When Dotty Nygard dropped out of the race for Congressional District 10 (CA-10) on March 9, she left a gaping hole in the hearts of local Democrats. In many ways, Nygard exemplified the ideal candidate. Her sincerity and devotion to others were unquestionable, and her Democratic ideals of justice for all were based on the most enduring party fundamentals.
But Nygard’s greatest strengths were also weaknesses. Her sincerity often resulted in a lack of polish in debates; she was neither rehearsed nor smooth, and both deficiencies are magnified in an age of visuals and preferences for social media. Many people have noted, not inaccurately, that she is exactly the kind of person we need in office and seldom get—in other words, she is not a politician but a public servant.
Nygard’s withdrawal came on the heels of TJ Cox’s sudden exit to run in Congressional District 21. Cox was an early favorite in the district, and his supporters were devastated when he left the race. Instead of elation that the crowded field in CA-10 was now not so packed, many of Nygard’s and Cox’s supporters felt let down and left out.
Remaining candidates were still faced with a large field competing for relatively few voters. The field is still big enough—five candidates—to offer tantalizing hopes for contenders who might not otherwise have been thought to have a chance. Their hopes are centered on how few votes it might take to win, not on how many.
In 2014—the most recent off-year election—only 75,046 votes were cast overall. Of that total, Jeff Denham got 44,237. Michael Eggman and Mike Barkley divided the remainder, with Eggman garnering 19,804 to Barkley’s 11,005. Imagine dividing those votes five ways instead of two.
To get some idea of how few votes were involved, CA-10 candidate Sue Zwahlen ran for the Modesto City Schools Board of Education in 2013 and pulled in 18,004 votes. Is it any wonder Zwahlen likes her chances in the June primary for CA-10?
With five candidates (Mike Barkley, Michael Eggman, Josh Harder, Virginia Madueno, and Sue Zwahlen) vying for whatever votes Jeff Denham leaves behind, the temptation to focus on the primary as an easy entrée into big-time politics can be overwhelming. But Democratic voters should be focusing on a candidate who can beat Jeff Denham more than on winning the primary, because the number of candidates with a chance to beat Denham is smaller than the number who might win the primary.
And while there’s no sure way to predict election results, there are some constants that apply to the overwhelming majority of elections, and with Election Day moving closer and closer, Democrats should be reflecting on those constants closely. Here are some questions that might focus everyone’s attention on who has the best chance of defeating Jeff Denham?
Money, Money, Money
Who has it? Yes, the occasional election is won by the candidate with less money than the others, but it doesn’t happen often. Jeff Denham will start the race with over two million dollars, and if polls suggest he’s facing stiff competition he will up the ante. He will run negative ads, buy billboard space, and plant signs and banners in every available space throughout the district. Anyone contesting him without lots of money will be swatted away like an insect.
Some candidates think that once in the final, the Democratic Party will shower them with banknotes, but that’s wishful thinking. The party is far more likely to put up money for candidates who can raise money on their own. Voters should be looking at who has money now, not who might get it later.
Who Has the Best Ground Game?
Barack Obama served two terms as president because he was able to bring people together and get out the vote. Whoever beats Jeff Denham will have to do the same. The hard work of knocking on doors, registering voters, and getting them out on election day doesn’t just require money and volunteers, it requires passion. Who among candidates for CA-1o has all three—money, volunteers, and passion?
Who does Jeff Denham Fear?
Jeff Denham really doesn’t need much in the way of campaign advice. He will surely reach into the old and reliable Republican bag of tricks and campaign against Nancy Pelosi instead of the local candidate, raise the twin specters of socialism and tax hikes, and pretend to be in favor of a humane immigration policy.
Who among the candidates has the best business and economic chops? Who can best diversify our economy and bring jobs to CA-10? Who can both reassure fiscal conservatives and energize progressives? Who can clearly and cogently shred Denham’s bogus talking points about socialism and government by exposing the waste and inefficiencies of our current health care system? Who does Jeff Denham fear?
Who has the Brightest Future?
The candidate’s future is our future. Once in Washington, who will work hardest to restore government for the people? Who is most likely to set the high standards we need and is most capable of achieving them? After three or four terms—six or eight years— who will have accomplished the most? The crisis of American government won’t go away without a concerted effort to make things better for all us. The candidate must be someone whose own future is tied to everyone else’s future.
As voters reflect on who among their candidates is best suited to defeat Jeff Denham, they shouldn’t forget the example set by Dotty Nygard, who has always been willing to sacrifice for a higher cause. Our higher cause now is literally the restoration of a democratic republic. We must not fail. We must choose a candidate who can win.
Eric,
I usually like your pieces, and your points here regarding the criteria for selecting the right Democrat to rally around so as to have the best shot at defeating Denham in November are valid, but why do you not follow these points to their logical conclusion? Money and ground game are certainly prerequisites, but I would argue the former is more important, as the Democrat in the general is going to have a significant ground game given the climate of this election, no matter who they are. As for who Denham “fears,” the answer is a combination of the former two criteria and therefore redundant. And, finally, the Democrat with the “brightest future” is the one capable of achieving reelection in future years when the base is less activated and there is, perhaps, even a potential “wave” in the opposing direction, which is all a long way of saying the one with the most money. It is the Democrat who can win this year, has the means to maintain their position electorally, and has a long-term commitment to remain in the House and rise to secure positions on committees relevant to our district’s interests who we need representing us. For the aforementioned reasons, youth is a huge plus, as building up standing in the House is no short-term process, and one most well-suited to an individual at peak vigor.
You have probably realized, as I follow your arguments to their conclusion, that I am talking about Josh Harder. You talk about money being important, so why do you put the viable candidate with the least fundraising acumen at the head of this article? Eggman is amiable enough and a capable fundraiser, but has too much prior exposure and has taken a hit in credibility due to opportunistic and self-interested jump into the race. And, fair or unfair, Eggman is viewed as a loser, and quite literally is one, twice over. Putting the fundraising element aside, Harder also has the best ground game, something I believe you have alluded to yourself.
I understand that someone with more of a business background and relying heavily on out-of-district money (Denham has no scruples about the geographic distribution of his donors – more consequentially, Harder refuses PAC money) isn’t the “ideal” – but as you imply above, “ideal” isn’t worth much. Fundamentally, the differences between the Democratic candidates’ policy positions are marginal at most, and functionally inconsequential. The sort of policy distinction that do exist would only even have the potential to affect actual policy outcomes within the context of incumbent Democratic president, a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in Senate, and a Democratic majority in the House. Let’s not put the cart before the horse and get real: the “differences” between the candidates are relegated to entirely to the vein of the symbolic and the cosmetic. I respect you and consider you an individual of great integrity, but you and the avowedly progressive element of the party within our district need to start looking at this race through the lens that I have presented, that of pragmatism, and cease inflating the superficial distinctions between our fundamentally like-minded candidates, as this is only serves Denham by sowing discord within our ranks.
Whew. You kind of lost me there, Sam. Not sure who you mean when you talk about the “viable candidate with the least fundraising acumen” at the top of the page. Dotty has nobly withdrawn, so is no longer viable, though she did struggle to raise funds. Last I looked, Virginia (also at the top) had raised second-most funds among Dems and her contributions increased in pace recently. Those two are at the top of the page. You devote a long paragraph to “differences between the Democratic candidates’ policy positions” and chastise me for failing to be pragmatic, but not only did I not mention policy positions here, I just recently posted commentary (“Let us count the ways”) in favor of putting pragmatism over policy. In fact, the entire post was about avoiding “discord within our own ranks.” So I appreciate your comments, but would maybe disagree about what I have written and what you appear to have read. Not to say I disagree with your points at all; in fact we would appear to be in agreement in most ways and are perhaps arguing distinctions without differences. As for logic, I’m all in favor of it and won’t dispute your conclusion, but would add, ruefully, since when has logic had anything to do with politics, except in its applications to theory?
Fair enough. To state what I’m saying less cryptically, as I didn’t want to lead with this and come off as biased, I think that what you propose as criteria for choosing our best candidate reads like a tacit endorsement of Harder, yet he is at the bottom of the article and mentioned only in passing.
Regarding the comment about “fundraising acumen,” I consider only Harder and Eggman capable fundraisers and viable as general election candidates. The only reason that Eggman has not raised far more than either Zwalen and Madueno is that he entered late into an already-crowded field; his capacity in this area is well-established. Perhaps Madueno and Zwalen have swapped places for third in fundraising since the numbers on ballotpedia were tabulated, but this is really inconsequential. Nygard was never a factor, short of potentially siphoning a portion of that “avowedly progressive” segment that I referenced away from the viable candidates such that this segment could have no say in the outcome. Yes, good on her for stepping away.
Perhaps directing my irritation at you regarding how the Democratic field has developed is misplaced, but I just think it is time that endorsements start to roll in for one of the two top tier candidates. The other candidates are propped up by empty “seals of approval” from various “progressive organizations” that have nothing to do with our district and no understanding of its politics. The other candidates obscure the fact that they are weak and/or not viable in the general in this district by leaning on these endorsements and support from segments of the local party with whom they share demographic commonalities. I’m sorry, but sometimes the truth hurts – someone has got to say it. If we did not have a top-two primary, I wouldn’t bother getting worked up about it, but we do. The ambiguity of outcome presented by the top two-primary and the fact that the sooner that the field is consolidated by a single Democrat, the better shot that we will have in November is exactly why it is time for people with a platform to go out on a limb for a candidate. I have made my case for why I believe Harder should be that candidate.
Your point about logic and politics not going hand-in-hand is a good one. However, I would just say that those of us so fortunate as to be well-versed in both have a responsibility to speak up and raise the salience of electoral/political “outcomes” relative to “virtue-broadcasting” / “statement-making,” countering recent trends within the left to which the hole we now find ourselves in may be largely attributed. To emphasize the former is to speak in terms like “electoral viability,” “political third rails,” and “alienate moderates” that do not exactly test well in focus groups, but that is no matter. Securing stable and prolonged representation for our district, taking back the House, and holding the administration accountable is absolutely an existential matter. Stronger candidates win and ones that are weaker and/or less suited to the district’s electorate lose. Given the stakes, I think it’s time to stop being diplomatic and call a spade a spade.
Thank you Sam. People will disagree about who the two top tier candidates really are, and, as I’ve tried to point out, a top tier candidate may not be the candidate who beats Denham. I agree whole-heartedly that people need to start settling on a candidate, but the hard fact is, many already have. Zwhalen’s flyers are full of endorsements, and Madueno has been racking up big name endorsements regularly. I don’t mind anyone’s irritation and actually thrive on irritating some people, but I prefer to earn the irritation rather than have it spring from misreading. I am on your side, appreciate your position, and would not dispute the “logical” connections you have made. But that then brings back my point about logic. As the window of time until the election narrows, you will see more and more endorsements, but I fear they will not narrow down to one candidate. I truly wish they would and am trying hard to get people to focus on the very challenging problem of defeating Jeff Denham. As you say, the stakes are high. But your spade is not everyone’s spade; therein lies our conundrum. As for the “bottom of the article,” you might consider the location of the photos in another than vertical context. Just sayin’.
Did you guys catch the whole Devin Nunes Debacle? From what I heard, he’s likely to face an ethics investigation. I guess it’s all about what went down between him and Hunter Biden. Crazy times we live in!