Pod Save The Primary: Crooked Media’s Handling of Randy Bryce & Cathy Myers and Why It Matters
On Thursday night, I had the immense pleasure of attending the first stop in Crooked Media’s Pod Tours America here in Madison, and got to see both Pod Save America and Lovett Or Leave It. Both shows were terrific, and I even got the opportunity to ask this wonderful group of my idols a question. You see, here in Wisconsin we have a pretty exciting house race brewing in the first district, where Speaker of the House Paul Ryan could potentially be unseated. There are two candidates vying to be the Democrat taking him on next November: Randy Bryce, a union leader who gained viral fame earlier this year and was a guest on both shows that evening (more on that later), and Cathy Myers, a member of the Janesville School Board who has failed to receive the national attention Bryce has accrued. My question, though more rambling than I would have liked because of nerves, was essentially this: Are primary candidates going to have to gain national notoriety (e.g. Bryce and Ossoff) to win, or is there a chance for local grassroots candidates to overcome the donations and attention acquired by a more nationally popular candidate?
The panel, in my opinion, failed to really address the question, instead answering that “the local grassroots candidate will always win.” They added that this race was different because Paul Ryan was a national figure, before pivoting to bashing Ryan and Marco Rubio (which is always appreciated). However, they never really gave a reason how a more local campaign could beat one that achieved national acclaim. I think this oversight highlights some serious flaws with their position, further exacerbated by their treatment of Bryce that night.
While this answer rang hollow for me, I want to give you some personal background on me before I get to why: Last year, I ran for the North Carolina State House back home in Charlotte. My hope was to finally challenge a three-term incumbent who hadn’t faced opposition since he was first elected, and was doing a reprehensible job of representing my neighbors. But even though I had discussed my intention to run with the county party, the state party had been recruiting a candidate of their own. Her affiliation with the state Democratic Party instantly put me at a disadvantage — even though I knocked more doors (well over 1000 myself, in addition to hundreds more done by volunteers and the most tremendous campaign team I could ask for), made more calls, and showed up to more forums and other events, her connections gave her easier access to donors and endorsements.
My opponent outspent me by a ratio of 4:1 in the primary, allowing her to pursue an expansive mailer campaign, and early endorsements gave her a built-in volunteer base as election day drew near. Thankfully, local support and an aggressive ground game allowed me to make the race much closer than it had any right to be, but in the end I came up just short, losing by 13 votes out of 6500, or 0.2%.
So this is a personal issue for me — I’ve been at the losing end of a primary where forces outside of the district were a deciding factor. And even though my race was on a much, much smaller scale than the one being waged against the Speaker of the House, my experience is a clear example of why the answer Lovett, Favreau, Vietor, and Pfeiffer gave me falls flat.
Let’s start with the most egregious omission. Saying that the local grassroots campaign will always win ignores the most powerful force in American politics: Money. As longtime political operatives who have been champions of campaign finance reform in the past, the crew of Pod Save America have to be aware of how a smaller war chest can make a race pretty much unwinnable for any candidate, especially in low-turnout races like a House primary where television ads are more of a rarity and mailers may be the main source of exposure voters get to candidates. While I am confident that Randy Bryce is saving his money to take on Paul Ryan, there is nothing preventing him from dipping into those funds to secure the nomination should Cathy Myers succeed in closing the gap. (Side note: This is why I am such a huge fan of Swing Left, which collects donations to give to the eventual Democratic nominee, keeping primaries fair without hurting the final candidate).
National exposure gives candidates an undeniable advantage in fundraising. Randy Bryce had raised hundreds of thousands of dollars a full year and a half out from the election, a number which simply can’t be matched by soliciting only from in-district or perhaps even in-state donors. And while grassroots primary campaigns have taken down well-funded opponents in the past, this almost always is pulled off by more radical candidates or against disliked incumbents (or both), seen most recently in a wave of Tea Party candidates knocking off establishment Republicans. However, none of those markers apply to this primary race, as the policy differences between the candidates are more nuanced and the main distinction lies in previous experience and legislative priorities.
Secondly, attaining viral success and national coverage may be more valuable to candidates than local exposure. Randy Bryce, like Jon Ossoff before him, doesn’t have to rely on local stations or papers to reach voters. They are covered and appear on national television programs (and podcasts) fairly frequently, and are the subject of much discussion and debate online and in print. Moreover, national coverage translates very easily and naturally into an increase in local coverage. Local news now has a plethora of angles to cover the Bryce campaign, leading to stories not only on the campaign but on the national success and popularity of the campaign as well, heightening the disparity between the attention given back home to the candidate who focused nationally and the one who focused locally. I would have loved to hear the Pod Save America crew elaborate on how they think someone like Myers could overcome this difference in exposure, because I just don’t see how.
Finally, a nationally popular campaign steals the one thing that all candidates should have, especially in a primary where there is no incumbent: Legitimacy. When Randy Bryce is introduced in podcasts, articles, or on TV, it is invariably as “the man running to replace Paul Ryan.” The questions focus on the general election and the issues with Speaker Ryan, and rarely touch on Mr. Bryce’s beliefs in a way that might separate him from any other Democrat. Like Ossoff before him (and, I fear, several after), Randy Bryce is being treated as the Democratic nominee a full ten months before the primary election, robbing any other candidate of even the illusion of being on equal footing. Which is a real travesty, because Cathy Myers, as a local elected official, single mom, and member of the working-class, has every right to this attention and legitimacy as Bryce does. In my honest opinion, both would make good candidates and certainly stellar members of Congress compared to the spineless alternative, but only one of them has been given an opportunity to prove that to the people of their district.
This brings me to my final point. You see, I was asking this impressive panel about this conundrum not only because of their experience in politics but also because of their current role as some of the leading liberal voices in media today. Their flagship podcast reaches well over a million listeners, putting them on par with pretty much any show on MSNBC besides Rachel Maddow. And with their power to inform Democrats nationwide and set the discourse for progressive politics, their handling of this left so much to be desired.
First, the sheer amount of time granted to Bryce was simply absurd. With so many figures in Wisconsin politics, from members of Congress to Senator Baldwin to gubernatorial hopefuls, to bring Bryce on twice in one night for two separate shows seems forced and especially unfair. Now, I understand that he is the hot topic right now, and having him on the show certainly drive clicks more than, say, Tony Evers. But if you are going to dedicate so much of your time to him, or any candidate, than we have a right to a some more thorough questioning than he was given.
In both segments with Randy Bryce, the vast, vast majority of the questions were about one of two things: Bryce’s most broad beliefs or issues with Paul Ryan. While neither of these things are bad topics to discuss with any candidate, to focus on them exclusively at the expense of more detailed subjects is a serious disservice to listeners, voters, and other candidates. None of the hosts asked Bryce about specific policies he would pursue, how he differed from the Democratic Party at large, or how he planned on convincing Ryan’s voters beyond just saying he was “one of them”. They also failed to follow up with Bryce when he did not answer a question about supporting Nancy Pelosi, which shocked me as I had believed that the PSA crew shared my affinity for the former Speaker who got the ACA through Congress and would have wanted a clear answer on the subject. Moreover, they asked him to play two games where the whole point was about providing a “reasonable” alternative to Paul Ryan’s responses to Trump, which literally any candidate could provide and told the listeners nothing noteworthy about Bryce. These failures were especially pronounced when compared to their terrific interviews with other guests, such as Mark Pocan and Chris Taylor, who each gave thoughtful, detailed answers to serious policy questions posed by the panel.
Pod Save America has made a habit out of going after traditional news media for their shortcomings. Whether it is Fox News’ blatant bias or CNN’s inability to fully take Trump to task for blatant racism, they have not been shy about airing their grievances. So I think it is only fair that we hold them to a higher standard, especially as they become the left’s leading voice online. Rather than use their platform to anoint a candidate or repeat tired criticisms of Republicans, they should be holding thorough, policy-focused conversations that can help progressives navigate this contentious period of defining ourselves as a party. I call upon Pod Save America to commit to a Fairness Doctrine of sorts when inviting primary candidates on their podcasts, and not spare their guests from the substantive questions their listeners deserve to hear.