IA-SEN 2020: Ernst megathread

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Given there was a farm crisis in the backend of the Obama presidency while Vilsack was the secretary of agriculture he might not be the best of choices (for more than a few reasons).

That said I'm not convinced Ernst is safe as people seem to believe. She'll run ahead of the national Republican ticket, no doubt, but she still have to work to make it a slam dunk.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Oh my god, stop. Enough with these dinosaurs coming out of the woodwork and subsequently blowing senate races for Democrats.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Oh my god, stop. Enough with these dinosaurs coming out of the woodwork and subsequently blowing senate races for Democrats.

The GOP party have dinosaurs: Pat Roberts*retiring, Lamar Alexander*retiring, Wicker, Inhofe, Shelby and McConnell.  The Dems had Strickland, Beshear who were much more conservative than Vilsack

[Chief Justice Keef]

Oh my god, stop. Enough with these dinosaurs coming out of the woodwork and subsequently blowing senate races for Democrats.

The GOP party have dinosaurs: Pat Roberts*retiring, Lamar Alexander*retiring, Wicker, Inhofe, Shelby and McConnell.  The Dems had Strickland, Beshear who were much more conservative than Vilsack

All those GOP senators except for Wicker have been in the Senate since before the 21st century. We're talking about a guy turning 70 years old running for his first term in the Senate.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Oh my god, stop. Enough with these dinosaurs coming out of the woodwork and subsequently blowing senate races for Democrats.

I mean, I don't think Vilsack should run, but you can't claim these "dinosaurs" are blowing Senate races. You can't seriously think anyone could do better than Bredesen or Bayh in Tennessee/Indiana. Sure, they weren't perfect candidates (especially Bayh), but no one else could've won these red states. The only one you can claim blowed a race was Strickland, who ran a terrible campaign, and even then it's likely no one could've beaten Portman.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Oh my god, stop. Enough with these dinosaurs coming out of the woodwork and subsequently blowing senate races for Democrats.

I mean, I don't think Vilsack should run, but you can't claim these "dinosaurs" are blowing Senate races. You can't seriously think anyone could do better than Bredesen or Bayh in Tennessee/Indiana. Sure, they weren't perfect candidates (especially Bayh), but no one else could've won these red states. The only one you can claim blowed a race was Strickland, who ran a terrible campaign, and even then it's likely no one could've beaten Portman.

[Pericles]

Oh my god, stop. Enough with these dinosaurs coming out of the woodwork and subsequently blowing senate races for Democrats.

I mean, I don't think Vilsack should run, but you can't claim these "dinosaurs" are blowing Senate races. You can't seriously think anyone could do better than Bredesen or Bayh in Tennessee/Indiana. Sure, they weren't perfect candidates (especially Bayh), but no one else could've won these red states. The only one you can claim blowed a race was Strickland, who ran a terrible campaign, and even then it's likely no one could've beaten Portman.

That is correct, which is why Vilsack would be even worse than them. The Dems had no shot in those races. Here, they have a small but legitimate shot and have legitimately better options, and so Vilsack would actually blow a legitimate opportunity for Democrats.

[UWS]

Oh my god, stop. Enough with these dinosaurs coming out of the woodwork and subsequently blowing senate races for Democrats.

I mean, I don't think Vilsack should run, but you can't claim these "dinosaurs" are blowing Senate races. You can't seriously think anyone could do better than Bredesen or Bayh in Tennessee/Indiana. Sure, they weren't perfect candidates (especially Bayh), but no one else could've won these red states. The only one you can claim blowed a race was Strickland, who ran a terrible campaign, and even then it's likely no one could've beaten Portman.

That is correct, which is why Vilsack would be even worse than them. The Dems had no shot in those races. Here, they have a small but legitimate shot and have legitimately better options, and so Vilsack would actually blow a legitimate opportunity for Democrats.

The moreover that Vilsack was a lobbyist for most of his life, which is bad for a candidate running for political office.

[henster]

If Vilsack overperforms like Bayh and Bredesen did then he'd easily win, IA is no where near as red as IN/TN. And unlike Strickland he was not a one termer who governed during the Great Recession. The fact that people are suggesting Scholten who just lost and Finkenauer or Axne who'd have to give up their hard fought swing seats after one term shows there are not really other good options.

[Brittain33]

If Vilsack overperforms like Bayh and Bredesen did then he'd easily win, IA is no where near as red as IN/TN. And unlike Strickland he was not a one termer who governed during the Great Recession. The fact that people are suggesting Scholten who just lost and Finkenauer or Axne who'd have to give up their hard fought swing seats after one term shows there are not really other good options.

Scholten is clearly running for something now.

[lfromnj]

Oh my god, stop. Enough with these dinosaurs coming out of the woodwork and subsequently blowing senate races for Democrats.

I mean, I don't think Vilsack should run, but you can't claim these "dinosaurs" are blowing Senate races. You can't seriously think anyone could do better than Bredesen or Bayh in Tennessee/Indiana. Sure, they weren't perfect candidates (especially Bayh), but no one else could've won these red states. The only one you can claim blowed a race was Strickland, who ran a terrible campaign, and even then it's likely no one could've beaten Portman.

Bredesen was fine but considering indiana and Missouri are politically the same states kander did much better against an incumbent. I don't think another candidate would have done better but it was possible.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Vilsack will do worse then Hillary, Braley and Chet Culver. 14-15 points

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

I swear to God if the Dem's nominate Vilsack I'm changing my avatar on here to Green. I don't want to be associated with these idiots.

As Claire Underwood said, “the reign of the middle-aged white man is over”. Much less ANOTHER 70 year old retread.

[coloradocowboi]

Oh my god, stop. Enough with these dinosaurs coming out of the woodwork and subsequently blowing senate races for Democrats.

I mean, I don't think Vilsack should run, but you can't claim these "dinosaurs" are blowing Senate races. You can't seriously think anyone could do better than Bredesen or Bayh in Tennessee/Indiana. Sure, they weren't perfect candidates (especially Bayh), but no one else could've won these red states. The only one you can claim blowed a race was Strickland, who ran a terrible campaign, and even then it's likely no one could've beaten Portman.

That is correct, which is why Vilsack would be even worse than them. The Dems had no shot in those races. Here, they have a small but legitimate shot and have legitimately better options, and so Vilsack would actually blow a legitimate opportunity for Democrats.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

I'm all for telling Vilsack to get the EFF out of here, but who is the alternative???

[Chief Justice Keef]

I'm all for telling Vilsack to get the EFF out of here, but who is the alternative???

One of the newly-elected freshmen (Finkenauer, Axne)? Or even Scholten?

[Virginiá]

Oh my god, stop. Enough with these dinosaurs coming out of the woodwork and subsequently blowing senate races for Democrats.

I mean, I don't think Vilsack should run, but you can't claim these "dinosaurs" are blowing Senate races. You can't seriously think anyone could do better than Bredesen or Bayh in Tennessee/Indiana. Sure, they weren't perfect candidates (especially Bayh), but no one else could've won these red states. The only one you can claim blowed a race was Strickland, who ran a terrible campaign, and even then it's likely no one could've beaten Portman.

Bayh was a trainwreck of a candidate though. Like it was one bad news cycle after another in 2016, and in all the worst ways for that particular election.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Biden, Trump and Hilary are the biggest dinosaurs of all, running for prez over 70.

[GoldenMainer]

I'm all for telling Vilsack to get the EFF out of here, but who is the alternative???

Rita Hart? Todd Prichard?

[Mr. Smith]

Fred Hubbell, or the person who would've been in SCOTUS if Obama had more spine.

Either of these would be better than Vilsack

[izixs]

Vilsack... Vilsack... hard pass.

So when I still lived in Iowa, the first time I had a chance to vote Vilsack was on the ballot. I looked at his record and the general trends of things in Iowa and realized he was kind of crappy as a governor. Doing some things right or ok, but generally having weird priorities that weren't all that useful for helping the state or the people in it. Unless you believed everything his consultants were dishing out constantly. As I was in college at the time too and very aware at how quickly everyone's tuition and housing fees were increasing, it was a good sign that the state was not being particularly well run at the time either in a purely financial view. So in the end, when I compared his record to that of the other candidates it was pretty clear that, given he was kind of a shoe in for reelection, that I could easily opt to support someone who at least promised a better way. So I voted green for governor.

So yeah, the notion that Vilsack is particularly well liked might be a fantasy. As folks like me on the left were perhaps more supportive of him overall due to the two party system and the excessive awfulness of the alternatives. If Vilsack is put up against anyone who's seen as minimally acceptable to the middle of Iowa politics he will lose hands down with those that remember how meh his governorship was. And if he runs his campaign like he did his state house, well, it will be even more of a blood bath.

So yeah, Vilsack is a terrible choice based on his record. I don't much care about the 'popular former governor' label when any such support there is built on an unsound foundation.

As for alternatives, there's the obvious choice of ANYBODY ELSE. But if you need specifics, for straight up candidate quality Loebsack might be a good choice. He's experience running campaigns, is in the 'safest' house seat in Iowa so its unlikely to slip out of dem control in a good year, and as someone who got to know him personally when I lived in Iowa I know that he's a reasonably progressive person who when his vote matters will come together with the rest of the dems to do the right thing. As for a better candidate that if they win they can hold the seat for a good long while, yes, either of the two newbies in the US house or perhaps any number of state house folks might be good/better options. Get someone under 50 with a lot of energy and solid campaigning skills, and maybe some connection to being a farmer, and you can take this senate seat and hold it for 20+ years.

[brucejoel99]

Fred Hubbell, or the person who would've been in SCOTUS if Obama had more spine.

Either of these would be better than Vilsack

A circuit court judge isn't gonna run for political office, esp. a liberal judge during the Trump presidency lol

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Vilsack is taking a wait and see approach. He's close to Biden
 Dems do have candidates, Vilsack isnt Strickland. Who ran the worst campaign. Dems should have a primary

[Continential]

Cathy Glassen or Addy Fikenator for Senate

[NCJeff]

Oh my god, stop. Enough with these dinosaurs coming out of the woodwork and subsequently blowing senate races for Democrats.

I mean, I don't think Vilsack should run, but you can't claim these "dinosaurs" are blowing Senate races. You can't seriously think anyone could do better than Bredesen or Bayh in Tennessee/Indiana. Sure, they weren't perfect candidates (especially Bayh), but no one else could've won these red states. The only one you can claim blowed a race was Strickland, who ran a terrible campaign, and even then it's likely no one could've beaten Portman.

This seems like a fair assessment.  Non-dinosaurs, however, don't seem to blow winnable races as badly as Strickland did, and Kander's significant over-performance probably would have netted a Senate seat in a better year.

Here's my inventory of the competitive senate races in 2016 (where there's a clear PVI baseline).

2016 races:

Indiana (2016 Senate)
Pres: 37.5%
Sen: 42.4%
Dinosaur overperforms by 4.9 points

Ohio (2016 Senate)
Pres: 43.2%
Sen: 37.1%
Dinosaur underperforms by 6.1 points

Pennsylvania (2016 Senate)
Pres: 47.5%
Sen: 47.3%
Non-dinosaur underperforms by 0.2 points

Wisconsin (2016 Senate)
Pres: 46.5%
Sen: 46.8%
Dinosaur overperforms by 0.3 points

Nevada (2016 Senate)
Pres: 47.9%
Sen: 47.1%
Non-dinosaur underperforms by 0.8 points

Missouri (2016 Senate):
Pres: 37.9%
Sen: 46.4%
Non-dinosaur overperforms by 8.5 points

New Hampshire (2016 Senate):
Pres: 46.8%
Sen: 47.8%
Non-dinosaur overperforms by 1.0 points

North Carolina (2016 Senate):
Pres: 46.2%
Sen: 45.4%
Non-dinosaur underperforms by 0.8 points

Florida (2016 Senate):
Pres: 47.4%
Sen: 44.3%
Non-dinosaur underperforms by 3.1 points

So for 2016:
Dinosaur scores are [+4.9, -6.1, 0.3]
Non dinosaur scores are [-0.2, -0.8, +8.5, +1.0, -0.8, -3.1]

I won't do a 2012 inventory but notably none of the races that had a winner of different party than winner of presidential race in that state (Missouri, Indiana, North Dakota, Montana, West Virginia) had a dinosaur, and the two non-incumbent winners (Heitkamp and Donnelly) were non-dinosaurs.

Thompson did not outrun Romney by much though Lingle did outrun in Hawaii by ten points and Kerrey outran Obama by about four points.