You can’t argue with the results: Republicans have proven that running and supporting candidates in every race, up and down the ballot, cycle after cycle, works.
Democrats don’t.
Instead, we focus attention and investment on specific high-profile or “flippable” districts. Priority is also given to federal races, and to races against people we love to hate, like Mitch McConnell or Majorie Taylor Greene.
The result? Inconsistent Democratic support that depends more on the celebrity power of individual candidates and whether we think a district is flippable than a strategic, long-term, scalable plan.
There are big problems with this approach. Running and supporting candidates only in flippable and safe districts practically ensures we are not cultivating new districts to flip. Without a long-term strategy, we’re left with a boom/bust cycle of support.
This is particularly true for state legislative races, which Democrats often leave unchallenged and unsupported, especially in red, rural areas. Those races are hugely consequential, both for the people living in those states, and nationally. After all, anti-choice, anti-labor, and anti-voting rights legislation is passed in the states.
The unfortunate truth is, while Democrats focus their attention on federal races, the issues that most impact our daily lives are decided in races that Democrats don’t pay much attention to – and often don’t contest at all.
We need to change our approach and expand our field of play.
Rural America Needs to See Democrats on the Ground and in their Backyard
Over the past few decades, Democrats have lost significant ground in Rural America. News articles, studies, and even documentaries explore why Democrats have lost rural voters, often quoting rural Democrats who complain that Democrats are totally absent from their community.
The data backs them up.
In 2020 alone, 19 Ohio districts had no Democratic nominee on the ballot at all. In another 27, the Democrat on the ballot didn’t have the resources to get their message out to the district, let alone compete.
To put that in perspective, over 5.3 million Ohioans live in those districts – out of 11 million total residents. When nearly half of the people in Ohio aren’t hearing from a Democrat, is it any wonder we’re not connecting with rural voters?
Success stories like Maine Democrat Canyon Woodward show that boots-on-the-ground grassroots organizing can have impressive results. But those efforts require a candidate that is willing to run.
Without a support structure behind them, and with “success” defined purely in win/loss statistics, rural Democrats have no incentive to throw their hat in the ring. Left to their own resources, they expend enormous amounts of personal energy, time, and money.
And for what? To be branded as a losing candidate when the returns come in.
Making Progress In Rural America: We Need to Define Success as Progress – and Support Rural Democrats
We have to change our definition of success, and look further down the line than just the next election. It’s unlikely (but not impossible) that a district that has gone for a Republican by 25 percentage points in the last four elections will immediately swing to a Democrat – regardless of how good a candidate is.
It’s just not a fair benchmark with which to judge nominees. Instead, let’s look at the immediate benefits of having a nominee on the ballot – while recognizing that investing in every district is the kind of long-term strategy that makes it even possible to flip these districts in the cycles to come.
Connecting with voters in every district is progress. Increasing turnout is progress. Increasing voter registrations is progress. And Democrats get the benefit of these short term gains – even while investing in a long term strategy.
So rather than looking at whether a rural Democrat won or lost a race, why not look at whether they increased turnout by a certain percentage, or boosted voter registrations? These are real benefits. Let’s treat them that way.
The Danger – and Opportunity – of Unopposed Republican Candidates
Failing to run Democrats in every race suggests to both Republicans and Democratic voters that we won’t hold Republicans accountable, and aren’t willing to fight for everyone.
Consider the Ohio Republicans’ recent “accomplishments”: The GOP-dominated statehouse voted to force student athletes to undergo genital exams when their gender is “disputed.” A sitting state legislator called pregnancies arising from rape “an opportunity.” A 6-week abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest forced a 10-year-old rape victim to flee to Indiana for a procedure. And the GOP-led redistricting committee violated the Ohio state constitution seven times to cement their power through gerrymandered maps.
These are extreme, radical positions that can’t go unanswered. But that’s exactly what happens When Democrats refuse to run against the people pushing these policies. Without competition, they face less accountability and are emboldened to support ever more radical and extreme legislation.
The response from Democrats is often one of despair and resignation – when it should be one of resolve and determination. Progress can’t be made in those districts if they are completely neglected.
Our Study: What is the Impact of Running and Funding Democratic State Legislative Nominees in Red Districts?
We wondered: How much does having a Democratic nominee on the ballot matter? What impact does funding that nominee have? Would these state legislative monthly donation projects really move the needle?
We wanted direct answers to those questions.
So we engaged a team from Washington University to study the impact of having a Democratic nominee on the ballot, as well as the impact their funding level has on the race. The team looked at Missouri, where It Starts Today began its pilot state-based project.
The results were dramatic. Here’s what we found.
Having a Democratic nominee matters. Looking at the 2020 election, simply having a nominee on the ballot increased vote turnout for the top of the ticket (President Joe Biden) by 1.5%.
Funding impacts both vote share and turnout. Funding made a difference, too – for every $10k the nominee raised, they increased vote share for the top of the ticket by 0.25%. And in 2013, a professor at LSU did a review of 20 states and found that funding a state legislative challenger at $0.36 per eligible voter increased turnout by 1%.
Blue State projects have huge potential to “move the needle.” Our study results show that, taking both the 1.5% benefit of simply having a Democratic nominee on the ballot and the impact of funding on both turnout and vote share, we can expect up to a 2.5% increase in Democratic vote share for the top of the ticket in a district that goes from no nominee to a minimally funded nominee. (“Minimally funded” is defined as a nominee that receives at least $0.36 per eligible voter.)
Those findings echo other research. Other progressive organizations and researchers have also found that simply running a nominee in an otherwise unchallenged district increases vote share for the top of the ticket (so-called “reverse coattails”) by between 0.3-1.5%.
The Gains From Running Funded Nominees in Every District Are So Dramatic They Can Swing Statewide – and National – Outcomes
Now we wondered: with those vote share and turnout gains, what would be the real world statewide impact of running and funding nominees in every district?
We found that the benefit to the top of the ticket from running funded nominees in every district is dramatic enough to swing statewide and national outcomes.
Brace yourself.
Had a Blue State project been implemented in 2016 in Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton would have been elected president in 2016.
We already know that in 2024, we will need to overcome voter suppression and outlandish objections. Increasing the Democratic nominee’s margins by as much as possible in swing states will be important.
The benefits of running funding nominees in every district are clear. The real world impact of doing so is also clear.
The question isn’t whether Democrats should fund every state legislative nominee – but how we do so efficiently and sustainably. We have developed the program that answers that question.
Our Solution: Marry Grassroots Power and Long Term Commitment
The solution we propose is elegantly simple: guarantee a base level of funding for every Democratic nominee running for state legislature, using an evergreen monthly donation model that’s powered by the grassroots community.
To recap: together, our study and prior research mean that every state legislative district should have a Democratic nominee, and that nominee should be funded to at least $0.36 per eligible voter.
By creating a dependable, evergreen grassroots community to raise that funding, our Blue State projects make sure state legislative nominees across the state have resources to reach the voters in their districts – every election.
So, rather than relying upon a small group of institutional or individual donors to fund the nominees every election, it’s the community of people who are invested in the state’s long-term success who become the perpetual power source for state legislative races.
Contrast that with the typical “feast or famine” model. State-based advocates and candidates often see funding spikes in years with a presidential or important statewide election. But when those races are over, the funding dries up – and any gains made are tough (if not impossible) to sustain.
That on-again off-again cycle of funding is frustrating, self-defeating, and incredibly inefficient. We should change it.
That’s exactly what we’re doing with Blue Tennessee.
