As a mainstream Dem who raised over $5 million to help flip the Senate *including* over $56,000 for Paula Jean Swearengin in WV, I think I have a right to chime in on this. 1/
I raised money for a total of over 600 Democratic candidates last cycle, including around 30 Senate races, over 150 House races, several hundred state legislative races and a couple dozen statewide races for Governor, SoS, AG, etc. Grand total raised: $6 million. 2/
In contested primaries, I usually didn't favor a specific Dem, but raised money for whoever the eventual nominee ended up being (ActBlue lets you do that for federal and statewide races). For legislative races I usually raised $ for the state party until the primary. 3/
For the *General* election, with only a handful of exceptions, I raised $ for WHOEVER THE DEM NOMINEE WAS, regardless of the district or state. I raised $ for long shots in WV, WY, OK, SD and TN. 4/
Hell, in Tennessee, I believe I raised more money for the Senate candidate than she did TOTAL for her entire primary race.
I raised money for centrist Dems, mainstream Dems, and yes, a few Justice Dem & Berniecrat types, like Marie Newman and, yes Paula Jean Swearengin. 5/
There's an argument to be made for focusing on "flippable races" only. There's also an argument for "leaving no race unchallenged" (the 50 State Strategy, etc). The latter is more about helping build the party infrastructure long-term, etc (plus, you could get a lucky break). 6/
Results? Mixed bag: Establishment favorites like Hickenlooper and Kelly flipped their seats...but Gideon & Cunningham didn't flip. Progressives picked up several more House seats...usually in deep blue districts where practically anyone with a D by their name would've. 7/
I guess my point is that every race is different, every candidate is different, every year is different. There may be other red states/districts where a "true progressive" like Swearengin *might* have been able to pull off a miracle...but WV clearly ain't it. 8/
Look at Kentucky, where Amy McGrath raised all the money in the world (I raised $235K for her myself) and was still crushed by 20 points. Would Charles Booker have fared better? Maybe...but again, Swearengin was crushed by 43 points in West Virginia. 9/
It's not just about having a "Great Candidate"...it's having a "Great Candidate" for THAT RACE, THAT YEAR, against THAT OPPONENT in THAT POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT.
In 2017, Doug Jones squeaked by in Alabama. In 2020 it was pretty much hopeless (I still raised $180K for him). 10/
Besides Jones and McGrath, I raised nearly 500,000 for Senate candidates running in OK, SD, ID, LA, NE, TN, WV & WY, or around 10% of the total. Do I consider that a waste of people's money? No, for several reasons. 11/
Besides what I said earlier (lucky break, building the infrastructure, etc), we also need to encourage Dems *everywhere*. Those candidates busted their asses in nearly impossible conditions and deserve at least *some* support. 12/
Plus, it's not like that $500K was gonna help Sara Gideon win in Maine at that point (I raised an insane $400,000 for her). If anything, it's my understanding that the mountain of cash *hurt* her in that particular race because the locals were overwhelmed. 13/
On the other hand, the $200,000 I raised for Gary Peters here in Michigan may very well have helped make the difference--he won by just 1.7 points. So...you never know.
Anyway, donate to who you wish, just understand that the rules for one race don't always apply in another.
Meanwhile, I've already launched my #SenateBluein22 page, so if you want to keep the Senate while *also* stopping Joe Manchin from getting to play King of the Senate, donate today! secure.actblue.com/donate/senateb…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨 REMINDER: The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to release one or more opinions TOMORROW MORNING. This may include the fate of the Affordable Care Act. 1/ acasignups.net/21/02/05/democ…
Oral argument *seemed* to go well for the #ACA last November, and the consensus opinion is that #SCOTUS will either throw the case out or, at worst, order the mandate language stricken while leaving the rest intact...which would be mildly irritating but otherwise fine. 2/
HOWEVER, there's 4 *other* possible rulings: 1. They kick it back down to the district court again. 2. They strike down guaranteed issue & community rating only. 3. They strike down most of the law but leave oddball provisions in place. 4. They kill the entire law. 3/
Using their Week 1 data, it seems likely that between 160K - 250K people enrolled in #ACA exchange plans nationally from 2/15 - 2/21. Assuming that's accurate *and* the pace holds steady for the full 3-mo period (unlikely), the potential ceiling would be 2.1 - 3.3 million.
Normally you'd expect around 700,000 people to enroll via traditional Special Enrollment Periods nationally during that same period, so that would mean 1.4 - 2.6 million *more* enrollees than you'd normally expect without a COVID SEP.
Last month I projected that a 60-day national "no reason needed" COVID Enrollment Period would bring in perhaps 400,000 additional exchange enrollees (beyond normal Special Enrollment Period rates).
Typically, ~7K enroll via SEPs every day during the off-season nationally.
Tripling that nationally would mean ~14K *more* per day, or ~840K during a 60-day period...more than double my rough projection.
Of course the federal COVID Enrollment Period is *90* days, but it's only 30 for some state exchanges, and that 3x rate may not be representative.
Cannon and I strongly disagree about his framing of CA banning #ShortAssPlans, but I agree that asking about actual healthcare POLICY decisions would make a hell of a lot more sense than whether or not Becerra is a doctor or not.
As for #ShortAssPlans in California, what Cannon is really talking about is availability of affordable individual market plans for those who earn too much to be eligible for #ACA subsidies.
This is a real problem, I agree. It's expected to be addressed in the short term by the #AmRescuePlan, and hopefully on a permanent basis via #HR369.
In California, they *partly* addressed the issue by adding their own ACA subsidies for those earning 400 - 600% FPL...