Ranting On...Marie Newman & Dan Lipinski

Marie Newman (D-IL)

This morning, I properly kicked off my 2020 election cycle personally by donating to several campaigns.  I know that not all people do this, and some claim to not have the financial wherewithal to do so (though considering you can frequently make a difference just by donating $5, I usually scoff at this excuse, particularly from the people I know in person who can, in fact, afford a $5 donation), but I think it's important to not just vote, but to give to campaigns across the country that I truly believe in, and that I think will make a difference.  I have (so far) resisted making any donations to presidential candidates, though I almost did; Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, hadn't yet hit her fundraising threshold, and while she is not a candidate I will probably end up voting for even though I like her a lot personally (she'd need to do better in the polls before I'd cast my ballot for her), I was a bit disgusted as to why she wasn't getting a fair shake due to her support of the women who accused Al Franken of sexual misconduct, and didn't want that to preclude her from at least getting to the first debate...but she hit that threshold on Monday and is now guaranteed a spot in the debates.  I will almost certainly donate to one or possibly more presidential campaigns before the year is out, but for now I'm focusing on what I normally do: donate to congressional campaigns, particularly those of challengers.

It's a bit early, and I don't like to wade into crowded primaries, so three of my candidates that I donated to first make a lot of sense.  Like I said, I really like donating to challengers (besting incumbent Republicans is possibly my favorite part of election night), so it was a no-brainer to give to Mark Kelly & Theresa Greenfield, both of whom are the logical frontrunners to take on incumbent Sens. Martha McSally (AZ) and Joni Ernst, two of the best options for the Democrats to win the Senate majority.  A third candidate I donated to is Rep. Kendra Horn, one of the most vulnerable incumbents running for reelection in the House.  I think Horn, if we can hang onto her for another cycle or two, could become a stalwart in the House as her district is trending at a relatively quick speed to the left, and if we can get her through redistricting, could even be shored up for her as Oklahoma Republicans try to avoid their losses.  I have every intention of donating to Sara Gideon & Wendy Davis if (or when) they decide to enter the race, and I have a little nugget set aside if Janet Cowell jumps in in North Carolina.  And inevitably as the election cycle wages and we find races that were unexpectedly close, I'll give more as I'm able.  But it's the final donation I wanted to talk about today, and that's because it was a first for me.  The final person I donated to was Marie Newman.

Newman is a Democrat running for the US House in Illinois (don't think I've gone to that crazy end of the spectrum here people in making a donation "first"), but she is not an incumbent Democrat running for the House, and she's not someone challenging a sitting Republican.  She's also not running for office in an open seat.  She is, in fact, running against an incumbent Democrat, Rep. Dan Lipinski.  I checked the list of every candidate that I've ever given to since I first donated to Mary Landrieu's reelection when I was 18-in that time I've donated to 50+ candidates, but never, not once, have I ever supported someone challenging an incumbent Democrat.  This felt worth reflecting on, and explaining why Lipinski finally became the bridge-too-far.

Generally, I support incumbent Democrats, but particularly when it comes to money because I can see the forest for the trees.  For starters, incumbent Democrats already hold the office-the change in how they will vote will be relatively minimal compared to beating a Republican.  It's true that even if you look at a Republican like Susan Collins (one of the more moderate members of the GOP caucus), the impact of the Democrat challenging her will be exponentially greater if he or she wins than it will beating even the most conservative of incumbent Democrats.  Not just on the issues, but also in terms of voting for a Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer (and by proxy a host of Democrats chairing committees and sending legislation to the floor).  There are no shortage of congressional challengers and vulnerable incumbents, so why donate to a challenger who is, at best, going to be a hold that has little risk of going the other way?

Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL)

Additionally, an incumbent Democrat has proven that they can win, and I'm hardly someone that goes around being the purity police on every issue, even issues I feel passionately about, with my donations because I have a finite amount I can spend, and I want my limited resources that I budget for donations to get the biggest bang for their buck.  I would never support a Democratic challenger to someone like Joe Manchin, Collin Peterson, or Tom O'Halleran, for example, because there's an extremely strong possibility that they're the only people who can hold their seats for the Democrats, and why would I fund a longshot when we have a surer thing...and when that seat could easily go to the Republicans if we don't have the right general election candidate?

But I think it's time to acknowledge, in seats where the Democrats can win the general election without issue, where there is room for improvement.  Lipinski isn't the only incumbent House Democrat that I am leery to support this cycle (truth be told, I would be fine if Tulsi Gabbard, Seth Moulton, & Henry Cuellar all fell depending on who their primary challenger ultimately ended up being), but he's the one it's easiest to see the good that having him out of Congress would do.

Lipinski is famously right-leaning on two major social issues: abortion and gay marriage.  Lipinski is against gay marriage, and was the only Democrat in the House not to cosponsor the Equality Act (seriously-even Collin Peterson, Ben McAdams, & Tom O'Halleran all backed the bill as a cosponsor).  While he ultimately ended up backing the legislation on the House floor, he only did so after a public shaming and a clear series of criticisms from Newman on the campaign trail.  The Democrats shouldn't have to worry about Lipinski, who represents a blue district (Hillary won it by 16 points in 2016 & Obama won it by 13 in 2012), receiving mountains of national press before he ultimately backs a bill, and only does so by repeating Fox News talking points about religious freedom (that the bill doesn't actually do-it doesn't threaten religious freedoms).  

Lipinski is also one of only three Democrats in the House who regularly vote against abortion rights.  One of them is Collin Peterson, whom I give something of a pass on this for (he represents a district Trump won by 30-points, and is literally the only Democrat who'd have a prayer in this district so we put up with him because he backs Pelosi for Speaker), and the other is Henry Cuellar (who, if his opponent Jessica Cisneros is as accomplished as Newman is, might also be a candidate I break my rule for as Hillary won his district by 20-points).  In an era where women's reproductive rights are regularly under fire in states ranging from Alabama to Georgia to Missouri to Arizona, if we can eliminate someone who stands against women's rights, regardless of party label, for someone who supports women's right-to-choose, I feel it's important for us to do this.

In 2018, I backed Marie Newman's campaign through tweets and an article on this blog.  But as I don't live in or near IL-3, I can't back it in any tangible way except a contribution, which is why I gave this weekend.  I feel it's important that Democrats stand up for women's right and gay rights, and while I can see political reality, Dan Lipinski is expendable and not so important that we should put up with his obvious shortcomings.  He's not Joe Manchin or Collin Peterson, getting us a seat that we otherwise wouldn't.  Marie Newman would hold the 3rd, but would also be a champion for social issues and not have to be publicly shamed every time there's an important vote to do the right thing.  So I support her, and hope she wins.  If 2020 echoes some of the moments in 2018 where upstart progressives took out longtime, establishment incumbents, I want them to not be simply about "out with the old, in with the new" (as I value experience in addition to stances on issues, and feel that has ageist tendencies); I want instead for us to make tangible change with these victories, which a Rep. Marie Newman in the next Congress certainly would do whereas a reelected Rep. Dan Lipinski would not.