Every State Blue (www.everystateblue.org) is a modest group committed to doing exactly this. Last cycle, more than 40% of statehouse races either had no Democratic candidate or a token candidate, one with little to no funding. Every State Blue’s model is to create groups of subscribers in-in red and purple states who pay a modest monthly fee of their choosing with the proceeds going to assure every Democratic nominee for statehouse races gets a minimum level of funding to compete. Subscribers get opportunities to volunteer or otherwise support candidates in deep red districts for whom a little goes a very long way. It’s the opposite of big coastal donors pouring millions into fewer and fewer swing districts. Check it out.
I admit I'm only reacting to the Note and not the full article. I trust you make a solid case.
It's all about opportunity cost and ROI, however. Sure, if the blues can steal a red seat or two, that would be good. It's less important than winning the highest probability winnables.
agree broadly that the focus should be on the path to victory. but the more races have viable dem candidates, the more republicans are forced to divert resources to defend them.
Clinton and Harris outspent Trump if I’m not mistaken. Same with the Wisconsin Supreme Court last year. And Phil Berger in GOP primary in NC here recently. Policy positions matter!
Absolutely. The only two policy positions preventing the blue tsunami in November are trans and immigration. The Dems don't have to go all MAGA, but they have to stop the soft-shoe pandering to their woke fringe.
Every State Blue (www.everystateblue.org) is a modest group committed to doing exactly this. Last cycle, more than 40% of statehouse races either had no Democratic candidate or a token candidate, one with little to no funding. Every State Blue’s model is to create groups of subscribers in-in red and purple states who pay a modest monthly fee of their choosing with the proceeds going to assure every Democratic nominee for statehouse races gets a minimum level of funding to compete. Subscribers get opportunities to volunteer or otherwise support candidates in deep red districts for whom a little goes a very long way. It’s the opposite of big coastal donors pouring millions into fewer and fewer swing districts. Check it out.
That's a fair point, but then turns on which side has a bigger war chest.
I admit I'm only reacting to the Note and not the full article. I trust you make a solid case.
It's all about opportunity cost and ROI, however. Sure, if the blues can steal a red seat or two, that would be good. It's less important than winning the highest probability winnables.
House this Nov, then PA/MI/WI, so WH in 2028.
All the wood behind the arrowhead
agree broadly that the focus should be on the path to victory. but the more races have viable dem candidates, the more republicans are forced to divert resources to defend them.
Fair point, but depends on which side has the bigger war chest.
Clinton and Harris outspent Trump if I’m not mistaken. Same with the Wisconsin Supreme Court last year. And Phil Berger in GOP primary in NC here recently. Policy positions matter!
Absolutely. The only two policy positions preventing the blue tsunami in November are trans and immigration. The Dems don't have to go all MAGA, but they have to stop the soft-shoe pandering to their woke fringe.