Importance of nominees in safe races

[tosk]

I'm thinking about something like the CA gov race for republicans or Utah gov race for democrats.

I've heard the argument made, and am partial to, that more electable nominees help downballot candidates. So, if faulconer is at the top of the ticket it's easier for republicans to flip a competitive state senate seat. Is there much, if any, evidence for this?

I'm not necessarily suggesting that these more "electable" candidates have a good shot at winning these races, more so that you might want electable candidates for the highest profile race to help build the party up down ballot.

Thoughts?

[Spectator]

I’m not sure strong nominees at the top have a huge impact on downballot races. The only exception to this I can think of may be Nevada 2014. In 2018, the Democrat nominees in Maryland and Massachusetts were disasters but Democrats still gained ground in the legislature and county-level races.

[Rjjr77]

I'm thinking about something like the CA gov race for republicans or Utah gov race for democrats.

I've heard the argument made, and am partial to, that more electable nominees help downballot candidates. So, if faulconer is at the top of the ticket it's easier for republicans to flip a competitive state senate seat. Is there much, if any, evidence for this?

I'm not necessarily suggesting that these more "electable" candidates have a good shot at winning these races, more so that you might want electable candidates for the highest profile race to help build the party up down ballot.

Thoughts?

It depends on WHERE the races you are trying to flip are, and what they are. Often time for contentious lower races its better to have someone that excites your base. Like california? it probably doesnt matter, but in a more polarizing state it does