Plus One, Minus One = Zero

Motion without movement. Add one vote. Subtract one vote. You end where you started. Messaging doesn’t change the math.

Earlier this month, Leaders We Deserve, a youth oriented, progressive group, with $20 million to spend and a goal of bringing generational change to the Party, said it planned to run primary candidates against incumbent congressional Democrats they view as “out-of-touch” and “ineffective”.

The president of the group told the press, “The reason we’re doing this is to get the Democratic Party into fighting shape … It has become abundantly clear we are not doing anywhere near enough … to stand up to Donald Trump. … Do you want to roll over and die, or do you want to fight?”

Possible targets were not named, but they would include only representatives from strong Democratic districts to avoid the possibility of a Republican winning in the general.

On its website, Leaders We Deserve describes itself as “a grassroots organization dedicated to electing young progressives to Congress and State Legislatures across the country to help defeat the far-right agenda and advance a progressive vision for the future. Our mission is to identify and elect more trailblazers – youthful, audacious, and charismatic leaders who aren’t afraid to challenge the status quo.”

Defeating the far-right agenda and advancing a progressive vision for the future doesn’t come closer if one Democrat, not matter how progressive, replaces another Democrat in a Democrat safe district. In the words of the entertaining and very political musical Hamilton, “you need to convince more folks.”

The progressive vision has to resonate with more people. Attract more voters. Championed by “trailblazers” who can also go out and win in districts Democrats have not won in a while.

Leaders We Deserve might well consider focusing activity on the 3^rd Congressional District here in Wisconsin. It has voted Republican in the past two elections. In 2024, with more than 400,000 votes cast, the Democrat candidate lost 51 percent to 48 percent, or by about 11,000 votes.

There are 11 college campuses with a total enrollment of 67,800 students in the 3^rd District providing opportunity for a youth and future focused campaign. The age group 18-34 is the cohort least involved in politics, has the lowest percentage of registered voters, and the lowest percentage of actual voters. The Party – or group – that can change those numbers will change politics.

A win in the 3^rd would have much greater impact than replacing an incumbent in a heavily Democratic district. Both for the national political discourse and for Leaders We Deserve. A strategy that sells is a strategy that is copied.

“Fight” is the verb we hear most often to describe what the Democrats should be doing. Fight harder. Stop Trump. The choice presented by Leaders We Deserve is binary. “Do you want to roll over and die, or do you want to fight?” They are not alone. A recent headline captures the general mood. “Democrats Step Up Trump Resistance as Base Hungers for More of a Fight.”

At an Eau Claire rally last month, Tim Walz said he didn’t think name-calling would help things.

Then, as the reporter wrote, “he called Elon Musk a ‘dipshit’ and, later, a ‘South African nepo baby’ with the power to cut government programs. The crowd roared.”

Words evoke images. “Fight” focuses attention on the enemy, on combat, on protest. Our leaders against their leaders. With us cheering every attack.

“Build” is a verb with a different feel. There is a job to do. Something to create. Something to build. Something we do, step by step, following a plan to arrive at future goal.

What is the goal? Change policy.

How do you change policy? Elect more Democrats.

How do you elect more Democrats? Get more votes.

How do you get more votes? Motivate new voters. Persuade existing voters to vote differently.

With “building”, even between elections, the focus is on voters, the audience. Not on the political fight taking place on stage. “Building” changes the actors on stage and the play by changing the makeup and response of the audience. When the applause stops, the play folds.

Information is power. We use too little of it. It is easier to characterize, to label, and attack. People can change their minds if they know the specific effects decisions in Washington and Madison are having in their local community. On their schools, on their county health programs, on their child care providers, on the taxes they pay. This is what is being done to you. Make the story personal. It’s a way to break through another’s belief system.

That takes effort. National and large city news organizations have the resources and many are paying attention. “Another program for Wisconsinites with mental health challenges folds due to federal cuts,” was one headline in the Milwaukee newspaper followed by a story of how that affected different local agencies. We can gather and spread those stories.

In smaller communities, few news organizations are left. But the information is available at the State and in our local government offices. Legislators and local elected officials can be helpful in accessing it. Facts, gathered one at a time, then used in conversations, in letters to the editor, on facebook and all our other communication tools can change minds over time.

The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction has an interactive map on its website that shows how proposed cuts in federal funding would affect each school district in the state. Numbers compiled by the Wisconsin School Administrators Association, show that if school funding had just kept up with inflation over the years since Republicans took complete control of the legislature in 2010, our schools would have $3,380 more per student to educate our kids. Our schools would be better. We would be paying less in property taxes.

It was only 12 years ago that the Republican Party had taken a much worse beating than today’s Democrats. Obama had just won re-election, carrying, among other states, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Nevada, and the three “blue wall” states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

In the U.S. Senate there were Democrats representing Montana, Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, Louisiana, Florida, Arkansas, Missouri, North Carolina, Alaska and Indiana.

According to the pundits at the time, the future belonged to the Democrats. The demographic changes in the population made their continuing dominance inevitable.

Republican partisan organizations, Americans for Prosperity, the National Rifle Association, the National Center for Life and Liberty and others decided instead to build. To motivate politically uninvolved people, particularly in the rural areas of swing states, to pay attention, get interested, get registered and vote. Often working through churches and religious organizations, their effort paid off.

This past election in Wisconsin, for example, 335,000 more people went to the polls than when Obama won twelve years ago. Republicans accounted for 290,000 of the increase, 70 percent of which came from the state’s 54 most rural counties.

A separate organization, The Libre Initiative, was created at the same time by the Koch brothers to build the Republican vote among Latinos. That too has succeeded. The share of Republican Latino votes increased from 27 percent in 2012 to 46 percent this past election.

Building takes time. Adding is more difficult than subtracting. The results last longer.