6 Weeks Out: Could the Dems win this thing?

ClearPath's U.S. Midterm Series

Democrats have some great candidates this cycle. And candidates matter. As we argued last week, bad candidates lose winnable elections. The reverse is also true. Great candidates win elections that a generic candidate wouldn't. 

Raphael Warnock, Maggie Hassan, Mark Kelly, Mandela Barnes, John Fetterman… these are all great candidates. And they need to be because Democrats do not have a strong brand to rely on. Without a strong national brand focused on issues that drive elections, Democrats need strong candidates to win.

But, that means these candidates are on islands and only have a narrow path to victory. Every single race matters. Mistakes cost more. One scandal, one wrong policy step, one surprise event, and they might sink. And there is no lifeboat party brand for them to cling to.

Why is the Democratic brand so weak? And what makes these candidates so great?

1) The Democratic Party brand is weak. How did it come to this?

In this election as in most recent elections, Dems are saddled with a lackluster brand. How did we get here? Past is prologue, and you could draw a line all the way back through LBJ and beyond, if you wanted to, but just look at recent history for your answer. Barack Obama was an extremely popular Democratic president from 2009-2017. But he didn't invest in party building. He was a dream candidate, but not a party builder—ironic considering his background in organizing. Dems, too, failed to translate Obama's successes into party successes. 

This vacuum of self-identity has been eagerly and successfully filled by Republicans—masters of branding. Republicans have been branding Democrats since well before the Obama days (e.g., anti-military, party of welfare, Hollywood liberals), a practice which has continued right up through the Trump years (e.g., anti-police, socialists, ultra-woke social justice warriors). 

Which brings us back to the present. The Democratic party is notoriously bad at talking about their accomplishments. They cannot create a cohesive vision of the future for voters to buy into. As a result, the brand is weak on the economy, on job creation, on many of the issues that voters care about. Dems consistently poll below Reps on each of these issues. Without strong brand fundamentals, few people see themselves in the Democratic party, and party leadership is out of favor, seeing extremely poor ratings. The national party has become a weapon the GOP uses against Dem candidates, not an asset Dems can rely on. 

But the real situation is worse than just a "weak brand." Voters know what the Democratic brand isn’t: it’s not a brand of fighters, or a brand of doers. It’s not a brand for “fixing the economy”, even though that’s usually what elected Dems have to do after the GOP enacts massive tax cuts. It's not a brand for bringing a calm, steady hand during a storm. And with its 3 party leaders (Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer) having a combined 125 years in national politics (and 232 years of age) amongst them, we are unlikely to see any changes to the Dem brand from within in the near term. 

2) Winning Democratic candidates are forced to be great. They are forced to build an independent brand.

In the 2018 midterms, the first after Trump's election, many Dems in so-called Purple or even Red states needed to acknowledge they would work with Trump as an ear-opener to begin their message to voters. Why? Because the Dem brand was so weak or even toxic that a good Dem candidate needed this separation to get a fair hearing.  

And we’re seeing even more examples of this today: Mark Kelly is running on ‘Arizona Independence’. If he runs as just another Democrat, he will lose. But, if he is ‘Mark Kelly, take-action astronaut, independent Senator,’ that’s different. We see the same thing with Raphael Warnock, who has been hyper-focused on running "for the people of Georgia" and who holds a 5 point lead over his opponent. John Fetterman continues to make himself the candidate for the working class, even though the Democratic Party lacks widespread working class support. 

We’re not saying association with the Dem label is a death sentence. But without a strong brand, candidates—especially those in swing states—have to be more than just a Dem. 

So what makes a great candidate?

Last week, we talked about authenticity. Fetterman wears a hoodie and is a relatable, atypical politician because that is who he is. We also talked about message discipline. Hassan literally hasn’t stopped talking about abortion since June. 

Great candidates can also answer that most fundamental of political questions: Who are you fighting for? There is only one correct answer: people. Through their actions, words, and visuals, great candidates leave no ambiguity about who they are fighting for. 

3) Great candidates lead dynamic campaigns that proactively listen and learn.

On-message authentic candidates who have clear motivation are necessary. But like any good campaign, they must listen and adapt. In AZ, Kelly ran two years ago as the independent advocate for the state. This is the brand he has built and where he started his campaign this year. But in the context of the moment, he has introduced both cost of living and now abortion rights as major pillars of his campaign. Similarly, in NH, Hassan immediately changed course after the Supreme Court struck down Roe v Wade.

As we said two weeks ago, moments change. Events happen. Great candidates run campaigns that plan for known and unknown challenges. They run campaigns that are relevant. They listen. They speak to the issues that matter. And, critically, they understand and reflect the emotional moment. Elections are, after all, an emotional exercise. 

Dynamic campaigns develop a clear feedback loop with voters and opposition. They conduct regular opinion research and continuously update models. They judiciously but meaningfully react to what voters say at the doors and online (not everything deserves a reaction of course). Great candidates adapt to the moment without compromising their core components. 

4) In the long run, independent candidates, no matter how great, perpetuate a bad cycle for the Democratic Party. 

Having great candidates is… great. But repeatedly relying on great candidates for success comes at a massive cost. Independent candidates are not party builders. They do not have coattails. Under Obama, Democrats lost 800+ seats in state legislatures across the country, more than any other President in 50 years. Under Obama, Democrats did not create Democratic voters. They created Obama voters.  

Today, Kelly voters are Kelly voters, Warnock voters are Warnock voters, Fetterman voters are Fetterman voters. If these candidates win, they will not generate a wave of Democratic victories down-ballot. They will have won despite the party brand. And they will have to do it all over again next election, running separate from—or even against—their own party. 

______

Next week we will look at the 2022 battlefields. As we said today, these battlefields are not static. Good campaigns dictate the terrain and terms of their election fights. Bad campaigns react. They fight on the ground of their opponents' choosing.