The more I stare at 2022 election results, the more it is becoming clear that they resist an easy explanation, and I wrote about that at New York:
After the dust has settled on any election cycle, there’s a natural interest in deriving future lessons for the two major political parties. Democrats are interested in bottling and then mass-producing whatever formula enabled them to avoid an apparent oncoming Republican freight train of a midterm and instead gain a U.S. Senate seat while holding the GOP to House gains that are almost (I said almost) more trouble than they are worth.
Data points are still being collected and assessed at this point, but a very strong effort by FiveThirtyEight’s Geoffrey Skelley to examine four big Senate races that Democrats won but were at various points in doubt (in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and Pennsylvania) shows us that the search for some simple, overriding explanation may not be terribly fruitful.
Using county-level and in some cases precinct-level results, Skelley explains that the winning formula for Mark Kelly, Raphael Warnock, Catherine Cortez Masto, and John Fetterman varied significantly. To oversimplify it, Kelly beat Blake Masters mostly thanks to overperformance among Latino voters; Warnock beat Herschel Walker via impressive margins in Atlanta’s urban core and suburbs; Cortez Masto (the one Democrat in these states to run a bit behind Joe Biden’s 2020 performance) held on against Adam Laxalt by a slightly inflated vote among white college-educated voters; and Fetterman dispatched Mehmet Oz pretty clearly by cutting into the recent Republican margins among white working-class voters.
Now it’s also true that all four of these winners more or less held on to the vast majority of Biden 2020 voters as well. But in an apparent era of very close partisan balance, gains and losses beyond rigid partisan bases are probably what matter most. It’s also true that all four candidates, and the Democratic Party as a whole, benefitted from certain unique developments that helped make the usual midterm referendum on the president more of a “choice” election, namely the reversal of Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court and high-profile meddling in the election by Donald Trump. And, finally, Kelly, Warnock, and Fetterman — and arguably Cortez Masto as well — got lucky by drawing relatively weak Republican opponents.
So what does all this add up to as a lesson for Democrats going forward? Probably nothing in particular. They certainly cannot count on an epochal development in the judicial system at the very moment an election cycle is heating up to occur on schedule. And there’s only so much you can do to dial up bad opponents. It’s noteworthy that none of the four Senate races in question were among those in which Democrats played the dangerous but occasionally successful game of running ads attacking the most extremist Republican candidates to boost their prospects of winning GOP primaries. Two of the “bad” Republican Senate nominees in the states Skelley analyzed (Laxalt and Walker) were runaway favorites among GOP primary voters. The most prominent alternative to Masters in Arizona (Jim Lamont) was as out there ideologically as Masters himself. And the characteristics that made Oz a stone loser were not nearly as apparent in the primary season as they were when he suddenly started talking about the price of crudités.
It probably is noteworthy that three of the four Democratic Senate candidates in question (all incumbents) were unopposed in their own primaries, and the fourth, Fetterman, won his primary easily. And all of them raised money at a very good clip. But those are always positive candidate qualities in any election. That’s true as well of the successful microstrategies including Warnock’s early-voting blitz prior to the December 6 primary in Georgia, which we will likely learn more about as the story of 2022 becomes more fully available.
At this point, the closest you can come to a general lesson for Democrats in 2022 is that it’s a good idea to stay united, raise money feverishly, prepare for whatever opportunities the campaign offers, and choose candidates with the strength to endure the rolling nightmare that contemporary high-profile contests often produce. You cannot simply dial up candidates with the incredible stamina of Warnock or the amazing courage of Fetterman. But without question, in a period of electoral gridlock, 2022 did establish that, on the crucial margins, candidates and campaigns still matter. And in politics as in football, sometimes the key to victory is to set aside any predetermined grand strategy and simply take what each opponent gives you.
Actually, I agree with a lot of what you have said here. I have a lot to say in response, but for the sake of simplicity I will focus on one point.
When did Ruy ever talk about economic equity? When did he ever focus on any specific economic policy issue that the Democratic Party could pursue? Why are you so fervently supporting a guy who works for AEI, an organization that works against almost everything you say you support?
[2nd attempt at posting]
Why do people talk about what he says when apparently nobody actually reads it? He constantly talks about economics. And that is the main reason I agree with him.
People attack him on culture but won’t quote him on culture. They attack him on economics and won’t quote him on that either.
For example: https://americancompass.org/the-five-deadly-sins-of-the-left/?fbclid=IwAR3e7w1HcGwBUflOywuO2JPbQtQD_Vu8aVIkIFacxgb3MMLzawJ1YskGsD8
https://theliberalpatriot.substack.com/p/a-three-point-plan-to-fix-the-democrats?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
The Liberal Patriot is advocating for economic nationalism, which I agree with. And thankfully Biden is sort of implementing.
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/08/toward-the-next-frontier-the-case-for-a-new-liberal-nationalism/?fbclid=IwAR3JXh1dDm_vJYTiFpjCuqShpTQO-azIFBbG5vD8eU4hqhKyerSFKkkI0Uw
Moreover, he has explained how voters won’t give Democrats the time of day on economics unless there is moderation on culture.
I think a bad economy leads to authoritarianism. I think this used to be a consensus view after the disasters of World War II and the communist menace of the Cold War. But then the USSR fell and came the neoliberal consensus.
The AEI thing is an ad hominem. It is also part of a major problem of thinking about politics like war. Your argument implicitly is that he is a traitor…How can we have internal debate with the kind of loyalty expected of thinkers? I expect that attitude on the right.
I feel disgusted by ad hominems and straw men in general, as well as by group think (and group attacks as are very prevalent in social media).
I read those links you provided. Lots of scolding and generalities about “public investment” but no concrete economic policy proposals. Sorry, that is not enough to convince me that Ruy is on to something.
The AEI thing is a big deal because of the sheer hypocrisy. I will give Ruy credit for finally no longer promoting right wing criticisms (like the awful one from Gary Abernathy about the “unfairness” of using the term Big Lie), but I find his arguments overly divisive and focused too much on culture wars.
Sorry if my opinions disgust you.
He doesn’t oppose progressives on economic policy proposals, so why should he focus on an area of agreement? This is the real issue, you want deference and conformity as a threshold.
Progressives will not get economics enacted if they cost elections due to culture. So why shouldn’t the focus be on that? Is winning elections not the whole point of democratic politics?
Divisive to whom? I’ll prefer positions with around 60% support over those with around 51% (nationally, but not in swing states) any time.
What is the hypocrisy? Think tanks often have diverse teams, even if for show.
Democrats like you treat him with derision. If you get kicked off your team for the slightest dissent, don’t you get a choice to still make a living?
I completely agree with his criticism of Democrats’ intellectual ecosystem of politicians, media, universities and think tanks. It both promotes and enforces conformity to the notion that we only need to win the slightest majorities via mobilization instead of building bigger majorities around ideas the public already backs.
Gay activism won gay marriage around that strategy.
Can you give me an example of what a concrete economic policy proposal should read like (for a generalist public)?
I can’t believe one can honestly argue Texeira (and the Liberal Patriot) don’t have ideas about economics that are both incredibly broad and relevant to the current political context and public opinion…
Obviously it won’t be written in the type of policy jargon many people on the left like.
Examples (my comments in CAPS)
“A liberal nationalist policy prescription for prosperity therefore demands public investment in national infrastructure, educational opportunity, scientific research and technological development, and social insurance on a massive scale in order to jump-start the engine of national prosperity.”
BIDEN HAS DELIVERED ON CHIPS, SCIENCE, INFRASTRUCTURE AND (AT LEAST TRIED) COLLEGE COSTS
WHILE OBAMA PUT SOCIAL INSURANCE CUTS ON THE TABLE, DEMOCRATS SEEM TO NO LONGER TOLERATE THIS APPROACH
On retro-socialism
“By grasping nostalgically at revolutionary rhetoric, the Left sets the bar high for public embrace of what might otherwise be quite popular policy ideas, from single-payer health insurance to free college to a job guarantee.”
THIS IS NOT A MINOR ISSUE, SPECIALLY WITH GROWING NUMBERS OF HISPANIC VOTERS WHO COME FROM LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES WITH DISASTROUS EXPERIMENTS OF SOCIALISM
SUPPORT FOR BERNIE SANDERS PLUMETTED ONCE HE WAS NOT RUNNING AGAINST NEOLIBERAL HILLARY CLINTON
EVEN ELIZABETH WARREN DEFENDS CAPITALISM
IF THE FRINGES IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ARE TO CONTINUE BEING FAIR GAME FOR DEFINING THE WHOLE PARTY (ONCE TRUMP EXITS), SO WILL THE FRINGES IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THAT OPENLY IDENTIFY AS SOCIALISTS
On Climate change and infrastructure
“Democrats should set their sights instead on a generally more productive, higher growth, and less regionally unequal American capitalism. That will take some time and require more robust and far-reaching industrial policy and regulatory reform than Democrats are currently comfortable with.
What they are comfortable with is collapsing industrial policy to climate policy and collapsing climate policy to renewables. This is highly inadequate and will not produce the desired results.
This will require a considerably streamlined regulatory process—which, it should be noted, climate activists are doing their best to block–plus a lengthy period of backup by fossil fuels, especially natural gas.”
WHY DO DEMOCRATS NOT SUPPORT PERMITTING REFORM? THE PARTY HAS NO IDEAS FOR HOW TO DEAL WITH NIMBYISM AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL
“The rush to renewables has attempted to skip these steps with predictably negative effects on the price and reliability of energy.”
ISN’T THIS OBVIOUS AFTER EUROPE’S ENERGY DISASTER? IT IS OBVIOUS A “GETTING RID OF FOSSILS FIRST” APPROACH DOESN’T WORK
THIS WAS ONE THING OBAMA GOT COMPLETELY RIGHT
Again, all very vague. If he doesn’t like single-payer, then specify what type of healthcare reform he can get behind (if he does at all). What type of social insurance? His commentary on the past Congressional session was largely a negative critic but I kept waiting for him to champion a particular type of program–and that never really materialized.
This is my last comment to you because I don’t think we will change each other’s minds. Maybe you/Ruy are correct and I am the only one who sees his approach is extremely problematic (even though I used to respect him and agree with some of his points). Time will tell. Now please have the decency of allowing me comment without a big harangue in response (which I will not read anyway).
Your example is emblematic of the problem with your whole approach to this discussion.
Single payer (in the form of Medicare for All) doomed Elizabeth Warren’s campaign.
Democrats support expanding access and lowering costs. Did Texeira speak out against any of the initiatives Biden has taken to lower costs and expand access? No.
You just want him to endorse Bernie Sanders’ specific platform.
As a backer of Sanders, I understand the impulse. But Sanders lost the nomination inside the Democratic party twice. If you can’t even convince your own party, then it is time to reconsider strategy.
Of course Victor/Ruy is defensive – it was a good and nuanced column.
Base turnout is still important despite the need for persuasion. Sorry, that is just reality.
Nobody is arguing against base turnout. Enough with the personal attacks.
I’m not interested in winning close elections. I want the American public to rout Republicans so they have to move away from their policy positions.
This is what was achieved by FDR and LBJ and I believe it can be done again. But it won’t be achieved with major discussions about distracting cultural issues.
Which constituency becomes the Democratic “base” the party apparatus caters to is the issue. Catering to the preferences of white liberal college educated mostly professional voters while:
a) talking ad nauseam about racism and sexism in general terms (though actually failing to provide meaningful legal protections);
b) mostly ignoring the economic concerns of white and minority voters;
is what I’m against.
Are you really in favor of that strategy?
White liberals are very often obsessed with symbolism and establishment traditions.
They will talk about equity but then oppose labor policies, tax increases, changes in education and housing policy, etc to make equity a reality. This is a toxic combination, not only in discourse but also in outcomes.
I care about issues like policing reforms, but now I’m seeing them reversed in places like New York because of overreach and failure to build consensus. Police unions (and too many in the rank and file) basically hate Democrats (even though they are working class voters too).
I’m gay and Hispanic.
I just saw a loophole riddled gay marriage (semi)recognition law passed (which is sort of ok). But ever since Clinton I’ve seen only the slightest slowest incremental progress possible even when Democrats have trifectas.
Democrats are standing in the way of immigration reform (along with Republicans) because a maximalist position advocated by open borders activists has made rational discussion of immigration impossible.
Biden (like Obama) is trying to use the regulatory state to do a lot of things. But the Supreme Court is strengthening the “major rules doctrine” and religious freedom in ways that close off incremental regulatory approaches to issues like transgender protections.
We lost a Supreme Court seat because RBG was arrogant like most white liberal Democrats.
Meanwhile the concentration of wealth and appearance of ever more diverse forms of labor exploitation increase each year.
Democrats spent almost all of the past two years arguing among themselves or still talking about Trump. Build Back Better was good only if one considers the breakdown of governance in America. Almost all the expansion of the safety net was removed.
The minimum wage is still $7.25!
I won’t vote Republican, but I often see no point in voting.
I did agree with Trump on China and “free” trade. He single handedly achieved policy changes on free trade that Democrats had only talked about for decades.
This article will receive either no attention or kudos from Democratic partisans.
It reflects the de facto strategy of the Democratic party. Don’t rock the boat too much and hope Republicans mess up and everything turns out fine.
It it almost the exact opposite of Greenberg and Texeira’s call to at least try to build a durable Democratic majority.
https://thedemocraticstrategist.org/2022/12/greenberg-why-dems-dont-have-too-settle-for-battling-to-a-draw/