MN-07: Does Fischbach survive or get primaried out?

[Greedo punched first]

Her district isn’t getting cut. Does she survive or lose to a more reactionary Tea Party challenger?

[Meatball Ron]

I'm not sure what the correlation between these two issues is. Fischbach is plenty Trumpy. The reason she was doomed if a district were to be cut is because she was a first-termer / less entrenched than Emmer. Has nothing to do with her policy stances. For all intents and purposes she was considered a great recruit for the seat as Former State Senate President, not a meh seat warmer.

[Greedo punched first]

I'm not sure what the correlation between these two issues is. Fischbach is plenty Trumpy. The reason she was doomed if a district were to be cut is because she was a first-termer / less entrenched than Emmer. Has nothing to do with her policy stances. For all intents and purposes she was considered a great recruit for the seat as Former State Senate President, not a meh seat warmer.

She is Trumpy, but that doesn’t seem to stop Tea Party challengers from running against Trumpy candidates. Lindsey Graham had a few minor primary challengers in 2020. Fischbach is less established than Graham. I think she survives, but MN-07 strikes me as one of those districts where primary challengers would be numerous.

[Meatball Ron]

I'm not sure what the correlation between these two issues is. Fischbach is plenty Trumpy. The reason she was doomed if a district were to be cut is because she was a first-termer / less entrenched than Emmer. Has nothing to do with her policy stances. For all intents and purposes she was considered a great recruit for the seat as Former State Senate President, not a meh seat warmer.

She is Trumpy, but that doesn’t seem to stop Tea Party challengers from running against Trumpy candidates. Lindsey Graham had a few minor primary challengers in 2020. Fischbach is less established than Graham. I think she survives, but MN-07 strikes me as one of those districts where primary challengers would be numerous.

I guess. It just seemed like you were implying some sort of correlation between the fact that her district was almost cut, and a potential primary challenge. Maybe someone will challenge her but don't see why she'd be any more vulnerable than your run-of-the-mill GOP Rep. She also won the open 2020 primary by quite a landslide.

[Tekken_Guy]

I don’t see why she would lose her primary. She’s well-liked by the GOP electorate there.

[Greedo punched first]

I'm not sure what the correlation between these two issues is. Fischbach is plenty Trumpy. The reason she was doomed if a district were to be cut is because she was a first-termer / less entrenched than Emmer. Has nothing to do with her policy stances. For all intents and purposes she was considered a great recruit for the seat as Former State Senate President, not a meh seat warmer.

She is Trumpy, but that doesn’t seem to stop Tea Party challengers from running against Trumpy candidates. Lindsey Graham had a few minor primary challengers in 2020. Fischbach is less established than Graham. I think she survives, but MN-07 strikes me as one of those districts where primary challengers would be numerous.

I guess. It just seemed like you were implying some sort of correlation between the fact that her district was almost cut, and a potential primary challenge. Maybe someone will challenge her but don't see why she'd be any more vulnerable than your run-of-the-mill GOP Rep. She also won the open 2020 primary by quite a landslide.

Did Scott Tipton ever appear vulnerable before the primary took place?

[Meatball Ron]

I'm not sure what the correlation between these two issues is. Fischbach is plenty Trumpy. The reason she was doomed if a district were to be cut is because she was a first-termer / less entrenched than Emmer. Has nothing to do with her policy stances. For all intents and purposes she was considered a great recruit for the seat as Former State Senate President, not a meh seat warmer.

She is Trumpy, but that doesn’t seem to stop Tea Party challengers from running against Trumpy candidates. Lindsey Graham had a few minor primary challengers in 2020. Fischbach is less established than Graham. I think she survives, but MN-07 strikes me as one of those districts where primary challengers would be numerous.

I guess. It just seemed like you were implying some sort of correlation between the fact that her district was almost cut, and a potential primary challenge. Maybe someone will challenge her but don't see why she'd be any more vulnerable than your run-of-the-mill GOP Rep. She also won the open 2020 primary by quite a landslide.

Did Scott Tipton ever appear vulnerable before the primary took place?

No. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible, just that she is no likelier than the average GOP Rep.

[Greedo punched first]

I'm not sure what the correlation between these two issues is. Fischbach is plenty Trumpy. The reason she was doomed if a district were to be cut is because she was a first-termer / less entrenched than Emmer. Has nothing to do with her policy stances. For all intents and purposes she was considered a great recruit for the seat as Former State Senate President, not a meh seat warmer.

She is Trumpy, but that doesn’t seem to stop Tea Party challengers from running against Trumpy candidates. Lindsey Graham had a few minor primary challengers in 2020. Fischbach is less established than Graham. I think she survives, but MN-07 strikes me as one of those districts where primary challengers would be numerous.

I guess. It just seemed like you were implying some sort of correlation between the fact that her district was almost cut, and a potential primary challenge. Maybe someone will challenge her but don't see why she'd be any more vulnerable than your run-of-the-mill GOP Rep. She also won the open 2020 primary by quite a landslide.

Did Scott Tipton ever appear vulnerable before the primary took place?

No. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible, just that she is no likelier than the average GOP Rep.

I thought districts that rural and blood red make her more vulnerable than the average GOP rep. Is that not the case?

[beesley]

I thought districts that rural and blood red make her more vulnerable than the average GOP rep. Is that not the case?

Even if she was slightly more vulnerable than the average GOP incumbent (no evidence to suggest that) that would not render her at serious risk, and besides, she already beat a well-known former candidate so she has more credibility than others.  I really don't understand why you have such a strong view that a primary loss is highly plausible and your statements in this thread have no evidence to back such a view. Even if you said in 2019 that Scott Tipton would lose his primary (the only candidate of that cycle to lose in such a circumstance as you describe here) that would just be lucky guesswork as there was no evidence at the time to suggest that as at all likely. Plenty of similar incumbents in redder seats have held on.

[Roll Roons]

I thought districts that rural and blood red make her more vulnerable than the average GOP rep. Is that not the case?

Even if she was slightly more vulnerable than the average GOP incumbent (no evidence to suggest that) that would not render her at serious risk, and besides, she already beat a well-known former candidate so she has more credibility than others.  I really don't understand why you have such a strong view that a primary loss is highly plausible and your statements in this thread have no evidence to back such a view. Even if you said in 2019 that Scott Tipton would lose his primary (the only candidate of that cycle to lose in such a circumstance as you describe here) that would just be lucky guesswork as there was no evidence at the time to suggest that as at all likely. Plenty of similar incumbents in redder seats have held on.

Yeah, GOP incumbents losing primaries is really not as common as people think. Each of the incumbents who lost last year either had serious baggage (King, Watkins, Spano) or in Riggleman's case, lost a convention that was effectively rigged in favor of his opponent. Riggleman would have very likely won an actual primary.

[Greedo punched first]

I thought districts that rural and blood red make her more vulnerable than the average GOP rep. Is that not the case?

Even if she was slightly more vulnerable than the average GOP incumbent (no evidence to suggest that) that would not render her at serious risk, and besides, she already beat a well-known former candidate so she has more credibility than others.  I really don't understand why you have such a strong view that a primary loss is highly plausible and your statements in this thread have no evidence to back such a view. Even if you said in 2019 that Scott Tipton would lose his primary (the only candidate of that cycle to lose in such a circumstance as you describe here) that would just be lucky guesswork as there was no evidence at the time to suggest that as at all likely. Plenty of similar incumbents in redder seats have held on.

Yeah, GOP incumbents losing primaries is really not as common as people think. Each of the incumbents who lost last year either had serious baggage (King, Watkins, Spano) or in Riggleman's case, lost a convention that was effectively rigged in favor of his opponent. Riggleman would have very likely won an actual primary.

Riggleman’s district is much bluer than Fischbach’s.

[beesley]

I thought districts that rural and blood red make her more vulnerable than the average GOP rep. Is that not the case?

Even if she was slightly more vulnerable than the average GOP incumbent (no evidence to suggest that) that would not render her at serious risk, and besides, she already beat a well-known former candidate so she has more credibility than others.  I really don't understand why you have such a strong view that a primary loss is highly plausible and your statements in this thread have no evidence to back such a view. Even if you said in 2019 that Scott Tipton would lose his primary (the only candidate of that cycle to lose in such a circumstance as you describe here) that would just be lucky guesswork as there was no evidence at the time to suggest that as at all likely. Plenty of similar incumbents in redder seats have held on.

Yeah, GOP incumbents losing primaries is really not as common as people think. Each of the incumbents who lost last year either had serious baggage (King, Watkins, Spano) or in Riggleman's case, lost a convention that was effectively rigged in favor of his opponent. Riggleman would have very likely won an actual primary.

Riggleman’s district is much bluer than Fischbach’s.

David McKinley, Robert Aderholt, Mike Simpson and John Curtis all have far redder districts and are still there.

[Utah Neolib]

She survives. She’s trumpy. Boom.

[Greedo punched first]

She survives. She’s trumpy. Boom.

Being very Trumpy sometimes isn’t enough to avoid being called a RINO. Was Scott Tipton very Trumpy?

[Calthrina950]

She survives. She’s trumpy. Boom.

Being very Trumpy sometimes isn’t enough to avoid being called a RINO. Was Scott Tipton very Trumpy?

Certainly not as much as Boebert. Tipton was a Generic R throughout his time in office, and a backbencher who generally stayed out of the limelight.

[Vosem]

It's incredibly rare for an incumbent to lose their primary -- even with many ideological and personal foibles you'd almost always bet against it...

Also, Fischbach is a non-controversial incumbent who seems like a good fit for her seat, and she's in a seat which redistricting isn't going to rework too harshly? Nor is there any obvious challenger. What sparked this question?

[Greedo punched first]

It's incredibly rare for an incumbent to lose their primary -- even with many ideological and personal foibles you'd almost always bet against it...

Also, Fischbach is a non-controversial incumbent who seems like a good fit for her seat, and she's in a seat which redistricting isn't going to rework too harshly? Nor is there any obvious challenger. What sparked this question?

Don’t extremely blood red districts tend to have an electorate that likes outsiders that the establishment hates? Fischbach was backed by the party machine. Sometimes being Trumpy isn’t enough. Sometimes being an outsider is an asset.

[beesley]

It's incredibly rare for an incumbent to lose their primary -- even with many ideological and personal foibles you'd almost always bet against it...

Also, Fischbach is a non-controversial incumbent who seems like a good fit for her seat, and she's in a seat which redistricting isn't going to rework too harshly? Nor is there any obvious challenger. What sparked this question?

Don’t extremely blood red districts have an electorate that likes outsiders that the establishment hates?

We already went through all of this multiple times. What's the point of asking questions if you don't pay attention to or have no interest in any of the responses?

[Vosem]

It's incredibly rare for an incumbent to lose their primary -- even with many ideological and personal foibles you'd almost always bet against it...

Also, Fischbach is a non-controversial incumbent who seems like a good fit for her seat, and she's in a seat which redistricting isn't going to rework too harshly? Nor is there any obvious challenger. What sparked this question?

Don’t extremely blood red districts tend to have an electorate that likes outsiders that the establishment hates? Fischbach was backed by the party machine. Sometimes being Trumpy isn’t enough. Sometimes being an outsider is an asset.

This is true of open seats, but even blood-red seats hardly ever throw out incumbents in primaries. This is just looking at "Republican-held seats", not "blood-red ones", but here are the odds from the past decade (throwing out when two incumbents faced each other because of redistricting, since that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about and won't be a problem for Fischbach):

2012: 3/242
2014: 4/234
2016: 2/247
2018: 2/238
2020: 5/201

16 out of 1,162 comes out to 1.4% of Republican-held seats featuring a successful primary by a non-incumbent over the last decade. Most of those were scandal-plagued incumbents or incumbents who obviously fit their seats poorly, and were clearly vulnerable beforehand. Only 4 of those 16 primaries -- the defeats of Cliff Stearns, John Sullivan, Eric Cantor, and Scott Tipton -- were particularly surprising.

Considering the history I'd put the odds of Fischbach getting primaried at less than 1%.

[Greedo punched first]

It's incredibly rare for an incumbent to lose their primary -- even with many ideological and personal foibles you'd almost always bet against it...

Also, Fischbach is a non-controversial incumbent who seems like a good fit for her seat, and she's in a seat which redistricting isn't going to rework too harshly? Nor is there any obvious challenger. What sparked this question?

Don’t extremely blood red districts tend to have an electorate that likes outsiders that the establishment hates? Fischbach was backed by the party machine. Sometimes being Trumpy isn’t enough. Sometimes being an outsider is an asset.

This is true of open seats, but even blood-red seats hardly ever throw out incumbents in primaries. This is just looking at "Republican-held seats", not "blood-red ones", but here are the odds from the past decade (throwing out when two incumbents faced each other because of redistricting, since that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about and won't be a problem for Fischbach):

2012: 3/242
2014: 4/234
2016: 2/247
2018: 2/238
2020: 5/201

16 out of 1,162 comes out to 1.4% of Republican-held seats featuring a successful primary by a non-incumbent over the last decade. Most of those were scandal-plagued incumbents or incumbents who obviously fit their seats poorly, and were clearly vulnerable beforehand. Only 4 of those 16 primaries -- the defeats of Cliff Stearns, John Sullivan, Eric Cantor, and Scott Tipton -- were particularly surprising.

Considering the history I'd put the odds of Fischbach getting primaried at less than 1%.

Why is Kevin Brady retiring? Is it fear of a primary challenge?

[Vosem]

It's incredibly rare for an incumbent to lose their primary -- even with many ideological and personal foibles you'd almost always bet against it...

Also, Fischbach is a non-controversial incumbent who seems like a good fit for her seat, and she's in a seat which redistricting isn't going to rework too harshly? Nor is there any obvious challenger. What sparked this question?

Don’t extremely blood red districts tend to have an electorate that likes outsiders that the establishment hates? Fischbach was backed by the party machine. Sometimes being Trumpy isn’t enough. Sometimes being an outsider is an asset.

This is true of open seats, but even blood-red seats hardly ever throw out incumbents in primaries. This is just looking at "Republican-held seats", not "blood-red ones", but here are the odds from the past decade (throwing out when two incumbents faced each other because of redistricting, since that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about and won't be a problem for Fischbach):

2012: 3/242
2014: 4/234
2016: 2/247
2018: 2/238
2020: 5/201

16 out of 1,162 comes out to 1.4% of Republican-held seats featuring a successful primary by a non-incumbent over the last decade. Most of those were scandal-plagued incumbents or incumbents who obviously fit their seats poorly, and were clearly vulnerable beforehand. Only 4 of those 16 primaries -- the defeats of Cliff Stearns, John Sullivan, Eric Cantor, and Scott Tipton -- were particularly surprising.

Considering the history I'd put the odds of Fischbach getting primaried at less than 1%.

Why is Kevin Brady retiring? Is it fear of a primary challenge?

Probably not (although Kevin Brady actually had a close-ish call back in 2016, when he beat a primary challenger 54-37, but never before or since). Kevin Brady is probably retiring because he's term-limited as the leading Republican on the Ways and Means Committee.

[Greedo punched first]

It's incredibly rare for an incumbent to lose their primary -- even with many ideological and personal foibles you'd almost always bet against it...

Also, Fischbach is a non-controversial incumbent who seems like a good fit for her seat, and she's in a seat which redistricting isn't going to rework too harshly? Nor is there any obvious challenger. What sparked this question?

Don’t extremely blood red districts tend to have an electorate that likes outsiders that the establishment hates? Fischbach was backed by the party machine. Sometimes being Trumpy isn’t enough. Sometimes being an outsider is an asset.

This is true of open seats, but even blood-red seats hardly ever throw out incumbents in primaries. This is just looking at "Republican-held seats", not "blood-red ones", but here are the odds from the past decade (throwing out when two incumbents faced each other because of redistricting, since that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about and won't be a problem for Fischbach):

2012: 3/242
2014: 4/234
2016: 2/247
2018: 2/238
2020: 5/201

16 out of 1,162 comes out to 1.4% of Republican-held seats featuring a successful primary by a non-incumbent over the last decade. Most of those were scandal-plagued incumbents or incumbents who obviously fit their seats poorly, and were clearly vulnerable beforehand. Only 4 of those 16 primaries -- the defeats of Cliff Stearns, John Sullivan, Eric Cantor, and Scott Tipton -- were particularly surprising.

Considering the history I'd put the odds of Fischbach getting primaried at less than 1%.

Why is Kevin Brady retiring? Is it fear of a primary challenge?

Probably not (although Kevin Brady actually had a close-ish call back in 2016, when he beat a primary challenger 54-37, but never before or since). Kevin Brady is probably retiring because he's term-limited as the leading Republican on the Ways and Means Committee.

What about John Sullivan? Why did he lose? Cliff Stearns lost because his district couldn’t be saved because of population change. Stearns ran in a district he didn’t live in.

[Minnesota Mike]

Boy this is a random thread.

[Vosem]

It's incredibly rare for an incumbent to lose their primary -- even with many ideological and personal foibles you'd almost always bet against it...

Also, Fischbach is a non-controversial incumbent who seems like a good fit for her seat, and she's in a seat which redistricting isn't going to rework too harshly? Nor is there any obvious challenger. What sparked this question?

Don’t extremely blood red districts tend to have an electorate that likes outsiders that the establishment hates? Fischbach was backed by the party machine. Sometimes being Trumpy isn’t enough. Sometimes being an outsider is an asset.

This is true of open seats, but even blood-red seats hardly ever throw out incumbents in primaries. This is just looking at "Republican-held seats", not "blood-red ones", but here are the odds from the past decade (throwing out when two incumbents faced each other because of redistricting, since that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about and won't be a problem for Fischbach):

2012: 3/242
2014: 4/234
2016: 2/247
2018: 2/238
2020: 5/201

16 out of 1,162 comes out to 1.4% of Republican-held seats featuring a successful primary by a non-incumbent over the last decade. Most of those were scandal-plagued incumbents or incumbents who obviously fit their seats poorly, and were clearly vulnerable beforehand. Only 4 of those 16 primaries -- the defeats of Cliff Stearns, John Sullivan, Eric Cantor, and Scott Tipton -- were particularly surprising.

Considering the history I'd put the odds of Fischbach getting primaried at less than 1%.

Why is Kevin Brady retiring? Is it fear of a primary challenge?

Probably not (although Kevin Brady actually had a close-ish call back in 2016, when he beat a primary challenger 54-37, but never before or since). Kevin Brady is probably retiring because he's term-limited as the leading Republican on the Ways and Means Committee.

What about John Sullivan? Why did he lose? Cliff Stearns lost because his district couldn’t be saved because of population change. Stearns ran in a district he didn’t live in.

John Sullivan had some problems with alcoholism, and his opponent was a charismatic veteran type. The point is that the other 12 primary challenges were all very easy to see coming, while those 4 were surprises, the way a Fischbach defeat would be.