how do you change the perceptions of voters

[Schiff for Senate]

The best strategy isn't to try to neccesarily change the perception of the incumbent but rather make an affirmative case for the challenger. Basically, "I like Tester, but this Tim Sheehy guy is also cool and he is a Republican so why not"? If people have a positive view of both candidates, ceteris paribus they are going to vote for the R in the double digit Trump state(s).

Except it's not ceteris paribus. It might be if it were an open race. As it is, Tester is a three-term incumbent who sits on Senate committees that are relevant to MT's interests. That's an advantage Tester has that shouldn't be understated.

Otherwise, I agree with the points you made. It's exactly how Byron Dorgan would've been beaten by John Hoeven in 2010 ND-SEN had he bothered to run for reelection.

[Schiff for Senate]

The best strategy isn't to try to neccesarily change the perception of the incumbent but rather make an affirmative case for the challenger. Basically, "I like Tester, but this Tim Sheehy guy is also cool and he is a Republican so why not"? If people have a positive view of both candidates, ceteris paribus they are going to vote for the R in the double digit Trump state(s).

Except it's not ceteris paribus. It might be if it were an open race. As it is, Tester is a three-term incumbent who sits on Senate committees that are relevant to MT's interests. That's an advantage Tester has that shouldn't be understated.

Otherwise, I agree with the points you made. It's exactly how Byron Dorgan would've been beaten by John Hoeven in 2010 ND-SEN had he bothered to run for reelection.

Incumbency helps but it won't be alone to save Tester in a Trump+20 state if he has a strong opponent. However, it could be enough for Brown to barely survive.

Fair enough (although I'm uncertain as to whether Feehy or Rosendale as strong candidates). My point is that ceteris paribus applied to MT-SEN 2024, it would be Safe R for certain. Ceteris paribus doesn't apply to any race with an incumbent because it implies that all else is equal when all else is NOT, in fact, equal (incumbency advtg counts for something, even if it's not enough for an outright victory).

[Schiff for Senate]

The best strategy isn't to try to neccesarily change the perception of the incumbent but rather make an affirmative case for the challenger. Basically, "I like Tester, but this Tim Sheehy guy is also cool and he is a Republican so why not"? If people have a positive view of both candidates, ceteris paribus they are going to vote for the R in the double digit Trump state(s).

Except it's not ceteris paribus. It might be if it were an open race. As it is, Tester is a three-term incumbent who sits on Senate committees that are relevant to MT's interests. That's an advantage Tester has that shouldn't be understated.

Otherwise, I agree with the points you made. It's exactly how Byron Dorgan would've been beaten by John Hoeven in 2010 ND-SEN had he bothered to run for reelection.

Incumbency helps but it won't be alone to save Tester in a Trump+20 state if he has a strong opponent. However, it could be enough for Brown to barely survive.

Fair enough (although I'm uncertain as to whether Feehy or Rosendale as strong candidates). My point is that ceteris paribus applied to MT-SEN 2024, it would be Safe R for certain. Ceteris paribus doesn't apply to any race with an incumbent because it implies that all else is equal when all else is NOT, in fact, equal (incumbency advtg counts for something, even if it's not enough for an outright victory).

I think an incumbent in a deep red seat is roughly still the same as an open seat (assuming the same candidates) in a less red seat if that makes sense?

It does, but the incumbency advantage varies case by case. Depending on the specifics of the case, the "less red seat" in question may be just 5 points less Republican, or possibly 15 points less Republican.