This week, California held its primary election. Almost all the commentary leading up to this election was focused on California’s open primary system, where the top two finishers, regardless of party, advance to the general election, and whether Democrats would get shut out of some of the congressional races they hope to flip this fall. Thankfully, it looks like a Democrat will advance to every race in November.
But I worry that we are missing the larger point: Democrats are never going to win back Congress by focusing solely on congressional races. California congressional seats in particular are costly and don’t provide as much opportunity for winning back Congress as strategic state races.
California is a blue state, to be sure, but it is not a solid blue mass. In 2016, 61.5% of voters voted for Hillary Clinton. While that is a clear victory, Donald Trump received 31.5% of the vote — more than 3 of every 10 votes. California has 53 congressional districts. Right now, 39 are held by Democrats (74%) and 14 are held by Republicans (26%). In other words, in terms of proportional representation, California’s congressional delegation already skews slightly more Democratic than its voters.
Many have argued that the way to win back Congress is to win even more congressional seats in California. Don’t get me wrong, I am eager to see more blue seats in my home state, and flipping seats here will obviously help chip away at the Republican majority. But our resources would be exponentially more effective elsewhere. Here’s why.
Why?
1. Campaigning in California is expensive
California congressional races are expensive. For example, Democrats are desperate to replace Trump pitbull Devin Nunes in District 22. His challenger, Andrew Janz, raised a million dollars in the first quarter of 2018, but Nunes already had $4 million in the bank. Nunes finished first in the primary with 57.9% of the votes. Donating $20 to a race with a budget of $100,000 is more meaningful than donating $20 to a race with a budget of $1 million or more. The dollars spent on California congressional races would go much further if invested in less high-profile but more strategic races elsewhere. (For more on this, read my analysis of the absurd $23 million spend on one Congressional seat in Georgia 6, the Jon Ossoff race).
2. California is already fairly represented
We already have proportional representation in California. No matter how many doors we knock and calls we make, over 30% of voters in this state are solid Trumpers. As we have seen, many of the congressional races Democrats are targeting still ended up with a Republican on top who garnered more than 50% of the vote in the open primary. This is true even though activists have spent over a year making calls, sending texts, writing postcards, and canvassing in these districts.
California’s percentage of Democrats in Congress is already higher than its percentage of Democratic voters, so it’s hard to fathom that this is the best place to find more seats.
…But there IS a Jackpot of Flippable Seats
The good news is that a treasure trove of congressional seats does exist! It is not in California, but in badly gerrymandered states where Republican state legislators have hijacked congressional districts for their party in a shockingly disproportionate manner.
In places like Pennsylvania
Consider Pennsylvania. In 2016, Pennsylvania went for Trump with 48.2% of the vote, while Clinton received 47.5%. It was essentially even. That same year, Pennsylvania elected Democrats to the positions of Governor, Attorney General, Auditor General, and Treasurer. And yet, 13 of Pennsylvania’s 18 congressional seats, or 72%, went to Republicans. Let me say it another way: although Democrats are almost 50% of Pennsylvania’s voters, they hold only 28% of the state’s congressional seats.
The same thing is happening in 37 states across the country where the party in control of the state legislature controls the redistricting process. Indeed, the Brennan Center for Justice estimates that there are between 16 to 22 seats in Congress that belong to Republicans because of gerrymandering. (As a reminder, Democrats need 23 seats to win back Congress).
These seats are rightfully Democratic
My point is this: The strategic, efficient, and mathematically sound approach is to go after those seats that should be ours anyway, not chase after seats that are costly and may be out of reach. To do this, Democrats must invest in and win back state legislatures, particularly in states that control those 16 to 22 seats that Republicans stole.
If you don’t believe me, ask yourself this: how is it that Democrats won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes in 2016, yet the Republicans control the House of Representatives, an entity which, by definition, is supposed to represent the population in a proportionate manner? It is because over the past decade, the Republicans executed an uncompromising strategy to win a stranglehold on Congress by targeting low cost, high ROI seats in state legislatures. This enabled them to win state legislatures, draw favorable electoral districts, and maintain power even though they are a minority party. We cannot afford to miss this important lesson.
Sister District believes that change starts with the states. We are working to win state races so that we can win back Congress in a more sustainable manner. Right now, we are supporting 21 candidates in 5 strategic states. Ten of those candidates are running in the Pennsylvania state legislature, one of the most badly gerrymandered states in the country. We are making a difference, one race at a time, and you can join us.
I’m not saying we should not fight to flip as many districts in California as we can — we should! But Democrats need to start looking at the better, broader, long term strategy, and that means using our resources wisely and investing in state races.
