KS-SEN 2020 Megathread: Marshall overperforms and wins

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Usha Reddi, Mayor of Manhattan, has withdrawn from the Democratic primary, leaving Bollier and Robert Tillman.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Marshall is the clear favorite. And if he wins the nomination, this contest is safe R.

Safe R? nah

Likely bordering on safe until we get a bit more polling. Even the Kobach vs Bollier polls have a sample of undecided voters that should (in theory) skew Republican, and the one Marshall vs Bollier poll we have (admittedly an internal) has him up by 11.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Imagine if Bollier lost to Tillman.

I wouldn't be too shocked, honestly. Any Republican but Kobach is virtually guaranteed to beat Bollier.

Tillman is a Democrat - Bollier's only remaining primary opponent.

[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.

[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.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Just curious; how do you guys think Bollier would vote if she were elected to the senate? Would she be sorta like Manchin voting for Medicare but trying to doge identity politics, or like Sinema just being moderate and opposing policies seen as extreme? How reliable of a vote would be for the Democratic Party? She seems like a woman with strong morals, but many of her ads have been kinda vague on where she actually stands on some key issues.

Yeah, she (& Bullock too, for that matter) would certainly be more of a Manchin/Sinema/Tester/Jones/McCaskill/Heitkamp than a Bernie/Warren.

There's a lot of room between Manchin and Sanders and Tester is not really comparable. Furthermore, Manchin's felt free to gut welfare before while being a lot more socially liberal than his state, although he certainly leans a lot less strongly towards the 'economically conservative, socially liberal' typecast than most "moderate" Democratic Senators.

Would Bullock really wind up to the right of, say, Chris Coons or DiFi?

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

The SoS clarified that West has not qualified so presumably have their figures for the final applications prior to the August 3 deadline in order. An independent hasn't qualified so this will be another Republican-Democratic-Libertarian race.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Holy ****

https://twitter.com/MadelainePisani/status/1315642116438200320

For all the complaining about Jaime Harrison raising a ton that could have gone to other candidates, it looks like they're doing pretty well for themselves.

All of the Democratic Senate candidates in competitive races (with the notable exceptions of GA/TX) have raised more than enough. Harrison has just raised way more than enough and some of that that might have been better spent in House/local races or wave insurance Senate seats.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I keep banging on about it but there is no way to force people to give to a certain route- these donations aren't coming from lobbyists who you can treat like chess pieces.

Joint fundraiser agreements, promotion of local candidates and maxing out on donations from one campaign to another are all plausible avenues of exploration. Al Gross was memed into prominence, so it can be done just by changing the conversations and culture surrounding small-dollar political donations.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I told you all Kansas wouldn't be close lol. It's basically impossible in today's climate for the other party to win in a state where they're losing voter registration by 20 points this was Tennessee 2018 all over again.

The super strong candidates Bollier and Bullock ended up overperforming Biden by... 5 and 6 points respectively. Talk Elections Forum once again gets fooled by a red state based on "trends" and candidate quality.

6 would have been enough for Bullock if the MT presidential polls were right. As with most of your recent takes, this one doesn't take into account that the conventional wisdom really wasn't consistently far off relative to the national environment; it's just that the national environment was significantly worse for Democrats than expected.