Why Turner Lost
It’s been a minute.
I started drafting this prior to the news that AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka passed away. It’s a tragic loss of a complicated figure, which I tried to capture for Strikewave.
In lieu of a big life update, a more practical update: I’m planning on more regularly writing up some thoughts that (for various reasons) I’m not pitching to publications, but which I’d like to share. That’ll include some segments of my dissertation, rewritten so they’re actually enjoyable (I hope) to read, that may be of more general interest.
Of course, I’ll also continue to share pieces that I’ve published elsewhere.
Why Turner Lost
Nina Turner, in spite of entering the OH-11 as the prohibitive favorite, lost the special election to Shontel Brown on Tuesday, guaranteeing another news cycle of “why can’t the Left win elections.”
The reaction to this narrative is understandably defensive, given that the arguments advanced are usually done so in bad faith. But at the core of it is a kernel of truth: the Left wins elections under very specific conditions, and usually loses under others, especially special elections.
So why is that the case?
The reality has less to do with ideology and more to do with nuts-and-bolts campaign elements. As has been exhaustively detailed, the Left’s successes usually come in primaries against entrenched incumbents with relatively (though not abnormally) low turnout. Whether Eliot Engel, Byron Brown, or Joe Crowley, a crucial common thread is that incumbents have refused to seriously campaign, either out of outside obligations (leadership is obligated to assist in fundraising), or hubris.
In short, many of the factors that assist Left victories don’t exist in special elections. Here are some of the factors to consider:
There is, by definition, a competitive race; there’s no entrenched incumbent. This necessarily fundamentally changes the dynamic in a manner that can easily disadvantage the Left.
Donor attention is focused. A regular election cycle splits donor attention and resources; with limited donor resources, high-profile party surrogates in safe seats are not a priority. In fact, those same surrogates are often spending their time fundraising for other candidates that are in vulnerable Districts, or for challengers in targeted seats.
Media buys. This is an area that’s too often neglected (more on that later) in favor of a field focus. The reality is that television and media does matter, and money goes a lot further when there’s open airwaves. In a general election cycle, you may be — depending on the area — competing with Senate campaigns, statewide campaigns, state legislative campaigns, and Presidential campaigns for point buys, and anything under 1,000 points isn’t worth the money. With no competition, campaigns can (and did, in Brown’s case) dominate bought media. Note: In this, media market also matters. It’s not an accident that Cortez and Bowman won against high profile incumbents in one of the most expensive media markets in the country, in which even Congressional campaigns have limited ability to dominate the airwaves. Meanwhile, challengers can get an earned media advantage by virtue of novelty.
Media attention. Minimal high-profile media attention can be advantageous for challengers; it minimizes the likelihood that the threat is actually identified too early, or that an incumbent’s backers start getting nervous that they aren’t campaigning enough. India Walton got very targeted earned media attention that helped her, like her New Republic profile, without seriously giving Byron Brown a reason to be concerned about her chances (though his donors started getting nervous late). But with a special election and media starved for a horse race, there’s a near-guarantee of unusually heavy media coverage — coverage which is likely to advantage more “establishment” candidates.
Candidate profile. This is unique to Turner; she’s too well known to not be treated as a serious threat, and many Ohio Democratic Party powerbrokers view her as a turncoat. As a past elected official and Bernie Sanders’ most high profile surrogate, she was — bluntly put — guaranteed to be a lightning rod in a way that candidates like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez simply were not.
And, as I promised: this ties back to field and the Left’s emphasis (to a fault) on door-to-door campaigning. Without sustained donor attention, a serious campaign, and an actual media strategy, the Left has a huge advantage conferred by field: they have more volunteers, those volunteers are increasingly capable at door-to-door operations, and they have minimal disadvantage to overcome. A well-run field operation is incredibly cost effective, and can turn a race all else being equal.
The problem is when all else is not equal — and that’s why the Left struggles in special elections and other competitive races. There is no doubt Nina Turner had more volunteer enthusiasm and a better field operation; likewise, there’s no doubt they made more direct voter contacts than the Brown campaign. It didn’t matter; they were defeated by an air war bankrolled by big donations to Brown’s campaign and outside Super PAC independent expenditures.
This is a serious problem, and one the Left has to grapple with through taking seriously that field operations alone can’t win races. Left candidates are rarely going to have the money for thousand point media buys, but they can do better at digital media, they can be savvier at catching earned media attention, and they can be smarter in navigating the inevitable slew of attack ads.
And, bluntly: we can pick our battles. We’re not at a point where we can win straight up fights, but Byron Brown’s defeat showed that complacent incumbents still don’t get that they have to take challenges seriously.
Writing
I’ve got a few pieces coming out soon, including my first solo piece for The Nation on labor’s role in shifting Arizona’s politics, and another piece with Tyler Walicek for Truthout addressing the Erie County Democratic Party’s attempts to sandbag India Walton.
I’ve also had some other recent-ish pieces, including a piece for The Baffler on Third Way’s bizarre 2020 election postmortem and a piece for Truthout (with Tyler Walicek) on India Walton’s path to governing Buffalo.
This also came out a few months ago, but I was pleased as punch to co-write a piece appearing in The Nation on the St. Vincent’s nursing strike with my friend Sarah Jaffe.
There are definitely other things, but those are a few of them.
Misc.
I’ve been training for the Marine Corp. Marathon. First one in over a year, and very excited to finally get back to running.
In solidarity,
Connor