Every year you have a candidate who has been talked up so long in the press as the next big thing that they believe it themselves. Mark Kennedy was a good example in 2006. He was heavily talked about as a star, and he made the mistake of concluding that prominence in the press was the same as actual strength. And on paper he was pretty good. Beat a long-time incumbent in an upset, saw off strong challenges, young, could raise a lot of money. But he got clobbered by such a margin that no one looking at the result from ten years later will ever believe the race could have been competitive.
And it could have been. Had he run in 2002 he might well have won against Mondale. But he was the wrong taste for 2006.
Ellsworth is in the same position. On paper he is a great candidate. He has a rural base, a conservative record, and is a great campaigner. He looks a lot like the Democrats who won in redstates in 2006 and 2008. Unforunatly this year is not 2006 or 2008 and its taken him a longtime to figure that out.
But its not like Ellsworth got into this race in early 2009 when Democrats were still in good shape, like Kennedy got into the Minnesota race in early 2005 when Republicans were still in good shape. Ellsworth got in well after it looked like there was a wave against Democrats. After Coakley, after NJ/VA, after Obama's approvals fell below 50%.
