Thread by @blockedfreq

Winning elections isn't just about winning and gaining leverage. It's also about demoralizing the opposition, building a deep bench, setting state organizations up for future success, and more. Let's take a look at my favorite state, #PA, for an example of what I mean. (1/x)

First off, running in an election takes a *lot* of time, especially for statewide contests. You'd be taking years out of your life and a significant amount of commitment if you're serious about winning. So, if you run, you want to have a realistic chance of victory. (2/x)

Fetterman laid the groundwork for this extremely early. He ran for the seat he now holds all the way back in 2016, only to lose to McGinty. Then he tried again after some more prepping. And he won big. What does that do to the opposition, particularly the PA GOP? (3/x)

It demoralized them greatly. If they lost by 5 points to a non-incumbent in a R+1/2 year and how that loss shows the trends happening statewide? And bundled with a clean Dem sweep? It's going to be tough to get serious/credible GOP candidates to run in the future. (4/x)

For instance, nobody in PA right now thinks that almost anyone on the R side has a chance against Bob Casey based on what we saw this year. That effect discourages good opposition candidates from running, opening the door to crazies and loons like Mastriano. (5/x)

Additionally, combine all of that with strong showings by other Dem candidates like Susan Wild, Matt Cartwright, Chris DeLuzio, etc. If you're the PA GOP, you're staring down a very stark board of incumbents that are difficult to beat along with a deep bench. (6/x)

So, why would anyone in their right mind throw away years of their lives and political careers running extremely tough races where they're not the incumbent? It's not *just* that races are tough. You have to push back against a revitalized and incredibly strong state party. (7/x)

That being the Dems. Well-funded, well-stocked, no short supply of candidates, favorable demographics, morale advantage, etc. It's hard to claw back from that. We saw this happen in Michigan where a fortune was spent on trying to oust Slotkin in MI-7 and she won by 5. (8/x)

Consequently, this discourages a good-quality R candidate from running against her in the future. She'll only get stronger incumbency-wise from here. Same effect in a lot of the seats we hold in PA. That in turn strengthens the party and ushers in demographics holds/gains. (9/x)

But there's some caution to consider. We need look no further than New York and California for what happens when a party gets lazy with its advantage. People in those areas haven't been seriously challenged for years. However, states like PA and MI are battle-tested. (10/x)

It's the job of candidates there to make sure it stays that way and to remain humble. Relish in the advantage, but work hard to *maintain* it. And fortunately, we have candidates who understand that well. Hence PA and MI getting mini blue waves this year. (10/x)

That's pretty much it. When you work to consistently perform in elections, you do so much more than just win. It's a butterfly effect of a lot of different factors and variables that help many things beyond you. (End)