"Deep Blue State" does not mean "Deep Blue Policy"
Partisan politics and the United States have become almost synonyms of each other, with both parties most known for their national platforms proposed at general presidential or federal elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives. So much attention is always pinned on these platforms that the entire country gets the sense that they also define the top concerns of states. The concerns of local communities, however, can impact the party platforms of each state more than those at the national level; the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, for instance, holds a more conservative stance on climate policies than the DNC because of the substantial fracking industry in the state, with both incumbent democratic senators Bob Casey and John Fetterman are against bans on fracking. Democratic presidential candidate VP Kamala Harris, on the other hand, held on to her opposition to fracking her nomination at the DNC.
Transitioning to foreign policy, Pennsylvania Governor and then VP-hopeful Josh Shapiro’s staunch support of Israel has left pundits arguing that his stance would have been too much of a liability on the Harris ticket, negatively impacting her support from younger and minority voters. These local-national differences are possible in PA because it is a key battleground state, where the state democratic party feels it’s necessary to make concessions to win the state. The same line of reasoning does not hold everywhere. Across the board from federal house members, to federal senators, and state parties, the rationale of a more competitive state resulting in more moderate or centrist policies is not the case. Frequently, exactly the opposite occurs.
Over time, especially during the 2010s, the house has grown much more polarized with both parties moving further away from what is considered the “moderate stance”. Currently, there are debates over the reason for this, with some arguing that it is simply house members adapting to what the voters want, or others arguing that it’s not the voters changing, but the use of gerrymandering and other electoral reforms resulting in greater polarization. Empirical evidence suggests that gerrymandering though does not result in polarization, but simply a change in district representation. Redistricting impacts the number of competitive districts across states, with gerrymandering usually decreasing the number of competitive districts (although at times some gerrymandering is planned to raise the competitiveness of districts). Focusing on these competitive districts, the typical line of reasoning would be to nominate moderate or centrist candidates to win over moderate voters because the margin of victory in said districts is so small. However, this does not necessarily guarantee the highest probability of victory nor result in moderate candidates.
California - Woke Paradise?
One of California’s most competitive congressional districts is the 47th district of incumbent Katie Porter. Porter is not a part of the progressive group of representatives known as “The Squad”, but is considered one of the more progressive house members. As a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, she was endorsed by Senator Elizabeth Warren for the California Democratic Senate Primary to fill the seat left vacant by Dianne Feinstein. Throughout her tenure, Porter has supported the legalization of marijuana, and sided with other Progressive Dems in being one of 46 democratic house members to vote against the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, stating that the act did not go far enough at stopping the post-COVID debt crisis. Many moderate House members voting for the act are in safe Democratic districts where any position they could hold would not necessarily impact their reelection chances. In Porter’s case, it could have consequential effects, either positive or negative.
The 47th district encompasses part of Orange County, a more suburban region of Southern California that is historically known for voting in favor of Republicans up until the 2010s. In the 2016 general election, the incumbent Mimi Walters of the prior 45th district swiftly won reelection by roughly seventeen percentage points, with the prior election being won by 30 points. Based on these two performances, the district was easily considered not a very competitive district being solidly Republican. One thing is for sure though, having President Donald Trump as the incumbent during the 2018 midterm elections set up a political climate favoring the Democrats to win back seats in both the House and Senate. Breaking all expectations as the challenger, Porter would defeat Walters by roughly four points, flipping the district blue for the first time in history.
In Porter’s case, being in favor of marijuana legalization at the federal or state level is not a stance that is shared amongst all of her democratic colleagues. The late Senator Dianne Feinstein was known as a staunch opponent of marijuana legalization for almost all of her career until she slightly switched her position in 2018. Feinstein, representing California, a so. called “deep-blue state”, has not necessarily held “deep-blue” policy positions. For instance, she supported the invasion of Iraq at the time but later changed her position, showing “remorse for voting in favor”. More recently, Feinstein has consistently opposed a single-payer healthcare system, despite substantial support for the policy in California. Across the country, the common perception is that California is the bastion of progressive policies, a point pushed by GOP lawmakers and pundits stating negatively that “democrats want to make the rest of the country like California”. This line of attack has extended to VP Harris, with Republicans calling out her “California-ness”. Nevertheless, it seems to defy logic why at the state level, democrats do not seem to advocate for progressive policies like how their state is known.
New York - The Cost of Incompetence
New York, a state well-known as a Democratic stronghold, is home to some prominent progressive figures like Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and former Congressman Jamaal Bowman. However, the state also has a history of electing moderate Democrats and even Republican mayors such as Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg. In the 1990s, New York was one of the few Democratic states to implement stop-and-frisk, a policy that allowed police officers to search civilians if they had a justifiable reason, without needing to arrest them. It was unusual at the time to see a Democratic stronghold enforce such strict measures. In 2014, stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional. Yet, to this day, New York remains one of the few Democratic states with a stop-and-identify law. During his tenure, former Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo often had to collaborate with a Republican-led State Senate, which led to various compromises. One such concession was the appointment of several conservative-leaning justices across the state, a decision that drew significant scrutiny from Democratic voters and party members. Though the effects were not immediately apparent, over time, the influence of these conservative-leaning justices would profoundly impact the future direction of the New York Democratic Party later in the decade.
One key factor is redistricting. In 2012, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo struck a deal with Republicans to pass a congressional map more favorable to them, in exchange for amending the state constitution to ban partisan gerrymandering. The primary issue was that, until the 2018 midterm elections, New York’s State Senate had a Republican majority, ensuring that Democrats couldn’t push through a map too favorable to their party anyway. At the time, this compromise didn’t stir much controversy, but its effects became apparent during the 2020 redistricting process. Ironically, the first test of the new law yielded disastrous results. In states like Washington, independent redistricting commissions are structured to limit partisan influence, designing maps that reflect the state's electorate. In contrast, New York and many other states grant the state legislature the power to propose maps, with the governor signing them into law. With a supermajority in the state legislature, Democrats debated whether to propose a slightly favorable map or go all in with a plan that would secure a 25-3 Democratic majority in the congressional delegation. Ultimately, the legislature proposed a 24-4 map. Despite avoiding the most aggressive option, the map was struck down by the New York Court of Appeals, which upheld a lower court’s ruling that the map violated the state constitution by being a partisan gerrymander, and transferred redistricting responsibilities to a Special Master.
The drama began with intra-party infighting, as some Democrats were upset that the New York State Legislature had overreached, putting the party at risk, while others blamed Cuomo—not for his decision to ban partisan gerrymandering, but for failing to make the rules clearer. After the court-ordered proposals from the special master, the resulting map yielded 16 Democrat-leaning districts, 6 Republican-leaning districts, and 4 toss-ups. This was seen as a disaster for the New York Democratic Party in a state so deeply blue that such internal disputes are usually unexpected.
But the mess for Democrats didn’t end there. In the 2022 Midterm Elections, the first with the new redistricted maps in effect, Republicans won back the House majority, securing 222 seats to the Democrats’ 213. Although Democrats performed well overall, considering President Joe Biden was in power, their performance in specific states faltered. Republican gerrymandering in states like Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida resulted in guaranteed seat losses, but Democrats also lost 2 seats in California and 4 in New York. These losses in two key states effectively cost Democrats their chance to retain a majority in the House. In New York, Democrats significantly underperformed in both Senate and gubernatorial races, with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer winning reelection by only fourteen percentage points, and incumbent Governor Kathy Hochul winning by just six points—a stark contrast to Biden's twenty-three-point victory in the state just two years earlier.
The reality is that Democrats underperforming at the state level also impacts their success at the national level. This raises the question: are Democrats neglecting areas of the country they take for granted? In the 2016 Election, a similar issue arose when presidential candidate Hillary Clinton campaigned very little in Wisconsin and Michigan, states she lost by less than a percentage point, handing the victory to Trump. However, Democrats appear to be learning from past mistakes and have placed significant focus on the Rust Belt. It’s one thing to campaign in Rust Belt states during presidential elections, but another to push for progressive policies and grassroots efforts to ensure that these states remain loyal to the Democratic Party at all levels. This is precisely how Democrats are refining their strategy for 2024.
Minnesota and the Rust Belt - Labor at the Center
Although it’s not unanimously considered a Rust Belt state, Minnesota garners significant attention due to its similar characteristics. Many political analysts closely monitor the state, as recent elections have shown it to be more competitive, with Hillary Clinton winning by just one and a half points and Joe Biden by roughly seven points. While Democratic presidential candidates have carried Minnesota in every election since 1976, the margins have often been narrow. The focus here should be on the state’s Democratic Party, which has its own unique twist compared to other state-level Democratic parties.
The Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL) is an alliance of historically progressive groups with the Minnesota Democratic Party. The only other state with a similarly "divergent" Democratic Party is neighboring North Dakota, with its Democratic-Nonpartisan League Party. The Minnesota DFL has historically advocated for farmers’ protections, a legacy of the progressive Farmer-Labor Party (FLP), which existed until 1944 and fought for public ownership of various farming industries. After the Great Depression, many FLP supporters suffered greatly from the economic fallout. Farmers faced revenue losses due to the depressed economy, and laborers in the urban Minneapolis-St. Paul area lost their jobs. Some FLP factions supported communism, pushing for greater labor protections for farmers, while others simply felt exploited by elites and business owners. The party thus represented a coalition of leftist-populist believers who were often looked down upon by American elites and business owners—especially during the era of McCarthyism, when supporting socialist ideals became taboo. This stigmatization eventually led to the party’s dissolution in 1944.
Then there was the People’s Party, which was also composed of different factions. Primarily focused on labor protections, the party operated from the late nineteenth century to the early twentieth century. Some factions strongly advocated for uniting all workers against the elites and establishment that exploited them. However, the coalition was divided by racism and anti-Semitism, with conspiracy theories targeting the latter. While some saw uniting with Black and female workers as a sign of strength and solidarity for the movement, this also sparked internal conflict. Some argued that too much inclusion would cause the movement to collapse and invite greater criticism. Notably, the movement was led by figures like Thomas Watson and Marion Butler, who were unapologetically white supremacists.
In the 1912 Presidential Election, before the FLP’s founding, Teddy Roosevelt ran for another term as president under the Progressive Party (Bull Moose Party). He advocated for strict limits on campaign contributions, a national health service, direct election of senators, easier methods for amending the U.S. Constitution, and women’s suffrage. At the time, this party was a splinter group from the Republican Party, composed of those considered Radical Republicans—a term also historically used for Republicans who supported the abolition of slavery and equal rights for Black Americans. The Progressive Party performed best in the Rust Belt states, where Roosevelt won Minnesota, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. However, Roosevelt also engaged in racist messaging, building a movement that was, in many ways, exclusionary.
In the same election, Socialist Party candidate Eugene V. Debs also performed well in the Rust Belt, although he did not win a single electoral vote. Debs championed the labor rights of industrial workers, with one of his most famous moments being the 1894 Pullman Strike. As the founder of the American Railway Union (ARU), he organized a strike against the Pullman Company after widespread wage cuts. However, the strike was unsuccessful, leading to the dissolution of the ARU, and Debs was ultimately sentenced to six months in prison for his role in the strike. Unlike other populist movements, Debs advocated for the emancipation of “wage slavery,” believing that a socialist movement could not succeed without uniting all races that faced oppression.
The Past is tied to the Present
Historically, the Rust Belt has been a key region in the U.S. for progressive labor policies and populist sentiment, a reality that remains evident today. Donald Trump capitalized on this populist sentiment in the 2016 Election, focusing specifically on workers' struggles in the face of globalization. The impacts of automation and the relocation of industries to foreign countries were critical factors in Trump’s success across the Rust Belt. In 2016, Democrats and Hillary Clinton failed to credibly address these voters' concerns, centering their campaign not on progressive economic policies to earn their trust, but rather on the simple fact that Clinton was not Trump and would avoid controversy or making inflammatory remarks.
Now, Democrats at the state level have shifted their focus to infrastructure spending and progressive economic policies, which are overwhelmingly supported by voters across both urban and rural America. These issues are now central to Rust Belt political campaigns and are key reasons why incumbent governors like Tim Walz and Andy Beshear are popular in their respective states. Proposing progressive economic policies energizes the Democratic base and motivates voter turnout. For Democrats to win in the Rust Belt, the key is not just winning over swing voters but energizing their core supporters. While it’s true that in 2016, many Obama voters switched to Trump, urban turnout in cities like Milwaukee and Detroit was lackluster. Given the razor-thin margins by which Trump won, energizing the base and selecting inspiring candidates could be crucial for future Democratic victories in the Rust Belt.
Tim Walz’s selection as Kamala Harris’s running mate wasn’t just about his geographic roots; it was also a recognition of his accomplishments as governor. In the 2022 Midterm Elections, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL) regained control of the state Senate for the first time in a decade. Many might have expected legislative gridlock, assuming that a party with only a one-seat majority would struggle to achieve much—similar to the challenges faced by the United States Senate.
In this scenario, all the so-called doubters were proven wrong. The Minnesota state legislature passed numerous significant bills, including free school lunches for public schools, the legalization of marijuana, and a state-run paid family and medical leave program providing up to 20 weeks of leave in a single year. These are not just policies aimed at benefiting the DFL voter base but are designed to serve the entire state of Minnesota. However, these initiatives have drawn criticism from Republicans, with Trump campaign press secretary Karoline Leavitt claiming that “Walz is obsessed with spreading California’s dangerously liberal agenda far and wide.” In contrast, progressive Senator Bernie Sanders praised Harris’s decision to choose Walz, noting his own roots in Vermont, a state widely considered the most progressive in the country. This context explains why the Vermont Progressive Party still operates with incumbent politicians today.
Continuing on the topic of the Harris veepstakes, another highly regarded candidate was Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear. Leading a deeply red state, Beshear defied the odds by winning the gubernatorial election twice without making significant compromises to his agenda. His platform, which emphasizes labor protections, redistributive economic policies, and outreach to both the urban Louisville area and the rural Appalachian region, differs from the national Democratic platform. Beshear has remained steadfast in these principles while also defending social protections for LGBTQIA+ rights. In 2023, he vetoed a Republican bill that would have banned gender-affirming care and imposed serious restrictions on gender identity content in schools. This action underscored the importance of maintaining core values, a concept that some national and stronghold Democratic parties struggle to grasp. Notably, Beshear holds the second-highest gubernatorial approval rating in the country, despite Kentucky being a state that Trump won by twenty-six percentage points in 2020.
The policies and significance of the Rust Belt states have major implications for the Electoral College system that underpins U.S. elections. In the upcoming 2024 General Election between Harris and Trump, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are expected to play a crucial role in shaping the national party platforms. The selection of vice presidential candidates like Tim Walz from Minnesota and Senator JD Vance from Ohio reflects this trend. Although the Democratic Party is not failing in its stronghold states electorally, there is a noticeable difference in attention and motivation among voters compared to the Rust Belt.
The Impact of Systems
Why is this the case? Do Democrats allocate most of their resources to competitive states while neglecting their strongholds? Or is this a byproduct of the Electoral College system? Empirical evidence suggests that concentrating resources in specific regions is a characteristic of majoritarian electoral systems. Unlike proportional systems, which focus on maximizing total vote share, majoritarian systems prioritize where votes are concentrated. As a result, parties in majoritarian systems need to channel resources into competitive districts or states to secure victories, often leading to an inefficient allocation of resources across the entire country. This phenomenon is clearly evident in the United States, where national party platforms are increasingly tailored to battleground states, reflecting the skewed focus of electoral strategy.
Debates about the undemocratic nature of the Electoral College system continue, as it awards electoral votes based on land rather than individual votes. Democratic legislatures are advocating for the abolition of the Electoral College, with many Democratic-led states joining the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Under this compact, states that have signed on would allocate their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, once the compact reaches a total of 270 electoral votes. This is the closest the country has come to removing the Electoral College. However, passing legislation through Congress remains a significant challenge, as it would require a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and ratification by three-fourths of the states to amend the Constitution. Thus, there is both optimism that progress is being made and pessimism due to the historical difficulty of passing such bills in the Senate.
Whether the NPVIC will be adopted, only time will tell.
Bibliography
(2024) Minnesota DFL. Available at: https://dfl.org/minnesotans-abroad/.
Associated Press, and Spectrum News Staff. “Gov. Andy Beshear Celebrates New Homes and Hope for Flood Survivors.” Beshear travels to eastern Kentucky for flood anniversary, July 26, 2024. https://spectrumnews1.com/ky/louisville/news/2024/07/26/andy-beshear-eastern-kentucky-flood.
“Agreement among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote.” National Popular Vote, August 26, 2024. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation.
Bense, K. (2024) In Pennsylvania’s competitive Senate race, fracking takes Center Stage, Inside Climate News. Available at: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11082024/pennsylvania-senate-race-dave-mccormick-bob-casey/.
Callaghan, Peter, and Walker Orenstein. “MinnPost Guide to the Minnesota Legislature’s 2023 ‘done’ and ‘Undone’ Lists.” MinnPost, February 8, 2024. https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2023/05/minnpost-guide-to-the-minnesota-legislatures-2023-done-and-undone-lists/.
Corbett, Jessica. “In Fiery Shadow of New Train Disaster, Fetterman Leads Railway Accountability Act.” Common Dreams, March 30, 2023. https://www.commondreams.org/news/john-fetterman-railway-accountability-act.
Debs, Eugene V, and Shawn Gude. “Eugene Debs’s May Day Address to Black Workers.” Jacobin, January 5, 2022. https://jacobin.com/2022/05/eugene-debs-may-day-address-black-workers/.
Farmer-Labor Movement: Overview (2023) LibGuides at Minnesota Historical Society Library. Available at: https://libguides.mnhs.org/dfl.
Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (2023) Library of Congress. Available at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3746.
Gringlas, S. (2020) Hoping to replicate 2016 win, Trump will make late trip to Grand Rapids, NPR. Available at: https://www.npr.org/2020/11/02/929979880/hoping-to-replicate-2016-win-trump-will-make-late-trip-to-grand-rapids.
Itkowitz, Colby. “New York’s Redistricting Tests Democratic Opposition to Gerrymandering.” The Washington Post, September 27, 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/30/redistricting-new-york/.
Mayer, Jane. “Dianne Feinstein’s Missteps Raise a Painful Age Question among Senate Democrats.” The New Yorker, December 10, 2020. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/dianne-feinsteins-missteps-raise-a-painful-age-question-among-senate-democrats.
Mellins, S. (2022) A New Conservative Majority on New York’s Top Court is Upending State Law, New York Focus. Available at: https://nysfocus.com/2022/07/07/court-of-appeals-conservative-bloc.
Nesterak, M., Coolican, J.P. and Winter, D. (2024) Here’s what Tim Walz has done as governor of Minnesota, Minnesota Reformer. Available at: https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/08/07/heres-what-tim-walz-has-done-as-governor-of-minnesota/.
Putnam, L. (2020) Rust Belt in transition, Democracy Journal. Available at: https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/57/rust-belt-in-transition/.
Rosenburg, John S. “An Ominous Trend.” City Journal, March 23, 2023. https://www.city-journal.org/article/an-ominous-trend.
Sainato, M. (2017) Democrats can’t afford another six years of Dianne Feinstein, Observer. Available at: https://observer.com/2017/10/diane-feinstein-is-too-conservative-for-her-california-senate-seat/.
Schreiner, Bruce. “Kentucky Governor Vetoes Sweeping GOP Transgender Measure.” AP News, March 25, 2023. https://apnews.com/article/transgender-health-kentucky-2d0cc56d511b0f435db68c8c2579cbd7.
The strike of 1894 (2022) National Park Service. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/pull/learn/historyculture/the-strike-of-1894.htm.
Wiederkehr, A., Bycoffe, A. and Silver, N. (2023) Does your member of Congress vote with or against Biden?, FiveThirtyEight. Available at: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/katie-porter/.
Yokley, Eli. “U.S. Governor Approval Rating Tracker.” Morning Consult Pro, July 24, 2024. https://pro.morningconsult.com/trackers/governor-approval-ratings.
Comments