Which Senate challenger is running the best campaign?

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Considering that:
Democrats last won a statewide race in Texas in 1994
Democrats have only won statewide in Florida six times since 2000 (including Obama twice at the Presidential level)
Rick Scott is an incumbent two-term governor
Rick Scott is a multi-millionaire self-funder
Beto O'Rourke has served six years in the House
Beto O'Rourke was unknown at the state level before this Senate run
Ted Cruz is a national political figure and one of the faces of the Republican party and the conservative movement
Bill Nelson is a low-energy empty suit

Anyone who says Scott is running a better campaign than Beto is dumb.

[junior chįmp]

Running a good campaign is overrated as national enviorment and fundamentals determine most if not all during an election

Who remembers the endless articles during 2016 about Hillary's superior ground game vs. Trump's amateur hour dumpster fire of a campaign?

Also....nobody but political nerds notice someone running a good campaign. The vast majority of voters are clueless and ignorant and largely defer to the national enviorment while people who are really politically astute and involved debate campaign tactics that the public at large dosent even notice.

Yes you can



If an election goes against the political environment than that means the winning candidate ran a good campaign or the losing one ran a bad one. Just look at 2012 IN and MO for the dems and 2006 TN for the GOP.

Those 2 won because their opponents made massive and offensive gaffes. A politician getting elected is basically 99% the demographics, social identities, and economic indicators of their state mixed with a favorable enviorment spurred by events out of the candidates control.

Suppose Trump lost in 2016....Beto would of just been another Wendy Davis. Donelley, McCaskill, Nelson, Manchin, and many others would if been goners from the get-go regardless if they ran a good campaign.

Braun and Scott are both running good campaigns but their both going to lose because 95% of the voting public doesn't notice a politician running a good campaign. They just defer to the national enviorment or the voting pattern of their respective social identities. They arent paying attention to every dumb TV commercial, scandal, campaign event, etc... thats obsessively discussed on Atlas (yet will have no bearing on the actual election)

[OSR stands with Israel]

Running a good campaign is overrated as national enviorment and fundamentals determine most if not all during an election

Who remembers the endless articles during 2016 about Hillary's superior ground game vs. Trump's amateur hour dumpster fire of a campaign?

Also....nobody but political nerds notice someone running a good campaign. The vast majority of voters are clueless and ignorant and largely defer to the national enviorment while people who are really politically astute and involved debate campaign tactics that the public at large dosent even notice.

Yes you can



If an election goes against the political environment than that means the winning candidate ran a good campaign or the losing one ran a bad one. Just look at 2012 IN and MO for the dems and 2006 TN for the GOP.

Those 2 won because their opponents made massive and offensive gaffes. A politician getting elected is basically 99% the demographics, social identities, and economic indicators of their state mixed with a favorable enviorment spurred by events out of the candidates control.

Suppose Trump lost in 2016....Beto would of just been another Wendy Davis. Donelley, McCaskill, Nelson, Manchin, and many others would if been goners from the get-go regardless if they ran a good campaign.

Braun and Scott are both running good campaigns but their both going to lose because 95% of the voting public doesn't notice a politician running a good campaign. They just defer to the national enviorment or the voting pattern of their respective social identities. They arent paying attention to every dumb TV commercial, scandal, campaign event, etc... thats obsessively discussed on Atlas (yet will have no bearing on the actual election)

But Scott isn’t your average candidate , he is a popular governor of the state he is running in and unlike most challengers has significantly more name recognition than the incumbent senator . So when people vote and see Scott sure they won’t think oh who we’ll he ran his campaign, but I like him as governor so I will vote for him .


Also I don’t think Trump ratings are that bad in FL



Also say Manchin, Donnelley , Heitkamp , MaCaskil retired this year it would have been very likely those seats switch regardless of national environment

[Figueira]

Running a good campaign is overrated as national enviorment and fundamentals determine most if not all during an election

Who remembers the endless articles during 2016 about Hillary's superior ground game vs. Trump's amateur hour dumpster fire of a campaign?

Also....nobody but political nerds notice someone running a good campaign. The vast majority of voters are clueless and ignorant and largely defer to the national enviorment while people who are really politically astute and involved debate campaign tactics that the public at large dosent even notice.

I mean the point of running a good campaign isn't so people say, "Wow, look at that amazing campaign Beto is running. I think I will vote for him."

[SN2903]

Rick Scott. Nelson is finished.

[IceSpear]

Rick Scott. Nelson is finished.

This comment is so August.

[junior chįmp]

Running a good campaign is overrated as national enviorment and fundamentals determine most if not all during an election

Who remembers the endless articles during 2016 about Hillary's superior ground game vs. Trump's amateur hour dumpster fire of a campaign?

Also....nobody but political nerds notice someone running a good campaign. The vast majority of voters are clueless and ignorant and largely defer to the national enviorment while people who are really politically astute and involved debate campaign tactics that the public at large dosent even notice.

Yes you can



If an election goes against the political environment than that means the winning candidate ran a good campaign or the losing one ran a bad one. Just look at 2012 IN and MO for the dems and 2006 TN for the GOP.

Those 2 won because their opponents made massive and offensive gaffes. A politician getting elected is basically 99% the demographics, social identities, and economic indicators of their state mixed with a favorable enviorment spurred by events out of the candidates control.

Suppose Trump lost in 2016....Beto would of just been another Wendy Davis. Donelley, McCaskill, Nelson, Manchin, and many others would if been goners from the get-go regardless if they ran a good campaign.

Braun and Scott are both running good campaigns but their both going to lose because 95% of the voting public doesn't notice a politician running a good campaign. They just defer to the national enviorment or the voting pattern of their respective social identities. They arent paying attention to every dumb TV commercial, scandal, campaign event, etc... thats obsessively discussed on Atlas (yet will have no bearing on the actual election)

But Scott isn’t your average candidate , he is a popular governor of the state he is running in and unlike most challengers has significantly more name recognition than the incumbent senator . So when people vote and see Scott sure they won’t think oh who we’ll he ran his campaign, but I like him as governor so I will vote for him .

Voters arent rational and never have been. They arent robots who weigh pros and cons and then arrive at some educated conclusion. The vast majority of voters just defer to a combo of their social identity and the national enviorment.

Nobody cares if Rick Scott was a good governor

[junior chįmp]

Running a good campaign is overrated as national enviorment and fundamentals determine most if not all during an election

Who remembers the endless articles during 2016 about Hillary's superior ground game vs. Trump's amateur hour dumpster fire of a campaign?

Also....nobody but political nerds notice someone running a good campaign. The vast majority of voters are clueless and ignorant and largely defer to the national enviorment while people who are really politically astute and involved debate campaign tactics that the public at large dosent even notice.

I mean the point of running a good campaign isn't so people say, "Wow, look at that amazing campaign Beto is running. I think I will vote for him."

What makes a good run campaign other than the candidate winning? Kander ran a good campaign and lost anyway. Trumps campaign was a dumpster fire from day one and he also won anyway.

[tallguy23]

O'Rourk. The fact that he made Texas competitive is insane.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

As of now Bredesen😁

[7,052,770]

I had to throw a vote toward David Baria because this is the best ad I've ever seen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkWeTfBoWgY

[mcmikk]

I had to throw a vote toward David Baria because this is the best ad I've ever seen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkWeTfBoWgY

Pretty good, though it seems specifically catered toward the base, and seems more about "yes it is possible that I can win" more than "here is why you should elect me Senator".