KS-SEN 2020 Megathread: Marshall overperforms and wins

[RogueBeaver]

Kobach tells NYT he's considering.

[Peanut]

Kobach tells NYT he's considering.

Don't know whether to think that's a good thing so he can do himself in again, or be absolutely horrified at the prospect of Senator Kobach.

[Roll Roons]

Kobach tells NYT he's considering.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc

[lfromnj]

Kobach literally got 43% of the vote; this should terrify the GOP.

And those 6% of Orman voters aren't guaranteed GOP votes, either.

What should terrify them? That a nut job like Kris Kobach only got 43%? LOL

Yes, the nut job that YOUR primary voters elected. Do you really trust that same electorate to nominate a sane candidate in 2020?

Why are you saying your? I didn’t vote for him. Do you want me to go through a list of awful candidates YOUR party selected?

btw who would you vote for here?
Kobach Orman or Kelly?

[Zaybay]

With the retirement of Roberts, the seat becomes much safer(unless Kobach is the senate nominee, but I doubt it).

[SnowLabrador]

Safe R -> Safe R

[NewYorkExpress]

I'll move this one from Lean R (where it would have been had Roberts won renomination) to Likely R, pending the two nominees being chosen.

Assuming the Democrats don't get Sharice Davids/Josh Svaty/Carl Brewer/Laura Kelly, and/or Republicans don't nominate Kris Kobach/Sam Brownback, I think this race moves to Safe R by Summer 2020.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Kobach literally got 43% of the vote; this should terrify the GOP.

And those 6% of Orman voters aren't guaranteed GOP votes, either.

What should terrify them? That a nut job like Kris Kobach only got 43%? LOL

Yes, the nut job that YOUR primary voters elected. Do you really trust that same electorate to nominate a sane candidate in 2020?

Why are you saying your? I didn’t vote for him. Do you want me to go through a list of awful candidates YOUR party selected?

Actually sure, I'm curious to see who you believe Democrats have nominated (recently) that you believe is comparable to Kris Kobach.

[smoltchanov]

Kobach literally got 43% of the vote; this should terrify the GOP.

And those 6% of Orman voters aren't guaranteed GOP votes, either.

What should terrify them? That a nut job like Kris Kobach only got 43%? LOL

Yes, the nut job that YOUR primary voters elected. Do you really trust that same electorate to nominate a sane candidate in 2020?

Why are you saying your? I didn’t vote for him. Do you want me to go through a list of awful candidates YOUR party selected?

Actually sure, I'm curious to see who you believe Democrats have nominated (recently) that you believe is comparable to Kris Kobach.

Depends on point of view. For many republicans AOC is much worse then Kobach. I - wouldn't compare, but surely wouldn't vote for either of them. But a lot of Democrats idolize her.. Again - everything depends on point of view..

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Kobach literally got 43% of the vote; this should terrify the GOP.

And those 6% of Orman voters aren't guaranteed GOP votes, either.

What should terrify them? That a nut job like Kris Kobach only got 43%? LOL

Yes, the nut job that YOUR primary voters elected. Do you really trust that same electorate to nominate a sane candidate in 2020?

Why are you saying your? I didn’t vote for him. Do you want me to go through a list of awful candidates YOUR party selected?

Actually sure, I'm curious to see who you believe Democrats have nominated (recently) that you believe is comparable to Kris Kobach.

Depends on point of view. For many republicans AOC is much worse then Kobach. I - wouldn't compare, but surely wouldn't vote for either of them. But a lot of Democrats idolize her.. Again - everything depends on point of view..

Agreed, but point of view isn't what I was asking for, - AOC didn't lose a heavily Democratic district (state) by a huge margin / swing that would seem to represent a new ceiling for Democrats in Kansas.

[smoltchanov]

Kobach literally got 43% of the vote; this should terrify the GOP.

And those 6% of Orman voters aren't guaranteed GOP votes, either.

What should terrify them? That a nut job like Kris Kobach only got 43%? LOL

Yes, the nut job that YOUR primary voters elected. Do you really trust that same electorate to nominate a sane candidate in 2020?

Why are you saying your? I didn’t vote for him. Do you want me to go through a list of awful candidates YOUR party selected?

Actually sure, I'm curious to see who you believe Democrats have nominated (recently) that you believe is comparable to Kris Kobach.

I’d say the newly elected member from the 5th district of Minnesota (who some say is an anti-Semite) is a good starting point.

Support. And would add one from Detroit. And sitting congresswoman from Seattle..

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

All those people won. Big.

[smoltchanov]

All those people won. Big.

That doesn't mean they are good

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

All those people won. Big.

That doesn't mean they are good

And you can believe that, but it wasn't the question I was asking.

Show me a candidate that Democrats nominated who was so out of the mainstream that it caused them to lose a sapphire blue state?

Look. I'm not saying KS is lean D or anything, but I believe Laura Kelly has opened up a path to winning there.

[Alabama_Indy10]

All those people won. Big.

That doesn't mean they are good

And you can believe that, but it wasn't the question I was asking.

Show me a candidate that Democrats nominated who was so out of the mainstream that it caused them to lose a sapphire blue state?

Look. I'm not saying KS is lean D or anything, but I believe Laura Kelly has opened up a path to winning there.

I just answered your question.

[smoltchanov]

All those people won. Big.

That doesn't mean they are good

And you can believe that, but it wasn't the question I was asking.

Show me a candidate that Democrats nominated who was so out of the mainstream that it caused them to lose a sapphire blue state?

Look. I'm not saying KS is lean D or anything, but I believe Laura Kelly has opened up a path to winning there.

Well, Jealous in Maryland and Gonzalez in Massachussetts lost gubernatorial elections in sapphire blue states by much more, then Kobach.

[ON Progressive]

All those people won. Big.

That doesn't mean they are good

And you can believe that, but it wasn't the question I was asking.

Show me a candidate that Democrats nominated who was so out of the mainstream that it caused them to lose a sapphire blue state?

Look. I'm not saying KS is lean D or anything, but I believe Laura Kelly has opened up a path to winning there.

Well, Jealous in Maryland and Gonzalez in Massachussetts lost gubernatorial elections in saphire blue states by much more, then Kobach.

Yeah, I'm sure those losses had absolutely nothing to do with facing incumbent governors with favourables somewhere between 65-70%.

I'm sure the same voters who voted for Elizabeth Warren must really have been disgusted at how Extremely Left Wing(TM) Jay Gonzalez is.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

All those people won. Big.

That doesn't mean they are good

And you can believe that, but it wasn't the question I was asking.

Show me a candidate that Democrats nominated who was so out of the mainstream that it caused them to lose a sapphire blue state?

Look. I'm not saying KS is lean D or anything, but I believe Laura Kelly has opened up a path to winning there.

Well, Jealous in Maryland and Gonzalez in Massachussetts lost gubernatorial elections in saphire blue states by much more, then Kobach.

Gonzalez was a joke candidate put up due to the strength of Baker, not necessarily a bad candidate.

Jealous wasn't 'out of the mainstream' for Maryland, Hogan was just strong.

I just don't see any comparable figure in the Democratic party to Kris Kobach.

[smoltchanov]

All those people won. Big.

That doesn't mean they are good

And you can believe that, but it wasn't the question I was asking.

Show me a candidate that Democrats nominated who was so out of the mainstream that it caused them to lose a sapphire blue state?

Look. I'm not saying KS is lean D or anything, but I believe Laura Kelly has opened up a path to winning there.

Well, Jealous in Maryland and Gonzalez in Massachussetts lost gubernatorial elections in saphire blue states by much more, then Kobach.

Yeah, I'm sure those losses had absolutely nothing to do with facing incumbent governors with favourables somewhere between 65-70%.

I'm sure the same voters who voted for Elizabeth Warren must really have been disgusted at how Extremely Left Wing(TM) Jay Gonzalez is.

Given percentage Warren got (about 60, IIRC), and which Gonazalez got (33) - many of them surely were. And it doesn't matter - whether you run against popular incumbent of not, what matters is WHY these Republicans were so popular even among Democrats and why a lot of Democrats preferred them over their "own" candidate in "sapphire blue states"....

[InheritTheWind]

I'd say Safe R if someone like Roger Marshall or Lynn Jenkins is the nominee. If it's Kobach, then Lean R.

My god, we are never going to get rid of Kansan Kris Kobach are we.

[smoltchanov]

All those people won. Big.

That doesn't mean they are good

And you can believe that, but it wasn't the question I was asking.

Show me a candidate that Democrats nominated who was so out of the mainstream that it caused them to lose a sapphire blue state?

Look. I'm not saying KS is lean D or anything, but I believe Laura Kelly has opened up a path to winning there.

Well, Jealous in Maryland and Gonzalez in Massachussetts lost gubernatorial elections in saphire blue states by much more, then Kobach.

Gonzalez was a joke candidate put up due to the strength of Baker, not necessarily a bad candidate.

Jealous wasn't 'out of the mainstream' for Maryland, Hogan was just strong.

I just don't see any comparable figure in the Democratic party to Kris Kobach.

And i see dozens. And see Jealous a very much out of Mainstream. A lot of Democrats in Maryland, who refused to support him, probably agree with me, not you. But - no one of us will convince other, so - let's simply agree to disagree.

[ON Progressive]

All those people won. Big.

That doesn't mean they are good

And you can believe that, but it wasn't the question I was asking.

Show me a candidate that Democrats nominated who was so out of the mainstream that it caused them to lose a sapphire blue state?

Look. I'm not saying KS is lean D or anything, but I believe Laura Kelly has opened up a path to winning there.

Well, Jealous in Maryland and Gonzalez in Massachussetts lost gubernatorial elections in saphire blue states by much more, then Kobach.

Yeah, I'm sure those losses had absolutely nothing to do with facing incumbent governors with favourables somewhere between 65-70%.

I'm sure the same voters who voted for Elizabeth Warren must really have been disgusted at how Extremely Left Wing(TM) Jay Gonzalez is.

Given percentage Warren got (about 60, IIRC), and which Gonazalez got (33) - many of them surely were. And it doesn't matter - whether you run against popular incumbent of not, what matters is WHY these Republicans were so popular even among Democrats and why a lot of Democrats preferred them over their "own" candidate in "sapphire blue states"....

They literally only voted for Baker because they really like him. That's all there is to it. Gonzalez didn't even have negative net favourables.

Jay Gonzalez did not get blown out because "he was too liberal for Massachusetts". He got blown out because he was a sacrificial lamb against an opponent that was considered (righly) unbeatable.

Under your wonderful logic, Jim Keet was too right wing for Arkansas in 2010 just because there were plenty of Boozman voters who went Beebe.

[smoltchanov]

All those people won. Big.

That doesn't mean they are good

And you can believe that, but it wasn't the question I was asking.

Show me a candidate that Democrats nominated who was so out of the mainstream that it caused them to lose a sapphire blue state?

Look. I'm not saying KS is lean D or anything, but I believe Laura Kelly has opened up a path to winning there.

Well, Jealous in Maryland and Gonzalez in Massachussetts lost gubernatorial elections in saphire blue states by much more, then Kobach.

Yeah, I'm sure those losses had absolutely nothing to do with facing incumbent governors with favourables somewhere between 65-70%.

I'm sure the same voters who voted for Elizabeth Warren must really have been disgusted at how Extremely Left Wing(TM) Jay Gonzalez is.

Given percentage Warren got (about 60, IIRC), and which Gonazalez got (33) - many of them surely were. And it doesn't matter - whether you run against popular incumbent of not, what matters is WHY these Republicans were so popular even among Democrats and why a lot of Democrats preferred them over their "own" candidate in "sapphire blue states"....

They literally only voted for Baker because they really like him. That's all there is to it. Gonzalez didn't even have negative net favourables.

Jay Gonzalez did not get blown out because "he was too liberal for Massachusetts". He got blown out because he was a sacrificial lamb against an opponent that was considered (righly) unbeatable.

Under your wonderful logic, Jim Keet was too right wing for Arkansas in 2010 just because there were plenty of Boozman voters who went Beebe.

Quite good logic. For Arkansas-2010 he, probably, was. And that is one of the reasons of Beebe's landslide in addition to Beebe's personal popularity. But for Arkansas-2018 - not sure. And not sure Beebe would beat him this year

P.S. Guys, you will never confess, that "your" candidate can be atrocious, and will ALWAYS find another "reasons" for his/her defeat. That's part of the human nature. But - let's stop it, and recognize that your "prince on white horse" may be exactly the same "atrocious candidate" for others.))))

[ON Progressive]

All those people won. Big.

That doesn't mean they are good

And you can believe that, but it wasn't the question I was asking.

Show me a candidate that Democrats nominated who was so out of the mainstream that it caused them to lose a sapphire blue state?

Look. I'm not saying KS is lean D or anything, but I believe Laura Kelly has opened up a path to winning there.

Well, Jealous in Maryland and Gonzalez in Massachussetts lost gubernatorial elections in saphire blue states by much more, then Kobach.

Yeah, I'm sure those losses had absolutely nothing to do with facing incumbent governors with favourables somewhere between 65-70%.

I'm sure the same voters who voted for Elizabeth Warren must really have been disgusted at how Extremely Left Wing(TM) Jay Gonzalez is.

Given percentage Warren got (about 60, IIRC), and which Gonazalez got (33) - many of them surely were. And it doesn't matter - whether you run against popular incumbent of not, what matters is WHY these Republicans were so popular even among Democrats and why a lot of Democrats preferred them over their "own" candidate in "sapphire blue states"....

They literally only voted for Baker because they really like him. That's all there is to it. Gonzalez didn't even have negative net favourables.

Jay Gonzalez did not get blown out because "he was too liberal for Massachusetts". He got blown out because he was a sacrificial lamb against an opponent that was considered (righly) unbeatable.

Under your wonderful logic, Jim Keet was too right wing for Arkansas in 2010 just because there were plenty of Boozman voters who went Beebe.

Quite good logic. For Arkansas-2010 he, probably, was. And that is one of the reasons of Beebe's landslide in addition to Beebe's personal popularity. But for Arkansas-2018 - not sure. And not sure Beebe would beat him this year

No, it's not. Boozman and Keet had pretty much the same policy positions on everything, and they were clearly not seen as too far right given that Boozman absolutely obliterated an incumbent Senator. The main difference was popularity/name recognition, and federal/state partisanship differences.

I was able, through the Wayback Machine, to find the numbers from the last Mason-Dixon poll before the election in 2010. For your reference, Boozman was ahead 21 and Beebe was ahead 26.

They had Boozman at 55% favourability (95% name recognition), while Blanche was at 52% unfavourability (99% name recognition). That tells me Boozman won easily because Boozman was popular and his opponent was not, with both sharing near universal name recognition.

In the governor's race, Beebe had 56% favourability and just 14% unfavourability. Keet had a decent net favourability of +14, but it didn't matter because 60% of voters had a neutral opinion or didn't recognize him at all! A quarter of voters seriously didn't know who Jim Keet was less than two weeks before election day!

The conclusion to draw from that is that Beebe won because he was a very well liked incumbent going up against an all-but-anonymous opponent. This is also what happened in Massachusetts.

MassINC's final poll of 2018 shows a similar dynamic in the governor race, just on the opposite side partisanwise.

Jay Gonzalez had positive net favourables, just like Keet. However, just like in Keet's case, it meant absolutely nothing because the majority (54%) of voters were either "neutral" or "don't know" (which, to be honest, is much the same thing). Baker, on the other hand, was like Beebe with near universal name recognition and very high popularity.

TL;DR: Gonzalez and Keet lost because they were anonymous sacrificial lambs going up against highly popular incumbent governors. It was NOT due to voters in those states thinking they were too extremist on ideology.

[smoltchanov]

All those people won. Big.

That doesn't mean they are good

And you can believe that, but it wasn't the question I was asking.

Show me a candidate that Democrats nominated who was so out of the mainstream that it caused them to lose a sapphire blue state?

Look. I'm not saying KS is lean D or anything, but I believe Laura Kelly has opened up a path to winning there.

Well, Jealous in Maryland and Gonzalez in Massachussetts lost gubernatorial elections in saphire blue states by much more, then Kobach.

Yeah, I'm sure those losses had absolutely nothing to do with facing incumbent governors with favourables somewhere between 65-70%.

I'm sure the same voters who voted for Elizabeth Warren must really have been disgusted at how Extremely Left Wing(TM) Jay Gonzalez is.

Given percentage Warren got (about 60, IIRC), and which Gonazalez got (33) - many of them surely were. And it doesn't matter - whether you run against popular incumbent of not, what matters is WHY these Republicans were so popular even among Democrats and why a lot of Democrats preferred them over their "own" candidate in "sapphire blue states"....

They literally only voted for Baker because they really like him. That's all there is to it. Gonzalez didn't even have negative net favourables.

Jay Gonzalez did not get blown out because "he was too liberal for Massachusetts". He got blown out because he was a sacrificial lamb against an opponent that was considered (righly) unbeatable.

Under your wonderful logic, Jim Keet was too right wing for Arkansas in 2010 just because there were plenty of Boozman voters who went Beebe.

Quite good logic. For Arkansas-2010 he, probably, was. And that is one of the reasons of Beebe's landslide in addition to Beebe's personal popularity. But for Arkansas-2018 - not sure. And not sure Beebe would beat him this year

No, it's not. Boozman and Keet had pretty much the same policy positions on everything, and they were clearly not seen as too far right given that Boozman absolutely obliterated an incumbent Senator. The main difference was popularity/name recognition, and federal/state partisanship differences.

I was able, through the Wayback Machine, to find the numbers from the last Mason-Dixon poll before the election in 2010. For your reference, Boozman was ahead 21 and Beebe was ahead 26.

They had Boozman at 55% favourability (95% name recognition), while Blanche was at 52% unfavourability (99% name recognition). That tells me Boozman won easily because Boozman was popular and his opponent was not, with both sharing near universal name recognition.

In the governor's race, Beebe had 56% favourability and just 14% unfavourability. Keet had a decent net favourability of +14, but it didn't matter because 60% of voters had a neutral opinion or didn't recognize him at all! A quarter of voters seriously didn't know who Jim Keet was less than two weeks before election day!

The conclusion to draw from that is that Beebe won because he was a very well liked incumbent going up against an all-but-anonymous opponent. This is also what happened in Massachusetts.

MassINC's final poll of 2018 shows a similar dynamic in the governor race, just on the opposite side partisanwise.

Jay Gonzalez had positive net favourables, just like Keet. However, just like in Keet's case, it meant absolutely nothing because the majority (54%) of voters were either "neutral" or "don't know" (which, to be honest, is much the same thing). Baker, on the other hand, was like Beebe with near universal name recognition and very high popularity.

TL;DR: Gonzalez and Keet lost because they were anonymous sacrificial lambs going up against highly popular incumbent governors. It was NOT due to voters in those states thinking they were too extremist on ideology.

As i already said - let's stick to our opinions. It will be better for all of us))) And let's return to Kansas)))

For me the correct question is WHY were Baker and Hogan so popular? In Massachusetts only about 11-12% of voters are registered Republicans, and, as primary result show - Baker was at least as popular among Indies and Democrats as among Republicans (may be even more, because Republican "base" dislikes him). Why? IMHO, most of the state voters consider him (and Hogan in Maryland) as reasonable counterbalance to liberal Democrat-dominated legislature. And want some "brakes" on possible very liberal legislation. At the same time these same voters are open to reasonable liberal agenda (voting for Warren, Markey, Cardin, Van Hollen,and their likes) when presented with such. So, generally, we have liberal, but somewhat "cautious" electorate. How did it vote for statewide offices? In a similar (and predictable) way except one office - Governor. You try to deduce weak results of Jealous and Gonzalez from their  personalities - i doubt, that personalities can explain difference between 43.5% for Jealous and almost 65% for Frosh and more then 72 - for Franchot. Or - 33% for Gonzalez and at least 62% for all other Democratic statewide candidates in Massachusetts. Too much, IF voters were ideologically compatible with them. 10% difference because of "not very convincing personalities" - i would believe. 20-30% - no... Too much, IMHO. Ideology must play role here... Especially when they had "correct" (for these states) letter after their last name. Just as it was in Kansas: Kobach had "correct letter" there, but was incompatible with most of Indies and considerable percentage of dominant Republicans there and got his ass spanked.

P.S. Of course, it's only an opinion. But for ME - it's more logical opinion then other. Every "minimally normal" Democrat in Massachusetts must get at least 40% simply because of that "correct letter after name". If not - there is something with this person and his/her views.