Why did Dems try to save Mark Pryor in 2014 after seeing 2010?

[Arizona Iced Tea]

After seeing Blanche Lincoln get destroyed by over 20 points in 2010, why on earth did Dems spend 16M on the 2014 race just to lose by the same margin again? Sure, hindsight is 20/20 but this was probably one of the easiest mistakes to avoid and is absolutely puzzling. It was pretty clear by 2014 that Arkansas Dems were dead, and it would be another Obama midterm and that Pryor would be DOA. Alaska, Colorado, and NC were much slimmer and further investment into them along with a win would prevent a Trump trifecta following 2016, thus denying his SCOTUS judges to be appointed.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Democrats spent $90 million on KY-Sen in 2020, so they certainly didn't have 20/20 hindsight in 2020 either.

[Fancyarcher]

There was a largely wrong assumption that Lincoln losing in 2010 was because of her quality as a candidate, and not because the states lean had finally matched presidential wise.

Beebe was won by landslide in 2010, and his coattails were still enough for the local state party to hold onto the house and senate, even if they lost a lot of ground.

As we can see by how much Pryor got blown out in 2014, and the Governorship being an auto-flip, it wasn't quite that.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Yeah, this made no sense. In fact, Mark Pryor was going to lose regardless of who the President was.

[Dave Hedgehog]

Didn’t he get 80% of the vote in 2008 (admittedly in the absence of a Republican challenger) when the state simultaneously swung hard R amidst Obama’s comfortable nationwide win? Obviously it wasn’t going to be anything like that in 2014 but at the time there may have been reason to believe he’d eke out one last term à la Manchin in 2018.

I wonder if Beebe could have managed to squeak through to another term against that backdrop had he been eligible. The Senate shambles clearly didn’t hinder him at all the last time round.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

If I recall correctly, Pryor was still popular and polling well until Summer
2014. The bottom didn’t really fall out from under him until late, so he still seemed competitive.

[President Johnson]

If I recall correctly, Pryor was still popular and polling well until Summer
2014. The bottom didn’t really fall out from under him until late, so he still seemed competitive.

This. Also need to remember that Republicans didn't even bother to nominate a challenger in 2008.

[Schiff for Senate]

Yeah, this made no sense. In fact, Mark Pryor was going to lose regardless of who the President was.

Eh that's debatable. I could see Pryor holding on by the skin of his teeth if Romney had won in 2012. Would depend on how bad the national environment is for the GOP, and if Pryor still faced Cotton or someone else.

[Schiff for Senate]

Didn’t he get 80% of the vote in 2008 (admittedly in the absence of a Republican challenger) when the state simultaneously swung hard R amidst Obama’s comfortable nationwide win? Obviously it wasn’t going to be anything like that in 2014 but at the time there may have been reason to believe he’d eke out one last term à la Manchin in 2018.

I wonder if Beebe could have managed to squeak through to another term against that backdrop had he been eligible. The Senate shambles clearly didn’t hinder him at all the last time round.

Keep in mind that in 2008 it wasn't as if Pryor was challenged by anyone who could conceivably be viewed as representing the other side. It wasn't like twelve years later, when Cotton faced a left-leaning libertarian who became pretty much the de facto candidate for Dems (and he performed as such, too, running only a few points behind Biden).

Pryor, in contrast to Cotton, didn't face a Libertarian or a conservative or even a centrist - he faced a Green. It's very likely that Pryor was actually the more conservative choice in this race, so not only did a huge number of Republicans probably abstain from this race, those that voted probably voted for the lesser of two evils, Pryor (even if they held their noses while doing so).

2008 means absolutely nothing, to be perfectly honest.

It would have been much more worthy of analysis had Pryor faced a GOP opponent - then those numbers would be valid for considering his crossover appeal.

[Fancyarcher]

Yeah, this made no sense. In fact, Mark Pryor was going to lose regardless of who the President was.

Eh that's debatable. I could see Pryor holding on by the skin of his teeth if Romney had won in 2012. Would depend on how bad the national environment is for the GOP, and if Pryor still faced Cotton or someone else.

I don't think the national environment would have made a darn difference to be honest. Arkansas was simply too red by the point, and Obama's presence likely poisoned ticket splitting. At best Pryor would have lost by high single digits in a good environment, in my opinion. 

[Schiff for Senate]

Yeah, this made no sense. In fact, Mark Pryor was going to lose regardless of who the President was.

Eh that's debatable. I could see Pryor holding on by the skin of his teeth if Romney had won in 2012. Would depend on how bad the national environment is for the GOP, and if Pryor still faced Cotton or someone else.

I don't think the national environment would have made a darn difference to be honest. Arkansas was simply too red by the point, and Obama's presence likely poisoned ticket splitting. At best Pryor would have lost by high single digits in a good environment, in my opinion.  

That's the thing. If Obama had lost in 2012 he wouldn't be a viable issue in 2014. Instead the GOP would be up to bat, answerable for President Romney's record.

That said, you raise some other good points and on the whole, I'd guess that in practice, the race would be like Lean R even in a Romney midterm.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Conserv always confuse a Pandemic Environment with a non Pandemic there hasn't been an Red wave since 2014/16, we didn't know how dire the red waves yrs were until we voted but since then Rs haven't successfully yet had a red wave

[MarkD]

What do you expect Dems to do and to say to Mark Pryor? "Meh, you're worthless. Go ahead and lose; what do we care?"

[Roll Roons]

What do you expect Dems to do and to say to Mark Pryor? "Meh, you're worthless. Go ahead and lose; what do we care?"

Obviously they won’t use that exact language, but at the House level, parties do cut off incumbents whose races are considered hopeless.

-O’Halleran and Malinowski in 2022
-Coffman, Yoder and Rothfus in 2018
-Driehaus, Dahlkemper and Kosmas in 2010

[freepcrusher]

Yeah, this made no sense. In fact, Mark Pryor was going to lose regardless of who the President was.

Eh that's debatable. I could see Pryor holding on by the skin of his teeth if Romney had won in 2012. Would depend on how bad the national environment is for the GOP, and if Pryor still faced Cotton or someone else.

I don't think the national environment would have made a darn difference to be honest. Arkansas was simply too red by the point, and Obama's presence likely poisoned ticket splitting. At best Pryor would have lost by high single digits in a good environment, in my opinion. 

how did Kent Conrad and Ben Nelson easily win reelection in Bush +20 states in 2006?

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Yeah, this made no sense. In fact, Mark Pryor was going to lose regardless of who the President was.

Eh that's debatable. I could see Pryor holding on by the skin of his teeth if Romney had won in 2012. Would depend on how bad the national environment is for the GOP, and if Pryor still faced Cotton or someone else.

I don't think the national environment would have made a darn difference to be honest. Arkansas was simply too red by the point, and Obama's presence likely poisoned ticket splitting. At best Pryor would have lost by high single digits in a good environment, in my opinion. 

how did Kent Conrad and Ben Nelson easily win reelection in Bush +20 states in 2006?

Blue wave year and there was less polarization.

What do you expect Dems to do and to say to Mark Pryor? "Meh, you're worthless. Go ahead and lose; what do we care?"

Well, what did they do to Doug Jones in 2020?

[freepcrusher]

Yeah, this made no sense. In fact, Mark Pryor was going to lose regardless of who the President was.

Eh that's debatable. I could see Pryor holding on by the skin of his teeth if Romney had won in 2012. Would depend on how bad the national environment is for the GOP, and if Pryor still faced Cotton or someone else.

I don't think the national environment would have made a darn difference to be honest. Arkansas was simply too red by the point, and Obama's presence likely poisoned ticket splitting. At best Pryor would have lost by high single digits in a good environment, in my opinion. 

how did Kent Conrad and Ben Nelson easily win reelection in Bush +20 states in 2006?

Blue wave year and there was less polarization.

it was only eight years between 2006 and 2014. If you had an unpopular president Romney in 2014, would there really be that much of a difference between those eight years?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Yeah, this made no sense. In fact, Mark Pryor was going to lose regardless of who the President was.

Eh that's debatable. I could see Pryor holding on by the skin of his teeth if Romney had won in 2012. Would depend on how bad the national environment is for the GOP, and if Pryor still faced Cotton or someone else.

I don't think the national environment would have made a darn difference to be honest. Arkansas was simply too red by the point, and Obama's presence likely poisoned ticket splitting. At best Pryor would have lost by high single digits in a good environment, in my opinion.  

how did Kent Conrad and Ben Nelson easily win reelection in Bush +20 states in 2006?

Blue wave year and there was less polarization.

it was only eight years between 2006 and 2014. If you had an unpopular president Romney in 2014, would there really be that much of a difference between those eight years?

We had a President Trump in 2018 who was probably significantly more unpopular than a President Romney ever would have been, and 4 incumbent Democrats lost re-election, 3 of which were in states less Republican than Arkansas. No doubt Pryor was going to lose in 2014 whether Obama or Romney were President.

[freepcrusher]

Yeah, this made no sense. In fact, Mark Pryor was going to lose regardless of who the President was.

Eh that's debatable. I could see Pryor holding on by the skin of his teeth if Romney had won in 2012. Would depend on how bad the national environment is for the GOP, and if Pryor still faced Cotton or someone else.

I don't think the national environment would have made a darn difference to be honest. Arkansas was simply too red by the point, and Obama's presence likely poisoned ticket splitting. At best Pryor would have lost by high single digits in a good environment, in my opinion.  

how did Kent Conrad and Ben Nelson easily win reelection in Bush +20 states in 2006?

Blue wave year and there was less polarization.

it was only eight years between 2006 and 2014. If you had an unpopular president Romney in 2014, would there really be that much of a difference between those eight years?

We had a President Trump in 2018 who was probably significantly more unpopular than a President Romney ever would have been, and 4 incumbent Democrats lost re-election, 3 of which were in states less Republican than Arkansas. No doubt Pryor was going to lose in 2014 whether Obama or Romney were President.

so are you saying 2010 changed everything then?

[Del Tachi]

Look at the polling.  Pryor's polling was within the MoE through the summer/early fall, while Lincoln was 15-25 points down in every single public poll vs Boozman going back to January 2010.  The real question is why didn't the DSCC cut Lincoln off sooner*

People also forget that Arkansas Democrats were severely split in 2010.  Bill Halter, the incumbent lieutenant governor, challenged Lincoln in the primary from the left and, with the support of several state and national Democrats, managed to force Lincoln into a runoff that she ended up only winning 52-48.  She was damaged goods going into the GE in a way Pryor never was.

*MarkD already answered this question.  Incumbents are asked to raise money for the party, and the expectation is that some of that money will find its way back to them when they're next up for reelection.  This is one of the primary ways parties build cohesion in our mostly very candidate-driven system.

[Sestak]

What do you expect Dems to do and to say to Mark Pryor? "Meh, you're worthless. Go ahead and lose; what do we care?"

Obviously they won’t use that exact language, but at the House level, parties do cut off incumbents whose races are considered hopeless.

-O’Halleran and Malinowski in 2022
-Coffman, Yoder and Rothfus in 2018
-Driehaus, Dahlkemper and Kosmas in 2010

The fact that Malinowski, who only ended up losing by 3, is on this list should be warning enough against overzealous triage of incumbents.

[South Dakota Democrat]

The polling was generally much better for Pryor in 2014 than Lincoln in 2010.  Dems massively underperformed their polling in 2014, especially in red states.

[Fancyarcher]

Yeah, this made no sense. In fact, Mark Pryor was going to lose regardless of who the President was.

Eh that's debatable. I could see Pryor holding on by the skin of his teeth if Romney had won in 2012. Would depend on how bad the national environment is for the GOP, and if Pryor still faced Cotton or someone else.

I don't think the national environment would have made a darn difference to be honest. Arkansas was simply too red by the point, and Obama's presence likely poisoned ticket splitting. At best Pryor would have lost by high single digits in a good environment, in my opinion.  

how did Kent Conrad and Ben Nelson easily win reelection in Bush +20 states in 2006?

Blue wave year and there was less polarization.

it was only eight years between 2006 and 2014. If you had an unpopular president Romney in 2014, would there really be that much of a difference between those eight years?

We had a President Trump in 2018 who was probably significantly more unpopular than a President Romney ever would have been, and 4 incumbent Democrats lost re-election, 3 of which were in states less Republican than Arkansas. No doubt Pryor was going to lose in 2014 whether Obama or Romney were President.

so are you saying 2010 changed everything then?

Obama's election for a lot of unfortunate reasons, basically made historical Democrats, who started voting Republican presidential-wise, realize what the modern Democratic Party really represented.

For example, you mentioned Kent Conrad, and Ben Nelson. I don't think it's a coincidence that both of them retired six years later. The national environment had changed massively overnight.

[freepcrusher]

Yeah, this made no sense. In fact, Mark Pryor was going to lose regardless of who the President was.

Eh that's debatable. I could see Pryor holding on by the skin of his teeth if Romney had won in 2012. Would depend on how bad the national environment is for the GOP, and if Pryor still faced Cotton or someone else.

I don't think the national environment would have made a darn difference to be honest. Arkansas was simply too red by the point, and Obama's presence likely poisoned ticket splitting. At best Pryor would have lost by high single digits in a good environment, in my opinion.  

how did Kent Conrad and Ben Nelson easily win reelection in Bush +20 states in 2006?

Blue wave year and there was less polarization.

it was only eight years between 2006 and 2014. If you had an unpopular president Romney in 2014, would there really be that much of a difference between those eight years?

We had a President Trump in 2018 who was probably significantly more unpopular than a President Romney ever would have been, and 4 incumbent Democrats lost re-election, 3 of which were in states less Republican than Arkansas. No doubt Pryor was going to lose in 2014 whether Obama or Romney were President.

so are you saying 2010 changed everything then?

Obama's election for a lot of unfortunate reasons, basically made historical Democrats, who started voting Republican presidential-wise, realize what the modern Democratic Party really represented.

For example, you mentioned Kent Conrad, and Ben Nelson. I don't think it's a coincidence that both of them retired six years later. The national environment had changed massively overnight.

nelson, due to being seen as the 60th vote with the cornhusker kickback, was effectively f-cked. Conrad on the other hand probably gets 58-59 percent of the vote in 2012. Don't forget that, against all odds, the dems managed to retain that seat.

[Dan the Roman]

Democrats made a last effort in Arkansas with a viable campaign for Governor as well. So it would have been writing off a coordinated campaign. Also Arkansas was the home state of the presumptive 2016 Presidential nominee and cutting off the whole state party of Clinton protégé would have sent a dangerous message going into the primary.

I disagree Arkanas was lost with a President Romney. There is a reason to believe Romney would have lacked Trump's appeal in the upper South, and if he was sitting at 42% nationally it's possible 2014 would have looked like a mix between 2006 and 2018 more than the latter.

The bottom also would have been less likely to fall out for Republicans in New Jersey for instance.

Would that have been enough for Pryor? Perhaps not but the Governor's race I think would have been winnable and an entirely different narrative might have cast Cotton as a Romney-style elite carpet bagger.