Brainstorming A "Fight Score" For Future Democratic Candidates
Inside the mailbag: James Talarico ... Ben Wikler ... Sonia Sotomayor
Quick reminder: I’m out and hopefully off the grid altogether from June 27 - July 8. Regular programming will resume then.
Eric Max: I want to help Democrats win, but I want to push them to fight harder. Donating to Democratic funds like the DCCC feels like rewarding bad behavior. Where would donations or volunteering move the needle? Avenues I consider include “Run for Something” to accelerate generational change in the party, or “Our Revolution” to directly support progressive candidates.
We’re quickly approaching the end of primary season, at which point my advice will be: Give to candidates in swing territory, or the organizations supporting them. Be on the lookout, especially, for credible candidates who happen to be underfunded, either because they’re unknown, or because the pseudo-quants in the Democratic Party have decided to cut them off.
For a mix of pragmatic and ideological reasons, establishment Democrats are bummed that Matt Dunlap won the primary to represent Jared Golden’s district in Maine. And they have a point, insofar as Dunlap is probably a bad ideological fit for that district in a typical cycle. But there are many reasons to think this will be a blue-wave cycle, and wave elections typically sweep several reach-candidacies to victory. Then they become incumbents and their odds of holding these seats improve. Eventually another wave will come from the other direction and sweep them back out. But they’ll sweep out a bunch of “well-calibrated” reps as well.
Dunlap may have no problem fundraising, so I’m not saying whip out your checkbook for him right now. I’m just using him as a case in point. If national Democrats take their toys and go home in Maine’s second district, the grassroots should step in. “Smart money” will walk away from candidates who could ride the wave to victory, and they could use backup. Then, next year, Maine Democrats can redistrict their state (which, despite being blue, and trending bluer, is effectively gerrymandered for the GOP).
But the question makes me realize that I (or likeminded people who actually work in the campaign and fundraising worlds) probably should have established Fight Scores, or something along those lines, to evaluate Democratic primary candidates on accountability and Democratic reform grounds.
Ideology is a decent proxy for fight. But it’s not perfect.
There are plenty of ideologically progressive candidates who are hungry to fight within the party (over issues like Israel, oligarchy, etc.) but have a weak grasp of the procedural levers Democrats can pull to fight Republicans—whether they’re in the minority, in divided government, or in a post Trump world.
Separately, there are (or were) candidates like George Conway who have conventional or even center-right views on things like executive power and taxation, but who are desperate to fight Trump and have a clear sense of how to do it.
And, of course, there are a ton of old-guard Democrats who aren’t terribly offensive to progressives or moderates in policy terms, but who are wedded to a sucker’s conception of politics, where the cardinal priorities are comity and bipartisan cooperation. Where there’s no point in imposing pain on Republicans for their degenerate political choices, because what’s the point, and also everyone wants to go home for Valentine’s Day. That’s where the primary energy ought to be focused, whether the challengers are “left” or “moderate” on an ideological spectrum.
At this point, we’ve won the argument, insofar as every Democrat running in every primary will claim to be the best “fighter.” But talk is cheap, and I and people in my orbit should have done a better job steering voters toward candidates with the most well-developed theories of power. It was a big oversight in retrospect.
Denis Markell: Two questions:
1) It seems the mainstream media (I’m looking at YOU NY Times) is more interested in writing either yet another hit piece on Platner or whining about Mamdani, rather than looking at Ken Martin - the “autopsy” took up some oxygen, but he rode it out and I don’t hear ANYTHING about what a mess he’s making of things. Do you hear anything from your sources in the party to indicate that there’s any movement in getting rid of him? I have PTSD from the Biden years and the “It’s too late to put in anyone else...”
2) Is there ANYTHING Talarico or his people can do to get Paxton to debate him? I see no downside in this. I understand Paxton will do anything he can NOT to do it, but there must be some way to make it impossible for him to say no. Send someone in a chicken outfit to all his campaign appearances? I realize that the only way he would do it (that I can think of) is if the polls show him really behind, and then it would be a scorched earth kind of thing. Your thoughts?
Second question first. Obviously nobody can force Paxton to do anything, but I would actually recommend pretty strongly against the typical tactics candidates use to try to bait their opponents into debating.
The key is that the candidate avoiding debates is almost always winning. They may be scared to debate; they may be refusing to debate on risk-averse terms. But they’re communicating “I don’t need to waste my time with this.”
And so the baiting tactics underdogs use tend to scream desperation. They’re pleading, and the frontrunners are refusing. The last thing Talarico needs right now is to start acting like an ineffectual weakling.
But the key in this race is that Talarico’s holding his own. And we all anticipate Paxton will duck debates because he always does. So I’d encourage Talarico to carry himself as though (or even simply say) he anticipates no debates because Paxton hasn’t manned up for a debate in many years—but that he doesn’t need a debate to expose Paxton’s lies and corruption, and will win the election, debate or no.
It’s hard to tell from out here in DC, but my sense is that Talarico is following cookie-cutter advice to float above the fray while Paxton mocks and belittles him unanswered. If you’re on the ground in Texas and think I’ve got this wrong, let me know in the comments. But my thought broadly is he should get on the front foot and try to stay there.
As for the DNC, yes, there is some scuttlebutt…