KS-SEN 2020 Megathread: Marshall overperforms and wins

[smoltchanov]

If Roberts will run again for 5th term, then this race with good Dem candidate (not Sharice Davids) this can be Lean D and Democrat van win this race in the end
If Roberts will retire, then GOP nominee will be probably Roger Marshall, so race will be Likely R with anyone Democrat.
Only one way, when this race will be Tossup or Lean D if Roberts retires, if GOP nominee will be Kobach or Brownback

Lean D is REALLY stretching it.

Yeah, and substantially. Even with Brownback-Kobach type of candidate (the best for Democrats) it would be at least tossup.

[smoltchanov]

https://twitter.com/henryrodgersdc/status/1081198460660006914

Svaty should run for this.  Davis has already proven twice that he isn't able to win a race.

Svaty would have a difficult time winning the primary, his voting record and position on abortion is a non-starter, and the reason why he got less than 20% in the Governor primary. Katrina Lewison might be good though, she broke from Svaty on abortion quite directly, and actually campaigned with Laura Kelly after the primary, instead of staying neutral between the Kobach-Kelly race like Svaty did.

Considering a third of Democrats, myself included to a large extent, are pro-life, doubtful. Of course, it seems to bother the clowns at PP and Emily’s List as they attacked Svaty for no good reason other than impose their abortion litmus test on the entire party, especially in a rural state like Kansas.

+100. I would only add, that in some states (Louisiana could be good example) pro-life Democrats are majority of Democratic caucus in state legislature, and, most likely, among all registered Democrats as well... Different states = different positions on issues.

[smoltchanov]

Kobach literally got 43% of the vote; this should terrify the GOP.

And those 6% of Orman voters aren't guaranteed GOP votes, either.

What should terrify them? That a nut job like Kris Kobach only got 43%? LOL

Yes, the nut job that YOUR primary voters elected. Do you really trust that same electorate to nominate a sane candidate in 2020?

Why are you saying your? I didn’t vote for him. Do you want me to go through a list of awful candidates YOUR party selected?

Actually sure, I'm curious to see who you believe Democrats have nominated (recently) that you believe is comparable to Kris Kobach.

Depends on point of view. For many republicans AOC is much worse then Kobach. I - wouldn't compare, but surely wouldn't vote for either of them. But a lot of Democrats idolize her.. Again - everything depends on point of view..

[smoltchanov]

Kobach literally got 43% of the vote; this should terrify the GOP.

And those 6% of Orman voters aren't guaranteed GOP votes, either.

What should terrify them? That a nut job like Kris Kobach only got 43%? LOL

Yes, the nut job that YOUR primary voters elected. Do you really trust that same electorate to nominate a sane candidate in 2020?

Why are you saying your? I didn’t vote for him. Do you want me to go through a list of awful candidates YOUR party selected?

Actually sure, I'm curious to see who you believe Democrats have nominated (recently) that you believe is comparable to Kris Kobach.

I’d say the newly elected member from the 5th district of Minnesota (who some say is an anti-Semite) is a good starting point.

Support. And would add one from Detroit. And sitting congresswoman from Seattle..

[smoltchanov]

All those people won. Big.

That doesn't mean they are good

[smoltchanov]

All those people won. Big.

That doesn't mean they are good

And you can believe that, but it wasn't the question I was asking.

Show me a candidate that Democrats nominated who was so out of the mainstream that it caused them to lose a sapphire blue state?

Look. I'm not saying KS is lean D or anything, but I believe Laura Kelly has opened up a path to winning there.

Well, Jealous in Maryland and Gonzalez in Massachussetts lost gubernatorial elections in sapphire blue states by much more, then Kobach.

[smoltchanov]

All those people won. Big.

That doesn't mean they are good

And you can believe that, but it wasn't the question I was asking.

Show me a candidate that Democrats nominated who was so out of the mainstream that it caused them to lose a sapphire blue state?

Look. I'm not saying KS is lean D or anything, but I believe Laura Kelly has opened up a path to winning there.

Well, Jealous in Maryland and Gonzalez in Massachussetts lost gubernatorial elections in saphire blue states by much more, then Kobach.

Yeah, I'm sure those losses had absolutely nothing to do with facing incumbent governors with favourables somewhere between 65-70%.

I'm sure the same voters who voted for Elizabeth Warren must really have been disgusted at how Extremely Left Wing(TM) Jay Gonzalez is.

Given percentage Warren got (about 60, IIRC), and which Gonazalez got (33) - many of them surely were. And it doesn't matter - whether you run against popular incumbent of not, what matters is WHY these Republicans were so popular even among Democrats and why a lot of Democrats preferred them over their "own" candidate in "sapphire blue states"....

[smoltchanov]

All those people won. Big.

That doesn't mean they are good

And you can believe that, but it wasn't the question I was asking.

Show me a candidate that Democrats nominated who was so out of the mainstream that it caused them to lose a sapphire blue state?

Look. I'm not saying KS is lean D or anything, but I believe Laura Kelly has opened up a path to winning there.

Well, Jealous in Maryland and Gonzalez in Massachussetts lost gubernatorial elections in saphire blue states by much more, then Kobach.

Gonzalez was a joke candidate put up due to the strength of Baker, not necessarily a bad candidate.

Jealous wasn't 'out of the mainstream' for Maryland, Hogan was just strong.

I just don't see any comparable figure in the Democratic party to Kris Kobach.

And i see dozens. And see Jealous a very much out of Mainstream. A lot of Democrats in Maryland, who refused to support him, probably agree with me, not you. But - no one of us will convince other, so - let's simply agree to disagree.

[smoltchanov]

All those people won. Big.

That doesn't mean they are good

And you can believe that, but it wasn't the question I was asking.

Show me a candidate that Democrats nominated who was so out of the mainstream that it caused them to lose a sapphire blue state?

Look. I'm not saying KS is lean D or anything, but I believe Laura Kelly has opened up a path to winning there.

Well, Jealous in Maryland and Gonzalez in Massachussetts lost gubernatorial elections in saphire blue states by much more, then Kobach.

Yeah, I'm sure those losses had absolutely nothing to do with facing incumbent governors with favourables somewhere between 65-70%.

I'm sure the same voters who voted for Elizabeth Warren must really have been disgusted at how Extremely Left Wing(TM) Jay Gonzalez is.

Given percentage Warren got (about 60, IIRC), and which Gonazalez got (33) - many of them surely were. And it doesn't matter - whether you run against popular incumbent of not, what matters is WHY these Republicans were so popular even among Democrats and why a lot of Democrats preferred them over their "own" candidate in "sapphire blue states"....

They literally only voted for Baker because they really like him. That's all there is to it. Gonzalez didn't even have negative net favourables.

Jay Gonzalez did not get blown out because "he was too liberal for Massachusetts". He got blown out because he was a sacrificial lamb against an opponent that was considered (righly) unbeatable.

Under your wonderful logic, Jim Keet was too right wing for Arkansas in 2010 just because there were plenty of Boozman voters who went Beebe.

Quite good logic. For Arkansas-2010 he, probably, was. And that is one of the reasons of Beebe's landslide in addition to Beebe's personal popularity. But for Arkansas-2018 - not sure. And not sure Beebe would beat him this year

P.S. Guys, you will never confess, that "your" candidate can be atrocious, and will ALWAYS find another "reasons" for his/her defeat. That's part of the human nature. But - let's stop it, and recognize that your "prince on white horse" may be exactly the same "atrocious candidate" for others.))))

[smoltchanov]

All those people won. Big.

That doesn't mean they are good

And you can believe that, but it wasn't the question I was asking.

Show me a candidate that Democrats nominated who was so out of the mainstream that it caused them to lose a sapphire blue state?

Look. I'm not saying KS is lean D or anything, but I believe Laura Kelly has opened up a path to winning there.

Well, Jealous in Maryland and Gonzalez in Massachussetts lost gubernatorial elections in saphire blue states by much more, then Kobach.

Yeah, I'm sure those losses had absolutely nothing to do with facing incumbent governors with favourables somewhere between 65-70%.

I'm sure the same voters who voted for Elizabeth Warren must really have been disgusted at how Extremely Left Wing(TM) Jay Gonzalez is.

Given percentage Warren got (about 60, IIRC), and which Gonazalez got (33) - many of them surely were. And it doesn't matter - whether you run against popular incumbent of not, what matters is WHY these Republicans were so popular even among Democrats and why a lot of Democrats preferred them over their "own" candidate in "sapphire blue states"....

They literally only voted for Baker because they really like him. That's all there is to it. Gonzalez didn't even have negative net favourables.

Jay Gonzalez did not get blown out because "he was too liberal for Massachusetts". He got blown out because he was a sacrificial lamb against an opponent that was considered (righly) unbeatable.

Under your wonderful logic, Jim Keet was too right wing for Arkansas in 2010 just because there were plenty of Boozman voters who went Beebe.

Quite good logic. For Arkansas-2010 he, probably, was. And that is one of the reasons of Beebe's landslide in addition to Beebe's personal popularity. But for Arkansas-2018 - not sure. And not sure Beebe would beat him this year

No, it's not. Boozman and Keet had pretty much the same policy positions on everything, and they were clearly not seen as too far right given that Boozman absolutely obliterated an incumbent Senator. The main difference was popularity/name recognition, and federal/state partisanship differences.

I was able, through the Wayback Machine, to find the numbers from the last Mason-Dixon poll before the election in 2010. For your reference, Boozman was ahead 21 and Beebe was ahead 26.

They had Boozman at 55% favourability (95% name recognition), while Blanche was at 52% unfavourability (99% name recognition). That tells me Boozman won easily because Boozman was popular and his opponent was not, with both sharing near universal name recognition.

In the governor's race, Beebe had 56% favourability and just 14% unfavourability. Keet had a decent net favourability of +14, but it didn't matter because 60% of voters had a neutral opinion or didn't recognize him at all! A quarter of voters seriously didn't know who Jim Keet was less than two weeks before election day!

The conclusion to draw from that is that Beebe won because he was a very well liked incumbent going up against an all-but-anonymous opponent. This is also what happened in Massachusetts.

MassINC's final poll of 2018 shows a similar dynamic in the governor race, just on the opposite side partisanwise.

Jay Gonzalez had positive net favourables, just like Keet. However, just like in Keet's case, it meant absolutely nothing because the majority (54%) of voters were either "neutral" or "don't know" (which, to be honest, is much the same thing). Baker, on the other hand, was like Beebe with near universal name recognition and very high popularity.

TL;DR: Gonzalez and Keet lost because they were anonymous sacrificial lambs going up against highly popular incumbent governors. It was NOT due to voters in those states thinking they were too extremist on ideology.

As i already said - let's stick to our opinions. It will be better for all of us))) And let's return to Kansas)))

For me the correct question is WHY were Baker and Hogan so popular? In Massachusetts only about 11-12% of voters are registered Republicans, and, as primary result show - Baker was at least as popular among Indies and Democrats as among Republicans (may be even more, because Republican "base" dislikes him). Why? IMHO, most of the state voters consider him (and Hogan in Maryland) as reasonable counterbalance to liberal Democrat-dominated legislature. And want some "brakes" on possible very liberal legislation. At the same time these same voters are open to reasonable liberal agenda (voting for Warren, Markey, Cardin, Van Hollen,and their likes) when presented with such. So, generally, we have liberal, but somewhat "cautious" electorate. How did it vote for statewide offices? In a similar (and predictable) way except one office - Governor. You try to deduce weak results of Jealous and Gonzalez from their  personalities - i doubt, that personalities can explain difference between 43.5% for Jealous and almost 65% for Frosh and more then 72 - for Franchot. Or - 33% for Gonzalez and at least 62% for all other Democratic statewide candidates in Massachusetts. Too much, IF voters were ideologically compatible with them. 10% difference because of "not very convincing personalities" - i would believe. 20-30% - no... Too much, IMHO. Ideology must play role here... Especially when they had "correct" (for these states) letter after their last name. Just as it was in Kansas: Kobach had "correct letter" there, but was incompatible with most of Indies and considerable percentage of dominant Republicans there and got his ass spanked.

P.S. Of course, it's only an opinion. But for ME - it's more logical opinion then other. Every "minimally normal" Democrat in Massachusetts must get at least 40% simply because of that "correct letter after name". If not - there is something with this person and his/her views.

[smoltchanov]

Safe R with "normal conservative" (like Jenkins), Lean R with Kobach-type candidate. It's a federal election, where voters are, usually, more "loyal" to dominant in their state party..

[smoltchanov]

All those people won. Big.

That doesn't mean they are good

Snip.

Snip.

Snip.

Snip.

Snip.

Snip.

Snip.

Snip.

I do think that is a rather simplistic approach and analysis. Jealous and Gonzales' losses were not caused by their unpopularity or by their holding too extreme positions (you said yourself Warren got 60% in a State perfectly receptive to Democratic talking points and ideology.) Their losses were caused by their incredibly popular and strong opponents. Chalking up a loss to an opponent with incredible approvals to a mere "oh, they were too left-wing" drastically misses the points that:
1) Popularity, obviously, matters. Kobach did himself in with his abysmal numbers, whereas Baker and Hogan survived because of their amazing ones.
2) There are different conditions in every State, and a lot of variables in both that prevent any analysis that does not look beyond simple numbers. As I stated, popularity matters, the underlying conditions in any given State matter, and it would be quite hard to establish a comparative pattern without any prior understanding of the basic differences in the culture and situation of both States.
Kelly's win was something that does show Democrats the path to a future statewide Democratic win, and her acheivements, even against a disaster like Kobach, should be taken to be quite valuable for the Democrats (though, of course, nobody would rate it anything but Safe R in 2020-PRES.

You did state it was your opinion, and I quite respect it, but I do believe there are some conditions that you might not have taken into account in developing your analysis. If you want, we can now return to KS-SEN .

Before we return i only want to say that of course - popularity matters, and yes, Baker and Hogan were, may be, the most popular present governors. But both Massachusetts and Maryland have "saphire blue" reputation, and thus - must have rather high Democratic floor "no matter what". In normal situation it's at least 45%, usually - substantially higher. Both Jealous and Gonzalez underperformed even that floor. Gonzalez - considerably, but even Jealous lost almost 4% to abysmal result of Anthony Brown of 2014. Was it caused by popularity of Baker and Hogan? Partially, of course, yes, but to assign 100% to that only??? Well, simply can't believe. There must be other reasons as well. And some ideological problems is the first that comes to mind in such situation. It's difficult to be "too liberal" in these states, but still possible (good example, IMHO, is Mark Roosevelt in 1994, who managed to lose to Weld by even bigger margin 71-28). So, that was a rather natural theory for me...

[smoltchanov]

Anyone who says this is anything other than Safe R is kidding themselves. Trump will win the state by double digits.

Trump - probably yes. But Kris Kobach lost it by 5. So, if Republicans will put up another Kobach - who knows.... After all - Trump victory in Alabama by almost 28 didn't prevent election of Jones...

[smoltchanov]

Nope, Likely to Safe R. The only reason Kobach lost the gubernatorial election is because it was a state race, not a national race.

It’s not exactly impossible for Democrats to win Senate races in red states, especially if the Republican candidate is incredibly flawed.

But it's still much more difficult, then state races. Likely R. And only because considerable number of moderate Republicans either switched or routinely support Democratic candidates in Kansas.

[smoltchanov]

Red-in-Blue-States Governors up in 2010 were Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont & Cali. They all lost but that's not exactly "a lot".

None of them lost in fact...

[smoltchanov]

Red-in-Blue-States Governors up in 2010 were Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont & Cali. They all lost but that's not exactly "a lot".

None of them lost in fact...

None of them ran in fact

Both statements are true, So what?

[smoltchanov]

https://twitter.com/Politics1com/status/1144970113503944704?s=19

For those unaware Boyda was one of the suburban liberal Republicans before 2018, but she flipped to be closer to her ideological brethren in 2018. This type of candidate: female, suburban, formerly conservative but fiercly opposed to the brownback style radicals, is exactly what Democrats need if Kobach once again ends up as the KS GOPs prominent nominee.

Are you sure, that you describe Nancy Boyda and not Barbara Bollier?

[smoltchanov]

https://twitter.com/Politics1com/status/1144970113503944704?s=19

Looking at her picture, I'd have put money that she was Republican. She changed registrations at 48, which is intriguing. Feels like opportunism.

She's younger than I thought (63), but wouldn't she appear bland for today's young Dems in contrast to Sharice Davids?
Today Democrats need a passion factor to turn out their base. That's why Kelly won and Paul Davis lost handily after winning the district in 2014.

You can't win in Kansas on "base enthusiasm" only.... You need a lot of "bland well-to-do suburban" votes too... And they are not too likely to go for "bold progressive". Sharice Davis, for example, has moderate-to-liberal voting record, which is unoffensive to them...

[smoltchanov]

You can't win in Kansas on "base enthusiasm" only.... You need a lot of "bland well-to-do suburban" votes too... And they are not too likely to go for "bold progressive".

You couldn't correctly define progressivism if it slapped you in the face.

Yeah, you run from it as quickly as possible...

[smoltchanov]

Eh probably still a solid lean R if he gets the nomination. I think it only flips if there's a well known 3rd party name to play spoiler.

+1. Tilt R at least...

[smoltchanov]

If any Republican can lose here, it's Kobach. But unlike gubernatorial elections, Senate elections are much different and Kobach will still be favored if he's the nominee. The risk of him being a slightly weaker nominee than a more conventional Republican isn't worth it. I hope he loses the nomination even if it means making a race that could have been likely R at best become safe R. The same goes with Roy Moore in Alabama. I'll take guaranteed generic awfulness over a gamble to defeat insurmountable crazy awfulness any day.

Generally agree. States with substantial percentage of population in rural areas generally (hipster Vermont and some other are exceptions), became "scorched earth" territory for Democrats, and Kansas is one of such states. Plus - generally, governors are more busy with more mundane and less ideological issues, and voters, knowing that, frequently prefer a "good manager" type of candidates with fewer ideological overtones. Congress, on another hand, is a "field of battle" over almost everything - from judicial nominations to foreign policy, so it attracts "warriors", who have no doubts (and, often, brains too)...
2010 disagrees with the idea that Senate Elections are more geographically polarized than Gubernatorial Elections. Also, the race is Lean D with Kobach. No need to get worked up about it.

2010 was a way different year than now were much more polarized then we were back then look at 2018 TN Sen IN Sen and MO sen for proof. Democrats who used to win rural areas by massive margins are now barely running ahead of clinton 2016 and often are significantly running behind obama 2012 and 2008. While on the governor side of things some democrats over performed in rural states and won but only by increasing margins in suburban areas look at KS gov 2018 SD Gov 2018 SC Gov 2018 OK Gov 2018 etc. In state areas elections party can push local issues to fight the trends of their states like in CA Gov and KS Gov where cox significantly outran congressional republicans ins suburban areas while Kelly did the same with congressional democrats. Kelly won Johnson county by 17% (Wow!). The dem nominee against Kobach will likely win Johnson county but by a lot less than Kelly I predict  6-10% this race is Safe R without Kobach and Very very likely R with him. I doubt Dems come within 8 here.

[smoltchanov]

Another Trumpist "solid conservative". Yawn...

[smoltchanov]

Former Republican, now Democrat, State Senator Barbara Bollier of Johnson County to run for Senate.

I like Bollier a lot, but - she can win 3rd and even (narrowly) 2nd, but will lose 4th and crushed in 1st.

[smoltchanov]

I guess we can safely assume now that there will be no last minute entry by Mike Pompeo to save Republicans from Kobach.

Republicans aren't dumb enough to nominate Kobach again.

You overestimate the Republican electorate.

+100. Most of the present day Republican "activists" (and it's them, who vote in the primary) are not dumb - they are extremely dumb, bordering on pure idiocy...

[smoltchanov]

Why is Boyda out? Her name recognition and moderate image would have been a strong selling point in a district that has veered hard right since the 1990s.

+100. Most of the present day Republican "activists" (and it's them, who vote in the primary) are not dumb - they are extremely dumb, bordering on pure idiocy...

I almost fell off my rocking chair.
What happened to your motto "Kansas is Kansas, they have every right to their brand of policies, you brainwashed liberal"?

Nothing. I have nothing against, say, Moran, though he is far more conservative, then i am. But - i have a lot against such people as Kobach. Or - Roy Moore. Or - ... you got the point. Just as i am not enamored at all by people like AOC or Ilhan Omar. Every state has every right to their brand of policies, with one exception: idiotic.