AL-GOV 2022: Who should run?

[Schiff for Senate]

I have to say, I never thought Kay Ivey would be considered one of the saner Republicans, but here we are.

She's always come across as a bland, Generic R to me. She's in the same wing of the party as Richard Shelby, and is of the same generation as him. And like Shelby, Ivey is a former conservative Democrat.

Like (probably) a million other Alabama's voters. After all - it's not an coincidence, that in the past many Alabama's Democrats spoke of their party as "our (Alabama's) conservative Democratic party..."

That's true. Aside from Ivey and Shelby, both of Louisiana's Senators, Kennedy and Cassidy, are also former conservative Democrats. It will be an end of an era when all of the party switchers of the Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms model are no longer in office.

It’s still somewhat of a mystery to me that they welcomed Shelby with such open arms into the GOP in 1994. Granted, the state was more competitive back then, but especially with hindsight, they could have done a lot better than Shelby in that seat. He’s certainly no Sessions in that he’s always had sincere conservative convictions even as a Democrat (his calculated voting record prior to his switch demonstrates that relatively well, and he’s always gotten along well with his Democratic colleagues).

Getting along with Democratic colleagues wasn't such a big negative in 1994. Today, though...things are different. Boebart, Gosar and Greene pretty much exemplify that.

[Schiff for Senate]

Dems should not run any candidates in AL, AR, TN, NE, OK. All Safe R states.

All that would do is depress turnout in races where Democrats might actually be competitive.

How so? Democrats aren't competitive in any of those states in the slightest. Bronz is right, they shouldn't bother running candidates in any of those states (they'll just end up wasting resources, even if not that many, on states where they stand no chance) and should focus on actually competitive races (AZ, GA, WI, PA, NV, maybe NC).

[Schiff for Senate]

This Guy

What an IMPORTANT and CRUCIAL campaign issue. His views on economic policy or the environment or 2020 or COVID19 or abortion are all irrelevant - because he's running on the much more relevant and important issue of languages in driver's licenses. He is an idiot who clearly has no legitimate views if THIS is the subject of an entire campaign ad. Not surprised you would support this type of nonsense. I concede that 12 languages seems a bit much, but who the heck cares? You really want to 'save money,' there are other ways to do it that don't involve disenfranchising people who've just moved to the US or are learning English or whatever. There are a hundred things wrong with removing all languages but English from Alabama's drivers license tests. This guy has something wrong with him if he's fixating on this issue or if the thinks a lot of money is being wasted on this, so much that he needs to make an entire campaign ad about such a dumb non-issue.

[Schiff for Senate]

Dems should not run any candidates in AL, AR, TN, NE, OK. All Safe R states.

All that would do is depress turnout in races where Democrats might actually be competitive.

How so? Democrats aren't competitive in any of those states in the slightest. Bronz is right, they shouldn't bother running candidates in any of those states (they'll just end up wasting resources, even if not that many, on states where they stand no chance) and should focus on actually competitive races (AZ, GA, WI, PA, NV, maybe NC).

No one should run unopposed in a general election. Should Republicans not run candidates in California or New York?

The whole reason they run unopposed is because they're basically guaranteed to win anyway. If the race is even remotely competitive, you can expect both Democratic and Republican candidates. Only ultra-red and ultra-blue states/districts/races go uncontested.

And yes, not running candidates in CA or NY would save some time and resources which could be then spent in actually competitive states, so yes, strategically the GOP should not challenge CA or NY either. It seems like common sense to me. Why spend your precious resources (that need to be spent on competitive elections) on races you have basically no chance of winning instead of races that are seriously competitive?

So yes, ask anyone. It absolutely makes sense to have races go uncontested. It was a good move on Democrats' part to not field a candidate in a state as red as AR, but if they wanted to waste less resources, they should've avoided fielding candidates in other ruby red states like TN, SD, ID, WV, OK and WY. I'm aware they didn't spend many resources on any of those states anyway, but why spend any when your guy is going to lose in a landslide?! Why not spend even those few but potentially important resources and that little but possibly crucial money in, say, GA and AZ, and other actually competitive states?

[Schiff for Senate]

Dems should not run any candidates in AL, AR, TN, NE, OK. All Safe R states.

I agree completely. I don't get why some people have a problem with this very strategic and practical approach. The reason you aren't running candidates is because those states are going to remain in Republican hands for sure anyway, and there's pretty much no chance at Democratic victory (most certainly not in a red wave, but not even otherwise). As I said -

The whole reason they run unopposed is because they're basically guaranteed to win anyway. If the race is even remotely competitive, you can expect Democratic candidates. Only ultra-red and ultra-blue states/districts/races go uncontested.

And yes, not running candidates in CA or NY would save some time and resources which could be then spent in actually competitive states, so yes, strategically the GOP should not challenge CA or NY either. It seems like common sense to me. Why spend your precious resources (that need to be spent on competitive elections) on races you have basically no chance of winning instead of races that are seriously competitive?

So yes, ask anyone. It absolutely makes sense to have races go uncontested. It was a good move on Democrats' part to not field a candidate in a state as red as AR, but if they wanted to waste less resources, they should've avoided fielding candidates in other ruby red states like TN, SD, ID, WV, OK and WY. I'm aware they didn't spend many resources on any of those states anyway, but why spend any when your guy is going to lose in a landslide?! Why not spend even those few but potentially important resources and that little but possibly crucial money in, say, GA and AZ, and other actually competitive states?

[Schiff for Senate]

Dems should not run any candidates in AL, AR, TN, NE, OK. All Safe R states.

I agree completely. I don't get why some people have a problem with this very strategic and practical approach. The reason you aren't running candidates is because those states are going to remain in Republican hands for sure anyway, and there's pretty much no chance at Democratic victory (most certainly not in a red wave, but not even otherwise). As I said -

The whole reason they run unopposed is because they're basically guaranteed to win anyway. If the race is even remotely competitive, you can expect Democratic candidates. Only ultra-red and ultra-blue states/districts/races go uncontested.

And yes, not running candidates in CA or NY would save some time and resources which could be then spent in actually competitive states, so yes, strategically the GOP should not challenge CA or NY either. It seems like common sense to me. Why spend your precious resources (that need to be spent on competitive elections) on races you have basically no chance of winning instead of races that are seriously competitive?

So yes, ask anyone. It absolutely makes sense to have races go uncontested. It was a good move on Democrats' part to not field a candidate in a state as red as AR, but if they wanted to waste less resources, they should've avoided fielding candidates in other ruby red states like TN, SD, ID, WV, OK and WY. I'm aware they didn't spend many resources on any of those states anyway, but why spend any when your guy is going to lose in a landslide?! Why not spend even those few but potentially important resources and that little but possibly crucial money in, say, GA and AZ, and other actually competitive states?

Fielding candidates in non-competitive elections is important when it comes to building local party organization and articulating a clear alternative to voters.  The Alabama Democrats would be even more worthless as a party if they didn't run anybody at all, which is truly saying something.   

I'd argue trying to hold the Senate is a much more important task than trying to help the Democratic candidate in some local AL race. There need to be priorities. Besides, isn't 'building local party organization' at least partly the job of state parties (in this case, the Alabama Democratic Party)? Why should national Democrats have to worry about random local races in random states like AL and OK? I don't think that matters as much as a national focus on keeping the Senate, which involves victory in swing states like GA and AZ, WI and PA. 'Building local party organization' in ultra red states should be of much lower priority.

And now I think about it, if they want to field a Democratic candidate, that's the prerogitive of the Alabama Democratic Party and yeah, I suppose it makes sense then for them to field a candidate if only to build local party organization. But what I don't want is for the DSCC to spend a single penny on unwinnable races like this one. Any dollar it spends in ultra-red, unwinnable states like AR, AL, NE, TN and OK is a dollar less they can spend in actually purple and winnable states like WI, AZ, GA and PA.