Where could an Akin/Mourdock/Angle/O'Donnell-esque candidate get elected?

[nclib]

Obviously, it would depend on the Dem nominee and the political climate, but all things being equal I'd say:

[RogueBeaver]

Are we talking about open seats, Pub or Dem held ones, what?

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

Obviously, it would depend on the Dem nominee and the political climate, but all things being equal I'd say:

Yeah, this seems about right.

[nclib]

Are we talking about open seats, Pub or Dem held ones, what?

As I said, all things being equal (i.e. on balance what could happen), but I was mainly thinking of given the teabagger winning the R nomination.

[CountryClassSF]

Unfortunately,  Mourdock and Akin mainly lost their races because of the actions taken *after* their unfortunate comments.

Let me explain.

Todd Akin lost because he was universally stripped of cash, and McCaskill raked in the dough after his comments. Did his comments/ego cause the loss? Absolutely, but the  loss of cash contributed significantly to the margin.  For Akin's long career in politics, it's inconceivable how he felt he could win this race after being deprived of NRSC funds with a heavily funded incumbent. It's over now, but this one will go down in the record books as complete incompetence on both the NRSC and Akin's part.

Mourdock never had a lock on this seat. Despite easily beating Lugar, he never actually led Donnelly in post-primary polling by any significant margin.  Donnelly had always had a shot in this race.  In a race that was basically a tie, the negative publicity swung it to Donnelly. Mourdock performed a lot better than Akin did.

Democrats were in the right place at the right time for these races --- with an incumbent Senator in Missouri that was unpopular but not enough to be tossed out by someone voters determined was worse.  Donnelly is a very conservative Democrat - conservative enough to win in a red state when his opponent did something stupid.


Christine O'Donnell's loss---I know it's tempting for liberals to make fun of the "witch" thing, but it's really simple.  Delaware is a blue state --- there are more democrats than Republicans there, and they voted for their own.  Is there a lesson for us here? Sure -- we had a shot at the seat with Mike Castle, and we blew it, and probably shouldn't have. Oh well.

Sharron Angle lost by less than 6%. This wasn't exactly a blowout.  Would a candidate that was less polarizing have done better? Perhaps.

The one thing I have heard from Republicans is that they can no longer assume that an unpopular incumbent means an instant victory.  The Democrats have now mastered the art of making lemonade out of lemons by running the candidates through the mud and using the media to promote it.

The tea party, which I consider myself a part of, can certainly learn to choose battles more wisely and to not risk a safe seat or run a very conservative candidate in a blue state. 

However, one other thing that this taught us is that it's great to support a conservative candidate, but being seasoned in politics isn't necessarily a bad thing -- it's a good thing when you're well coached in debates and statements as to not say something dumb--which of course was surprising for Congressman Akin considering how long he has had in politics.

Live and learn -- but let's not pretend single digit losses by Mourdock or Angle mean some landslide rejection of tea party conservatism.  Nobody can win every race.

[Vosem]

Akin? Only some of the hardest core Southern conservative states, such as Alabama, Georgia (yes, it would be close, but the polarization here...), and Mississippi. He would stand a chance in some Western states, but I tend to think you would have some kind of establishment-R reaction which would triumph, a la Alaska 2010.

Mourdock? 2012 was a tilt-D year. Probably all states which voted for Romney he could win in a neutral year, and in a really R landslide year he could probably make it in a swing or even tilt-D state. Dude had one gaffe which was inopportunely timed; he could've won.

Angle? Basically the map above. Romney states is her maximum, I think.

O'Donnell? Nowhere, I think. There is no place where somebody would not step in and say 'vote for me instead' (like Alaska 2010). Politicians have ambition. Otherwise, some Democratic sacrificial lamb would get really, really lucky (and it's a fact of politics that occasionally sacrificial lambs get really, really lucky).

[Zioneer]

An Akin-esque candidate in Utah could lose, but only if Jim Matheson ran for the Senate.

[You Don’t Mess With The Zohran]

Only in very conservative states for the first three, and I don't see how O'Donnell gets elected at all.

Also, how about Ken Buck?

[Where's the Epstein Client List?]

The one thing I have heard from Republicans is that they can no longer assume that an unpopular incumbent means an instant victory.  The Democrats have now mastered the art of making lemonade out of lemons by running the candidates through the mud and using the media to promote it.

Oh please, Country. An unpopular incumbent has never meant an instant victory for any party. Elections are always choices and rarely referendums. Having a terrible guy in office doesn't matter if the guy running against him is even worse (or wants to force people to have their rapist's baby).

Running your opponent through the mud is called politics. I'd suggest you look at your own party's playbook, specifically that of Karl Rove or Lee Atwater. Akin and Mourdock weren't run through the mud. They hung themselves with their own rope. Donnelly and McCaskill simply stood by and watched them hang themselves. What did you want them to do? Defend them for making statements that any reasonable personal would find despicable?

[7,052,770]

Against a real opponent, I think Akin/Murdock loses in all 50 states.  Of course, most Democratic parties in conservative states usually put up sacrificial lambs and nobodies, so Akin/Murdock "could" win in about 20 states, given the right circumstances.

[sg0508]

The interesting thing is that if you talk to the hardcore conservatives that have/would back an O'Donnell, Angle, etc in the primary, their opinion is "why back a moderate candidate who doesn't support my positions?"  Even if the socially conservative candidate loses, at least their voice was heard.  I do understand that to some extent.

That being said, Castle likely beats Coons by 9 or 10 points.  We're talking a near 30 point swing based upon the results of that primary.

[pbrower2a]

As for Akin and Mourdock -- rape offends so many sensibilities that trivializing its consequences is asking for defeat. One can get away with anti-human economics (Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania) because the plutocrats have deep pockets. It is possible to make the argument that the best thing for the common man is that he get a pay cut so that there can be more jobs -- but one has no compensating virtue for rape.

Here's a basic rule: do not treat rape as a blessing in disguise -- as in "you just might love the baby".

[adma]

Somehow, Oklahoma to me stands out as such a state (and Tom Coburn's practically midway there already)

[Where's the Epstein Client List?]

Somehow, Oklahoma to me stands out as such a state (and Tom Coburn's practically midway there already)

Jim Inhofe's three-fourths of the way there.

[NVGonzalez]

Obviously, it would depend on the Dem nominee and the political climate, but all things being equal I'd say:

Yeah, this seems about right.

I'd scrap GA but we will probably see if I am right on that one or not.

[bballrox4717]

Obviously, it would depend on the Dem nominee and the political climate, but all things being equal I'd say:

Yeah, this seems about right.

I'd scrap GA but we will probably see if I am right on that one or not.

I'd scrap Arkansas too; I know it's trending Republican heavily, but if someone made comments like that against Pryor, Beebe, or maybe even Lincoln, they would lose.