KS-SEN 2020 Megathread: Marshall overperforms and wins

[Roll Roons]

So the primaries are 1 month away (August 4).

If Kobach wins the primary, would this race be a tossup?

I think so, especially with how the national environment is turning. I still think Marshall is better positioned to win this, the campaign is largely going to be fought online and on the airwaves, where he has a huge $$$ advantage from his own campaign war chest and outside PACs. Kobach still has a good chance, his best chance will be if Democrats try to wade in and throw the race to Kobach via party switching/attacking Marshall. I think that would be a mistake since Kobach still would have a shot at taking down Bollier...Kobach in the Senate would be a huge stain on Kansas' reputation.

Yeah, I don’t understand why Bollier or the DSCC haven’t tried to do the McCaskill-like “Kobach is too extreme for Kansas” thing yet. It’s not like she has a shortage of money, she has more than all the Republicans combined!

It's still Kansas. The state hasn't sent a Democrat to the Senate since the 1930s, which is the longest losing streak in the country for either party. Yes, Bollier would have a much better shot, but the prospect of Senator Kris Kobach would be very real.

I don’t think many Democrats would or should care about the difference in quality between a potential Senator Kobach who they have a 50-50 shot of beating. Or an almost guaranteed Senator Marshall if he wins the primary. As it is, both Kobach and Marshall are sycophants to a guy who suggested people inject themselves with bleach and decided to make an ass of himself waving a bible around at a church. The end result is the same no matter what if Bollier loses: a vote to keep McConnell majority leader

Think of it this way: Marshall would probably be a generic Republican who sticks around for several terms and has a reliable voting record, but doesn't really make much of an impact, good or bad. Think Jerry Moran, Mike Crapo or Bill Cassidy.

On the other hand, Kobach is very ambitious, and would have a new platform to build his national profile, likely in advance of a Trump-esque presidential run in 2024 or 2028.

[MT Treasurer]

So the primaries are 1 month away (August 4).

If Kobach wins the primary, would this race be a tossup?

"Hot take" apparently, but it will be at least somewhat competitive even with Marshall IMO.

[tmthforu94]

So the primaries are 1 month away (August 4).

If Kobach wins the primary, would this race be a tossup?

I think so, especially with how the national environment is turning. I still think Marshall is better positioned to win this, the campaign is largely going to be fought online and on the airwaves, where he has a huge $$$ advantage from his own campaign war chest and outside PACs. Kobach still has a good chance, his best chance will be if Democrats try to wade in and throw the race to Kobach via party switching/attacking Marshall. I think that would be a mistake since Kobach still would have a shot at taking down Bollier...Kobach in the Senate would be a huge stain on Kansas' reputation.

Yeah, I don’t understand why Bollier or the DSCC haven’t tried to do the McCaskill-like “Kobach is too extreme for Kansas” thing yet. It’s not like she has a shortage of money, she has more than all the Republicans combined!

It's still Kansas. The state hasn't sent a Democrat to the Senate since the 1930s, which is the longest losing streak in the country for either party. Yes, Bollier would have a much better shot, but the prospect of Senator Kris Kobach would be very real.

I don’t think many Democrats would or should care about the difference in quality between a potential Senator Kobach who they have a 50-50 shot of beating. Or an almost guaranteed Senator Marshall if he wins the primary. As it is, both Kobach and Marshall are sycophants to a guy who suggested people inject themselves with bleach and decided to make an ass of himself waving a bible around at a church. The end result is the same no matter what if Bollier loses: a vote to keep McConnell majority leader

Think of it this way: Marshall would probably be a generic Republican who sticks around for several terms and has a reliable voting record, but doesn't really make much of an impact, good or bad. Think Jerry Moran, Mike Crapo or Bill Cassidy.

On the other hand, Kobach is very ambitious, and would have a new platform to build his national profile, likely in advance of a Trump-esque presidential run in 2024 or 2028.

I've tried to explain this as well, the poster you are responding to seems to be under the impression that a voting record is the only thing that matters when electing a senator, something that you and I disagree with.

[wbrocks67]

So the primaries are 1 month away (August 4).

If Kobach wins the primary, would this race be a tossup?

"Hot take" apparently, but it will be at least somewhat competitive even with Marshall IMO.

Yeah, I think even if it is Marshall, that Bollier still has a shot, given that Trump's standing has clearly deteriorated in this state

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

So the primaries are 1 month away (August 4).

If Kobach wins the primary, would this race be a tossup?

I think so, especially with how the national environment is turning. I still think Marshall is better positioned to win this, the campaign is largely going to be fought online and on the airwaves, where he has a huge $$$ advantage from his own campaign war chest and outside PACs. Kobach still has a good chance, his best chance will be if Democrats try to wade in and throw the race to Kobach via party switching/attacking Marshall. I think that would be a mistake since Kobach still would have a shot at taking down Bollier...Kobach in the Senate would be a huge stain on Kansas' reputation.

Yeah, I don’t understand why Bollier or the DSCC haven’t tried to do the McCaskill-like “Kobach is too extreme for Kansas” thing yet. It’s not like she has a shortage of money, she has more than all the Republicans combined!

It's still Kansas. The state hasn't sent a Democrat to the Senate since the 1930s, which is the longest losing streak in the country for either party. Yes, Bollier would have a much better shot, but the prospect of Senator Kris Kobach would be very real.

I don’t think many Democrats would or should care about the difference in quality between a potential Senator Kobach who they have a 50-50 shot of beating. Or an almost guaranteed Senator Marshall if he wins the primary. As it is, both Kobach and Marshall are sycophants to a guy who suggested people inject themselves with bleach and decided to make an ass of himself waving a bible around at a church. The end result is the same no matter what if Bollier loses: a vote to keep McConnell majority leader

Think of it this way: Marshall would probably be a generic Republican who sticks around for several terms and has a reliable voting record, but doesn't really make much of an impact, good or bad. Think Jerry Moran, Mike Crapo or Bill Cassidy.

On the other hand, Kobach is very ambitious, and would have a new platform to build his national profile, likely in advance of a Trump-esque presidential run in 2024 or 2028.

I've tried to explain this as well, the poster you are responding to seems to be under the impression that a voting record is the only thing that matters when electing a senator, something that you and I disagree with.

I’m well aware of the raised platform Kobach would get in the event he won the general election, but who cares? If Republicans are suicidal enough to nominate him for President, have at it. The dude lost Kansas by 5 points, for Christ sake.

And it’s not like having an obnoxious Republican asshole in the Senate is going to suddenly undermine the “institution” of the Senate. Take it from someone who is blessed to be represented by Ted Cruz. John Cornyn might be less showy than him, but at the end of the day, he’s just as bad as Cruz. I think it’s well clear to anyone who has paid any bit of attention that we’re well past that point in American history.

The false dilemma you’re posing here re: Kobach vs. Marshall is really as simple as “do Democrats want to run against someone they have a 50% chance of beating or someone they have a 5% chance of beating?” You don’t have to be a poker player to know which one you’d rather take if you're a Democrat

[brucejoel99]

So the primaries are 1 month away (August 4).

If Kobach wins the primary, would this race be a tossup?

I think so, especially with how the national environment is turning. I still think Marshall is better positioned to win this, the campaign is largely going to be fought online and on the airwaves, where he has a huge $$$ advantage from his own campaign war chest and outside PACs. Kobach still has a good chance, his best chance will be if Democrats try to wade in and throw the race to Kobach via party switching/attacking Marshall. I think that would be a mistake since Kobach still would have a shot at taking down Bollier...Kobach in the Senate would be a huge stain on Kansas' reputation.

Yeah, I don’t understand why Bollier or the DSCC haven’t tried to do the McCaskill-like “Kobach is too extreme for Kansas” thing yet. It’s not like she has a shortage of money, she has more than all the Republicans combined!

It's still Kansas. The state hasn't sent a Democrat to the Senate since the 1930s, which is the longest losing streak in the country for either party. Yes, Bollier would have a much better shot, but the prospect of Senator Kris Kobach would be very real.

I don’t think many Democrats would or should care about the difference in quality between a potential Senator Kobach who they have a 50-50 shot of beating. Or an almost guaranteed Senator Marshall if he wins the primary. As it is, both Kobach and Marshall are sycophants to a guy who suggested people inject themselves with bleach and decided to make an ass of himself waving a bible around at a church. The end result is the same no matter what if Bollier loses: a vote to keep McConnell majority leader

Think of it this way: Marshall would probably be a generic Republican who sticks around for several terms and has a reliable voting record, but doesn't really make much of an impact, good or bad. Think Jerry Moran, Mike Crapo or Bill Cassidy.

On the other hand, Kobach is very ambitious, and would have a new platform to build his national profile, likely in advance of a Trump-esque presidential run in 2024 or 2028.

I've tried to explain this as well, the poster you are responding to seems to be under the impression that a voting record is the only thing that matters when electing a senator, something that you and I disagree with.

I’m well aware of the raised platform Kobach would get in the event he won the general election, but who cares? If Republicans are suicidal enough to nominate him for President, have at it. The dude lost Kansas by 5 points, for Christ sake.

And it’s not like having an obnoxious Republican asshole in the Senate is going to suddenly undermine the “institution” of the Senate. Take it from someone who is blessed to be represented by Ted Cruz. John Cornyn might be less showy than him, but at the end of the day, he’s just as bad as Cruz. I think it’s well clear to anyone who has paid any bit of attention that we’re well past that point in American history.

The false dilemma you’re posing here re: Kobach vs. Marshall is really as simple as “do Democrats want to run against someone they have a 50% chance of beating or someone they have a 5% chance of beating?” You don’t have to be a poker player to know which one you’d rather take if you're a Democrat

Right? Kobach is a more evil & objectively worse person to have in the Senate, but he & Marshall would vote the same & have the exact same policy impact in the Senate anyway, so Kobach getting elected doesn't really bother me, not least since Kobach would actually serve to worsen the national GOP's brand overall. I'm all in for Kobach if him being nominated gives Bollier a great chance compared to worse chance she'd probably have against Marshall.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

So the primaries are 1 month away (August 4).

If Kobach wins the primary, would this race be a tossup?

I think so, especially with how the national environment is turning. I still think Marshall is better positioned to win this, the campaign is largely going to be fought online and on the airwaves, where he has a huge $$$ advantage from his own campaign war chest and outside PACs. Kobach still has a good chance, his best chance will be if Democrats try to wade in and throw the race to Kobach via party switching/attacking Marshall. I think that would be a mistake since Kobach still would have a shot at taking down Bollier...Kobach in the Senate would be a huge stain on Kansas' reputation.

Yeah, I don’t understand why Bollier or the DSCC haven’t tried to do the McCaskill-like “Kobach is too extreme for Kansas” thing yet. It’s not like she has a shortage of money, she has more than all the Republicans combined!

It's still Kansas. The state hasn't sent a Democrat to the Senate since the 1930s, which is the longest losing streak in the country for either party. Yes, Bollier would have a much better shot, but the prospect of Senator Kris Kobach would be very real.

I don’t think many Democrats would or should care about the difference in quality between a potential Senator Kobach who they have a 50-50 shot of beating. Or an almost guaranteed Senator Marshall if he wins the primary. As it is, both Kobach and Marshall are sycophants to a guy who suggested people inject themselves with bleach and decided to make an ass of himself waving a bible around at a church. The end result is the same no matter what if Bollier loses: a vote to keep McConnell majority leader

Think of it this way: Marshall would probably be a generic Republican who sticks around for several terms and has a reliable voting record, but doesn't really make much of an impact, good or bad. Think Jerry Moran, Mike Crapo or Bill Cassidy.

On the other hand, Kobach is very ambitious, and would have a new platform to build his national profile, likely in advance of a Trump-esque presidential run in 2024 or 2028.

I've tried to explain this as well, the poster you are responding to seems to be under the impression that a voting record is the only thing that matters when electing a senator, something that you and I disagree with.

I’m well aware of the raised platform Kobach would get in the event he won the general election, but who cares? If Republicans are suicidal enough to nominate him for President, have at it. The dude lost Kansas by 5 points, for Christ sake.

And it’s not like having an obnoxious Republican asshole in the Senate is going to suddenly undermine the “institution” of the Senate. Take it from someone who is blessed to be represented by Ted Cruz. John Cornyn might be less showy than him, but at the end of the day, he’s just as bad as Cruz. I think it’s well clear to anyone who has paid any bit of attention that we’re well past that point in American history.

The false dilemma you’re posing here re: Kobach vs. Marshall is really as simple as “do Democrats want to run against someone they have a 50% chance of beating or someone they have a 5% chance of beating?” You don’t have to be a poker player to know which one you’d rather take if you're a Democrat

Right? Kobach is a more evil & objectively worse person to have in the Senate, but he & Marshall would vote the same & have the exact same policy impact in the Senate anyway, so Kobach getting elected doesn't really bother me, not least since Kobach would actually serve to worsen the national GOP's brand overall. I'm all in for Kobach if him being nominated gives Bollier a great chance compared to worse chance she'd probably have against Marshall.

Even the personal opinions of the most hackish politicians matter to some degree: they might both hold the party line, but Kobach and Marshall would provide different influences what that line turned out to be on any given issue. Local Democrats should relish the electoral opportunity if they do end up with Kobach, but they shouldn't call out to Cthulhu if the Republican Party wants to act a bit more responsibly (which probably needs to happen if the current system of governance is to improve in the long term).

Clinton boosted Trump using the rationale in your post.

[Hope For A New Era]

Clinton boosted Trump using the rationale in your post.

Small counterpoint: Kobach is already a proven loser. Trump wasn't - he just seemed like he would lose.

So an attempt at the McCaskill strategy is slightly more rational here, I think.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Clinton boosted Trump using the rationale in your post.

Small counterpoint: Kobach is already a proven loser. Trump wasn't - he just seemed like he would lose.

So an attempt at the McCaskill strategy is slightly more rational here, I think.

Trump might have been a weaker GE candidate than several other 2016 Republican nominees versus Hillary (Kasich comes to mind). It's not just a matter of accidentally elevating a stronger candidate, though; elevating a worse enemy raises the stakes and, as long as losing is possible, it worsens the consequences of losing the bet.

[Hope For A New Era]

Clinton boosted Trump using the rationale in your post.

Small counterpoint: Kobach is already a proven loser. Trump wasn't - he just seemed like he would lose.

So an attempt at the McCaskill strategy is slightly more rational here, I think.

Trump might have been a weaker GE candidate than several other 2016 Republican nominees versus Hillary (Kasich comes to mind). It's not just a matter of accidentally elevating a stronger candidate, though; elevating a worse enemy raises the stakes and, as long as losing is possible, it worsens the consequences of losing the bet.

Trump was the weakest by far. Any of the others (except maybe Carson, or Cruz if he got hit with a whole pile of scandals) would have beaten her easily.

[brucejoel99]

So the primaries are 1 month away (August 4).

If Kobach wins the primary, would this race be a tossup?

I think so, especially with how the national environment is turning. I still think Marshall is better positioned to win this, the campaign is largely going to be fought online and on the airwaves, where he has a huge $$$ advantage from his own campaign war chest and outside PACs. Kobach still has a good chance, his best chance will be if Democrats try to wade in and throw the race to Kobach via party switching/attacking Marshall. I think that would be a mistake since Kobach still would have a shot at taking down Bollier...Kobach in the Senate would be a huge stain on Kansas' reputation.

Yeah, I don’t understand why Bollier or the DSCC haven’t tried to do the McCaskill-like “Kobach is too extreme for Kansas” thing yet. It’s not like she has a shortage of money, she has more than all the Republicans combined!

It's still Kansas. The state hasn't sent a Democrat to the Senate since the 1930s, which is the longest losing streak in the country for either party. Yes, Bollier would have a much better shot, but the prospect of Senator Kris Kobach would be very real.

I don’t think many Democrats would or should care about the difference in quality between a potential Senator Kobach who they have a 50-50 shot of beating. Or an almost guaranteed Senator Marshall if he wins the primary. As it is, both Kobach and Marshall are sycophants to a guy who suggested people inject themselves with bleach and decided to make an ass of himself waving a bible around at a church. The end result is the same no matter what if Bollier loses: a vote to keep McConnell majority leader

Think of it this way: Marshall would probably be a generic Republican who sticks around for several terms and has a reliable voting record, but doesn't really make much of an impact, good or bad. Think Jerry Moran, Mike Crapo or Bill Cassidy.

On the other hand, Kobach is very ambitious, and would have a new platform to build his national profile, likely in advance of a Trump-esque presidential run in 2024 or 2028.

I've tried to explain this as well, the poster you are responding to seems to be under the impression that a voting record is the only thing that matters when electing a senator, something that you and I disagree with.

I’m well aware of the raised platform Kobach would get in the event he won the general election, but who cares? If Republicans are suicidal enough to nominate him for President, have at it. The dude lost Kansas by 5 points, for Christ sake.

And it’s not like having an obnoxious Republican asshole in the Senate is going to suddenly undermine the “institution” of the Senate. Take it from someone who is blessed to be represented by Ted Cruz. John Cornyn might be less showy than him, but at the end of the day, he’s just as bad as Cruz. I think it’s well clear to anyone who has paid any bit of attention that we’re well past that point in American history.

The false dilemma you’re posing here re: Kobach vs. Marshall is really as simple as “do Democrats want to run against someone they have a 50% chance of beating or someone they have a 5% chance of beating?” You don’t have to be a poker player to know which one you’d rather take if you're a Democrat

Right? Kobach is a more evil & objectively worse person to have in the Senate, but he & Marshall would vote the same & have the exact same policy impact in the Senate anyway, so Kobach getting elected doesn't really bother me, not least since Kobach would actually serve to worsen the national GOP's brand overall. I'm all in for Kobach if him being nominated gives Bollier a great chance compared to worse chance she'd probably have against Marshall.

Even the personal opinions of the most hackish politicians matter to some degree: they might both hold the party line, but Kobach and Marshall would provide different influences what that line turned out to be on any given issue. Local Democrats should relish the electoral opportunity if they do end up with Kobach, but they shouldn't call out to Cthulhu if the Republican Party wants to act a bit more responsibly (which probably needs to happen if the current system of governance is to improve in the long term).

Clinton boosted Trump using the rationale in your post.

Yes, I agree that Kobach getting the seat would be akin to a national disgrace, but I refuse to give in to the idea that we should favor the alternative, which is basically sacrificing a free seat to the Republicans, because at the end of the day, Kobach & Marshall will vote the same way on every single issue (hell, if anything, Kobach is no different that Marshall: his public perception is worse, but they're both on board for the same terrible policies), & I'd much rather actually have a shot at this seat than not.

At the end of the day, all of this comes down to the dichotomy of selfishness on the part of individuals within the 2 parties. Democrats tend to step aside "for the good of the cause," like Pete & Amy. Republicans like Kobach don't: they cast it all as a large struggle against the establishment, dig in, & ride their flaming carcasses of campaigns right into the ground. Hence why Democrats sit in the Senate representing states like West Virginia & Alabama & Montana, casting votes against the McConnell agenda in the Senate.

The long term lesson from all of this should be learned by the Republicans: that they need to stop letting their anger at & their lack of trust in the establishment get the better of them in allowing themselves to be manipulated by charlatans, snake oil salesmen, & extremists. Just like AL-2017 or MO-2012 before this, there are plenty of other candidates to choose from, including those with solid conservative credentials, & just like in those cases, it seems like they'll select their worst possible option yet again.

[wbrocks67]

People are going to continue to underestimate Bollier at their own peril...

https://twitter.com/BryanLowry3/status/1280849613155643393

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

People are going to continue to underestimate Bollier at their own peril...

https://twitter.com/BryanLowry3/status/1280849613155643393

I'd argue that 2014 was competitive, though Roberts outperformed polling. 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Another race which the Rs cant afford to lose. Laura Kelly has a 60 percent approval rating.

Last poll on this race was a tie even with Marshall

[Coastal Elitist]

People are going to continue to underestimate Bollier at their own peril...

https://twitter.com/BryanLowry3/status/1280849613155643393

There's this thing called partisanship. In 2018 Bredesen outraised Blackburn in Tennessee by like 3 million dollars and lost by 10 points despite multiple polls showing a close raise or Bredesen ahead. I see a similar scenario happening here where the Democrat raises lots of money but still loses by double digits because this is still a red state and senate races are very partisan now. I could be wrong but in 2018 well funded dem incumbents in red states lost big so I doubt it.

[wbrocks67]

People are going to continue to underestimate Bollier at their own peril...

https://twitter.com/BryanLowry3/status/1280849613155643393

There's this thing called partisanship. In 2018 Bredesen outraised Blackburn in Tennessee by like 3 million dollars and lost by 10 points despite multiple polls showing a close raise or Bredesen ahead. I see a similar scenario happening here where the Democrat raises lots of money but still loses by double digits because this is still a red state and senate races are very partisan now. I could be wrong but in 2018 well funded dem incumbents in red states lost big so I doubt it.

And yet Tester and Manchin still won. Different situations, sure, but it's not impossible.

Also, given the fact that per Trumps own internals, he's deteoriating fast in KS, it would certainly be very possible.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

People are going to continue to underestimate Bollier at their own peril...

https://twitter.com/BryanLowry3/status/1280849613155643393

There's this thing called partisanship. In 2018 Bredesen outraised Blackburn in Tennessee by like 3 million dollars and lost by 10 points despite multiple polls showing a close raise or Bredesen ahead. I see a similar scenario happening here where the Democrat raises lots of money but still loses by double digits because this is still a red state and senate races are very partisan now. I could be wrong but in 2018 well funded dem incumbents in red states lost big so I doubt it.

I think the difference here is the Bredesen campaign was desperately trying to hit the brakes on trends in a solid red state becoming even more Republican. Democrats have had essentially no success in Tennessee since 2006. Bollier is trying to hit the gas pedal on the trends in a state heading in her party's direction, and a state where Democrats have had recent success in winning statewide.

[wbrocks67]

People are going to continue to underestimate Bollier at their own peril...

https://twitter.com/BryanLowry3/status/1280849613155643393

There's this thing called partisanship. In 2018 Bredesen outraised Blackburn in Tennessee by like 3 million dollars and lost by 10 points despite multiple polls showing a close raise or Bredesen ahead. I see a similar scenario happening here where the Democrat raises lots of money but still loses by double digits because this is still a red state and senate races are very partisan now. I could be wrong but in 2018 well funded dem incumbents in red states lost big so I doubt it.

I think the difference here is the Bredesen campaign was desperately trying to hit the brakes on trends in a solid red state becoming even more Republican. Democrats have had essentially no success in Tennessee since 2006. Bollier is trying to hit the gas pedal on the trends in a state heading in her party's direction, and a state where Democrats have had recent success in winning statewide.

All of this. KS and TN really aren't comparable situations.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

People are going to continue to underestimate Bollier at their own peril...

https://twitter.com/BryanLowry3/status/1280849613155643393

There's this thing called partisanship. In 2018 Bredesen outraised Blackburn in Tennessee by like 3 million dollars and lost by 10 points despite multiple polls showing a close raise or Bredesen ahead. I see a similar scenario happening here where the Democrat raises lots of money but still loses by double digits because this is still a red state and senate races are very partisan now. I could be wrong but in 2018 well funded dem incumbents in red states lost big so I doubt it.

Are you seriously comparing a state where Democrats just won a high profile statewide race by 5% as recently as 2018 to a state where the closest a Democrat has gotten to winning since Bredesen’s last victory in 2006 was Obama’s 42% in 2008?

[WD]

People are going to continue to underestimate Bollier at their own peril...

https://twitter.com/BryanLowry3/status/1280849613155643393

There's this thing called partisanship. In 2018 Bredesen outraised Blackburn in Tennessee by like 3 million dollars and lost by 10 points despite multiple polls showing a close raise or Bredesen ahead. I see a similar scenario happening here where the Democrat raises lots of money but still loses by double digits because this is still a red state and senate races are very partisan now. I could be wrong but in 2018 well funded dem incumbents in red states lost big so I doubt it.

Are you seriously comparing a state where Democrats just won a high profile statewide race by 5% as recently as 2018 to a state where the closest a Democrat has gotten to winning since Bredesen’s last victory in 2006 was Obama’s 42% in 2008?

Yeah but muh Kansas hasn’t elected a D senator since the 1930s

[Coastal Elitist]

People are going to continue to underestimate Bollier at their own peril...

https://twitter.com/BryanLowry3/status/1280849613155643393

There's this thing called partisanship. In 2018 Bredesen outraised Blackburn in Tennessee by like 3 million dollars and lost by 10 points despite multiple polls showing a close raise or Bredesen ahead. I see a similar scenario happening here where the Democrat raises lots of money but still loses by double digits because this is still a red state and senate races are very partisan now. I could be wrong but in 2018 well funded dem incumbents in red states lost big so I doubt it.

I think the difference here is the Bredesen campaign was desperately trying to hit the brakes on trends in a solid red state becoming even more Republican. Democrats have had essentially no success in Tennessee since 2006. Bollier is trying to hit the gas pedal on the trends in a state heading in her party's direction, and a state where Democrats have had recent success in winning statewide.

What trends? Clinton did worse than Obama in Kansas and had the lowest Democratic share of the vote since her husband Bill. Also the governor's race is irrelevant nobody thinks a Republican could win a senate race in Massachusetts or Maryland despite them having Republican governors and the same went for CA when Arnold was in charge. Face it partisanship will come through in the end and if you look at other statewide races in Kansas in 2018 none of the rest were close.

Other Kansas 2018 statewide results:
Attorney General: Republican won by 18
Secretary of State: Republican won by 9
Treasurer: Republican won by 16
Insurance Commissioner: Republican won by 26

[Coastal Elitist]

People are going to continue to underestimate Bollier at their own peril...

https://twitter.com/BryanLowry3/status/1280849613155643393

There's this thing called partisanship. In 2018 Bredesen outraised Blackburn in Tennessee by like 3 million dollars and lost by 10 points despite multiple polls showing a close raise or Bredesen ahead. I see a similar scenario happening here where the Democrat raises lots of money but still loses by double digits because this is still a red state and senate races are very partisan now. I could be wrong but in 2018 well funded dem incumbents in red states lost big so I doubt it.

And yet Tester and Manchin still won. Different situations, sure, but it's not impossible.

Also, given the fact that per Trumps own internals, he's deteoriating fast in KS, it would certainly be very possible.

Montana has shown itself to be special as well as West Virginia even though West Virginia is going the way of other red states seeing how close Manchin's reelection was.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

People are going to continue to underestimate Bollier at their own peril...

https://twitter.com/BryanLowry3/status/1280849613155643393

There's this thing called partisanship. In 2018 Bredesen outraised Blackburn in Tennessee by like 3 million dollars and lost by 10 points despite multiple polls showing a close raise or Bredesen ahead. I see a similar scenario happening here where the Democrat raises lots of money but still loses by double digits because this is still a red state and senate races are very partisan now. I could be wrong but in 2018 well funded dem incumbents in red states lost big so I doubt it.

Are you seriously comparing a state where Democrats just won a high profile statewide race by 5% as recently as 2018 to a state where the closest a Democrat has gotten to winning since Bredesen’s last victory in 2006 was Obama’s 42% in 2008?

Yeah but muh Kansas hasn’t elected a D senator since the 1930s

I’m not going to waste my time arguing with this guy. When I lurked herein 2018, he kept on trying to assert Catharine Baker and a bunch of California Republican Congressional seats were likely Republican holds because of the primary turnout. We all know how that turned out

Also, no one is even really considering this seriously on the board unless Kobach wins the primary so I don’t see why there’s a debate over it

[WD]

People are going to continue to underestimate Bollier at their own peril...

https://twitter.com/BryanLowry3/status/1280849613155643393

There's this thing called partisanship. In 2018 Bredesen outraised Blackburn in Tennessee by like 3 million dollars and lost by 10 points despite multiple polls showing a close raise or Bredesen ahead. I see a similar scenario happening here where the Democrat raises lots of money but still loses by double digits because this is still a red state and senate races are very partisan now. I could be wrong but in 2018 well funded dem incumbents in red states lost big so I doubt it.

Are you seriously comparing a state where Democrats just won a high profile statewide race by 5% as recently as 2018 to a state where the closest a Democrat has gotten to winning since Bredesen’s last victory in 2006 was Obama’s 42% in 2008?

Yeah but muh Kansas hasn’t elected a D senator since the 1930s

I’m not going to waste my time arguing with this guy. When I lurked herein 2018, he kept on trying to assert Catharine Baker and a bunch of Republican Congressional seats were likely Republican holds because of the primary turnout. We all know how that turned out

Also, no one is even really considering this seriously on the board unless Kobach wins the primary so I don’t see why there’s a debate over it

Trumps internals are showing his numbers going down here, so it’s not so far fetched that KS could still be competitive with Marshall

[Coastal Elitist]

People are going to continue to underestimate Bollier at their own peril...

https://twitter.com/BryanLowry3/status/1280849613155643393

There's this thing called partisanship. In 2018 Bredesen outraised Blackburn in Tennessee by like 3 million dollars and lost by 10 points despite multiple polls showing a close raise or Bredesen ahead. I see a similar scenario happening here where the Democrat raises lots of money but still loses by double digits because this is still a red state and senate races are very partisan now. I could be wrong but in 2018 well funded dem incumbents in red states lost big so I doubt it.

Are you seriously comparing a state where Democrats just won a high profile statewide race by 5% as recently as 2018 to a state where the closest a Democrat has gotten to winning since Bredesen’s last victory in 2006 was Obama’s 42% in 2008?

Yeah but muh Kansas hasn’t elected a D senator since the 1930s

I’m not going to waste my time arguing with this guy. When I lurked herein 2018, he kept on trying to assert Catharine Baker and a bunch of California Republican Congressional seats were likely Republican holds because of the primary turnout. We all know how that turned out

Also, no one is even really considering this seriously on the board unless Kobach wins the primary so I don’t see why there’s a debate over it

That's not even relevant to my argument, but whatever. I'm sure you've never gotten a prediction wrong. It seems like multiple posters here are arguing that, but ok.