Tag Archives: Congress

CANDIDATE INTERVIEW: KARA EASTMAN

Kara Eastman is a Democratic candidate for Nebraska’s 2nd District. Sabato’s Crystal Ball rated the district a “Toss Up” for 2020. In 2014, Democrat Brad Ashford won the district by 3.3% but lost in 2016 to the current Republican representative, Don Bacon, by 1.2%. In 2018, Kara Eastman, a strident progressive, defeated establishment-backed candidate Brad Ashford in the primary. Eastman went on to lose the election to Bacon by 2%. Read the “2020 Battlegrounds” post to get an overview of the district, the 2018 election and the upcoming 2020 race. This interview was conducted on Thursday, May 9, 2019.

The following interview has been condensed and edited to remove unnecessary words, phrases and questions for clarity. If you want the full, messy, extended version, you can find it in under Candidate Interviews –> Extended Interviews.


Seth: How is the campaign going?
Eastman: It’s going great and I’m encouraged by how much support there is this time. I think even more than last time, which is amazing. Although we haven’t really even kicked off our campaign yet. We’ve really just been focused on strategy and gearing up and going out and talking and listening to voters. Hear about the things they thought we did right, things that we could have done better. The day after the election, I started a consulting business for non-profits and so I’ve also been focused on that.

Seth: What have voters been saying that you did well and where you need to improve?
Eastman: I think some people thought we didn’t reach out to Republicans, which we did through mail, through TV, through conversations, through events. But I think that because I was so new, part of what we were trying to do was just get my name out there and now that we’ve done that, now we have an opportunity to really allow people in the district to get to know me.

Seth: How do you plan to reach out to Republican voters?
Eastman: The most important thing is just allowing people to get the chance to meet me and to hear from me and for me to be able to answer their questions. I think so many times we have politicians that just talk at constituents instead of actually listening to them. And so, for me, that’s the most important thing. Just to listen to what voters are saying.

Seth: What’s your argument to voters about why you are the best candidate?
Eastman: I’m somebody who has been working in non-profits solving problems for over 20 years. And in Omaha in particular, my work has centered on solving one of our biggest problems which is the connection between health and housing. And doing that by bringing coalitions of people together, by bringing more money into Nebraska, by creating public private partnerships. That’s really how these government programs should work. If we look at health care for example, our outcomes on healthcare are so poor and yet we’re spending so much more on health care and not getting a great return on our investment. So, we need some fixes. When we talk about the rising cost of prescription drugs, the vast majority of Americans think that that’s a problem. When we talk about gun safety, so many Americans are looking for action on gun safety because they’re tired of the threat of children being gunned down in school. So, I’m talking about those things that Nebraskans value.

Seth: Last cycle you ran on Medicare For All.  Can tell me what that vision looks like?
Eastman: I believe that health care is a right and that in the United States of America we should be providing health care for everybody. I decided to run for Congress because of my mother’s own outrageous prescription drug costs. We clearly have a problem within our own Medicare system that needs to be fixed. At the same time, Medicare is a very popular health care program. 77% favorability around the country. In Omaha’s own Gallup survey about government health care, the VA had a 78% favorability. Medicaid has 75%. We’re all looking or bold solutions when it comes to health care and systems that actually provide people health care without causing them to have to choose between putting food on the table and paying their bills.

Seth: Existing government health care programs like Medicare have significant cost sharing: premiums and copays and deductibles and coinsurance. Would your ideal Medicare For All proposal have that cost sharing or would it be more comprehensive?
Eastman: I do think people need a little skin in the game. I think that’s an important piece. That’s how I’ve always run my nonprofits. I don’t believe that everything should just be free. But I do believe that we need a system like Medicare For All which would allow everyone to have access to health care without causing them to have to pay outrageous costs. The fact that you can go into a pharmacy one day and pay $300 for a prescription and the next month it’s $20 makes no sense. My mother was asked to pay $2,500 for a pill when we know that you can go to other countries and get those prescriptions at a much cheaper rate. We need the collective bargaining power of the Federal Government to reduce prices and when we know that basically politicians are bowing down to paramedical companies instead of looking out for their constituents.

Seth: What exactly do you mean by having “skin in the game?”
Eastman: I think there have been a number of ways that a system like Medicare For All has been proposed to be paid. Some of that could come through a payroll tax. Some of that could come through an increase fees for American families. So, there’s always going to be some way that we have to pay for this system. But I absolutely agree that people shouldn’t have to decide whether or not they’re going to seek medical treatment based on their ability to afford it.

Seth: When you say “skin in the game”, you’re thinking more broadly by paying taxes rather than paying for the service when you show up at the doctor’s office with a copay or with a deductible or with coinsurance. Is that right?
Eastman: I think the most important thing is when you’re looking at, “I’m going to defer that cancer treatment because I can’t afford it right now” — that’s a problem. That’s delaying absolutely needed treatment for somebody who is in a dire circumstance. When we look at people who decide whether or not to take jobs based on their health insurance. Or decide whether or not to leave a job for a better job because they have health care coverage, this is a problem.

Seth: Are you imagining a system that will cover long term care and vision and dental and be completely comprehensive?
Eastman: Absolutely because in the United States of America we should be providing comprehensive health care to our citizens. I’m somebody who has vision impairment so I’ve spent a lot of my lifetime in an eye doctor’s office debating whether or not to have surgery and having to pay a ton.

Seth: This system could decrease spending in healthcare because the government would have more bargaining power. Some estimates say as much as 40%. This could mean doctors could take pay cuts or some services would have to be cut. How do you view that tradeoff?
Eastman: Actually, the physicians that I’ve talked to that favor a system like this feel that they would actually be paid the same but that they would have more control over prescribing medication, treatment, diagnosing their own patients and making sure that they’re getting high quality health care.

Seth: There’s only so much provider capacity — there could be longer wait times like in Canada. Do you see that being an issue?
Eastman: I think that is a scare tactic that Republicans have put out there to make people afraid of this kind of system. I have lived abroad and have not had those experiences. At the same time, when my mother was sick, she was often having to wait two or three months to get a doctor’s appointment or to start treatment that she needed. So, we already have some wait times. For me to get an appointment with my dentist takes me three or four months.

Seth: How you pay for a system like this? Progressives will argue that there will be the same amount of payment going into the health care sector and the burden will just be shifted from individuals to the government. But you still will have to collect somewhere in the ballpark of $30 trillion over the next ten years. How will the government do that?
Eastman: That number that you quoted is actually significantly less than what the Federal Government is projected to spend over the next ten years. We’re already paying for a health care system that leaves so many people without coverage. That leaves so many people going bankrupt because of their medical bills and just basically leaves people behind. We have to be able to provide something that allows people to have the medical care that they need and deserve.

Seth: Do you see how that answer could be frustrating to some voters who really do want to hear the fully laid out, “We’re going to put this kind of an income tax and this kind of a payroll tax.”
Eastman: When we look at what people are paying right now, $10,000 a year for health care, and where in a Medicare for All system they might be paying $877 that same year, most people would take that savings. So, the plan that’s out there, the comprehensive plans for Medicare for All that actually do provide coverage and allow people to have the access they deserve, I find that people get pretty excited about it.

Seth: The favorability numbers are high if you explain Medicare for All, but then when you say you maybe lose your current insurance or would require increases in taxes, that support plummets.
Eastman: I think that’s again a part of the Republican strategy to dissuade people from this. If you say to somebody “Would you like this?” that sounds great. “Oh, but you’re going to have to give up or lose something else,” that’s when people say, “Oh that scares me, I don’t like that”. But the reality is when you actually are honest with voters and let them know 1) this is health care coverage for you 2) this is much more affordable than what you’re spending now 3) it’s much more affordable for the Federal Government than what the government is spending now, and we need some fiscal responsibility right now, and 4) you’re not losing anything. This is privately operated and delivered but government funded. I think that that’s where voters have been duped by Republicans who are trying to scare them away from this.

Seth: Your competitor, Ann Ashford , said she’d vote for a public option to buy into Medicare. Is that a vote you would take? Or would you say “No I’m not taking this because I want and I’m going to wait for Medicare For All.”
Eastman: I think the reality is, we’re not going to snap our fingers and have universal health care coverage overnight. Taking an incremental approach, might be what we have to do in order to get to the system that I’ve been talking about.
Seth: So, is that a yes?
Eastman: Well, it’s hard for me to say, what that looks like. Am I voting for a public option, with no potential for Medicare For All? The public option is not Medicare For All. It’s hard for somebody to say whether or not they would vote for something without actually seeing the bill in front of them. I don’t want to be disingenuous and say yes, I would vote for something that I haven’t actually seen.

Seth: What are your feelings on the Green New Deal? I know it’s not a specific set of policies, but the idea of tying the economy and health care to the idea of stopping climate change and environmentalism.
Eastman: The idea of tying economic development to climate that make sense for me because that’s what I’ve been working on in Omaha. So, working on creating energy efficient housing, which creates a workforce, which creates great paying jobs for people, unionized jobs. And also reduces utility bills for people. When especially people living in poverty are paying so much more of a percentage of their income on their utility bills than wealthier people. So, to me, that is a win win.

Seth: Is anything in there that you disagree with? Do you believe in a Federal job guarantee?
Eastman: I would like to see us really hone in that combination of addressing the climate crisis and tying that to economic development. And so, I’d like to see use really separate that from some of the other things that were put in the Green New Deal. We need to address electricity and carbon emissions. So, a comprehensive plan that actually creates movement rather than these, kind of, lukewarm policy solutions that aren’t really going to have any major impact on our climate. We need something bold right now.

Seth: You spoke about fiscal responsibility earlier. Can you expand on that tell me how you square that with these expensive programs?
Eastman: I believe that we need to be very, very careful with our spending. And right now, the way that the Federal Government is spending money and the way that the president has increased the deficit is irresponsible. And we’re seeing this over and over again from Republican presidents who continue to raise the deficit and raise our national debt. We can’t afford this. We have to find different solutions.

Seth: When of progressive talk about raising taxes they talk about Scandinavian countries. But in Scandinavian countries, taxes are raised across the board rather than just on the super wealthy because raising taxes on the top one or two percent isn’t going to fund these programs. Are you open to that across the board kind of a tax increase?
Eastman: What we’re deficient in in this country is taxing the very, very wealthy and we just saw that in the president’s own tax returns.

Seth: Do you support a blanket $15-dollar Federal minimum wage or something that can slide back and forth depending on cost of living?
Eastman: I support a $15-dollar minimum wage and I also know that in some cities in the United States, even that’s not going to cut it.

Seth: Should we abolish the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote?
Eastman: I do think we need to abolish the Electoral College.
Seth: When I spoke with [your primary competitor] Ms. Ashford, she was hesitant because Nebraska might have less influence in a popular vote system.
Eastman: Nebraska already has less of an influence in the country than we should.
Seth: What do you mean by that?
Eastman: I mean that we’re considered in some ways a flyover state and we need politicians to start amplifying the voice of Nebraskans.

Seth: What about Puerto Rico and D.C. statehood and statehood for other territories that would like it?
Eastman: I am in favor of both of those and the fact that you have taxation without representation is un-American.

Seth: How do you feel about adding seats to the Supreme Court?
Eastman: There have been a number of proposals around the Supreme Court that I find incredibly interesting and so, having rotations of Federal judges on the Supreme Court, or having term limits. I think we need to explore all of those options because the system we have right now is rigged so heavily in favor of whichever political party is able to appoint a Supreme Court justice And that’s not the way it was supposed to be.
Seth: Some Democrats have said that if they can take a majority in the Senate and take the presidency that they should add a few seats to the Supreme Court to change the balance right now. Is that something that you’d support?
Eastman: I like to look at things long term and I’m also interested in sustainability so I would like to see us fix the system rather than putting a band aid on it.

Seth: Do you think Democrats should eliminate the Filibuster in the Senate?
Eastman: It’s beneficial when you’re in the minority and again this is one of those things where we need to fix our political system because it is part of what has caused people to become so alienated and basically disgusted by it, because they feel like we can’t actually make progress. One thing you didn’t mention is money in politics. And to me that is the most egregious example of where we have corruption in our system that our politicians are bought and sold by corporations. By the very wealthy.
Seth: What are your policy solutions for money in politics?
Eastman: We should overturn Citizens United. I think that’s a lofty goal right now. But I am in favor of publicly financed elections. We’re seeing those in some states right now and they are having success. But the fact that a race for Congress costs two or three million dollars in Nebraska is outrageous.
Seth: Overturning Citizens United would happen either in the Supreme Court or would be a constitutional amendment. So, are you open to both of those routes?
Eastman: Obviously it would be easier to have it done through the Supreme Court but again, because we have this right leaning Supreme Court, that’s not going to happen. So, we need to find ways to move that needle because corporations have such a loud voice right now. It’s one of the reasons I don’t take corporate PAC money. We’re giving more of a voice to corporations than individuals.

Seth: How do publicly financed elections and getting money out of politics happening simultaneously when one of them is putting money in and one of them is taking money out?
Eastman: When it comes to the public financing you have a cap. It makes it more of a level playing field and so it shouldn’t be that one person because they have access to wealth can raise 10 times more than somebody who doesn’t. The system is so unfairly balanced right now towards people who can self-finance or who have access to extreme wealth. At the same time, why are we spending so much on elections? There are basically right now these puppet masters who have control over our elections because they’re putting so much money into it.

Seth: The NRCC has already attacked you and Ann Ashford for your first quarter fundraising. Can you talk about what Q1 fundraising?
Eastman: We haven’t officially launched the campaign. And the reality is the NRCC is going to attack us for everything. They were attacking Ann for not being at a parade when her husband was in the hospital. They’re making strategic errors here. So, I am confident that the support will be there for me and I’m hearing from a lot of people that they’re excited that I’m running again.

Seth: Recently there have been some changes to the DCCC’s vendor policy. Consultants who work with primary challengers to incumbents would be blocked from working with the party’s campaign committee. How you feel about that new policy?
Eastman: I think it’s a terrible policy. We have to encourage candidates to run. It’s exciting that there’s energy in the Democratic Party and we should be encouraging that instead of discouraging it.

Seth: Is there a coalition in Congress that you see yourself joining or at this point
Eastman: Last time [election], I had the support of a lot of members of the different caucuses — the Progressive Caucus, the Medicare For All Caucus. I’d be proud to join those.

Seth: The district swung, relative to the nation [measured by the House popular vote], from 0.4% more Republican in 2016 to 10.6% more Republican in 2018. Why?
Eastman: 84% of incumbent Republican Congresspeople who ran for reelection in 2018 won. So, that’s pretty significant, right? I came out of nowhere, defeated a former Congressperson in the primary and came within 1.9% of winning in a very tough district. I think we did really well and I think this time we’re going to win.

Seth: In 2016 you supported Hillary Clinton, I think that’s probably surprising to some people, given that a lot of your ideas are kind of in line with Bernie Sanders’ vision for the country. Are there any presidential candidates that have really impressed you?
Eastman: I’m just excited that we have such a strong slate. I’m excited that we’re having the conversations that we need to have about the things that people in our district care about. The things that I talked about: health care, income inequality, climate change, gun safety. Those issues are all being brought to the forefront and we’re having really interesting discussions and there are some bold plans being put out there
Seth: Do you not want to say any specific candidates?
Eastman: There’s a lot of people running and some of them supported me last time and every time there’s a new one that pops in, I like to look through their platform. I just think we need to all band together right now and find the person and those policies that are gonna actually move the country forward and also get Donald Trump out of the White House.

Seth: How do you feel about impeaching Donald Trump?
Eastman: When we look at all of the things that the president has done, which do seem to be impeachable crimes, it seems terrible to let him off the hook and unfair to the American public. At the same time, is impeachment the right strategy or do we wait until the election and hope that the American electorate will vote him out for what he’s done? The Republican Party is standing behind this president when he clearly is aligning himself with criminals and on the verge of, or even having committed crimes himself, alienating our allies around the world. Aligning himself with the Russians without doing something about the fact that our election was hacked into and influenced by the Russians. It’s so unbelievable and I just wonder, what are we teaching our kids? This isn’t the Republican party of Chuck Hagel or Mike Johanns anymore. This is something we’ve never seen before and it’s just so un-American and hard to believe.

Seth: What are the best and worst parts of being a candidate?
Eastman: The best parts are certainly just getting the opportunity to talk to people — what I love to do anyways. And to really learn what people think about politicians, what people are looking for in their representatives. I would say 95% of running for Congress is fun. There’s that 5% where it’s stressful and you have to deal with attacks or deal with my daughter’s emotional response to my being attacked. Last time we had dead animals left on my finance director’s front porch. That’s gross. There are pieces of this that, it’s a shame. And at the same time, I understand it. I understand that people are frustrated. That they don’t feel represented. They don’t feel like their voices are being heard. So, we just have to do better and be better.

Seth: Well, thank you very much for speaking with me
Eastman: Sure. Thank you so much.

THE GENERIC BALLOT: PSEPHOLOGY’S CRYSTAL BALL

The 2020 elections are still 18 months away and yet pollsters are out in force, giving us just enough information to break out our crystal balls and make wildly irresponsible predictions. This is the first post in a three-part series looking at the generic ballot and it’s utility as an election predictor


Democratic presidential primary polls have been dominating election headlines, but some congressional polls have been been released too,  albeit to much less fanfare. We should probably ignore these polls — it’s too early for them to be predictive. Prognosticating off these preliminary numbers is rash, reckless and generally unwise. And so that’s exactly what we will do here in a three-piece series. This post will focus on how predictive the “generic ballot” is on, or close to, election day. The next post will look at how valuable these numbers are now, given that the election is still a year and a half away. The last will look at the relationship between popular vote and seat apportionment.

In “generic ballot” polls, respondents are asked to choose between a nameless Republican and Democrat for Congress. Gallup asks it this way: “If the elections for Congress were being held today, which party’s candidate would you vote for in your congressional district — the Democratic Party’s candidate or the Republican Party’s candidate?” It measures national support for the two parties without some of the baggage carried by their polarizing national figures (think Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Mitch McDonnell, Nancy Pelosi, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, etc.). It can also bring forward nuanced voter trends. For example, some voters might support a Democrat for President but Republican for House because they want the grinding impotency of split government. Another might vote the same way but because they support Trump but want continued House oversight. Another might choose to reward the current power dynamic because the economy is strong.

Final generic ballot polls — the ones taken within a few days of the actual election — are a better indicator of election outcomes in midterms years than in presidential years. Since 1948, the final generic ballot has missed the real midterm vote by an average of only 2%. The fallibility of the generic ballot in presidential years, though, is clear in the chart below.1Galup data from 1988 was not available.2Data is based of ‘likely voters’ for 1976 and 1996-2006 and ‘registered voters’ otherwise3The two-party generic ballot was used when available (2004-2016)4Data from Real Clear Politics was rounded to nearest integer to make it consistent with Gallup’s data


Data: Gallup51968-2000, Real Clear Politics62004-2016

Since 1968, the generic ballot has missed the real House popular vote by an average of 4% and until 2008, it consistently overestimated Democratic support.  Both of these problems have been ameliorated in recent years, resulting in a more accurate and balanced  generic ballot since the late 1990s. And even though the generic ballot is less accurate in presidential years, it is still correlated with election results.7Data is based on the chart above. However, data from Real Clear Politics (2004-2016) is rounded to two decimal places rather than the nearest integer as in the chart

A party that performs better on the generic ballot will generally earn more votes in the election. The R2 in the bottom left corner indicates how much of the variance in the dependent variable (Democratic Margin in the Two-Party Vote) can be explained by variance in the independent variable (Democratic Margin in Generic Ballot). In English: R2 shows how well Variable 1 can explain or predict Variable 2. Here, R2 equals almost exactly 0.5, meaning that about half of the variance in the popular vote can be explained by the generic ballot.

Looking at the equation above the R2 value, the trend line has a slope of 0.54. This means that in general a 1% increase in a party’s margin in the generic ballot translates to about a 0.54 % bump in the House popular vote. There is still plenty of variation, though (see how the data points are not clustered too closely along the trend line), so this is not at all a perfect measure for any individual election. Even with this variation, and the knowledge that a lead in the generic ballot usually overestimates electoral success, a party is better off leading the generic ballot than trailing. And their better off leading with a larger margin than a smaller one.

Two caveats to this data. First, the makeup of the House of Representatives is not determined by the popular vote. Seat apportionment, gerrymandering, demographic & partisan sorting and other structural imbalances mean that a party’s share of the national House vote can differ substantially from the share of seats they actually win. Second, this data is from polls within a few days of the elections. We’re still a year and a half away from November 2020. The next two posts will focus on understanding these qualifications to the generic ballot.

CANDIDATE INTERVIEW: ANN ASHFORD

Ann Ashford is a Democratic candidate for Nebraska’s 2nd District. She is an “attorney, human resources professional, and healthcare leader” and wife of the district’s previous representative, Brad Ashford. Sabato’s Crystal Ball rated the district a “Toss Up” for 2020. In 2014, Brad Ashford won the district by 3.3% but lost in 2016 to the current Republican representative, Don Bacon, by 1.2%. In 2018, Kara Eastman, a strident progressive, defeated establishment-backed candidate Brad Ashford in the primary. Eastman went on to lose the election to Bacon by 2%. Ann hopes that her moderate, bipartisan tone can win the Democratic nomination and appeal to moderate voters in the general. Read the “2020 Battlegrounds” post to get an overview of the district, the 2018 election and the upcoming 2020 race. This interview was conducted on Monday, April 29, 2019.

The following interview has been condensed and edited to remove unnecessary words, phrases and questions for clarity. If you want the full, messy, extended version, you can find it in under Candidate Interviews –> Extended Interviews.


Seth: Hi Ann this is Seth Moskowitz calling from Every Second Year.
Ashford: Hi Jack [ouch], how are you? 

Seth: I’m good, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me. How is the campaign is going?
Ashford: The campaign is going fine. We announced early only because my primary primary opponent announced in December that she was going to run again. My daily life consists of calls and meeting with as many people as possible and the only hesitation I’ve received from anybody is that it’s so darn early. They’re still recovering from the last election.

Seth: Have you made any pledges to not accept money from corporate PACs or any boundaries to where you will or will not accept money? 
Ashford: I have not made any pledges. I don’t see any reason why I would not accept money from a corporate PAC. If it’s a company that, for example, manufactures weapons of mass destruction, first of all they’re not going to be interested in giving me a donation. But secondly, if they were, I wouldn’t take it. 

Seth: You’ve been a member of campaigns and elections in the past: 2014, ’16 and ’18. What things have you learned about being a candidate?
Ashford: I think the number one thing is that you get out and meet as many voters as possible. It takes that personal touch. The second lesson that I’ve learned is that sometimes pledges come back to bite you, so be really careful about the pledges that you take. I don’t see a pledge out there yet that I would pledge to.

Seth: Are you seeing that voters are receptive to hearing from candidates or are they wanting a break from all the campaigning?
Ashford: To me, they’re more open to hearing from candidates. They’re actually asking for it. They want to stay away from the fundraising right now. But as far as hearing about your positions or wanting a chance to meet you, they’re very open to that. 

Seth: What is your short pitch about your priorities and why you think you’re the best candidate?
Ashford: I was born in this district and I’ve grown up in this district and have worked all my professional life in this district. I understand the district but I’m always willing to listen and hear more. I don’t care for labels, but I label myself as a “pragmatic problem solver.” I will work with anybody to get the solutions that we need to have. I think we have too much fighting in Washington today. When we all have a common goal, whatever that common goal is, we come with all of our different perspectives and we figure out what’s the lowest common denominator and start working from there. In the case of health care, I’ve never met anybody who doesn’t agree that pre-existing conditions need to be covered at no penalty to the person being covered. We should be able to enter a room and 45 minutes later come out with a solution. Let’s pick off the easy fruit first and then worry about the more difficult issues. 

Seth: What are your other primary focuses other than health care?
Ashford: Number two is probably education and affordability for our students and trying to deal with how we are educating people for the new economy. And the economy in general. Are we making sure that workers’ rights are protected? And are we making sure that they’re getting a fair wage for what they are doing? One of my top issues is infrastructure. we need a lot of remediation across this country and then there’s some new infrastructure that needs to be built as well. So, we need to concentrate on those issues.

Seth: The new freshmen class that was elected to Congress in 2018 seems like it has two wings, the more progressive wing of the party with Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar and then the more moderate members of the party like Abigail Spanberger and Ben McAdams. Do you align more closely with either of those two coalitions?
Ashford: Yes, absolutely. My [first] goal is to get elected to Congress, my second goal is to join the New Democratic Coalition. They are that bipartisan-thinking group. They’re pragmatic. They’re business oriented. They’re a little bit more fiscally conservative. And if you look, their membership went from, I think before 2018 it was somewhere in the low 40s to well above 100. Most of the members went there because they see that across the country, that’s where people are. People are more moderate. 

Seth: The majority of people who did flip districts were in the more conservative or red-ish districts and most of the people that flipped those districts were the more moderate candidates. So, it’s interesting when AOC and Ilhan Omar get all the media attention. 
Ashford: And it’s a little frustrating. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez could probably get elected in perhaps, perhaps four districts across this country. But there are a lot more districts than that and so the media does turn to them for attention. The media has a job to do and they want to market themselves as well and so they’re going to get the people on either end of the spectrum to sort of give more volume to those voices because that makes news. The things that make the news are those that are yelling about.

Seth: Where do you fall ideologically within the party?
Ashford: On the social issues I guess I would be more progressive but I’m always pragmatic and on the fiscal issues I am more in the pragmatic center. 

Seth: You said in a tweet about the Green New Deal that “We need action not an unrelated wish list. A complete overhaul of our economic and healthcare system.” So, you’re not on board with bundling all those progressive priorities into one piece of legislation. 
Ashford: No, I think that that’s the way we’re gonna lose, if we try to bundle everything together. What the Green New Deal seemed to say, or at least how it was being framed by the more conservative people across the country, was that it’s a complete takeover of everything in our economy. Let’s not fall into those traps and allow them to be able to frame us in such a way that it makes it unpalatable for everybody. Let’s tackle these things sort of one at a time. It doesn’t mean that they can’t be done contemporaneously, but let’s tackle them one at a time and separately instead of trying to wrap everything into the Green New Deal. 

Seth: Do you think that running to the left hurt the Democratic candidate, Kara Eastman, in the 2018 election?
Ashford: Yes absolutely. She ran too far to the left for this district. She ran true to herself because she is truly on the far left. She aligns herself with Bernie Sanders, and that’s not something that’s palatable in this district. I don’t think you should change yourself for an election. For goodness sake, be true to yourself, but she made it a point to only try and attract and turn out Democrats. We are still +5 Republican in this district if I’m not mistaken. We have a heck of a lot of independents and I will pursue every vote from every person. I don’t care what letter is behind their name. 

Seth: When you look at Nebraska Second relative to the National Popular Vote for the House it was a pretty heavy swing away from the Democrat [relative to previous years]. I’m interested to hear what her explanation would be for that swing if it’s not coming from the candidate. 
Ashford:  I would be fascinated to hear that as well because that’s not something I’ve heard her acknowledge. And I can’t speak for her so, that’s probably all I have to say about that. I understand she performed 10 points worse than the rest of the country as far as Democrats went. And that is a case of having a candidate that doesn’t match the district. 

Seth: How do you plan to convince those Democratic voters that you’re the right candidate? 
Ashford: I talk to every single person I can and if I can’t do it personally, I have my campaign do it. And have them understand if you want to be able to win this in the general district, you’re going to have to select a candidate that will be palatable to the entire district and not just a portion. 

Seth: And how receptive have Democratic primary voters been to that more pragmatic argument?
Ashford: I’ve talked to hundreds of people so far and they’ve been very receptive to that. They’re asking for a candidate that can be more pragmatic, more centrist and that can actually win in the district.

Seth: You changed your party registration from Republican to Democrat in 2016. Can you explain your reasoning and thought process behind that?
Ashford: Sure. So, I’ve always been a pro-choice woman. I was on the board of Planned Parenthood in the nineties and I still maintain that affiliation. I have always been pro-gun control. The Republican Party, I knew had left me a while ago, but I still thought that I could try to work to change it from within and we know how that turned out. It didn’t. As a part of my husband’s service on the federal level, I was able to meet federal leaders. And what I saw was that true willingness to be the big tent party and not only willingness but they actually put action behind their words. They are truly the big tent party who allows people from all different ideologies as long as they stick to a general core of tenants that the Democratic Party believes in. Now part of the criticism my primary primary challenger will level at me is that I’m a relatively new Democrat. In my experience in the world, whether its political party or religion or anything else, it always seems like converts are the biggest believers because we made that conscious decision. Not to take anything from those from which it was family tradition or anything else, but I made that conscious decision as an adult to say, “This is where I want to be. This is where I feel like I’m home.” 

Seth: Are there any core tenants of the Democratic Party that should prohibit somebody from being a member of the party if they don’t pass that litmus test? Do you think somebody who is pro-life should be able to run as a Democrat and be a member of the party?
Ashford: Yes, I do think that they should be able to run as a Democrat. I think they’re going to have a tougher road to hoe. But yes. A part of being welcoming to all, is not putting those litmus tests on people and I think that that actually hurts. There’s a heck of a lot of people who grew up in the Irish Catholic tradition who are pro-life, who are staunch Democrats. We shouldn’t say, “No you can’t be a Democrat.”

Seth: Without those litmus tests, what brings Democrats together?
Ashford: The number one thing that brings Democrats together is their willingness to listen to all diverse opinions and try to do the right thing for people. Whether it’s ensuring that the economy works for everybody, the education system works for everybody, that it’s more focused on making sure that those opportunities are there for all of us and to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to keep those opportunities going. 

Seth: I’m curious where you stand on the idea of more structural changes to the way that our government works: getting rid of the Electoral College, adding Supreme Court seats, statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C. We can go through those one by one if you have ideas about them all. 
Ashford: Sure. 

Seth: The Electoral College?
Ashford: The number one challenge to getting rid of it that I hear that it will hurt rural states with a much lesser population. I understand the desire to get rid of the electoral college. I don’t think we’ve hit upon a solution yet. I think probably the solution is going to be somewhere between the Electoral College as it is today and the popular vote. I’m not ready to say get rid of the Electoral College wholly today because of all of us districts out here in the middle of the country where we don’t have as much population across our state. I like the way that Nebraska and Maine do it where we attribute the Electoral College votes by Congressional District. Perhaps that’s a way to get there sooner rather than switching massively to the entire just popular vote. 

Seth: Statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington D.C.?
Ashford: If I were going to vote on it, I would vote yes. 

Seth: Adding seats to the Supreme Court?
Ashford: I have to tell you I haven’t really thought about that. My initial reaction would be no. You need to play the cards you’re dealt. But I don’t know. I haven’t given that any thought. As an individual, I’ve always been concerned that you could pack the court if you have a number of resignations or death or retirement during one term and it could make you, depending on who was president and who was in the Senate it could make you really happy or really unhappy. It is something to think about.

Seth: The Mueller Report came out recently. Are you in favor of the party holding impeachment hearings or do you think that they should wait for the 2020 election and let voters decide if the president deserves to stay in office?
Ashford: Neither. I’m in favor of them conducting a thorough investigation and subpoenaing all of the individuals that they need to, to obtain more information about issues raised in the Mueller Report, and then making the decision whether or not impeachment needs to occur. The one thing that concerns me is impeachment distracting people from getting their jobs done, because that has to happen contemporaneously with addressing immigration, with addressing healthcare, with addressing infrastructure. That’s where the primary focus needs to be while in the background these further investigations need to be going on to ensure that we have a president that should be legally allowed to be kept in office.  

Seth: Is a representative’s job to represent the views of your constituents even if they go against what you personally believe? Or do voters send you to Washington to make decisions based on your personal ideology?
Ashford: Somewhere in the middle but closer to the fact that you are representing. It’s in the title for goodness sake. We’re being sent as a representative so you better darn well be listening to your constituents. Obviously, people need to know me well enough and to trust me well enough that my moral judgement will come in play if we haven’t encountered an issue in the district so far and it’s a brand-new issue. Because you can’t poll everything.

Seth: Is there a presidential candidate or candidates that you support?
Ashford: There are a number of candidates that I really like and that’s the difficulty right now. I love that so many candidates are in the race, but by the same token, the last time around the Democrats couldn’t really get it together between only two candidates. So how are we going to coalesce behind one? Have we learned that lesson well enough? Vice President Biden is one of my favorite people. Because of his age, he needs to choose or at least indicate who he would choose as a vice presidential running mate because that’ll be a concern people have in their heads. I love Pete Buttigieg. I am intrigued by people like Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris. If I start to name them, I’m going to exclude someone. I don’t mean to exclude anybody and say that, “Gosh I’m not interested in them or impressed by them.”

Seth: It sounds like you support the more moderate wing of the party.  
Ashford: Yeah. I’m a centrist so those people attract me more. 

Seth: Are there any specific issues related to the current representative, Don Bacon, that you plan on highlighting if you make it to the general election?
Ashford: His votes on health care, especially in his first term, are simply ridiculous. To gut and try and get rid of any protection that the ACA has given us without a reasonable alternative that makes it better for all of us. His vote against the Violence Against Women Act and somehow trying to justify that it might shut down shelters who are religious based. It just doesn’t make any sense.

His vote for the tax plan, and not taking into account the fact that there are unintended consequences. And forgetting that the Gold Star families who Representative Bacon holds himself up as being their biggest supporter, well now their hurt in the payments that they receive and are taxed a higher level for those payments. The record setting deficit and debt that this tax plan brought into place.

His seeming support of the president when he puts into place tariffs. We just had historic flooding in Nebraska and Iowa and Missouri that is just awful and horrific. These farmers who were already under the gun because of the tariffs and low crop prices, I don’t know how some of them are going to make it. He’s a nice man, but he’s just not doing anything to help this district. 

Seth: What are the first three things or two things Democrats should do to improve health care coverage in the country?
Ashford: To improve coverage, I would make Medicare a public option. On the marketplace, Medicare would be right there whether you’re employed or getting it on your own.

To improve cost issues, I would do two things with pharmaceutical companies. First of all, I always find it amusing to say give Medicare the ability to negotiate pricing with pharmaceutical companies the same way that they do with hospitals and physicians. They don’t negotiate with hospitals and physicians, they tell them what they’re going to get paid. They need to do that with the pharmaceutical companies. You tell them what you’re going to get paid. The private insurance companies take their lead form Medicare. That’s how they base all of their practices and pricing. So, once we can get that done with Medicare, it would bleed naturally into the commercial market.

The other thing with pharmaceutical companies, I would drastically limit the type of advertising they can do. There’re three kinds of advertising. The third kind is the only allowed in this country and New Zealand. And that’s where the pharmaceutical company is allowed to talk about a disease state and symptoms of a disease state and then talk about a specific medication to address that disease state. I would drastically eliminate that. I think if I remember right, the number is 6.7 billion in 2017 was spent by pharmaceutical companies on that kind of advertising. It’s absolutely ridiculous. What you have is patients coming into the office saying “Doc, I think I have restless leg syndrome and I need the medication to go with it” and naming the specific medication. It forces the physician to have to give unnecessary tests. Second, let’s assume there is restless leg syndrome, then trying to convince the patient perhaps medication isn’t the first course of treatment. Or, if it is a medication that’s necessary, it could be perhaps a generic or something that’s been on the market for a longer time instead of this medication that they spent billions of dollars to advertise. So, all of those things go into increasing our healthcare costs tremendously and we need to put some limits on them now.

So those are the first three things I would do. I don’t see that the Medicare for All is something that’s feasible in today’s political world so, why are we going to waste time on it? My husband’s on Medicare, I also think that people don’t understand that there are still costs involved. So, he pays a monthly premium. He has deductibles and copays. We pay for a supplemental policy to make sure that more is covered. He has to pay for a Part D for prescription drugs. It’s not just free. And I’m not an apologist for insurance companies by any means, but people always seem to think that the insurance companies are these big bad ugly beings because they have second opinions required or preauthorization. You know where they got those ideas? From Medicare. It’s not as though Medicare is this lovely entity that just says “Anything you want anytime. We’re good”. It’s complicated and it’s hard and it should be out there for people who want to buy it as a public option, but it’s not yet at the place where people seem to think “Gosh, it means everything will be covered and I won’t have to come up with any extra money.” 

Seth: The idea of lowering the overall cost of healthcare goes hand in hand with the idea of cost sharing like is in place in Medicare right now. Do you think that there should be that cost sharing in Medicare?
Ashford: There’s some cost sharing that makes sense and some that doesn’t. For instance, the ACA made sure that everybody has the opportunity to go and get preventative health care every single year with no extra cost to themselves. That needs to stay in place because we need people going to their physicians or health care providers to make sure that they are keeping up with their health care. And then there needs to be some kind of cost sharing, but it often needs to be means based too. I worked with providers every single day who don’t ask the patient “can you pay?” when they come in the door. They take them and then there’s backroom people trying to figure out how they can get payment for those services afterwards.

Seth: I know you are busy and you probably have something to go do. So, I have a few more questions. Is there any issue on which you don’t agree with that is in the Democratic Party’s
Ashford: Not that I can think of. If there is one out there, I just haven’t encountered it yet.

Seth: Do you have a planned date to have a platform or issues on your website?
Ashford: And for dates on the platform, we’re targeting the beginning of June for a formal kickoff and I plan on having position papers out around that same time.

Seth: I really do appreciate you taking the time to speak with me.
Ashford: Absolutely, this is fun. It’s always good to think about the issues and have someone question you. So, it was very helpful to me.

Seth: Okay goodbye. 
Ashford: Take care. 

CANDIDATE INTERVIEW: ANN ASHFORD (EXTENDED)

Ann Ashford is a Democratic candidate for Nebraska’s 2nd District. She is an “attorney, human resources professional, and healthcare leader” and wife of the district’s previous representative, Brad Ashford. Sabato’s Crystal Ball rated the district a “Toss Up” for 2020. In 2014, Brad Ashford won the district by 3.3% but lost in 2016 to the current Republican representative, Don Bacon, by 1.2%. In 2018, Kara Eastman, a strident progressive, defeated establishment-backed candidate Brad Ashford in the primary. Eastman went on to lose the election to Bacon by 2%. Ann hopes that her moderate, bipartisan tone can win the Democratic nomination and appeal to moderate voters in the general. Read the “2020 Battlegrounds” post to get an overview of the district, the 2018 election and the upcoming 2020 race. This interview was conducted on Monday, April 29, 2019.

The following interview has been very lightly edited. No substantial content was removed or added. The only edits were taking out unnecessary words or phrases like “I mean”, “Well”, “So” and “Um” for clarity. If you want a condensed version, you can find it in under Candidate Interviews -> Condensed within one day of this extended interview being posted. 


Ashford: Hello this is Ann. 
Seth: Hi Ann this is Seth Moskowitz calling from Every Second Year

Ashford: Hi Jack [ouch], how are you? 
Seth: I’m good, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me. I really appreciate it. 
Ashford: No problem. 
Seth: I hear you are maybe in an airport?
Ashford: So, I was going to be and then my husband suffered some health problems over the weekend so I am delaying my trip to D.C. until a couple weeks from now. 
Seth: I’m sorry to hear that. 
Ashford: Thank you. That’s what happens, you make plans and then some eternal force, like God, interferes. 
Seth: I hope everything is okay and it’s not too serious.
Ashford: Thank you, I think it’ll be fine. 

Seth: Okay, good. I know that you’re probably very busy and you want to get back to taking care and making sure that he’s healthy so I’ll just jump right in. I’m curious if you can just tell me a little about how the campaign is going, what your day to day life looks like and how you see that the campaign has gone so far. 
Ashford: Sure, the campaign is going fine. We started in, I think my first phone calls were February 19th and we announced early only because my primary primary opponent, because now there’s two more that have entered the race, announced in December that she was going to run again. The only hesitation I’ve received from all the calls that I’m making…so my daily life consists of calls and meeting with as many people as possible and the only hesitation I’ve received from anybody is that it’s so darn early. They’re still recovering from the last election and their support will come. It’ll just come at a later time. 

Seth: I’ve read some things about incumbents who won in 2018 and feel uncomfortable fundraising because they feel like they just finished their election and there’s so much pressure to already start ramping up even though it felt like it was three months ago and they have to start fundraising again. 
Ashford: Yeah, it’s sort of silly. Usually incumbents are able to do it quietly behind the scenes during those first few months after the election but everybody is out there right now. And the pressure is put on by…what do we have now? 21 candidates in the Democratic primary for president? So that lends some pressure to it as well where people are just saying, ‘Guys we need to just take a little breather.’ 

Seth: I think that’s fair but I also understand why you wanted to get in early. So, while we’re on the topic of fundraising, in the Democratic Party there’s been a lot of people making pledges about where they will and where they won’t accept money from and I’m curious if you have made any pledges or made any decisions about not accepting money from corporate PACs or any boundaries to where you will or will not accept money from. 
Ashford: I have not made any pledges. I don’t see any reason why I would not accept money from a corporate PAC… unless it’s a corporate PAC that…I come from the business world so I understand corporate PACs are a function of entities. If it’s a company that, for example, manufactures weapons of mass destruction, first of all they’re not going to be interested in giving me a donation. But secondly, if they were, I wouldn’t take it. 

Seth: So, it sounds like you’ll take it as it goes and see who is actually trying to donate rather than make a blanket statement about not accepting…
Ashford: Right. 

Seth: Okay. So, another pretty broad question is…you’ve been a member of campaigns and elections in the past: 2014, ’16 and ’18 and I’m curious what things you’ve learned about being a candidate. Given that you’ve been so close to them in recent years. 
Ashford: Sure. I think the number one thing is that you get out and meet as many voters as possible. It takes that personal touch so that’s the number one lesson that I’ve learned. Probably the second lesson that I’ve learned is that sometimes pledges come back to bite you so be really careful about the pledges that you take. I don’t see a pledge out there yet that I would pledge to just because it does come back to bite you. I was just talking with some folks in Washington who said there are a heck of a lot of candidates who were elected this last cycle who took some pledges and now are trying to figure out, gosh how do I not go back on them because they want to remain faithful to the pledges they made but how do I maneuver around this now because it’s put me in a difficult spot. But the number one rule is: get out and meet as many people as possible and be accessible to voters. 

Seth: Are you seeing that voters are receptive to hearing from candidates or are they wanting a break from all the campaigning given that it was so recent? Or are you seeing that they’re more open to hearing form candidates this early? 
Ashford: To me they’re more open to hearing from candidates. They’re actually asking for it. They want to stay away from the fundraising right now. They just want a little break from that. But as far as hearing about your positions or wanting a chance to meet you or coming up to you in the store and saying “Oh I recognize you. I know who you are. Can we chat for a few minutes?” They’re very open to that. 

Seth: And in those situations, what is your short pitch about your priorities and why you think you’re the best candidate? When you meet a voter out there, what’s your go-to explanation about your candidacy and your primary goals if you were to be elected to office?
Ashford: I was born in this district and I’ve grown up in this district and have worked all my professional life in this district. I understand the district but I’m always willing to listen and hear more. I don’t care for labels, but I label myself as a ‘pragmatic problem solver’. I will work with anybody to get the solutions that we need to have. I think we have too much fighting in Washington today where people just go to their separate sides of the ring and the only reason they come out is to go into battle instead of reach solutions. So, I’m all about reaching solutions. That’s what my business background taught me. When we’re around a business table and we all have a common goal, whatever that common goal is, we come with all of our different perspectives and we figure out what’s the lowest common denominator and start working from there. And so, you can tackle things pretty much right away. I use the example of health care. Twenty of my years of experience have been in health care. Twenty of my years — not consecutive — have been in human resources and what we need to do is figure out those lowest common denominators. So, in the case of health care, I’ve never met anybody who doesn’t agree that pre-existing conditions need to be covered at no penalty to the person being covered. So, no extra charges, things like that. So, gosh, if we all had the right intentions, we should be able to enter a room and 45 minutes later come out with a solution. Let’s pick off the easy fruit first and then worry about the more difficult issues. 

Seth: And so, what are your other primary focuses other than health care if you were to be elected?
Ashford: Number one is health care. Number two is probably education and affordability for our students and trying to deal with how we are educating people for the new economy, which is not so new, it’s here already. But new economy that may be coming down the road. And the economy in general. Are we making sure that workers’ rights are protected? And are we making sure that they’re getting a fair wage for what they are doing? 

Seth: The new freshmen class that was elected to Congress in 2018. I know you said you don’t like labels and I appreciate that, but do you see yourself as aligning…to me it seems like there is two wings of the party that really come to the front. The more, I’m going to use labels, but, progressive wing of the party with Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar and then the more, another label, ‘moderate’ or ‘bipartisan’ members of the party like Abigail Spanberger and Ben McAdams near you in Utah, and I’m curious if you see yourself as aligning more closely with either of those two coalitions within the House of Representatives?
Ashford: Yes, absolutely. I see myself as, one of my goals is to get elected to Congress first, my second goal then is to join the New Democratic Coalition. And they are that bipartisan, sort of thinking group. They’re pragmatic. They’re business oriented. They’re a little bit more fiscally conservative than people farther on the left and progressive, as the label may be. So, I would align myself with the New Democratic Coalition. And if you look, their membership went from, I think before 2018 it was somewhere in the low 40s, for the membership of the New Dems. Now it’s well above 100 and so most of the members went there because they see that across the country, that’s where people are. People are more moderate. 

Seth: It’s surprising when you look at those numbers especially when you hear the people who are getting the attention in the news and in the media. Because the majority of people who did flip districts were in the more conservative or red-ish districts and most of the people that flipped those districts were the more moderate candidates. So, it’s interesting when AOC and Ilhan Omar are getting all the media attention rather than the majority of the people who were elected and flipped districts. 
Ashford: And it’s a little frustrating. There were just Democratic officials here in this state who told me, cause think about it. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez could probably get elected in perhaps, perhaps four districts across this country. But there are a lot more districts than that and so the media does turn to them for attention. The media has a job to do and they want to market themselves as well and so they’re going to get the people on either end of the spectrum to sort of give more volume to those voices because that makes news. People don’t listen to news about the folks who go to work every day and are just doing their jobs and getting things done actually. The things that make the news are those that are yelling about things and giving more volume to their voice in just that these are the things were demanding. Well, either on the left or the right, those are pretty far out there so I would venture to say there are 70% of us across the country who are somewhere across that moderate spectrum. 

Seth: And so when you think of your ideology and where you fall within the party, do you believe that you believe in the more progressive agenda but you’re just more pragmatic about it so you’re willing to make compromises or do you believe that your ideology falls more within that pragmatic range rather than believing in the more progressive but then changing what you’re fighting for because you want to be pragmatic. Where do you see that your ideology falls within that spectrum?
Ashford: So, on the social issues I guess I would be more progressive but I’m always pragmatic and on the fiscal issues I am more in the pragmatic center. 

Seth: Do you have any examples of where you would fall in the more pragmatic center for the fiscal issues?
Ashford: For example, I don’t believe in just wiping out college debt for all. I think we need to look at affordability we look need to look at some income scaling we need to look at what kind of loans they already have out there and if they are able to afford it. I do believe that we’ve gotten out of control with what we’re charging for education number one and then number two when people are trying to deal with their debts and things like that, so we need to look at perhaps making student loan debt a portion of the debt that can be discharged with bankruptcy. Those would be some examples. 

Seth: I saw a tweet that you tweeted out about the Green New Deal and you said “We need action not an unrelated wish list. A complete overhaul of our economic and healthcare system.” So, I’m guessing that you’re not on board with the idea of bundling all those progressive priorities into one piece of legislation. 
Ashford: No, I think that that’s the way we’re gonna lose, if we try to bundle everything together. What the Green New Deal seemed to say or at least how it was being framed by the more conservative people across the country was that it’s a complete takeover of everything in our economy. And so, let’s not fall into those traps and allow them to be able to frame us in such a way that it makes it unpalatable for everybody. Let’s tackle these things sort of one at a time. It doesn’t mean that they can’t be done contemporaneously but let’s tackle them one at a time and separately instead of trying to wrap everything into the Green New Deal. 

Seth: Do you think that sort of running to the left is what hurt the Democratic candidate, Kara Eastman, in the 2018 election?
Ashford: Yes absolutely. She ran too far to the left for this district. She ran true to herself because she is truly on the far left. She aligns herself with Bernie Sanders, and that’s not something that’s palatable in this district. I don’t think you should change yourself for an election. For goodness sake, be true to yourself, but she made it a point to only try and attract and turn out Democrats. We are still +5 Republican in this district if I’m not mistaken. We have a heck of a lot of independents and I will pursue every vote from every person. I don’t care what letter is behind their name. 

Seth: When you look at the numbers of how Nebraska Second was relative to the National Popular Vote for the House it was a pretty heavy swing away from the Democrat. In 2014 it was 9% more Democrat than the country overall. In 2016 it was .4% more Republican and then in 2018 it swung all the way to 10.6% more Republican than the National House Popular Vote. I’m hopefully going to be speaking with her soon so I’m interested to hear what her explanation would be for that swing if it’s not coming from the candidate. 
Ashford:  I would be fascinated to hear that as well because that’s not something I’ve heard her acknowledge. And I can’t speak for her so, that’s probably all I have to say about that. But as a candidate in this race, I understand that. I understand she performed 10 points worse than the rest of the country as far as Democrats went. And that is a case of having a candidate that doesn’t match the district. 

Seth: And so how do you plan to convey to Democratic voters a different message then what happened last cycle for your husband, which Democratic voters decided to go with Kara Eastman, even though she was maybe more progressive than the District was willing to elect. How do you plan to convince those Democratic voters that you’re the right candidate? 
Ashford: I talk to every single person I can and if I can’t do it personally, I have my campaign do it. And have them understand what we need to do to win in this district and have them understand that the goal is, while you may have cheers and claps on primary night, you want to still have those cheers and claps on the general night. And if you want to be able to win this in the general district, you’re going to have to select a candidate that will be palatable to the entire district and not just a portion. 

Seth: And how receptive have Democratic primary voters been to that more pragmatic argument of: even though maybe you align more closely with one candidate, you have to maybe go with a different candidate because that’s the only person who’s gonna win the general.
Ashford: I’ve talked to hundreds of people so far and they’ve been very receptive to that. They were asking for that and perhaps I’m talking to those who did not vote for Ms. Eastman in the general, but I don’t think so. I think I’m talking to a heck of a lot of people and those who did vote for her but they said they felt like their vote wasn’t actually going to matter because they really felt like the current incumbent Don Bacon was going to win again. And so, they’re asking for a candidate that can be more pragmatic, more centrist and that can actually win in the district. That’s the conversations I’ve been having. 

Seth: Am I right that you changed your party registration from Republican to Democrat in 2016?
Ashford: I did. 
Seth: Can you explain your reasoning and thought process behind that and why you decided to make that change?
Ashford: Sure. So, I’ve always been a pro-choice woman. I was on the board of Planned Parenthood in the nineties and I still maintain that affiliation. I have always been pro-gun control. The Republican Party, I knew had left me a while ago, but I still thought that I could try to work to change it from within and we know how that turned out. It didn’t. As a part of my husband’s service on the federal level, I was able to meet the federal leaders. And what I saw was that true willingness to be the big tent party and not only willingness but they actually put action behind their words. They are truly the big tent party who allows people from all different ideologies as long as they stick to a general core of tenants that the Democratic Party believes in that they welcome everybody and so that’s when I knew that I had come home. Now part of the criticism my primary primary challenger will level at me is that I’m a relatively new Democrat and I understand that. In my experience in the world, whether its political party or religion or anything else, it always seems like converts are the biggest believers because we made that conscious decision and not to take anything from those from which it was family tradition or anything else, but I made that conscious decision as an adult to say, ‘This is where I want to be. This is where I feel like I’m home.” 

Seth: So, you appreciated the aspect of it being a big tent party. I’m curious if you feel like there are any core tenants of the Democratic Party that should prohibit somebody from joining or being a member of the party if they don’t pass that litmus test. Specifically, what I’m thinking of, you’ve always were pro-choice you said. Do you think somebody who is pro-life should be able to run as a Democrat and be a member of the party?
Ashford: Yes. I do think that they should be able to run as a Democrat. I think they’re going to have a tougher road to hoe. But yes. A part of being welcoming to all, is not putting those litmus tests on people and I think that that actually hurts. There’s a heck of a lot of, if you just look at it culturally, there’s a heck of a lot of people who grew up in the Irish Catholic tradition who are pro-life. And who are staunch Democrats and yeah, we shouldn’t say, ‘No you can’t be a Democrat because you’re not’.

Seth: So, without those litmus tests or the policies that you have to agree with to be a member of the party, what do you envision as being the thing that brings Democrats together and allows them to unify under one label. 
Ashford: I think that the number one thing that brings Democrats together is their willingness to listen to all diverse opinions and try to do the right thing for people. Whether it’s ensuring that the economy works for everybody, the education system works for everybody, that it’s more focused on making sure that those opportunities are there for all of us and to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to keep those opportunities going. 

Seth: Okay. And so, I’m going to transition a little bit to specific issues that have been coming up among members of the House of Representatives. Specifically, I’m interested in something that doesn’t really fall along that moderate, progressive ideology line. I’m curious where you stand on the idea of more structural changes to the way that our government works. Specifically, I’m thinking getting rid of the Electoral College into a popular vote which is something which would require a vote in the House of Representatives, adding Supreme Court seats, statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C. And one that obviously isn’t in the House of Representatives but I think is important and interesting to talk about is the Filibuster. So, we can go through those one by one if you have ideas about them all. 
Ashford: Sure. 

Seth: So, the Electoral College?
Ashford: So, the Electoral College, the number one challenge to getting rid of it that I hear that it will hurt rural states like we are with a much lesser population. So, I’m really concerned about that. I understand, boy do I understand the desire to get rid of the electoral college. I don’t think we’ve hit upon a solution yet. I think probably the solution is going to be somewhere between the Electoral College as it is today and the popular vote. But I think we’re going to have to go through a little bit more pain before we get to that. So, I’m not ready to say get rid of the Electoral College wholly today because of all of us districts out here in the middle of the country where we don’t have as much population across our state. So, I’m still waiting. I like the way that Nebraska and Maine do it where we attribute the Electoral College votes by Congressional District. perhaps that’s a way to get there sooner rather than switching massively to the entire just popular vote. 
Seth: So, it sounds like you’re not ready to make the full commitment to be in favor of the popular vote but you’re open to other maybe more incremental changes to the system. 
Ashford: Right. And personally, I like the idea of the popular vote. I get that. But again, I’m concerned for my state and states like us where we might be hurt. But let’s look at perhaps how we attribute those Electoral College votes. 

Seth: This is an interesting theoretical question I’m curious how you see the job of being a Representative. Do you see it as you will be sent to Washington to represent the views of your constituents even if they go against what you personally believe, or do you believe that the voters send you to Washington to make decisions based on your personal ideology? Where do you fall on that theoretical debate? 
Ashford: Somewhere in the middle but closer to the fact that you are representing. It’s in the title for goodness sake. We’re being sent as a representative so you better darn well be listening to your constituents. I haven’t seen a situation where the district as a whole would be taking such a viewpoint where it would cross my moral judgements. Obviously, people need to know me well enough and to trust me well enough that my moral judgement will come in play if we haven’t encountered for example an issue in the district so far and it’s a brand-new issue. Because you can’t poll everything you can’t go out and ask people everything. But I would lean toward that you are sent there to represent the thoughts, the mindsets, the opinions, the beliefs of your district. 

Seth: I imagine you believe it would be difficult to do that if the Democrats nominated a candidate who is much further left to the general population of the district. So, it seems like you feel like your ideology aligns better with the district and is the more practical way to get elected. 
Ashford: Right. 

Seth: Okay so moving on to statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. How do you feel about that or how do you think you’d vote on that if it were to come up in your term? 
Ashford: If I were going to vote on it, I would vote yes. 

Seth: And how about adding seats to the Supreme Court if Democrats were to win the presidential election and were somehow to be able to take over the Senate. How do you feel about adding seats to the Supreme Court?
Ashford: To the number of people in the Supreme Court? 
Seth: Yes. 
Ashford: I have to tell you I haven’t really thought about that. 
Seth: I’m totally sympathetic to that. I think it should be okay for candidates to say ‘I need more time to think.’
Ashford: Yeah, and I would have to think about that. My initial reaction would be no. You need to play the cards you’re dealt. But I don’t know. I haven’t given that any thought. 
Seth: Well when you think about it more, I’ll follow you to see if you come to a decision on that or if it’s asked later in the primary. I’ll be following your responses. 
Ashford: So, is this talked about much?
Seth: Yeah it is. Especially in the big Democratic presidential primary field it’s come up a lot. Some of the more progressive candidates have advocated in favor of it. And I know Pete Buttigieg had an idea where you’d expand the seats of the Supreme Court not necessarily by court packing, by saying ‘we’re just going to add people to the Supreme Court’, but by saying we’re going to add temporary judges that are both conservative and liberal and then they will have to decide together and it will have to be a unanimous decision for the additional justices that will be added to the Supreme Court. So, there’s been different iterations of it. 
Ashford: Now, that’s fascinating. 
Seth: Yeah, it’s an interesting argument but I think it’s sometimes easy to portray all the ideas from saying ‘we’re going to add justices to the Supreme Court whether you like it or not’ to the more moderate route of saying “we’re going to try to add seats with the parties together so it’s not a strictly partisan journey.” 
Ashford: Yeah and as an individual, not as a candidate, as an individual I’ve always been concerned that you could pack the court if you have a number of resignations or death or retirement during one term and it could make you, depending on who was president and who was in the Senate it could make you really happy or really unhappy. It is something to think about. Like I said, I just haven’t thought about it before this. 

Seth: And so, the last structural issue is something that’s actually related to adding Supreme Court seats. It’s eliminating the Filibuster in the Senate because right now the threshold for passing a lot of legislation is 60 votes, but many Democrats have been advocating in favor of lowering that to having to have a majority to pass legislation in the Senate. Obviously, this isn’t something the House of Representatives would vote on, but I’m curious if you have an opinion on that. 
Ashford: Right. So, I prefer, as an individual, just a majority. I think either party, whoever is not in control of the Senate needs to be really careful of those rules that they put in place to see what could happen when they are in control and I just think that the unintended consequences of any actions need to be thoroughly investigated prior to them making any changes. 

Seth: Another thing that’s been spoken a lot about since the Mueller report came out was impeachment. Are you in favor of the party holding impeachment hearings or do you think that they should wait for the 2020 election and let voters decide if the president deserves to stay in office?
Ashford: So, neither. I’m in favor of them conducting a thorough investigation and subpoenaing all of the individuals that they need to, to obtain more information about issues raised in the Mueller Report and then making the decision whether or not impeachment needs to occur. The one thing that concerns me is talk that impeachment distracting people from actually getting their jobs done because that has to happen contemporaneously with addressing immigration, with addressing healthcare, with addressing infrastructure and, if we go back to the beginning and I apologize, I just mentioned one of my top issues, is infrastructure. And first of all, we need a lot of remediation across this country and then there’s some new infrastructure that needs to be built as well. So, we need to concentrate on those issues. That’s where the primary focus needs to be while in the background these further investigations need to be going on whether it’s through subpoenas or otherwise, to ensure that we have a president that should be legally allowed to be kept in office.  

Seth: When you look at the numbers, I think, of the priorities for Democratic Party members, Russia and the Mueller Report were low single digits. So, I think it makes sense that you advocate in favor of focusing on other issues rather than focusing on that, if those numbers are correct. So, one thing that I think is interesting in Nebraska is that the State Democratic Party decided that for the presidential candidate they are going to change the way that they apportion their votes from a caucus to a primary. Is that correct?
Ashford: Yes. 

Seth: Do you think that that will have any impact on the voters that come out to vote in your primary and do you think that will affect the results of the Democratic Primary in Nebraska Second?
Ashford: I’m not sure if it’s going to affect the results because we always had a primary along with that. And so, the caucus, it will probably help it because very few people, relatively speaking, attended the caucuses. And then those who attended the caucuses maybe didn’t feel the need to vote in the primary and so hopefully that gets everybody at the table in the primary. Our primary is relatively late in the process. We’re in May and so a lot of times the leading contender for the party is pretty much chosen by that time. So that gets people feeling a little frustrated. But it was the same with the caucus too. The last election in 2016, I just saw a lot of heartache because during the caucus process there were, like I said, a fewer number of people who turned out that it seems as though the caucuses felt as though they were pretty well united behind Bernie Sanders whereas in the primary vote it clearly went to Hillary Clinton. And so hopefully this will help us heal a little bit and have one tool for us to choose that presidential candidate that we can all get behind. 

Seth: And is there a candidate, it’s a huge field, but are there candidates or is there one candidate that you see yourself aligning with or supporting?
Ashford: There are a number of candidates that I really like and that’s the difficulty right now. And my only concern is that with, I love that so many candidates are in the race, but by the same token the last time around the Democrats couldn’t really get it together between only two candidates, so how are we going to coalesce behind one. Have we learned that lesson well enough to be able to really support that one who ends up being the nominee? But I love hearing the ideas of the people. Of course, Vice President Biden is one of my favorite people. It’ll be interesting to see, and I think he should choose soon, sooner rather than later, for other reasons, because of his age, he needs to choose or at least indicate who he would choose as a vice presidential running mate because that’ll be a concern people have in their heads. I love Pete Buttigieg. I am intrigued by people like Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris. If I start to name them, I’m going to exclude someone. I don’t mean to exclude anybody and say that, gosh I’m not interested in them or impressed by them. But there are a number of candidates that I really enjoy watching. 
Seth: I understand not wanting to list candidates, because if you list seven and forget the eighth people will say ‘Why didn’t you name them?’ But it does sound like the broad field that you’re in support of are the less stridently progressive, like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and more the moderate wing of the party.  
Ashford: Yeah. I’m a centrist. I’m a centrist so those people attract me more. 

Seth: You spoke about, in the presidential election, maybe having some difficulties coalescing behind one candidate. Do you see that that could possibly be a challenge if you were to win the primary election in your district, that maybe some of those more further left voters would have a hard time getting behind you? 
Ashford: Sure. Sure. I mean that’s always going to be a concern. Are they going to then stay home because they were frustrated that their candidate didn’t make it through? And I’m talking about the presidential level candidate. That’s always going to be a concern and it’s just going to take reaching out to them and re-emphasizing that message again and again and again. You’ve got to be able to win whether it is, a win for the ultimate Democratic candidate is a win for all of us. So, if you stay home, nursing your wounds, you’re going to reelect the Republican President or our current Representative. So, we need to get out there and do something.  

Seth: When you think about the current Representative, Don Bacon, are there any specific issues that he’s taken a vote on or specific policies that he supports that you’re planning on, if you make it to the general election, really running against him on and highlighting?
Ashford: Yeah, yeah. His votes on health care, especially in his first term, are simply ridiculous. To gut and try and get rid of any protection that the ACA has given us without a reasonable alternative that makes it better for all of us. His vote against the Violence Against Women Act and somehow trying to justify that it might shut down shelters who are religious based. It just doesn’t make any sense. His vote for the tax plan, and I blame the entire party for this, and not taking into account the fact that there are unintended consequences. We always have to look towards those. And forgetting that the Gold Star families who Representative Bacon holds himself up as being their biggest supporter, well now their hurt in the payments that they receive and are taxed a higher level for those payments. The record setting deficit and debt that this tax plan brought into place. His seeming support of the president when he puts into place tariffs and things like that. Tariffs, we just had historic flooding in Nebraska, and Iowa and Missouri, but in Nebraska that is just awful and horrific and these farmers who were already under the gun because of the tariffs and low crop prices now, I don’t know how some of them are going to make it, the farmers and ranchers. And so, all of these things together it’s just not helping the district. He’s a nice man, but he’s just not doing anything to help this district. 

Seth: I want to dig into just one of those. You said your priority is healthcare, one of your priorities is health care. It’s the first one you listed. What would you say the first three things or two things, the very first things that Democrats should do to improve health care coverage in the country? What would your priorities specifically with health care be? 
Ashford: To improve coverage, I would make Medicare a public option. And so, on the marketplace, the same way you could choose among Aetna, United, Blue Cross, whoever it is, Medicare would be right there too and so you could choose that, whether you’re employed or getting it on your own. To improve cost issues, I would do two things with pharmaceutical companies. First of all, I always find it amusing to say give Medicare the ability to negotiate pricing with pharmaceutical companies the same way that they do with hospitals and physicians. Coming from that arena, they don’t negotiate with hospitals and physicians, they tell them what they’re going to get paid. And so, they need to do that with the pharmaceutical companies. You tell them what you’re going to get paid. And then, the private insurance companies, the commercial insurance companies, take their lead form Medicare. That’s how they base all of their practices and pricing. So, once we can get that done with Medicare, it would bleed naturally into the commercial market. The other thing with pharmaceutical companies, I would drastically limit the type of advertising they can do direct to consumers, whether it’s over the public airways or over the internet. So, there’s three kinds of advertising and I know I’m getting too much into the weeds for you, but the third kind of advertising is the only one that’s allowed in this country and New Zealand. We’re the only ones who allow it. And that’s where the pharmaceutical company is allowed to talk about a disease state and symptoms of a disease state and then talk about a specific medication to address that disease state. What other countries do, if they allow anything at all, they allow one of two things. You can either, as a pharmaceutical company, talk about a disease state and say, ‘If you have these symptoms, you might have this disease state and you should go see your physician for the appropriate treatment”. Or the other one is, you can name a class of drugs, say statins, and say, ‘Statins are out there’ but no specific brand name, “Statins are out there to address this kind of disease state. And you should see your doctor to see if you need a statin.” So, I would drastically eliminate that. I think if I remember right, the number is 6.7 billion, and I may be wrong in that, in 2017 was spent by pharmaceutical companies on that kind of advertising. It’s absolutely ridiculous. What it does, I’ve spent the last 10 years working with physicians. And so, what you have is patients coming into the office saying “Doc, I think I have restless leg syndrome and I need the medication to go with it” and naming the specific medication. So first of all, it forces the physician to have to give unnecessary tests in concentrating on, perhaps, ruling out restless leg syndrome, where they may have a condition but it’s not that. Secondly, let’s assume that they pass these tests and there is restless leg syndrome, then trying to convince the patient, again spending this time and effort convincing the patient that, perhaps medication isn’t the first course of treatment. Perhaps just diet and lifestyle changes or exercise and lifestyle changes. And let’s attack those first. Or, in the alternative, if it is a medication that’s necessary, it could be perhaps a generic or something that’s been on the market for a longer time instead of this medication that they spent billions of dollars to advertise. So, all of those things go into increasing our healthcare costs tremendously and we need to put some limits on them now. So those are the first three things I would do.

Seth: It sounds like you have a distinct plan and specific steps that you want to take and I’m always curious if the candidates who are maybe more progressive and have the idea of a single payer system would be willing to take these more incrementalist approaches or votes if they were to come up in the House of Representatives or if they would vote no because it’s not going all the way and it’s not far enough. 
Ashford: I can’t answer for them. I would hope that they would vote for the incremental approach if that’s what came up and that’s what could be passed. I don’t see that the Medicare for All is something that’s feasible in today’s political world so, why are we going to waste time on it? My husband’s on Medicare, I also think that people don’t understand that there are still costs involved. So, he pays a monthly premium. He has deductibles and copays. We pay for a supplemental policy to make sure that more is covered. So, there’s a premium to do with that. He has to pay for a Part D for prescription drugs and so it’s not something where it’s just free. And I’m not an apologist for insurance companies by any means, but people always seem to think that the insurance companies are these big bad ugly beings because they have second opinions required or preauthorization. You know where they got those ideas? From Medicare. Medicare put them in place and then they said, ‘Oh gosh that’s something we can use in our commercial world too.’ And so that’s why they have those in place. So, it’s not as though Medicare is this lovely entity that just says “Anything you want anytime. We’re good”. It’s complicated and it’s hard and it should be out there for people who want to buy it as a public option, but it’s not yet at the place where people seem to think “Gosh, it means everything will be covered and I won’t have to come up with any extra money.” 

Seth: Well the idea of lowering the overall cost of healthcare in the United States kind of goes hand in hand with the idea of cost sharing like is in place in Medicare right now. I mean if people know they’re going to be charged a little bit they might be more reluctant to go to the doctor or hesitant to go in for that checkup. So, do you think that that cost sharing is something that should be present in Medicare?
Ashford: So, there’s some cost sharing that makes sense and some that doesn’t. For instance, one of the things that the ACA did for us is it made sure that everybody has the opportunity to go and get preventative health care every single year with no extra cost to themselves. That needs to stay in place because we need people going to their physicians or health care providers to make sure that they are keeping up with their health care. And then there needs to be some kind of cost sharing in effect, but it often needs to be means based too. I worked with providers every single day, who they don’t ask the patient “can you pay?” when they come in the door. They take them and then there’s backroom people trying to figure out how they can get payment for those services afterwards. But the health care providers, as a rule, just take them period.

Seth: I know you are busy and you probably have something to go do. So, I have a few more questions. I’ll ask them all right now and you can go through them in whatever order you like. One question I always like to ask is, is there any issue that you don’t agree with that is in the Democratic Party’s orthodoxy, that you feel like you are, not out of step, but not in line directly with the Democratic Party? And then another question I have is if you have a planned date to have a platform or issues on your website. And the last question is if you have any questions of me before we stop talking and hang up. 
Ashford: Okay. So as far as the national Democratic Party and any place where I feel uncomfortable being a Democrat. That’s how I took that. Not that I can think of. Not that I can think of. If there is one out there, I just haven’t encountered it yet. And for dates on the platform, we’re targeting the beginning of June for a formal kickoff and I plan on having position papers out around that same time. And then requests of you, I’d love to see what you’re writing before it’s published, not to make any changes because that’s absolutely within your purview to write however you wish, but I would be curious. 

Seth: Well my goal is to give the least filtered version of the candidate so generally I transcribe the interview directly and I put that up. And your communications director, Luke, asked me if I could send the transcript your way so you could look it over before I post it and I’m happy to do that. 
Ashford: Great, thanks! And the only other thing is: way at the beginning, when you asked me my primary issues, infrastructure was one that I had forgotten and added later. 
Seth: Okay, I’ll make sure to get that in there. I really do appreciate you taking the time to speak with me.
Ashford: Absolutely, this is fun. It’s always good to think about the issues and have someone question you. So, it was very helpful to me.

Seth: Is this the first interview that you’ve done this cycle?
Ashford: It is not. I did a radio interview and then I’ve done a couple newspapers. 
Seth: Okay well I searched around but sometimes it’s hard to find those things, so I’ll dig in a little bit more to try and find those. Okay, have a good day and I hope your husband is okay. 
Ashford: Thank you. He will be. 

Seth: Okay goodbye. 
Ashford: Take care. 

2020 BATTLEGROUNDS: NEBRASKA 2ND

This is the third post in “2020 Battlegrounds”, where I take a deep look at one closely contested 2020 House district. Each post will: 1) Give an overview of the State and District 2) Analyze recent electoral history 3) Give an update on the district’s 2020 race and 4) See what insight the district can give into larger 2020 House race. 

District: Nebraska 2nd
Current Representative: Don Bacon
Cook 2020 Projection: Leans Republican
Sabato 2020 Projection: Toss Up 

OVERVIEW OF STATE & DISTRICT
Nebraska — crimson red and socially conservative — will host one of the most competitive elections for the 2020 House. Squeezed onto its eastern border is the second congressional district, Nebraska Democrats’ only real shot at federal representation.

Because Nebraska splits its presidential electoral votes by congressional district (one of only two states, along with Maine, to do so), the second district is often a target of presidential campaigns. Barack Obama’s campaign manager said Omaha was his “personal favorite target”. In a close presidential election, this one electoral vote could be the tiebreaker — pushing one candidate from 269 electoral college votes to the 270 needed to win. Obama is the only presidential candidate to successfully isolate one of the Nebraska’s electoral votes since the state adopted the Congressional District Method in 1992. In fact, this is the only electoral vote any Democrat has received from Nebraska since Lyndon Johnson carried the state in his 486-52 electoral blowout in 1962. Before that it was FDR in 1936.

Today, the governor and entire federal delegation are Republican. Of the current executive office holders, only one, the District 2 Public Service Commissioner, ran as a Democrat. Nebraska Democrats know that most of the state is out of reach. If they are to win federal representation, their hope is in district two.

The district is centered around Omaha and comprises all of Douglas County and a portion of Sarpy County. Obama’s 2008 victory spurred a Republican redistricting (or gerrymander) of the second district in 2011. They replaced the more liberal city of Bellevue and the Offutt Air Force Base in eastern Sarpy with the more rural, conservative suburbs of western Sarpy. And while this partisan redistricting did help them hold onto the congressional seat in 2010, 2012, 2016 and 2018, there was a lapse in 2014 when Democrat Brad Ashford ousted Republican Terry Lee. A more ruthless Republican party could have gerrymandered the district to give themselves a 96% chance of victory, but that would likely have been struck down in court.

Democrats know it’s going to be a battle if they want to take the district from Republicans. A former director for the state Democratic Party explained the party dynamic in Nebraska to Politico: “Republicans have been very successful in defining Democrats culturally and socially in Nebraska.” “They’ve defined us as snowflakey, that we want to raise taxes and redistribute wealth.”

Demographics
Data: Daily Kos

Eighty two percent of Nebraska’s Second District’s residents are white, compared to 70% of the country. This translates to small black (9%) and Latino (5%) populations, two core demographic groups for the Democratic Party. The district is also well educated — 39% have bachelors compared with 31% of the country. And the district’s high density reflects that it is centered around Omaha City. White, suburban and well educated — NE-02 looks like the districts that has been trending blue and were crucial to Democrats flipping the House in 2018.

RECENT ELECTORAL HISTORY

Presidency

House

Data: Daily Kos

 

Obama carried the district in 2008 by 1.2%, but Romney flipped it in 2012 with a healthy 7.1% margin. The district swung back about 5% in 2012, with Trump only carrying it by 2.2%. Like many suburban, educated districts, NE-02 voters liked Romney in 2012 but swung away from the Trump’s rhetoric and disposition in 2016. And while this swing may not have been enough to tip the district to Democrats, it brought them within about 2%.

The trend is different, though, when looking at House results. While the races have been consistently tight, there is no obvious trend toward one party. In 2014, moderate Democrat Brad Ashford won the district by 3.3% with the district voting 9% more Democratic than the nation overall (measured by the House Popular Vote). Ashford lost the next year to Republican Don Bacon as the district voted in line with the country — favoring the Republican by about 1%. In 2018, Don Bacon won re-election by 2% over proud progressive Kara Eastman — with NE-02 voting 11% more Republican than the nation as a whole.  

What Happened in 2018
Heading into the 2018 midterms, incumbent Republican Don Bacon did not face a primary challenger. Meanwhile, in the Democratic Primary, Kara Eastman and Brad Ashford were running one of the most contentious primaries in the nation.

Eastman, the founder of a local nonprofit and political unknown before the election cycle, ran as (to employ the overused but useful term) an unapologetic progressive. Her platform echoed that of the Bernie Sanders campaign — Medicare for All, free public college for families making under $125,000, a $15 federal minimum wage. Her theory of how to flip the district: turn out the Democratic base and low propensity voters. People do not cross party lines, so don’t waste time and money reaching out to moderate Republicans.

Brad Ashford was the Democratic establishment’s man. He represented the district from 2015 to 2016, but lost the 2016 election against Donald (Don) Bacon. The Party thought that he could appeal to and swing moderate Republicans and independents. Back in his days in the Nebraska Legislature where he served from 1987 to 1995 and 2007 to 2015, he, in fact, was a Republican. He flipped to the Democratic Party in 2010 and then registered as an Independent in 2013. Unlike Eastman, he said Medicare for All was politically infeasible, instead supporting incremental steps like a public option to buy into Medicare. He did not want to fully repeal the Republican tax bill, wanted to slowly raise the minimum wage, reaching $15 by 2026 and highlighted his “ability to find solutions…consensus building instead of partisan politics.”  

The primary was a contest between two wings of the party: the moderate, bipartisan, reach across the aisle, incrementalist wing and the progressive, appeal to the base, big idea, practicality out the window wing.   

Perhaps unsurprisingly (but maddeningly for some), the Democratic Party’s committee to elect House members, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), weighed in on Ashford’s behalf. Eastman says that after weeks of the DCCC telling here they were unlikely to intervene, the committee put Ashford on its Red to Blue program. The program signals to donors who to give to and is a de-facto endorsement. Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg (then mayor of South Bend, Indiana) supported and fundraised for Ashford. He implied that Eastman was not electable, saying “If you’re a committed progressive, you want to support the most committed progressive who can win”. Meanwhile, the state party and Douglas County Democratic Parties remained officially neutral, scuffled about under the table support for Ashford and a contentious debate over party officials endorsing candidates. 

But while tension grew, it never spilled over into visible animosity between Ashford and Eastman. The primary race was focused more on policy and leadership style. Neither candidate drafted negative ads or hit the opposition too hard. The most contentious part of their debates centered on their different vision for healthcare.

As of the March 31, the last filing deadline before the May 15 primary, Ashford had outraised Eastman $535,000 to $320,000. Nobody really expected that Eastman had much of a shot — on election day, the betting website PredictIt had Ashford as a 90% favorite. But, in an election night that shocked media and election watchers across the nation, Eastman defeated Ashford by about 3%.

Progressives celebrated; strategic Democrats grumbled; Republicans cheered;. Election forecasting site, Sabato’s Crystal Ball wrote “the NRCC got what it wanted and the DCCC didn’t.” The Crystal Ball changed NE-02’s rating from “Toss Up” to “Leans Republican”, apparently agreeing with the committees that Eastman was a less formidable challenger than Ashford.

Eastman received a call from Senator Bernie Sanders the night of her primary victory, helping solidify the narrative that she’s in the Sander’s wing of the party. But the party establishment came around, as did Brad Ashford, giving her their endorsements and placing her on the “Red to Blue list.  

The general campaign was, to put it bluntly, less exciting than the Democratic primary. Eastman continued to broadcast her progressive message and Don Bacon ran as a typical Republican. He emphasized tax cuts and his fight against ‘government takeover of healthcare’, he opposed abortion unless the mother’s life is in danger and, according to FiveThirtyEight, had voted in line with Trump 98% of the time. He argued that Eastman was too extreme for Nebraska’s Second District, saying “These views would work well in San Francisco or New York City but not Omaha.”

Bacon received much more support from the Republican establishment than Eastman did from Democrats. The Congressional Leadership Fund (A Super PAC affiliated with previous Speaker of the House Paul Ryan) spent $1,397,000 on the race, mostly on ads attacking Eastman and the ‘liberal elite. A particularly…um…interesting ad attacked her for studying to be a sex therapist and her college band “Pieces of Fuck”: “While Eastman was dropping F-bombs, Don Bacon was serving in the air force.” Meanwhile, the House Majority PAC (Nancy Pelosi’s PAC) invested $0 and the DCCC contributed $90,000 to a media buy, a paltry sum compared to Republicans nearly $1.5 million. But there was still plenty of money to go around — Eastman pulled $2.6 million, out-raising Bacon by about $10,000. An impressive feat for a first-time candidate in a competitive race against an incumbent.

In the end, though, it was not enough. Going into the election, FiveThirtyEight gave Bacon a 4/7 and Eastman a 3/7 shot at winning the election. Bacon prevailed with a slim 2% margin, defeating Eastman 51% to 49%.

It’s impossible to know if a different, less polarizing candidate could have tipped the scale in Democrats favor. But that’s what election analyst Nathaniel Rakich argued the day after Eastman won the primary, writing that “Ashford would have probably bought Democrats a few extra percentage points” and that “There’s plenty of evidence that candidates closer to the ideological poles do worse than moderate ones.” But Eastman’s team would likely contest this, pointing out that some more gung-ho support from the Democratic establishment could have closed the 2% gap.

2018 Data

Data: NYTimes

Turnout was high for a midterm year, dropping only about 11% from the 2016 presidential race. Eastman was likely correct in her assessment that the Democratic base would turn out. The problem for her, though, is that the Republican base turned out too.

If Eastman’s theory that an unabashed progressive would improve Democratic turnout more than Republican’s, her numbers would have improved more in Douglas Country than in Sarpy County, given that the pool of Democrats is larger in the former. This didn’t happen. Bacon improved upon his 2016 margins in both the more Democratic Douglas County and the more Republican Sarpy County — closing the Democratic lead in Douglas from 3.8% to 3% and widening the Republican advantage in Sarpy from 25.1% to 26%.

Gubernatorial results in Douglas County also run against Eastman’s theory. The Democratic candidate, Bob Krist, campaigned as a moderate focused on bipartisan issues. He won Douglas with 108,235 votes to his opponent’s 96,120 — a margin of 6%. His vote total was about 3,000 greater than Eastman’s and his margin was about 3% wider. It looks like about 3,000 voters in Douglas County voted for Krist and not for Eastman. Perhaps a more moderate candidate like Brad Ashford could have won over these voters and closed the gap.  

 Finally, relative to the National House Popular Vote, 2018 was a particularly bad year for NE-02 Democrats. The district voted 10.6% more Republican than the nation. Compare this to 0.4% more Republican in 2016, 9% more Democratic in 2014 and 2.8% more Republican in 2012. 2018 featured a heavy swing toward the Republican relative to the national environment. It could have been Eastman’s style; it could have been national Democratic antipathy; it could have been baked in by partisanship. We’ll never know for sure, but the upcoming 2020 race will be illuminating.

2020 UPDATE
The 2020 primary will again feature Eastman and Ashford. This time, though, Eastman’s opponent is Ann Ashford, a local “attorney, human resources professional, and healthcare leader” and the wife of Brad Ashford. Like her husband, Ms. Ashford is a recent convert to the Democratic party, making the switch in 2016 because “they truly became the big tent party”. Though her website doesn’t have a policy platform, it looks like she will be running as a moderate, telling The Omaha World Herald, “I think that today’s environment has become so splintered because everybody says, ‘I’m going to fight,’ and I don’t understand that.” “If we continue to fight, we’re going to see the same non-results that we see today.”

If she does run as a consensus seeking moderate, the race may have a similar dynamic to that of 2018. Democratic primary voters will again have to decide which candidate best represents their values and which has a better chance of winning the general. And, if these are in conflict, which priority outweighs the other. In 2018 primary voters voted against the national party’s practicality, but Eastman’s 2018 loss may have changed the calculus for some voters.

Another possible boost for Ashford is the state Democratic Party’s decision to switch from a presidential caucus system to a primary. Presidential primaries draw out a more moderate constituency than caucuses, as only the most invested voters (who are often the most partisan) show up for an hours long caucus. And as these primary voters would also be voting on down ballot races, notably NE-02. This more moderate voting pool could tip Ashford over the edge in a close primary.

Incumbent Don Bacon has also filed for re-election and, as of now, does not face a primary challenge. That means that while Democrats are tussling and spending their money in the primary, Representative Bacon will be stockpiling his cash. If the Democratic primary is expensive and contentious, Bacon will enter the general election with a bruised opponent and a full bank account.

The first quarter fundraising numbers, which report fundraising through March 31, look best for Bacon. He raised $371,000 and has $296,000 Cash on Hand. Eastman raised only $40,000 and has $72,000 cash on hand. Ann Ashford raised $36,000 with $24,000 cash on hand. Fundraising is only one sign of support and its importance is generally overstated, but the Democratic numbers don’t show either candidate pulling away or point to much voter enthusiasm.  Below is a chart comparing NE-02 fundraising to the rest of the 2020 battleground districts.

Data: FEC

The national parties both have their eyes on NE-02. The DCCC named it among its top targets for 2019-2020” and the NRCC put it on its “Patriot Program”, indicating that both parties will likely be giving their candidate significant support come the general election.  The NRCC has already started going after Bacon’s possible opponents, attacking Eastman for supporting “AOC’s cow ban” and calling Ashford’s fundraising haul a “LOL-inducing 36k”.  

This trollish behavior indicates that the NRCC knows Representative Bacon is in danger. But they may be getting ahead of themselves. Before the general, there is a year’s worth of Democratic primary that will be another insightful peek into the Democratic Party — exposing the Party’s priorities, divisions and the message it will deliver to 2020 voters.  

LESSONS FOR THE 2020 HOUSE

The Party Still (Usually) Decides
Of the 41 Congressional primary candidates the DCCC endorsed in 2018, only 2 lost their primaries — a success rate of 95%. Compare this to two prominent progressive groups, Our Revolution and Justice Democrats, who had primary success rates of 37% and 31%, respectively. The DCCC’s candidates also had a much better track record in general elections, winning 46% compared to Our Revolution’s 14% and Justice Democrats’ 5% success rates. Notably, the two Congressional candidates — Kara Eastman from NE-02 and Dana Balter from NY-24 — who snuck by the DCCC in the primaries both lost their general election. The big caveat here is that the DCCC usually endorses the strongest candidate in the field while Our Revolution and Justice Democrats are more likely to endorse candidates who align with their policy objectives even if their path to victory looks more challenging.

Demographics Are Not Always Destiny
NE-02 is a wealthy, suburban, white community. It looks like the archetypal district that has been steadily trending blue in recent years. But recent elections show that NE-02 has bounced around, not showing a clear drift towards either party. Maybe that’s because Eastman was too liberal, maybe it’s because Bacon is especially popular, maybe Trump is popular in the district. No matter the reason, it’s safe to say that just because a district’s demographics look like it should be trending towards one party does not mean it always will.

Structural Changes Deserve Attention
Nebraska Democrats’ decision to change the Presidential nomination process from a caucus to a primary could determine close down ballot elections. Other upcoming structural changes like the upcoming census and corresponding redistricting will change how the 435 House seats are apportioned among the 50 states and how they are divided within those states. States with a growing population (California, Colorado, Florida, North Carolina and Texas)  will likely gain seats while states with a shrinking or stagnant population (Alabama, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia) may lose seats. These changes will alter both the composition of the House of Representatives and the distribution of Electoral College votes and deserve more attention.

 

CANDIDATE INTERVIEW: WILL FISHER

Will Fisher is a Democratic candidate for Texas’s 24th District. He ran for the Democratic nomination in Texas’s 26th District in 2018 but has decided to run in the 24th this cycle. Cook Political Report has rated the district a “Toss Up” for 2020. Between 2016 and 2018, the Democratic margin shrunk from -17% to -3%. Read the “2020 Battlegrounds” post to get an overview of the district, the 2018 election and the upcoming 2020 race. This interview was conducted on Wednesday, April 3, 2019.

The following interview has been condensed and edited to remove unnecessary words, phrases and questions for clarity. If you want the full, messy, extended version, you can find it in under Candidate Interviews –> Extended Interviews.


Seth: I wanted to start off just by hearing about your day to day life on the campaign trail.
Fisher:
The focus right now is fundraising which means I spend a lot of time on the phone. We’re not running a campaign based on corporate tax donations so it means making a lot of phone calls. I had a teacher in high school and he would ask us to clean up the room at the end of the period he would say, “if everybody does a little, nobody does a lot”. And that’s what I apply to campaigning. When you can get a lot of people together united working together, everybody pitches in, 20 or 100 dollars, what they can do, that to me is how you run a race. It’s also helpful that you’re not beholden to these big corporate PAC interests. And so that’s where I’m at right now. 

Seth: Have you seen that the your supporters and volunteers from the 26th district are planning to help you out in the 24th district? Or will you have to build a new base of support, specifically volunteers and people helping you knock on doors and give phone calls. 
Fisher: 
The signs so far are that those who supported me in the 26th race are supportive both in vocal support as well as in fundraising. It helps to be able to return to that base of support for this race and undoubtedly that’s an advantage or a benefit I have going into this race.

But I would say the more important carry over from the 26th race that I ran was the name recognition and the experience of running a race. The reason I ran in 2018 was we had just elected a racist and authoritarian, in my eyes, to the White House and it’s one of those moments where we realize the Democratic Party does not have a strong base and it takes people with my resume and experience — I have experience writing law. I have experience interpreting and applying it — to run for office and to try and establish a base of support and I did that in 2018. So that was the analysis at the time and the analysis now is “how do I take that support and that experience that I developed and now apply it for the most effect? How do you create the most good?” And to me, that’s using that experience to flip the 24th Congressional District. 

Seth: How long after the 2018 primary did you decide that you wanted to run for office again? Why did you decide that you wanted to run in the 24th district? 
Fisher: 
Timing…to be honest I don’t know. It wasn’t immediate by any means. I would say it was certainly after the general when I made the decision to run in the 24th. The 24th needs to flip. And to me that’s a non-negotiable point. We cannot go another cycle leaving Kenny Marchant in office. This is a guy who almost single handedly authored the gerrymandering redistricting plan for North Texas. He essentially created this district for himself when he was in the Texas Legislature. I looked, after the dust had settled from the general and said “where can I do the most good this coming election cycle? I felt like the most effective way for me to use my experience and support was to ensure or help ensure that the 24th congressional district flipped. Right now, that means I’m a candidate. If the voters decide that I’m not the candidate they want in the general, then after the primary I’ll turn my focus on: who is that candidate and how do I best support making ensure that they flip the district?

Seth: What about your candidacy will help you stand out from the field of Democrats who you likely agree with on a lot of the policy substance? 
Fisher: 
What it takes to win the district in the general is somebody who, without giving up their progressive principles, in fact holding onto those is incredibly important, can still message and talk to those voters. Beto O’Rourke did this very well. It’s one thing that I think made him a very strong candidate. He was able to be very non-exclusive in the way that he presented his policies. Speak to large big picture more morality type issues. Who are we as Americans? A very uniting message and I think that’s the type of candidate that it requires to flip this district. It will be up to the voters to decide how strategic they want to be in the primary. And then my job is to get behind the voice of the electorate. And whoever that candidate is that comes out of the primary, fight to make sure they are our representative for 2020.  

Seth: How do you feel like you’re going to be structuring your campaign and what’s your message going to be in the primary to the Democratic voters? 
Fisher: I try not to fall into the trap of overthinking what the voters are looking for. I think the key is to be genuine and focus on issues that affect you personally. So, number one for me is health care because it’s a personal issue to me. My daughters have some challenges that it’s critical when they become adults that they have access to the healthcare. I want to see expanded healthcare access for every single American. I think we do that through a universal system. There are a lot of different ways to get there but the goal being that every single American should have health care when and where they need.

Number two on that list for me is that we need to expand and make cannabis legal. My mother, she passed away several years ago from Parkinson’s and was willing to try any legal remedy or process or treatment that was recommended and available. It’s frustrating to me that we have an opioid crisis and at the same time we have people suffering that could benefit from cannabinoid-based medication. And we continue to make it illegal in this country. I intend to support that and fight for legalization at the federal level. While it may seem shocking that in Texas a candidate who proclaims to be more palatable for general election voters is loudly out there on Cannabis to me that actually that tells you where the general public is. I actually think the general public is in support of legalizing Cannabis.  

Seth: The House seems to be divided between moderates in red and purplish districts and the progressive from deeper blue districts that are a little bit louder and running to the left like AOC, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar. Do you see yourself aligning with one of those two camps
Fisher: 
That’s a really tough question. The problem is I don’t see myself aligning cleanly with any particular camp. Part of that could be points on messaging. I believe strongly in not ignoring one side of the aisle, you can do that without coming off of your values. So, I agree on policy issues…I agree on Medicare for All. Right now, I think the way we get there is through a public option. What we should be debating on right now is how we get there. Because so often I see us debating as Democrats on what should be the ultimate goal. The more important question right now is how we get there. I think the smartest way to get there is through a public option. One, you’re pretty quickly increasing the coverage rate. The amount of people that don’t have access to medical insurance is dropping, especially if you expand Medicaid, which I support. Number two, you’re forcing private insurers to start to compete with he public option, which, one of the biggest differences between those two camps is one is paying bonuses to their executives. One is paying dividends to shareholders, and the other is not. So those private insurers are going to have to figure out how to be more competitive. Well, maybe they reduce their bonuses to their executives. Too bad.

Seth: This does sound different than the messaging that would be coming from Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio Cortez because I don’t know that they would be willing to talk about taking votes for anything short of a full single payer system and be willing to have a conversation as openly as you are about this more incremental approach. So, do you feel like you being willing to have this conversation and talk about that more step by step approach sets you apart from those kinds of politicians and that coalition within the party?
Fisher: 
No and let me tell you why. I would vote tomorrow for a full single payer answer. If we had a chance of getting it through the Senate. I love the idea of getting out there and fighting for something big and impactful in terms of rallying Democrats. But when we’re not talking about the best policy approach to save more lives, then I start to think about the structures that we’re within and what do we do about dealing within the limitation of those structures. Now are we talking about getting rid of the 60-vote threshold in the Senate? If you want to look at what the presidential candidates are arguing for and the positions that they’re setting forth, the number one question I have for them is “how are you going to get that through the Senate?” That’s not arguing for an incremental approach that’s saying give me a plan for how we get these big ideas that I agree with on a policy level, how do we get them through the Senate. 

Seth: How do you feel about those more systematic changes like getting rid of the 60 vote threshold, eliminating the Electoral College, adding justices to the Supreme Court
Fisher: 
I liked some of the ideas that I’m hearing about from Pete Buttigieg. Expanding the size of the Supreme Court but not through court packing. I don’t think court packing is the way to do it. I like the idea of it becoming less of a nuclear event every time there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court. One that strikes me as really interesting is expanding the size by bringing in some temporary judges off the Appeals Court, but requiring a unanimous consent vote on the current justices. I’m open to the idea of getting rid of the 60-vote threshold in the Senate but I recognize the cost of doing that are that you are likely to have a swing of policy depending on who is in power, which also would not be good. Before I would be able to buy into that I would want to start to think through and hear particularly the leaders in the Senate, who are in control of this issue, think through how are we are going to deal with what might be the ramifications of swinging policy every four or eight years. 

We are so divided as a country and voter turnout is so low, if you asked me what is more likely to avoid those kinds of swings it’s to fully expand voter access in the country. Automatic voter registration, election day being a holiday, ensure that people who even have to work holidays have access to vote. Mail in ballots. 

I think if we strengthen the Voting Rights Act and make sure that we are really making an effort as a country to get everybody out to vote then I think you’re going to see less swings. Because people are more consistent on a one by one basis than the electorate is on a macro basis. 

Seth: If you’re in the general election would your strategy be to turn out the base of the Democratic party through progressive policies and policies that the Democratic party base supports, or try to be that candidate that can flip conservatives, continuing the trend of flipping white suburban voters to the Democratic party? And how do you see yourself being able to do that?
Fisher: You’ve got to be able to do both. As difficult as that sounds, I don’t think there is a one approach strategy that works. You have to be able to reassure your progressive voters that you’re there with them on progressive policies. Then you have to be able to message those policies to scared moderate voters who see the writing on the wall, see what’s going on in the White House, who see that Kenny Marchant is either a complete copycat of Donald Trump with the bigotry and authoritarianism, or he’s a coward. I realize that these issues are sometimes complex and that messaging complex issues to voters can be a challenge. But that’s the challenge of a successful candidate. Can you talk about progressive issues, making sure every single American has health care when and where they need it, in a way that resonates with you? 

Seth: You’re aiming to strike this balance between campaigning on these big ideas but also digging into the policy and telling voters the substance of the policies that you want to enact. 
Fisher: 
Getting turnout among progressives and the left is about focusing on bigger ideas and reassuring them that you’re going to be a fighter for those ideals. But when your campaigning in the white suburban district, or the white suburban areas of the district. Right now, this is my analysis. I’m not going to go out there and win the Tea Party vote. I’m not even going to aim for it. And the people on the margins who are looking at the White House saying, “I can’t support that but there’s a Democrat over here talking about Single Payer Health Care and that freaks me out.” So that’s where policy discussions and policy messaging become really important. Because there you’re reassuring them that “I am not fear. I am not bigotry. I am not hatred and I’m not an authoritarian. But I know you have your concerns about XY and Z. Let me help you understand why XY and Z are better for your family.”

Seth: I’ve heard you say that “Donald Trump is an authoritarian in the White House.” I’m curious to hear a little more about what you mean by that and exactly what kinds of things you’re thinking about when you use that term. 
Fisher:
Look who he cozies up to. he cozies up to Putin. And Kim Jung Un. He loves these dictators. You can tell he admires them. He wants to be them. Just today he’s talking about closing the southern border. And he says, “we may have to get rid of the judges”.I can’t tell you what is more authoritarian than talking about getting rid of judges. So, the assumption of executive power going over the heads of the legislature and particularly talking about reducing the power and influence of the judicial branch is textbook authoritarianism. 

Seth: Is that something that you think that Democrats in the House of Representatives should consider impeachment? 
Fisher: 
I want to see the Muller report. Certainly, he has said and done things that I think are impeachable offenses. From a legal point of view, The Constitution does not define “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. There’s common law guidance that we have here from English law about what that means. But at the end of the day, it’s essentially a political remedy to a political problem. If I were a Representative, I would want to see and read the Mueller Report. And I’d be fighting for that because we’ve gone through this two-year investigation to understand what has actually been done. And I don’t accept a four-page book report from Bill Barr. I want to see the actual hundreds page report or however long it is that goes into the details. Before I can say whether I would vote for impeachment or not, that’s a prerequisite. 

Seth: Are there any issues in the Democratic orthodoxy or the Democratic platform that you have second guesses about?
Fisher:
Up until very recently, the Democratic Party has been more willing to take Corporate PAC money. That’s been disturbing because what you end up with is Senators in Congresspeople on the one hand who say all these great things but then when it comes to a really hard vote that might upset one of their Corporate PAC donor, they get a little more skittish. I’m not going to throw stones at any presidential candidate right now, but there’s a few that come to mind on particular important votes regarding prescriptions and things like that that are worrisome. It also gets back to the 60-vote threshold issue. That I want to see somebody tackle in a meaningful way because we have a tendency to talk about big, big issues but then voters become really frustrated if you can’t do anything about it and so what I want to see is the Democratic Party take the lead on…I was happy with HR1 for example. I want to see [the bill] move forward because we don’t ever actually implement any of these big important issues unless we have the politically support to do it and while public opinion is one thing you’ve got to have those votes in the ballot box to make sure you can accomplish those things. I guess my critique would be, in the past we’ve been willing to take…not me because I don’t throw myself in that boat… but a lot of Democratic Representatives have been willing to take money from unsavory donors which colors their vision when it comes to taking tough votes and then also promising things without actually having a plan to be able to get them through the Senate. This is probably, if you ask me, the number one issue I’m looking for leadership from presidential candidates. Dealing with that 60-vote threshold issue. How do you get your policies in place given those restrictions?

Seth: It does seem like it’s somewhat of a binary thing. Where it’s either go for the bipartisan compromises where you win some Republican votes or eliminate the Filibuster or do some other more structural changes like D.C or Puerto Rico statehood and giving them representation in the Senate.
Fisher: 
It could be a little bit of both. D.C. Puerto Rico, Guam, these are people who I think deserve representation. So that’s its own issue that can be a help towards resolving this problem we’re talking about, but I think also dealing with is it the right policy to have such a high threshold. And maybe it’s something other than 50%. Maybe its 55. There are some other ways to get us closer to being able to pass these policies while still requiring something more than a majority.
Seth: It is a good example of norms and which ones are important to uphold and which ones are okay to break down.
Fisher: 
Norms are important. They’re critical to make sure that the system doesn’t get flipped in the night. I guess one critique of Democrats is that we often hold to these norms in a way that the other side doesn’t and it puts us at a huge disadvantage to actually help people because the other side throws norms out the window. We need to be able to balance valuing these norms while also recognizing that the other side has been corruptly gerrymandering and restructuring the system to benefit their donors for years. So, I don’t want us to fall into the trap of holding these norms and squeezing them tight like something precious to you while all it’s doing is ensuring the policies you believe in, that will help American families, never gets passed. And what good does that ever do? It questions whether you are even accomplishing what you set out to try and accomplish in the first place. Are you actually doing what you said you were going to do?

Seth: Where will you and will you not take money from in your 2020 campaign?Fisher: I won’t take money from Corporate PACs. If Planned Parenthood wants to donate to my race, I am ideologically aligned there so there is no issue from my perspective. These kinds of organizational PACs that are designed to help Democrats and progressive policies be enacted. I don’t have any issues. None at all. 

Seth: What kind of things you and your team have been thinking about that you’ll have to differently, given that you’re changing form the 26th to the 24th.
Fisher: 
My campaign ethos has always been to put yourself out there in as many locations as often as possible. And that’s not going to change, but with one recognition. And that recognition is that turnout will be astronomically higher given that it’s a presidential year. Donald Trump is on the ballot. Turnout is going to be very high. So, reaching voters in mass is going to be much more important than perhaps it was in my prior race. In an election cycle like this one, big media has to be involved.  

Seth: Have you been seeing the other primary candidates in the district campaigning? What kind of interactions have you had with the other candidates?
Fisher: 
All the other candidates that I know I have great relationship with and I deeply respect them. Nothing ill to say at all. So far there’s not been a lot of community campaigning by any of the candidates that I’ve seen so far. It’s just too early. 

Seth: Are you going to support the Democratic nominee?
Fisher: 
Yes and I trust the voters to not make a decision there that is somebody that you couldn’t put your support behind. 

Seth: Am I right that you endorsed or supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary?
Fisher: I voted for Bernie in the primary. That’s right.
Seth: Do you have a candidate in the presidential race that represents your values or that you’ll vote for?
Fisher:
 It’s too early. I’m just spending a lot of time listening. I’ll tell you those that are sticking out for me. Beto — I admire the way Beto is able to talk about progressive policies in a way that doesn’t in my opinion scare off independent moderates. I admire that. I think it’s important that we don’t exclude people from any side of the political spectrum. That they have the ability to come and hear you and take something away that may be a nugget that develops in them the ability to maybe see the hope and the possibilities in progressive policies. I really have enjoyed listening to Mayor Pete Buttigieg. He sort of fills that professor role in terms of the candidates that are currently in the race and I like that. I love policy. I consider myself a bit of a wonk and so I like to hear him speak I like to hear candidates get into the details because details matter. For a lot of voters, that may not be the case. So that’s something that I’m following very closely. Kamala, Cory, Elizabeth Warren. I love the big ideas that Elizabeth Warren has. Look, what excites me about Bernie is his fight for Single Payer. That’s what inspired me in the 2016 primary. I love the passion that he brings to that debate and the effects that he has had on the Democratic electorate of moving it more progressive, particularly on the issue of health care legislation.  

Seth: I think he’s the one candidate that hasn’t spoken about being willing to vote for an incrementalist approach so it is interesting to hear the things that you value about his candidacy. 
Fisher: 
I’m a negotiator by trade. And when you negotiate you often don’t start out in the middle. You start out asking for more than you’d be willing to accept in the end. And I think Democrats made a mistake with the ACA negotiations where the Public Option was the big thing that they were then willing to give up in order to get it passed. If there had been a public option you wouldn’t see the crumbling of so many of the healthcare markets. Bernie’s approach is, “hey let’s go out there and fight for the big thing.” Tt the end of the day, if he were negotiating legislation, maybe he’ll take something less than that. And I admire that fully. I will tell you that while that may be effective on a national stage, I’m thinking about my district. It’s going to take to get them on board with moving in that direction. Because these are not Brooklyn voters. You have to recognize there’s a difference. And I think a public option is what we need right now in order to move in the direction of things there. 

Seth: Is there anything that we haven’t covered that you’re interested in talking about?
Fisher: Two of the other issues I want voters to know I’m passionate about: One is criminal justice reform. The particular focus that I want to have is on white collar corruption, which is incredibly costly and damaging to our system and we see it right now with the Trump administration. There’s a lot of opportunity we have to make our system more equitable in part my ensuring that those who commit white collar crimes are prosecuted and receive appropriate penalties in line with the crimes they commit. It’s important to me that we have people accused of Marijuana possession that end up with more jail time than somebody who commits bank fraud, for example. Something that significantly hurts our system, increases the costs of products for everyone. And that’s something that we have to tackle because at the end of the day I think that there’s racial inequity involved there and our entire criminal justice system needs overhaul in order to address some of those racial inequities. And the other one is firearms legislation. We need to ensure that the universal background check bill that recently passed that that gets through. So we need to keep fighting for that in the House until we have a Senate that can pass it. And a part of that that’s really personal for me. Personal experience with folks who ended their lives where a mandatory waiting period may have given us a chance to intervene. So I’m going to fight for three day waiting periods nationally. 

When it comes to this particular issue, a strong majority of Americans support Universal Background Checks. Now Mandatory Waiting Periods is not a policy that’s gotten as much, I certainly don’t hear it as much in the political milieu, punditry type discussions. So that one will be, let’s see how voters react to it. To me it’s a personal issue. And it’s something I feel passionate about. My sense is that it’s not offensive to gun owners. The misconception on this issue many times is that Democrats don’t own gun. That people who support Universal Background Checks don’t own guns. I think that’s just not true. That’s NRA messaging, “the Democrats are there to take away your guns”, which is just not true. I find that popular opinion on those issues are, kind of across the board, positively received. 

Seth: Do you have any requests of me? 
Fisher: 
I’m very cognizant of the divisions right now in the Democratic Party. I’m hesitant personally to be classified in any of these camps. I agree with Representatives like AOC who are fighting against incrementalism. My concern is short term. I want to make sure we’re not promising things that we can’t follow through on because right now were in this moment of brief excitement. I don’t want that followed by a moment of great disappointment. And I foresee that being a risk. And I realize that by saying that, that may have someone classify me as a moderate, which I don’t think I am. I don’t use that label myself. I think I’m a practical progressive: someone who aspires to practical policies that works within the limitations we have and says “how do we get as close as possible to that?” So, take that for what it is. My goal in life is not to be labeled as “Well, Will is the moderate in the race”. I just don’t think that would be accurate either. 

Seth: I know you’re busy as a candidate and as a lawyer so I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me over the phone. 
Fisher: No worries. Thanks Seth. 

CANDIDATE INTERVIEW: WILL FISHER (EXTENDED)

Will Fisher is a Democratic candidate for Texas’s 24th District. He ran for the Democratic nomination in Texas’s 26th District in 2018 but has decided to run in the 24th this cycle. Cook Political Report has rated the district a “Toss Up” for 2020. Between 2016 and 2018, the Democratic margin shrunk from -17% to -3%. Read the “2020 Battlegrounds” post to get an overview of the district, the 2018 election and the upcoming 2020 race. This interview was conducted on Wednesday, April 3, 2019.

The following interview has been very lightly edited. No substantial content was removed or added. The only edits were taking out unnecessary words or phrases like “I mean”, “Well”, “So” and “Um” for clarity. If you want a condensed version, you can find it in under Candidate Interviews -> Condensed within one day of this extended interview being posted. 


Seth: Hi Will, this is Seth
Fisher: Hey, how are you?
Seth: Hi I’m good thank you so much for waiting for one minute there was a huge storm. There was a big storm and I ran through the rain to get home.

Fisher:
So, you’re living and working in Sudan right now? Is that what you said? Or Rwanda?
Seth: Rwanda. I’m in Rwanda. So, I’m about an hour outside of Kigali
Fisher: Wow. and what are you doing over there?
Seth: There an organization called Agahozo Shalom Youth Village and it’s kind of a combination between a school and a community for kids in high school to come live. They accept and recruit the most vulnerable students from throughout the county and they bring them to the school and give them “family” with a ‘big brother’ and a ‘mama’ and I’m a ‘cousin’. So it’s a way for these kids to come and heal. And I’m here for the year.
Fisher: That sounds really admirable and interesting. How long have you been there?
Seth: I came here in 2016 while I was in university and then I’ve been here since the end of December with my current job.
Fisher: How interesting. Good for you. 

Seth: And I think I listened to a podcast that you were on and I think I heard that you spend a few years traveling around in Brazil as a missionary.
Fisher: Yeah. That’s right. Man, that was years ago. It feels like another life. That was back in…in fact I was there when 9/11 happened. Which was interesting being overseas. Traumatizing in a different way, but perhaps not the same as being…my wife is from New Jersey and she was in high school at the time in New Jersey. And we had very different experiences both equally traumatic…just terrible. That was such a long time ago. 

Seth: It is different being in a place where you’re so disconnected from your community that’s grieving it’s so challenging in a different way than being in the thick of it. It’s just a different type of challenge. But I listened and you said that you ate a lot of beans and rice and I felt like we had a connection there because its beans and rice everyday here. 
Fisher: I’ll take it man. I love beans and rice. 

Seth: I wanted to start off just by hearing about what your day to day life is like on the campaign trail. It’s still really early in the cycle obviously so I’m just curious about…from the perspective of campaigning…what are you doing day to day or week to week?
Fisher: So, I’m also an attorney. I run my own practice based in Irving and so my day to day involves campaigning and running my practice. It is early, so the focus right now is fundraising which means I spend a lot of time on the phone. We’re not running a campaign based on corporate tax donations…so it means making a lot of phone calls. Asking for a hundred bucks. And to be completely frank…asking “can you do a 20-dollar reoccurring donation?” And having run before I know just from this area and having fundraised in a prior congressional race that those individual donations add up and if you get enough people to come together and be united under one idea, one campaign, one race, everybody puts in a little bit. That really can become meaningful. I was asked in an interview a couple weeks ago, I don’t remember the exact question but it was something like, “what’s a saying that resonates with you?” Or “what’s some advice that resonates with you?” I had a teacher in high school and he was kind of annoying…and would ask us to clean up the room at the end of the period he would say, every time to the point where students were annoyed, he would say “if everybody does a little, nobody does a lot”. And that’s what I apply to campaigning. When you can get a lot of people together united working together, everybody pitches in, 20 or 100 dollars, what they can do, that to me is how you run a race. It’s also helpful that you’re not beholden to these big corporate PAC interests. And so that’s where I’m at right now. That’s where my head is at working on fundraising and at the same time tending to my practice. Making sure that, an important part of being able to run a race like this is to continue providing for my family.

Seth: I have two questions on that. One is more about the fundraising and one is more about volunteers. I’m going to do them individually. I know that last campaign you had a lot of volunteers and people working for you, walking the block on a volunteer basis and I’m curious if you’ve seen that a lot of the people who supported you in the 26th district are planning on volunteering and helping you out in the 24th district or if you feel like you’re going to have to build a new base of support, specifically volunteers and people helping you knock on doors and give phone calls. 
Fisher: Good question. I don’t know if we know yet. The 24th and 26th Congressional districts, I live basically on the border of both. The 24th is not a very large district geographically so the size, I don’t see that being a challenge. The signs so far is that those who supported me in the 26th race are supportive both in vocal support as well as in fundraising. It helps to be able to return to that base of support for this race and undoubtedly that’s an advantage or a benefit I have going into this race. But I would say the more important carry over from the 26th race that I ran was the name recognition and the experience of running a race. Those two things can’t be understated. The reason I ran, I may be going on a tangent here. The reason I ran in 2018 was we had just elected a racist and authoritarian, in my eyes, to the White House and its one of those moments where we realize the Democratic Party does not have a strong base and it takes people with my resume and experience — I have experience writing law, I have experience interpreting and applying it — to run for office and to try and establish a base of support and I did that in 2018. So that was the analysis at the time and the analysis now is “how do I take that support and that experience that I developed and now apply it for the most effect? How do you create the most good?” That should be the question anyone is asking themselves as they make big decisions like this. “How do I create the most good?” And to me, that’s using that experience to flip the 24th Congressional District. So, I think that experience and the name recognition that comes along with it are the two most important carryovers from that primary. 

Seth: How long after the 2018 primary did you decide that you wanted to run for office again and how and why and when did you decide that you wanted to run in the 24th district? I’m sure this is a question you’re going to be getting a lot. But I’m interested to hear from you and curious about your response. But it is a question I’m sure you’ve been thinking a lot about and one that you’re going to be asked over the next year. 
Fisher: Timing…to be honest I don’t know. There wasn’t like a day and it wasn’t immediate by any means. I would say…it was certainly after the general when I made the decision to run in the 24th. The 24th needs to flip. And to me that’s a non-negotiable point. We cannot go another cycle leaving Kenny Marchant in office. This is a guy who almost single handedly authored the gerrymandering redistricting plan for North Texas. He essentially created this district for himself when he was in the Texas Legislature. I don’t know if I’m telling you something you already know, but I won’t go on in more detail there unless you’re curious. But he was in the Texas legislature after the 2010 census. When the redistricting happened, he created a district essentially for himself, ran in it, and now it’s supported his being in office. It is as tight of a district as you see pretty much in Texas. I’m not sure that there’s a more competitive district this cycle that’s currently held by a GOP representative. It’s one that has to flip. I sat back and I looked, after the dust had settled from the general and said “where can I do the most good this coming election cycle? Is it being a cheerleader for someone else? Is it helping someone fundraise?” And I felt like the most effective way for me to use my experience and support was to ensure or help ensure that the 24th congressional district flipped. Right now, that means I’m a candidate. If the voters decide that I’m not the candidate they want in the general, then after the primary I’ll turn my focus on who is that candidate and how do I best support making ensure that they flip the district?

Seth: What are you planning to highlight or do in the primary…because it’s going to be a packed primary, I’m sure especially now that it was so close, unexpectedly close in 2018. What are you expecting to do, what do you think it is about your candidacy that will help you stand out from the field of what I’m sure is going to be a lot of impressive other Democrats who you likely agree on a lot of the policy substance? 
Fisher: Yeah, I’m sure that’s the case. That’s a big question, I guess. I’ll focus on a couple of things. One, the parts of the district…Beto O’Rourke was the Senate candidate from Texas…he won enough votes that he won that district actually. He earned enough votes in that district that if he had been the congressional candidate he would have won. So, the votes are there. The areas where the congressional candidate last cycle didn’t win are the western sides of the districts. This is the area of the cities of Colleyville, Southlake, Grapevine. My law practice is in Irving. And even people that I’ve worked with, my clients, are from Colleyville, Southlake, Grapevine. It’s a little bit more of a wealthy area, probably more conservative. What it takes, I think to win the district in the general is somebody who, without giving up their progressive principles, in fact holding onto those is incredibly important, can still message and talk to those voters. And Beto O’Rourke did this very well. It’s one thing that I think made him a very strong candidate. He was able to be very non-exclusive in the way that he presented his policies. Speak to large…big picture…more morality type issues. Who are we as Americans? A very uniting message and I think that’s the type of candidate that it requires to flip this district. It will be up to the voters to decide how strategic they want to be in the primary. In the current era we’re in, voters are looking for certain things in a candidate, and we want to make sure that our elected representatives are, in fact, representative of America. We will see what voters decide to do in the primary. Whether they are strategic in terms of thinking who gives us the best chance of flipping the district, or whether they take a different approach. And that will be up to the voters to decide. And then my job is to get behind the voice of the electorate. And whoever that candidate is that comes out of the primary, fight to make sure they are our representative for 2020.  

Seth: And do you see yourself as running the kind of a campaign that is aiming towards being more electable in the general and aiming for primary voters who are thinking practically like that or do you have an ideology that you’re following? How do you feel like you’re going to be structuring your campaign and what’s your message going to be in the primary to the Democratic voters? 
Fisher: My approach there is, I try not to fall into the trap of overthinking what the voters are looking for. I think the key is to be genuine and focus on issues that affect you personally. So, number one for me is health care and that’s not just because a lot of the public opinion is that we need to reform our healthcare system. Number one is because it’s a personal issue to me. So, my daughters have some challenges that it’s critical when they become adults that they have access to the healthcare they need, particularly prescriptions to make sure they can live happy and successful lives. And I don’t want to be in a situation where they are now adults and we are still dealing with the fact that if you get sick you can go bankrupt. Or because you don’t have employer provided insurance you can’t afford your prescription. Because that would be devastating for the lives of my daughters, who I care about more than anything. So, number one on that list is healthcare. It just so turns out that that is also the issue that impacts most voters and that most voters care about. So, I want to see expanded healthcare access for every single American. I think we do that through a universal system. There are a lot of different ways to get there but the goal being that every single American should have health care when and where they need. Number two on that list for me is that we need to expand and make cannabis legal. My mother, she passed away several years ago from Parkinson’s and was willing to try any legal remedy or process or treatment that was recommended and available. It’s frustrating to me that we have an opioid crisis and at the same time we have people suffering that could benefit from cannabinoid-based medication. And we continue to make it illegal in this country. I like the direction the public policy is going on this issue and I intend to support that and fight for legalization at the federal level. So that’s a personal issue for me as well. I think it will resonate to voters. While it may seem shocking that in Texas a candidate who proclaims to be more palatable for general election voters is loudly out there on Cannabis to me that actually that tells you where the general public is. I actually think the general public is in support of legalizing Cannabis. 

Seth: I think you’re right there. I think the tides have shifted on medical marijuana and recreational marijuana to a lesser degree. But I think the tides are shifting there. I have a question about your position on Medicare for all and the Green New Deal and the more progressive and far left issues that are coming up in the House of Representatives and in politics in general. Specifically, the House seems to be divided between moderates in red and purplish districts like Abigail Spanberger in Virginia 7, Max Rose in New York 11, Ben McAdams in Utah 4th. And the progressive from deeper blue districts that are a little bit louder and running to the left like AOC, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar. And I’m curious if you see yourself aligning with one of those two camps either in the way that you communicate with voters or in your policies and if you have one of those two coalitions in the Democratic Party that you see yourself aligning more closely with. 
Fisher: That’s a really tough question. The problem is I don’t see myself aligning cleanly with any particular camp. Part of that could be points on messaging. I believe strongly in not ignoring one side of the aisle, you can do that without coming off of your values. So, I agree on policy issues…I agree on Medicare for All. Right now, I think the way we get there is through a public option. Some of this may be…I take it that you’re interested in the details so let’s get into the details… my idea is that Medicare for All is the goal. That’s the end goal. What we should be debating on right now is how we get there. Because so often I see us debating as Democrats on what should be the ultimate goal. The more important question right now is…I think we all agree that eventually a system that ensures every single American is good…that should be what we’re fighting for. The question is how we get there. I think the smartest way to get there is through a public option. One, you’re pretty quickly increasing the coverage rate. The amount of people that don’t have access to medical insurance is dropping, especially if you expand Medicaid, which I support. Number two, you’re forcing private insurers to start to compete with he public option, which, one of the biggest differences between those two camps is one is paying bonuses to their executives. One is paying dividends to shareholders, and the other is not. So those private insurers are going to have to figure out how to be more competitive. Well, maybe they reduce their bonuses to their executives. Too bad. I think that’s a situation where there is some real opportunity to reduce the cost of care in this country, which is just ridiculous. I don’t need to share the data with you, but the cost of care is skyrocketing. It’s unreasonable and keeps people completely from having access to healthcare. So, I want to see that level of competition initially and I also think it’s something that we can adopt in the short term. 

Seth: Even hearing you speak about the more incremental approach and hearing you speak about being willing to vote for public option does sound different than the messaging that would be coming from Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio Cortez because I don’t know that they would be willing to talk about taking votes for anything short of a full single payer system and be willing to have a conversation as openly as you are about this more incremental approach. So, do you feel like you being willing to have this conversation and talk about that more step by step approach sets you apart from those kinds of politicians and that coalition within the party?
Fisher: No and let me tell you why. I would vote tomorrow for a full single payer answer. If we had a chance of getting it through the Senate. I love the idea of getting out there and fighting for something big and impactful in terms of rallying Democrats. But when we’re not talking about the best policy approach to save more lives, then I start to think about the structures that we’re within and what do we do about dealing within the limitation of those structures. Now are we talking about getting rid of the 60-vote threshold in the Senate? Because that to me…I mean we can pause all of this. If you want to look at what the presidential candidates are arguing for and the positions that they’re setting forth, the number one question I have for them is “how are you going to get that through the Senate?” That’s not arguing for an incremental approach that’s saying give me a plan for how we get these big ideas that I agree with on a policy level, how do we get them through the Senate. 

Seth: And how do you feel about that discussion…those more systematic changes that the Democratic Party and some of the Presidential candidates and some of the Representatives and Senators have been speaking about like getting rid of the 60 vote threshold, eliminating the Electoral College, adding justices to the Supreme Court, which is something that Pete Buttigieg has spoken a little about. I’m curious how you feel about those more systematic changes to the way that our government functions. 
Fisher: To the extent that the goal is to make legislation more representative of what Americans want, I’m in support. I’m not in support of the corrupt reorganization of our system to keep minority ideas and minority parties in power. Which is what Republicans have done now for decades. 
Seth: And I know this is a complicated issue and you might not have thought this exact thing through, but I’m curious if you think that any of those systematic changes are more in line with that ideal and if there are others that you wouldn’t put in that bucket. And if you can speak about which ones you might be more in support of or if that’s something you haven’t fully thought through and need some more time to think about. 
Fisher: I’ll give you my sense. I liked some of the ideas that I’m hearing about from Pete Buttigieg. Expanding the size of the Supreme Court but not through court packing. I don’t think court packing is the way to do it. I like the idea of it becoming less of a nuclear event every time there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court. I don’t know if you’ve delved into some of those proposals. One that strikes me as really interesting is expanding the size by bringing in some temporary judges off the Appeals Court, but requiring a unanimous consent vote on the current justices. That to me is really interesting because we need an era of consensus of who is coming on the Supreme Court and I think that could be really helpful to make sure next time there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court it’s not a big nuclear event. What were the others?
Seth: The Electoral College – turning it into a popular vote. And the Filibuster, the 60-vote threshold. 
Fisher: None of those are simple issues. None of those are issues that don’t have consequences. I’m open to the idea of getting rid of the 60-vote threshold in the Senate but I recognize the cost of doing that are that you are likely to have a swing of policy depending on who is in power, which also would not be good. Before I would be able to buy into that I would want to start to think through and hear particularly the leaders in the Senate, who are in control of this issue, think through how are we are going to deal with what might be the ramifications of swinging policy every four or eight years. 

Seth: Something interesting that I’ve heard people talk about regarding the 60-vote threshold and the extreme nature of policy swings and pent up frustration is that, in the short term, eliminating the 60 vote threshold might make swings more common and more radical policies happen. But in the long term, because people aren’t getting frustrated that none of their legislation can ever pass and none of their big goals and policies can ever pass and in the long term that can radicalize voters because they see nothing has happened because we can’t get to the 60 vote threshold. Nothing happens for longer periods of time, so people become more radicalized in the long term, while in the short term, the policy swings might be less severe. So that’s an interesting perspective on it that I’ve heard about. 
Fisher: That is interesting. I would like to see if there are any examples of that in other developed democracies where a change like that has happened. We are so divided as a country and voter turnout is so low, if you asked me what is more likely to avoid those kinds of swings it’s to fully expand voter access in the country. Automatic voter registration, election day being a holiday, ensure that people who even have to work holidays have access to vote. Mail in ballots. Those are the types of things where then I think you reduce the risk of swing because one of the reasons we already flip flop is because voter turnout. Texas is the second lowest state in terms of voter turnout in 2016. Being such a huge state, numbers of voters. Texas itself could swing back and forth just depends on who’s showing up to vote in a particular election. So that’s something that I think if we strengthen the Voting Rights Act and make sure that we are really making an effort as a country to get everybody out to vote then I think you’re going to see less swings. Because people are more consistent on a one by one basis than the electorate is on a macro basis. 

Seth: You talk about voter turnout. And I know that there was a strong Beto effect last year and he, like you said, carried the district by about 3% and Jan McDowell lost the district by 2-3%. And I’m curious if you think that is going to be a problem for the eventual democratic candidate if there isn’t such an exciting figure at the top of the Texas ticket. If you think that could cause some problems for the downstream Democratic candidates, specifically for your district in the 24th. 
Fisher: And you’re talking about during the general?
Seth: Yeah, I’m talking about during the general. 
Fisher: It’s a presidential year, Donald Trump is likely to be on the ballot. I don’t foresee turnout being low. I foresee it being a record turnout election. Whether all those voters vote down the ballot is another issue. My sense is that, I don’t think we have the data. My sense is that for a lot of voters who showed up in the last election to vote for Beto, vote that one race. I hope that’s not the case in 2020. It’s possible though. Being a presidential year, I don’t see turnout being lower than it was in 2018 by any means. 

Seth: If you’re in the general election, you’re the general election candidate, do you see yourself as your strategy being turn out the base of the Democratic party through progressive policies and policies that the Democratic party base supports, or trying to be that candidate that can flip conservative, continue the trend of flipping white suburban voters to the Democratic party? And how do you see yourself being able to do that?
Fisher: You’ve got to be able to do both. As difficult as that sounds, I don’t think there is a one approach strategy that works. You have to be able to reassure your progressive voters that you’re there with them on progressive policies. Then you have to be able to message those policies to scared moderate voters who see the writing on the wall, see what’s going on in the White House, who see that Kenny Marchant is either a complete copycat of Donald Trump with the bigotry and authoritarianism, or he’s a coward. You’ve got to be able to message that your progressive policies are better for their families. And it helps everybody in America when we have a strong base, a strong safety net for everyone because, let’s talk about health care for example. One of the greatest causes of increases in property taxes in Dallas County for example is the cost of Parkland Hospital, which is the public hospital. Why is that? Well because people are showing up uninsured. I realize that these issues are sometimes complex and that messaging complex issues to voters can be a challenge. But that’s the challenge of a successful candidate. Can you talk about progressive issues, making sure every single American has health care when and where they need it, in a way that resonates with you? And if I’m in Southlake, if I’m in Colleyville, I’m talking about how making sure everybody has insurance ensures that nobody is showing up to the hospital uninsured. Because who then pays for that? It’s you and me. It’s everybody else who shows up that does have the resources to pay their bills. It’s just that their bills are now twice the cost because we’re offsetting the expense for everybody else. I put out a video last cycle using jellybeans to show how the concepts under a single payer reduce the cost of care for everyone. Have you had a chance to watch that?  
Seth: Yeah, I watched it. 
Fisher: And those concepts resonated with those types of voters. 

Seth: It’s interesting, this balance you’re striking. Because for me, I felt like the lesson the Democratic Party took, well there’s many coalitions in the Democratic Party, but one lesson that a lot of people took from the 2016 Presidential race was to campaign in bigger ideas rather than focusing on the policies. Because a lot of people thought that Donald Trump won because of this vision or idea that he had for America and Hillary Clinton maybe got bogged down in the policy sometimes. So, it’s interesting to hear that you’re aiming to strike this balance between campaigning on these big ideas but also digging into the policy and telling voters the substance of the policies that you want to enact. 
Fisher: Well it’s both though right. Getting turnout among progressives and the left is about focusing on bigger ideas and reassuring them that you’re going to be a fighter for those ideals. But when your campaigning in the white suburban district, or the white suburban areas of the district. Right now, this is my analysis. I’m not going to go out there and win the Tea Party vote. I’m not even going to aim for it. And the people on the margins who are looking at the White House saying, “I can’t support that but there’s a Democrat over here talking about Single Payer Health Care and that freaks me out.” So that’s where policy discussions and policy messaging become really important. Because there you’re reassuring them that “I am not fear. I am not bigotry. I am not hatred and I’m not an authoritarian. But I know you have your concerns about XY and Z. Let me help you understand why XY and Z are better for your family.” 

Seth: I’ve heard you say authoritarianism, that “Donald Trump is an authoritarian in the White House.” I’m curious to hear a little more about what you mean by that and exactly what kinds of things you’re thinking about when you use that term. Because it’s a pretty strong and severe term to use for the President of the United States. 
Fisher: I mean look who he cozies up to. I mean he cozies up to Putin. And Kim Jung Un. He loves these dictators. You can tell he admires them. He wants to be them. Just today. Just today. You know one of the first things I do when I get up in the morning, I look at the headlines. What’s the news for the day? He’s talking about closing the southern border. And he says, “we may have to get rid of the judges”. I heard that this morning from him. In his own voice. “We may have to get rid of the judges.” I can’t tell you what is more authoritarian than talking about getting rid of judges. So, the assumption of executive power going over the heads of the legislature and particularly talking about reducing the power and influence of the judicial branch is textbook authoritarianism. 

Seth: Is that something that you think that Democrats in the House of Representatives should consider…impeachment seems like it’s kind of off the table…but do you think that the things that he’s said and, like you said, the authoritarian actions that he’s taken, are reason to consider impeachment? Or is that something that should be left up to the voters in 2020 to decide?
Fisher: Is your question should we be looking at impeachment or letting voters decide in the election? Is that the question?
Seth: Yeah
Fisher: What I’ve said all along to this question is I want to see the Muller report. Certainly, he has said and done things that I think are impeachable offenses. From a legal point of view, The Constitution does not define “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. There’s common law guidance that we have here from English law about what that means. But at the end of the day, it’s essentially a political remedy to a political problem. So, it becomes a question of whether Congress feels that something has been done that’s so egregious that warrants removal. For me, if I were a Representative, I would want to see and read the Mueller Report. And I’d be fighting for that because we’ve gone through this two-year investigation to understand what has actually been done. And I don’t accept a four-page book report from Bill Barr. I want to see the actual hundreds page report or however long it is that goes into the details. Before I can say whether I would vote for impeachment or not, that’s a prerequisite. 

Seth: Okay well I’m interested to 1) see if it comes out and we can read it and 2) I’ll be…if it comes out…I’ll be following what you say and listening to the things that happen in House races across the country. I have another specific question. I have a quote from you from “The Dentonite”. You said that “The Democratic Party has warts. I could sit on the outside of it and throw rocks and hope it changes but I don’t think that’s very effective.” Can you think of anything off the top of your head, or things you’ve been thinking about, that you would like to change about the Democratic Party or issues that you don’t necessarily fall in line with the Democratic orthodoxy on?
Fisher: I’m trying to remember the context of that question. 
Seth: You don’t have to refer to that quote. It was just to give context. I guess the crux of the question is: Are there any issues in the Democratic orthodoxy or the Democratic platform that you have second guesses about, or that you don’t necessarily fall in line on, or that you think the Party should reconsider? 
Fisher: Certainly in the past, up until very recently, the Democratic Party has been more willing to take Corporate PAC money. That’s been disturbing because what you end up with is Senators in Congresspeople on the one hand who say all these great things but then when it comes to a really hard vote that might upset one of their Corporate PAC donor, they get a little more skittish. I’m not going to throw stones at any presidential candidate right now, but there’s a few that come to mind on particular important votes regarding prescriptions and things like that that are worrisome. And that’s a problem. It also gets back to the 60-vote threshold issue. That I want to see somebody tackle in a meaningful way because we have a tendency to talk about big, big issues that are critical. The Green New Deal. We have to deal with climate change and talking about it only does so much. It’s important to talk about it because that’s how you raise awareness…that’s how you get political buy in from the various groups and the electorate that you need. But then voters become really frustrated if you can’t do anything about it and so what I want to see is the Democratic Party take the lead on…I was happy with HR1 for example. I think that was a critical, critical bill that I want to see move forward because we don’t ever actually implement any of these big important issues unless we have the politically support to do it and while public opinion is one thing you’ve got to have those votes in the ballot box to make sure you can accomplish those things. I guess my critique would be, in the past we’ve been willing to take…not me because I don’t throw myself in that boat… but a lot of Democratic Representatives have been willing to take money from unsavory donors which colors their vision when it comes to taking tough votes and then also promising things without actually having a plan to be able to get them through the Senate. This is probably, if you ask me, the number one issue I’m looking for leadership from presidential candidates. Dealing with that 60-vote threshold issue. How do you get your policies in place given those restrictions?

Seth: Because it does seem like it’s somewhat of a binary thing. Where it’s either go for the bipartisan compromises where you win some Republican votes or eliminate the Filibuster or do some other more structural changes like D.C or Puerto Rico statehood and giving them representation in the Senate. So, it seems like it’s one of two possible responses. 
Fisher: It could be a little bit of both. D.C. Puerto Rico, Guam, these are people who I think deserve representation. So that’s its own issue that can be a help towards resolving this problem we’re talking about, but I think also dealing with is it the right policy to have such a high threshold. And maybe it’s something other than 50%. Maybe its 55. There are some other ways to get us closer to being able to pass these policies while still requiring something more than a majority. I’m running for the House of Representatives, I’m happy to share my thoughts on this, but to be frank, it’s not an issue that the House of Representatives needs to deal with. It’s something that the Senate and the presidential candidates need to be really wrestling with and providing leadership on. 

Seth: It is just interesting… it is a good example of norms and which ones are important to uphold and which ones are okay to break down. Because it does feel like that Filibuster has been slowly chipped away at. And just knocking it down to 55 would be another chip in the wall that would eventually lead to it being at 50 sometime in the future. It kind of feels like it’s a slippery slope where it’s going to end there anyways.  
Fisher: Well but let me make a comment about that. Norms are important. They’re critical to make sure that the system doesn’t get flipped in the night. I guess one critique of Democrats is that we often hold to these norms in a way that the other side doesn’t and it puts us at a huge disadvantage to actually help people because, why are we doing this? We’re doing this to help people. We’re doing this to make sure that that family has health care. That if you disabled child that Medicaid is something you’re able to access and use to benefit your child’s life. Those are the things we’re fighting for. But the other side throws norms out the window in order to make sure that the Federalist Society candidate gets on the Supreme Court. We need to be able to balance valuing these norms while also recognizing that the other side has been corruptly gerrymandering and restructuring the system to benefit their donors for years. So, I don’t want us to fall into the trap of holding these norms and squeezing them tight like something precious to you while all it’s doing is ensuring the policies you believe in, that will help American families, never gets passed. And what good does that ever do?
Seth: If only one side is playing the game fair, or you think that one side is playing the game fair, it is not an incentive to keep playing it that way. 
Fisher: It’s not only that, it questions whether you are even accomplishing what you set out to try and accomplish in the first place. Are you actually doing what you said you were going to do?

Seth: You spoke a little bit about campaign finance and how that’s an issue that’s important to you. What pledges or decisions have you made about where you will accept money from and where you won’t accept money from for your campaign. Will you accept money from Corporate PACs? Will you accept money from a Super PAC? Where will you and will you not take money from in your 2020 campaign?
Fisher: I won’t take money from Corporate PACs. If Planned Parenthood wants to donate to my race, I am ideologically aligned there so there is no issue from my perspective. If Sierra Club wants to donate to my race, great. Fantastic. So, these kinds of organizational PACs that are designed to help Democrats and progressive policies be enacted, I’m fully supportive there. I don’t have any issues. None at all. 

Seth: A big question I’ve been thinking about from candidates that decided to run in a different district or for a different seat is how they see their campaigns changing from the previous cycle. I’m curious about what kind of things you and your team have been thinking about that you’ll have to differently, given that you’re changing form the 26th to the 24th. Whether it’s something tangible on the ground where you’ll be spending less money on gas or you’ll be spending more money on people knocking on doors rather than phone calls because it’s a more condensed district to policies you’re going to be highlighting because it’s something these voters might feel more passionately about. And I’m curious where you are on that: what kind of things you’re going to be changing or need to change from last cycle to this cycle given that you’re changing districts.
Fisher: My campaign ethos has always been to put yourself out there in as many locations as often as possible. And that’s not going to change, but with one recognition. And that recognition is that turnout will be astronomically higher given that it’s a presidential year. Donald Trump is on the ballot. Turnout is going to be very high. So, reaching voters in mass is going to be much more important than perhaps it was in my prior race where those door to door coffee shop meet-ups, organizational type meetings, showing up to a community event, those things are going to still be important, but in an election cycle like this one, big media has to be involved. Things like mailers, effective mailers I should say, have to be involved. So, it’s a very different race from that perspective.  

Seth: Have you been seeing the other primary candidates, whether the declared ones or the ones that are on the fringes and might not have officially jumped in. Have you been seeing them in the district campaigning? And what kind of interactions have you had with the other candidates? I saw that Kim Olson launched her website I think two days ago on Monday. And I talked with Jan McDowell. And I’m curious what kind of interactions or where you’ve been seeing other candidates around. 
Fisher: All the other candidates that I know I have great relationship with and I deeply respect them. Nothing ill to say at all. I think I’ve had good interactions. I know almost all of them just from having all of us…well there’s one candidate in the race that I don’t know. Or two. But the others I’ve interacted with at many other events and have and very positive interactions. It’s too early. I haven’t seen people out in the community campaigning. There was an event that an Indivisible group held that it wasn’t all the candidates, it was those who were in town and available spoke at. And a good turnout at a Texas 24 Indivisible group that held a town hall for their missing representative. Kenny Marchant. I don’t know if you know, he hasn’t held a town hall in over seven years. Very, very frustrating. So far there’s not been a lot of community campaigning by any of the candidates that I’ve seen so far. It’s just too early. 

Seth: I saw a debate that you had last year and you pledged to support the Democratic nominee. Do you feel the same way this year, that whoever the Democratic nominee, at least form the candidates who have declared or that you’ve been around, are you going to support the Democratic nominee? Whether it’s…obviously you…or somebody else in the field. 
Fisher: Yes and I trust the voters to not make a decision there that is somebody that you couldn’t put your support behind. So, I have no concerns there that whoever comes out of the primary is going to have my full support. 

Seth: This is a little bit different, but am I right that you endorsed or supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary?
Fisher: I voted for Bernie in the primary. That’s right. 
Seth: It’s obviously a very different election with so many candidates, but do you have a candidate in the presidential race that you are following or tracking that you feel like represents your values or that you’ll vote for?
Fisher: It’s too early. I’m just spending a lot of time listening. Trying to follow as much as I can of their leadership. I’ll tell you those that are sticking out for me. Beto — I admire the way Beto is able to talk about progressive policies in a way that doesn’t in my opinion scare off independent moderates. Now, I’m not an independent moderate so that’s just my perception, but I admire that. I think it’s important that we don’t exclude people from any side of the political spectrum. That they have the ability to come and hear you and take something away that may be a nugget that develops in them the ability to maybe see the hope and the possibilities in progressive policies. I really have enjoyed listening to Mayor Pete Buttigieg. He sort of fills that professor role in terms of the candidates that are currently in the race and I like that. I love policy. I consider myself a bit of a wonk and so I like to hear him speak I like to hear candidates get into the details because details matter. For a lot of voters, that may not be the case. So that’s something that I’m following very closely. Kamala, Cory, Elizabeth Warren. I love the big ideas that Elizabeth Warren has. Look, what excites me about Bernie is his fight for Single Payer. That’s what inspired me in the 2016 primary. It’s so critical to me that my daughters have healthcare as they turn into adults that we have to resolve the problems in our health care system soon. Right away, as soon as we can. So, I love the passion that he brings to that debate and the effects that he has had on the Democratic electorate of moving it more progressive, particularly on the issue of health care legislation.  

Seth: It’s interesting because I think he’s the one candidate that hasn’t spoken about being willing to moderate, not his positions, but being willing to vote for an incrementalist approach so it is interesting to hear the things that you value about his candidacy and what he’s doing on the national stage. 
Fisher: Let me give you my theory of the case. I’m a negotiator by trade. And when you negotiate you often don’t start out in the middle. You start out asking for more than you’d be willing to accept in the end. And I think Democrats made a mistake with the ACA negotiations where the Public Option was the big thing that they were then willing to give up in order to get it passed. Well, that was a mistake. I think we can safely say, looking back, if there had been a public option you wouldn’t see the crumbling of so many of the healthcare markets. And now the Republicans have done so much to undermine it, it’s hard to say for sure. What I see smart in Bernie’s approach is, “hey let’s go out there and fight for the big thing.” In that, at the end of the day, if he were negotiating legislation, maybe he’ll take something less than that. And I admire that fully. I will tell you that while that may be effective on a national stage, I’m thinking about my district and I think about what the voters in Grapevine, Colleyville, Southlake, what it’s going to take to get them on board with moving in that direction. Because these are not Brooklyn voters. You have to recognize there’s a difference. And I think a public option is what we need right now in order to move in the direction of things there. 

Seth: Something that’s been interesting to me is I remember all the talk about how important and fundamental the Individual Mandate was to “three-legged stool” and keeping the bill in place. And now that the Individual Mandate has been eliminated, the bill hasn’t really come crumbling down and people are still getting heath care through he exchanges and ACA. I don’t have a question about it, but it’s just something that has been interesting to me considering how much attention that got. 
Fisher: It hasn’t crumbled, you’re right. But there’s so much potential there that’s being unmet. While the Individual Mandate is important, I think Medicaid expansion is equally important and that’s where I’ve been really disappointed in leadership. State level leadership here in Texas and other states, where they refuse and continue to refuse to expand Medicaid. They’re throwing money away. They’re losing an opportunity to reduce the cost of those who are buying into the exchanges significantly. Which just hurts families. It’s a brazen policy that ends up just hurting people. Which is very, very frustrating from my perspective. To me, the Medicaid expansion, in addition to the Individual Mandate, but in my mind particularly the expansion, is how you get the most expensive users out of the exchanges and unless you’re doing that, you leave them sitting in those exchanges increasing the cost for that risk pool. And that’s very, very damaging to the ACA. 

Seth: Is there anything that you feel like we haven’t gotten the opportunity to talk about or anything that you want to let me know that you think would help benefit the interview and the piece? Anything that is on your mind. Or do you think we’ve covered everything that you’re interested in talking about?
Fisher: One thing we haven’t talked about is, two of the other issues I want voters to know I’m passionate about: One is criminal justice reform. The particular focus that I want to have is on white collar corruption, which is incredibly costly and damaging to our system and we see it right now with the Trump administration. There’s a lot of opportunity we have to make our system more equitable in part my ensuring that those who commit white collar crimes are prosecuted and receive appropriate penalties in line with the crimes they commit. It’s important to me that we have people accused of Marijuana possession that end up with more jail time than somebody who commits bank fraud, for example. Something that significantly hurts our system, increases the costs of products for everyone. And that’s something that we have to tackle because at the end of the day I think that there’s racial inequity involved there and our entire criminal justice system needs overhaul in order to address some of those racial inequities. And the other one is firearms legislation. We need to ensure that the universal background check bill that recently passed that that gets through. So we need to keep fighting for that in the House until we have a Senate that can pass it. And a part of that that’s really personal for me is fighting for mandatory waiting periods. I’m not going to get into too much of the details, this is particularly important to me. Personal experience with folks who ended their lives where a mandatory waiting period may have given us a chance to intervene. So I’m going to fight for three day waiting periods nationally. I don’t think that’s too much. I think that’s something that we, of course without the NRA involved, which can be challenge because they have such a stranglehold on messaging on this issue. At the end of the day, like I told you at the beginning of the interview, my approach to campaigning is campaign on issues that are important and personal to you and that that’s what’s important more than anything. So those are the issues I’m going to focus on. 

Seth: There’s kind of a contrasting image in my head because on the one hand the district is very suburban and it’s the kind of district where gun legislation has been very popular and on the other hand Texas is a state that’s seen by much of the country as very pro Second Amendment and in favor of gun rights. I’m curious about what the people you’ve spoken to have been saying about that and how that contrast between Texas and the suburban district have come into play when you’ve been meeting voters and hearing what they believe. 
Fisher: I’ve looked at polling on those issues, more out of curiosity. I don’t really campaign on polling, but I’m curious what voters feel about this issue. It’s important. A strong majority of Americans support both policies. I haven’t seen polling from my particular district, but it’s quite representative. The Dallas area is a lot of transplants from outside of Texas. Then again transplants can end up from all over the political spectrum. They’re not just all from California. But I find that North Texans are pretty representative of a lot of parts of the country. And when it comes to this particular issue, a strong majority of Americans support Universal Background Checks. Now Mandatory Waiting Periods is not a policy that’s gotten as much, I certainly don’t hear it as much in the political milieu, punditry type discussions. So that one will be, let’s see how voters react to it. To me it’s a personal issue. And it’s something I feel passionate about. My sense is that it’s not offensive to gun owners. The misconception on this issue many times is that Democrats don’t own gun. That people who support Universal Background Checks don’t own guns. I think that’s just not true. That’s NRA messaging, “the Democrats are there to take away your guns”, which is just not true. I find that popular opinion on those issues are, kind of across the board, positively received. 

Seth:
I’m obviously sorry that you had that experience with gun violence. And it is interesting when you look at the numbers that a lot of the gun legislation that Democrats have been supportive of, the vast majority of lives that would be saved, were people that would have re-thought the decision to end their life and the gun just makes it quicker and easier decision. So, it is interesting, and in line that you support the mandatory waiting period and that that’s one of the priorities for you in gun legislation. Do you have any requests of me? When I post this, I can send you an email, I can tag you on Twitter. Anything more housekeeping-esque that you have requests of me?

Fisher: Give me a heads up when you’re going to post it. That would be helpful. I’ll tell you that I’m very cognizant of the divisions right now in the Democratic Party. I’m hesitant personally, I’m not going to tell you how to write the article. But I’m hesitant personally to be classified in any of these camps. I agree with Representatives like AOC who are fighting against incrementalism. My concern is short term. I want to make sure we’re not promising things that we can’t follow through on because right now were in this moment of brief excitement. I don’t want that followed by a moment of great disappointment. And I foresee that being a risk. And I realize that by saying that, that may have someone classify me as a moderate, which I don’t think I am. I don’t use that label myself. I think I’m a practical progressive: someone who aspires to practical policies that works within the limitations we have and says “how do we get as close as possible to that?” So, take that for what it is. My goal in life is not to be labeled as “Well, Will is the moderate in the race”. I just don’t think that would be accurate either. 

Seth: People contain multitudes and candidates do too and I think it’s going to be especially frustrating for a lot of candidates this year, especially with the presidential primaries going on where news pundits and outlets are very excited to label “Amy Klobuchar is a moderate, Joe Biden is a moderate, Bernie Sanders is a progressive.” So, I think it’s probably going to trickle down into a lot of downballot races and I’m expecting something that’s going to be frustrating for people running in the Democratic primary similar to the Sanders-Clinton divide, people are going to be eager to categorize candidates in kind of a binary way like that. With maybe a few more distinctions, but a similar way to candidates as they did in that election. 
Fisher: So, my goal there is that people writing an article about me would give a thoughtful to the way they discuss that issue. That’s a big ask, I know for some. 

Seth: I know you’re busy as a candidate and as a lawyer so I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me over the phone. 
Fisher: No worries. Thanks Seth.  

CANDIDATE INTERVIEW: JAN MCDOWELL

Jan McDowell is a Democratic candidate for Texas’s 24th District. She was the Party’s nominee in 2016 and 2018 and in those two years the Democratic margin shrunk from -17% to -3%. Cook Political Report has rated the district a “Toss Up” for 2020. Read the “2020 Battlegrounds” post to get an overview of the district, the 2018 election and the upcoming 2020 race. This interview was conducted on Wednesday, March 27, 2019.

The following interview has been condensed and lightly edited to remove unnecessary words or phrases for clarity. If you want the full, messy, extended version, you can find it in under Candidate Interviews –> Extended Interviews.

Seth: Tell me about the state of the campaign and what your day to day looks like.
McDowell: I have contracted with a professional fundraising consultant so I’m trying to get a jump start on that. All of the towns in the area are having these municipal elections coming up in early May so you know you don’t want to step on those races. One thing I was told early on when I started this journey was show up show up show up. And I’ve tried to do that all along the way in all the towns across the district.

Seth: Have these candidates been asking you to come as a supporter or are you going more to present yourself and your candidacy.
McDowell: No I’m not going as a candidate myself so much. I’ve offered, coming up in the next few weeks, to do a little bit of block walking for several of them. I don’t want to step in for one Democrat which would pit me against another Democrat. When there’s one Democrat, I’m definitely all in for them.

Seth: There are going to be a lot more candidates in the primary this year because of how close it was in 2018 and Cook Political Report rating it a toss-up. Can you tell me what you’re expecting to do to differentiate yourself from these other candidates?
McDowell: I’m aware of, including myself, seven people, most of whom have not declared but maybe they’ve told me or appeared at public forums and said that they’re running. My biggest difference is I am determined to represent the people of District 24 in the United States Congress. It’s the area that I’ve lived in for forty years. I am not picking a district on a map that the Cook Political Report says ‘oh this is a winnable district so I’ll jump in here and try to run in a district I don’t even live in’ and I have been working at this since late 2015. The District 24 seat in Congress is where my passion lies. Mainly trying to solve the income inequality gap. That includes health care and so many other things, that’s what I’m focused on.

Seth: Can you talk a little more about what policies you’re expecting to put on the forefront of your campaign?
McDowell: It’s mainly about shrinking the gap between the haves and the have nots in our country. That gap is so huge and is getting bigger all the time and it’s not healthy. It’s not sustainable. It’s just flat not right. It is better for everybody on all parts of that spectrum if we were all working together rather than trying to pull ourselves apart and trying to benefit the people at the top so much. I see healthcare as huge issue that is part of the economic inequality that we have now because if you don’t have reliable, affordable healthcare, you can’t be economically vibrant.

Seth: I’m curious if you’re rethinking your approach to any of the progressive policies that have become more popular in the party. You said Medicare For All is ‘probably the answer’ and I’m curious if you’re considering  jumping on board more fully with some of these policies.
McDowell: I generally don’t think it’s as productive to have a fully formed policy and say ‘this is what I’m for’ and dig my heels in and say ‘therefore I’m against any other ideas’. I want every person to have healthcare available to them at a price they can afford. From what I’ve seen Medicare For All is probably the best way to get there. If somebody has an idea and they call it something different and it  does something slightly different but the bottom line is everyone gets healthcare, then I’m not opposed to that. I’m not so much married to one name or label or particular policy. It’s the bottom line result that matters to me.

Seth: Are you worried about some candidates coming in and running further to your left in the primary? Are you worried about candidates coming in and saying ‘I’m for Medicare For All I’m for Abolish Ice’, which may excite the base more than a moderate, bipartisan approach?
McDowell: I’m not that much of a politician. I look at problems and solutions and things that will work and I like to talk to people and have discussions and get their input and come up with ideas that work. Once you start saying ‘this is more to the left or more to the right’, I don’t think most people think in those terms. And I’m probably pretty far left. But the vast majority of people in my neighborhood don’t think [in] those phrases.

Seth: In 2018 Beto O’Rourke carried your district by around 3%. How much do you give him credit for lifting your numbers?
McDowell: I don’t really know how to quantify that. I think it’s obvious that the Beto effect helped all the Democrats up and down the ballot in 2018. With almost 80 million dollars, you can do a lot. So clearly, I benefited from that. To be able to put a quantitative analysis on how much was him and how much was the candidate, I don’t know how to do that. I know we worked hard. I know I had a phenomenal team of people helping me. Small paid staff and lots of volunteers were everywhere from block walking and writing postcards to being professional marketing and IT and all sorts of other professionals input on my campaign that they volunteered.

Seth: Do you expect the 2020 race, with the presidential election happening at the top of the ticket, will bring out a different coalition of voters?
McDowell: Possibly. I know Texas has been historically pinned as a solid red state. Obviously not so much anymore. But for years and years that’s been the case. I know a lot of people who are Democrats who said ‘well I voted in the Republican primary because I wanted to have a choice because that’s who’s going to win.’ And I see the potential for that to happen in reverse next March when there’s such an array of outstanding Democrats running for president, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see quite a number of Republicans deciding it’s pretty darn likely that whoever wins the Democratic nomination for president will be our next president so I’m going to go vote in their primary and have a say on that race. So that could impact the makeup of the primary race in my race as well.

Seth: Do you think that will affect the way you run your campaign or which policies you highlight?
McDowell: I believe what I believe and if voters agree with that, I hope they’ll vote for me. I’m not going to start changing what I say to try to play to that game. My team and I haven’t really talked about real specifics yet. Were focused on the money part at this point.

Seth: This year, the DCCC put your district on their Red to Blue list. The Democratic nominee will likely get some more funding from the national party. How do you see that changing the dynamic of the race? How would you be able to campaign differently?
McDowell: I think that would be huge. This time some of that spotlight and money are going to shift to the left for District 24, so I have a tremendous talking point speaking to potential donors that we shrank the gap in this district that started out as an absolute longshot. Who would think to run with a 17-point gap in 2016 and got it down to 3 points in 2018? I kept saying ‘this is a suburban district, well-educated it’s the very picture of the kinds of districts that are flipping.’ And still, all the attention was going to District 32. I think this time donors will be much more willing to believe that their money and their effort and their passions can be productive in actually resulting in another seat in Congress.

Seth: You talk about the district being the archetypal district that is swinging left and that Democrats are flipping. Is there anything that Representative Marchant has done or votes that he’s taken that you expect you will use in the campaign?
McDowell: I mentioned before that the big thing is for a candidate to show up, show up, show up. That’s exactly what Marchant absolutely never does. Very few people have ever seen him. I’ve started referring to him as a professional ghost. He doesn’t show up in the district; he is not accessible to constituents. Every time there is a vote, I can post and say ‘this is what Marchant voted. I would have voted the opposite of it in every case’. The House has passed HR1 which is all about campaign financing, gerrymandering and voter suppression and all of the things that try and make our democracy work and I would’ve been an enthusiastic jumping up and down yes vote and he called it ‘subverting our democracy’ or something real sinister. The House needs to be the check and balance of the co-equal branch of government and he’s always way too willing to be told by the party which way he is supposed to vote.

Seth: I’ve seen that Kim Olson(the Democratic nominee for Texas Agriculture Commissioner in 2018) may be getting in the primary. She was a little bit closer with her margin, 48.1 to 49.4 in Texas 24. Do you think that gives her a leg up in the primary saying that maybe she is a more electable candidate?
McDowell: I don’t think so. I’m not saying anything negative about her. I think she’s a phenomenal woman. She lives 80 miles to the west of the western edge of the district. When I say she lives in Mineral Wells, a lot of people around here don’t even know where Mineral Wells is. The law says you only have to live in the same state as the district you represent. That’s what’s in the Constitution. But I think that’s a real surprise to people. When they realize that is what the Constitution says, they think it shouldn’t be that way. I can just imagine if the Democrats have a candidate in the general election against Kenny Marchant. I can see the ads of him growing up here, being here forever and she’s just way outsider and I don’t think that would be a positive thing for Democratic chances at the general election.

Seth: Would you go out and support the Democrat regardless of who they were?
McDowell: Absolutely.

Seth: Have you seen from the numbers from the last election that there is any type of general election voter that either you believe is most likely to flip to being a Democrat or that you think didn’t quite turn out in 2018 that you might be able to encourage to turn out in 2020?
McDowell: Both of the above. There are still hundreds of thousands of people who are registered and don’t vote. Not to mention people who are not even registered. More money will make it possible to reach more people to both register and then to turn out the vote. I kept hearing going into the 2018 race that Texas isn’t a red state, it’s a non-voting state and that’s definitely true.

Seth: And are there any presidential candidates or other candidates higher on the ticket who you could see boosting Democratic turnout or flipping the most voters? Do you think that O’Rourke could be beneficial to you in your district because he was so popular in the state?
McDowell: Well that Beto effect would certainly come into play if he were on the general election presidential race. Really, out of all the Democrats who have thrown their hats into that ring they almost all just so impressive and so dynamic and so not Donald Trump that I think that the presidential race is going to energize voters to turnout to vote in the 2020 general election. I can’t imagine it not being a wildly engaged electorate ready to go vote.

Seth: Do you think that if there is a candidate at the top of the ticket that is running further to the left that there could be a problem with you not being quite as progressive?
McDowell: I don’t think thats me. If people are for Medicare For All, and I’m sitting in Congress and there’s a vote on that, I’m a yes. I’m an enthusiastic yes.
Seth: Okay so that’s pretty straight down the line. You’re a yes vote.
McDowell: The only thing I’ve said that’s different than that is if there was a vote on another policy that had a different name and also gives everybody health insurance, I’d be an enthusiastic yes for that too. I don’t think that makes me less of a Medicare for All person.

Seth: The current makeup of the House seems to be divided into more red and purple districts, I’m thinking specifically of Virginia 7 and New York 11, and progressive more deeper blue districts like Ilhan Omar’s, Rashida Tlaib’s and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s. Do you imagine yourself aligning more closely with the more progressive or more bipartisan moderate members of the House?
McDowell: That’s tough. I tend to be more progressive. I would probably align with more progressive people than more conservative people. When I listen to AOC’s positions on things, I find very little that I disagree with. I’ve read posts that she’s done and thought ‘that’s exactly what I would have said’ if I was quite as eloquent as she is. I don’t always agree with her method or her approach. Sometimes things are so urgent that it’s not going to be acceptable to sit back and be patient and polite. And you have to just go in there like a bull in a china shop. But it’s not always that way. Sometimes you do sit back and watch and learn a little bit when you’re the new kid and take notes before you say ‘I can do so much better’. I don’t think people react tremendously well to being approached that way.

Seth: The issue of the day is the Democratic Party’s position towards Israel and Ilhan Omar’s comments about Lindsay Graham and other House and Senate members. Do you have a position towards Israel or Representative Omar that you would be willing to share?
McDowell: I am all for Jewish people. I am also all for Muslim people. I don’t think that people and their governments are the same thing. I think that we are desperately hoping that’s the case now when our government is doing things like separating families at the border and taking children away from their parents. When the Israeli government or Palestinian government groups do things, I think it’s possible to say ‘we don’t agree with that we don’t like that’, but give the people in those nations the benefit of the doubt just like we hope they are giving us. People of every religion or faith or no religion or faith are equally deserving of respect and have their personal dignity and I think that needs to be reflected separate from our positions on what their governments do.

Seth: Are there any issues or one issue that you feel you’re not in line with the Democratic orthodoxy?
McDowell: I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that I would be at odds with the Democratic mainstream line of thought on.

Seth: Is anything else that we haven’t gotten the opportunity to talk about that you would like to?
McDowell:
 Gun safety rules. I’m so impressed with New Zealand and their ability to say ‘gee we have a problem, here lets fix it’. Something that our government has not been able to manage to do. I just so believe that there’s just so much logic and commons sense to having some oversight on the ownership and registration of firearms that I think is just incredibly important and we need to be able to do that. The other thing is our environment. That is an existential threat to our nation and to our planet and I think we disregard that at our peril. The reports from scientists are alarming. And no I don’t think that that means that nobody can have hamburgers anymore. That’s kind of akin to when Obamacare came out and Republicans wanted to talk about death panels and come up with something that you can throw out there and have people catch onto rather than talking about the real issue and real solutions. I think that there are enough smart people in our country who, given the opportunity and the funding and support and encouragement to come up with new and better and innovative ideas of how we can do things without destroying our planet in the process. I think it would be great for our economy to send those people and those ideas loose and as a bonus still have a planet to live on for our kids and our grandkids.

Seth: The Senate just took a vote on the Green New Deal resolution and a lot of Democrats either voted Present or voted against it. What do you think of the tactic of introducing resolutions that Democratic Senators or Representatives will vote against?
McDowell: I don’t know that I’m the best person to know what’s the best politics involved. I think the concepts in the Green New Deal are things that we need. My understanding of the Green New Deal is that at this point it’s kind of a wish list and I don’t really know how you vote on a wish list. It’s not a bill. In concept I think it’s incredibly of paramount importance to start acting on those initiatives to get us there and I’ll leave it to Nancy Pelosi and other leaders in the House to figure out how we do this and how we frame it. I’m not an expert on how the politics of it works.

Seth: The idea of the Green New Deal was to bring together the environmentalism with health care and income inequality. Do you support the framework of tying all those policies together or do you think they should be tackled individually and one on one?
McDowell: I think that the issues are all tied together and I think that good solutions for each one will all benefit the others. I think that they’re all of a piece. Each one of those is so enormous that I can’t imagine being able to come up with a bill that had all three rolled together in one. But I think each one should draw from the others and be mindful of the impact that they’re having on the others.


Thank you to Ms. McDowell for taking the time to speak with me. I have heard from TX-24 Democratic Candidates Kim Olson and Will Fisher and will (hopefully) be interviewing them next week. Republican Incumbent Kenny Marchant has not responded to any of my requests. Stay tuned! 

CANDIDATE INTERVIEW: JAN MCDOWELL (EXTENDED)

Jan McDowell is a Democratic candidate for Texas’s 24th District. She was the Party’s nominee in 2016 and 2018 and in those two years the Democratic margin shrunk from -17% to -3%. Cook Political Report has rated the district a “Toss Up” for 2020. Read the “2020 Battlegrounds” post to get an overview of the district, the 2018 election and the upcoming 2020 race. This interview was conducted on Wednesday, March 27, 2019.

The following interview has been very lightly edited. No substantial content was removed or added. The only edits were taking out unnecessary words or phrases like “I mean”, “Well”, “So” and “Um” for clarity. If you want a condensed version, you can find it in under Candidate Interviews -> Condensed within one day of this extended interview being posted. 

McDowell: Hello
Seth: Hi this is Seth Moskowitz is this Ms. McDowell?
McDowell: Yes, it is. Hi Seth. Good morning.
Seth: Hi Good morning. Thank you so much for taking the time to talk with me.
McDowell: Absolutely.
Seth: How are you doing today?
McDowell: I’m doing fine. It’s a pretty day in Dallas. How is it in Rwanda?
Seth: Its pretty good. The weather here gets very stormy then very sunny very quickly. So earlier it was stormy and now it’s looking beautiful.
McDowell: I vote for beautiful.
Seth: Yeah me too. Do you have any plans today?
McDowell: Campaign kinda stuff calling people for donations that’s what candidates do right? I’m going this evening for a forum for City Council candidates. in Farmers Branch which is one of the towns in the congressional district.
Seth: Well that sounds like a busy day of campaigning. I’ve worked on one before and I know that from the outside you don’t see all the phone calls that happen and it just takes up a lot of time during your day.
McDowell: That’s absolutely true.

Seth: So, I was hoping that you could just tell me a little bit about the state of the campaign and what your day to day looks like because it’s so early in the campaign.
McDowell: Right well it looks kinda like what I described today to be. I have contracted with a professional fundraising consultant so I’m trying to get a jump start on that. It is early. And all of the towns in the area are having these municipal elections coming up in early May so you don’t want to step on those races that are so important for all the people in the city races and school board races that they have so close to home and trying to help out little bits where I can and not get in the way of their short term campaigns and just try to, one thing I was told early on when I started this journey was show up show up show up. And I’ve tried to do that all along the way in all the towns across the district.

Seth: Have these candidates been asking you to come speak at their events or come attend as a supporter or are you going more to present yourself and your candidacy.
McDowell: No I’m not going as a candidate myself so much. I’ve offered, coming up in the next few weeks, to do a little bit of block walking for several of them. It’ll just kind of wait to see where there’s more than one Democrat in the race it’s like everybody else I don’t want to step in for one Democrat which would pit me against another Democrat. That’s not helpful but some of the city races of course they don’t say Democrat or Republican on the ballot but clearly the people are sort of Republicans or Democrats and when there’s one Democrat I’m definitely all in for them.

Seth: For your campaign specifically I know I’ve seen some of your Facebook posts and I’m sure there’s going to be a lot more candidates in the primary this year because of how close it was and Cook Political Report rating it a toss-up. And I saw actually just yesterday that there’s a third candidate that has officially declared for the Democratic primary Crystal Lee Fletcher. I believe she’s a lawyer in the area. And I was hoping that you could tell me a little bit about what you’re expecting to do to differentiate yourself from these other candidates considering that there’s going to be so many more in this primary maybe than you faced two years ago or four years ago.
McDowell: The first part is that’s a new name to me. I’m aware of including myself of seven people, most of whom have not declared but maybe they’ve told me or appeared at public forums and said that they’re running so I was aware of seven. Crystal Fletcher is a new one for me so I guess were up to eight now. My biggest difference is I am determined to represent the people of District 24 in the United States Congress. It’s the area that I’ve lived in for forty years now I am not picking a district on a map that the Cook Political Report says ‘oh this is a winnable district so I’ll jump in here and try to run in a district I don’t even live in’ and I have been working at this since late 2015. Running in the 2016 and 2018 elections so it’s not like I’m again trying to find something that would allow Jan McDowell to win something. The District 24 seat in Congress is where my passion lies, where the things that I think are so important for people, so mainly trying to solve income inequality gap that includes health care and so many other things that’s what I’m focused on. So I haven’t been focused on this race and then that race and something else. This is where I think I can make a difference and help the people of this area.

Seth: Can you talk a little bit more about the policies you think you’re going to be highlighting this campaign you just said maybe you’re going to focus on health care and income inequality. Can you talk a little more about what you’re expecting to put on the forefront of your campaign?
McDowell: Right. It’s mainly about shrinking the gap between the haves and the have nots in our country. That gap is so huge and is getting bigger all the time and it’s not healthy it’s not sustainable it’s just flat not right. It is better for everybody on all parts of that spectrum if we were more all in the same boat working together rather than trying to pull ourselves apart and trying to benefit the people at the top so much. You talk about all the job creators and profit creators who are doing work and are actually creating money and those people should be benefitting as well and too often they don’t. I see healthcare as huge issue that is part of the economic inequality that we have now because if you don’t have reliable affordable healthcare you can’t be economically vibrant.

Seth: And I’m sure you’re watching the presidential elections and seeing all the new, well maybe not new, but reemerging policies, from the Democratic party. And I’m curious if you’re rethinking your approach to any of the policies that have become more popular in the party. I know that you said Medicare For All is ‘probably the answer’ and I’m just curious if you’re considering maybe jumping on board more fully with some of these policies or if you’re planning on having the same platform and running on the same issues in the same way that you did last year and a few years ago.
McDowell: I generally don’t want to or I don’t think it’s as productive to have a fully formed policy and say this is what I’m for and dig my heels in and say therefore I’m against any other ideas. I want every person to have healthcare available to them at a price they can afford so from what I’ve seen Medicare For All is probably the best way to get there. If somebody has an idea and they call it something different and it tweaks or does something slightly different but the bottom line is everyone gets healthcare then I’m not opposed to that. So, I’m not so much married to one name or label or particular policy. It’s the bottom line result that matters to me.

Seth: And like we talked about earlier there is likely to be more candidates this time. Are you worried at all about maybe some candidates coming in and running further to your left in the primary which might cause some problems in the general and maybe be more popular in the primary? Are you worried about candidates coming in and saying ‘I’m for Medicare For All I’m for Abolish Ice’, which may take a little bit of the vote during the primary and excite the base more than a more moderate bipartisan approach?
McDowell: I guess my main answer to that is I’m not that much of a politician. I look at problems and solutions and things that will work and I like to talk to people and have discussions and get their input and come up with ideas that work. Once you start saying this is more to the left or more to the right or that kind of thing, I don’t think most people think in those terms. When you talk to partisan people who attend partisan club meetings, they might. And I’m probably pretty far left. But the vast majority of people in my neighborhood I don’t think those phrases really spring to mind on a daily basis with them. So, no I’m not too worried about the left and right of it.

Seth: Yeah, the universe of Twitter is different than the universe when you’re walking the block and talking to real people.
McDowell: Well said, yes.

Seth: I don’t know if you know, but what I’m going to be focusing on in my piece is more the electoral likelihood of a Democrat winning or you winning the primary. So, I’m going to shift away towards the horse race and the campaigning aspect of it. So, in 2018 Beto O’Rourke carried your district by around 3% how much do you give him credit for lifting your numbers and bringing you so close to Representative Marchant versus your effort in the district and bringing out voters.
McDowell: I don’t really know how to quantify that. I think it’s obvious that the Beto effect helped all the Democrats up and down the ballot in 2018. No question. With almost 80 million dollars, you can do a lot. So clearly, I benefited from that as did all of the state representatives who won their seats. Collin Allred won a seat in Congress and all of us at the same time were working hard with our campaigns. So to be able to put a quantitative analysis on that of how much was him and how much was the candidate. I don’t know how to do that. I know we worked hard. I know I had a phenomenal team of people helping me. Small paid staff and lots of volunteers were everywhere from block walking and writing postcards to being professional marketing and IT and all sorts of other professionals input on my campaign that they volunteered. That’s the best answer I can give you on that.

 Seth: Do you expect the 2020 race with the presidential election happening at the top of the ticket will bring out a different coalition of voters? Traditionally, in the presidential years more minority and low-income voters come out. So, I’m curious if you think that’s going to change the dynamic in the race or maybe the kind of voters that you’re aiming to attract with your campaign.
McDowell: Possibly. I know Texas has been historically pinned as a solid red state. Obviously not so much anymore. But for years and years that’s been the case. Texas is Republican. And I know a lot of people who are Democrats who said ‘well in the primary I voted in the Republican primary because I wanted to have a choice because that’s who’s going to win so I want to weigh in on which Republican candidate is the one’. And I see the potential for that to happen in reverse next March when there’s such an array of outstanding Democrats running for president, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see quite a number of Republicans deciding it’s pretty darn likely that whoever wins the Democratic nomination for president will be our next president so I’m going to go vote in their primary and have a say on that race. So that could impact the makeup of the primary race I think in March in my race as well.

Seth: And do you think that will affect the way you run your campaign or which policies you highlight in any way or are you planning to run the kind of campaign that you ran last year regardless of the different coalitions that are expected to come out in 2020.
McDowell: I believe what I believe and if voters agree with that, I hope they’ll vote for me. I’m not going to start changing what I say to try to play to that game. My team and I haven’t really talked about real specifics yet. Whatever I’ll do going forward will require money so were focused on the money part at this point. We would always welcome a chance to have more opportunities to speak and be seen and interact with more groups of people who I’m sure well be working on that along the way.

Seth: You talk about money and I know that this year, because of how close the race was last year the DCCC put your district on the Red to Blue list so that’s a good sign for the Democrat who wins the primary. That they’ll likely get some more funding from the national party. How do you see that changing the dynamic of the race or the way, or if you were the candidate, how you would be able to campaign in a different way?
McDowell: Well I think that would be huge. There’s also a group called Swing Left that had a Swing Left 32 who when that district was the target last time around and our district borders on 32. Were the next district on the left. We were very much in the shadow of that. That was the race that was seen as the one we could win so the attention and money and spotlight all went right there.  This time some of that spotlight and money are going to shift to the left for District 24 so I have a tremendous talking point speaking to potential donors that we shrank the gap in this district that started out as an absolute longshot. Who would think to run with a 17-point gap in 2016 and got it down to 3 points in 2018?  And surprised I think pretty much everybody. I kept saying this is a suburban district, well-educated it’s the very picture of the kinds of districts that are flipping. And still all the attention was going to District 32. So, I think this time donors will be much more willing to believe that their money and their effort and their passions can be productive in actually resulting in another seat in congress.

Seth: You talk about the district being the kind of archetypal district that is swinging left and that Democrats are flipping. Is there anything that Representative Marchant has done or votes that he’s taken that you expect you will use in the campaign or that the Democratic candidate will be able to use in the campaign that have come up since the election in November that will make a big impact in the 2020 election? Or just things in general about Representative Marchant that you think will help flip the district this time?
McDowell: All of the above. I mentioned before that my understanding and what I’ve been told is the big thing is for a candidate is to show up show up show up and that’s exactly what Marchant absolutely never does. Very few people have ever seen him. I’ve started referring to him as a professional ghost. He doesn’t show up in the district he is not accessible to constituents so that’s huge. Then every time Congress takes a vote which doesn’t seem like it happens very often outside looking in. They seem to avoid doing that whenever possible. Every time there is a vote, I can post and say this is what Marchant voted I would have voted the opposite of it in every case. The house has passed HR1 bill which is all about campaign financing, gerrymandering and voter suppression and all of the things that try and make our democracy work and I would’ve been an enthusiastic jumping up and down yes vote and he called it… I can’t remember the phrase he used it was subverting our democracy or something real sinister that people were trying to come in and do this. So thing after thing. Voting to overturn president Trump’s emergency declaration on the border and the House voted overwhelmingly to do that. Marchant was with most of the Republicans voting against that. The House needs to be the check and balance of the co-equal branch of government and he’s always way too willing to be told by the party which way he is supposed to vote.

Seth: Before you get to the general election, there is obviously going to be the primary. And I’ve seen and heard that Kim Olson may be getting in the primary. And I know that she also carried the district. Well she didn’t carry the district, but she was a little bit closer with her margin. It was 48.1 to 49.4. Do you think that gives her a leg up in the primary saying that maybe she is a more electable candidate and more likely to win the seat in the general election.
McDowell: I don’t think so. I hadn’t seen the numbers that you said. I know that I was shown some kind of raw vote numbers and I think she got 157 more actual votes than I did. So it was very very close. I would think, and I’m not saying anything negative about her. I think she’s a phenomenal woman. She lives 80 miles to the west of the western edge of the district. When I say she lives in Mineral Wells, people look at me and a lot of people around here don’t even know where Mineral Wells is. So the law says you only have to live in the same state as the district you represent. That’s what’s in the Constitution. But I think that’s a real surprise to people when they hear that you do not need to live in the district that you’re going to represent. When they realize that is what the Constitution says they think it shouldn’t be that way. So I believe that there would be a problem with that. I know Kenny Marchant has lived here forever he went to high school in Carrolton so I can just imagine if the Democrats have a candidate in the general election against Kenny Marchant that I can just see the ads of him growing up here being here forever and she’s just way outsider and I don’t think that would be a positive thing for Democratic chances at the general election. Again, my passion has been since I started at the federal issues that I think are so important to the well-being of the future of our democracy and the future of the people of our district that that’s what I would support. Not finding a race that Jan McDowell can win and get elected to some office.

Seth: You said that there were, or said that you’ve heard rumblings about seven possible candidates for the Democratic primary, although only three that I’ve seen have officially declared with the FEC. Which is you, Carl Fisher, who I believe ran in the twenty sixth district last cycle, and Crystal Fletcher, who you hadn’t heard of but had registered.
McDowell: The second one is named Will Fisher.
Seth: Okay. Will Fisher, Crystal Fletcher, and you have officially declared. What kind of a primary are you expecting. Are you expecting it to be cordial and more focused on the policies or do you see that there is a possibility that it will turn into a more personal race?
McDowell: I would certainly expect and hope and plan for it to be the former, the cordial policy focused campaign. I’ve spoken to some of the people and each one has said what they intend and we all have a healthy respect for one another of the people that I know in the race. So that’s what I would expect and hope. That will be my approach.

Seth: And are you expecting, whoever the eventual nominee is, and obviously your hoping it’s you. Would you go out and support the Democrat regardless of who they were?
McDowell: Absolutely.

Seth: So I have a few more questions that are more about the electoral part of it. Have you seen from the numbers from the last election that there is any type of general election voter that either you believe is most likely to flip to being a Democrat or that you think didn’t quite turn out in 2018 that you might be able to encourage to turn out in 2020?
McDowell: Sure both of the above. Especially people who didn’t vote in 2018. And as you said, historically, the numbers are usually higher in the presidential year. 2018 though, did come amazingly close to 2016 numbers so it was an outlier turnout for an off year. There are still hundreds of thousands of people who are registered even and don’t vote not to mention people who are not even registered. And there are huge efforts underway to register more people. More money will make it more possible to reach more people to both register and then to turn out the vote. So all of those things are huge. I kept hearing going into the 2018 race that Texas isn’t a red state, it’s a non-voting state and that’s definitely true. There are plenty of people registered, who presumably would lean Democrat, if they would go vote the Democrats would win. So its paramount to get those people out to vote.

Seth: And are there any presidential candidates or other candidates higher on the ticket who you could see boosting Democratic turnout or flipping the most voters? I’m specifically thinking of if you think that O’Rourke could be beneficial to you in your district because he was so popular in the state. Or if there are any other candidates you can imagine maybe helping with the turnout in your district specifically.
McDowell: Well that Beto effect would certainly come into play if he were on the general election presidential race. Really, out of all the Democrats who have thrown their hats into that ring they almost all just so impressive and so dynamic and so not Donald Trump that I think that the presidential race just by its being its very nature is going to energize voters to turnout to vote in the 2020 general election. I can’t imagine it not being a wildly engaged electorate ready to go vote.

Seth: Do you think that if there is a candidate at the top of the ticket that is running further to the left. I know some of the candidates have endorsed the idea of Abolish Ice or been a little more forceful in their support of Medicare For All. Do you think there is any chance that there could be a problem with your not quite as progressive or to the left, specifically on those policies, can you imagine some voters voting for the progressive presidential candidate but having hesitations for a less liberal, or less forcefully progressive House candidate?
McDowell: I don’t think thats me. If people are for Medicare For All, and I’m sitting in Congress and there’s a vote on that, I’m a yes. I’m an enthusiastic yes.
Seth: Okay so that’s pretty straight down the line. You’re a yes vote.
McDowell: The only thing I’ve said that’s different than that is if there was a vote on another policy that had a different name and also gives everybody health insurance, I’d be an enthusiastic yes for that too. I don’t think that makes me less of a Medicare for All person.

Seth: And the House is, from the outside, the current makeup of the House does seem to be divided a little bit into more red and purple districts, I’m thinking specifically of Virginia 7 and New York 11, and progressive more deeper blue districts like Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Do you imagine yourself, if you’re sitting in the House of Representatives, do you think that you will align more closely with one of those spheres or do you not see yourself as having a close alignment with the more progressive or more bipartisan moderate members of the House?
McDowell: That’s tough. Who are the people on the more conservative side? Is that like Spanberger?
Seth: Yeah Virginia 7 is Abigail Spanberger and New York 11 is Max Rose.
McDowell: Okay I’m not familiar with him. I tend to be more progressive. So, I would probably align with more progressive people than more conservative people. I want to say this so it comes out exactly the way I mean. When I listen to AOC’s positions on things, I find very little that I disagree with. I’ve read posts that she’s done and thought that’s exactly what I would have said if I was quite as eloquent as she is. I mean this is dynamite this is exactly what I think. I don’t always agree with her method or her approach. Kind of the you get more flies with honey?
Seth: More bees with honey? I think?  Than vinegar?
McDowell: Something like that. Sometimes things are so urgent that no it’s not going to be acceptable to sit back and be patient and polite and wait. And you have to just go in there like a bull in a china shop and say “this is what we’ve got to do. We have to do it right now.” But it’s not always that way. Sometimes you do sit back and watch and learn a little bit when you’re the new kid and take notes for a little bit and figure out what’s going on before you say everything that’s been happening, I can do so much better. I don’t think people react tremendously well to being approached that way.

Seth: The issue of the day, what’s been on Twitter. I know we talked that Twitter clearly isn’t always the real world. But the issue of the day is the Democratic Party’s position towards Israel and if the presidential candidates were going to attend AIPAC and Ilhan Omar’s comments on Twitter and in public about Lindsay Graham and other House and Senate members. And I was wondering if you have a position towards Israel that you would be willing to share or a position towards the controversy with Representative Omar that you would be willing to share?
McDowell: In a nutshell. I am all for Jewish people. I am also all for Muslim people. I don’t think that people and their governments are the same thing. I think that we are desperately hoping that’s the case now when our government is doing things like separating families at the border and taking children away from their parents. And we say ‘that’s not us. We’re so much better than that’ and when the Israeli government or Palestinian government groups do things, I think it’s possible to say ‘we don’t agree with that we don’t like that’ but give the people in those nations the benefit of the doubt just like we hope they are giving us. And saying that doesn’t reflect the people in those countries. We are for those people and yes, their government may have messed up here. This isn’t something we approve of or agree with so I think that people of every religion or faith or no religion or faith are equally deserving of respect and have their personal dignity and I think that needs to be reflected separate from our positions on what their governments do.

Seth: Well thank you. I know I said I have just a few more questions a little while ago, but you had interesting responses and I enjoy talking to you so I keep thinking of more as we keep going. But I know you’re busy I’m sure you’re busy with your campaign calls and everything so I just have two more questions. I’ll ask them both and you can answer them in either order because one might require more thought. The first is a question that I like to ask my peers and other people that I’m speaking to. Are there any issues or one issue that you feel you’re not in line with the Democratic orthodoxy or that you’re a little bit unsure of the Democratic stance on the issue? And then the second question that I have is if there is anything else that we haven’t gotten the opportunity to talk about that you feel would benefit the piece or that you would like me to hear before we hang up.
McDowell: The first question you asked. I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that I would be at odds with the Democratic mainstream line of thought on. Two things that we haven’t touched on at all that I think are huge are gun safety rules. I’m so impressed with New Zealand and their ability to say ‘gee we have a problem, here lets fix it’. Something that our government has not been able to manage to do. I was proud to have the support of Moms Demand Action in the 2018 race and I just so believe that there’s just so much logic and commons sense to having some oversight on the ownership and registration of firearms that I think is just incredibly important and we need to be able to do that. The other thing is our environment. That is an existential threat to our nation and to our planet and I think we disregard that at our peril. We don’t say ‘don’t mess with mother nature’ for nothing. We’ve been ignoring that for a long time. The reports from scientists not from alarmists. The reports from scientists are alarming and I think we need to be alarmed and react accordingly. And no I don’t think that that means that nobody can have hamburgers anymore. That’s kind of akin to when Obamacare came out and Republicans wanted to talk about death panels and come up with something that you can throw out there and have people catch onto rather than talking about the real issue and real solutions. I think that there are enough smart people in our country who, given the opportunity and the funding and support and encouragement to come up with new and better and innovative ideas of how we can do things without destroying our planet in the process, I’m betting on them. I think we can do it. I think it would be great for our economy to send those people and those ideas loose and as a bonus still have a planet to live on for our kids and our grandkids.

Seth: You talked a lot about the environment do you have anything to say about the Green New Deal. And I know that the senate just took a vote on the Green New Deal, or the resolution that was introduced, and a lot of Democrats either voted Present or voted against it and I’m curious what you think about the tactic of introducing resolutions that Democratic senators or members of the House of Representatives will vote against and if you think that’s a good tactic for the Democratic Party to take.
McDowell: The politics of it is kind of in the weeds stuff that I don’t know that I’m the best person to know what’s the best politics involved. I think the concepts in the Green New Deal are things that we need and I think they’re important and how that gets approached. My understanding of the Green New Deal is that at this point it’s kind of a wish list and I don’t really know how you vote on a wish list. It’s not a bill. In concept I think it’s incredibly of paramount importance to start acting on those initiatives to get us there and I’ll leave it to Nancy Pelosi and other leaders in the House to figure out how we do this and how we frame it. I’m not an expert on how the politics of it works.

Seth: The idea of the Green New Deal was to bring together the environmentalism with health care and income inequality. Do you support the framework of tying all those policies together or do you think they should be tackled individually and one on one?
McDowell: I think that the issues are all tied together and I think that good solutions for each one will all benefit the others. I think that they’re all of a piece. Again, how you go about legislation to accomplish each one. Each one of those is so enormous that I can’t imagine being able to come up with a bill that had all three rolled together in one. But I think each one should draw from the others and be mindful of the impact that they’re having on the others.

Seth: Well, I want to thank you so much for taking the time to talk with me. I know that you’re very very busy even though it’s so early in the campaign cycle and election cycle and I know that it is an important time for you to call supporters and make sure people know that you’re running again and that you need their support. So, I really really do appreciate you taking the time to speak with me.
McDowell: I’ve enjoyed talking to you.
Seth: If you want to talk again in the future because you thought it was so enjoyable I’d be more than happy to get on the phone with you. But again, I want to ask if you had any requests of me. When I post it maybe I can tag you on Twitter or if you have any other requests. I can send you an email with the piece or anything like that that you have requests of me before we say goodbye and hang up.
McDowell: I don’t have any requests. I’ll be thrilled to see the piece when it’s done. Interested to see. Hopefully I didn’t say anything that as I read it back I’ll think that was a dumb thing to say. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the conversation and always willing to make time to talk about issues that I think are important.
Seth: Again, thank you so much and best of luck on the campaign trail. I’m looking forward to following the election and seeing how it turns out and what happens in 2020. I’m sure it will be a different race than it was in 2018 considering all the national attention it’s going to be getting so I wish you the best of luck.
McDowell: Thank you Seth.

2020 BATTLEGROUNDS: TEXAS 24TH

This is the second post in “2020 Battlegrounds”, where (almost) every other week I take a deep look at one closely contested 2020 House district. Each post will: 1) Give an overview of the State and District 2) Analyze recent electoral history 3) Give an update on the district’s 2020 race and 4) See what insight the district can give into larger 2020 House race.

Candidate interviews are the newest addition to ESY! For each battleground district, I will interview as many declared & potential candidates as possible. You can find the transcripts (both complete transcripts and ones condensed to just the highlights) under the “Battleground District” tab. Go read my interview with Jan McDowell, the TX-24 Democratic candidate for 2020 and was the 
Party’s nominee in 2018.

District: Texas 24th
Current Representative: Kenny Marchant
Projected District Margin: 0.0%->8The formula is explained in POST 1: Housekeeping. Donald Trump’s net approval rating at 4:09am EST on March 12 was -11.7. (Calculation (3.1 +8.6) – (11.7) + 0 = 0%)
Cook 2020 Projection: Toss Up
Sabato 2020 Projection: Leans Republican

Texas has been Republican territory for a long time. The last Democratic presidential candidate to win the state was Carter in 1976, over 40 years ago. The last Democratic governor to win was Ann Richards in 1990. And while Texas is probably still out of reach for the 2020 presidential election, Democrats hope that the state’s quick population growth and diversity will tip a few districts in their favor. 2018 featured the dramatic Beto O’Rourke versus Ted Cruz senate race. O’Rourke outperformed Texas’s partisan lean by 10 points by running up margins and turnout in urban areas. His near-success had more to do with winning over Republican leaning white voters than with harnessing the state’s growing diversity.  

O’Rourke’s urban margins contributed to Democrats successfully flipping TX-32 and TX-07. He carried them by 11% and 7%, respectively. And Democrats are hoping to squeeze even more from the state in 2020. Six of 33 seats that the DCCC9The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is the main campaign arm for House Democrats is targeting on their “Red to Blue” list are in Texas. Five of these seats — TX-10, TX-21, TX-22, TX-24 and TX-31 —are in or near the state’s major urban areas — Austin, Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth and San Antonio.

If Democrats are able to win these seats it will be an astounding turnaround in eight years. In 2012, Romney took these seats by 20%, 22%, 25%, 22% and 21% respectively. Trump’s poor margins in 2016 — 9%, 10, 8%, 9%, 10% — show clear leftward movement.

Texas 24 is an educated, diverse, wealthy suburban district — the archetype of the district that flocked to Romney in 2012 and ran from Trump in 2016. The swing away from Republicans in 2016 and 2018 wasn’t enough to flip the seat, but things look different for 2020.  The 2018 race was much closer than expected. FiveThirtyEight projected a 13.8% margin, but the real gap was 3.1%. Things look tenuous for Republicans, especially with coming demographic changes.

Demographics

Data: Daily Kos

Texas  is more diverse and educated than the country overall. Thirty seven percent of the district is non-white and 32% are white college graduates. The key Republican voting bloc — non-college whites — account for only 31% of the population.

Coming demographic change looks troubling for Republicans. Dallas, Tarrant and Denton counties all expect to grow by about 1.5 million by 205058%, 66% and 160%  over their current populations. A majority of this growth is going to be non-white, pushing the district, and state as a whole, towards Democrats. And unless Republicans broaden their appeal to non-white voters, TX-24 is destined to turn blue. The only question will be how quickly Democrats can flip it.

RECENT ELECTORAL HISTORY
Texas 24th has been a reliable seat for Republicans since the 2003 Texas redistricting. Democrats lost six Texas seats in the 2004 election, including the 24th District which had been re-drawn by the Republican State Legislature to include more Republican leaning suburbs around Dallas instead of more liberal Forth Worth/Arlington areas. The abrupt turn away from Republicans is clearly a Trump driven phenomenon. Mitt Romney won the district by 22%, a 4% greater margin than McCain; Kenny Marchant won re-election in 2014 by 33%, a 7-point greater margin than in 2012. And then in 2016, Trump won the district by just 6% — dragging Marchant’s margin down to half of what it was in 2014.

Presidency

House

Data: Daily Kos

What Happened in 2018
Nobody expected the race to be close in 2018. The four democrats running in the primary had never held elected office. Jan McDowell, the Democratic nominee in 2016, had lost by over 17% in 2016. McDowell was10I couldn’t decide between past and present tense here. Everyone is still alive, don’t worry. a 64-year-old CPA. Tod Allen was a 38-year-old teacher. John Biggan was a 34-year-old researcher at University of Texas. And lastly, Josh Imhoff was a 47-year-old attorney who slid in at the last minute…filing for candidacy on the last possible day. The candidates were pretty standard 2018 Democrats,  running on the ACA and a moldable version of Medicare for All, bipartisanship and opposition to the Republican tax bill and immigration policy.

McDowell won 52% of the primary vote, just barely avoiding a run-off. Turnout in the Democratic primary was astoundingly low — 3.5% of the district’s population. And this may not be a flawless metric, but the runner-up, John Biggan, has 244 Twitter followers. All this to say, it wasn’t a star-studded Democratic primary.

The Republican field wasn’t too impressive. Kenny Marchant had one competitor, Jonathan Davidson, who said his primary focus in office would be “to obtain access to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court”. Which…a bit of campaign advice here…may be a bit too niche for a political platform. Marchant won with a 75-25 percent victory.

Jan McDowell ran an inoffensive general campaign, emphasizing standard Democratic policies — gun control, protecting social security, women’s rights, etc. While McDowell says she mostly agrees with the left wing of the party on policy, the more radical proposals were not the forefront of her 2018 campaign.  Her primary attack on Marchant for being an absent representative. As she said, he was a “professional ghost”. And her closing argument on Twitter was her support for pre-existing conditionsopposition to the Republican tax bill and support for birthright citizenship.  

On more controversial policies — Abolish Ice and Medicare for All — she found middle ground.  She believes in Medicare for All, but would support a different policy that had similar outcomes. She did not explicitly endorse Abolish Ice, instead writing “I believe that it is the policies that should be changed, whether or not a given agency is eliminated.”

In my interview with her, though, she clarified that she is a progressive.  “I’m pretty far left”, “if people are for Medicare For All, and I’m sitting in Congress and there’s a vote on that, I’m a yes.” “When I listen to AOC’s (Alexandia Ocasio Cortez’s) positions on things I find very little that I disagree with”. She clarified that while she may agree on the policy substance, doesn’t “always agree with her [AOC’s] method or her approach.”

Her campaign was bare bones, as the DCCC refused to give any assistance. She raised only $108,000 and $103,000 of it was individual contributions. She did not have much institutional support. McDowell operated mostly on Facebook and Twitter, running very few television ads, showing her shoestring budget. Her modest videos show that some more money could give her a boost.

Kenny Marchant, the Republican incumbent since 2005, was well funded. He went into the campaign with a $1.6 million war chest. He raised another 1.1 million — about 850k from PACs and 250k from individual donors — giving him about a $2.5 million lead over McDowell. He ran as a conservative Republican — touting on his campaign’s homepage his ranking as the 3rd most conservative House member. He’s a Tea-Party Republican. He vote’s with Trump 94.1% of the time. He supports tax cuts, the Second Amendment and is pro-life. All together, he’s a pretty standard11read: dull Republican. His website has three pages — “Home” ‘About Kenny” and “Contribute”. His social media is painfully boring.

So…the underfunded Democrat and milquetoast Republican face off! And McDowell came within ~3% of Marchant, shocking everyone and bringing the district into the 2020 spotlight.

The 3% margin, however, is perhaps less impressive when Beto O’Rourke carried the district by 3.5%. This could be trouble for Democrats in 2020 if they are unable to find an up-ballot candidate inspiring enough to drive turnout like Beto did last year.

2018 Data

Data: Census, Texas Gov’t

The marginal improvement across the district’s three counties were almost identical. In each county12I’m only referring to the portions of the counties that lie in the twenty-fourth district, McDowell closed the margin by about 15%. This may be suprizing considering that minorities constitute just 31% of Tarrant County’s population but make up a majority, 57%, of Dallas. Usually more minority voters translate to better Democratic margins. But, remember that O’Rourke’s improvement over Clinton’s came largely from white voters, meaning that they were not necessarily a drag on his performance relative to 2016. And while McDowell’s supporters differed from O’Rourke’s in some ways, she likely benefited from a similar combination of high democratic enthusiasm and large numbers of white flippers.

But Beto, and by extension McDowell, did not fully harness the state’s growing diversity and Hispanic population. If they had, maybe they could have pushed past their republican opponents. So, while this likely hurt them in 2018, it is a hopeful sign for Democrats that they have room to improve and new voters to target in the upcoming election.  

2020 UPDATE
Cook political rated TX-24 as a “Toss Up”, drawing national attention to the district and probably a few new democratic contenders. Jan McDowell already announced her 2020 campaign. It will be interesting to see if being a third time candidate helps or hurts her. While her name recognition and tenacity may give her a boost, it could drive away voters who think she has missed or shot or that just isn’t a winning candidate. The National Republican Congressional Committee has already attacked her as a “perennial losing candidate”.
But this time, McDowell will have to worry as much about the primary as the general. Ideologically, there is still room to her left, and in terms of campaign strategy, there is room for a more polished and prolific fundraiser. Enter: Kim Olson, the Democratic candidate for Apgricicultre Commissioner in 2018. Her announcement (but maybe not officially announcement?) has stirred up some internal fighting on the Democratic side after McDowell posted an aggressive attack on Facebook.
Janemarie Clark, McDowell’s Communications Director, then went on to tell a story about a supposed backroom meeting where Olson claimed to have support from “national powers that be” and that “everyone else just needed to stand aside”. Weird stuff. Who knows if this really happened, but the #drama is interesting nonetheless.


One more important tidbit on Olson. She beat McDowell’s margins by about 2% in a bid for Agriculture Commissioner last year, boosting her claim that she might be a more electable candidate than McDowell. And while Olson hasn’t officially declared her candidacy or filed with the FEC, her cryptic hinting at a run makes it seem inevitable.

Two other candidates (along with McDowell) have filed as candidates with the FEC. One is Will Fisher, a lawyer who ran for the TX-26 Democratic nomination last cycle and lost13Candidate interview coming next week!. The other is Crystal Lee Fletcher, who filed on March 26.  She is a seemingly unknown lawyer with no campaign website (that I could find) and the most information available on her is from the State Bar of Texas. The field is sure to continue to grow on the Democratic side due to its newly won status as a swing seat. According to McDowell, there are around eight candidates planning to run, whether or not they have officially declared or filed with the FEC.

Regardless of who wins the primary, they will have more institutional support than McDowell did in 2018. Of the districts that Sabato or Cook rate as a “Toss Up” for 2020, only four — NY-11, OK-05, SC-01 and TX-24 — received no financial support from the DCCC in 2018.  This new cash source and attack dog might be enough to tip a district over the edge. Even $90,000, the smallest amount that the DCCC contributed to any of these races in 2018, would nearly doubly McDowell’s fundraising numbers from last year.
Data: Open Secrets

On the Republican side, Marchant has the seat locked down. He was uncontested in 2014 and 2016 and won his 2018 primary by about 50 points. He is the only Republican officially running so far and will likely smash any competition with his incumbency and $1.5 million war chest.

Marchant told the Texas Tribune, regarding his campaign, “It is more cautious. It is more contemplative”. “I think, in my case, we’re going back and examining every precinct and discovering who turned out, who didn’t turn out, who turned out we didn’t expect to turn out, and we’re finding that the Beto effect was very, very prominent.” “Our campaign will start maybe six months earlier.”

Marchant is right to re-think his strategy. He is going to have to broaden his appeal and slow the Republican hemorrhaging of educated, suburban white voters. As with everything in politics these days, it will likely come down to Trump. The president is relatively unpopular in Texas (he had a -11% net approval in 2018 according to Pew) and even more unpopular among educated, urban voters like those in TX-24.  If Marchant can safely distance himself from the president’s most erratic behavior and policies without losing the Republican base, he will have a better shot at keeping his seat. But if Democrats can pin Marchant to Trump, he may be in for a rough election. Democrats have already begun this strategy, blaming Marchant for the unpopular government shutdown.

LESSONS FOR THE 2020 HOUSE

There Are Always Surprises
Every election has a few big surprises. In 2018 TX-24, along with SC-01, OK-05 and NY-11 were some of the biggest. Democrats were able to pick up the latter three and learn that Texas 24 was competitive because they competed in races that seemed like longshots. The parties should compete across the map.  They will win some surprise districts and see which districts may be competitive or winnable down the road. 

Up-Ballot Candidate Matter
Beto O’Rourke was a big reason this district came within striking distance for Democrats. His popularity in urban areas and ability to flip white, college educated voters trickled down to voters in House races across Texas. If Democrats choose a similarly popular candidate as their presidential nominee (maybe even O’Rourke himself) in 2020 it would help down-ballot House candidates across the map. The nominee, though, would have to reach into the mid-fifties in the popular vote percentage for his or her coattails to be significant. While it is more difficult to find a presidential nominee with the support that O’Rourke had in 2018, the parties may have more luck with Senate candidates. If either party can recruit inspiring, popular candidates for any up-ballot race, it will pull some House candidates over the line and bring others onto their radar for future elections.

Texas Is A Big Deal
Texas will probably be the biggest battleground of 2020. National Democrats have their eye on five flappable Texas seats, TX-10, TX-21, TX-22, TX-23, TX-24 and TX-31, and Republicans are looking to win back two they lost in TX-32 and TX-07. All of these, except TX-23 which spans across Southwest Texas, are the classic suburban, well-educated white, districts that Democrat’s had success with in 2018. All these elections, along with a Senate race and O’Rourke as a potential presidential nominee, have brought Texas into the national spotlight up and down the ballot.


Now that you’re invested in the drama, go read my candidate interview with Jan McDowell! You can read the full, extended interview or the condensed version. Next week I will interview Democratic candidates Will Fisher and (hopefully) Kim Olson.