NC- Civiqs: CAL +9

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Six months to go, but yeah, this looks pretty good. Democrats have a real shot taking the senate and ousting Cocaine Mitch this November. Can we now see some more polls out of Maine?

Lol so Schumer didn't screw up that much in recruiting Cunningham.

Not praising him too much before the results are in, but it seems Schumer was done a great job with recruitments this year. He also pushed Steve Bullock to jump in and got Obama to pick up the phone for Bullock.

IA, GA, and TX are disappointing though. Jon Ossoff is seriously the best Dems can do?

The DSCC-endorsed candidates in IA and TX don't seem objectively bad; what makes Schumer's choices poor here is that there were (and, in IA's case, still are) better candidates available. The Democratic bench in GA is weak, but I agree that Ossoff is a genuine recruitment failure (though not necessarily worse than Amico or Tomlinson, so perhaps more excusable for the DSCC than IA given that they didn't ignore a better candidate who was already in the race).

The most obvious recruitment failure was in Kentucky, though it was never really winnable so perhaps it isn't particularly consequential. Maybe Rocky Adkins, Steve Beshear or Matt Jones could have managed the lift (though they'd move it to Likely R at best), but even if they couldn't be recruited, the other candidates in the race besides McGrath are likely to be of more help for the rest of the Democratic ticket than her.

[We Live in Black and White]

Tilt D.

If Snow thinks the Democrats are winning, we're definitely winning.

Again, Cunningham is just running circles around Tillis at this point.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Six months to go, but yeah, this looks pretty good. Democrats have a real shot taking the senate and ousting Cocaine Mitch this November. Can we now see some more polls out of Maine?

Lol so Schumer didn't screw up that much in recruiting Cunningham.

Not praising him too much before the results are in, but it seems Schumer was done a great job with recruitments this year. He also pushed Steve Bullock to jump in and got Obama to pick up the phone for Bullock.

IA, GA, and TX are disappointing though. Jon Ossoff is seriously the best Dems can do?

The DSCC-endorsed candidates in IA and TX don't seem objectively bad; what makes Schumer's choices poor here is that there were (and, in IA's case, still are) better candidates available. The Democratic bench in GA is weak, but I agree that Ossoff is a genuine recruitment failure (though not necessarily worse than Amico or Tomlinson, so perhaps more excusable for the DSCC than IA given that they didn't ignore a better candidate who was already in the race).

The most obvious recruitment failure was in Kentucky, though it was never really winnable so perhaps it isn't particularly consequential. Maybe Rocky Adkins, Steve Beshear or Matt Jones could have managed the lift (though they'd move it to Likely R at best), but even if they couldn't be recruited, the other candidates in the race besides McGrath are likely to be of more help for the rest of the Democratic ticket than her.

Kentucky is a recruitment failure because we're running a candidate who passes the laugh test meaning folks will flush money down the drain by donating to McGrath (who should've sought a KY-6 rematch tbh). 

Texas wasn't really Schumer's fault because he'd almost managed to recruit Joaquin Castro, but then Beto started doing his Hamlet act and froze the field.  Plus, until the first debate, no one wanted to run in case Beto switched to the Senate race.  After that, too much time had passed and no one was interested anymore.  Hager should've run against Carter again, I actually think she might've had a better shot in a Presidential year than she did in 2018 tbh, plus TX-31 only voted for Cruz by 2%.

In Iowa, Greenfield was perfectly fine as a wave insurance candidate since no one had any reason to think this might be competitive and it still may not be when all is said and done.  It'd be a mistake to waste a strong candidate here this cycle, a solid wave insurance candidate was exactly what we needed.

With NC, we don't know why the DSCC pushed Jackson out and I still wonder if there was some sort of skeleton in his closet.  Plus, Cunningham is clearly doing something right b/c he was consistently leading even before the COVID-19 pandemic blew up.

Both Georgia seats were recruiting failures, no getting around that.  However, I think we also have to give the DSCC credit for recruiting Mark Kelly (IIRC most on Atlas thought we should run Ruben Gallego [which clearly would've been a mistake] or Greg Stanton instead) and Steve Bullock (which from what I've read, it sounds like Schumer also deserves some credit for).  While I'd rather someone more progressive, I also think Hick counts as a DSCC recruiting win given how he completely put this race away to the point that it's all but off the board.  Lastly, the DSCC wisely recruited a solid Kobach insurance candidate in Kansas at a time when few here thought the race would be competitive even with Kobach.

TL;DR: The DSCC dropped the ball in Georgia, but I think there is also some revisionist history going on in this and some other threads re: the DSCC's performance this cycle.  They've done relatively well overall and for all that folks here like to rag on them, the DSCC certainly got it right more often than the Atlas CW did (at least so far).

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Six months to go, but yeah, this looks pretty good. Democrats have a real shot taking the senate and ousting Cocaine Mitch this November. Can we now see some more polls out of Maine?

Lol so Schumer didn't screw up that much in recruiting Cunningham.

Not praising him too much before the results are in, but it seems Schumer was done a great job with recruitments this year. He also pushed Steve Bullock to jump in and got Obama to pick up the phone for Bullock.

IA, GA, and TX are disappointing though. Jon Ossoff is seriously the best Dems can do?

The DSCC-endorsed candidates in IA and TX don't seem objectively bad; what makes Schumer's choices poor here is that there were (and, in IA's case, still are) better candidates available. The Democratic bench in GA is weak, but I agree that Ossoff is a genuine recruitment failure (though not necessarily worse than Amico or Tomlinson, so perhaps more excusable for the DSCC than IA given that they didn't ignore a better candidate who was already in the race).

The most obvious recruitment failure was in Kentucky, though it was never really winnable so perhaps it isn't particularly consequential. Maybe Rocky Adkins, Steve Beshear or Matt Jones could have managed the lift (though they'd move it to Likely R at best), but even if they couldn't be recruited, the other candidates in the race besides McGrath are likely to be of more help for the rest of the Democratic ticket than her.

Kentucky is a recruitment failure because we're running a candidate who passes the laugh test meaning folks will flush money down the drain by donating to McGrath (who should've sought a KY-6 rematch tbh). 

Lots of these people might not have donated at all if they couldn't donate to McConnell's opponent. The DSCC shouldn't try to shut down otherwise strong challengers (those who pass the laugh test, that is) just because they're doomed in one electoral cycle (as a strong campaign can help with other local races); that said, I agree that they achieved the worst of both worlds by endorsing McGrath's doomed bid (as she isn't particularly strong but is a donation sink in other states). I'm still not 100% sure that Kentucky was doomed if they'd recruited the right candidate, but they're essentially re-running Alison Lundergan Grimes without her statewide record/appeal and with a lot more gaffes.

Texas wasn't really Schumer's fault because he'd almost managed to recruit Joaquin Castro, but then Beto started doing his Hamlet act and froze the field.  Plus, until the first debate, no one wanted to run in case Beto switched to the Senate race.  After that, too much time had passed and no one was interested anymore.  Hager should've run against Carter again, I actually think she might've had a better shot in a Presidential year than she did in 2018 tbh, plus TX-31 only voted for Cruz by 2%.

Failng to get Joaquin in after Beto's "Hell Yes" in September reflects badly on at least one of Joaquin Castro or Chuck Schumer. Was there really no other (ex-)Congressional Rep with a better chance than Hegar and a willingness to run?

In Iowa, Greenfield was perfectly fine as a wave insurance candidate since no one had any reason to think this might be competitive and it still may not be when all is said and done.  It'd be a mistake to waste a strong candidate here this cycle, a solid wave insurance candidate was exactly what we needed.

It's not a mistake to "waste" a strong candidate (the party has a large bench of these, some of whom aren't getting any younger); 2022 is going to be harder for the Democrats if they win the presidency and impossible even if Trump is still president if Grassley runs again. The only race easier will be the Iowa gubernatorial election and that's probably only true if Trump wins re-election.

Even if you discount the people who chose not to enter the race, I think Greenfield is still not the best pick for the DSCC (Michael Franken and Kimberly Graham seem stronger), and they shouldn't have endorsed her early - if they wanted to keep people out, they should have just told them directly that "wave insurance" was the plan.

With NC, we don't know why the DSCC pushed Jackson out and I still wonder if there was some sort of skeleton in his closet.  Plus, Cunningham is clearly doing something right b/c he was consistently leading even before the COVID-19 pandemic blew up.

Agreed, but the DSCC's logic for pushing candidates out seems to be looking for who will be the best "windowless basement" high-dollar fundraising candidate, and though Cunningham is doing well, Jackson would probably be a stronger candidate without necessarily being better at this part. Schumer places too much emphasis on it, and it leads to an overabundance of consult-driven campaigns.

Both Georgia seats were recruiting failures, no getting around that.  However, I think we also have to give the DSCC credit for recruiting Mark Kelly (IIRC most on Atlas thought we should run Ruben Gallego [which clearly would've been a mistake] or Greg Stanton instead) and Steve Bullock (which from what I've read, it sounds like Schumer also deserves some credit for).  While I'd rather someone more progressive, I also think Hick counts as a DSCC recruiting win given how he completely put this race away to the point that it's all but off the board.  Lastly, the DSCC wisely recruited a solid Kobach insurance candidate in Kansas at a time when few here thought the race would be competitive even with Kobach.

Is Warnock a bad candidate? His "scandal" should have come to nothing by now given the apparent non-story (the police say his wife's foot was undamaged), and I give the DSCC a bit more credit here as the local Democratic bench is quite weak (Ossoff is a bad candidate, but there doesn't appear to be anyone stronger in the primary - at least, not among those who aren't in the sub-1% polling doldrums). I agree that the DSCC has done well in AZ, CO, MT and probably KS.

TL;DR: The DSCC dropped the ball in Georgia, but I think there is also some revisionist history going on in this and some other threads re: the DSCC's performance this cycle.  They've done relatively well overall and for all that folks here like to rag on them, the DSCC certainly got it right more often than the Atlas CW did (at least so far).

Their record isn't a complete failure, but having a relatively good bench nationwide and then missing several open goals by not recruiting from it in certain places shouldn't mean they get credit for a field of candidates that is strong, but not nearly as strong as it could have been. How does 2020 compare to previous cycles in terms of failing to recruit promising candidates that were around at the time?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

- Re: KY: McGrath should've run against Barr again.  I doubt there are too many people who'd only donate to someone running against McConnell, maybe they'd donate to Biden or something, but that's a far better use of the money.  And McConnell would win easily this year no matter who we ran.

- Re: TX: I definitely agree the way TX went down reflects badly on Castro (and Beto, for that matter), but Schumer didn't do anything wrong there.  Even if you want to blame the DSCC, it isn't run by Schumer and I maintain Hegar should've run for House again.   

- Re: IA: Running Axne or Finkenauer would've been a big mistake imo since all it would do was open up their house seats.  Rob Sand is planning to run for Governor or reelection IIRC.  Vilsack is a washed up has-been.  Also, I'd argue that Greenfield is a far, far better wave insurance candidate the two folks you mentioned (we may just have to agree to disagree on this).  And it is a mistake to waste a strong candidate on a long-shot race; I'd rather keep Axne and Finkenauer's House seats than have a slightly better chance of winning a Senate seat that we probably won't win either way. 

- Re: NC: But those are really assumptions.  The truth is that we really don't know anything about what went down here except that (1) Jackson was initially planning to run, (2) the DSCC felt so strongly that he was the wrong guy that the Dem Senate leadership basically told him not to run; and (3) the DSCC wanted Cunningham to run instead of the available options. 

We really don't know and I could just as easily say "the DSCC was trying to avoid blowing the race by running an overhyped candidate with a major skeleton in his closet."  We don't know and I don't think it makes sense to just assume the DSCC was trying to recruit a random no-name.  Like, you've gotta ask why from their perspective it would make logical sense to push out Jackson in favor of Cunningham. 

Agree or disagree with their choice, these folks aren't idiots and they want to flip the seat just like we do, so you gotta consider what the DSCC's thought process might have been.  I mean, my guess is that Jackson isn't all that he's been hyped up to be for one reason or another.  And Cunningham was consistently leading even before the COVID-19 situation blew up, so maybe he's stronger than we gave him credit for, idk.  All I know is we're currently more likely than not to flip this seat, so I ain't complaining

- Re: GA: I know Atlas has always been bullish about Warnock, but I've always been pretty bearish about his prospects.  He's strikes me as a random, overhyped some dude and I'd actually argue that even Osoff is a stronger candidate.  I mean, both are more or less some dude-tier, but at least Osoff out-raised his main Republican opponent.  OTOH, while Warnock will probably make it to the runoff, there has been at least one poll showing him in single-digits with Matt Lieberman in second.  If Warnock can barely handle Joe Lieberman's some dude-tier son, I don't see how one can argue that he's not an extremely weak candidate tbh.  Osoff is a meh candidate at best, but at least he's leading the field in fundraising and likely has the Democratic nomination locked up.

- Re: Overall: I don't think the DSCC missed any open-goals this cycle except for Georgia - where I've always said they dropped the ball in both races - since I don't think Texas was their fault.  That said, I think that if you're gonna attack them for the disappointments and mistakes, then you also need to give them credit for their successes.  I often see folks on Atlas talking about how the DSCC blew this race or that race, but I seldom see folks giving the DSCC credit for Montana, Arizona, Kansas, etc.  Plus, as of now we're on track to flip the Senate which is the thing that really matters here.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Rs are gonna obstruct Pelosis bill on UBI payments to voters which isnt smart. Voters want the 2017 tax cuts repealed in order to pass UBI benefits.  McSally said they arent passing UBI benefits

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

- Re: KY: McGrath should've run against Barr again.  I doubt there are too many people who'd only donate to someone running against McConnell, maybe they'd donate to Biden or something, but that's a far better use of the money.  And McConnell would win easily this year no matter who we ran.

I agree McGrath would have brought a lot of her fundraising to KY-06, but you can't seriously think that much of the money that went to her wouldn't have gone to any Anointed One going up against McConnell. Well-meaning donors in California will donate once they've identified their champion.

I'm mostly inclined to agree with you that McConnell would win no matter who, but Matt Jones might have pulled off an upset due to his reach and name recognition (though the DSCC can't be blamed much, if at all, for not reaching him - it's probable that he'd have never been prepared to step back from his radio job). Steve Beshear and Rocky Adkins might have been in with a shout in a Democratic wave year if they were able to fight rural trends and let McConnell help them with suburban ones.

- Re: TX: I definitely agree the way TX went down reflects badly on Castro (and Beto, for that matter), but Schumer didn't do anything wrong there.  Even if you want to blame the DSCC, it isn't run by Schumer and I maintain Hegar should've run for House again.    

Schumer isn't officially head of the DSCC but he has one of the most important roles in its decision-making. They might have no blame if they pulled out all the stops for Beto and Castro, in which case this is a genuine example of a weak bench in a large state.

- Re: IA: Running Axne or Finkenauer would've been a big mistake imo since all it would do was open up their house seats.  Rob Sand is planning to run for Governor or reelection IIRC.  Vilsack is a washed up has-been.  Also, I'd argue that Greenfield is a far, far better wave insurance candidate the two folks you mentioned (we may just have to agree to disagree on this).  And it is a mistake to waste a strong candidate on a long-shot race; I'd rather keep Axne and Finkenauer's House seats than have a slightly better chance of winning a Senate seat that we probably won't win either way.  

Though all of them have low recognition, as of March, Selzer has the candidates at these favourability levels:
Ernst 46-36
Greenfield  14-13 (Democrats: 30-4)
Graham 19-12 (Democrats: 34-2)
Franken 17-10 (Democrats: 27-1)
Mauro 12-14 (Democrats: 27-5)
Woods 9-13 (Democrats: 17-3)

JD Scholten, who'd been considering a Senate bid prior to the DSCC endorsement of Greenfield, may well have bullied out of this race (though he claims the endorsement had no effect). Tom Miller and Michael Fitzgerald might also have been better candidates and were the only Democrats to win statewide reelection in 2018 (and would have been safe to contest this race, as they're not up again until 2022).

- Re: NC: But those are really assumptions.  The truth is that we really don't know anything about what went down here except that (1) Jackson was initially planning to run, (2) the DSCC felt so strongly that he was the wrong guy that the Dem Senate leadership basically told him not to run; and (3) the DSCC wanted Cunningham to run instead of the available options.  

We really don't know and I could just as easily say "the DSCC was trying to avoid blowing the race by running an overhyped candidate with a major skeleton in his closet."  We don't know and I don't think it makes sense to just assume the DSCC was trying to recruit a random no-name.  Like, you've gotta ask why from their perspective it would make logical sense to push out Jackson in favor of Cunningham.  

Agree or disagree with their choice, these folks aren't idiots and they want to flip the seat just like we do, so you gotta consider what the DSCC's thought process might have been.  I mean, my guess is that Jackson isn't all that he's been hyped up to be for one reason or another.  And Cunningham was consistently leading even before the COVID-19 situation blew up, so maybe he's stronger than we gave him credit for, idk.  All I know is we're currently more likely than not to flip this seat, so I ain't complaining

Fair point about Cunningham and Jackson, and I don't think Cunningham was a bad pick. My assumption here may well be incorrect, and I'm only inclined to believe it because it fits in with a pattern of similar DSCC endorsements elsewhere - a strong preference for candidates who have fundraising potential and are believed to be economically moderate ("safe"). This is not a universally winning template.

I don't think the DSCC's strategists are dumb, but both they and the DCCC have severely miscalculated before by holding to outdated conventional wisdom, having a bias for party insiders, believing in median voter theory, and listening to high-dollar fundraisers who despise what certain potential candidates stand for. Some of these donors are willing to accept a higher risk of defeat with a moderate they like than a progressive they don't.

- Re: GA: I know Atlas has always been bullish about Warnock, but I've always been pretty bearish about his prospects.  He's strikes me as a random, overhyped some dude and I'd actually argue that even Osoff is a stronger candidate.  I mean, both are more or less some dude-tier, but at least Osoff out-raised his main Republican opponent.  OTOH, while Warnock will probably make it to the runoff, there has been at least one poll showing him in single-digits with Matt Lieberman in second.  If Warnock can barely handle Joe Lieberman's some dude-tier son, I don't see how one can argue that he's not an extremely weak candidate tbh.  Osoff is a meh candidate at best, but at least he's leading the field in fundraising and likely has the Democratic nomination locked up.

Warnock's polling is underperforming what I believed to be his priors. If it doesn't pick up soon (I give him a some room for early error while the scandal fades), I'll agree with this assessment.

- Re: Overall: I don't think the DSCC missed any open-goals this cycle except for Georgia - where I've always said they dropped the ball in both races - since I don't think Texas was their fault.  That said, I think that if you're gonna attack them for the disappointments and mistakes, then you also need to give them credit for their successes.  I often see folks on Atlas talking about how the DSCC blew this race or that race, but I seldom see folks giving the DSCC credit for Montana, Arizona, Kansas, etc.  Plus, as of now we're on track to flip the Senate which is the thing that really matters here.

Bollier's candidacy I'm less sure of (though she's certainly at least a good candidate), but Bullock and Kelly were absolutely wins. I'm not saying this cycle is a complete failure, but there look to be a lot of misses. What I'm least sure about is how successful this was relative to previous cycles - would you say there were more missed opportunities in e.g. 2018 or in any cycle under Reid's leadership?

I agree they're on track to win the Senate anyway, but every seat counts considering the possibility for a small number of losses in 2022 flipping it back to the Republicans.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

- Re: KY: Yeah, but at least then we'd have a solid recruit in KY-6.

- Re: TX: My understanding is that they did indeed go all out on trying to recruit Beto and especially Joaquin Castro.  At one point, Castro even said he'd run for Senate if O'Rourke jumped into the Presidential race.

- Re: IA: I think Scholten would've been a better candidate, but my understanding is he decided on his own to run in IA-4.  Tom Miller is probably too old and I could see him retiring in 2022 tbh.  Fitzgerald was briefly recruited IIRC (although if I'm misremembering then they should've tried with him), but wasn't interested.  They also tried to get Axne to run at one point, but she wasn't interested either.  Greenfield can at least raise money, whereas Franken and Graham haven't raised much.  That's important in a race where a low name-ID candidate will need to introduce themselves to most voters.

- Re: NC: Ehh, I dunno that I agree with you about those patterns tbh.  Honestly, I think the DSCC almost as a rule been far better at it than the NCCC, DCCC, and NRSC combined from 2006 onward.  Whatever the DSCC has been doing on the candidate recruitment front, I hope they keep it up because it's clearly working!

- Re: GA: Fair enough.

Re: Overall: I would say 2020 is about average in terms of DSCC candidate recruitment.  Usually it's pretty good, but with one or two missed opportunities (can't win 'em all and sometimes candidates just unexpectedly implode like with Montana in 2014).  2010, 2014, and 2018 were more about defending vulnerable incumbents, so they're a bit different.

 

[ElectionAtlas]

New Poll: North Carolina Senator by Civiqs on 2020-05-04

Summary: D: 50%, R: 41%, U: 5%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details