TN-SEN 2018: Why did Phil Bredesen lose?

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Because it's Tennessee.

[Suburbia]

Bredesen shouldn't have ran.

Just because Doug Jones won Alabama in 2017, doesn't mean anything.

Schumer should have recruited Bredesen to run.

Tennessee is too Republican.

Bredesen should have just stayed retired.

[Suburbia]

Because he had a (D) next to his name in Tennessee and his opponent was not a pedophile.

This, though no Kavanaugh confirmation or him not supporting Kavanaugh would have made his loss more respectable.

People are still peddling this left wing myth. Bredesen's support for Kavanaugh was largely irrelevant but supporting him was his only path to even have a chance at winning.

Tennessee is whiter than the national average, has a lower educational attainment ratio and has the highest proportion of White Evangelicals of any state.

His loss was because of the hostile demographics in a polarized country.

Even more than Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina?

[Left Wing]

Why are you bumping this?

[ProgressiveModerate]

I think if the race wasn't nationalized, and if TN had half the population it currently does, there's a good chance Bresden would've won. Partisanship is very effective in large states like TN, and it's what caused Ds to lose senate seats in MO and IN in my view. Manchin and Tester were able to hold on because their races didn't get more national attention and the states they represent have small populations that allow them to be able to connect with voters on a more "individual" level. This is why I believe it's a good investment to keep the plains states close on the Presidential level for the sake of the senate.

[Kuumo]

I think if the race wasn't nationalized, and if TN had half the population it currently does, there's a good chance Bresden would've won. Partisanship is very effective in large states like TN, and it's what caused Ds to lose senate seats in MO and IN in my view. Manchin and Tester were able to hold on because their races didn't get more national attention and the states they represent have small populations that allow them to be able to connect with voters on a more "individual" level. This is why I believe it's a good investment to keep the plains states close on the Presidential level for the sake of the senate.

Retail politics at its finest! It helps when you don't have to spend as much money or convince as many people to win in a state that would typically be hostile to your party. It's no coincidence that the states with the most idiosyncratic politics (e.g. MT, AK, ME, VT) tend to have small populations.

[Suburbia]

Why are you bumping this?

To show that Bredesen shouldn't have ran.

TN was not like this

[Pericles]

Why are you bumping this?

To show that Bredesen shouldn't have ran.

TN was not like this

It was probably worth trying, even if the odds against him were high. Maybe without the Kavanaugh stuff it could have been a few points closer (though it is hard to see him getting an actual win-save a Roy Moore situation which it is still worth being prepared for).

[MT Treasurer]

Blackburn was a much stronger candidate than people give her credit for and effectively tied Bredesen to Schumer/national Democrats. After the Kavanaugh hearings, the bottom basically fell out of his campaign.

[MillennialModerate]

To me this is the race I would most like to change the result of in the Trump era (other than Markey Kennedy). Bredesen was an A+ centrist  canidate and Blackburn was a C- far right canidate

[ChrisMcDanielWasRobbed]

Because it's Tennessee.

This sums up everything you need to know.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

TN is a 1 party state, like KY is and no Dem is ever gonna win statewide office again.  Gore was different, but as soon as he ran for Prez, TN went back R

[😥]

Because it's Tennessee.

[Astatine]

Because it's Tennessee.

[MT Treasurer]

Because it's Tennessee.

This sums up everything you need to know.

Not really, given that Bredesen had a slight advantage when he entered the race (at worst, the race was a Tossup for Democrats). People always act like beating Bayh and Bredesen was a cakewalk for Republicans which required little effort because of their respective states' "partisanship", but that’s a serious case of hindsight bias.

[Canis]

Phil never stood a chance and he knew it he just ran to try to get Republicans to spend in TN to take some of the pressure off all the other seats the Dems had to defend this year he was succesful in getting the GOP to spend in TN but the map was too unfavorable for the Dems and we still ended up net losing 2 seats it sucks the 2018 map is always gonna be really rough for dems but we did lose pretty much all the undefendable seats in 2018 so 2022 wont be as bad hopefully cause we realistically had no shot of defending ND MO and IN the states are just too republican at this poiint Dems in 2022 will need to defend MN WI MI and PA and have a decent shot at TX and FL depending on how the 2020 election goes. This was the last year that Phil running could have a good effect for dems Im glad he ran. 

[The Arizonan]

TN is a 1 party state, like KY is and no Dem is ever gonna win statewide office again.  Gore was different, but as soon as he ran for Prez, TN went back R

Don't ever say never. Tennessee and Kentucky could change generations from now.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

TN is a 1 party state, like KY is and no Dem is ever gonna win statewide office again.  Gore was different, but as soon as he ran for Prez, TN went back R

Don't ever say never. Tennessee and Kentucky could change generations from now.

Agreed, but the way TN's disenfranchisement rules are going, its electorate isn't going to change very much (and there's little reason to believe they will ameliorate the polarisation that makes the state so titanium R to begin with).

KY is a special case - it is also a titanium R state for federal office in every other circumstance, but I still think there's an outside chance McConnell could lose to the right opponent in a 2026 Republican midterm.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Polarization is too high. In the 90s or 2000s he would have won.

[Red Wall]

He was the flavor of the year when it comes to dems trying to win deep red senate seats, which they have always had as a pipe dream since Obama was elected but only succeeded twice and one of them against Roy Moore.

[ChrisMcDanielWasRobbed]

Because it's Tennessee.

This sums up everything you need to know.

Not really, given that Bredesen had a slight advantage when he entered the race (at worst, the race was a Tossup for Democrats). People always act like beating Bayh and Bredesen was a cakewalk for Republicans which required little effort because of their respective states' "partisanship", but that’s a serious case of hindsight bias.

Bayh was a different situation since Indiana isn't as consistently Republican and he had been a popular senator before. In the case of Bredesen, the senate seat he was running for didn't even flip when he won massively for governor and the country got a lot more polarized since.