Would Baker/Hogan/Scott have won by smaller margins in 2018 had Democrats contested their races?

[VAR]

It is fairly obvious that none of them were beatable (except maybe Hogan), but could they have significantly decreased their margins by actually putting some effort into these races?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

They were all outright beatable by a strong enough candidate running a strong enough campaign in 2018, especially Hogan.

[ꙮ]

They were all outright beatable by a strong enough candidate running a strong enough campaign in 2018, especially Hogan.

No Democratic candidate was going to unseat Charlie Baker in 2018. He was just too popular. He won by 30 points in a Republican midterm lol.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

They were all outright beatable by a strong enough candidate running a strong enough campaign in 2018, especially Hogan.

No Democratic candidate was going to unseat Charlie Baker in 2018. He was just too popular. He won by 30 points in a Republican midterm lol.

[SevenEleven]

Hogan was beatable if he had a half-way acceptable challenger.

[Roll Roons]

I'm not sure why people think Hogan was beatable. A governor as popular as him was just never going to lose, regardless of the national environment or the state's partisanship.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I'm not sure why people think Hogan was beatable. A governor as popular as him was just never going to lose, regardless of the national environment or the state's partisanship.

He won by less than 12 against a very weak candidate.

[Roll Roons]

I'm not sure why people think Hogan was beatable. A governor as popular as him was just never going to lose, regardless of the national environment or the state's partisanship.

He won by less than 12 against a very weak candidate.

12 points isn't exactly a squeaker. A better candidate probably would have made it closer, but still wouldn't have won.

[KaiserDave]

Massachusetts: No? Baker was extremely popular. Even if Dems recruited Healey or Kennedy to run against him, they both would have lost by double digits.
Maryland: Yes I do think so. If Dems had gotten a well known statewide candidate, and went hard against Hogan, I think he could have lost, although it would have been an uphill battle.
Vermont: Ehhhhh. Probably not. Scott wasn't invincible in 2018, unlike 2020, but I have trouble seeing him lose. Hallquist is fairly underrated here, she wasn't a throwaway candidate or anything. Sanders, Leahy, Warren, and Obama got loudly behind her in the general. She also got a not insignificant amount of national attention for the historical nature of her candidacy. And she got destroyed. If Dems went all in on nominating T.J. Donovan or Timothy Ashe, they probably still lose.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Massachusetts: No? Baker was extremely popular. Even if Dems recruited Healey or Kennedy to run against him, they both would have lost by double digits.
Maryland: Yes I do think so. If Dems had gotten a well known statewide candidate, and went hard against Hogan, I think he could have lost, although it would have been an uphill battle.
Vermont: Ehhhhh. Probably not. Scott wasn't invincible in 2018, unlike 2020, but I have trouble seeing him lose. Hallquist is fairly underrated here, she wasn't a throwaway candidate or anything. Sanders, Leahy, Warren, and Obama got loudly behind her in the general. She also got a not insignificant amount of national attention for the historical nature of her candidacy. And she got destroyed. If Dems went all in on nominating T.J. Donovan or Timothy Ashe, they probably still lose.

Yeah, Scott is essentially seen as a nonpartisan candidate who was highly praised for his Covid response. I think Hogan was the only one who was potentially beatable, but it would have been a big uphill battle.