Don't get me wrong - I love publications like The Intercept, and every single one of the candidates they've mentioned in their recent post about the progressive energy going into the 2020 Democratic Primaries. In particular, State Sen. Erica Smith of my home state North Carolina, is really inspirational and seems like a deviation from the consultant-heavy, white, bland candidate that Democrats have been running in North Carolina for decades now. Sen. Kay Hagan was great - but trying to run her doppelganger for the past three elections isn't a good look. That's just one case - each of these states are very different, and each has the potential to nominate one of these wonderful progressives. However, I have a theory why they won't, and haven't ever, caught the imaginations of primary voters up until this point. I want to build on this theory with specific case studies below - and finish with a major point about how to revitalize the Democratic majority in the Senate.

Wilmot Collins of Montana probably has the longest shot of becoming the nominee. I'e covered that in another post on here, but he suffers from Montana' demographics. Not racial - I'm a firm believer that people in the U.S. really don't consider race as a major factor behind their electoral choices (minor perhaps) - but socio-economic. Montana has no urban centers. For better or worse, Democrats' political theory in the last decade has focused on policies that stem from experiences living in dense metro areas. Socialism is derived from living in close contact with a variety of diverse individuals (in thought as well as ethno-national origin) and depending on community goods to prosper, while rural living emphasizes self-reliance and homogeneity. Like I covered in my Collins' post, Montana just doesn't have the urban-community mindset needed to empathize with a progressive like Collins. Add that to the fact that a financial powerhouse candidate might drop out of the Presidential race at any time and Collins' chances look slim.

The view that only moderates have a chance in red areas have encouraged Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to pursue the blandest set of candidates he can find. John Hickenlooper of Colorado, Steve Bullock of Montana, MJ Hegar of Texas, Teresa Tomlinson of Georgia, Katie McGrath of Kentucky, Cal Cunningham of North Carolina, Theresa Greenfield of Iowa, and Jaime Harrison of South Carolina are all pretty'boring. They're relatively uninspiring candidates (nearly all of whom have a track record of losing a prior race), and his nationwide strategy seems to be getting a substantial enough threat to the Republican incumbents that forces the national party to divert their funds to those races without any real intent to win. This has already backfired in Kentucky, where Katie McGrath imploded shortly after declaring her candidacy.

The story changes in Texas. Progressive organizer Cristina Ramirez might have a chance. She's inherited Beto's strategy and team from 2018, he's publicly rejected any chance of coming back to Texas to run for Senate again, and she has demographics on her side (Hispanics now form the minority-majority in Texas, and the rural areas are declining while the major urban areas are booming). Ramirez's strategy is starkly different from Hegar's, reflecting a trend in the 2020 Democratic Senate primaries. Like Cunningham vs. Smith in NC, McGrath vs. Jones in KY, Hickenlooper vs. Johnston in CO, and Bullock vs. Collins in MT - there is a narrative of the bland, establishment candidate running a moderate campaign against the inspirational, risk-taking progressives forming in the 2020 races.

I wish I could say unequivocally that the progressive is the choice for 2020. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema ran an unapologetically moderate campaign to win Arizona in 2018 (despite being openly bisexual and progressive in the past) and Mark Kelly seems poised to win with that strategy in 2020. Progressive women haven't made much of a dent in North Carolina since Senator Hagan's first and only win in 2008. Delaware voters had no appetite for insurgent Kerri Harris's leftist primary challenge to Sen. Tom Carper in 2018. Compared to the diverse, female-led Democratic House, the U.S. Senate is an inhospitable place for diversity of race, gender, and thought. In the 116th Congress, there are 91 white senators compared to 9 of color. There are only 24 women. Electability is a miserable way to evaluate potential candidates, but statistically it's unlikely the makeup of the Senate will change immensely. Not only does the structural organization of the Senate (favoring small, majority white, rural states) mean that most of the makeup is likely just a result of demographics (if there's more white people, there's more white candidates), but even in states where ethnic groups are distributed more equally (like the Bible Belt), white Republicans have a stranglehold on statewide politics. The only Republican Black Senator, Tim Scott, was initially an appointee that was nominated by the first POC Governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley. There's plenty of evidence that once a POC is in a position of power, concerns about their 'electability' vanish - but they have to get there somehow first.

All of this post sounded super negative and pessimistic, but there's something unique about each of these candidates and 2020 that started with the Georgia race for Governor in 2018 with Stacey Abrams. These progressive candidates aren't trying to win over Republicans that voted for Trump in 2016. These candidates are trying to cultivate completely new voter bases that never voted in previous elections. This has potentially game-changing effects for the elections of the 20s. Trump won in 2016 because he managed to inspire turnout from folks who had never voted before, while Clinton lost in 2016 because she depressed turnout from folks who had. I don't want to agree with the popular narrative that rural, red states are going through major demographic shifts - none of the growing populations in states like Montana, Kentucky, Tennessee, or Mississippi are large enough to form a dominant electorate. I want to argue in favor of a uniquely American phenomenon. There are a large number of states in the U.S. are starkly Urban-Rural, meaning that they have wide swaths of rural land while their population is concentrated in a single regional, massive urban center. Just look at the traditional blue states of New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Each of these states has two or more statewide elected officials who are Democrats because their rural land is anchored by a major metropolitan area (New York City, Philadelphia/Pittsburgh, Chicago, St.Paul/Minneapolis, Milwaukee, and Detroit). Now - think about it. There are a significant number of 'red states' that also have this phenomenon. Georgia with Atlanta, Florida with Miami, North Carolina with Charlotte, and Ohio with Cleveland. Heck, Texas with their four major metro areas could be compared to California. The reason that these states have trended red in recent years is because their major metros are dying. All the wealth is being concentrated in the costal finance capitals. If Democrats want to retake their governing advantage, they need to revitalize these urban centers. Just think about it - Democrats have been able to retake a chamber of Congress and possess a majority in the Senate for half of the last decade WITH a structural disadvantage in the government. Imagine what would happen if you removed that handicap. Democrats need to spend the 20s focusing on revitalizing these forgotten regional capitals, and taking power away from the Coasts. If they do that, the Senate's modern paralysis will end.

\