Red Wave, Right Lessons
The Red Wave was big. It just didn’t crash in swing districts — thanks to brand-differentiated candidates, party switchers, and ticket splitters.
Democrats are patting themselves on the back for a better-than-expected performance in the midterms. And the far-left is torturing election data to claim a more extreme path forward.
Look at the outliers who overperformed in tough districts, and ask why there weren’t more of them. Why did Democrats concede districts that could have won the majority?
Look at the overperformers (even just a glance at their ads chock full of Republican endorsers and moderate messages) and ask how misinformation from AOC and Elizabeth Warren makes it into print?
As we noted as part of a New York Times deep dive this weekend, do not confuse November’s results with victory:
“Reflecting on the results nationwide, ‘it kind of feels like Democrats are celebrating in the locker room because we lost by four,’ said Liam Kerr, a co-founder of Welcome PAC, a nascent group that aims to become the Justice Democrats of the political center.”
Yes, oddsmakers predicted a 28 point loss and the team lost by 4. Bettors who took the underdog won. But the underdog also took a ton of plays off — “Democrats let beatable election-denying Republicans cruise to reelection” — and could have won outright.
Nationally there was a red wave, as we wrote in The Bulwark. It was even bigger than expected. But the wave broke suddenly (a “dumper” in surf speak) when it reached brand-differentiated moderate Democrats in the swing districts that decide control of Congress.
Anyone seriously trying to understand why Democrats did better than expected has an easy path: watch the ads of the candidates who overperformed. Anyone reading the cheery, data-free post-election analysis from AOC and Elizabeth Warren that says “go left” should see a disinformation disclaimer and get re-routed to those candidates’ ads.
Watch the Overperformers’ Ads
Here’s a new favorite graphic of ours from Patrick Ruffini at Echelon Insights:
Like interpreting the election results, it may look complicated to some. But it is simple: a handful of moderate Democrats in close districts did better. Those looking to learn the path forward should watch their ads.
In this scatterplot, the further above the diagonal line, the better Republicans performed. The further to the right, the more Donald Trump won by (in each district) in 2020. The cluster of districts circled in red — including CO-03 (Lauren Boebert) and ME-02 (Jared Golden) — are at the intersection of close races where Democrats did much better than Biden in 2020.
What do overperformers Sharice Davids, Jared Golden, and Adam Frisch (all Democrats who ran in the circled red cluster) have in common?
They touted support from Republicans and differentiated themselves from the Democratic brand.
Davids highlighted the support of a former Republican mayor:
Frisch touted a Republicans for Frisch website, called himself a “conservative businessman”, and ran ads on border security:
Golden packed as many points of brand-differentiation as he could into this spot:
What happened in the midterms? Republicans overperformed across the board but Democrats differentiated more from their party’s toxic brand in the districts where it counted most.
Midterm Heroes: Party Switchers and Ticket Splitters
The gains for Republicans were muted in many swing races thanks to two center-right cohorts: party switchers and ticket splitters. As we noted in The Bulwark, these voters gave democrats the credibility they needed to differentiate from a damaged party brand — and they looked like naturals doing it:
Chris Gibbs, farmer ad former Shelby County, Ohio GOP chair looked damn good explaining why Tim Ryan convinced him to become “Ohio’s newest Blue Dog Dem”.
California Assemblyman Chad Mayes — who led the GOP in Sacramento just a few years ago — sounded great vouching for Will Rollins’ bipartisan credentials against GOP Rep. Ken Calvert in CA-41.
GOP State Sen. Don Coram was a natural running against Lauren Boebert all the way through the general in CO-03.
Oh, and the Liz Cheney show was spectacular across the country.
Correcting the Record on What Wins
The day after the midterms, long before the dust had settled the most competitive races in the country, AOC told The Intercept that “candidates who refuse to overcompensate and overly tack right were actually rewarded.” Implicit in that statement is the (incorrect) idea that Democrats can go unpunished by running to the left.
But the red wave hit almost everywhere except where Democrats differentiated from the party’s far-left national brand. These brand-differentiated candidates emphasized bipartisanship and elevated credible Republican voices. They highlighted their disagreements with their own party. They even played up issues traditionally linked to the GOP (such as border security and business).
Those who won did so by persuading enough center-right Republicans and independents to cross over:
The biggest tragedy of this cycle? We left a bunch of Sharice Davidses, Adam Frisches, and Jared Goldens off the board.
Since late 2021, our Conceding Democracy reports have showed, quarter after quarter, that Democrats were neglecting to compete in winnable Republican held districts — districts we now know could have meant the difference between a Kevin McCarthy or Hakeem Jeffries Speakership in the House of Representatives.
The far-left may never learn the right lessons. But the center can learn those lessons and compete in more low-probability, high-ROI races that meet voters where they are — and bring the Speaker’s gavel back.
In the process, the center-left will get stronger. In the meantime, when a socialist tells you Democrats won by going left just show them the chart above and make them watch the outlier candidates’ ads.
Hands down, the best analysis out there. Americans are a centrist folk. Can we talk about public happiness? Means safety. Pursuit of happiness wasn't a call for hedonism - it was a statement on the importance of safety for a country to thrive . . .