Why were Lake and Oz considered weak candidates?

[Tintrlvr]

There are a variety of factors that go into each of these. Lake and Oz both faced weaker Democratic candidates than Masters and Mastriano, and in Pennsylvania Mastriano was a truly terrible candidate (but also really just a sacrificial lamb) while Oz was only garden-variety bad.

I also don't really think many people considered Lake a weak candidate. Oz is a different story and clearly was a weak candidate.

[Tintrlvr]

Let’s see. Oz looks like a cardboard cutout that can’t even (convincingly) project basic human emotions like empathy, was literally accused of torturing and killing dogs, carpetbagged to a state which was an awful fit for his background/type of politics, had a history of being a snake oil salesman who’d probably sell his mother for more $$$, and pandered to the Republican base in a hilariously and transparently inauthentic manner.

I mean, maybe that had something to do with it.

Oz was supposedly perceived as moderate, making him outrun Mastriano by 10 points. He was like Romney in a sense of being a out of touch elitist who lacks empathy, but moderate.

He outperformed Mastriano because he wasn't a wild-eyed open anti-Semite, and also because his opponent had had multiple strokes and was in dubious health throughout the campaign.