Yes, Progressives Can Win Deep Red Districts
Data show that running to the left can be a winning strategy, even in the heart of Trump Country.
There’s a widespread fallacy that “rednecks” in deep red, pro-Trump districts would never support a solidly-left progressive politician. The narrative goes that flag-waving, gun-bearing, small government-supporting Trump voters would never favor a candidate that endorses “big government” policies like Medicare for All and free college.
This theory seems to make perfect sense. But it’s wrong. There is strong evidence pointing to the conclusion that true progressives are no worse off in deep red districts than conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats. In some cases, they actually have an advantage.
James Thompson
Kansas’ 4th Congressional District is one of the most Republican slices of America — redder than Dorothy’s ruby shoes. The district is home to Wichita, which the Daily Beast dubbed “ground zero of the abortion war,” and it typically goes to Republicans by over 30 points.
In the past eight election cycles, not a single Democrat came within 20 points of winning.
But things changed in 2016. Instead of running a center-right, Blue Dog-style Democrat, progressive civil rights lawyer James Thompson was chosen as the Democratic nominee. Thompson was an early supporter of Bernie Sanders and stood unapologetically in favor of solidly populist-left ideas like Medicare for All, a $15 minimum wage, getting big money out of politics, and rejecting the TPP.
All the odds were stacked against Thompson. While his opponent was inundated with large donations, including $94,000 from the Republican National Campaign Committee and tens of thousands of dollars from Koch-affiliated PACs, Thompson received absolutely no money from the DCCC, and garnered practically all of his campaign cash from the hands of small individual donors.
Thompson was also attacked by his opponent with inflammatory misinformation, including an ad that incorrectly claimed that he was a proponent of taxpayer funded late-term abortions.
From the lens of a mainstream analyst, Thompson’s progressivism would alienate the conservative voters of the strongly Republican district, and his right-wing opponent would be a quintessential shoo-in. But what actually happened was groundbreaking. While Thompson did lose, he garnered a whopping 46% of the vote and came within six points of beating his Republican opponent.
This was the district’s best Democratic performance in decades (by far), and it came from a progressive, populist candidate who bucked party orthodoxy and ran to the left — not the right.
Kaniela Ing
James Thompson is not the only progressive to have success in a deep red district. Meet Kaniela Ing, a representative in the Hawaii State House of Representatives with good policies — and good looks.
When Ing was just 22 years old — no, that’s not a typo — he launched a campaign for the Hawaii State House’s 11th District, one of the only Republican districts in the Aloha State.
Instead of campaigning against his Tea Party opponent by “compromising” and running to the right, the rookie politician ran to the left, and did so with no reservations. Ing took no money from corporate donors and endorsed a bold progressive platform of Single Payer, free college, a $15 minimum wage, 100% renewable energy by 2035, and a $3 trillion plan to rebuild American infrastructure. Ing was so unabashed in his progressive populism that he even supported policies that I am not yet fully on board with, like Universal Basic Income and 100% employment.
The night of the election, Ing’s chances seemed razor-thin, and he was widely considered an underdog. He was outspent 10:1 by his Tea Party opponent, and he ran his campaign while working a full-time job cleaning locker rooms. So, how bad did this political novice lose to the Republican incumbent?
Well, he didn’t lose at all — Ing won the seat by a monumental 26 points.
Ing didn’t meet anyone halfway, nor did he cater to the Democratic establishment. And yet, he won big time in a Republican district.
Lee Carter
Is the strategy of running to the left in deep red districts limited to the Democratic Party? Not in the slightest.
In 2017, Lee Carter—a candidate who was endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and received no support from the state’s Democratic Party leadership — ran for the Virginia State House on a bold leftist platform of Medicare for All and campaign finance reform.
The district Carter ran for had voted for the Republican candidate every election since 1983 — over three decades of redness. To make his chances even less favorable, Carter was constantly barraged with McCarthyist propaganda on the campaign trail, including mailers that compared him to Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong.
So how bad did Carter — an unapologetic democratic socialist—fare in the consistently Republican district? Actually, Carter didn’t lose at all — he won by nine points in a historic upset victory.
Many argue that, despite Bernie’s consistent 10-point advantage over Trump in head-to-head polling, Sanders would have floundered in the general election had he won the primary, as Trump would have painted him as a “Marxist Commie,” eroding his favorability. But the case of Lee Carter shows that, even in deep red districts, attacking progressives with McCarthyist, anti-socialist propaganda is not enough to make them lose the election.
Even in the face of misinformation and adversity, the progressive message can win.
Progressives Are Already Winning In Republican Districts
Alright — progressives have demonstrated an ability to fare quite well in certain deep red districts. But are these just a few outliers?
Not at all. In 2016, a total of 12 Democrats were elected to the U.S. House in Congressional districts that voted for Trump. Of these Democrats elected to pro-Trump districts, four of the 12 are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which represents the leftmost wing of the Democratic Party.
As you can see in the chart above, progressives have clearly demonstrated an ability to win at a federal level in districts that voted for Trump — and consistently so.
These successful progressive victories in red districts include those of Rick Nolan, who campaigned for Single Payer healthcare and endorsed Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary, and Matt Cartwright, whose platform called for Medicare for All and raising taxes on the rich. Both of these candidates ran in districts that went to Trump by over ten points, and both were ridiculed as out-of-touch lefties. And yet, both won.
The fact that four of the 12 Democrats representing pro-Trump districts are progressives is especially impressive considering that many Democratic candidates believe that they need to run to the right in order to win such red districts. This widespread fallacy dissuades potential progressive candidates from running leftist campaigns in the first place — or convinces them to run to the right as Blue Dog or New Democrats instead. This means that the pool of progressive contenders for the U.S. House is slim to begin with, making the performance of progressives in Trump Country even more impressive.
Running to the left, it seems, is not Kryptonite. It may actually be an asset.
What’s Going On Here?
The American people understand that, despite living in the world’s richest country, our government is not fighting for their interests. Two thirds of Americans can’t make an unexpected $500 payment. Although GDP has tripled since 1973, wages for the vast majority of Americans haven’t budged. And while the rich and special interests have controlled public policy decisions for decades, average citizens have no statistically significant impact on our government’s actions.
With our government serving insiders, elites, multinational corporations, and the Davos class — not the rank and file — it’s no surprise that economic populism is on the rise. Populism has historically surged when the economic conditions for the working class are weak and income inequality is high, and it is surging today for the same reasons.
These populist sentiments that have spread across America make populism an electoral near-necessity for the 2018 and 2020 elections. People feel forgotten, and only candidates who promise radical change — a “political revolution,” for instance, or “draining the swamp” — will make them feel like they finally have a voice. In upcoming elections, the candidates who can portray themselves as populists, anti-establishment, and non-insiders will have a significant advantage in the realm of electoral politics.
In stark contrast, scripted, status quo politicians like Hillary Clinton who call the TPP the “gold standard,” enjoy close connections to Wall Street, and claim that “America has never stopped being great” will alienate average voters. As we saw in the 2016 election, combatting Trump’s xenophobic right-wing populism with establishment neoliberalism that lacked a single inspiring message for the working class was a predictably ineffective strategy. Clinton’s failure to counter Trump’s populist message with a populist message of her own paved the way for her defeat.
But the whole playing field changes when left-wing populists like Bernie Sanders enter the race. Progressive populists counter authoritarian populists with a populist message of their own. This time, however, instead of scapegoating immigrants for our country’s problems to tap into our nation’s economic anxiety, the populist left addresses the true needs of the working class in a much more comprehensive (and non-bigoted) manner: through calls for wealth redistribution, protectionism, Medicare for All, worker’s rights, and an expansion of social programs.
But wait! — I hear you say. The Republican Party is made up of Ayn Rand-following free marketeers, right? There’s no way they would support a candidate as far left as Bernie Sanders!
Actually, such a statement is completely false. Average Americans aren’t genuine free market, small government ideologues. Instead, they’re normal people who want a representative who will pick a fight on their behalf, even if their policies don’t align with traditional conservative dogma.
A perfect example is healthcare. If all Republicans were genuine fiscal conservatives at an ideological, philosophical level, a solid zero percent of them would support Single Payer. In reality, a whopping 35% of Republicans support Single Payer. That’s because, when you explain to people in human terms how a Single Payer system would make their healthcare cost zero dollars and zero cents; allow them to visit their doctor without fear of going into medical debt; and, in the process, save tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars every year, even the most steadfast Republicans can get on board.
Don’t believe me? See for yourself at this Republican town hall in rural Tennessee, where a room full of Republicans cheered for universal healthcare:
Or in McDowell County, West Virginia, where the almost entirely Trump-supporting crowd cheered vociferously as Bernie called for Medicare for All, closing tax loopholes for the rich, government spending on infrastructure, and tuition-free public college.
This tendency for average Americans — including those in the heart of Trump Country — to support progressive populist policies is not just a qualitative observation. It is also proven with data.
Not only is Bernie Sanders the most popular politician in America, but his agenda polls remarkably well. A Vox poll of all Americans — Republicans and independents included — found that a strong majority of us support Single Payer, free college, and raising taxes on the rich and big corporations.
Why This Matters
The main thing holding progressives back from running in deep red districts is the false notion that they can’t win. Understanding that populist left candidates are indeed electable in such districts is integral to defeating the Republican Party and electing candidates that truly represent the common man.
In 2018 and 2020, the left must be unafraid to run progressive populists, even (and especially) in deep red districts. It is irrelevant whether this movement is led by the Justice Democrats, the DSA, Socialist Alternative, the Greens, or even progressive Republicans. All that matters is that candidates are unafraid to buck the establishment and campaign on a left-wing populist platform that gives average people the voice and representation they deserve.
It’s time to stop telling Democratic candidates to run to the right. Instead, it is vital that we elect true progressives who will make the forgotten people of our country forgotten no longer.
