The Palmer Report manifesto for the 2022 midterms
The five most flippable Senate seats, in this order: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina. The four Senate seats we have to fight to keep: Georgia, Arizona, New Hampshire, Nevada. If we win six out of these nine, we get 52 seats and kill the filibuster. It won’t be easy – we have to put in the work – but the path to victory is a straightforward one.
If polling emerges later on that supports adding or removing any other Senate races on the list, we can revise things. But for now these nine races are our marching orders. Work hard to win all nine, and we can get at least six. For now, all other Senate races are just noise.
In 2020 we made the mistake of pouring a ton of money and resources into three Senate races in red states that were severe long shots, because we hated the incumbent Republicans, and because the media steered us toward those races. We lost all three. And because we were focused on those three races, we lost a far more winnable race in North Carolina that we’d been ignoring, which would have given us 51. We also almost lost an incumbent seat in Michigan, because we ignored that race, which would have cost us the majority.
We can’t pick the races we want to focus on, based on emotionality or media hype. We just can’t. How much we hate any given Republican Senator is irrelevant to whether we should pour resources into that race. Resources are finite. Put them into the closest races, not long shots.
“But we should have a fifty state strategy!” That’s nice in theory, and it may apply to other elections in the future – but not this one. Everything is riding on keeping and expanding our majority. We cannot just spread our resources evenly among all the senate races. We have to focus on the races that are most easily won or lost.
“But there’s a great Democratic Senate candidate running in this deep red state, and even though he’s way behind in the polls, we should…” No. If a state’s voting demographics are stacked that deeply red, then that great Democratic candidate is going to lose in that state.
“But Democrat Doug Jones won in Alabama, and it’s a red state!” That was an off year special election, the only race of its type going on, so we were able to put all of our resources into it. And when he came up for reelection in a normal cycle, he promptly lost badly.
“But we flipped two Senate seats in Georgia, and it’s a red state…” Georgia is not a red state anymore. The population demographics shifted. Georgia is now a very slightly blue state. And by the way, we’ll have to work hard to keep Warnock’s Senate seat in November.
“Why Warnock and not Ossoff?” Ossoff ran in the regular Senate election, so he’s in for six years. Warnock ran in a special election, so he’s up for reelection in 2022 already. This stuff gets weird. These details end up being important.
The bottom line is we have a patriotic duty to win the midterms, which means focusing on the close races that are easily won or lost. As of now, nine Senate seats will determine the fate of the nation. Focus on those nine races.
The media will inevitably try to steer our attention toward some other non-competitive Senate races that have more colorful characters in them, and are therefore more ratings-friendly. But if we take that bait (like we did in 2020), we will lose seats over it.
The only way any additional Senate seats should be added to the “list of nine” is if new polling data emerges which shows that race is unexpectedly competitive. This means polling averages that show it’s close – not just one poll. Any one poll can be wildly wrong. Trust averages.
“But what about House races?” Great question. Probably 90% of House races will be safely red or safely blue. It’ll be the 10% of House races in competitive districts that’ll decide the majority. Too early for a definitive list. But that list will be based on how easily won or lost each House race is. It will not be based on how much we hate any given incumbent Republican. Many of them are in deep red districts where a Democrat literally cannot win. It shouldn’t be this way, but it is.
Nor should we devote resources to a Democratic House candidate simply because they have an “inspiring” backstory or because they go viral on Twitter. If they’re running in an unwinnable deeply red district, they will lose – even if we put huge resources behind them.
Some of you have been goaded into wasting your time whining about the DNC all day. But the reality is that the DNC has a far more detailed grasp on which House races are winnable, than any Twitter pundit does. Listen to the DNC, not pundits with viral videos.
If you see the DNC Chair or a leading Democratic House voice emphatically get behind a specific 2022 House candidate, it means they’ve seen detailed internal data that shows the candidate in question can win. Trust their judgment on this, they tend to be proven correct.
“But I’d rather support the specific House Democratic candidates whose views are closest to my own…” I’m sorry, I thought you wanted to win a majority. Some House seats are infinitely easier to flip than others, based on that district’s demographics, more than the candidate.
“It shouldn’t be that way…” You’re right, it shouldn’t be that way. But it is. The laws of politics are like the laws of gravity. They exist whether you understand them or not. If you try to ignore them, you just fall down. If you learn them, you can use them to your advantage.
