Dems don’t have to choose between Sun Belt, Blue Wall

The punditocracy has picked up a new nugget of conventional wisdom: The Democrats have to choose between a candidate (implying a nonwhite candidate) who could win Sun Belt states such as North Carolina, Arizona, Texas and Georgia or someone who could win back the three critical states — Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — that used to make up the so-called Blue Wall, until Hillary Clinton lost them all in 2016. This is fool’s gold.

Let’s start with the state of President Donald Trump’s approval ratings. In its map of the president’s rating in each state, Morning Consult finds that Trump is already at a net minus-14 in Wisconsin, minus-11 in Michigan and minus-8 in Pennsylvania. There is a good argument that, while you cannot forget about these states (which was Clinton’s mistake), it won’t take much if any work to pry these states loose. In 2018, Democrats were elected in gubernatorial races in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and in Senate races in all three states as well. Democrats who were mainstream problem-solvers won comfortably. In other words, if the Democrats don’t nominate an impossibly weak or “socialist” candidate, he or she won’t need some secret sauce to win these states.

The other problem with the analysis is that, once again, it argues for a white male candidate to win the Upper Midwest (hence the conflict with the Sun Belt, which presumably would be more friendly to a nonwhite nominee). It bears repeating that these states all have urban areas with large African American populations, not to mention women in hundreds of suburbs (who’ve already thrown out a bunch of Republicans in 2018). Maximizing those voters, as President Barack Obama did in his two elections, and as Democrats did in 2018, shows that you don’t need a white guy to win. You need a good candidate.

As for the Sun Belt states, there is plenty of chatter about turning Texas blue. Even skeptic Harry Enten of CNN has changed his tune: “Trump is a uniquely unpopular Republican in Texas who seems to be the driver of an important development: Like other Americans, Texans with a college degree are shifting rapidly from red to blue, and Democrats have a lot of room to grow with them in Texas.” Enten added, “The story of 2016 was non-college educated voters in the north voted more like college-educated voters in the south than previously. The story of 2020 could be college-educated voters in Texas voting more like collegeeducated voters in the north than they used to.”

And of course, the Democrats in Texas did a good job turning out Hispanics and young voters in 2018. They did that with a white guy — albeit one who speaks fluent Spanish — driving turnout.

In other words, the notion you need an old white guy to win the Upper Midwest and a younger nonwhite to win Sun Belt states is based on really nothing at all. If you want to win everywhere, you might pick a moderate female candidate of the type who won in suburbs all across the country in 2018. Alternatively, a moderate white male candidate with great appeal to Hispanics could win back the Blue Wall, plus Texas and Arizona. Then again, an African American woman with a professional sensibility could match Obama’s performance in the Midwest, drive the suburban women’s vote through the roof and put in play, if not win outright, North Carolina and Georgia.

There are many paths to 270 electoral votes and many Democratic candidates who have wide appeal. We should stop the “false choice” school of analysis and recognize a political truism: Good candidates beat bad candidates most of the time. And a good Democratic nominee (think Bill Clinton in 1992 or Barack Obama in 2008) almost always beats the incumbent party during an economic downturn.