Commentary Politics

What Sandra Fluke’s Short-Lived Congressional Bid Can Teach Ambitious Progressive Women

Catherine Geanuracos

What if you’re a young progressive woman who wants to shake things up? You should! But you also need to be practical and strategic.

When Sandra Fluke declared that she was considering running for Henry Waxman’s Congressional seat last week, the young progressive feminist Twitterverse lit up. Here at Rewire, Erin Matson wrote that “young women will not just serve supporting roles in the political process, but will help make the rules in the primary institutions of power themselves.” I got emails from non-political friends asking me whether I was involved and how to join in.

Unfortunately for Fluke, the reaction I heard most from women and men in the Los Angeles Democratic political world was, “Seriously?!?” People who are familiar with the race and with the district understood from the beginning that Fluke would struggle to raise funds locally and connect with voters. People from outside Los Angeles couldn’t know that Fluke failed to win a seat on the LA County Young Dems Board last year, precisely because she didn’t correctly read or participate in local LA politics. (Fluke ultimately ended up saying she would run for state senate instead.)

As in most electoral races, both the context and the strategy are key, and successful candidates, whether male or female, understand that. The 2013 LA mayor’s race, between former city council members Eric Garcetti and Wendy Greuel, is a case in point. Greuel’s traditional base is on the west side of Los Angeles and in the Valley, and she entered the mayoral race with much of the traditional Democratic donor base and elected officials on her side—precisely the people who are concentrated in Waxman’s district. Nonetheless, Garcetti won women and young voters, along with Greuel’s traditional west-side strongholds. Why? Like many of our local elections, this one was decided largely by campaign strategy. Greuel ran an extremely negative campaign, compared to Garcetti’s aspirational, innovation-focused platform. In addition, the support of the unpopular Department of Water and Power union became a liability for Greuel. In the end, even though Greuel was from the area and had been in politics for a while, her strategy and her team just did not work as well as her opponents.

Still, most Angelenos who follow politics expected Greuel to run for another major office. When Waxman’s seat opened, it made sense that she would enter the contest. Non-Angelenos might not understand how natural a fit the seat is for Greuel and how her candidacy offers the opportunity for her to mend some of the rifts she created within the LA political scene because of her unnecessarily negative mayoral campaign. What didn’t make sense was the idea that Sandra Fluke would be a viable candidate for Congress from that district, because she didn’t have the roots, the organization, or the knowledge of the district.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Please understand: I want more women to run for office. We only have one woman on our city council in Los Angeles. It’s pathetic. I want more women elected to Congress. I want more progressive voices in Congress. I want more young people in Congress. But Fluke’s candidacy demonstrates what can happen when the progressive online left folds in on itself, and fails to be realistic about local political context.

The reaction to Fluke’s announcement shows a disturbing tendency by progressives online to leap before they look. I would love to see as much buzz about some of the young women running for Congress or defending their seats who could really make a difference—candidates like Amanda Renteria in Fresno or Kyrsten Sinema in Phoenix. (Both races are listed as competitive by the Cook Report.) Renteria is pushing for attention to the needs of her low-income, Latino-majority Central Valley district, while Sinema stands for access to women’s health care, education, and support for military families.

What if you’re a young progressive woman who wants to shake things up? You should! But you also need to be practical and strategic. Here are some basics for young women (or any young candidates) who are thinking about launching an unexpected candidacy:

1. Understand your district and the competitive landscape of the seat.

Fluke tried to run in one of the most influential Democratic Congressional districts in the country. It’s where Democrats from around the country come to raise money, and it’s the home base of entertainment industry fundraisers and west-side liberals. It’s not a great place to be an outsider candidate. There’s a reason Waxman held the seat for 40 years.

2. What Washington thinks about you is not what your district thinks about you.

If you, like Fluke, are lucky enough to have some Internet fame and a national profile, great! But don’t forget to take the temperature of the district in which you’re running. The Washington Post had an article opining that Wendy Greuel must have been relieved that Fluke changed her mind; I can’t imagine that Greuel, and the substantial operation she built during her race for mayor, ever considered Fluke a serious threat.

3. If you don’t want to “wait your turn,” you should build a strong team and base before you declare your candidacy.

Two young California Assembly members, Jimmy Gomez and Matt Dababneh, weren’t “supposed” to run, or win. But they each constructed a solid, local, dynamic base of support, and ran extremely smart campaigns. Dababneh built his work for Congressman Sherman into a formidable fundraising operation. Gomez leveraged his base in labor, and his secret weapon, his campaign strategist and wife Mary Hodge, built an incredibly smart and well-organized campaign. They beat older, more “traditional” candidates. I wish they were women, but I’m glad they’re in office. And they demonstrate that the traditional California Democratic Party power structure once known to shut out young candidates is weakening.

4. Carpetbagging is still a problem (unless you’re Hillary Clinton running for Senate in New York).

Fluke has no family or personal ties to Waxman’s district stretching back farther than one year. This is equally true for her new district. She grew up in Pennsylvania, in a strong Democratic district; perhaps she should consider running for a Republican-held seat in that state? For her new state senate race, she’ll be facing a young, smart, progressive candidate, Ben Allen, who grew up in the district, is president of the Santa Monica school board, attended Harvard, Berkeley, and Cambridge, started programs for at-risk kids, teaches law at UCLA, and worked in D.C. and abroad. Given that Betsy Butler is jumping houses/districts to join this race as well, we may be looking at a replay of the resource-draining, angina-inducing duel between Butler and Torie Osborne, the 50th Assembly district race we suffered through, during which friendships ruptured over minor policy differences. Neither woman won. And in the pre-endorsement meeting of the California Democratic Party for the state senate seat Fluke is seeking, no candidate won enough votes for the endorsement recommendation, but Butler got 57 percent of the votes, while Fluke received 8 percent. Democratic donors, please send your money to races that matter (see Renteria and Sinema, above).

5. Being a sweetheart of the progressive online left—or the digital elite—doesn’t necessarily translate into supporters or victory.

You can look at candidates like Torie Osborn in LA or Reshma Saujani in New York to see what happens when candidates start to believe the online/progressive hype. Even Eric Garcetti’s extensive digital impact was just one part of a broader campaign strategy. And the Garcetti campaign focused on engaging LA’s tech and startup community as donors, as well as making sure his celebrity supporters tweeted up a storm.

6. Progressives want to elect women, but just being a woman isn’t enough.

This is the most important lesson to take from Wendy Greuel’s loss in the LA mayor’s race, and I trust that Greuel’s current team and Hillary Clinton are planning accordingly. Progressive women voters want to see women in leadership. But they also want candidates who reflect the full spectrum of their values, and who have a clear vision for the future of their communities.

I can’t wait to see more young women candidates create campaigns based on local knowledge, leadership, and vision. I’ll support them when they run, and celebrate when they win.

Correction: A version of this article incorrectly noted that Kyrsten Sinema had been a candidate in Tucson, Arizona. In fact, she had been a candidate in Phoenix. We regret the error.

This article has also been edited to correct the spelling of Wendy Greuel’s name.

News Politics

Democrats in Utah, Colorado Make History as First Openly Transgender Women to Win Congressional Primaries

Ally Boguhn

Though Misty Snow's win may be historic for LGBTQ equality, she has previously noted that it was not the reason she is running for office."I'm not running because I'm transgender. I just happen to be transgender," the Utah candidate said.

Voters in Utah and Colorado made history Tuesday after nominating Democrats Misty Snow and Misty Plowright to run for Congress in their respective states—making them the first openly transgender women to win a major party’s congressional primary nomination.

Misty Snow, according to the bio listed on her campaign’s website, is a 30-year-old grocery store cashier from Salt Lake County, Utah, “concerned by the degree of income inequality in this country: particularly how it disproportionately impacts women, people of color, and the LGBT community.” Among the many issues prioritized on her website are paid maternity leave, a $15 minimum wage, and anti-choice regulations that “restrict a woman’s right to having a safe and legal abortion as well as any attempts to undermine a woman’s access to important health services.”

Though her win may be historic for LGBTQ equality, she has previously noted that it was not the reason she is running for office. “I’m not running because I’m transgender. I just happen to be transgender,” she told the Salt Lake Tribune in May. In later statement to the publication, however, Snow acknowledged that “a lot of people have told me whether I win or lose, I’m already making a difference just by running.”

Snow ran opposite Democrat Jonathan Swinton in Utah, having filed to run for office just before the March 17 deadline. Snow decided to run after Swinton, who was running for the Democratic ticket unopposed, penned an op-ed in September arguing that Planned Parenthood should be investigated—though the government should not be shut down over it. After reading the op-ed and thinking it over for several months, Snow told the Tribune she began to think the people of Colorado deserved a more liberal option and thought, “Why not me?”

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Snow’s win means she will move on to run against incumbent conservative Sen. Mike Lee. As previously reported by Rewire, Lee is stringently anti-abortion and has consistently pushed measures “attempting to limit access to or outright ban abortion.”

Misty Plowright, who is running to represent Colorado’s 5th congressional district, describes herself as an “Army veteran, a self-educated woman, a member of the LGBTQ+ community, and a passionate social democrat,” according to her campaign’s website. An IT worker from Colorado Springs, Plowright billed herself as the “anti-politician” during an interview with the Colorado Springs Gazette, and is running on a platform that includes campaign finance reform and defending voting rights.

Plowright will now challenge incumbent Rep. Doug Lamborn (R) for his seat in the House.

Plowright congratulated Snow in her win in a Wednesday post to her campaign’s Facebook page. “Congratulations from ‪#‎TeamMisty‬ to another progressive candidate in Utah, Misty K Snow,” wrote Plowright’s campaign. “Both women made history last night by winning their Democratic Primary.”

As Slate reported, though the candidates may have both won their primary races, “Snow and Plowright face uphill battles in the coming months”:

Despite a Gallup survey from March 2015 that calculated Salt Lake City’s LGBTQ population as the seventh-highest in the nation, Lee leads Snow 51 percent to 37 percent among likely general election voters according to a poll commissioned by the Salt Lake Tribune and the Hinckley Institute of Politics in early June. And Lamborn, who has represented Colorado’s heavily conservative fifth district since 2007, took nearly 60 percent of the vote in his most recent reelection fight.

News Politics

Trump’s First Congressional Endorsement Goes to Candidate Opposed by Anti-Choice Groups (Updated)

Ally Boguhn

Anti-choice groups targeted Rep. Renee Ellmers' seat after the North Carolina representative reportedly spoke out against language in the House of Representatives' 2015 20-week abortion ban.

UPDATE, June 8, 8:35 a.m.: Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC) lost her campaign for re-election Tuesday night, leaving Rep. George Holding (R-NC) as the Republican candidate for the state’s 2nd congressional district. Ellmers’ loss makes her the first member of the GOP to lose their seat in Congress.

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump made his first congressional endorsement over the weekend, backing U.S. Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC) despite anti-choice groups’ attempts to unseat the congresswoman in the state’s Tuesday primary.

“Hello, this is Donald Trump and I’m calling to personally ask you to vote for Renee Ellmers,” said Trump in a robocall released Saturday on behalf of Ellmers. “Renee was the first congresswoman to endorse me, and she really was terrific and boy, is she a fighter.”

“I need her help in Washington so we can work together to defeat ISIS, secure our border, and bring back jobsand frankly, so many other things. And Renee knows how to do it. She gets it,” continues Trump in the ad. “And together, we will make America great again.”

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Anti-choice groups targeted Ellmers’ seat after the North Carolina representative reportedly spoke out against language in the House of Representatives’ 2015 20-week abortion ban, which would have required rape victims to formally report their assault to police in order to be exempted from the law. Ellmers expressed concerns about that aspect of the measure during a closed-door meeting on the legislation, according to Politico.

Ellmers later told Bloomberg Politics that she supported a later version of the abortion ban with revised language. Overall, the congresswoman has been consistently anti-choice during her time in office.

In February, a federal district panel ordered North Carolina to redraw the state’s congressional map after it found evidence of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The new lines shifted much of Rep. George Holding’s (R-NC) current district to Ellmers’ district, leading Holding to challenge his GOP colleague.

“We helped bring Renee Ellmers to Washington and now we want to send her home,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of anti-choice group Susan B. Anthony List, told the Washington Examiner for a report published Monday. “She was exactly the type of candidate our organization exists to support, both on the campaign trail and in Congress, but she failed us.”

Ellmers’ campaign contends that the candidate has been consistently anti-choice during her time in Congress. “She never once voted against a pro-life bill,” Patrick Sebastian, senior adviser for her campaign, told Roll Call in May. “It’s absurd, honestly.”

Susan B. Anthony List’s decision to support Ellmers’ challenger, Holding, marks the first time the group has ever endorsed a man over a “pro-life woman,” reports NPR. The group is reportedly spending about $50,000 on the race, and “is sending more than 200 canvassers to knock on 12,500 doors by Tuesday and tell voters,” about Ellmers’ record on abortion, according to the Examiner

The anti-choice group has already pledged to back Trump in the presidential election, despite having spent months publicly questioning whether the candidate’s opposition to abortion was extreme enough.

National Right to Life Victory Fund, an anti-choice super PAC, also took aim at Ellmers in an email to supporters last week. “Nothing has the potential to do more damage to pro-life efforts than people who run as pro-life candidates back home in their pro-life districts and then stab the babies in the back when they come to DC and work against pro-life efforts,” asserted the super PAC, going on to note that the organization would be “working hard in the mail, on the phone, and on the internet to see that pro-life traitor Renee Ellmers is defeated and pro-life champion George Holding wins the June 7th Republican primary.”

Trump’s endorsement of Ellmers seemingly signals yet another disconnect between the Republican candidate and those who oppose abortion. As Rewire has previously reported, Trump has faced “months of criticism by Republicans and those who oppose abortion rights. Despite the GOP presidential candidate’s promises to defund Planned Parenthood and nominate Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade and criminalize abortion, Trump has come under fire for suggesting that abortion patients should be punished for undergoing the procedure, should it become illegal.”