Nina Turner’s defeat earlier this month in the primary for Ohio’s 11th congressional district was one of those losses that’s impossible to spin. Even a postmortem from the socialist mag Jacobin couldn’t find much of a silver lining. Turner was challenging incumbent Rep. Shontel Brown, who had previously defeated her last year in a much-hyped primary for the safely Democratic district. This time around, there was some optimism that a redrawing of the congressional map that made the district even more liberal would benefit Turner, but that turned out not to be the case, and Turner lost decisively by more than 30 points after losing by just over 5 in 2021.
Just as Turner blamed “evil money” for that 2021 loss, her allies in the Justice Democrats have complained that pro-Israel super PACs flooded the race with outside money, making it impossible for Turner to compete. (Israel is one issue where the two politicians starkly diverge.) The massive edge that Brown had over Turner in independent expenditures no doubt hurt her, but that doesn’t solely explain such a massive loss. And Turner can hardly claim poverty — she raised $7 million since 2020 (covering both campaigns) versus $4 million for Brown. Though Brown edged out Turner in the last quarter of fundraising, $643,000 to $609,000, it’s not as if Turner lacked the financial means to be competitive. There just wasn’t a pathway to victory for her.
Turner’s defeat demonstrates the risks of backing a primary challenger. Such campaigns are difficult, uphill battles, and when they fail, especially when they fail by large margins, it means the resources expended by donors and outside groups have been wasted. (See: A Short Guide to Donating to Primary Campaigns.)
What we should be asking is: Was Turner’s campaign worth it?
For the past few cycles, Justice Democrats and other left-wing groups have been trying to elect socialist or socialist-friendly candidates in deep blue districts. The effect of this has been to make the Democratic House caucus more diverse, younger, and somewhat less reflexively pro-Israel — though the members the Squad have unseated were mostly staunch liberals, they tended to be pro-Israel, while the Squad has been willing to call Israel an apartheid state and support the BDS movement.
Better ways to spend money
But this project should be regarded as something of a luxury item on progressives’ wish lists. Consider the more pressing priorities right now: retaining the Senate so Biden can continue to appoint judges; winning power in states to protect abortion rights and guard against an anti-democratic Republican power grab; and working to turn Georgia, Arizona and Texas into purple states to offset the reddening of Florida and much of the Midwest. Congress and many state legislatures are closely divided, and the 2024 election, whoever the GOP nominee is, will be enormously competitive. At Blue Tent, we’ve been advising donors to back some candidates — especially key state attorneys general and secretaries of state—but give greater priority to donating to grassroots organizations that are building power over the long haul, organizing on local levels and helping to win races up and down the ballot.
Eventually, of course, that power-building (hopefully) bears some fruit in the form of major electoral victories. The most prominent example of this is in Georgia, where years of work on the part of Stacey Abrams and other organizers led to flipping two Senate seats in January 2021, which then led to Democrats passing the American Rescue Plan Act, which made a real material difference in millions of people’s lives.
Marginal impact
Even if Turner had beaten Brown, the path to significant material impact is a bit cloudy. After winning election, Brown joined the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is one reason Turner got less support from national lefty figures this time around. Her support of Israel is troublesome in the progressive world (and her acceptance of money from Israel-aligned PACs has caused some grousing from her colleagues), but she’s also a pretty normal liberal Democrat — and even as left as many other members of the CPC, if you believe the congressional ratings published by Progressive Punch, which gives her a slightly higher lifetime score than, say, Cori Bush.
Now, you could make the case that challenging some Democratic incumbents is a valuable thing for the progressive movement to do — if nothing else, it keeps Democratic members from blue districts from getting lazy. The value is surely higher when the incumbent in question isn’t just a standard-issue Democrat, but one who stands out for the wrong reasons. Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar, for instance, is in the spotlight now because he’s the last anti-abortion Democrat in Congress (who is nonetheless being supported by leadership). He’s also embroiled in a scandal over his cozy relationship with Azerbaijani oil producers. It’s no wonder that his opponent, Jessica Cisneros, has outraised him this cycle, $3.2 million to $2.7 million. And she has a better chance of winning than Turner did.
Still, especially given the lack of action Congress can (or is willing) to take on major issues, what is the actual value of swapping out one Democrat for another? Transformative change is hard, slow work, and it requires major long-term investments that lead to Democrats gaining power. Beating centrist Democrats may feel good to some people, but it’s not the same thing.