The Democratic Party and its allies have poured money, nearly 10 million by some accounts, into the race for a Georgia congressional seat once occupied by Newt Gingrich. The Democratic candidate did well in the first round of voting and may win the suburban Atlanta seat. But there was also an open congressional seat in Kansas recently vacated by Congressman Mike Pompeo who has become CIA director.
I held that seat — yes, as a Democrat — for 18 years from 1976-1994. Despite receiving virtually no help from Democratic Party officials, despite many pleas to Washington, the Democratic challenger received almost the same percentage of the vote as the Democratic candidate in Georgia. The Democratic Party leaders have not learned much from 2016.
{mosads}On paper, Kansas’ fourth district is not as competitive as Georgia’s sixth. I expect many party professionals took a look at the poll numbers and decided that Kansas wasn’t worth it. But there is a lot more to politics than data. The election showed that Kansas’ fourth was competitive enough to invest a small amount of party resources, even $50-100K, to do effective grassroots, get out the vote, and some paid media in a relatively inexpensive media market. If the party had read a headline or two from any Kansas paper they would know that the state has a fiscal crisis and an unpopular governor.
Races have been close in Kansas recently anyway. In 2014 both races for the U.S. Senate and governor’s mansion were very competitive.
Both parties ought to have 50 state strategies so that congressional elections everywhere become more competitive. Democrats in particular need to become a party with a 50 state strategy. Kansas fourth district is a situation where even a small amount of resources could have made a difference, and few were given. Even some resources would have shown that Democrats are serious about broadening their political base. To not provide some resources into Kansas’ fourth was political malpractice.
A 50 state strategy is a nice slogan, but what that really means is that Democrats cannot unilaterally disarm themselves anywhere where a reasonably good candidate is on the ballot, even in Republican districts. Not every race deserves the same money and effort, and sensible political and resource judgments need to be made accordingly. But I would remind Democratic campaign committees that, against all odds, a little known Democratic school board member from Wichita, Kansas defeated a Republican congressman in 1976 to become the first Democrat from that district in over 40 years.
Politics, especially campaigns, are not a math equation where the person with the most cash wins. Political campaigns are as much about symbolism, about interacting with communities and showing the flag of the party. No place where elections are taking place should be written off, especially in rural and less populated districts.
The last state that joined the Union before the Civil War should not have been ignored earlier this month. Hopefully this is a teachable moment for everyone who cares about the Democratic Party, our political system and the country’s future. There is an important race in Montana where Democrats can show that they are ready to compete everywhere. It’s not rocket science for Republicans or Democrats: find good candidates, provide advice and support to them, help them get out to vote and more than anything, show Americans that neither party should write off vast sections of the country.
Former Rep. Dan Glickman is the Executive Director of the Aspen Institute Congressional Program, a nongovernmental, nonpartisan educational program for members of the United States Congress. He served as the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture from March 1995 until January 2001 and served for 18 years in the U.S. House of Representatives representing the 4th Congressional District of Kansas.
The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.