There is an uncertain hopefulness among Democrats just now about the party’s victories on Tuesday. All are relieved that Democrats captured the House, though many are puzzled that even this was so difficult. Beyond the House, the victories were even less certain. There are seven more Democratic state legislatures, but at least four fewer Democratic Senators. And none of the most prominent candidates in this cycle – at least among those facing an opponent – are certain to have won. Beto O’Rourke conceded in Texas. Only Andrew Gillum in Florida and Stacey Abrams are still fighting for victory.

US democracy is in crisis. But Trump is only the symptom | Jonathan Freedland Read more

Yet just below the surface of these moderate gains hides a truth that the Democrats need to understand – and quickly. There is a clear model for victory going forward. It is not the model being promoted by the most active and vocal Democrats just now.

According to the most progressive, the formula for a blue wave is for Democrats everywhere to become more bold and more progressive. The weakness of the party, this faction insists, is that it isn’t extreme enough. What would guarantee victory, these sorts say, is a stronger and more vibrant left. America would rally to the likes of Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – if only the Democratic party would give them the chance.

Tuesday is strong evidence that this strategy is just wrong. And exhibit A is the extraordinary candidacy of Beto O’Rourke.

Play Video 2:52 Beto 2020? Why some think Beto O'Rourke has what it takes to become president - video profile

If there was a bold progressive in this election (at least one facing an opponent), O’Rourke was that candidate. Twenty-two months ago, O’Rourke launched his campaign as a committed reformer who distinguished himself early on by being one of the first in this cycle to forego money from Pacs. The insiders chuckled at that pledge – what Pac was going to give anything to a Democrat challenging Ted Cruz in Texas? But Americans from across the country were inspired. Tens of thousands gave to his longshot clean-money campaign. And by the end of the cycle, O’Rourke would raise more money than any senatorial candidate in history.

Yet though his campaign was launched with a reformer’s instinct, his message quickly evolved beyond a fight for reform. He spoke clearly and strongly in favor of firmly progressive ideas – healthcare for all, the end of Ice, the impeachment of Donald Trump, a defense of football protesters, and #BlackLivesMatter. He spoke passionately about the need to unite America, or at least Texas, to get beyond partisan fights. But in the end, he offered voters in the middle or on the right little beyond a fresh face and earnestness. He certainly didn’t emphasize the one thing they could have agreed upon – ending the corrupting influence of money in politics. Thus despite having all the money in the world (or at least twice the amount of his opponent), a young and attractive candidate who exuded progressive hope and promise just couldn’t persuade. He came close (within 2.5 points). Not close enough.

He didn’t emphasize the one thing they could have agreed upon – ending the corrupting influence of money in politics

Compare O’Rourke to South Dakota’s Democratic candidate for governor, Billie Sutton. Sutton, too, came close to winning (within 3.4 points). But he came close from a very different starting place. Trump had won South Dakota by 30 points; he had won Texas by only nine. Yet Billie was able to move a solidly red state to within 3.5 points of beating South Dakota’s one congresswoman. No Democrat running for governor had come that close in a generation at least.

Yet unlike O’Rourke, Sutton’s message was focused on reform from the beginning until the end. He targeted the corrupt self-dealing of a corrupt state legislature. No doubt, he also backed gun rights and opposed abortion rights. But so, too, did his opponent. What made Sutton different was a credible and passionate commitment to restoring trust in South Dakota’s government. That message increased the Democratic share of the vote by more than 16 points – three times the difference in Texas. O’Rourke’s margin was a third of the margin between Trump and Clinton; Sutton’s was one-tenth. Many more who had voted red in 2016 voted blue in 2018 in South Dakota – many more (as a percentage) than flipped in Texas.

The reason is critical: O’Rourke was trying to convince Texans to try something different. Sutton was showing Dakotans where the left and the right were the same. O’Rourke’s message was hopeful and populist – on the left. Sutton’s was hopeful and populist – for reform. To vote for Beto, a Republican in Texas would have to admit error. To vote for Billie, no one (save the politicians) need admit any error. When Cruz attacked O’Rourke for representing values that “are just not Texas”, O’Rourke had to accept the charge. The same charge, however, would not stick against Sutton.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Billie Sutton (right) focused on restoring trust in South Dakota’s government in race against Kristi Noem. Photograph: AP

For Dakotans, like Americans generally, are furious about the corruption of their government. Republicans no less than Democrats want to “drain the swamp” – whether in Pierre or DC. And thus the ask that Sutton made of Republicans was not to deny their values as Republicans; the ask was to affirm their values as Dakotans and Americans and citizens in a democracy: values that reject the corruption that government everywhere is perceived to have become.

This message is the under-told story of the 2018 election. Yes, there were Democratic socialists everywhere – more than at any time in American history. But there was also an extraordinary number of campaigns to address the fundamental corruption that so many see in their government. Two hundred and seven Democratic candidates for Congress wrote a letter telling Nancy Pelosi that reform had to be the first issue that the new Congress took up. And there were more than 50 ballot measures in 22 states across the country demanding democratic reform. Excluding one clearly unconstitutional proposal, all but one of those measures passed easily. Everywhere Americans rallied to get a government that could represent America better.

Democrats got millions more votes – so how did Republicans win the Senate? Read more

Democratic socialists insist they are socialists first, and Democrats second. This election should teach Democrats that what the party really needs is a movement of Democratic reformers: candidates who are reformers first, and Democrats second. Those reformers need not be moderates or centrists. They can be whatever they want, substantively. But the message they must deliver with passion and conviction is that reform is fundamental. That we won’t get anything in America until we fix our corrupted democracy first. And that this is the common ground that could give Democrats a way to speak to a not-yet-progressive America.

It is striking that no likely candidate for president on the Democratic ticket has embraced this reformist message. The strategy of the most likely is the strategy of the bold progressives. The party would do well to recognize just how much that strategy is asking of Americans. And whether a different strategy – one that affirmed what Americans already believe – might do more than one that insists it knows better.