AL-GOV 2022: Who should run?

[Schiff for Senate]

Dems should not run any candidates in AL, AR, TN, NE, OK. All Safe R states.

All that would do is depress turnout in races where Democrats might actually be competitive.

How so? Democrats aren't competitive in any of those states in the slightest. Bronz is right, they shouldn't bother running candidates in any of those states (they'll just end up wasting resources, even if not that many, on states where they stand no chance) and should focus on actually competitive races (AZ, GA, WI, PA, NV, maybe NC).

No one should run unopposed in a general election. Should Republicans not run candidates in California or New York?

The whole reason they run unopposed is because they're basically guaranteed to win anyway. If the race is even remotely competitive, you can expect both Democratic and Republican candidates. Only ultra-red and ultra-blue states/districts/races go uncontested.

And yes, not running candidates in CA or NY would save some time and resources which could be then spent in actually competitive states, so yes, strategically the GOP should not challenge CA or NY either. It seems like common sense to me. Why spend your precious resources (that need to be spent on competitive elections) on races you have basically no chance of winning instead of races that are seriously competitive?

So yes, ask anyone. It absolutely makes sense to have races go uncontested. It was a good move on Democrats' part to not field a candidate in a state as red as AR, but if they wanted to waste less resources, they should've avoided fielding candidates in other ruby red states like TN, SD, ID, WV, OK and WY. I'm aware they didn't spend many resources on any of those states anyway, but why spend any when your guy is going to lose in a landslide?! Why not spend even those few but potentially important resources and that little but possibly crucial money in, say, GA and AZ, and other actually competitive states?

[Schiff for Senate]

Dems should not run any candidates in AL, AR, TN, NE, OK. All Safe R states.

I agree completely. I don't get why some people have a problem with this very strategic and practical approach. The reason you aren't running candidates is because those states are going to remain in Republican hands for sure anyway, and there's pretty much no chance at Democratic victory (most certainly not in a red wave, but not even otherwise). As I said -

The whole reason they run unopposed is because they're basically guaranteed to win anyway. If the race is even remotely competitive, you can expect Democratic candidates. Only ultra-red and ultra-blue states/districts/races go uncontested.

And yes, not running candidates in CA or NY would save some time and resources which could be then spent in actually competitive states, so yes, strategically the GOP should not challenge CA or NY either. It seems like common sense to me. Why spend your precious resources (that need to be spent on competitive elections) on races you have basically no chance of winning instead of races that are seriously competitive?

So yes, ask anyone. It absolutely makes sense to have races go uncontested. It was a good move on Democrats' part to not field a candidate in a state as red as AR, but if they wanted to waste less resources, they should've avoided fielding candidates in other ruby red states like TN, SD, ID, WV, OK and WY. I'm aware they didn't spend many resources on any of those states anyway, but why spend any when your guy is going to lose in a landslide?! Why not spend even those few but potentially important resources and that little but possibly crucial money in, say, GA and AZ, and other actually competitive states?

[Del Tachi]

Dems should not run any candidates in AL, AR, TN, NE, OK. All Safe R states.

I agree completely. I don't get why some people have a problem with this very strategic and practical approach. The reason you aren't running candidates is because those states are going to remain in Republican hands for sure anyway, and there's pretty much no chance at Democratic victory (most certainly not in a red wave, but not even otherwise). As I said -

The whole reason they run unopposed is because they're basically guaranteed to win anyway. If the race is even remotely competitive, you can expect Democratic candidates. Only ultra-red and ultra-blue states/districts/races go uncontested.

And yes, not running candidates in CA or NY would save some time and resources which could be then spent in actually competitive states, so yes, strategically the GOP should not challenge CA or NY either. It seems like common sense to me. Why spend your precious resources (that need to be spent on competitive elections) on races you have basically no chance of winning instead of races that are seriously competitive?

So yes, ask anyone. It absolutely makes sense to have races go uncontested. It was a good move on Democrats' part to not field a candidate in a state as red as AR, but if they wanted to waste less resources, they should've avoided fielding candidates in other ruby red states like TN, SD, ID, WV, OK and WY. I'm aware they didn't spend many resources on any of those states anyway, but why spend any when your guy is going to lose in a landslide?! Why not spend even those few but potentially important resources and that little but possibly crucial money in, say, GA and AZ, and other actually competitive states?

Fielding candidates in non-competitive elections is important when it comes to building local party organization and articulating a clear alternative to voters.  The Alabama Democrats would be even more worthless as a party if they didn't run anybody at all, which is truly saying something.   

[Schiff for Senate]

Dems should not run any candidates in AL, AR, TN, NE, OK. All Safe R states.

I agree completely. I don't get why some people have a problem with this very strategic and practical approach. The reason you aren't running candidates is because those states are going to remain in Republican hands for sure anyway, and there's pretty much no chance at Democratic victory (most certainly not in a red wave, but not even otherwise). As I said -

The whole reason they run unopposed is because they're basically guaranteed to win anyway. If the race is even remotely competitive, you can expect Democratic candidates. Only ultra-red and ultra-blue states/districts/races go uncontested.

And yes, not running candidates in CA or NY would save some time and resources which could be then spent in actually competitive states, so yes, strategically the GOP should not challenge CA or NY either. It seems like common sense to me. Why spend your precious resources (that need to be spent on competitive elections) on races you have basically no chance of winning instead of races that are seriously competitive?

So yes, ask anyone. It absolutely makes sense to have races go uncontested. It was a good move on Democrats' part to not field a candidate in a state as red as AR, but if they wanted to waste less resources, they should've avoided fielding candidates in other ruby red states like TN, SD, ID, WV, OK and WY. I'm aware they didn't spend many resources on any of those states anyway, but why spend any when your guy is going to lose in a landslide?! Why not spend even those few but potentially important resources and that little but possibly crucial money in, say, GA and AZ, and other actually competitive states?

Fielding candidates in non-competitive elections is important when it comes to building local party organization and articulating a clear alternative to voters.  The Alabama Democrats would be even more worthless as a party if they didn't run anybody at all, which is truly saying something.   

I'd argue trying to hold the Senate is a much more important task than trying to help the Democratic candidate in some local AL race. There need to be priorities. Besides, isn't 'building local party organization' at least partly the job of state parties (in this case, the Alabama Democratic Party)? Why should national Democrats have to worry about random local races in random states like AL and OK? I don't think that matters as much as a national focus on keeping the Senate, which involves victory in swing states like GA and AZ, WI and PA. 'Building local party organization' in ultra red states should be of much lower priority.

And now I think about it, if they want to field a Democratic candidate, that's the prerogitive of the Alabama Democratic Party and yeah, I suppose it makes sense then for them to field a candidate if only to build local party organization. But what I don't want is for the DSCC to spend a single penny on unwinnable races like this one. Any dollar it spends in ultra-red, unwinnable states like AR, AL, NE, TN and OK is a dollar less they can spend in actually purple and winnable states like WI, AZ, GA and PA.

[Del Tachi]

Dems should not run any candidates in AL, AR, TN, NE, OK. All Safe R states.

I agree completely. I don't get why some people have a problem with this very strategic and practical approach. The reason you aren't running candidates is because those states are going to remain in Republican hands for sure anyway, and there's pretty much no chance at Democratic victory (most certainly not in a red wave, but not even otherwise). As I said -

The whole reason they run unopposed is because they're basically guaranteed to win anyway. If the race is even remotely competitive, you can expect Democratic candidates. Only ultra-red and ultra-blue states/districts/races go uncontested.

And yes, not running candidates in CA or NY would save some time and resources which could be then spent in actually competitive states, so yes, strategically the GOP should not challenge CA or NY either. It seems like common sense to me. Why spend your precious resources (that need to be spent on competitive elections) on races you have basically no chance of winning instead of races that are seriously competitive?

So yes, ask anyone. It absolutely makes sense to have races go uncontested. It was a good move on Democrats' part to not field a candidate in a state as red as AR, but if they wanted to waste less resources, they should've avoided fielding candidates in other ruby red states like TN, SD, ID, WV, OK and WY. I'm aware they didn't spend many resources on any of those states anyway, but why spend any when your guy is going to lose in a landslide?! Why not spend even those few but potentially important resources and that little but possibly crucial money in, say, GA and AZ, and other actually competitive states?

Fielding candidates in non-competitive elections is important when it comes to building local party organization and articulating a clear alternative to voters.  The Alabama Democrats would be even more worthless as a party if they didn't run anybody at all, which is truly saying something.   

I'd argue trying to hold the Senate is a much more important task than trying to help the Democratic candidate in some local AL race. There need to be priorities. Besides, isn't 'building local party organization' at least partly the job of state parties (in this case, the Alabama Democratic Party)? Why should national Democrats have to worry about random local races in random states like AL and OK? I don't think that matters as much as a national focus on keeping the Senate, which involves victory in swing states like GA and AZ, WI and PA. 'Building local party organization' in ultra red states should be of much lower priority.

And now I think about it, if they want to field a Democratic candidate, that's the prerogitive of the Alabama Democratic Party and yeah, I suppose it makes sense then for them to field a candidate if only to build local party organization. But what I don't want is for the DSCC to spend a single penny on unwinnable races like this one. Any dollar it spends in ultra-red, unwinnable states like AR, AL, NE, TN and OK is a dollar less they can spend in actually purple and winnable states like WI, AZ, GA and PA.

Post-Citizens there is no lack of "resources" (i.e., money) for candidates to access, the amount of funds that originate from party committees is minimal when compared to the total amount of campaign spending across the political ecosystem.  ~$1.4B was raised by the DNC/DSCC/DCCC in 2020, compared to a total $8.4B spent by and on behalf of Democratic candidates for Congress.  The state parties themselves are a bigger source of funds than the DNC, DSCC and DCCC combined. 

The party itself should be interested in long-term strategic planning to beef-up organization and develop party infrastructure in all 50 states, not chasing winners for short-term political gain.  Races like ME-SEN and SC-SEN show that individual donors are really no better strategizers than the party elite, who are mostly trying to be somewhat equitable and preserve relationships. 

There is a bilateral and symbiotic relationship between the state parties and the DNC:  we develop local organization to fundraise for the national party, you make sure some of it comes back to us supporting local candidates. 

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

The idea that Democrats shouldn't even bother to articulate a different vision in a state they can't win is just utter cynicism and speaks to what I hate about cynical political hack thinking. People in those states who are Democrats deserve to have an alternative and if you care at all about the people in Alabama that will be harmed by having their state permanantely ceded to the far-right (like trans teens potentially being driven to suicide because Republicans have declared war on them) you should never advocate surrender. I'm not saying Democrats have a chance of winning in this election cycle or the next but down there always will be down ballot races where they might and for that reason alone long-term party building is a worthwhile goal.