- Re: KY: McGrath should've run against Barr again. I doubt there are too many people who'd only donate to someone running against McConnell, maybe they'd donate to Biden or something, but that's a far better use of the money. And McConnell would win easily this year no matter who we ran.
I agree McGrath would have brought a lot of her fundraising to KY-06, but you can't seriously think that much of the money that went to her wouldn't have gone to any Anointed One going up against McConnell. Well-meaning donors in California will donate once they've identified their champion.
I'm mostly inclined to agree with you that McConnell would win no matter who, but Matt Jones might have pulled off an upset due to his reach and name recognition (though the DSCC can't be blamed much, if at all, for not reaching him - it's probable that he'd have never been prepared to step back from his radio job). Steve Beshear and Rocky Adkins might have been in with a shout in a Democratic wave year if they were able to fight rural trends and let McConnell help them with suburban ones.
- Re: TX: I definitely agree the way TX went down reflects badly on Castro (and Beto, for that matter), but Schumer didn't do anything wrong there. Even if you want to blame the DSCC, it isn't run by Schumer and I maintain Hegar should've run for House again.
Schumer isn't officially head of the DSCC but he has one of the most important roles in its decision-making. They might have no blame if they pulled out all the stops for Beto and Castro, in which case this is a genuine example of a weak bench in a large state.
- Re: IA: Running Axne or Finkenauer would've been a big mistake imo since all it would do was open up their house seats. Rob Sand is planning to run for Governor or reelection IIRC. Vilsack is a washed up has-been. Also, I'd argue that Greenfield is a far, far better wave insurance candidate the two folks you mentioned (we may just have to agree to disagree on this). And it is a mistake to waste a strong candidate on a long-shot race; I'd rather keep Axne and Finkenauer's House seats than have a slightly better chance of winning a Senate seat that we probably won't win either way.
Though all of them have low recognition, as of March, Selzer has the candidates at these favourability levels:
Ernst 46-36
Greenfield 14-13 (Democrats: 30-4)
Graham 19-12 (Democrats: 34-2)
Franken 17-10 (Democrats: 27-1)
Mauro 12-14 (Democrats: 27-5)
Woods 9-13 (Democrats: 17-3)
JD Scholten, who'd been considering a Senate bid prior to the DSCC endorsement of Greenfield, may well have bullied out of this race (though he claims the endorsement had no effect). Tom Miller and Michael Fitzgerald might also have been better candidates and were the only Democrats to win statewide reelection in 2018 (and would have been safe to contest this race, as they're not up again until 2022).
- Re: NC: But those are really assumptions. The truth is that we really don't know anything about what went down here except that (1) Jackson was initially planning to run, (2) the DSCC felt so strongly that he was the wrong guy that the Dem Senate leadership basically told him not to run; and (3) the DSCC wanted Cunningham to run instead of the available options.
We really don't know and I could just as easily say "the DSCC was trying to avoid blowing the race by running an overhyped candidate with a major skeleton in his closet." We don't know and I don't think it makes sense to just assume the DSCC was trying to recruit a random no-name. Like, you've gotta ask why from their perspective it would make logical sense to push out Jackson in favor of Cunningham.
Agree or disagree with their choice, these folks aren't idiots and they want to flip the seat just like we do, so you gotta consider what the DSCC's thought process might have been. I mean, my guess is that Jackson isn't all that he's been hyped up to be for one reason or another. And Cunningham was consistently leading even before the COVID-19 situation blew up, so maybe he's stronger than we gave him credit for, idk. All I know is we're currently more likely than not to flip this seat, so I ain't complaining
Fair point about Cunningham and Jackson, and I don't think Cunningham was a bad pick. My assumption here may well be incorrect, and I'm only inclined to believe it because it fits in with a pattern of similar DSCC endorsements elsewhere - a strong preference for candidates who have fundraising potential and are believed to be economically moderate ("safe"). This is not a universally winning template.
I don't think the DSCC's strategists are dumb, but both they and the DCCC have severely miscalculated before by holding to outdated conventional wisdom, having a bias for party insiders, believing in median voter theory, and listening to high-dollar fundraisers who despise what certain potential candidates stand for. Some of these donors are willing to accept a higher risk of defeat with a moderate they like than a progressive they don't.
- Re: GA: I know Atlas has always been bullish about Warnock, but I've always been pretty bearish about his prospects. He's strikes me as a random, overhyped some dude and I'd actually argue that even Osoff is a stronger candidate. I mean, both are more or less some dude-tier, but at least Osoff out-raised his main Republican opponent. OTOH, while Warnock will probably make it to the runoff, there has been at least one poll showing him in single-digits with Matt Lieberman in second. If Warnock can barely handle Joe Lieberman's some dude-tier son, I don't see how one can argue that he's not an extremely weak candidate tbh. Osoff is a meh candidate at best, but at least he's leading the field in fundraising and likely has the Democratic nomination locked up.
Warnock's polling is underperforming what I believed to be his priors. If it doesn't pick up soon (I give him a some room for early error while the scandal fades), I'll agree with this assessment.
- Re: Overall: I don't think the DSCC missed any open-goals this cycle except for Georgia - where I've always said they dropped the ball in both races - since I don't think Texas was their fault. That said, I think that if you're gonna attack them for the disappointments and mistakes, then you also need to give them credit for their successes. I often see folks on Atlas talking about how the DSCC blew this race or that race, but I seldom see folks giving the DSCC credit for Montana, Arizona, Kansas, etc. Plus, as of now we're on track to flip the Senate which is the thing that really matters here.
Bollier's candidacy I'm less sure of (though she's certainly
at least a good candidate), but Bullock and Kelly were absolutely wins. I'm not saying this cycle is a complete failure, but there look to be a lot of misses. What I'm least sure about is how successful this was relative to previous cycles - would you say there were more missed opportunities in e.g. 2018 or in any cycle under Reid's leadership?
I agree they're on track to win the Senate anyway, but every seat counts considering the possibility for a small number of losses in 2022 flipping it back to the Republicans.