Why were Lake and Oz considered weak candidates?

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

Lake outperformed Masters by 4 points, and Oz outperformed Mastriano by 10. These are not small outperformances in swing states. I bet most people were initially optimistic on Oz when the initial returns saw him outperforming Mastriano by 10 points.

[Tintrlvr]

There are a variety of factors that go into each of these. Lake and Oz both faced weaker Democratic candidates than Masters and Mastriano, and in Pennsylvania Mastriano was a truly terrible candidate (but also really just a sacrificial lamb) while Oz was only garden-variety bad.

I also don't really think many people considered Lake a weak candidate. Oz is a different story and clearly was a weak candidate.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Lake outperformed Masters by 4 points, and Oz outperformed Mastriano by 10. These are not small outperformances in swing states. I bet most people were initially optimistic on Oz when the initial returns saw him outperforming Mastriano by 10 points.

That speaks to that Mastriano was an absolutely utterly atrocious candidate, not that Oz was a good candidate.

[soundchaser]

Lake outperformed Masters by 4 points, and Oz outperformed Mastriano by 10. These are not small outperformances in swing states. I bet most people were initially optimistic on Oz when the initial returns saw him outperforming Mastriano by 10 points.

By the time we had initial returns from PA, we basically knew Fetterman had it in the bag. I don’t remember anyone being bullish on Oz’s chances by that point.

[Spectator]

Most people had Lake as favored to win and considered Hobbs to be the weaker one, so this is revisionist.

[Cyrusman]

OZ: Was a terrible fit for PA. Sometimes "image" and perception mean a lot. OZ would have had a better time appealing to people in CT which is much bluer than PA. He was weak because he just couldn't resonate with the republican base in PA and was seen as such an outsider than he simply couldn't counter. When a state fees like you aren't one of them, your in trouble.

Lake: Was seen as weak because she was pretty much 100% reliant on the base. She did a terrible job at appealing to people in the middle and was on thin ice with about 5-10% of Republicans as well. Unlike OZ, she was seen as the favorite because there is nothing special about Hobbs either. Lake just alienated too many moderates to ultimately win. Those McCain comments may have done her in considering she barely lost.

[MT Treasurer]

Let’s see. Oz looks like a cardboard cutout that can’t even (convincingly) project basic human emotions like empathy, was literally accused of torturing and killing dogs, carpetbagged to a state which was an awful fit for his background/type of politics, had a history of being a snake oil salesman who’d probably sell his mother for more $$$, and pandered to the Republican base in a hilariously and transparently inauthentic manner.

I mean, maybe that had something to do with it.

[Del Tachi]

Neither Oz nor Lake had any previous electoral experience, which makes it seem obvious in retrospect that they underperformed expectations.

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

Let’s see. Oz looks like a cardboard cutout that can’t even (convincingly) project basic human emotions like empathy, was literally accused of torturing and killing dogs, carpetbagged to a state which was an awful fit for his background/type of politics, had a history of being a snake oil salesman who’d probably sell his mother for more $$$, and pandered to the Republican base in a hilariously and transparently inauthentic manner.

I mean, maybe that had something to do with it.

Oz was supposedly perceived as moderate, making him outrun Mastriano by 10 points. He was like Romney in a sense of being a out of touch elitist who lacks empathy, but moderate.

[Tintrlvr]

Let’s see. Oz looks like a cardboard cutout that can’t even (convincingly) project basic human emotions like empathy, was literally accused of torturing and killing dogs, carpetbagged to a state which was an awful fit for his background/type of politics, had a history of being a snake oil salesman who’d probably sell his mother for more $$$, and pandered to the Republican base in a hilariously and transparently inauthentic manner.

I mean, maybe that had something to do with it.

Oz was supposedly perceived as moderate, making him outrun Mastriano by 10 points. He was like Romney in a sense of being a out of touch elitist who lacks empathy, but moderate.

He outperformed Mastriano because he wasn't a wild-eyed open anti-Semite, and also because his opponent had had multiple strokes and was in dubious health throughout the campaign.

[Lief 🗽]

Republican candidates who lose R-leaning states in R-leaning years are generally considered weak. Doesn’t really matter that they did better than some even weaker candidates they shared a ballot with.

[MT Treasurer]

Let’s see. Oz looks like a cardboard cutout that can’t even (convincingly) project basic human emotions like empathy, was literally accused of torturing and killing dogs, carpetbagged to a state which was an awful fit for his background/type of politics, had a history of being a snake oil salesman who’d probably sell his mother for more $$$, and pandered to the Republican base in a hilariously and transparently inauthentic manner.

I mean, maybe that had something to do with it.

Oz was supposedly perceived as moderate, making him outrun Mastriano by 10 points. He was like Romney in a sense of being a out of touch elitist who lacks empathy, but moderate.

I’ve said this countless times, but it’s always worth repeating on a place like this:

Ideology =/= electability

If you are perceived as lacking empathy, no amount of "moderation" will save you. Were the Bain Capital ads against Mitt Romney any less effective because of his more "moderate" tone and his moderation on certain issues?

Is anyone going to overlook Dr. Oz's psychopathic tendencies because he has a more "moderate" tone and more manners than Donald Trump?

Fun (sad) fact: I was discussing Dr. Oz with a friend of mine a few weeks before the election and remember telling him that I had a "weird" feeling about Oz that I never really got from any of the other Republican candidates, who were mostly just inept, clumsy, and awkward, but not nearly as fundamentally flawed on a basic human level. Two days later (!), the story about the tortured dogs broke.

As for Oz outperforming Mastriano, that has more to do with it being a federal race with serious national implications and Mastriano not running an actual campaign than any appeal Oz might have had as a candidate.

[Pericles]

Lake was considered a decent candidate when she was leading in the polls, but she ended up underperforming Trump because she leaned so much into election denial and outright insulted McCain Republicans.

Oz did horribly, he lost by a lot more than Trump did and cost Republicans a key part of their path to a Senate majority. He was an out of touch rich guy who didn't connect with voters, as well as the dog abuse making his loss well deserved.

[Xing]

I mean, Warren overperformed Gonzalez by 57 points in 2018, and few people call her a strong candidate.

[Holmes]

They lost statewide office in purple states during a Democratic midterm. Should’ve been a layup for both.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Lake outperformed Masters by 4 points, and Oz outperformed Mastriano by 10. These are not small outperformances in swing states. I bet most people were initially optimistic on Oz when the initial returns saw him outperforming Mastriano by 10 points.

You’re looking at dirt and saying it’s not bad cause it isn’t sh**t

[Orwell]

Cause they lost, though we wouldn’t be having this thread if they won. In truth they were meh candidates.

[Pollster]

Lake was actually running a really solid campaign (one of the few ideologically extreme candidates on either the left or right to do so) until she started to get complacent at the very end - insulting voters she still needed, mocking an attempted murder of an 82 year old private citizen in a state that skews older, randomly wasting time endorsing candidates in other races when her own wasn't even locked down yet, barely swatting down the 2024 VP talk, among other things. She appears to have learned all the wrong lessons however, and is doing everything possible to sabotage any future run she could make (not dissimilar to Stacey Abrams, frankly).

I have nothing to add re: Oz.

[Pollster]

Let’s see. Oz looks like a cardboard cutout that can’t even (convincingly) project basic human emotions like empathy, was literally accused of torturing and killing dogs, carpetbagged to a state which was an awful fit for his background/type of politics, had a history of being a snake oil salesman who’d probably sell his mother for more $$$, and pandered to the Republican base in a hilariously and transparently inauthentic manner.

I mean, maybe that had something to do with it.

Oz was supposedly perceived as moderate, making him outrun Mastriano by 10 points. He was like Romney in a sense of being a out of touch elitist who lacks empathy, but moderate.

I’ve said this countless times, but it’s always worth repeating on a place like this:

Ideology =/= electability

If you are perceived as lacking empathy, no amount of "moderation" will save you. Were the Bain Capital ads against Mitt Romney any less effective because of his more "moderate" tone and his moderation on certain issues?

Is anyone going to overlook Dr. Oz's psychopathic tendencies because he has a more "moderate" tone and more manners than Donald Trump?

Fun (sad) fact: I was discussing Dr. Oz with a friend of mine a few weeks before the election and remember telling him that I had a "weird" feeling about Oz that I never really got from any of the other Republican candidates, who were mostly just inept, clumsy, and awkward, but not nearly as fundamentally flawed on a basic human level. Two days later (!), the story about the tortured dogs broke.

As for Oz outperforming Mastriano, that has more to do with it being a federal race with serious national implications and Mastriano not running an actual campaign than any appeal Oz might have had as a candidate.

Agree with all of this, and will add as well: virtually every ideologically extreme candidate (on the left and right) is a poor candidate and runs a bad campaign not because of their ideological extremism but because they are nearly always out of touch with mainstream, run of the mill people (and often reality in general) and have a systemic problem relating to and empathizing with them and their motivations, priorities, and basic manner of communicating. They further tend to surround themselves with yes men who are similarly out of touch or grifters (or both) and enable their worst impulses/do nothing to right the ship. Bernie Sanders' two presidential campaigns that both managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (and for virtually the same exact reasons both times) are perfect examples of this dynamic in particular.

You could even argue that this functions as a doom loop - the "ideological extremism" chicken doesn't necessarily come before the "out of touch with reality" egg.

[wbrocks67]

Let’s see. Oz looks like a cardboard cutout that can’t even (convincingly) project basic human emotions like empathy, was literally accused of torturing and killing dogs, carpetbagged to a state which was an awful fit for his background/type of politics, had a history of being a snake oil salesman who’d probably sell his mother for more $$$, and pandered to the Republican base in a hilariously and transparently inauthentic manner.

I mean, maybe that had something to do with it.

Oz was supposedly perceived as moderate, making him outrun Mastriano by 10 points. He was like Romney in a sense of being a out of touch elitist who lacks empathy, but moderate.

He wasn't though - that was all an illusion that the GOP tried to make a thing but wasn't in reality. Exit polls even showed voters thought he was the more "extreme" candidate

[Minnesota Mike]

Partisans believe anytime one of their candidates lose it must be because of candidate quality not because the voters rejected their party's ideology.

When they got into the race both Oz and Lake were considered strong recruits by many. Oz was the dream of the everyday housewife, a good looking celebrity doctor who hung out with Oprah. Lake was a well known TV anchor who was the darling of Trumpists. More than one right wing talking head mentioned her as a possible 2024 VP pick. They both turned out to be sh**tty candidates but they were not considered to be weak until after the election.

BTW even if Oz had run a better campaign I don't think he beats Fetterman. If Lake had been less crazy she probably wins though.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

They lost statewide office in purple states during a Democratic midterm. Should’ve been a layup for both.

And they both lost offices the GOP held (and in Oz's case, that basically doomed the GOP's chances of taking back the Senate).

[oldtimer]

Lake wasn't considered weak.

Oz was since primary night.
He was weak because he was a Muslim running in a party whose voters don't like muslims, and spent his entire campaign on attaking his opponent for being poor and looking poor.

That they both lost is a factor of Arizona becoming a majority liberal state and Pennsylvania liking it's Senators populist and it's Governors establishment types.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Shapiro and Kelly were too good, just like Johnson can win a midterm but won't survive a Prez Eday 28

[Coldstream]

I’m not sure I recall people describing them as particularly weak, it’s more that they were easy candidates to run/vote against - Lake by being a fascist nut job & Oz by being a quack with no ties to Pennsylvania. Candidates who are easy to hate are easy to run against, irrespective of other factors.