was a good idea after Dobbs originally.
MGP has now gotten lucky twice in a row that her opponent will be an absolute crazy person named Joe Kent who is weird even to a lot of MAGA-types. I'd also point out while Top 2 was at help in MGP's initial win, it's probably not going to do much in her releection, as there's no moderate GOP candidate running really, only Kent.
But again, in both the case of MGP & Pelota, if the GOP runs a normal candidate, they win pretty easily, no matter how perfectly the Democratic candidate moderates and punches left. Golden's a more specific case.
I'd also point out that another issue is the vast majority of money in politics is coming from small donors, and those small donors are going to be pretty hesitant to support somebody they think may not support or care about the things they care about. If you're a woman who cares deeply about reproductive choice, why would you donate to somebody who might vote for restrictions? If you care deeply about immigration rights, why donate to somebody who will vote for a Trump-lite immigration package, and so on, and so forth.
Again, run all the moderate candidates you want, and good luck to them, but the reality isn't these people who were elected have some secret sauce, but it was a lot of luck, and in many different worlds, they ran the same exact campaigns that are being praised right now, and are back in Maine, Washington, and Alaska doing their old jobs.
As far as underperforming candidates go, that's the point of running in a deep blue or deep red district. For ideologues to push candidates who will shift the party on various issues, in a seat where you can bleed the votes of moderates. Yes, in a closer seat, you need to squeeze out every vote you can, but you don't have to do that in Brooklyn or on the other side, rural Georgia. You don't actually need the most efficient candidate in every seat.
After all, even Boebert's issue at the moment is more that even pretty right-leaning voters basically think she's more interested in being a conservative influencer, in a way that makes MTG look serious and professional, somehow.
But in the end, after all,, you know what they call Tilab and AOC that they don't call a lot of moderate candidates? Congresswoman. They'll also both likely be around in Congress shaping things long after a lot of moderates have lost reelection fights, just like prior Overton Window pushers like Pelosi did, who survived and rose to power while every Blue Dog all but pretended they weren't even in the same party as that black guy, and still lost.
Probably because, you do actually need the leftmost 20% of the party motivated to vote, and despite what some people here so desperately want to do, you can't actually just abandon that wing and win. Not that MGP, Pelota, or Golden have done that in any real way, but there are a lot of "centrists" who seem to want a bunch of hippie-punching Congresspeople who attack AOC & Omar more than they do the Republican's.
I would be really interested in seeing the reverse. Pro-Ed, Pro-Nuclear, Pro-Building Republicans from safe D districts
I basically agree with most of this, but it's worth noting that Democrats used to have a lot more moderate, rural representatives- it's just that they all lost in the 2010s as the parties polarized. Here's a lot of Dem Senators meeting that description who all lost re-election as incumbents in that decade:
Claire McCaskill, Heidi Heitkamp, Mary Landrieu, Kay Hagan, Joe Donnelly, Kay Hutchison, Blanche Lincoln, and Russ Feingold (I guess you could argue Feingold was progressive). And Manchin is retiring because there's no way he can win as a Dem.
I think the large majority of voters are voting for the party, not the person- and voting for a Democrat in some states is unthinkable. It's not like 1,721,244 Georgians really thought Herschel Walker was the most qualified Senate candidate possible, they just voted for the guy with an R next to his name. Anyways, I think Dems should run & support independent candidates in red states that they have no chance of winning anyways. There's literally nothing to lose!
I can't agree with this advice enough. I wish Republicans would take it to.
We need two sane parties
It should be noted, though, that what this DOESN'T mean is that we should pour money into "RiSiNg DeMoCrAtIc StAr!!11" races or viral longshot challenges to people we hate like MTG.
Not really directly related to the article– I met Marie Gluesenkamp Perez at the Slow Boring happy hour and she's cool!
Great post. Another thing I'd add is the incentive structure for a lot of the institutional funders like the DCCC or donors in The Groups orbit isn't great. Political directors and such tend to be judged by their "win rate" that is how often the candidates they decide to back win the election, not if there overall strategy can lead to broad success in the long run. It's not as clear cut as giving people a batting average but it's the same principle.
The upshot of this is that money tends to follow money and so people who excel at fundraising (usually do to a personal background and networks like say a trial lawyer etc) tend to get the most institutional funding as well. That's all well at good for political directors who can point out how smart they are for future consulting gigs but it's the opposite of what you need collectively as a party in order to maximize the number of seats you win because of the law of diminishing returns on the extra campaign dollar (that extra 500k won't change much in a 40 million dollar air war, but could have made someone else viable) and the tendency of the Dems middle class donor base of political hobbyists to throw dump trucks full of money away on unwinnable races because they think a candidate can "own Trump."
Tiny origins correction: I don't think the Matthew Effect is named for the biblical character for whom interest compounds (i.e. a tax collector). I think it's because of the verse in Matthew that says: "to those who have more will be given. And to those who do not have, even what they have will be taken from them." Still illustrates the idea well since Golden seems to have gobbled up the rest of the 2018 cast's margin and they're all gone.
"Catchphrase enthusiast Malcolm Gladwell"
-chef's kiss
+1 for the footnote on electoral reform. It may not solve polarization instantly but it lays the groundwork for a longer term change in culture.
A couple things:
- Of course we Slow Borers are into cultivating a higher tolerance for intra-coalitional ideological diversity, probably for both parties.
- As a Democrat, I am extremely open to having candidates in stretch districts (R+3-6) holding some views very out of line with party standard, or at least being comfortable expressing those views (ie, unapologetically personally opposed to abortion, but wary of using state power to coerce people)
- Biden is not "losing Maine by 20 points", that's probably his net favorables in the survey you cited
- I would be much more convinced by this column if we had a Congressperson from a traditionally deep red area - as you note, all three blue dogs are from areas with alternative electoral procedures, and also from areas with well known independent streaks.
Totally agree that we need to run candidates everywhere and dial down the stridency with which we hold candidates to certain positions, especially in stretch districts. We need to allow people to run in ways that let them win if on net they agree with us. I think overall it's just a bit more complicated than "Dems have moved left and The Groups are shouty" because it's in some ways The Groups and the more left Democrats that were going to have to convince to play along here and keep their fire focused away from the moderates and on the actual right.
I found this article a bit frustrating, because it lacks a clear thesis in the way that Matt is often cautioning against. What should be done to help candidates in R+4 districts? Why are those races often uncontested?
It feels like the actual thesis of the article is that progressive organizations should be less mean to the three named members, and that big Democratic donors should give money to the PAC, but that's a message aimed at a small number of people and made quite esotericly here.
Speaking of tough races, you lot may be interested in this new analysis of Biden defectors and Haley voters: https://drive.google.com/file/d/11AYZZhSYhBHOQt7neaNMz3eeNLlCZthq/view
Tweet summary here: https://x.com/milansingh03/status/1770827356535472523?s=20
Just Some Guy is going to love any article that features his House member!
Thanks for the article, Liam.