MS-Mason Dixon: Hood (D) +2

[Skye]

Hood (D)     44
Reeves (R)  42

3-way

Hood (D)     40
Reeves (R)  38
Waller (I)    9

Poll

[lfromnj]

Not the best poll for Hood but I do see a narrow path to victory.

[ElectionsGuy]

Hood has more name recognition than Reeves at this point. We'll have to wait a few months to get a clearer picture.

[Zaybay]

Not a great poll for Hood to start off with. So far, I see his race as the hardest for Ds to win in the 2019 lineup.

[Woody]

Strong tilt R.

[SnowLabrador]

I'm skeptical. I remember when Bredesen was narrowly ahead as well; I think Hood will lose by roughly 10 points.

[YE]

Hood only at 44? That's not gonna cut it.

[henster]

Hood hasn't been fundraising well either, this is looking a lot like KY GOV 2015.

[Adam Griffin]

Statewide polls for this race may end up being useless, given the need for Hood to win a majority of the LDs.

[Yellowhammer]

Strong tilt likely R.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

MS will never vote Democrat because despite the delusions of some here it is very, very INELASTIC. The idea of a Democrat clearing 50%, which they haven't done in a major statewide race (gubernatorial/senatorial) since 1987 is comical.

[Xing]

Not the best poll for Hood, but this is definitely more winnable for Dems than KY, and off-year turnout will benefit Hood in a state where Democrats have a very high floor. Tilt/Lean D Lean R.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Democratic sweep: 2019😊

[MT Treasurer]

MS will never vote Democrat because despite the delusions of some here it is very, very INELASTIC. The idea of a Democrat clearing 50%, which they haven't done in a major statewide race (gubernatorial/senatorial) since 1987 is comical.

Vitter vs. JBE: LA will never vote Democrat because despite the delusions of some here it is very, very INELASTIC. The idea of a Democrat clearing 50%, which they haven't done in a major statewide race (gubernatorial/senatorial) since 2008 is comical.

Moore vs. Jones: AL will never vote Democrat because despite the delusions of some here it is very, very INELASTIC. The idea of a Democrat clearing 50%, which they haven't done in a major statewide race (gubernatorial/senatorial) since 1998 is comical.

[Pericles]

Given MS's inelasticity Hood ever leading by double digits is virtually impossible, if Hood wins it's a nailbiter.

[MT Treasurer]

Given MS's inelasticity Hood ever leading by double digits is virtually impossible, if Hood wins it's a nailbiter.

Hood won by 10 points in 2015 of all years, when Bryant (R) won reelection by 34 points simultaneously. Doesn’t sound very #inelastic to me. Also, a Democratic sacrificial lamb came within 7 points of winning a federal race just two months ago.

[Pericles]

Given MS's inelasticity Hood ever leading by double digits is virtually impossible, if Hood wins it's a nailbiter.

Hood won by 10 points in 2015 of all years, when Bryant (R) won reelection by 34 points simultaneously. Doesn’t sound very #inelastic to me. Also, a Democratic sacrificial lamb came within 7 points of winning a federal race just two months ago.

Mike Espy had a pro Democratic national environment and more importantly Cindy Hyde Smith's scandals(which Reeves probably won't have) and it still wasn't particularly close.

[MT Treasurer]

Given MS's inelasticity Hood ever leading by double digits is virtually impossible, if Hood wins it's a nailbiter.

Hood won by 10 points in 2015 of all years, when Bryant (R) won reelection by 34 points simultaneously. Doesn’t sound very #inelastic to me. Also, a Democratic sacrificial lamb came within 7 points of winning a federal race just two months ago.

Mike Espy had a pro Democratic national environment and more importantly Cindy Hyde Smith's scandals(which Reeves probably won't have) and it still wasn't particularly close.

Hood will almost certainly benefit from a pro-Democratic environment as well. And while I agree that CHS's scandals hurt her, it’s not like Reeves is a particularly strong candidate TM either. Espy came within 7 points of winning a Senate race in what is supposedly the "most inelastic deep red" state in the country, he did much better than most people expected.

[henster]

I think Hoods is a paper tiger, yea he's won big before but he's had the benefit of being an incumbent running against one bad candidate after another.

[Roll Roons]

MS will never vote Democrat because despite the delusions of some here it is very, very INELASTIC. The idea of a Democrat clearing 50%, which they haven't done in a major statewide race (gubernatorial/senatorial) since 1987 is comical.

Vitter vs. JBE: LA will never vote Democrat because despite the delusions of some here it is very, very INELASTIC. The idea of a Democrat clearing 50%, which they haven't done in a major statewide race (gubernatorial/senatorial) since 2008 is comical.

Moore vs. Jones: AL will never vote Democrat because despite the delusions of some here it is very, very INELASTIC. The idea of a Democrat clearing 50%, which they haven't done in a major statewide race (gubernatorial/senatorial) since 1998 is comical.

I'm not saying it's impossible for Hood (I have it at Lean R), but Reeves seems like a pretty inoffensive generic Republican, and is not really comparable to Pedophile Moore or John Vitter.

[Del Tachi]

Still Tossup/Tilt D (closer to Lean D than Pure Tossup, though)

As above posters have pointed out, Hood has won by large margins in good Republican years.  2019 will be a good Democratic year and Hood will have the benefit of the national media narrative being focused on the presidential race. 

I would also say that Reeves is a weak candidate just because he has played his hand with Metro Jackson and Gulf Coast Republicans too strongly, leaving him vulnerable to encroachment in the Northeast, Delta and the college towns.

[RINO Tom]

MS will never vote Democrat because despite the delusions of some here it is very, very INELASTIC. The idea of a Democrat clearing 50%, which they haven't done in a major statewide race (gubernatorial/senatorial) since 1987 is comical.

What's your hot take on the Realignment of 1987?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

MS will never vote Democrat because despite the delusions of some here it is very, very INELASTIC. The idea of a Democrat clearing 50%, which they haven't done in a major statewide race (gubernatorial/senatorial) since 1987 is comical.

What's your hot take on the Realignment of 1987?

Fordice ousted Mabus in 1991 by focusing on affirmative action, it's clear that Republicans have exploited the racial tension in the state and made it virtually impossible for Dems to get the 30% of whites they would need to win statewide.

[RINO Tom]

MS will never vote Democrat because despite the delusions of some here it is very, very INELASTIC. The idea of a Democrat clearing 50%, which they haven't done in a major statewide race (gubernatorial/senatorial) since 1987 is comical.

What's your hot take on the Realignment of 1987?

Fordice ousted Mabus in 1991 by focusing on affirmative action, it's clear that Republicans have exploited the racial tension in the state and made it virtually impossible for Dems to get the 30% of whites they would need to win statewide.

And Republicans just started exploiting racial tension in 1987?  Local Democrats just stopped around then?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

MS will never vote Democrat because despite the delusions of some here it is very, very INELASTIC. The idea of a Democrat clearing 50%, which they haven't done in a major statewide race (gubernatorial/senatorial) since 1987 is comical.

What's your hot take on the Realignment of 1987?

Fordice ousted Mabus in 1991 by focusing on affirmative action, it's clear that Republicans have exploited the racial tension in the state and made it virtually impossible for Dems to get the 30% of whites they would need to win statewide.

And Republicans just started exploiting racial tension in 1987?  Local Democrats just stopped around then?

When I said "since 1987", I meant that was the last time a Democrat won over 50% statewide. I realize other people use "since [insert year]" differently, and that statement would imply that 1983 was the last time the aforementioned happened, but that's not how I use it.

The Republican party wasn't that well established locally in MS until the 1980s, but they certainly did begin exploiting it almost immediately. "Local Democrats" are irrelevant to this question. The black vote was dominating Democratic primaries by the 1980s, no Democrat who was anti-black was ever going to win the nomination to statewide office, which is what we're talking about.