Why did Dems try to save Mark Pryor in 2014 after seeing 2010?

[Fancyarcher]

There was a largely wrong assumption that Lincoln losing in 2010 was because of her quality as a candidate, and not because the states lean had finally matched presidential wise.

Beebe was won by landslide in 2010, and his coattails were still enough for the local state party to hold onto the house and senate, even if they lost a lot of ground.

As we can see by how much Pryor got blown out in 2014, and the Governorship being an auto-flip, it wasn't quite that.

[Fancyarcher]

Yeah, this made no sense. In fact, Mark Pryor was going to lose regardless of who the President was.

Eh that's debatable. I could see Pryor holding on by the skin of his teeth if Romney had won in 2012. Would depend on how bad the national environment is for the GOP, and if Pryor still faced Cotton or someone else.

I don't think the national environment would have made a darn difference to be honest. Arkansas was simply too red by the point, and Obama's presence likely poisoned ticket splitting. At best Pryor would have lost by high single digits in a good environment, in my opinion. 

[Fancyarcher]

Yeah, this made no sense. In fact, Mark Pryor was going to lose regardless of who the President was.

Eh that's debatable. I could see Pryor holding on by the skin of his teeth if Romney had won in 2012. Would depend on how bad the national environment is for the GOP, and if Pryor still faced Cotton or someone else.

I don't think the national environment would have made a darn difference to be honest. Arkansas was simply too red by the point, and Obama's presence likely poisoned ticket splitting. At best Pryor would have lost by high single digits in a good environment, in my opinion.  

how did Kent Conrad and Ben Nelson easily win reelection in Bush +20 states in 2006?

Blue wave year and there was less polarization.

it was only eight years between 2006 and 2014. If you had an unpopular president Romney in 2014, would there really be that much of a difference between those eight years?

We had a President Trump in 2018 who was probably significantly more unpopular than a President Romney ever would have been, and 4 incumbent Democrats lost re-election, 3 of which were in states less Republican than Arkansas. No doubt Pryor was going to lose in 2014 whether Obama or Romney were President.

so are you saying 2010 changed everything then?

Obama's election for a lot of unfortunate reasons, basically made historical Democrats, who started voting Republican presidential-wise, realize what the modern Democratic Party really represented.

For example, you mentioned Kent Conrad, and Ben Nelson. I don't think it's a coincidence that both of them retired six years later. The national environment had changed massively overnight.

[Fancyarcher]

Yeah, this made no sense. In fact, Mark Pryor was going to lose regardless of who the President was.

Eh that's debatable. I could see Pryor holding on by the skin of his teeth if Romney had won in 2012. Would depend on how bad the national environment is for the GOP, and if Pryor still faced Cotton or someone else.

I don't think the national environment would have made a darn difference to be honest. Arkansas was simply too red by the point, and Obama's presence likely poisoned ticket splitting. At best Pryor would have lost by high single digits in a good environment, in my opinion.  

how did Kent Conrad and Ben Nelson easily win reelection in Bush +20 states in 2006?

Blue wave year and there was less polarization.

it was only eight years between 2006 and 2014. If you had an unpopular president Romney in 2014, would there really be that much of a difference between those eight years?

We had a President Trump in 2018 who was probably significantly more unpopular than a President Romney ever would have been, and 4 incumbent Democrats lost re-election, 3 of which were in states less Republican than Arkansas. No doubt Pryor was going to lose in 2014 whether Obama or Romney were President.

so are you saying 2010 changed everything then?

Obama's election for a lot of unfortunate reasons, basically made historical Democrats, who started voting Republican presidential-wise, realize what the modern Democratic Party really represented.

For example, you mentioned Kent Conrad, and Ben Nelson. I don't think it's a coincidence that both of them retired six years later. The national environment had changed massively overnight.

nelson, due to being seen as the 60th vote with the cornhusker kickback, was effectively f-cked. Conrad on the other hand probably gets 58-59 percent of the vote in 2012. Don't forget that, against all odds, the dems managed to retain that seat.

I think Conrad holds up, because Heitkamp won that year, but by no more than 4 to 5%. It's a genuinely competitive race, compared to his previous ones. Nelson would have lost irregardless, though.