What did Democrats do wrong?

[d4m10n]

It's not about winning those races, it's about shaving points at the margins, and keeping the Democratic brand visible.

It's also about living up to the ideal that citizens deserve a meaningful choice in a representative democracy.

It also has the side benefit of providing people a more accurate sense of how electorally viable the minority party has become as demographics and ideology shift over time. Polling has become less reliable as the generation that was trained to politely answer their phones without looking has gradually been replaced by their descendants who only pick up when the caller is already in their contacts list.

 

[dirtywick]

i always leave it blank when someone is running unopposed

 

[bruto]

Campaigning is expensive, that's for sure, but is just filing paperwork to run for office really budget busting? I can't imagine it's more than a few hundred bucks and if you don't do any campaigning but just want to make the GOP put forth a bit more effort it honestly seems like an easy win.

The Dem party probably won't spend too much in Texas, but it's worth dropping a few bucks in the jar and shake it up a bit.

I think this is important to remember. While it could be a big financial mistake, it does not have to be. Small local campaigns are inexpensive. It costs little just to appear on a ballot, and at the local level there are volunteers to do some of the work. I think it's important even in a place where the Republicans dominate and are expected always to dominate for the minority party to stay visible, and stay opposed. Persistence sometimes pays off anyway.

Let us not forget, for example, that Bernie Sanders ran several unsuccessful campaigns under the Liberty Union banner, before he won the mayoralty race in Burlington, VT by ten votes. Grass does, after all, grow from the roots up.

 

[Brainster]

Campaigning is expensive, that's for sure, but is just filing paperwork to run for office really budget busting? I can't imagine it's more than a few hundred bucks and if you don't do any campaigning but just want to make the GOP put forth a bit more effort it honestly seems like an easy win.

The Dem party probably won't spend too much in Texas, but it's worth dropping a few bucks in the jar and shake it up a bit.

If you run a token race, are you really accomplishing any of your goals? Remember the guy that was touting this as an achievement claimed that it would "force [Republicans] to defend their turf," and "stretches their resources."

 

[theprestige]

I think this is important to remember. While it could be a big financial mistake, it does not have to be. Small local campaigns are inexpensive. It costs little just to appear on a ballot, and at the local level there are volunteers to do some of the work. I think it's important even in a place where the Republicans dominate and are expected always to dominate for the minority party to stay visible, and stay opposed. Persistence sometimes pays off anyway.

Let us not forget, for example, that Bernie Sanders ran several unsuccessful campaigns under the Liberty Union banner, before he won the mayoralty race in Burlington, VT by ten votes. Grass does, after all, grow from the roots up.

If you run a token race, are you really accomplishing any of your goals? Remember the guy that was touting this as an achievement claimed that it would "force [Republicans] to defend their turf," and "stretches their resources."

What I want to know is, what are these campaign platforms supposed to be? You're a Democrat running in a district that's so consistently GOP that most of the time Dems don't even bother trying to campaign there. So what's your message? It can't be, "the other party's policies are bad, and I'm here to offer a good alternative." If that were the case, you'd be running with that message already, because you've already figured out that's a winning message. Mamdani didn't win because he ran a token campaign. He won because he thought he had a winning message worth taking to the voters (and he was right).

So you're basically running a bunch of cargo-cult races, in districts where the boilerplate Dem platform holds no sway. "It forces the Republicans to defend their turf." Okay, sure, but defend against what? A party whose message is already not compelling to those voters.

I dunno. Maybe we'll see some epic unexpected upsets out of this exercise. If so, it will be interesting to see if the newly blue districts stay blue over the next few election cycles, or whether they revert to red as soon as those voters get reminded why they always vote GOP.

 

[bruto]

What I want to know is, what are these campaign platforms supposed to be? You're a Democrat running in a district that's so consistently GOP that most of the time Dems don't even bother trying to campaign there. So what's your message? It can't be, "the other party's policies are bad, and I'm here to offer a good alternative." If that were the case, you'd be running with that message already, because you've already figured out that's a winning message. Mamdani didn't win because he ran a token campaign. He won because he thought he had a winning message worth taking to the voters (and he was right).

So you're basically running a bunch of cargo-cult races, in districts where the boilerplate Dem platform holds no sway. "It forces the Republicans to defend their turf." Okay, sure, but defend against what? A party whose message is already not compelling to those voters.

I dunno. Maybe we'll see some epic unexpected upsets out of this exercise. If so, it will be interesting to see if the newly blue districts stay blue over the next few election cycles, or whether they revert to red as soon as those voters get reminded why they always vote GOP.

I'm not from Texas, so maybe there are no local issues there in which party policy makes a difference. There are places where it does, and places where certain policies simply cannot be credibly espoused by both parties. Even in small towns things like education funding can follow party lines. You yourself cite Mamdani's winning policy. According to your logic, a Republican candidate should have said the same things. But it's unlikely such a creature would be nominated, funded, or supported by the party.

Sometimes it might depend on how slavishly the local Republicans follow the national party line and policy. In some districts, a reasonable policy on local matters might be largely shared by both parties. In the small towns where I've spent most of my life, including a good bit of local political life, there's a certain flexibility in the minor positions, where fitness for a job outweighs nominal party membership. Town Clerks, effective committee chairpersons, and some such positions, are sometimes double-endorsed, but not likely Selectmen.

But there is still a symbolic and philosophical difference. And these days, national policy is bleeding into the local world in ways that become pretty hard to ignore. If you live in a Vermont community, for example, even one that's usually red, and masked, gun-wielding ICE agents are smashing the windows of commuters' cars, bursting into houses, carting long standing community members off in a blaze of violence and obscenity, and other policies have defunded food and fuel assistance, and harmed working farmers, perhaps party membership will seem relevant to some. Again, I imagine that varies with region. Here in little old Vermont, we can still have a Republican governor who openly disagrees with much national policy, and has enough popularity and clout that he has managed to hold off the open desire of the States R. committee to oust him. That's partly perhaps because they know that no candidate they prefer could ever win here. But I don't think that's true everywhere.

Some things take time, too. It may take time to win, and prevalence can be cumulative. It seems odd and frightening for an American even to be thinking of words like acquiescence and collaboration, but I believe it's meaningful these days, even if you have no present power, to assert a dissenting opinion.

 

[mumblethrax]

But minor state legislative seats in rural Texas? The Democrats can't win there currently and it is silly to try.

Democrats have held the most rural state house district in Texas since at least the early 90s.

There's also not really such a thing as a minor state legislative seat. They all represent districts of roughly equal population.

 

[johnny karate]

A bad idea coming out of Texas, that I'm afraid is symptomatic:

Democrats are running for every legislative, statewide and federal race in the Lone Star State:


It does those things in some districts in a wave election, and absolutely I'd recommend them running candidates in every congressional race, just because the GOP has diluted its relative strength in quite a few districts. But minor state legislative seats in rural Texas? The Democrats can't win there currently and it is silly to try. Both parties have limited resources and should concentrate their efforts and dollars in districts where they actually have a chance to win.

"Silly to try" kind of sums up the conservative ethos and is a mindset that is part of the reason why we ended up with the dumbest people alive currently dismantling American society.

I'm going to make the bold suggestion that we stop listening to conservatives.

 

[theprestige]

I'm not from Texas, so maybe there are no local issues there in which party policy makes a difference. There are places where it does, and places where certain policies simply cannot be credibly espoused by both parties. Even in small towns things like education funding can follow party lines. You yourself cite Mamdani's winning policy. According to your logic, a Republican candidate should have said the same things. But it's unlikely such a creature would be nominated, funded, or supported by the party.

Sometimes it might depend on how slavishly the local Republicans follow the national party line and policy. In some districts, a reasonable policy on local matters might be largely shared by both parties. In the small towns where I've spent most of my life, including a good bit of local political life, there's a certain flexibility in the minor positions, where fitness for a job outweighs nominal party membership. Town Clerks, effective committee chairpersons, and some such positions, are sometimes double-endorsed, but not likely Selectmen.

But there is still a symbolic and philosophical difference. And these days, national policy is bleeding into the local world in ways that become pretty hard to ignore. If you live in a Vermont community, for example, even one that's usually red, and masked, gun-wielding ICE agents are smashing the windows of commuters' cars, bursting into houses, carting long standing community members off in a blaze of violence and obscenity, and other policies have defunded food and fuel assistance, and harmed working farmers, perhaps party membership will seem relevant to some. Again, I imagine that varies with region. Here in little old Vermont, we can still have a Republican governor who openly disagrees with much national policy, and has enough popularity and clout that he has managed to hold off the open desire of the States R. committee to oust him. That's partly perhaps because they know that no candidate they prefer could ever win here. But I don't think that's true everywhere.

Some things take time, too. It may take time to win, and prevalence can be cumulative. It seems odd and frightening for an American even to be thinking of words like acquiescence and collaboration, but I believe it's meaningful these days, even if you have no present power, to assert a dissenting opinion.

The way I see it, you're trying to come up with a post-facto justification to launch a campaign that had no inherent justification to be launched. It's already been decided that running candidates in districts that are reasonably expected to ignore their candidacy is a good idea. Now all you have to do is come up with a Just So Story about what's so good about it. Which, okay, fine. But having to come up with a justification after deciding to act means you don't actually have a justification.

 

[johnny karate]

What I want to know is, what are these campaign platforms supposed to be? You're a Democrat running in a district that's so consistently GOP that most of the time Dems don't even bother trying to campaign there. So what's your message? It can't be, "the other party's policies are bad, and I'm here to offer a good alternative." If that were the case, you'd be running with that message already, because you've already figured out that's a winning message. Mamdani didn't win because he ran a token campaign. He won because he thought he had a winning message worth taking to the voters (and he was right).

So you're basically running a bunch of cargo-cult races, in districts where the boilerplate Dem platform holds no sway. "It forces the Republicans to defend their turf." Okay, sure, but defend against what? A party whose message is already not compelling to those voters.

I dunno. Maybe we'll see some epic unexpected upsets out of this exercise. If so, it will be interesting to see if the newly blue districts stay blue over the next few election cycles, or whether they revert to red as soon as those voters get reminded why they always vote GOP.

You've come so far from the "watch the world burn" mentality you had when you first voted for Trump.

How exciting to see the evolution from reckless sociopathy to careful and calibrated consideration of the issues. I'm sure that this is all couched in a criticism of Democrats has nothing to do with it.

 

[johnny karate]

The way I see it, you're trying to come up with a post-facto justification to launch a campaign that had no inherent justification to be launched. It's already been decided that running candidates in districts that are reasonably expected to ignore their candidacy is a good idea. Now all you have to do is come up with a Just So Story about what's so good about it. Which, okay, fine. But having to come up with a justification after deciding to act means you don't actually have a justification.

Profound insight from Team Watch the World Burn.

 

[Brainster]

Democrats have held the most rural state house district in Texas since at least the early 90s.

So the Democrats actually do well in rural Texas? Or just in a cherry-picked district or two in the southwest corner?

There's also not really such a thing as a minor state legislative seat. They all represent districts of roughly equal population.

Your point. The current Texas House is split 88-62 in favor of the GOP. This means that if the Democrats can find the 14 districts that they have the best chance of converting and they run the table, they would control the House. Now you don't want to cut it that close, but say the Democrats focus on the 90 seats they have the best chance of winning (including the ones they already have). Doesn't that seem much more likely to result in winning the House than devoting resources to 150 races? You don't think that any resources (at all) will be spent on the 60 least winnable races that could otherwise go to the competitive districts?

 

[johnny karate]

So the Democrats actually do well in rural Texas? Or just in a cherry-picked district or two in the southwest corner?


Your point. The current Texas House is split 88-62 in favor of the GOP. This means that if the Democrats can find the 14 districts that they have the best chance of converting and they run the table, they would control the House. Now you don't want to cut it that close, but say the Democrats focus on the 90 seats they have the best chance of winning (including the ones they already have). Doesn't that seem much more likely to result in winning the House than devoting resources to 150 races? You don't think that any resources (at all) will be spent on the 60 least winnable races that could otherwise go to the competitive districts?

You would have to quantify all of this in actual dollars for your opinion to merit serious consideration.

Otherwise, it's just cynical bloviation.

 

[johnny karate]

Here's what were being told just about a year ago:

I dunno, maybe politicians who want to win? We kept hearing that Trump was another Hitler, and now he's not only been reelected but he's got 53 GOP Senators. The Democrats can console themselves that even if they lost, at least they didn't win by caring about what rural and blue collar folks think.

2024 = Democrats don't care about rural voters.
2025 = Democrats should curtail their efforts to reach rural voters.

It's just more of the same bad faith conservative horse ◊◊◊◊ from the usual suspects that always ends in the same place: Whatever Democrats are doing is bad and wrong.

 

[mumblethrax]

So the Democrats actually do well in rural Texas? Or just in a cherry-picked district or two in the southwest corner?

No idea how many rural seats they could reasonably hope to contest in the best case scenario, but the reality is that only 20% of Texas state house seats are rural. And it's not cherry-picking to present an exception to a universal claim.

Your point.

That the distinction between minor and major seats is meaningless, because they're all of exactly the same value to the party.

Doesn't that seem much more likely to result in winning the House than devoting resources to 150 races?

No. These campaigns are cheap to run, and difficult to predict. Getting a warm body on the ticket isn't a big ask, and it seems wise to prepare for the possibility of a blowout election next year.

And I don't really care about what's good for the Democratic party in any case. As others have pointed out, it's good for a democracy not to have uncontested elections.

 

[arthwollipot]

Anyway, didn't Democrats just flip a district that had been gerrymandered by the Republicans? I'm sure I saw something about that on social media.

 

[bruto]

The way I see it, you're trying to come up with a post-facto justification to launch a campaign that had no inherent justification to be launched. It's already been decided that running candidates in districts that are reasonably expected to ignore their candidacy is a good idea. Now all you have to do is come up with a Just So Story about what's so good about it. Which, okay, fine. But having to come up with a justification after deciding to act means you don't actually have a justification.

I don't see how what you said here makes any sense at all. I am saying why a thing might be a good idea, and why I believe your presumption that there is no "inherent justification" is wrong. It seems abundantly obvious that the thing I'm talking about must already exist or be defined, or I could not say whether or not I think it's a good idea. So unless I'm about to run a campaign myself, any argument made by you or me must be post-facto. I am not coming up with a "justification after deciding to act" here. Obviously I am coming up with a judgment on the justification of someone else's actions, just as you are, and we both would have no subject at all if we were not responding to ideas or events that existed before we brought them up.

And I do not quite get where you come up with the idea that anyone suggests running candidates in districts " expected to ignore their candidacy", unless you actually think that being in a minority is tantamount to being ignored, that a losing campaign is without any value. That is undoubtedly the view of some, who therefore contend that a victory is worth any price, but it is not the view of all.

 

[Brainster]

No idea how many rural seats they could reasonably hope to contest in the best case scenario, but the reality is that only 20% of Texas state house seats are rural. And it's not cherry-picking to present an exception to a universal claim.

There are still seats that are unwinnable.

That the distinction between minor and major seats is meaningless, because they're all of exactly the same value to the party.

I was conceding the point. Unusual around here I know.

No. These campaigns are cheap to run, and difficult to predict. Getting a warm body on the ticket isn't a big ask, and it seems wise to prepare for the possibility of a blowout election next year.

And I don't really care about what's good for the Democratic party in any case. As others have pointed out, it's good for a democracy not to have uncontested elections.

I actually expect a blowout election next year in favor of the Democrats. Maybe it will be big enough that little mistakes won't matter.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Profound insight from Team Watch the World Burn.

I guess watching the world burn was the lesser evil.

 

[mumblethrax]

There are still seats that are unwinnable.

Sure, but so what? There are seats that are unwinnable for Republicans in NYC City Council elections. They still routinely run candidates. Some of them got less than 10% of the vote last time around. My reaction to that is not to think that the GOP was stupid to run a candidate at all.

I was conceding the point. Unusual around here I know.

Sorry, thought you were asking what my point was.

I actually expect a blowout election next year in favor of the Democrats. Maybe it will be big enough that little mistakes won't matter.

I guess I just don't see any reason to regard this as a mistake, and given the nature of gerrymandering, a blowout election can cause seats that seem safe to flip.

If nothing else, Democrats will get some interesting data out of the exercise.