Last edited Sun May 31, 2020, 05:22 PM - Edit history (1)
June is the period when most Primaries are resolved (this Tuesday we'll know our Senate candidates in Georgia and Iowa) and we'll begin to focus more on the General Election. Folks here will advocate for candidates they think deserve support. And I will probably shoot some of them down.
Let's be clear: I would never advocate NOT voting for a Democratic nominee, or not volunteering for their campaigns. But the endorsements invariably come with a request to provide financial support. And that's where I have to draw the line.
I probably receive more requests for money from candidates than anyone else here, and I have multiples calls directly from the candidates each week. In order to have an informed conversation, I started to assemble data on the competitive races around the country, which has evolved into a programmable model that tracks the competitiveness of the district/State and the candidate, the impact of key endorsements, up and down-ticket synergies, and financial status. Broadly speaking, I don't want to give money to candidates who don't need my help, or candidates for whom my help won't make a difference.
Because I (like you) have a finite supply of money to spend on campaigns, I've learned a valuable lesson over the years: don't let emotion drive your decisions. I don't want a candidate to tell me: "I'm running against [insert name of Republican I don't like]". I want them to tell me that they can BEAT [insert name of candidate I don't like], and the explain why.
In the context of 2020, we have to 1) win the Presidency, 2) hold the House and 3) win the Senate. That calls for a lot of financial investment, and therefore some rational thought about candidate choices is necessary. The $50 you give to a hopeless but emotionally appealing candidate in a longshot race is $50 you can't give to a candidate who's more competitive.
Case in point: Kentucky Senate. I've seen a lot of posts about beating Mitch McConnell and encouraging support for Amy McGrath (whom I've met with). I, like you, would love to get rid of Mitch McConnell; but the way to do that isn't to beat McConnell, it's to give the Senate to the Democrats. To do THAT, we need to pick up 3-4 more seats. And the seats that are most likely to flip are AZ-CO-ME-NC. After that are potential reaches in GA (both seats)-KS-IA-MT. KY is WAY down on the list. McConnell has a huge war chest and despite his low approval rates, has been re-elected five times. Cold-hearted analysis would say that this isn't a race to support IF there's a race with a higher probability of victory.
Some of you will say that this attitude is unfair; that we should "compete for every seat"; that McGrath can't show if she can win without support. And you're right. But my response is: "too bad". If you can't support everyone, you have to make choices. And those choices should be made rationally. Some Democratic candidates have shown they can compete against Republican incumbents, and some have not. Nobody is suggesting that we go all in on defeating Mike Rounds in SD or even the open seat in Wyoming. The targeting of McConnell is because of how people feel about him, rather than his vulnerability.
So, going forward, be aware that I'll be opining on which races I think we can win, and which I think we can't. My goal is to maximize the return of my (and your) contributions to maximize the wins we need to achieve. Nothing personal.