Thread by @Yascha_Mounk

A lot of pundits and political scientists keep saying that presidential candidates like Bullock, Hickenlooper, and O'Rourke should abandon their bids - and instead run for Senate.

This argument is way less convincing than it seems.

Here’s why.

[Thread.]

The logic seems to be threefold:

1) These politicians are popular in their states.

2) Democrats need to capture the Senate to pass real reform.

3) The quality of candidates matters a lot.

--> It’s irresponsible for them not to run for Senate.

washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/…

The first two premises seem right to me.

The third premise is likely wrong.

And there’s a wrong assumption underpinning the whole line of argument that causes the real trouble.

Let me explain.

As @dhopkins1776 has shown, state and local elections have become nationalized over the past decades.

Especially in presidential election years, the quality and ideology of individual candidates now matters way less than the national environment.

newyorker.com/magazine/2018/…

@dhopkins1776 In other words, the scenario that supposedly keeps the commentariat up at night simply is not as likely as they claim:

If Democrats have a good year at the national level, "weaker" Senate candidates are still likely to do well.

@dhopkins1776 (It’s also far from clear that the alternative candidates really would be that much weaker.

In Colorado, for example, @danbaer – whom I recently had on The Good Fight – is running for the nomination.

Would his chances really be significantly worse?)

stitcher.com/podcast/new-am…

@dhopkins1776 @DanBaer More importantly: Is there really a choice between running for President and Senate?

Nope. Beto, Bullock et al. can easily stay in the race through the IA or NH primaries, drop out, and still run for Senate.

In fact, Hickenlooper is reportedly considering this right now!

@dhopkins1776 @DanBaer There’s plenty of precedent for this.

After pledging that he would not run for reelection to the Senate during the Republican primaries, for example, Marco Rubio changed his mind in June of 2016 (!!) – and handily won reelection.

usatoday.com/story/news/pol…

@dhopkins1776 @DanBaer How would they fare?

There’s some risk that their positions would harm them in a general election.

But as @leedrutman pointed out to me, they would also be more likely to have a high national profile and be able to raise a lot more funds.

@dhopkins1776 @DanBaer @leedrutman Finally, these analyses all assume that these are no-hope candidacies.

But there’s an outside chance that one of them may yet emerge as a real contender for the nomination. And all the evidence suggests that a high-quality presidential candidate lifts all the party’s boats.

@dhopkins1776 @DanBaer @leedrutman So why is everyone pretending that the argument for these candidates dropping out is so obvious?

The simplest explanation is motivated reasoning: Anybody who supports one of the first-tier candidates has a reason to want second-tier candidates to go away.

[The End.]