Guest Commentary: No, Defund the Police and Medicare for All Didn’t Lead to Democratic Losses in the House

Party leaders have blamed progressive left policies for disappointing electoral results. A close examination of winners and losers suggests otherwise.

By Aidan Smith

Reading postmortems on the disappointing results of congressional Democrats this election cycle, one could be forgiven for thinking that Bernie Sanders, rather than Joe Biden, led the party to a catastrophic defeat that cost the party a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. In reality, Biden, who positioned himself as a moderate during his presidential campaign, won the general election by a closer-than-expected margin that coincided with losses for the Democratic Party in the House, though the party maintained control of the chamber.

In 2018, the victory of centrist candidates in swing districts was presented by some in the media as a vindication of party moderates and a rejection of the left’s theory that running on bold, transformative policies are necessary for Democrats to retake the speaker’s gavel. In 2020, many of these same moderate freshmen failed to secure reelection. It’s peculiar, then, that these poor performances are also presented as a vindication of the party’s moderate wing, which retains firm control of House leadership and the broader party apparatus. Indeed, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has faced almost no public scrutiny for the party’s losses in the House, and her reelection to the speakership remains a foregone conclusion.

Instead, the blame for harming the prospects of vulnerable House Democrats has fallen on Medicare for All advocates and proponents of defunding the police. On a strategic level, it’s understandable why critics of these policies, most notably House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn and Virginia Representative Abigail Spanberger, are using the poor reelection results to disparage their political opponents. What isn’t understandable, however, is how little pushback these critics are receiving.

Medicare for All is widely popular, and multiple swing seat House members supportive of Medicare for All won reelection. In preliminary exit polling, 57 percent of voters expressed support for the Black Lives Matter movement, though the movement to defund the police went essentially unrepresented at the ballot box (perhaps because policing is largely a state and local matter). Not a single Democrat running in a swing district ran in support of defunding the police.

As it stands, the Democrats who lost reelection are: Florida Representatives Donna Shalala and Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, New Mexico Representative Xochitl Torres Small, South Carolina Representative Joe Cunningham, Iowa Representative Abby Finkenauer, Oklahoma Representative Kendra Horn, Minnesota Representative Collin Peterson. They will likely be joined by New York Representatives Anthony Brindisi and Max Rose. With the arguable exception of Murcasel-Powell, none of these members support Medicare for All, and not a single one has given so much as lip service to the movement to defund the police. Indeed, Rose ran to the right on criminal justice policy and made his support for police a hallmark of his campaign. “I think that this is a critical moment where we should be investing in our police even more,” Rose said in an October debate. But even a commitment to more funding for the police did not stop the Sergeants Benevolent Association from calling Rose a “cop-hater”.

It should be noted that two House members, California Representatives Gil Cisneros and Harley Rouda, supported Medicare for All in 2018 and won, abandoned support for the policy once in office, and currently trail in their bids for reelection. While it would not be especially honest to claim that turning their backs on the policy could cost them their seats, this narrative makes more sense than the argument that Medicare for All damaged Pelosi’s majority.

Katie Porter, also a California representative and a crusader against corporate power who supports Medicare for All, easily won reelection to her traditionally conservative swing seat. Representative Mike Levin, a progressive who supports Medicare for All and other left-wing priorities such as the Green New Deal, also comfortably won reelection in a battleground district in the state. Oregon Representative Peter DeFazio, who represents a quintessential swing district and faced a star Republican challenger, won as a supporter of Medicare for All in tough territory. Representative Matt Cartwright, a supporter of Medicare for All, won reelection in his Pennsylvania-based swing seat, even as Trump carried the district. And Maine Representative Jared Golden (ME-02), also a supporter of Medicare for All, is on track to win reelection despite Trump winning his district. The idea that Medicare for All amounts to electoral poison in swing districts simply does not hold up to scrutiny.

Given the general underperformance by the party, it’s unsurprising that neither Democratic challengers supportive of nor opposed to Medicare for All fared well in swing districts. Moderate Democrats running in battleground seats who were seen as probable winners such as Texas Representatives Sri Preston Kulkarni, Gina Ortiz Jones, and Wendy Davis fared poorly, just as pro-Medicare for All candidates such as Texas Representative Mike Siegel and Nebraska Representative Kara Eastman were unable to win their contests. Embracing Medicare for All may not be a panacea for the party’s misfortunes. But neither it nor the call to defund police can be blamed for poor down-ballot results, as the emerging media narrative is claiming.

Aidan Smith is an electoral analyst at Data for Progress. He is also the founder of Labyrinth, a new journal of electoral politics.  Article originally publish on the Appeal.

To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice –

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts


    1. Tia Will


      “Defund the Police” didn’t play well for Democrats in the election.”

      While I agree with your conclusion, I also believe this is due to a rhetorical misunderstanding. The choice of slogan, “defund the police”, is not representative of intent and provokes unnecessary fears. My evidence is anecdotal, but not without foundation. At Board of Supervisors meetings, on social medial, and in private conversation, the idea that defunding the police means we will no longer have police forces is widespread. This unfortunate choice of words does not clearly convey the intent to make communities safer not by enforcing laws after a crime has been committed but through primary prevention of crime gets lost in translation. We remain a very punishment oriented society without seeming to make a firm connection between the causes of crime and the safety of our communities. I firmly believe that in community safety as in medicine, prevention is always more effective and less expensive than remediation after the fact. I truly wish the movement to “defund the police” instead of portraying the police as enemies, had chosen to elevate the concept of community safety through crime prevention rather than capture and punish.


  1. Keith Olsen

    Indeed, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has faced almost no public scrutiny for the party’s losses in the House, and her reelection to the speakership remains a foregone conclusion.

    From this article’s own supplied link to a news story:

    On a Democratic caucus call Thursday afternoon, members vented frustration about the unexpected losses and some blamed progressive ideas like defunding the police, socialism, and the Green New Deal as costing Democrats their seats in swing districts.
    Rep. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., was particularly animated and lashed out at the leftward lean of the caucus, Fox News has confirmed.
    She told her colleagues: “We lost races we shouldn’t have lost. Defund the police almost cost me my race because of an attack ad. Don’t say socialism ever again. We need to get back to basics.”

    1. David Greenwald

      Yes, we ran that quote on Saturday (but of course you had to link to Fox News) – and we’ve covered now both sides of this debate inside the Democratic Party. Expect to see this play out over the next 18 months or so. Maybe longer. In the absence of better data (and this piece present cursory data but not rigorous analysis) we are left with anecdotal evidence.

      1. Keith Olsen

         (but of course you had to link to Fox News)

        Maybe you should takes that up with the author of this piece because the link to Fox News was supplied in the article, click on “party’s losses” in blue type.


          1. David Greenwald

            Unfortunately you’d rather pursue this line rather than the far more interesting one which is the debate over whether the defund police harmed marginal democrats. What I find rather interesting is that the quote you cite is based on no data and the article posted is extremely poor use of data and so both sides will dig in with no real understanding of what took place.

          1. David Greenwald

            How am I being ridiculous by asking both sides to provide data? Without data, it’s just someone’s opinion.

  2. Ron Glick

    While expansion of medical insurance and protection for pre-existing conditions is a winner. Riots and looting were losers. As my cousin told me after a property she owns on Melrose in L. A. was vandalized and looted, “These people have set back their cause by ten years.”


Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for