If Trump was such a good fit for OH/PA, why are his candidates struggling so badly?

[Cyrusman]

Aside from the solid red states, there were always three states many people and myself felt that Trump was a good fit for- Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Trump is an awful fit for the sunbelt states, but the rustbelt ones? A much better fit and in some cases a great fit. He won PA in 2016 and even in a losing effort in 2020 he did better than any republican since 1992. Ohio swing hard right with Trump.

If this is the case, then why are the Trumpy candidates such as Vance, Mastriano, and Oz struggling to much? One would think these states would be ones where Trump candidates would do okay at the very least due to Trump being a good fit in these states.

[SnowLabrador]

Bad polling.

[Spectator]

Trumpism doesn’t work (as well) for other people not named Trump. I don’t know why that’s hard for some to grasp. Doug Mastriano and Dorctor Oz aren’t exactly the epitome of NY billionaires that sh**t in gold toilets and can get away with any scandal because of their long established brand. The sycophants come off as just weird and psychotic and sad in comparison. See also: Rick Saccone, Lou Barletta, Scott Wagner, Leah Vukmir, Matt Bevin

That said, JD Vance will still win. Anyone thinking otherwise is deluding themselves based on historically horrific Ohio polling.

[LabourJersey]

You need strong personalities coupled with a decent level of media savvy. You also need to have at least some people who know how to run a campaign.

Dr. Oz and JD Vance do not have compelling personalities. Vance is not media-savvy at all. Oz was savvy in a narrow sliver of media which doesn't translate well to politics. Neither of them have surrounded themselves with adequate campaign professionals.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Pennsylvania still can't really be compared to Ohio though.

Bad polling.

And this is still a possibility (more so with Ohio) that needs to be kept in mind, whether it proves to be true or not in the end, Democratic campaigns are better off running without getting cocky.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Trumpism if done right can be powerful but if you're not careful you end up looking silly. Neither Vance of Oz had the charisma Trump did and each have their own skeletons to deal with.

It's the same reason for instance if Bernie won the nomination he would look really weird trying to act like Biden, he just can never be like Biden and Biden can never be like Bernie even if he tried.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

There hasn't been one scandal of Biden pbower2A said his issue is only inflation and it was caused by wage hike there wasn't a minimum wage increase at Feds but at the state it increased from 10/15, common sense if you pay someone 400 and it goes to 60/ you have to increase prices

Trump didn't have inflation wages didn't go up til 21 when Biden took over, Trump would have had to deal with inflation plus scandal

Plus the Rs offered stimulus checks in 2020 during Trump.there aren't anymore there is stimulus programs like Medicare and enhanced child tax credit and pauses on student loans that D's offering but entitlement are opposed by GOP no more stimulus check

[Xing]

Bad polling is part of it, but it’s also true that “Trumpy” candidates are not Trump.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Bad polling is part of it, but it’s also true that “Trumpy” candidates are not Trump.

It's not bad polling when Reynolds is up 16 and Ryan and Fetterman are up 10 stop cherry picking polls, Reynolds is up by double digits too

[GALeftist]

A big part of Trump's appeal is A. charisma and B. giving a sh*t, neither of which Oz/Vance seem to have in spades, to be honest.

[Progressive Pessimist]

A big part of Trump's appeal is A. charisma and B. giving a sh*t, neither of which Oz/Vance seem to have in spades, to be honest.

I would argue that Oz and Vance in fact don't give a s***. But in a different way that benefits them less.

[GALeftist]

A big part of Trump's appeal is A. charisma and B. giving a sh*t, neither of which Oz/Vance seem to have in spades, to be honest.

I would argue that Oz and Vance in fact don't give a s***. But in a different way that benefits them less.

No I agree, that's my point. If nothing else, Trump cares about winning, and Americans like winners.

[Alben Barkley]

Trumpism doesn’t work (as well) for other people not named Trump. I don’t know why that’s hard for some to grasp. Doug Mastriano and Dorctor Oz aren’t exactly the epitome of NY billionaires that sh**t in gold toilets and can get away with any scandal because of their long established brand. The sycophants come off as just weird and psychotic and sad in comparison. See also: Rick Saccone, Lou Barletta, Scott Wagner, Leah Vukmir, Matt Bevin

That said, JD Vance will still win. Anyone thinking otherwise is deluding themselves based on historically horrific Ohio polling.

I’m glad you brought up Bevin, because he’s the prime example of a “Trumpy” candidate (he literally wore a suit with Trump’s face all over it) in a state far “Trumpier” than these and yet still managed to lose despite Trump coming to the state the night before the election and insisting he’d be the biggest loser of all-time if Bevin lost (which he did, hence why Trump is the biggest loser of all-time).

Imitating Trump or having his endorsement is not at all the same as BEING Trump. Plus Vance and Oz don’t even have his personality at all. They are also C-list celebrities, sure, but that’s about all they have in common in terms of persona. It often comes across as just plain weird, awkward, and forced when non-Trump candidates try to act “Trumpy,” and in these cases I’d actually argue that being celebrities with pre-established brands (Vance even pointedly being a Never Trumper at one point) makes the transition an even harder sell. They aren’t “authentic” at all, and voters see through that facade. They are discount Trumps at most.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Trumpism doesn’t work (as well) for other people not named Trump. I don’t know why that’s hard for some to grasp. Doug Mastriano and Dorctor Oz aren’t exactly the epitome of NY billionaires that sh**t in gold toilets and can get away with any scandal because of their long established brand. The sycophants come off as just weird and psychotic and sad in comparison. See also: Rick Saccone, Lou Barletta, Scott Wagner, Leah Vukmir, Matt Bevin

That said, JD Vance will still win. Anyone thinking otherwise is deluding themselves based on historically horrific Ohio polling.

I’m glad you brought up Bevin, because he’s the prime example of a “Trumpy” candidate (he literally wore a suit with Trump’s face all over it) in a state far “Trumpier” than these and yet still managed to lose despite Trump coming to the state the night before the election and insisting he’d be the biggest loser of all-time if Bevin lost (which he did, hence why Trump is the biggest loser of all-time).

Imitating Trump or having his endorsement is not at all the same as BEING Trump. Plus Vance and Oz don’t even have his personality at all. They are also C-list celebrities, sure, but that’s about all they have in common in terms of persona. It often comes across as just plain weird, awkward, and forced when non-Trump candidates try to act “Trumpy,” and in these cases I’d actually argue that being celebrities with pre-established brands (Vance even pointedly being a Never Trumper at one point) makes the transition an even harder sell. They aren’t “authentic” at all, and voters see through that facade. They are discount Trumps at most.

Heck Bevin entire career from 2015-2019 resembles Trump’s from 2016-2020 in stunning ways

[MT Treasurer]

Because the premise that Trump was "such a good fit" or a "uniquely good fit" for those (or most other) swing states is blatantly false and revisionist.

There’s a reason why people like Portman, Grassley, Johnson, Toomey, James, etc. all outperformed Trump, sometimes by substantial margins.

Trumpism doesn’t work (as well) for other people not named Trump. I don’t know why that’s hard for some to grasp.

'Trumpism' only worked for Trump because he ran against the most unpopular and scandal-ridden Democratic nominee in modern American history, and neither John Fetterman nor Tim Ryan has the same baggage/absymal favorability ratings as Clinton. I don’t know why that’s hard for some to grasp.

[Pollster]

There is a long history of opportunist politicians unsuccessfully imitating prominent leaders with strong styles/brands and embarrassing themselves out of otherwise promising political careers in the process. You don't remember many of them simply because of how unsuccessful of a strategy it almost always is, leaving nobody who does it with much of a legacy. It's easy to forget how many poor-performing Democrats attempted to be clones of Bill Clinton and FDR in their days, and how many similar Republicans ran as imitation Reagans in the 80's and Nixons before Watergate.

To the Democrats trying to wrap their heads around this - imagine if Sanders had defeated Clinton and Trump in 2016, and what Democratic candidates in 2018/2020/2022 would look like as a result.

More imitation Trumps will likely win (and some have been winning) thanks to the increased partisanship of this contemporary climate, but it's wholly unsurprising to see them crashing in competitive races.

[coloradocowboi]

Because the premise that Trump was "such a good fit" or a "uniquely good fit" for those (or most other) swing states is blatantly false and revisionist.

There’s a reason why people like Portman, Grassley, Johnson, Toomey, James, etc. all outperformed Trump, sometimes by substantial margins.

Trumpism doesn’t work (as well) for other people not named Trump. I don’t know why that’s hard for some to grasp.

'Trumpism' only worked for Trump because he ran against the most unpopular and scandal-ridden Democratic nominee in modern American history, and neither John Fetterman nor Tim Ryan has the same baggage/absymal favorability ratings as Clinton. I don’t know why that’s hard for some to grasp.

Yep. And lost by 7 million to another unpopular, scandal-ridden Democrat. If he had gone up against Obama in 2012, he would've lost much worse than Romney. That's prolly why he ultimately didn't.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Rs aren't offering anything, no entitlement because there are Labor shortages because they don't believe in raising taxes but McCain would want to raise taxes on this Environment because we aren't in normal times we arent in Pandemic anymore we are just like we were under Post Great Recession Income inequality and students loans and Housing needs are exacerbated, there most be an opening up of Section 8 again or some other way to provide rental assistance long term not just Pandemic relief which D's will do over Rs

Rs confuse raising taxes for General public with raising taxes on rich people the Warren Millionaire taxes tax only rich people

[AncestralDemocrat.]

Because the premise that Trump was "such a good fit" or a "uniquely good fit" for those (or most other) swing states is blatantly false and revisionist.

There’s a reason why people like Portman, Grassley, Johnson, Toomey, James, etc. all outperformed Trump, sometimes by substantial margins.

Trumpism doesn’t work (as well) for other people not named Trump. I don’t know why that’s hard for some to grasp.

'Trumpism' only worked for Trump because he ran against the most unpopular and scandal-ridden Democratic nominee in modern American history, and neither John Fetterman nor Tim Ryan has the same baggage/absymal favorability ratings as Clinton. I don’t know why that’s hard for some to grasp.

Yep. And lost by 7 million to another unpopular, scandal-ridden Democrat. If he had gone up against Obama in 2012, he would've lost much worse than Romney. That's prolly why he ultimately didn't.

"Lost by 7 million.."

If you hadn't realized, our elections aren't by popular vote.. he was roughly 50,000 votes in swing states from winning the election despite a pandemic (which has wrecked the economy).

[sg0508]

The Trump Hangover is in full effect and his candidates are worsening that overall impact.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Because the premise that Trump was "such a good fit" or a "uniquely good fit" for those (or most other) swing states is blatantly false and revisionist.

There’s a reason why people like Portman, Grassley, Johnson, Toomey, James, etc. all outperformed Trump, sometimes by substantial margins.

Trumpism doesn’t work (as well) for other people not named Trump. I don’t know why that’s hard for some to grasp.

'Trumpism' only worked for Trump because he ran against the most unpopular and scandal-ridden Democratic nominee in modern American history, and neither John Fetterman nor Tim Ryan has the same baggage/absymal favorability ratings as Clinton. I don’t know why that’s hard for some to grasp.

Because obviously candidate quality doesn't matter. If you put a four-star general against  Roy Moore the general won't outperform generic D vs R by more than 4% /s