Welcome back to the weekly Nuts & Bolts Guide to small campaigns. Every week I try to tackle issues I’ve been asked about. With the help of other campaign workers and notes, we address how to improve and build better campaigns or explain issues that impact our party.
The Democratic coalition is a large one, and it is filled with a lot of different groups and different issues that matter to them. All of these issues are important, and all of them deserve to have room to be heard. Unfortunately, there is often an expectation that our allies will instantly become puppets and decide that their duty is to always back us on every issue, and to not push for items on their own agenda. There is a difference between a campaign and advocating for an issue, and often candidates become very frustrated that Democratic allies aren’t “doing enough” to help their campaign, or they won’t back off when a candidate is on the wrong side of an issue versus a Democratic donor and ally. This week on Nuts & Bolts, we’re going to talk about the fact that our allies are not our puppets, and they need to be respected for what they are trying to accomplish.
Don’t expect allies to wade into completely unwinnable races.
I have long advocated that Democratic candidates should challenge in every single race, if for no other reason than to divide Republican donor resources and force them to stay in their home district and raise and spend money versus building an insurmountable war chest. That’s a great idea—for candidates. For Democratic allies, however, their end goal is far more about getting actual policy passed in a statehouse or in the U.S. House, and in red states, that means that they often find themselves staying out of races where the Democratic candidate has no real chance to win. Why? Because they don’t want to find a Republican incumbent who is going to be even harder to deal with in the next legislative session, while they have gained nothing. If that Republican incumbent was always terrible, they might take a chance, but it is hard for them to encourage their donor base to invest in a race they aren’t going to win instead of a race they might win. They have to look at the odds for their donors and for their issues, and invest appropriately.
What causes more Democratic campaigns to become agitated is the “friendly incumbent” rule. This guideline, supported by many advocacy organizations, says: If a Republican is sitting in a district and has been a solid vote in favor of their issue—whether it is pro-choice, pro-education, pro-union, etc. then they will endorse and sometimes financially help the Republican in the race. This infuriates Democratic campaigns, but we have to see it from the perspective of these organizations: If they are going to ask Republican legislators in red states to stand with them on tough issues in districts a Democratic candidate can’t hold, they cannot turn around and stab them in the back during the next election, as that could cost them a primary—and then, the organization has lost a voice fighting for their issue.
This sounds like advocates are terrible Republicans willing to support machines, who don’t see the big picture!
One of the emails I reviewed from the 2020 election had a sentence eerily close to the above, questioning why an organization didn’t do more to support them. I asked the candidate who didn’t win what public stance or statement they had made in support of the cause of the organization they wanted help from, and how did it turn out? Well, they refused to turn in a questionnaire from the organization or make a public statement, because on the advice of the campaign around them, they believed talking about LGBTQ issues would cost them the election and so they just couldn’t do it. “But they should know I would be better than the Republican!” Hold on there, sport.
Allies cannot make assumptions about the outcome of the way a legislator will behave once elected. There are many Democratic legislators all over the country who aren’t always in line with Democratic values, and I’m not talking about the U.S. Senate. Asking for an organization to put resources and effort into your campaign when you refuse to acknowledge they exist or even mention them is a pretty tall order. Partner organizations are not groups that decide they must do something because a Democratic campaign tells them to do so.
Allies are partners.
Democratic allies are partners. There are issues where you can have major disagreements with an organization that helps with Democratic funding, and discuss it openly and honestly. You may never come to an agreement, but if you hold open the discussion, you can make progress. There are strong Jewish, Catholic, Hindu, and Islamic organizations which have been supporters of Democratic candidates. Maybe you don’t always agree with an issue they champion or that they want prioritized. Sit. Listen. Be respectful. Don’t assume that there is some sort of bad intent.
Allies can be your partners and friends. What is the point, and what is to be gained by going out of your way to turn off and alienate part of your coalition because you believe they “aren’t doing enough,” or due to the fact you disagree? Stand on the issues you believe in, but if you are doing it out of the expectation of a reward cookie from our allies and partners, then the reason you are committed to that issue may need to be reevaluated.
The Democratic coalition is a large one, and it is filled with a lot of different groups and different issues that matter to them. All of these issues are important, and all of them deserve to have room to be heard. Unfortunately, there is often an expectation that our allies will instantly become puppets and decide that their duty is to always back us on every issue, and to not push for items on their own agenda. There is a difference between a campaign and advocating for an issue, and often candidates become very frustrated that Democratic allies aren’t “doing enough” to help their campaign, or they won’t back off when a candidate is on the wrong side of an issue versus a Democratic donor and ally. This week on Nuts & Bolts, we’re going to talk about the fact that our allies are not our puppets, and they need to be respected for what they are trying to accomplish.
Don’t expect allies to wade into completely unwinnable races.
I have long advocated that Democratic candidates should challenge in every single race, if for no other reason than to divide Republican donor resources and force them to stay in their home district and raise and spend money versus building an insurmountable war chest. That’s a great idea—for candidates. For Democratic allies, however, their end goal is far more about getting actual policy passed in a statehouse or in the U.S. House, and in red states, that means that they often find themselves staying out of races where the Democratic candidate has no real chance to win. Why? Because they don’t want to find a Republican incumbent who is going to be even harder to deal with in the next legislative session, while they have gained nothing. If that Republican incumbent was always terrible, they might take a chance, but it is hard for them to encourage their donor base to invest in a race they aren’t going to win instead of a race they might win. They have to look at the odds for their donors and for their issues, and invest appropriately.
What causes more Democratic campaigns to become agitated is the “friendly incumbent” rule. This guideline, supported by many advocacy organizations, says: If a Republican is sitting in a district and has been a solid vote in favor of their issue—whether it is pro-choice, pro-education, pro-union, etc. then they will endorse and sometimes financially help the Republican in the race. This infuriates Democratic campaigns, but we have to see it from the perspective of these organizations: If they are going to ask Republican legislators in red states to stand with them on tough issues in districts a Democratic candidate can’t hold, they cannot turn around and stab them in the back during the next election, as that could cost them a primary—and then, the organization has lost a voice fighting for their issue.
This sounds like advocates are terrible Republicans willing to support machines, who don’t see the big picture!
One of the emails I reviewed from the 2020 election had a sentence eerily close to the above, questioning why an organization didn’t do more to support them. I asked the candidate who didn’t win what public stance or statement they had made in support of the cause of the organization they wanted help from, and how did it turn out? Well, they refused to turn in a questionnaire from the organization or make a public statement, because on the advice of the campaign around them, they believed talking about LGBTQ issues would cost them the election and so they just couldn’t do it. “But they should know I would be better than the Republican!” Hold on there, sport.
Allies cannot make assumptions about the outcome of the way a legislator will behave once elected. There are many Democratic legislators all over the country who aren’t always in line with Democratic values, and I’m not talking about the U.S. Senate. Asking for an organization to put resources and effort into your campaign when you refuse to acknowledge they exist or even mention them is a pretty tall order. Partner organizations are not groups that decide they must do something because a Democratic campaign tells them to do so.
Allies are partners.
Democratic allies are partners. There are issues where you can have major disagreements with an organization that helps with Democratic funding, and discuss it openly and honestly. You may never come to an agreement, but if you hold open the discussion, you can make progress. There are strong Jewish, Catholic, Hindu, and Islamic organizations which have been supporters of Democratic candidates. Maybe you don’t always agree with an issue they champion or that they want prioritized. Sit. Listen. Be respectful. Don’t assume that there is some sort of bad intent.
Allies can be your partners and friends. What is the point, and what is to be gained by going out of your way to turn off and alienate part of your coalition because you believe they “aren’t doing enough,” or due to the fact you disagree? Stand on the issues you believe in, but if you are doing it out of the expectation of a reward cookie from our allies and partners, then the reason you are committed to that issue may need to be reevaluated.