Photo: CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0)
At last weekend’s Utah Democratic Party convention, delegates made a startling decision to endorse Evan McMullin, a Never Trump-style conservative, who is running as an independent against sitting Republican Senator Mike Lee. Instead of running their own candidate, the party will back McMullin, a Mormon who ran for president as a third-party candidate in 2016.
Setting aside the question of whether McMullin could win for the moment, this represents a pretty major break from politics as usual. On one hand, Utah Democrats are conceding that they can’t compete with Lee by themselves. On the other, they’re embracing a candidate who doesn’t align with Democrats on many major issues and wouldn’t caucus with Democrats if he won. As Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin wrote, this is purely about preserving democracy—if McMullin were in Congress he would be able to vote against any effort by the Republican Party to overturn a lawful presidential election. In the event of the GOP having a narrow majority, he would provide a check on their power. It’s the sort of alliance parties form when they are faced with an existential threat, when denying the other side power is more important than any other issue. Though a lot of Democrats talk about the danger to democracy, there have been very few attempts to form coalitions with conservatives like McMullin.
The question for donors is whether to give to McMullin. He’s certainly not likely to win. One recent poll had him at 19 percent, Democrat Kael Weston at 11 percent, and Lee at 43 percent. The only silver lining there is that 24 percent of voters are undecided, so there’s a chance, however small, that McMullin could pull this off. He certainly needs money as well, with only $850,000 in cash on hand compared to Lee’s $2.4 million.
Of course, Democratic donors have lined up behind candidates who were equal longshots. Florida Congresswoman Val Demings has raised $30 million in her 2022 Senate campaign even though she’s nearly 10 points behind incumbent Sen. Marco Rubio in the polls, and Rubio, unlike Lee, is knocking at that important 50 percent threshold. I’m not sure it’s a good idea to give to any candidate trailing that badly in the polls, but McMullin clearly needs the money.
The more interesting quandary for donors isn’t as easily quantifiable. Giving to someone like Demings feels better than giving to McMullin, because Demings agrees with us on the issues and could help Democrats pass legislation. McMullin has said wouldn’t caucus with either party if elected, which is sort of confusing—how would he get committee assignments?—so really he’d be nothing more than a potential check on Republicans’ ability to blow up the entire system.
Is that function so important that we should give money to support him? Well, maybe! It depends on how imminently you think Republicans are likely to stage some kind of legislative insurrection. If the GOP is trying to grab power by, say, refusing to certify the results of the 2024 election, non-authoritarian conservatives like McMullin, Maine Senator Susan Collins, and Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski could cast vital votes against such a move. Of course, a Senator McMullin would likely be voting in favor of things progressives hate, like cutting taxes on the rich, appointing radical right-wing judges, and refusing to act on climate change. In many ways, he wouldn’t be much of an upgrade from Lee, and it’s entirely fair to ignore him for that reason.
But if you are worried about the literal collapse of democracy, maybe you put those concerns about McMullin’s politics on the back burner. Maybe you also support a candidate like Maine Rep. Jared Golden, who votes against his party frequently but represents a conservative district a typical Democrat wouldn’t be able to hold. Now, a lot of donors won’t give a red penny to Golden due to his positions on issues like abortion, and that’s entirely fair—maybe Golden’s presence wouldn’t be able to stop an unlawful GOP power grab anyway, maybe the chances of a democracy collapse are being a bit overstated by some, maybe it’s not worth assembling an anti-authoritarian coalition if it means you have to partner with anti-choice figures like Golden or McMullin.
The point is, it’s worth thinking about these issues, because they aren’t going away. If McMullin manages to win—or even come within ten points—it might make other Democratic parties in deep red states consider endorsing candidates who are essentially pro-democracy Republicans. And even if McMullin is only a one-off phenomenon due to Utah’s unique political landscape, there are going to be Democrats running in the next couple of cycles who aren’t real progressives but would at least be a bulwark against a Republican coup. If democracy is in peril, defending it might require uncomfortable alliances. It’s up to donors to decide where their red lines are, who is so repellent they don’t deserve money and who you can stomach giving to, even if it means holding your nose.