MT-SEN 2020: Time for Bullock?

[henster]

If Bullock can't see the simple political reality then I'm doubtful he'd actually be a good Senate candidate.

[lfromnj]

If Bullock can't see the simple political reality then I'm doubtful he'd actually be a good Senate candidate.

he may not understand the national political climate but he can understand Montana's politics being a popular incumbent governor
Anyway who would be a better candidate?

[brucejoel99]

If Bullock can't see the simple political reality then I'm doubtful he'd actually be a good Senate candidate.

he may not understand the national political climate but he can understand Montana's politics being a popular incumbent governor
Anyway who would be a better candidate?

Better? Probably not. But off the top of my head, perhaps Kathleen Williams or Rob Quist could take a crack (albeit a longshot one) at the seat.

[IceSpear]

I think you missed the point of the Racist Hick comments. I'm simply pointing out facts, not celebrating it. I supported Bredesen, Edmondson, Heitkamp, etc. MT Treasurer hates most red state Democrats but still tends to overestimate them, I guess to keep his expectations low because Republicans were burnt so many times in red states in the past. But it's pretty obvious at this point that things have changed considering the slaughterfest 2018 was for red state Democrats even in a D+9 Democratic wave.

I think you were the one that missed my point? I obviously know that you, as a fairly partisan Democrat, support these candidates. And I'm well aware that you believe that your "hicks" narrative is a fact. I'm simply saying it's not a fact. Let's not forget how you so adamantly denied the possibility of a Senator Doug Jones until the last moment.

And in regards to the bolded, no, that was not clear at all. Bredesen was running in a better environment against a weaker candidate but in a far more hostile state. The latter won out, which was always a very strong possibility.

I should have worded that differently. Bredesen was running a stronger campaign, which is what I meant. It was due to the fact that he was running in TN, a far more hostile state than IN for Dems, that didn't make his position better than Bayh's, which is why I thought Blackburn would win back then.

Oh, how could I forget Alabama? A literal pedophile losing by 1 point isn't exactly a strong rebuttal to the theory. I mean, it was a literal pedophile...and he only lost by 1 point. Because it was a psychotically partisan red state. So if anything it adds to the polarization/Racist Hick narrative, not takes away from it. The only error was that my theory was a tiny bit too aggressive in the case of truly exceptional circumstances, otherwise it was pretty much spot on. Luckily, unlike many people here, I can learn from my mistakes. Which is why my upgraded mind model now takes into account pedophilia if it is present (except in Oklahoma, where the Republican would win even if they were a pedophile.)

In short, if your argument for why red states aren't extremely partisan and polarized is "a pedophile Republican lost by 1 point in a red state", well...all I can say is I rest my case.

Anyway, I also remember ND-Sen, TN-Sen, OK-Gov, etc, races in crimson red states that Atlas insisted were toss ups and said I was insane for rating them safe R, only for the Democrats in those races to get BTFO by double digits. Seems the latter might be a tad more relevant due to recency, plus the fact that it's unlikely there will be any pedophile Republican candidates in 2020.

[lfromnj]

I think you missed the point of the Racist Hick comments. I'm simply pointing out facts, not celebrating it. I supported Bredesen, Edmondson, Heitkamp, etc. MT Treasurer hates most red state Democrats but still tends to overestimate them, I guess to keep his expectations low because Republicans were burnt so many times in red states in the past. But it's pretty obvious at this point that things have changed considering the slaughterfest 2018 was for red state Democrats even in a D+9 Democratic wave.

I think you were the one that missed my point? I obviously know that you, as a fairly partisan Democrat, support these candidates. And I'm well aware that you believe that your "hicks" narrative is a fact. I'm simply saying it's not a fact. Let's not forget how you so adamantly denied the possibility of a Senator Doug Jones until the last moment.

And in regards to the bolded, no, that was not clear at all. Bredesen was running in a better environment against a weaker candidate but in a far more hostile state. The latter won out, which was always a very strong possibility.

I should have worded that differently. Bredesen was running a stronger campaign, which is what I meant. It was due to the fact that he was running in TN, a far more hostile state than IN for Dems, that didn't make his position better than Bayh's, which is why I thought Blackburn would win back then.

Oh, how could I forget Alabama? A literal pedophile losing by 1 point isn't exactly a strong rebuttal to the theory. I mean, it was a literal pedophile...and he only lost by 1 point. Because it was a psychotically partisan red state. So if anything it adds to the polarization/Racist Hick narrative, not takes away from it. The only error was that my theory was a tiny bit too aggressive in the case of truly exceptional circumstances, otherwise it was pretty much spot on. Luckily, unlike many people here, I can learn from my mistakes. Which is why my upgraded mind model now takes into account pedophilia if it is present (except in Oklahoma, where the Republican would win even if they were a pedophile.)

In short, if your argument for why red states aren't extremely partisan and polarized is "a pedophile Republican lost by 1 point in a red state", well...all I can say is I rest my case.

Anyway, I also remember ND-Sen, TN-Sen, OK-Gov, etc, races in crimson red states that Atlas insisted were toss ups and said I was insane for rating them safe R, only for the Democrats in those races to get BTFO by double digits. Seems the latter might be a tad more relevant due to recency, plus the fact that it's unlikely there will be any pedophile Republican candidates in 2020.

Don't forget it was also a special election
Roy Moore would have won if it was with presidential turnout.If Roy moore wins the nomination in 2020 I would still bet on him.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I've actually reconciled myself to conceding that IceSpear et al. are entirely correct about the key facts of the urban/rural polarization going on. My opposition to "the 'racist hicks' narrative" is basically a tone argument combined with a compassion argument and a desire not to see this realignment carried to its logical extreme if that's possible to avoid any more. It's foolish to deny that non-metropolitan parts of the country in general are becoming rabidly partisan Republican strongholds, and only marginally less foolish to deny that this is due in large part to "identity" issues.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

I've actually reconciled myself to conceding that IceSpear et al. are entirely correct about the key facts of the urban/rural polarization going on. My opposition to "the 'racist hicks' narrative" is basically a tone argument combined with a compassion argument and a desire not to see this realignment carried to its logical extreme if that's possible to avoid any more. It's foolish to deny that non-metropolitan parts of the country in general are becoming rabidly partisan Republican strongholds, and only marginally less foolish to deny that this is due in large part to "identity" issues.

This 100 %.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

I hope Bullock decides to run here. He's the underdog for sure, but if we are trying to win the senate, we have to expand our playing field. Keep an eye on this one.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I hope Bullock decides to run here. He's the underdog for sure, but if we are trying to win the senate, we have to expand our playing field. Keep an eye on this one.

He's not gonna beat Foxx, Dems have expanded playing field with AZ, IA, CO, NC and ME

[Zaybay]

I've actually reconciled myself to conceding that IceSpear et al. are entirely correct about the key facts of the urban/rural polarization going on. My opposition to "the 'racist hicks' narrative" is basically a tone argument combined with a desire not to see this realignment carried to its logical extreme if that's possible to avoid any more. It's foolish to deny that non-metropolitan parts of the country in general are becoming rabidly partisan Republican strongholds, and only marginally less foolish to deny that this is due in large part to "identity" issues.

My problem is that its basically a blanket statement that doesnt, at all, apply to the whole of the US. Rural areas went R this year, but not all of them. The North East Rurals trended D, along with rural areas in KS, SD, NJ(yes they have those), NY, the whole of New England, IA, and the West Coast, to name a few. In fact, a good amount of rurals did trend D when accounting for the D+8.5 wave, its just that rurals in states with unpopular senators for reelection(IN, MO, and ND) didnt see a significant trend towards them, or a trend in the opposite direction, and faltered.

It should also be noted that there seems to be a "If you didnt win, you dont exist" sort of dilemma going on here. Some rural areas swung dramatically, by large amounts to the Ds, but because the D didnt win, suddenly that rural shift is ignored. WV-03 is a good example of that. Then again, this also applies to suburban districts that didnt flip, but still saw a D swing, such as the WOW suburbs, yet have been completely written off as Safe R till the end of time.

Basically, I think its too broad, misses too many important data points that counter its claim, and is frankly seemingly being applied to states that didnt even have this phenomenon to begin with(AL, MS).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That's why I'm saying "in general". I live in Franklin County; I'm well aware that there are rural areas that buck these trends, just as there are metropolitan areas, like South Florida, that had anemic Democratic results or even trended Republican this year. (Or, to use an example from a previous realignment, just as there were always Catholics and Jews who voted Republican in the days of the New Deal coalition).

[Zaybay]

I think you missed the point of the Racist Hick comments. I'm simply pointing out facts, not celebrating it. I supported Bredesen, Edmondson, Heitkamp, etc. MT Treasurer hates most red state Democrats but still tends to overestimate them, I guess to keep his expectations low because Republicans were burnt so many times in red states in the past. But it's pretty obvious at this point that things have changed considering the slaughterfest 2018 was for red state Democrats even in a D+9 Democratic wave.

I think you were the one that missed my point? I obviously know that you, as a fairly partisan Democrat, support these candidates. And I'm well aware that you believe that your "hicks" narrative is a fact. I'm simply saying it's not a fact. Let's not forget how you so adamantly denied the possibility of a Senator Doug Jones until the last moment.

And in regards to the bolded, no, that was not clear at all. Bredesen was running in a better environment against a weaker candidate but in a far more hostile state. The latter won out, which was always a very strong possibility.

I should have worded that differently. Bredesen was running a stronger campaign, which is what I meant. It was due to the fact that he was running in TN, a far more hostile state than IN for Dems, that didn't make his position better than Bayh's, which is why I thought Blackburn would win back then.

Oh, how could I forget Alabama? A literal pedophile losing by 1 point isn't exactly a strong rebuttal to the theory. I mean, it was a literal pedophile...and he only lost by 1 point. Because it was a psychotically partisan red state. So if anything it adds to the polarization/Racist Hick narrative, not takes away from it. The only error was that my theory was a tiny bit too aggressive in the case of truly exceptional circumstances, otherwise it was pretty much spot on. Luckily, unlike many people here, I can learn from my mistakes. Which is why my upgraded mind model now takes into account pedophilia if it is present (except in Oklahoma, where the Republican would win even if they were a pedophile.)

In short, if your argument for why red states aren't extremely partisan and polarized is "a pedophile Republican lost by 1 point in a red state", well...all I can say is I rest my case.

Come on Icespear, you and me both know that AL has absolutely nothing to do with the R rural trends, and that AL is one of the most inelastic, and Republican states in the union. Thats just lazy.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This seat went from lean D takeover to back to Daines. Bullock did appoint Steve Walsh to the seat and Walsh was responsible for a GOP winning the way they did in 2014, Daines will bring up the Walsh fiasco

[Zaybay]

That's why I'm saying "in general". I live in Franklin County; I'm well aware that there are rural areas that buck these trends, just as there are metropolitan areas, like South Florida, that had anemic Democratic results or even trended Republican this year. (Or, to use an example from a previous realignment, just as there were always Catholics and Jews who voted Republican in the days of the New Deal coalition).

And thats my main problem, is that its now being applied to everything, any R state or rural area is now Solid R because Rural Trends. Its a blanket statement that is frankly poorly sourced and lazy.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/helenair.com/news/government-and-politics/spokesman-says-tester-misheard-a-question-when-saying-bullock-is/article_1f99bd54-107c-5d21-8d78-e74caf759e93.amp.html

Here's the article in why Bullock isnt planning on running for Senate

[Technocracy Timmy]

I've actually reconciled myself to conceding that IceSpear et al. are entirely correct about the key facts of the urban/rural polarization going on. My opposition to "the 'racist hicks' narrative" is basically a tone argument combined with a compassion argument and a desire not to see this realignment carried to its logical extreme if that's possible to avoid any more. It's foolish to deny that non-metropolitan parts of the country in general are becoming rabidly partisan Republican strongholds, and only marginally less foolish to deny that this is due in large part to "identity" issues.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Atlas in general seems to have a problem understanding that just because a trend exists doesn't mean there are no deviations to the trend. It's either gross overgeneralizations or "it's all about MUH CANDIDATE QUALITY!" nonsense.

National demographic trends create baseline conditions, and then there is variance around these baseline condition based on things like, yes, candidate quality.

[IceSpear]

I think you missed the point of the Racist Hick comments. I'm simply pointing out facts, not celebrating it. I supported Bredesen, Edmondson, Heitkamp, etc. MT Treasurer hates most red state Democrats but still tends to overestimate them, I guess to keep his expectations low because Republicans were burnt so many times in red states in the past. But it's pretty obvious at this point that things have changed considering the slaughterfest 2018 was for red state Democrats even in a D+9 Democratic wave.

I think you were the one that missed my point? I obviously know that you, as a fairly partisan Democrat, support these candidates. And I'm well aware that you believe that your "hicks" narrative is a fact. I'm simply saying it's not a fact. Let's not forget how you so adamantly denied the possibility of a Senator Doug Jones until the last moment.

And in regards to the bolded, no, that was not clear at all. Bredesen was running in a better environment against a weaker candidate but in a far more hostile state. The latter won out, which was always a very strong possibility.

I should have worded that differently. Bredesen was running a stronger campaign, which is what I meant. It was due to the fact that he was running in TN, a far more hostile state than IN for Dems, that didn't make his position better than Bayh's, which is why I thought Blackburn would win back then.

Oh, how could I forget Alabama? A literal pedophile losing by 1 point isn't exactly a strong rebuttal to the theory. I mean, it was a literal pedophile...and he only lost by 1 point. Because it was a psychotically partisan red state. So if anything it adds to the polarization/Racist Hick narrative, not takes away from it. The only error was that my theory was a tiny bit too aggressive in the case of truly exceptional circumstances, otherwise it was pretty much spot on. Luckily, unlike many people here, I can learn from my mistakes. Which is why my upgraded mind model now takes into account pedophilia if it is present (except in Oklahoma, where the Republican would win even if they were a pedophile.)

In short, if your argument for why red states aren't extremely partisan and polarized is "a pedophile Republican lost by 1 point in a red state", well...all I can say is I rest my case.

Come on Icespear, you and me both know that AL has absolutely nothing to do with the R rural trends, and that AL is one of the most inelastic, and Republican states in the union. Thats just lazy.

Okay, what about OK-Gov, TN-Sen, and ND-Sen, all of which you were hilariously convinced were "toss ups."

[Zaybay]

I think you missed the point of the Racist Hick comments. I'm simply pointing out facts, not celebrating it. I supported Bredesen, Edmondson, Heitkamp, etc. MT Treasurer hates most red state Democrats but still tends to overestimate them, I guess to keep his expectations low because Republicans were burnt so many times in red states in the past. But it's pretty obvious at this point that things have changed considering the slaughterfest 2018 was for red state Democrats even in a D+9 Democratic wave.

I think you were the one that missed my point? I obviously know that you, as a fairly partisan Democrat, support these candidates. And I'm well aware that you believe that your "hicks" narrative is a fact. I'm simply saying it's not a fact. Let's not forget how you so adamantly denied the possibility of a Senator Doug Jones until the last moment.

And in regards to the bolded, no, that was not clear at all. Bredesen was running in a better environment against a weaker candidate but in a far more hostile state. The latter won out, which was always a very strong possibility.

I should have worded that differently. Bredesen was running a stronger campaign, which is what I meant. It was due to the fact that he was running in TN, a far more hostile state than IN for Dems, that didn't make his position better than Bayh's, which is why I thought Blackburn would win back then.

Oh, how could I forget Alabama? A literal pedophile losing by 1 point isn't exactly a strong rebuttal to the theory. I mean, it was a literal pedophile...and he only lost by 1 point. Because it was a psychotically partisan red state. So if anything it adds to the polarization/Racist Hick narrative, not takes away from it. The only error was that my theory was a tiny bit too aggressive in the case of truly exceptional circumstances, otherwise it was pretty much spot on. Luckily, unlike many people here, I can learn from my mistakes. Which is why my upgraded mind model now takes into account pedophilia if it is present (except in Oklahoma, where the Republican would win even if they were a pedophile.)

In short, if your argument for why red states aren't extremely partisan and polarized is "a pedophile Republican lost by 1 point in a red state", well...all I can say is I rest my case.

Come on Icespear, you and me both know that AL has absolutely nothing to do with the R rural trends, and that AL is one of the most inelastic, and Republican states in the union. Thats just lazy.

Okay, what about OK-Gov, TN-Sen, and ND-Sen, all of which you were hilariously convinced were "toss ups."

...... I didnt have any of those as tossups. I never rated OK gov as D favored, ever. And I was one of the people saying TN would surge R late at the end, and low and behold, it did. ND, I saw it being closer, but R favored.
Edit: Im guessing that you are talking about my predictions? I like to be broad on tossups on that thing. I was going to rate FL as a tossup, but I thought it wouldnt happen. Shame I didnt .

Nice Pivot, BTW. Doesnt cancel the fact that your use of AL is pretty lazy and doesnt even help your argument(in fact, it kinda hurts it that, in such polarized times, the state would do such a thing as elect from the other party).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Tester spearheaded the 2016 DSCC in which Strickland, McGinty and Bayh all lost. I think Daines is safe for reelection

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I've actually reconciled myself to conceding that IceSpear et al. are entirely correct about the key facts of the urban/rural polarization going on. My opposition to "the 'racist hicks' narrative" is basically a tone argument combined with a compassion argument and a desire not to see this realignment carried to its logical extreme if that's possible to avoid any more. It's foolish to deny that non-metropolitan parts of the country in general are becoming rabidly partisan Republican strongholds, and only marginally less foolish to deny that this is due in large part to "identity" issues.

What exactly is your deal?

[IceSpear]

I think you missed the point of the Racist Hick comments. I'm simply pointing out facts, not celebrating it. I supported Bredesen, Edmondson, Heitkamp, etc. MT Treasurer hates most red state Democrats but still tends to overestimate them, I guess to keep his expectations low because Republicans were burnt so many times in red states in the past. But it's pretty obvious at this point that things have changed considering the slaughterfest 2018 was for red state Democrats even in a D+9 Democratic wave.

I think you were the one that missed my point? I obviously know that you, as a fairly partisan Democrat, support these candidates. And I'm well aware that you believe that your "hicks" narrative is a fact. I'm simply saying it's not a fact. Let's not forget how you so adamantly denied the possibility of a Senator Doug Jones until the last moment.

And in regards to the bolded, no, that was not clear at all. Bredesen was running in a better environment against a weaker candidate but in a far more hostile state. The latter won out, which was always a very strong possibility.

I should have worded that differently. Bredesen was running a stronger campaign, which is what I meant. It was due to the fact that he was running in TN, a far more hostile state than IN for Dems, that didn't make his position better than Bayh's, which is why I thought Blackburn would win back then.

Oh, how could I forget Alabama? A literal pedophile losing by 1 point isn't exactly a strong rebuttal to the theory. I mean, it was a literal pedophile...and he only lost by 1 point. Because it was a psychotically partisan red state. So if anything it adds to the polarization/Racist Hick narrative, not takes away from it. The only error was that my theory was a tiny bit too aggressive in the case of truly exceptional circumstances, otherwise it was pretty much spot on. Luckily, unlike many people here, I can learn from my mistakes. Which is why my upgraded mind model now takes into account pedophilia if it is present (except in Oklahoma, where the Republican would win even if they were a pedophile.)

In short, if your argument for why red states aren't extremely partisan and polarized is "a pedophile Republican lost by 1 point in a red state", well...all I can say is I rest my case.

Come on Icespear, you and me both know that AL has absolutely nothing to do with the R rural trends, and that AL is one of the most inelastic, and Republican states in the union. Thats just lazy.

Okay, what about OK-Gov, TN-Sen, and ND-Sen, all of which you were hilariously convinced were "toss ups."

...... I didnt have any of those as tossups. I never rated OK gov as D favored, ever. And I was one of the people saying TN would surge R late at the end, and low and behold, it did. ND, I saw it being closer, but R favored.
Edit: Im guessing that you are talking about my predictions? I like to be broad on tossups on that thing. I was going to rate FL as a tossup, but I thought it wouldnt happen. Shame I didnt .

Nice Pivot, BTW. Doesnt cancel the fact that your use of AL is pretty lazy and doesnt even help your argument(in fact, it kinda hurts it that, in such polarized times, the state would do such a thing as elect from the other party).

So you rated them as toss ups, but didn't think they were toss ups. Okay, that makes lots of sense. Also, it's utterly mindboggling and defies all logic to think that ND/TN/OK were more likely to vote D than FL was to vote R. It is the epitome of the Dem hackery that permeates this forum.

It's not a pivot, it's the exact same topic. This forum has a nasty habit of overestimating Democrats in red states (actually, overestimating Democrats in general, but particularly in red states/districts.) You mentioned WV-03 earlier. Case in point:

Call me crazy, but this is a lean D race. While the 2016 results are a bit terrifying, it should be noted that this state loves to split tickets, and Trump's rhetoric was a perfect fit for the area. The same year they elected Trump, they also put in a D governor, which shows they are still receptive. And that was for the whole state, this race is only for the 3rd, the D base in the state.

Everything has already been said about Ojeda and Miller, one is stellar, the other is an empty shell.

Polling, which should favour Miller at this point in the cycle, so far, has actually favoured Ojeda. And not by some tiny margin, but by, like 6 points. And this was done by Monmouth, which is not known for terrible polling.

Miller really has nothing but the PVI going for her, and even then, its a false sense of security, since this is the most D downballot district.

Ojeda definitely has the advantage.

Nobody was denying Ojeda was going to do far better than Hillary Clinton (not a high bar.) But the D hacks of course took it into overdrive and assumed he would win (and even that he was significantly favored!) solely because of MUH candidate quality and MUH polarization doesn't matter! How did that one work out for you again? Miller had "nothing but the PVI going for her", and yet Ojeda got BTFO by double digits. Hmm...what does that tell you? The same exact thing you argued in that post you're arguing here. And you made the same exact mistake in North Dakota and Tennessee as well. This election should've been a learning experience for people who so cavalierly dismiss partisanship, polarization, and fundamentals in favor of nebulous factors like "candidate quality" or "muh Cramer's Akin gaffes" or whatever other idiocy. But I guess some people are incapable of learning.

Republican governors/senators in blue states and Democratic governors/senators in red states are at a historic low. As are House members in districts that tend to be hostile to their party. To ignore the significant increase in partisanship, polarization, and the urban/rural divide is to ignore someone continually whacking you in the head with a sledgehammer. The trend is far from subtle. You can cherrypick random examples if you want, but it's missing the forest for the trees. Janet Mills losing and Jared Golden barely winning in a rural district in a D+9 Democratic wave that Obama won in a landslide twice doesn't disprove the point. Nor does a Democrat underperforming the national PV in an Iowa district Obama carried by a landslide. If anything these examples prove the point. And I have no idea what you meant in regards to New York, considering both Cuomo and Gillibrand collapsed in rural NY compared to their previous elections, even though Cuomo's previous election was a Republican wave!

As for Alabama? All I can do is laugh at thinking that means a damn thing. It'll be hilarious to see the reactions here when Jones inevitably gets curbstomped by a non pedophile Republican. My guess is it goes down the same memory hole the Bredesen/Heitkamp cheerleading went down, and the day after the election everyone will pretend they knew he was DOA all along despite being incredibly hackish and irritating cheerleaders continually shaking their pom poms on the subject a mere 24 hours ago.

[IceSpear]

Atlas in general seems to have a problem understanding that just because a trend exists doesn't mean there are no deviations to the trend. It's either gross overgeneralizations or "it's all about MUH CANDIDATE QUALITY!" nonsense.

National demographic trends create baseline conditions, and then there is variance around these baseline condition based on things like, yes, candidate quality.

This is true. And as partisanship and polarization increases, those baselines become increasingly harder to overcome, particularly in overtly hostile territory. And in cases such as Tennessee and Alabama, completely impossible except in the most extreme of circumstances (like a literal pedophile being the Republican candidate.)

[Zaybay]

little too much to quote

Ill just sort through this.

1.Yeah, I usually rate as much as possible for my maps as tossups before the final day, when I make final predictions. I was late for the election results, so I had no time to update them. And by the time I got back, I was captivated by FL's incredible close result. Thats just what I usually do, and I actually did pretty well this year, got the exact house changeover, 40 seats, and 97% of seats called correctly (took me a long time to make, so it was done 3 days before election day)

2. For the WV thing, you have to have some good old context to understand my thought process. That post is from when the only poll we had was Ojeda+6, and Manchin was comfortably in the lead by large leads, so I took a gamble. Of course, my final prediction had it not flipping, as by then, we had enough information to put an accurate picture together.

3. Seriously, you have been going into my post history, you should have seen by now that I have never thought Bredesen would win(perhaps when he announced, but definitely not past July).


4. As I said before, you cant blanket the entire thing, there are exceptions. Even if you account for the D wave, the areas I listed did trend leftward compared to 2016(key word there, 2016, Im not comparing to 2012, or 2008). Context is really important for these kinds of things as well.

 For example, ME-02. You are correct that Golden won by only 1%, and Mills lost it by less than 1%, but that ignores 2016, where, in an R+1 environment, it voted R+1,(or, if you lose Clinton's margin, 12 points). By calculating it based on that, the district moved Left by 2-5 points(again, based on if you use CPV, or PPV). There is clearly increasing polarization, you would have to be a moron not to see that, as ME-02 didnt swing 20 points back to 2012 levels, and can also be exemplified in states like ND, MO, and TN,  but that doesnt mean that exceptions dont exist, which is all I was trying to say.

The Rural/Urban divide clearly exists, that is unquestionable, and irrefutable, in fact, along with personal popularity, it was one of the better predictors for 2018. What is irrefutable is all Rurals are trending R, and all Urban/Suburban areas are trending D, which is what I have a problem with.


5. Seriously, most of the forum thinks Jones will be DOA, including me.

6. The reason I brought up AL is that the argument of polarization and rural trends is rather weak for the state, because its always polarized. Before the Reagan Revolution, the state only had 2 Republican Senators, during reconstruction, and the state only voted for 1 R before the Reagan Revolution, also during reconstruction. To suggest that there is something new in the state having a hard time voting for the other party, even when their party's candidate is truly disgusting and terrible is not at all new.

I think I addressed all of it, though you have to understand, it was a lot to read.

[Strong Candidate]

I think you missed the point of the Racist Hick comments. I'm simply pointing out facts, not celebrating it. I supported Bredesen, Edmondson, Heitkamp, etc. MT Treasurer hates most red state Democrats but still tends to overestimate them, I guess to keep his expectations low because Republicans were burnt so many times in red states in the past. But it's pretty obvious at this point that things have changed considering the slaughterfest 2018 was for red state Democrats even in a D+9 Democratic wave.

I think you were the one that missed my point? I obviously know that you, as a fairly partisan Democrat, support these candidates. And I'm well aware that you believe that your "hicks" narrative is a fact. I'm simply saying it's not a fact. Let's not forget how you so adamantly denied the possibility of a Senator Doug Jones until the last moment.

And in regards to the bolded, no, that was not clear at all. Bredesen was running in a better environment against a weaker candidate but in a far more hostile state. The latter won out, which was always a very strong possibility.

I should have worded that differently. Bredesen was running a stronger campaign, which is what I meant. It was due to the fact that he was running in TN, a far more hostile state than IN for Dems, that didn't make his position better than Bayh's, which is why I thought Blackburn would win back then.

Oh, how could I forget Alabama? A literal pedophile losing by 1 point isn't exactly a strong rebuttal to the theory. I mean, it was a literal pedophile...and he only lost by 1 point. Because it was a psychotically partisan red state. So if anything it adds to the polarization/Racist Hick narrative, not takes away from it. The only error was that my theory was a tiny bit too aggressive in the case of truly exceptional circumstances, otherwise it was pretty much spot on. Luckily, unlike many people here, I can learn from my mistakes. Which is why my upgraded mind model now takes into account pedophilia if it is present (except in Oklahoma, where the Republican would win even if they were a pedophile.)

In short, if your argument for why red states aren't extremely partisan and polarized is "a pedophile Republican lost by 1 point in a red state", well...all I can say is I rest my case.

Come on Icespear, you and me both know that AL has absolutely nothing to do with the R rural trends, and that AL is one of the most inelastic, and Republican states in the union. Thats just lazy.

Okay, what about OK-Gov, TN-Sen, and ND-Sen, all of which you were hilariously convinced were "toss ups."

...... I didnt have any of those as tossups. I never rated OK gov as D favored, ever. And I was one of the people saying TN would surge R late at the end, and low and behold, it did. ND, I saw it being closer, but R favored.
Edit: Im guessing that you are talking about my predictions? I like to be broad on tossups on that thing. I was going to rate FL as a tossup, but I thought it wouldnt happen. Shame I didnt .

Nice Pivot, BTW. Doesnt cancel the fact that your use of AL is pretty lazy and doesnt even help your argument(in fact, it kinda hurts it that, in such polarized times, the state would do such a thing as elect from the other party).

So you rated them as toss ups, but didn't think they were toss ups. Okay, that makes lots of sense. Also, it's utterly mindboggling and defies all logic to think that ND/TN/OK were more likely to vote D than FL was to vote R. It is the epitome of the Dem hackery that permeates this forum.

It's not a pivot, it's the exact same topic. This forum has a nasty habit of overestimating Democrats in red states (actually, overestimating Democrats in general, but particularly in red states/districts.) You mentioned WV-03 earlier. Case in point:

Call me crazy, but this is a lean D race. While the 2016 results are a bit terrifying, it should be noted that this state loves to split tickets, and Trump's rhetoric was a perfect fit for the area. The same year they elected Trump, they also put in a D governor, which shows they are still receptive. And that was for the whole state, this race is only for the 3rd, the D base in the state.

Everything has already been said about Ojeda and Miller, one is stellar, the other is an empty shell.

Polling, which should favour Miller at this point in the cycle, so far, has actually favoured Ojeda. And not by some tiny margin, but by, like 6 points. And this was done by Monmouth, which is not known for terrible polling.

Miller really has nothing but the PVI going for her, and even then, its a false sense of security, since this is the most D downballot district.

Ojeda definitely has the advantage.

Nobody was denying Ojeda was going to do far better than Hillary Clinton (not a high bar.) But the D hacks of course took it into overdrive and assumed he would win (and even that he was significantly favored!) solely because of MUH candidate quality and MUH polarization doesn't matter! How did that one work out for you again? Miller had "nothing but the PVI going for her", and yet Ojeda got BTFO by double digits. Hmm...what does that tell you? The same exact thing you argued in that post you're arguing here. And you made the same exact mistake in North Dakota and Tennessee as well. This election should've been a learning experience for people who so cavalierly dismiss partisanship, polarization, and fundamentals in favor of nebulous factors like "candidate quality" or "muh Cramer's Akin gaffes" or whatever other idiocy. But I guess some people are incapable of learning.

Republican governors/senators in blue states and Democratic governors/senators in red states are at a historic low. As are House members in districts that tend to be hostile to their party. To ignore the significant increase in partisanship, polarization, and the urban/rural divide is to ignore someone continually whacking you in the head with a sledgehammer. The trend is far from subtle. You can cherrypick random examples if you want, but it's missing the forest for the trees. Janet Mills losing and Jared Golden barely winning in a rural district in a D+9 Democratic wave that Obama won in a landslide twice doesn't disprove the point. Nor does a Democrat underperforming the national PV in an Iowa district Obama carried by a landslide. If anything these examples prove the point. And I have no idea what you meant in regards to New York, considering both Cuomo and Gillibrand collapsed in rural NY compared to their previous elections, even though Cuomo's previous election was a Republican wave!

As for Alabama? All I can do is laugh at thinking that means a damn thing. It'll be hilarious to see the reactions here when Jones inevitably gets curbstomped by a non pedophile Republican. My guess is it goes down the same memory hole the Bredesen/Heitkamp cheerleading went down, and the day after the election everyone will pretend they knew he was DOA all along despite being incredibly hackish and irritating cheerleaders continually shaking their pom poms on the subject a mere 24 hours ago.

While this comment is broadly correct and I love its savagery, I think what Zaybay was talking about with regards to New York was the House races, not the statewide ones. Democrats picked up 3 House seats in New York that Trump won by a substantial (>5 point) margin, two of which have a substantial rural character (while losing a Clinton +3 one by a good margin, funnily enough). Demcorats definitely slid in the rural areas of New York- I won't deny that- but by much less than one might have expected, especially when accounting for the decline in Gillibrand and Cuomo's images since their last elections (remember that Cuomo did worse than Clinton).