Unusual and interesting GOP strategy in West Virginia

[The Vorlon]

The GOP would LOVE to get West Virginia truly "in play" - it would give them a little (not much) room for error in their quest for 51 Senate seats.

There is also a huge duality in the polling.

Sitting Governor Manchin is very popular - the surveys are all over the map, but most give him an approval rating of well over 50%, mostly in the 65%-70% range, which given the totality of things, is remarkable for any politician of any stripe these days.

By contrast, Obama is polling somewhere around 40% approval in West Virginia (depending on who you believe)

The GOP strategy?

"Manchin is a good man and a fine Governor - why throw away a perfectly fine Governor when we can keep our Governor and send Obama a message at the same time....?"

What do we think of the GOP strategy?

Will it work?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

That's an excellent way to put it. Unfortunately, I don't think it will work.

[Torie]

It makes quite a bit of sense actually. And if Manchin says he is just not in tune with Obama on much (to try to win), then why is he running for the Senate as a Dem in the first place?  What is the point? This very reason along with Raese's money and ability to present himself well on TV, was why I was very confident that this race would be in play from the beginning, as soon as I got the measure of Raese.

[Brittain33]

It makes quite a bit of sense actually. And if Manchin says he is just not in tune with Obama on much (to try to win), then why is he running for the Senate as a Dem in the first place?  What is the point?

Blah blah "I'm going to fight for West Virginia's best interests and get as much money as possible to help out the people of West Virginia, I've always been on the side of the working man and woman" blah blah. People in WV are used to their senators long outlasting the current president.

[Meeker]

Too complicated of a message. Especially for the voters of West Virginia.

[Lunar]

Too complex, much like trying to get people to vote for the less electable candidate in an opposing primary to help your guy win.  "Vote against your Governor to keep him"

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

It's more a sentiment than it is a strategy. If I was running the Raese campaign, I'd advise the official arm to keep doing what it's doing -- tie Manchin to Obama, wrong for our country, etc. -- while having an unofficial arm do the concern trolling:

"Oh, Manchin's a good governor but we need him here working for us, not in Washington working for Obama."

[Meeker]

If you guys want to start talking about how great a governor Manchin has been then by all means go ahead.

[cinyc]

I wouldn't mention Manchin at all unless I had to - and when I did, I'd tie him to Obama.  I'd make the race entirely about Obama, who is despised by many in the Appalachian Belt.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

I agree with cinyc. If this race is about Manchin he wins. If it's about Obama it weighs down Manchin.

I'm beginning to think of this race like if Jim Douglas had gone for the open senate seat in Vermont against Bernie Sanders in 2006. Douglas was a very popular governor, yet Sanders would have crushed him in the senate race due to the partisan lean of the state and the fact that 2006 was a heavily democratic year. It's less so in WV because they are used to voting for Democrats there but it's the example I thought of.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Clever clever rather than actually clever. In other words, actually quite stupid. Mostly for this reason:

If you guys want to start talking about how great a governor Manchin has been then by all means go ahead.

As a strategy it falls down for two reasons; the first is that ordinary voters pay far less attention to politics than most political strategists and obsessives seem to think, and the second is that ordinary voters are not as easily duped as most political strategists and obsessives seem to think they are. The correct Republican strategy in this race is simple enough and has been pointed out already. It probably won't work, but given that under normal circumstances they wouldn't even have a shot at this, that's good enough.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Isn't an excessive hyperbole prohibited under West Virginia's Obscenity Laws?

[Niemeyerite]

It will make the race closer, but manchin will win. Because he will say: "yeah, really, I won't be your governor, but I was going to be replaced now or in 2 years. so, if you like me, I can be your senator until I die, or I can be your governor for 2 more years and then just disappear. what do you prefer?"

[RIP Robert H Bork]

It will make the race closer, but manchin will win. Because he will say: "yeah, really, I won't be your governor, but I was going to be replaced now or in 2 years. so, if you like me, I can be your senator until I die, or I can be your governor for 2 more years and then just disappear. what do you prefer?"

Ah, correct. I didn't consider it, but the Republican strategy here may actually backfire....

[Хahar 🤔]

Reminds me of Texas 1941. It didn't work then.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Democrats tried something similar in Massachusetts in 1996. Of course the argument was a bit more compelling, basically "Weld is a great Governor, Kerry is a great Senator, keep both in the jobs they do best." And Kerry was always favored anyway. It's a bit different to convince people Raese is the better guy to be Senator.

[Lunar]

Clever clever rather than actually clever. In other words, actually quite stupid. Mostly for this reason:

If you guys want to start talking about how great a governor Manchin has been then by all means go ahead.

As a strategy it falls down for two reasons; the first is that ordinary voters pay far less attention to politics than most political strategists and obsessives seem to think, and the second is that ordinary voters are not as easily duped as most political strategists and obsessives seem to think they are. The correct Republican strategy in this race is simple enough and has been pointed out already. It probably won't work, but given that under normal circumstances they wouldn't even have a shot at this, that's good enough.

Although, perhaps it could be mentioned, that the sort of intellectual thinking  that occurs in the topic's idea, couldn't be useful wordplay among the intellectuals that make up maybe <1% of the electorate.  Maybe an editorial or a letter to the editor in one newspaper, one time.  

[Lunar]

Maybe the GOP should run with this line:

"Washington D.C. is a cesspool and corrupts politicians, that's why you should send the guy you like less, the Republican, there instead!"

[Brittain33]

U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsed Joe Manchin. Presumably this means they won't be aiming their fire hose of cash at West Virginia tv stations against him.

[tpfkaw]

Generally the US CoC endorses Democrats when they believe that said Democrat is likely to steer boatloads of pork towards a large portion of their constituent businesses.

[Brittain33]

Generally the US CoC endorses Democrats candidates when they believe that said Democrat candidate is likely to steer boatloads of pork towards a large portion their constituent businesses.

Agreed. (Although you were making a slightly different and still valid point about the circumstances necessary for a Democrat getting their endorsement.)

[The Vorlon]

Generally the US CoC virtually any labour or industry lobby group endorses Democrats candidates when they believe that said Democrat candidate is likely to steer boatloads of pork towards a large portion their constituent businesses. particular special interest.

Third times a charm