how do you change the perceptions of voters

[freepcrusher]

it was interesting that someone like Fritz Hollings held on for as long as he did. In the case of the senate elections coming up, how could you change the perception of someone like Sherrod Brown or Jon Tester?

It's getting too close to the election (less than a year out) to really change the perception, but should Schumer have proposed bills that would be "free votes" for them to vote no on. So if Sherrod Brown could claim that he helped kill a bill to abolish the death penalty nationwide or to legalize heroin nationwide - would that make him look conservative? Or do most voters not think in that way?

[TML]

Remember this piece of advice from a past Democratic president:

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and fair Deal really are--when he stands up like a man and puts the issues before the people--then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It's not news that OH voted for Dennis Kucinich and MT elected Bullock and MO and NEB are in play because like Slotkin and Gallego Kunce and Osborne are Vets


We are gonna have a Filibuster proof Trifecta the Rs didn't block Voting Rights on their own they relied on Sinema and it's good to have 51 S than 50 because the Power sharing agreement

Balance of power is 48,Ds and 48 R MO, NEB, OH, MT are tossup and WV is gone

[Arizona Iced Tea]

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).

[freepcrusher]

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).

i'm talking from the perspective of how can dems be able to win in hostile territory, not how republicans can defeat said incumbents. The dems having the senate from 1955-1981, for instance, was partially because they were able to win in otherwise republican areas.

Remember this piece of advice from a past Democratic president:

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and fair Deal really are--when he stands up like a man and puts the issues before the people--then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again.

then what explains the fact that ben nelson could win in nebraska? sometimes running a "phony democrat" has advantages

[Ferguson97]

Good candidates turn their weakness into strengths.

Trump lacks experience? He's an outsider.

Biden is old? He's wise.

[MT Treasurer]

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).

"actually, there's no real reason to replace jon tester, and i don't know why i'm running against him, but can you still vote for me, please?"

[Pollster]

You have to meet the moment with voters, and meet voters where they are. It's never as much what you say as it is how you say it. Getting tone right is the most important thing in political campaigns.

[Thank you for being a friend...]

A big ad campaign to explain to red state voters that a lot of the things they support are progressive ideas or progressive policies - and that Jon Tester and Sherrod Brown are worth re-electing to carry out that agenda.  If voters want the opponents, they'll just vote for the opponents... I feel there's still room for very small victories if Jon and Sherrod campaign as populist progressives, but I don't think there any chance they win if what they offer is something fake and phony.

These Senate elections are increasingly sorting elections where many of the old D and R moderates have retired, been defeated, or primaried out, and the only way to survive is to be your own unique persona and hope that enough voters go with favorability of person than their party allegiance.  That's hard to do of course which is why these races are going to be very challenging.

[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.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

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.

[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).

[Arizona Iced Tea]

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?

[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.