Look at it like this, even if she doesn't have a chance, she is more competent and intelligent that any challengers Republicans have put up in blue states.
Um, Charlie Baker, Neel Kashkari, Bruce Rauner and Tom Foley all come to mind as extremely intelligent and competent (at least in their non-political careers) GOP challengers for governor in blue states. And at the way things are going, even Kashkari might end up getting a higher vote percentage than Davis.
Charlie Baker is yet another Republican who lost in a banner GOP year, and Neel Kashkari's campaign is going nowhere. That homeless stunt he pulled was embarrassing.
With the notable Scott Brown exception, 2010 wasn't a banner Republican year in Massachusetts; Democrats won every statewide office, including joke candidate Suzanne Bump (who isn't a CPA, was delinquent on her taxes, and had a convicted murderer on her campaign staff) winning the Auditor race against actually-qualified GOP candidate Mary Z. Connaughton (who received
every newspaper endorsement; she's also the aunt of fellow forumite Nathan). Bump, btw, is a conservative Democrat who has spent most of her time in office investigating welfare fraud, so there's no need to hackishly celebrate her victory.
That said, Charlie Baker ran a pretty terrible campaign. (His ads could accurately be paraphrased as "I'm Charlie Baker, and I was a health insurance CEO! Vote for me!").
Anyway, my point was that Baker/Kashkari are intelligent (obviously - they may be in the top 50 smartest people ever to run for Governor of any state), and very competent at their Harvard Pilgrim Health Care/Treasury Dept. jobs.
I also think that Kashkari has a shot to do better than Davis because, fool's errand though it might be, he
is making a good faith effort to win, whereas Davis has basically been promoting her upcoming talk show from the beginning.
