Democratic Megadonors and the 2018 Gubernatorial Elections

[coloradocowboi]

It's official, Dem donor Noel Ginsburg has become the first official entrant into the 2018 gubernatorial race in Colorado. I don't believe that he can win the primary, given that he is a megarich moderate Hillary shill in a Bernie Sanders 60-40 state. But his entry does provoke an interesting question, should the Dems field an army of Trumps for the midterms?

Tom Steyer in CA, JB Pritzker in IL, John Morgan in FL are all potentially seeking to emulate DJT and Democrats like Tom Wolf and Jim Justice in gubernatorial races in important states in 2018. More could come out of the woodwork, as Ginsburg was a surprise to everyone except the most in-the-know Colorado Dems.

Here are my thoughts on the matter:

1. Dems need to win. Megarich candidates come with the resources and outsider appeal needed to do that. But perhaps not all rich candidates are created equal. I think in states like CO with strong anti-establishment politics, being uber rich in a post-Sanders era will be a huge hindrance. People laud Clinton's ability to match Obama performance levels in the West, but neglect to mention that here she hemmorhaged not only working-class whites, but also Millennials and working-class Latinos. She could easily have won CO by 10 pts if she had just turned out a couple thousands more folks in Pueblo, Adams, and Boulder counties, as well as the San Luis Valley. Class politics isn't going away anytime soon, and a billionaire or millionaire will not motivate economic leftists to get to the polls.

2. On the other hand, rich people have star appeal. And there is an argument to be made that rich people will attract working-class and middle-class voters who have strong wealth aspirations or admiration for "titans of industry."

3. On the other other hand, and I know the conservadems and GOPers here won't like or agree with this, wealthy people who are out of touch with economic realities for working-class folks are less likely to pass policies that help them, and more likely to pass policies that benefit their own economic self-interest. However, people like Tom Steyer and Warren Buffet seem to be pretty committed to some redistribution despite its implications for their own bottom line.

So tl;dr, I don't know if this is a good thing. Honestly, I think it is rendered moot by the fact that the Dem base is 50% people of color and skews female and young, so if we want to motivate people to turn out we have got to stop only nominating white male senior citizens. Dems seem to do better at all levels with younger, more charismatic candidates (think Jason Kander), but I am curious to hear what you all (mostly fellow Dems, but who cares) think?

[LabourJersey]

coloradocowboi, thanks for giving your thoughts on this subject. I agree with your conclusion that the Dems may be selecting nominees with star power, but they could also be ignoring the main conclusion of the Sanders-Clinton primary.

The first test to see how Democratic Megadonors do in the Trump Era is gong to be in New Jersey. Phil Murphy is most likely going to win the democratic nomination, but I am really concerned how much the state is going to like another Goldman Sachs Executive as its governor, especially since how unpopular and tainted Corzine became in 2009 (to say nothing of his activities after 2010).

While I think Christie is so unpopular that any Dem should win, if Murphy were to lose I think that will be a massive red flag to the Democratic Party that people do not wanted people who made billions from finance. (I emphasize finance because I think Trump never paid a price for his billions because people fundamentally see real estate as legitimate money in a way that finance is not)

[Blair]

I'm a complete pragmatist when it comes to things like this; someone like Morgan in Florida is widely known as being devoted to consumer protection/health insurance claims, and from what I read is popular  within the state for this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jason Kander was literally the candidate out of central casting; veteran, family man, served in office, etc

As boring as it is there is no one answer for the Democrats; a rich mega donor like Jerry Morgan could do well in Florida (a state where iirc Ben Nelson does very well because he's an old white man) and equally running some Tim Ryan in Ohio could work

[Hindsight was 2020]

The "megarich" shouldn't be welcome in the Democratic Party (normal, sane, leftist, etc.), but in certain cases, such as in WV (w/ Justice) and FL (w/ Morgan), I'm fine with the party running plutocrats for major if it's the absolute best we can do. Running a Pritzker is a terrible idea that would probably lead to, at best, an awful Dem. Governor, and, at worst, a second term of Rauner. I don't know who Noel Ginsburg is, but I'm sure that the Democrats can do much better in Colorado. And Steyer? In California?  no.

I disagree Pritzker family is well known and liked in IL and he himself does give alot back to society

[justfollowingtheelections]

Well I don't think the party should ban filthy rich donors from running.  They should be allowed to, the same way everyone else is.  What the party shouldn't do is actively push for these megadonors to get the nomination in place of someone who doesn't have as much money but has better ideas.  They already seem to be pushing for that Murphy character in NJ (Howard "the clown" Dean has already endorsed him) and honestly I don't think that's the way to go.

Give everyone a chance and lets see who has the best ideas.

[JMT]

coloradocowboi, I think you summed up my thoughts about this perfectly when you said "perhaps not all rich candidates are created equal." I don't necessarily think it matters whether a candidate made his or her fortune (whether it be real estate, manufacturing, finance etc) like some others have been saying. But rather, these rich candidates need to have the right personality that fits to their state and allows them to connect to their constituents. Jim Justice is a great example, he was heavily involved in the coal industry, an obvious benefit in West Virginia. So bottom line, I don't think its about where the candidate earned their money. Candidate quality is the most important aspect. You can have all the money in the world and just be a terrible candidate and lose.

[coloradocowboi]

Well I don't think the party should ban filthy rich donors from running.  They should be allowed to, the same way everyone else is.  What the party shouldn't do is actively push for these megadonors to get the nomination in place of someone who doesn't have as much money but has better ideas.  They already seem to be pushing for that Murphy character in NJ (Howard "the clown" Dean has already endorsed him) and honestly I don't think that's the way to go.

Give everyone a chance and lets see who has the best ideas.

This sounds just about right. NJ just baffles me. I don't get how such a wealthy, diverse, dynamic state only has boring old WASPs for Dem candidates. Is Murphy a lock for nomination?

And to address Ginsburg in CO, there is no way that he will be the nominee. Perlmutter is pretty much a lock unless Bernie Sanders swoops in an endorses one of his acolytes or Ken Salazar runs (and I don't think that is likely).

[LabourJersey]

Well I don't think the party should ban filthy rich donors from running.  They should be allowed to, the same way everyone else is.  What the party shouldn't do is actively push for these megadonors to get the nomination in place of someone who doesn't have as much money but has better ideas.  They already seem to be pushing for that Murphy character in NJ (Howard "the clown" Dean has already endorsed him) and honestly I don't think that's the way to go.

Give everyone a chance and lets see who has the best ideas.

This sounds just about right. NJ just baffles me. I don't get how such a wealthy, diverse, dynamic state only has boring old WASPs for Dem candidates. Is Murphy a lock for nomination?

To answer your question re: Murphy, I think that he'll likely will the nomination, but I wouldn't be certain. The only real alternative is Asm. John Wisniewski but he doesn't have the backing of any county party, which is still a big deal in NJ. I suppose that a surge in anti-establishment feeling could bring Wisniewski to victory but I wouldn't bet on it now. And if Murphy wins the nomination he will most likely be the next governor.

[BuckeyeNut]

You forgot about Mark Dayton in Minnesota.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Well I don't think the party should ban filthy rich donors from running.  They should be allowed to, the same way everyone else is.  What the party shouldn't do is actively push for these megadonors to get the nomination in place of someone who doesn't have as much money but has better ideas.  They already seem to be pushing for that Murphy character in NJ (Howard "the clown" Dean has already endorsed him) and honestly I don't think that's the way to go.

Give everyone a chance and lets see who has the best ideas.

This sounds just about right. NJ just baffles me. I don't get how such a wealthy, diverse, dynamic state only has boring old WASPs for Dem candidates. Is Murphy a lock for nomination?

To answer your question re: Murphy, I think that he'll likely will the nomination, but I wouldn't be certain. The only real alternative is Asm. John Wisniewski but he doesn't have the backing of any county party, which is still a big deal in NJ. I suppose that a surge in anti-establishment feeling could bring Wisniewski to victory but I wouldn't bet on it now. And if Murphy wins the nomination he will most likely be the next governor.

Why won't one of the Congresscritters do it?

[136or142]

It's official, Dem donor Noel Ginsburg has become the first official entrant into the 2018 gubernatorial race in Colorado. I don't believe that he can win the primary, given that he is a megarich moderate Hillary shill in a Bernie Sanders 60-40 state.

If you're trying to create credibility for the rest of your post, starting off with a half truth like "Bernie Sanders 60-40 state" doesn't help (not with me anyway.)  Colorado was a caucus state in 2016.  The caucus states had much lower turnout which benefited a candidate like Bernie Sanders who had much more intense support.

Had Colorado had a primary, the results likely would have been quite different.

Fortunately, for those like me who believe the caucuses are as undemocratic as the Superdelegates are, Colorado is adopting a primary system for 2020.

http://thehill.com/homenews/311945-colorado-dumps-presidential-caucuses-for-primaries

[LabourJersey]

Well I don't think the party should ban filthy rich donors from running.  They should be allowed to, the same way everyone else is.  What the party shouldn't do is actively push for these megadonors to get the nomination in place of someone who doesn't have as much money but has better ideas.  They already seem to be pushing for that Murphy character in NJ (Howard "the clown" Dean has already endorsed him) and honestly I don't think that's the way to go.

Give everyone a chance and lets see who has the best ideas.

This sounds just about right. NJ just baffles me. I don't get how such a wealthy, diverse, dynamic state only has boring old WASPs for Dem candidates. Is Murphy a lock for nomination?

To answer your question re: Murphy, I think that he'll likely will the nomination, but I wouldn't be certain. The only real alternative is Asm. John Wisniewski but he doesn't have the backing of any county party, which is still a big deal in NJ. I suppose that a surge in anti-establishment feeling could bring Wisniewski to victory but I wouldn't bet on it now. And if Murphy wins the nomination he will most likely be the next governor.

Why won't one of the Congresscritters do it?

Part of it is that democratic districts aren't very representative of the state. A minority from the north like Sires or Donald Payne Jr. would find it difficult to appear to wealthy moderates in Somerset or Cape May county. Similarly, Donald Norcross could not win a statewide democratic party (his brother is hated for being the main "Democrat for Christie" over the last 7 years, and among Republicans Norcross is practically a synonym for corruption) due to his bad relationship with the northern part of the state. Also the others are too old to run (Pascrell, Watson-Coleman) or have their eyes on Menendez's seat (Specifically Pallone).

Despite all the power the Governor has, it really is not an attractive position for most. There have been very few governors who left with popularity, and the complexity of the state and the corruption that comes as a result makes it difficult to govern.