Should the Democrats Have Endorsed Evan McMullin?

Evan McMullin (I-UT)

This past weekend, the Utah Democratic Party had a convention, pitting two candidates against each other.  On one end was Kael Weston, a longtime member of the party who ran unsuccessfully for the US House in 2020 and served a nonpartisan role in both the Bush & Obama State Departments, with an emphasis on the wars on Iraq & Afghanistan.  He would be considered left-of-the-middle on most issues, staking more traditionally moderate stances on foreign policy & healthcare, but generally would be a reliable Democrat on most issues had he been the nominee.  Weston, though, lost the convention to the other candidate, Evan McMullin.  What's shocking here isn't that Weston lost-it's that he lost to McMullin who, by pretty much every definition of the word, is a conservative Republican.

Even in a state as red as Utah, this just doesn't happen.  In a world where we pejoratively call people like Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema "DINO's" or "secret Republicans" I want to be clear here-McMullin is a conservative, through-and-through; he's not a moderate like Manchin or Sinema who at-the-end-of-the-day back the Democratic leadership.  Up until 2016 he was a registered Republican, serving as a chief policy director for the House Republicans as recently as six years ago.  He is pro-life, anti-gay marriage, favors cuts to Social Security, and stated during his independent run for president in 2016 that he would favor "originalist justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia & Clarence Thomas."  

McMullin is not, like someone like Barbara Bollier in 2020, someone who has actually switched parties before they run for higher office.  Despite this endorsement, McMullin is running as an independent, and unlike Bollier or Weston, did not commit to backing the Democrats (nor the Republicans) if he were to win, so there would be no structural incentive for Democrats to back him (i.e. he wouldn't be like Angus King or Bernie Sanders where he votes for Schumer even though he maintains his position as an independent).  McMullin's endorsement basically was the Democratic Party giving the keys of power to a conservative Republican, whose only truly advantageous aspect of his candidacy is that he is not Sen. Mike Lee.

Lee, a second-term (very) conservative Republican in the US Senate is currently in the middle of a large scandal.  The senator has been accused by Capitol Police officers of "opposing a full investigation of in the January 6th attacks" out of personal self-interest, and new texts regarding the terrorist attacks back that belief.  Texts between Lee and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows indicate leading up to the attacks that Lee (a former law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito") was advising Trump on ways to overturn the 2020 election, including a plan to have swing states submit multiple slates of electors, making it easier for congressional objection.  While Lee ultimately did vote to certify the 2020 election, he voted against impeachment of Donald Trump over his involvement with the January 6th attacks & against an independent commission to investigate the riot.  As a result of these votes, it calls into question whether or not Lee behaved ethically (or perhaps even illegally) in his official capacity.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY)

While McMullin is technically the first time a party has endorsed a conservative in hopes of replacing someone who backed the 2020 conspiracy theories, it's not the only race this cycle where Republicans who voted to impeach President Trump are clearly courting Democratic voters.  Rep. Liz Cheney, perhaps the most vocal Republican in Congress in regards to her attacks on Trump for his involvement in the terrorist attacks, has only one shot at getting another term in Congress (for which she's running)-taking a plurality in the Wyoming Republican primary, and that will require Democrats & Independents (en masse) switching their registrations and voting for her in the Republican primary.  Similarly, in Alaska thanks to an odd ranked-choice voting situation, incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski (who, like Cheney, voted to impeach Trump for his involvement in the attacks), is actively courting Democrats to help her, either as the first or second place spot on the ballot.

McMullin, Cheney, & Murkowski clearly make a pattern, and it's not entirely clear how much Democrats get out of this situation.  While Murkowski is relatively moderate (she voted for Ketanji Brown Jackson recently, and has been willing to vote with Democrats on some issues), McMullin & Cheney are strong conservatives.  None of these people would vote for Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer for leader...indeed Cheney & Murkowski voted for Kevin McCarthy & Mitch McConnell, respectively, at the beginning of this Congress.  In terms of virtually all tangible issues, they are basically just "R's" and prior to 2020, the idea of backing them would've been preposterous & politically unforgivable.

The one thing that they all have in common, though, is that they believe in democracy.  They all believe that Joe Biden is the legitimately-elected president, even if they didn't all vote for him (only McMullin did).  They all believe that the winner of the 2024 election should be the candidate that wins the most votes in the electoral college, and will vote to certify that candidate.  This is an incredibly low bar, admittedly, but given the choice between, say, McMullin & Lee, based on this alone, I'd probably vote for McMullin (and the same with Murkowski & Cheney).  

But McMullin's situation is interesting because he's still a longshot.  While it's easy to see the way the other two win due to their incumbencies, McMullin is running an uphill campaign...it's arguable that since there's little chance he'd win anyway, the Democrats should've just backed a candidate like Weston.  After all, long-term, Utah is one of the few states (due to its centralized urban population & large number of college-educated voters) where demographics favor Democrats.  It would make sense for the party to start to invest in a candidate like Weston less because he'll win and more because they can start to feel out what areas of the state are worth their time, potentially setting up competitive statewide races in more favorable cycles.  McMullin has a better chance than Weston, but it's arguable it's not enough to matter.

I don't have a firm opinion here.  As a voter, I'd vote for McMullin.  Even as a Democratic loyalist, I'd be fine sleeping with that decision in the same way I'd vote for Cheney or Murkowski because they're the best of a bad situation (not voting is the coward's way out).  But the only structural advantage McMullin provides is if he commits to not voting for anyone as leader in 2022, which only matters in a 50-49-1 scenario (unlikely) and even in that situation it's probable that Schumer would have to give him committee seats to keep him from going to the GOP (a big concession, given he's got the voting beliefs of a Ben Sasse or Mitt Romney).  I don't know that the Democrats were wise to give such a big gift for such a tiny morsel in return.