| Now sure, we all have different reasons for contributing to campaigns. Sometimes, we give to someone we don't love, but it's a really important contested race for a Republican seat, and that extra little boost can throw them over the goal line. Other times, we give out of movement solidarity to someone we love who has been a major part of our movement, knowing that they probably will lose. There's value in both those acts - in the aforementioned example, the former to help win an important seat, the latter in developing an important solidarity and incentive structure for movement participants.
If we had portrayed Geoghegan as the former - a guy who was a frontrunner who needed our help to throw him over the goal line - and not the latter - a movement progressive facing tough odds - then sure, I guess we would owe people an apology for misleading them.* But I don't think we ever did that - and we didn't do it primarily because everyone from activists to the Chicago media had little clue what would happen in this race because it was so low turnout and so many candidates were in the race.
More importantly, I would hate to think that we see our movement - and specifically, the campaign contribution part of our movement - only as an investment tool for frontrunners, and that's it. There is occasional value in backing longshots, even if those longshots lose. In Geoghegan's case, I think the value is helping someone who has been a really important voice on so many issues, and who has over a long career had the courage to fight the good fight. He got beat by a pool of mostly career politicians - that's not surprising, but does it mean our contributions were a waste? I don't think so, and I think if we categorize it as such, we run the risk of becoming a bloodless investment fund - a typical PAC in the worst sense of the word.
I guess it just depends on your view of what our movement should be - and no one has a monopoly on that idea. My view of our movement is that yes, winnability should be a factor in deciding which candidates to prioritize. But it should be only one factor - and not always the deciding factor, especially in races like the IL-05 special election. Remember, in this race, we always knew that A) The support for Tom wouldn't throw the seat to a Republican B) We wouldn't rip down or attack another Democratic candidate. So in that sense, it was one of those rare races where winnability didn't have to be the singular deciding factor for support - it was one of those rare races where we had the luxury of being able to help a movement progressive knowing he was a longshot and knowing it wouldn't damage our broader movement priorities.
Indeed, in the modest promotion we did, I don't think anyone pushed winnability as the major reason to support Tom. We pushed his record - and so even in losing, I think we are helping do our part to create a support system that says to movement progressives that even if they aren't a frontrunner or a career politician, there's still the possibility that they can find movement support for their ambitions.
Tom losing sucks. I hate it. But I don't hate it because I feel my money or advocacy was a waste - I just hate it because Tom would have been a great congressperson and would have helped our movement even more in Congress than he already does in his labor law and writing work.
* And alternately, the absolute worst kind of loss is the one where you are compelled to contribute to a candidate you may not love because you are told they have the best chance of winning a tough district, only to watch them lose badly. That's really the worst. |
STATE BLOGS
