No, "normal" GOP candidates did not do particuarly well either in 2022.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I feel like one talking point of this cycles was about how most of the Trump backed election deniers in key races lost, sometimes by pretty crushing margins.

Then people point to more "normal" Republicans who did well, especially at the state level such as DeSantis, Zeldin, and Kemp to argue that non-Trumpy GOP candidates still got a red wave.

I'd beg to differ though.

Most of these "normal" GOP candidates that did well were running for state office as an incumbent, which is inherently less polarizing. Furthermore, many were boosted by favorable turnout dynamics.

On the federal level though, folks like Laxalt, Budd, O'Dea, Smiley, and many GOP nominees for the US House really didn't do all that much better than their fellow election deniers, despite many of these races being decently invested in. In the 4 Senate races listed above, the average swing was about 2% right from 2020.

Another underdiscussed theme of this cycle was Dems did pretty well on the state legislative level, including against relatively non-offensive GOP candidates (at least by nationally standards). Especially in the suburbs across many states, Dems scored quite a few state legislative upsets flipping narrow Biden seats the GOP would hold because of down ballot lag and a normal R incumbent. This includes in states that weren't seriously invested in, like Missouri, Connecticut, and Colorado.

Not being an election denier doesn't make you some electoral titan by default; those who did particuarly well had some additional reason.

[Zenobiyl]

Normal GOP candidates didn’t do better per se, but Super-MAGA GOP Candidates did worse

[MT Treasurer]

What did Laxalt and Budd do to separate themselves from the toxic national brand? Next to nothing. What did people like Youngkin, Kemp, and DeSantis do to separate themselves from it? Quite a bit, in large part by projecting an image of strength and confidence and articulating a clear and positive vision for their states. Both Laxalt and Budd sought Trump's endorsement and repeatedly campaigned with him — just because they weren’t as 'crazy' or inept on the campaign trail as other Trump-backed candidates doesn’t mean they weren’t tainted by his toxicity and unpopularity or had a particularly appealing brand in their own right.

In an election which Democrats successfully framed as a Democrats vs. Trump contest rather than as a referendum on Biden, you wouldn’t expect them to outperform Trump's 2020 showing by much.

Fair point re: Smiley, but Republicans would have swept all the competitive Senate races (except NH, but that state was not competitive) for a 53R-47D majority if they had replicated the WA-PRES 2020 -> WA-SEN 2022 swing in the battleground states.

[ProgressiveModerate]

What did Laxalt and Budd do to separate themselves from the toxic national brand? Next to nothing. What did people like Youngkin, Kemp, and DeSantis do to separate themselves from it? Quite a bit, in large part by projecting an image of strength and confidence and articulating a clear and positive vision for their states. Both Laxalt and Budd sought Trump's endorsement and repeatedly campaigned with him — just because they weren’t as 'crazy' or inept on the campaign trail as other Trump-backed candidates doesn’t mean they weren’t tainted by his toxicity and unpopularity or had a particularly appealing brand in their own right.

In an election which Democrats successfully framed as a Democrats vs. Trump contest rather than as a referendum on Biden, you wouldn’t expect them to outperform Trump's 2020 showing by much.

Fair point re: Smiley, but Republicans would have swept all the competitive Senate races (except NH, but that state was not competitive) for a 53R-47D majority if they had replicated the WA-PRES 2020 -> WA-SEN 2022 swing in the battleground states.

I do think you make a pretty good point about the difference between Budd/Laxalt campaigns and DeSantis/Kemp/Youngkin that I really hadn't thought about before.

There def seemed to be a general state/national divide where with notable excpetions, GOP candidates running for state offices were less worried about Trump whereas candidates running for congress largely were. There few examples of I can think of where a GOP candidate in a comeptative race at the federal level and didn't want Trump were never really nationalized.

Maybe this supports the theme of politics is local? It seems like on both sides those who stayed away from the national party/controversial figures were more successful.

[smoltchanov]

Normal GOP candidates didn’t do better per se, but Super-MAGA GOP Candidates did worse

Exactly what i wanted to say. "Normal" got "normal" results (some - won, some - lost), MAGA almost universally lost everything what could be lost (MTG's district or even Ohio statewide is very difficult to lose now)

[wbrocks67]

Budd may have campaigned with Trump but it still doesn't seem like he was seen as a MAGA-type, so if anything, only winning by 3 was still an underperformance for him by a more "normal" candidate. Same with Laxalt - agree on that.

DeSantis and Kemp were also, as the OP says, incumbents, who also had basically public feuds with Trump which helped them as well.

O'Dea and Smiley are basically the poster child for this argument. They had nothing to do with Trump and were touted as "sane Republicans" and they both completely outright bombed, barely scraping over 40%.

Would also venture to say even someone like Fitzpatrick underperformed this year too. He's basically the closest thing to a current anti-Trump GOP house member, and he won by less than 10 against a challenger who was incredibly underfunded and the national party paid no attention to.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Yee is the main example of normal candidates outrunning crazies. But AZ is especially good for the non-crazies. Despite what Kari Lake might've wanted, "McCain Republicans" sure as hell still exist in the state.

[wbrocks67]

Yee is the main example of normal candidates outrunning crazies. But AZ is especially good for the non-crazies. Despite what Kari Lake might've wanted, "McCain Republicans" sure as hell still exist in the state.

And I also think Yee benefited from the comparison. You probably had a ton of even left-leaning Independents who probably saw Yee being non-crazy and being fine with her being the only Republican to vote for among all the races.

[Torie]

I agree with most of the above. The divide between state and federal is alive and well, the polarization is too strong to cause a non incumbent candidate, even a very good one, to run much above baseline absent issues with the other candidate, a high quality incumbent can run above baseline to some extent, and going MAGA is an excellent strategy to run behind baseline - incumbent or no.

All of that said, i am still in shock that SPM went down in NY-17.

[Roll Roons]

Would also venture to say even someone like Fitzpatrick underperformed this year too. He's basically the closest thing to a current anti-Trump GOP house member, and he won by less than 10 against a challenger who was incredibly underfunded and the national party paid no attention to.

Look, I get that you really don't like the guy for whatever reason.

But bear in mind that even though Fitzpatrick's margin was closer than it was in 2020, Trump only lost Bucks County by 4 points. Mastriano lost it by 20, so Fitzpatrick ran much further ahead of the top of the ticket than he did two years ago.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Would also venture to say even someone like Fitzpatrick underperformed this year too. He's basically the closest thing to a current anti-Trump GOP house member, and he won by less than 10 against a challenger who was incredibly underfunded and the national party paid no attention to.

Look, I get that you really don't like the guy for whatever reason.

But bear in mind that even though Fitzpatrick's margin was closer than it was in 2020, Trump only lost Bucks County by 4 points. Mastriano lost it by 20, so Fitzpatrick ran much further ahead of the top of the ticket than he did two years ago.

i think Fritz could be in congress for a long time. It seems unlikely he'll ever be drawn out under any sort of fair map because Bucks County is just a really natural seat and it's not losing population all that badly. Rs would obviously protect him if they get to gerrymander. And PA-01 just has a lot of counteracting internal shifts that on net have made it pretty stagnant, with maybe a *slight* shift left for quite a while now. Fritz is also relatively young and every cycle he becomes more of a well known quantity. He's good about staying pretty low profile; balancing a moderate voting record without getting much controversial media from the right.

Only way he goes is if Dems hold the redistricting pen, or if there's some massive massive D wave nationally (both of which are quite possible). As is, Dems should not prioritize this as a potential pick up in a normal cycle unless there's some very unexpected dynamics.