i think the thread is spot-on.
ofc dems can win in republican states but it's much harder and needs much more luck/ressources/ name recog/gaffes than the other way around.
just look at the map...which states are out of reach for down-ticket republicans? (hint: not maryland/illinois/mass.....)
There is no reason at all to say that Democrats need more luck/resources or worse opponents to win in Solid Republican states than the converse. A quick look at the races you mention proves the point. Why did Republicans scrape a victory in Illinois? Because they were running against the incredibly unpopular Pat Quinn in a republican landslide year. Why did Charlie Baker win in 2014? Because he was a good candidate running against Martha Coakley, the world's worst candidate, in a republican landslide year. Why did Phil Scott win in Vermont? Because he was a well known moderate figure in the state, running to suceed the unpopular Shumlin. Why did the unknown John Bel Edwards win in Louisiana last year? Because he was a good candidate running against David Vitter. Why did Jim Justice win this year? Because he was a good, very rich candidate. There is no difference at all.
Wyoming and Tennessee had very popular democratic governors just 6 years ago. South Carolina had a very very close gubernatorial race in 2010. Obviously, all things being equal, Republicans are more likely to win in these states than Democrats. The same is obviously true in reverse for Vermont and Massachusetts and Maryland. But for all of these states there are circumstances, when there is the perfect storm of a good candidate, a poor opponent, the national tide and so on where the minority party can win. And these perfect storms seem to happen about as often on both sides.
