MT-SEN 2020: Time for Bullock?

[Strong Candidate]

I think you missed the point of the Racist Hick comments. I'm simply pointing out facts, not celebrating it. I supported Bredesen, Edmondson, Heitkamp, etc. MT Treasurer hates most red state Democrats but still tends to overestimate them, I guess to keep his expectations low because Republicans were burnt so many times in red states in the past. But it's pretty obvious at this point that things have changed considering the slaughterfest 2018 was for red state Democrats even in a D+9 Democratic wave.

I think you were the one that missed my point? I obviously know that you, as a fairly partisan Democrat, support these candidates. And I'm well aware that you believe that your "hicks" narrative is a fact. I'm simply saying it's not a fact. Let's not forget how you so adamantly denied the possibility of a Senator Doug Jones until the last moment.

And in regards to the bolded, no, that was not clear at all. Bredesen was running in a better environment against a weaker candidate but in a far more hostile state. The latter won out, which was always a very strong possibility.

I should have worded that differently. Bredesen was running a stronger campaign, which is what I meant. It was due to the fact that he was running in TN, a far more hostile state than IN for Dems, that didn't make his position better than Bayh's, which is why I thought Blackburn would win back then.

Oh, how could I forget Alabama? A literal pedophile losing by 1 point isn't exactly a strong rebuttal to the theory. I mean, it was a literal pedophile...and he only lost by 1 point. Because it was a psychotically partisan red state. So if anything it adds to the polarization/Racist Hick narrative, not takes away from it. The only error was that my theory was a tiny bit too aggressive in the case of truly exceptional circumstances, otherwise it was pretty much spot on. Luckily, unlike many people here, I can learn from my mistakes. Which is why my upgraded mind model now takes into account pedophilia if it is present (except in Oklahoma, where the Republican would win even if they were a pedophile.)

In short, if your argument for why red states aren't extremely partisan and polarized is "a pedophile Republican lost by 1 point in a red state", well...all I can say is I rest my case.

Come on Icespear, you and me both know that AL has absolutely nothing to do with the R rural trends, and that AL is one of the most inelastic, and Republican states in the union. Thats just lazy.

Okay, what about OK-Gov, TN-Sen, and ND-Sen, all of which you were hilariously convinced were "toss ups."

...... I didnt have any of those as tossups. I never rated OK gov as D favored, ever. And I was one of the people saying TN would surge R late at the end, and low and behold, it did. ND, I saw it being closer, but R favored.
Edit: Im guessing that you are talking about my predictions? I like to be broad on tossups on that thing. I was going to rate FL as a tossup, but I thought it wouldnt happen. Shame I didnt .

Nice Pivot, BTW. Doesnt cancel the fact that your use of AL is pretty lazy and doesnt even help your argument(in fact, it kinda hurts it that, in such polarized times, the state would do such a thing as elect from the other party).

So you rated them as toss ups, but didn't think they were toss ups. Okay, that makes lots of sense. Also, it's utterly mindboggling and defies all logic to think that ND/TN/OK were more likely to vote D than FL was to vote R. It is the epitome of the Dem hackery that permeates this forum.

It's not a pivot, it's the exact same topic. This forum has a nasty habit of overestimating Democrats in red states (actually, overestimating Democrats in general, but particularly in red states/districts.) You mentioned WV-03 earlier. Case in point:

Call me crazy, but this is a lean D race. While the 2016 results are a bit terrifying, it should be noted that this state loves to split tickets, and Trump's rhetoric was a perfect fit for the area. The same year they elected Trump, they also put in a D governor, which shows they are still receptive. And that was for the whole state, this race is only for the 3rd, the D base in the state.

Everything has already been said about Ojeda and Miller, one is stellar, the other is an empty shell.

Polling, which should favour Miller at this point in the cycle, so far, has actually favoured Ojeda. And not by some tiny margin, but by, like 6 points. And this was done by Monmouth, which is not known for terrible polling.

Miller really has nothing but the PVI going for her, and even then, its a false sense of security, since this is the most D downballot district.

Ojeda definitely has the advantage.

Nobody was denying Ojeda was going to do far better than Hillary Clinton (not a high bar.) But the D hacks of course took it into overdrive and assumed he would win (and even that he was significantly favored!) solely because of MUH candidate quality and MUH polarization doesn't matter! How did that one work out for you again? Miller had "nothing but the PVI going for her", and yet Ojeda got BTFO by double digits. Hmm...what does that tell you? The same exact thing you argued in that post you're arguing here. And you made the same exact mistake in North Dakota and Tennessee as well. This election should've been a learning experience for people who so cavalierly dismiss partisanship, polarization, and fundamentals in favor of nebulous factors like "candidate quality" or "muh Cramer's Akin gaffes" or whatever other idiocy. But I guess some people are incapable of learning.

Republican governors/senators in blue states and Democratic governors/senators in red states are at a historic low. As are House members in districts that tend to be hostile to their party. To ignore the significant increase in partisanship, polarization, and the urban/rural divide is to ignore someone continually whacking you in the head with a sledgehammer. The trend is far from subtle. You can cherrypick random examples if you want, but it's missing the forest for the trees. Janet Mills losing and Jared Golden barely winning in a rural district in a D+9 Democratic wave that Obama won in a landslide twice doesn't disprove the point. Nor does a Democrat underperforming the national PV in an Iowa district Obama carried by a landslide. If anything these examples prove the point. And I have no idea what you meant in regards to New York, considering both Cuomo and Gillibrand collapsed in rural NY compared to their previous elections, even though Cuomo's previous election was a Republican wave!

As for Alabama? All I can do is laugh at thinking that means a damn thing. It'll be hilarious to see the reactions here when Jones inevitably gets curbstomped by a non pedophile Republican. My guess is it goes down the same memory hole the Bredesen/Heitkamp cheerleading went down, and the day after the election everyone will pretend they knew he was DOA all along despite being incredibly hackish and irritating cheerleaders continually shaking their pom poms on the subject a mere 24 hours ago.

While this comment is broadly correct and I love its savagery, I think what Zaybay was talking about with regards to New York was the House races, not the statewide ones. Democrats picked up 3 House seats in New York that Trump won by a substantial (>5 point) margin, two of which have a substantial rural character (while losing a Clinton +3 one by a good margin, funnily enough). Demcorats definitely slid in the rural areas of New York- I won't deny that- but by much less than one might have expected, especially when accounting for the decline in Gillibrand and Cuomo's images since their last elections (remember that Cuomo did worse than Clinton).