There’s a widespread fallacy that “rednecks” in deep red, pro-Trump districts would never support a solidly-left progressive politician. The narrative goes that flag-waving, gun-bearing, small government-supporting Trump voters would never favor a candidate that endorses “big government” policies like Medicare for All and free college.

This theory seems to make perfect sense. But it’s wrong. There is strong evidence pointing to the conclusion that true progressives are no worse off in deep red districts than conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats. In some cases, they actually have an advantage.

James Thompson

Kansas’ 4th Congressional District is one of the most Republican slices of America — redder than Dorothy’s ruby shoes. The district is home to Wichita, which the Daily Beast dubbed “ground zero of the abortion war,” and it typically goes to Republicans by over 30 points.

In the past eight election cycles, not a single Democrat came within 20 points of winning.

But things changed in 2016. Instead of running a center-right, Blue Dog-style Democrat, progressive civil rights lawyer James Thompson was chosen as the Democratic nominee. Thompson was an early supporter of Bernie Sanders and stood unapologetically in favor of solidly populist-left ideas like Medicare for All, a $15 minimum wage, getting big money out of politics, and rejecting the TPP.

All the odds were stacked against Thompson. While his opponent was inundated with large donations, including $94,000 from the Republican National Campaign Committee and tens of thousands of dollars from Koch-affiliated PACs, Thompson received absolutely no money from the DCCC, and garnered practically all of his campaign cash from the hands of small individual donors.

Thompson was also attacked by his opponent with inflammatory misinformation, including an ad that incorrectly claimed that he was a proponent of taxpayer funded late-term abortions.

From the lens of a mainstream analyst, Thompson’s progressivism would alienate the conservative voters of the strongly Republican district, and his right-wing opponent would be a quintessential shoo-in. But what actually happened was groundbreaking. While Thompson did lose, he garnered a whopping 46% of the vote and came within six points of beating his Republican opponent.

This was the district’s best Democratic performance in decades (by far), and it came from a progressive, populist candidate who bucked party orthodoxy and ran to the left — not the right.

Kaniela Ing

James Thompson is not the only progressive to have success in a deep red district. Meet Kaniela Ing, a representative in the Hawaii State House of Representatives with good policies — and good looks.

When Ing was just 22 years old — no, that’s not a typo — he launched a campaign for the Hawaii State House’s 11th District, one of the only Republican districts in the Aloha State.

Instead of campaigning against his Tea Party opponent by “compromising” and running to the right, the rookie politician ran to the left, and did so with no reservations. Ing took no money from corporate donors and endorsed a bold progressive platform of Single Payer, free college, a $15 minimum wage, 100% renewable energy by 2035, and a $3 trillion plan to rebuild American infrastructure. Ing was so unabashed in his progressive populism that he even supported policies that I am not yet fully on board with, like Universal Basic Income and 100% employment.

The night of the election, Ing’s chances seemed razor-thin, and he was widely considered an underdog. He was outspent 10:1 by his Tea Party opponent, and he ran his campaign while working a full-time job cleaning locker rooms. So, how bad did this political novice lose to the Republican incumbent?

Well, he didn’t lose at all — Ing won the seat by a monumental 26 points.

Ing didn’t meet anyone halfway, nor did he cater to the Democratic establishment. And yet, he won big time in a Republican district.

Lee Carter

Is the strategy of running to the left in deep red districts limited to the Democratic Party? Not in the slightest.

In 2017, Lee Carter—a candidate who was endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and received no support from the state’s Democratic Party leadership — ran for the Virginia State House on a bold leftist platform of Medicare for All and campaign finance reform.

The district Carter ran for had voted for the Republican candidate every election since 1983 — over three decades of redness. To make his chances even less favorable, Carter was constantly barraged with McCarthyist propaganda on the campaign trail, including mailers that compared him to Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong.

So how bad did Carter — an unapologetic democratic socialist—fare in the consistently Republican district? Actually, Carter didn’t lose at all — he won by nine points in a historic upset victory.

Many argue that, despite Bernie’s consistent 10-point advantage over Trump in head-to-head polling, Sanders would have floundered in the general election had he won the primary, as Trump would have painted him as a “Marxist Commie,” eroding his favorability. But the case of Lee Carter shows that, even in deep red districts, attacking progressives with McCarthyist, anti-socialist propaganda is not enough to make them lose the election.

Even in the face of misinformation and adversity, the progressive message can win.

Progressives Are Already Winning In Republican Districts

Alright — progressives have demonstrated an ability to fare quite well in certain deep red districts. But are these just a few outliers?

Not at all. In 2016, a total of 12 Democrats were elected to the U.S. House in Congressional districts that voted for Trump. Of these Democrats elected to pro-Trump districts, four of the 12 are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which represents the leftmost wing of the Democratic Party.