I’m seeing a lot of fighting over this. I find it a bit weird. Ezra isn’t saying to run pro-life candidates in Michigan. He’s saying that if Democrats want to keep the GOP out of power, it means running candidates that don’t fit their platform on certain issues.
That includes pro-life candidates in certain states, like Louisiana and Mississippi. But it may also mean running candidates that are aggressively restrictionist on immigration in R 20 states like Nebraska. It may even mean running candidates who may not share certain views on trans rights states like in Iowa, Florida and Montana.
The more worried you are about authoritarianism coming from the other side, the more your stance has to be “win by any means necessary” — and that means accepting candidates significantly to the right of the party on certain topics in red states.
FWIW, Democrats already do this to some degree. And I actually see people like Bernie being very clear-eyed about it — more than most establishment Dems, in fact, who like nothing more than griping to POLITICO. But in most cases, like Tim Ryan, the degree of separation established from the national party/platform is nowhere near what is necessary to win states even as red as Ohio.
Ezra Klein says the more worried you are about authoritarianism, the more willing you’ve got to be to run pro-life Democrats in red states.
nytimes.com/2025/09/18/opini…