We don't know, really. Where I am, Al Franken ran. Betty McCollum ran, and Keith Ellison ran. Turnout was about the same as always in mid-term elections. All three won, as did the progressive state legislators from the district in which I live.
I don't know if you'd call those three "leftists," but they're on the progressive end of the spectrum. Turnout did not really increase. The real time turnout increased was in 2008, when Barack Obama was running. That brought many people to the polls here in Minnesota who normally don't go to the polls. That group did not show up in 2014, even though the same candidates ran. Who showed up were the 50% who show up for every election, regardless of the year. The new voters from 2008 didn't vote in 2014. Same candidates. Different turnout.
But, that's Minnesota. In districts where progressives typically win, progressives won. The state as a whole, however, isn't all Democratic. We have three Republican congressional representatives. Al Franken, who ran in a statewide race in 2008 won only after a long, drawn-own recount that delayed him taking his seat for months. He ended up winning by only 312 votes statewide. In 2014, he won with a much larger margin. That's because he has made himself very popular in Minnesota, and even in a mid-term election, when only about 50% of registered voters turned out, he won with a good margin.
So, your question really remains unanswered, I think. There's a lack of evidence that running candidates who are more to the left actually turns out more voters. I'd like to think more voters would turn out, but that doesn't really seem to be the case, and there are examples of people from the left running in Minnesota and elsewhere. Here, they have won their elections. Elsewhere, they might not have.
Political parties tend to look at past results, it seems, rather than what might happen. It's a given that mid-term elections bring out fewer voters, and campaigns are based on that. Despite all efforts, Minnesota's voter turnout in 2014 was down, even in districts that elected progressives, like mine.
So, with 2016 coming up, what are the parties doing? They're looking at 2008 and 2012 to see who shows up at the polls. I expect to see pretty much the same strategies as have been used in the past, frankly. That's because there's no evidence that running people from the left brings out more voters, generally.
Here's what I think would help: Get progressive Democrats to the polls in unexpected numbers in 2016, regardless of who runs. Give the parties some evidence that those voters will turn out for the elections. Then, in the polls leading up to the election and the polling place surveys, the turnout from the progressive voters will be seen and recognized. Then, the parties might reconsider who to run for various offices.
For example, if progressive voter turnout ended up winning some Congressional seats unexpectedly, that would certainly be noticed and might affect campaign strategies in the future. Bottom line is that political parties tend to look back in time, rather than projecting into the future. That's the nature of things. So, voters need to do the opposite, and project into the future what their turnout will produce in the way of fresh candidates.
I'm lucky. I live in a place where progressive candidates win elections. Not everyone is in that situation.
= new reply since forum marked as read
would have an effect on what candidates were on the ballot in the future.
