CPRM, Pt 3: LA 11/6

[Zaybay]

Early vote from GA-07

Kim-61.7%
Bourdeaux-38.3%

Is there any major differences between the candidates for GA7 and GA6? They seem rather similar.

[Zaybay]

This is still close, this looks like it will really come down to the last percent of votes. But seriously, is there even a difference?

[Zaybay]

All right, so I did some research, and it seems the main differences between the candidates are

-The females in the race, Mcbath and Bourdeaux were endorsed by Emily's list

- The males in the race are running as bipartisan consensus builders

Other than that, it seems the female candidates are the stronger candidates in both districts

[Zaybay]

Georgia 6 just jumped from around 11,000 votes to 48,000 votes.  Is that even possible?

Probably an error.

Fulton county had a big dump in the last 20 minutes, and Cobb was at just 5% reporting for a lot of the night (it's now more than half in). Anyways, there's a more important reason I'm posting.

------------------------


WULFRIC PROJECTION:

U.S. House District 6
Democratic Primary Runoff

CANDIDATE   VOTE   PCT.   
Kevin Abel
26,735   53.9%   
Lucy McBath
22,883   46.1   
49,618 votes, 89% reporting (184 of 207 precincts)

Looks like the great Dwarven has made a mistake. The vote total is an error. Should have checked the SOS tallies.

[Zaybay]

It seems that GA-07 will go to Bourdaeux,

you can call it Wulfric

[Zaybay]

The SOS tally only has 62/114 fulton precincts in vs the NYT at 113/114. That plus the fact that the count has updated from 87% to 89% to 91% in without any 'correction' to Fulton makes me think it's more likely the SOS just isn't getting its data as fast. This has happened before, in the TX-27 special election a few weeks back the NYT got the vote from the city of corpus christi well before the SOS did.

But it doesnt make any sense in context of the rest of the races. Every other district giving around 4,000 votes, and then Fulton county having 40,000 seems screwy.

[Zaybay]

I have a hard time believing that there could be so many more votes cast in GA-06 than in GA-07.

GA-06 is heavily-white and one of the richest congressional districts in the country. While GA-07 also has money, it has a lot of low-propensity voters (in particular, Latinos and Asians).

This is a difference of 50,000 to 15,000. And 40,000 of the votes in GA-06 is coming from Fulton. It doesnt make sense.

[Zaybay]

Also, I have no idea if NYT has more votes counted for these races than SoS, but here are the up-to-date SoS figures:

These numbers, and the ones at DDHQ, are believable, and make sense. I say these are the right ones.

If these are true, it seems the female, Emily's List, candidates won again.

Edit: as I wrote this, the numbers of GA-06 went from 99%, to 91%, so there  is clearly something going on there.

[Zaybay]

I have a hard time believing that there could be so many more votes cast in GA-06 than in GA-07.

GA-06 is heavily-white and one of the richest congressional districts in the country. While GA-07 also has money, it has a lot of low-propensity voters (in particular, Latinos and Asians).

This is a difference of 50,000 to 15,000. And 40,000 of the votes in GA-06 is coming from Fulton. It doesnt make sense.

To be fair, GA-06 is like 80% white and GA-07 is majority-minority + GA-06 has had $30m worth of organizing pumped into it. NYT often has more updated results than GA SoS for some reason, so those numbers may not be as off as they appear in the end.

I think I might be right.

Dave Weigel is saying that the NYT numbers are wrong, but I dont know how to posts Tweets, so RIP.
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1021947408052379648

[Zaybay]

I rate both of these races lean R. Possible to flip, but not the first target for Dems.

[Zaybay]

AP has continued to update the race as the rest of Cobb has come in, and now we have Abel up 53-47 with one Cobb precinct and one Fulton Precinct listed as out.

However, because I am aware of the different SOS numbers, and because I have no idea what is going on, (even Griff's idea doesn't check out, since it would mean Abel is getting like 6,000 votes out of 4 precincts), and acknowledge that either source could be right, I'm declaring the race unprojectable. I'm done with this:

DECLARED UNPROJECTABLE:

U.S. House District 6
Democratic Primary Runoff

CANDIDATE   VOTE   PCT.   
Kevin Abel
28,018   53.3%   
Lucy McBath
24,501   46.7   
52,519 votes, 99% reporting (205 of 207 precincts)

fair

[Zaybay]

NYTs has corrected the numbers. Mcbath in the lead, and it seems she will be the nominee.

[Zaybay]

Glad to see the stronger, grassroots-backed women candidates defeat the useless, milquetoast, business-friendly, moderate-heroish men. The Democratic party seems to finally be getting a clue.

Also, how come Kemp won so massively? Did anyone see that coming? I thought Cagle was favored.

The problem is, that Republicans are also glad. To have "stronger, grassroots-backed women" as their opponents))) in these districts.

This conventional wisdom may not hold in 2018. Remember that Dems were happy to have Donald Trump as our opponent, only to find the rules had changed.

Of course that may happen. But as a general rule ("candidate must fit a distirict") i don't consider "bold progressives" the best candidates in swingy districts with strong Republican past, and not especially problematic Republican incumbents.

Riiiight.Its not like every GOP congressperson is exactly the same, and many Blue Dogs are in Safe Dem seats, and many Progressives are in tossup or lean R seats.

There is no conventional wisdom for this. In fact, the two women were better choices because of their more socially progressive values. Atlanta suburbs hate guns, as do most suburbs. Just because someone is more liberal doesnt make them weaker. The only people to have gotten close or won in Alabama state elections was Doug Jones(who was famously pro-choice) and Ron Sparks(who famously said he was as Liberal as the president).

The myth about matching a district by being centrist has never worked for Democrats in the past, and is just an excuse for leadership to keep pushing centrist ideas.

[Zaybay]

Glad to see the stronger, grassroots-backed women candidates defeat the useless, milquetoast, business-friendly, moderate-heroish men. The Democratic party seems to finally be getting a clue.

Also, how come Kemp won so massively? Did anyone see that coming? I thought Cagle was favored.

The problem is, that Republicans are also glad. To have "stronger, grassroots-backed women" as their opponents))) in these districts.

This conventional wisdom may not hold in 2018. Remember that Dems were happy to have Donald Trump as our opponent, only to find the rules had changed.

Of course that may happen. But as a general rule ("candidate must fit a distirict") i don't consider "bold progressives" the best candidates in swingy districts with strong Republican past, and not especially problematic Republican incumbents.

Riiiight.Its not like every GOP congressperson is exactly the same, and many Blue Dogs are in Safe Dem seats, and many Progressives are in tossup or lean R seats.

There is no conventional wisdom for this. In fact, the two women were better choices because of their more socially progressive values. Atlanta suburbs hate guns, as do most suburbs. Just because someone is more liberal doesnt make them weaker. The only people to have gotten close or won in Alabama state elections was Doug Jones(who was famously pro-choice) and Ron Sparks(who famously said he was as Liberal as the president).

The myth about matching a district by being centrist has never worked for Democrats in the past, and is just an excuse for leadership to keep pushing centrist ideas.

In short - idiocy. Try to elect your "beloved progressives" in most southern districts. Many of them became solidly Republican exactly after such attempts. MS-03 happily elected Sonny Montgomery for many years, but switched immediately after his retirement. The same with AL-4 and Tom Bevill, with a lot of districts in fact. Or MS-02 in early 1980. After pragmatic moderate conservative white Democrat David Bowen retired in 1982, local and national liberals decided that district is ripe for liberal Black congressman, and ran Robert Clark. As a result - district, which didn't elect a Republican for many many years elected Republican (former conservative Democrat) Webb Franklin, and reelected him in 1984. Only after making district even more Black and running less "ideologically pure" Mike Espy in 1986 Democrats were able to get district back. You elected "progressive" Josh Newman to California state Senate and heralded it as a "new dawn in Orange county", where he is NOW??? And so on. Jones won mostly because of Moore, not because he was a "progressive and pro-choice", in fact - he won despite all this because his opponent turned to be Moore. Atlanta suburbs are "purple", not "solid Blue"......

Alright, there are many problems with this.

The South used to be referred to as "Solid" for the Ds, they would vote for literally any D on the ballot. In fact,many older whites still vote D in states like AL, LA, MS, and so on.

The South flipped, however, on the Pres level. But not on the congressional level. Many incumbents were able to survive, because they had been there so long. Senator Diane Fienstien was elected in Pro-GOP California and has held on ever since. In Pro-Dem Iowa, senator Grassley and governor Brandstad. I should also note that some of these Dems were rather liberal. When they retired, there was nothing to stop the R+20 electorate from putting in an R, just like how after many suburban Rs retired in Orange County, the Dems became favored to win their seats. Personal appeal is a big factor.

Josh Newman is a terrible example, as he was blamed for the gas tax, which voters across the spectrum disliked. And its likely a D will win back the seat.

Jones was also close to Moore before the allegations, and was gaining. In fact, its possible the race would have gone to Jones by a larger margin if the race hadnt been nationalized.

There are many progressive Dems who hold tossup or lean R seats, such as Matt Cartwright, Carol Shea Porter, and Rick Nolan to name a few. And, as I have shown in other posts, only 7/19 members in the Blue Dog caucus(including Connor Lamb) hold tossup/lean R seats, while the progressives caucus holds 8 tossup seats.

You dont need to put up a meh candidate just because the district is purple, especially in the south. If a district is purple, its because the voters, who are inelastic, are equal in size, with very few swing voters. The only way to win in such a seat is not to try to win over the 100 centrist voters, but to get your base to turn out. Thats what Rs do, and thats what Ds need to do.

[Zaybay]

Glad to see the stronger, grassroots-backed women candidates defeat the useless, milquetoast, business-friendly, moderate-heroish men. The Democratic party seems to finally be getting a clue.

Also, how come Kemp won so massively? Did anyone see that coming? I thought Cagle was favored.

The problem is, that Republicans are also glad. To have "stronger, grassroots-backed women" as their opponents))) in these districts.

This conventional wisdom may not hold in 2018. Remember that Dems were happy to have Donald Trump as our opponent, only to find the rules had changed.

Of course that may happen. But as a general rule ("candidate must fit a distirict") i don't consider "bold progressives" the best candidates in swingy districts with strong Republican past, and not especially problematic Republican incumbents.

Riiiight.Its not like every GOP congressperson is exactly the same, and many Blue Dogs are in Safe Dem seats, and many Progressives are in tossup or lean R seats.

There is no conventional wisdom for this. In fact, the two women were better choices because of their more socially progressive values. Atlanta suburbs hate guns, as do most suburbs. Just because someone is more liberal doesnt make them weaker. The only people to have gotten close or won in Alabama state elections was Doug Jones(who was famously pro-choice) and Ron Sparks(who famously said he was as Liberal as the president).

The myth about matching a district by being centrist has never worked for Democrats in the past, and is just an excuse for leadership to keep pushing centrist ideas.

In short - idiocy. Try to elect your "beloved progressives" in most southern districts. Many of them became solidly Republican exactly after such attempts. MS-03 happily elected Sonny Montgomery for many years, but switched immediately after his retirement. The same with AL-4 and Tom Bevill, with a lot of districts in fact. You elected "progressive" Josh Newman to California state Senate and heralded it as a "new dawn in Orange county", where he is NOW??? And so on. Jones won mostly because of Moore, not because he was a "progressive and pro-choice", in fact - he won despite all this because his opponent turned to be Moore. Atlanta suburbs are "purple", not "solid Blue"......

1) Districts like MS-03 and AL-04 are rural white Southern districts which are dark red. Even a Blue Dog has zero chance of winning either. AL-04 was Moore's best CD (he won it 68-31 against a moderate Dem!)

2) Newman was recalled because it was seen as a way to punish the state legislature for a gas tax, not because he was too "progressive" for a 53-41 Clinton district.

3) There's no proof that purple areas will be turned off by liberal candidates. Again, a socialist won a VA House seat that voted for Mitt Romney literally within this decade.

1. Districts like MS-03 and AL-04 were solidly Democratic for decades. But they required non-liberal, or even conservatively inclined Democrats to be held, and Democrats simply don't run such candidates anymore (despite all talk about "big tent". It fact - it was much wider in 1960-1970th in both parties, while now only liberals are welcome in Democratic party, and only conservatives - in Republican). When Democrats had shown that they don't care about these conservative inclinations of district's population - people of these districts turned to Republicans, who readily presented such conservative-leaning candidates. As a result - districts were lost.

2. Even 53-41 Clinton district in Orange county is NOT really liberal. It's anti-Trump district, which is socially moderate or even somewhat liberal, but - not fiscally. Fiscal conservatism is still approved there. As one Republican politician from Maine has said "my heart is on the left, but my wallet is on the right". So, Newman's "punishment" served both purposes - to punish Legislature and personally him for this fiscal apostasy.

3. We speak here not about simple "purple" disitricts, but purple just recently (essentialy, percentages for Clinton are the first case of their "purple" leanings), with strong Republican tradition of previous decades, solid Republican incumbents, and so on. In very big wave everything is possible - you can elect your candidates in even "alien" districts. But i doubt, that wave will be so high this year.

P.S. Let's return to beginning. THEN i said only that running very liberl candidates in purple districts instead of moderate liberals , IMHO (and i am entitled to such opinion, and explained why) decreases Democratic chances to flip it. You disagree? Your right. But chances that you will be able to shake my convictions are almost zero. Just as it's a sort of axiom to me that candidates must reflect preferences of their districts (so, i am for progressives in progressive districts, centrists - in purple, and yes, conservatives - in conservative one's), not impose their views on district. Seldom something good comes from it. We spoke about Mississippi, so i will remind that John Stennis held a Senate Seat from it rather easily, but more liberal Wayne Dowdy, who ran for his seat later - couldn't even get elected (partially because he was somewhat too liberal for the state)

1. The South was referred to as "solid" for a reason. Ds would always win. And you are wrong to say that only moderate or conservative candidates would win, because many Liberal Ds were also sent to congress. It was the Nixon Southern strategy and Reagan revolution that caused these voters to turn, not because the Democrats had abandoned them.

2.As I said before, no one likes gas taxes, and Newman got the blame. There are many conservative Ds in safe seats in CA, and many progressive Ds in tossup seats in CA. Josh Newman's loss was not because the district disapproved of fiscal liberalism, but because of the gas tax.

And, to bring up state races, in PA, many suburban Ds, who should be socially L, and fiscally C, according to you, voted for multiple DSA members, who ousted long time members of the state congress.

3. They can still elect a D, just because its a recent shift doesnt disqualify it from flipping, thats like saying "Rs shouldnt compete in the Rust Belt because its only a recent shift".

P.S Im glad you are just admitting that you will never listen, cause it means I dont have to spend anymore time debating this.

Looking at the candidate you brought up, it occurred after the Reagan revolution where the South switched to Rs, and even then, he only lost by a rather modest margin, considering the national election had a PV of R+8. In comparison, if the environment had been neutral, its likely the "Liberal" John Stennis would have won.

[Zaybay]

^ I wouldn't call people of districts in question "inelastic". They had shown this by switching in droves from Romney to Clinton. And if so - there must be substantial number of centrists (the type i described - fiscally conservative, but socially - moderate, to even liberal) in these districts, which Democrats must attract if they want to flip these districts. And if a base wouldn't vote for moderate liberal because he/she is "not progressive enough" - it's base's problem: they may have their present Republican congressmen for few more years and be proud of their "purity"....

Or, the more likely reason, is that major demographic and economic shifts in the Atlanta Metro had an effect on the vote in the district. Especially considering that these shifts only occurred in the Atlanta Metro and not the suburbs surrounding Savanna or other major cities in GA.

And by your logic, in 2017, it should have been Jon Ossoff who won the special election. After all,he was a centrist, so he best reflects the district.

[Zaybay]

Also, how come Kemp won so massively? Did anyone see that coming? I thought Cagle was favored.

Kemp had been favoured ever since the tapes of him admitting to supporting education policies he knew were bad and describing the campaign as "who could be the craziest" came out. This made him be not only seen as corrupt, it also made him viewed as someone who hated voters at the same time.

The tapes meant he was already toast, but the Trump endorsement of Kemp made sure it was going to be a massive blowout.

So Mr. Points-a-gun-at-a-teenager somehow ended up as the least damaged candidate in the race? Amazing. What a clown car.

Seriously, if Democrats can't win Georgia this year, it means it's unwinnable.

Those ads didn't damage Kemp at all. They helped him. What people in NYC or LA thought about them is irrelevant.

No, they definitely damaged him. Kemp lost the first round by a large margin. The thing was, however, is that Cagle in the first round was a moderate Lt. Gov, but in the runoff, he became a corrupt, inauthentic career politician. And Cagle was still making it close, according to polling....until Trump endorsed Kemp, which caused Cagle to collapse.

[Zaybay]

^ I wouldn't call people of districts in question "inelastic". They had shown this by switching in droves from Romney to Clinton. And if so - there must be substantial number of centrists (the type i described - fiscally conservative, but socially - moderate, to even liberal) in these districts, which Democrats must attract if they want to flip these districts. And if a base wouldn't vote for moderate liberal because he/she is "not progressive enough" - it's base's problem: they may have their present Republican congressmen for few more years and be proud of their "purity"....

Or, the more likely reason, is that major demographic and economic shifts in the Atlanta Metro had an effect on the vote in the district. Especially considering that these shifts only occurred in the Atlanta Metro and not the suburbs surrounding Savanna or other major cities in GA.

Demography alone was responsible for approximately 1/4 to 1/3 of the swing in metro ATL. The rest was actual R-to-D defections. We know this because unlike in almost every other state, GA publishes turnout by race, gender and age all the way down to the precinct level.

But it doesnt account for previous voters who voted R->D, and vice versa. As I said before, the GA metro was one of the only places to swing against Trump, and this is partially due to the suburban shift that was experienced in other states. But the GA shift was monumental, and only seen in two other states, Texas and Arizona. If it truly was all due to suburban Rs trending hard D, PA, WI, and MI would not have fallen.

In the special election with Jon Ossoff, the margin was almost the exact same as in 2016. This makes sense, as Trump was not the most controversial back then(still bad, but hes much worse now), and suburban seats are very inelastic. But  if it truly was a suburban switch, they should have voted for Handal, as she was a "normal" R. This inelasticity suggests to me that it was more of a permanent shift, rather than a suburban shift.

If I gave percentages, I would say 1/4-1/3 was caused by defections, while the rest was caused by transplants, demographic changes, and other factors.

[Zaybay]

Also, how come Kemp won so massively? Did anyone see that coming? I thought Cagle was favored.

Kemp had been favoured ever since the tapes of him admitting to supporting education policies he knew were bad and describing the campaign as "who could be the craziest" came out. This made him be not only seen as corrupt, it also made him viewed as someone who hated voters at the same time.

The tapes meant he was already toast, but the Trump endorsement of Kemp made sure it was going to be a massive blowout.

So Mr. Points-a-gun-at-a-teenager somehow ended up as the least damaged candidate in the race? Amazing. What a clown car.

Seriously, if Democrats can't win Georgia this year, it means it's unwinnable.

Those ads didn't damage Kemp at all. They helped him. What people in NYC or LA thought about them is irrelevant.

No, they definitely damaged him. Kemp lost the first round by a large margin. The thing was, however, is that Cagle in the first round was a moderate Lt. Gov, but in the runoff, he became a corrupt, inauthentic career politician. And Cagle was still making it close, according to polling....until Trump endorsed Kemp, which caused Cagle to collapse.

Kemp's polling improved after the ads got publicity and was what got him a solid spot in the runoff to begin with.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/governor/ga/georgia_governor_republican_primary-6286.html

And polls aside, it is just common sense that Georgia Republicans would love those ads. He wasn't trying to appeal to Atlanta liberals.

In a primary, I would think it was less the ads, and more the publicity they got. It gave Kemp name recognition and a name as "The True Conservative". But, in the end, it was not enough to secure a majority in the first round. And it will likely not help the Rs in the general.

And not every R in GA is some hick.

[Zaybay]

In the special election with Jon Ossoff, the margin was almost the exact same as in 2016. This makes sense, as Trump was not the most controversial back then(still bad, but hes much worse now), and suburban seats are very inelastic. But  if it truly was a suburban switch, they should have voted for Handal, as she was a "normal" R. This inelasticity suggests to me that it was more of a permanent shift, rather than a suburban shift.

In the special election with Jon Ossoff, the margin was almost the exact same as in 2016. This makes sense, as Trump was not the most controversial back then(still bad, but hes much worse now), and suburban seats are very inelastic. But  if it truly was a suburban switch, they should have voted for Handal, as she was a "normal" R. This inelasticity suggests to me that it was more of a permanent shift, rather than a suburban shift.

I'm honestly not really sure what you're saying here. GA, TX & AZ's major metros swung to the extent that they did because they are massive enough to where past GOP performance was an anomaly. Of the top 10 largest metro areas, there are only 4 on the list that aren't/haven't been immensely Democratic: Atlanta, Phoenix, Dallas and Houston. Virtually every other large US metro area had already been generating Democratic performance at levels strong enough to where the kind of gains made in GA/TX/AZ in 2016 was impossible. Trump was the catalyst that finally shook these areas loose (at least in that race specifically). There really aren't any other comparable metros in the South size-wise, and no other comparable metros nationally that weren't already firmly Democratic.

Nevertheless and as far as Ossoff's race, I think you're conflating coincidence with correlation. The special election electorate had a higher percentage of "strong Democrats" show up to vote than 2016's electorate had. The Democratic energy and money galvanized loyal Democrats to vote (just like in AL), with the main difference between that the GOP was caught flat-footed in the race initially. Metro ATL (particularly the area centered around CD 6) has a history going back to at least 2004 where Democratic presidential candidates would overperform congressional and down-ballot candidates by 10-20 points or more; there are dozens of precincts in places like North Fulton, Dekalb, Cobb and Gwinnett where Obama got 55% or more in 2008, but the average downballot Dem didn't break 40%.

If I gave percentages, I would say 1/4-1/3 was caused by defections, while the rest was caused by transplants, demographic changes, and other factors.

I mean, you could give those percentages, but they wouldn't be accurate. I'm not sure what "other factors" would even entail, but in discussions about elasticity and the like, there are two main factors: persuasion and turnout. Persuasion involves flipping voters and turnout involves getting your solid supporters to vote. Even within the dynamic of fresh arrivals, they fall into one of those two categories effectively. ATL's growing rapidly but not that rapidly - and not massively more than between 2008-12 - and surely you're not counting people who moved to the metro 10+ years ago and who had been voting GOP until 2016 as "transplants" in such an assessment?. Most transplant growth in the metro is minority growth and vice-versa (at least among adults), so it's largely accounted for in the demographic assessment of the swing.

All right, so I decided to do some digging to see which of us was right.

After running the numbers, it appears that it was 1/2 Persuasion and 1/2 D growth, but a bit more persuasion than growth. I concede.

The other factors, BTW, would have been things like resources(Hillary famously spent little in the state), overall turnout of the state, The national PV, homestate advantage, that kind of stuff.

But I still wont concede that many of these voters are centrist, and that the centrist voter actually exists in large numbers. But that was mostly with Smoltchanov, not you.

[Zaybay]

Diane is doing rather poorly, which is bad for Dems. But it is early, so we will have to see how the race develops.

[Zaybay]

Very sad that I missed the primary

Here are my thoughts

1. Feel both bad and good about Diane losing. She was pretty insufferable, and hated the fact that she was a woman. But she also liked "Africa", and was an easier opponent. And I feel bad about how far she feel.

2. The Democratic numbers were great, around a 50% increase! Now, the Bagels of the world will try to say this is bad, but, as Griff mentions, this is much better than previously thought.

3. It seems the Dems had very easy primaries, and picked excellent candidates. Lets see how they do this November.

[Zaybay]

https://twitter.com/BrentWelder/status/1025908868864528386

Looks like this race is going to be thrown away by dumb primary voters.

A guy from St. Louis, Missouri who only came into the district a few months before his campaign has zero chance in hell of winning a district in Kansas.

sigh, no, he is favored to win because this district is the most D friendly district, trended D hard in both 2012 and 2016, is being impacted by a large blue wave, has the lowest approvals for Trump in the state of KS, and has a rather average, not noticeable incumbent, not to mention the likely close race for governor.
I really doubt that the issue will really play well, as carpetbaggers do have a pretty good shot at winning elections. Usually, it needs something else, like the original state being from the coast, or the guy previously working for big money there, but he just lived in the neighboring state, not really anything there.

[Zaybay]

https://twitter.com/BrentWelder/status/1025908868864528386

Looks like this race is going to be thrown away by dumb primary voters.

A guy from St. Louis, Missouri who only came into the district a few months before his campaign has zero chance in hell of winning a district in Kansas.

sigh, no, he is favored to win because this district is the most D friendly district, trended D hard in both 2012 and 2016, is being impacted by a large blue wave, has the lowest approvals for Trump in the state of KS, and has a rather average, not noticeable incumbent, not to mention the likely close race for governor.
I really doubt that the issue will really play well, as carpetbaggers do have a pretty good shot at winning elections. Usually, it needs something else, like the original state being from the coast, or the guy previously working for big money there, but he just lived in the neighboring state, not really anything there.

He lived on the other side of the state. Also, out of state carpetbaggers can only win if other fundamentals aren’t only in their favour, but hugely so.

Alex Mooney still does like 20 points worse than the top of the ticket as an incumbent in deep red WV-02, and he barely won in 2014. McClintock nearly lost in 2008 in a McCain +10 seat with zero Democratic ancestry.

If Welder is such a great candidate, then why are Republican donors meddling to try to get him as their opponent?

Quite simple, its because hes a socialist, and "pundit knowledge" says that socialists cant win in Red states.

Carpetbagging itself is not a large issue for voters. Many of our current reps and dem candidates are carpetbaggers, and no one, on this site, or on the field, seems to have a problem with it. To illustrate this, ill use Morrisey. He carpetbagged from NJ to be the AG for WV, and won, unseating a long time Dem incumbent, even while Manchin cruised. In this senate race, the problem WV voters have with him is not that hes from NJ, its that he worked and took money from Big Pharma. Manchin has paired the two up to make Morrisey look like a Coastal Elite who doesnt care about WV. Its not the carpetbagging issue that gets voters, its the healthcare one. Using the carpetbagging just amplifies it, not creates it.

And to disprove your examples. The seat of WV-02 is the most partisan D seat in WV. It has the highest ceiling of all three districts. Alex had trouble not because of CBing, but because the seat had many partisan Ds in it. Trump preformed the worst in this seat as well. WV-03, while having the D base, is not partisan, allowing Ojeda and Trump to win, by large margins if we are talking about Trump.

And with the McClintock one, his opponent, Charlie Brown(yes, that is his name), ran in 2006 and had great name rec. He lost 45-55. In that case, it would make sense that without an incumbent and a larger D wave election, Charlie would overpreform. It was not McClintock's weaknesses, but Brown's strengths.

So, to sum up. They want Welder cause hes socialist, carpetbagger is not effective unless using it to pair with a larger, more important issue, and not every election is as it seems.

[Zaybay]

https://twitter.com/BrentWelder/status/1025908868864528386

Looks like this race is going to be thrown away by dumb primary voters.

A guy from St. Louis, Missouri who only came into the district a few months before his campaign has zero chance in hell of winning a district in Kansas.

sigh, no, he is favored to win because this district is the most D friendly district, trended D hard in both 2012 and 2016, is being impacted by a large blue wave, has the lowest approvals for Trump in the state of KS, and has a rather average, not noticeable incumbent, not to mention the likely close race for governor.
I really doubt that the issue will really play well, as carpetbaggers do have a pretty good shot at winning elections. Usually, it needs something else, like the original state being from the coast, or the guy previously working for big money there, but he just lived in the neighboring state, not really anything there.

He lived on the other side of the state. Also, out of state carpetbaggers can only win if other fundamentals aren’t only in their favour, but hugely so.

Alex Mooney still does like 20 points worse than the top of the ticket as an incumbent in deep red WV-02, and he barely won in 2014. McClintock nearly lost in 2008 in a McCain +10 seat with zero Democratic ancestry.

If Welder is such a great candidate, then why are Republican donors meddling to try to get him as their opponent?

Quite simple, its because hes a socialist, and "pundit knowledge" says that socialists cant win in Red states.

Carpetbagging itself is not a large issue for voters. Many of our current reps and dem candidates are carpetbaggers, and no one, on this site, or on the field, seems to have a problem with it. To illustrate this, ill use Morrisey. He carpetbagged from NJ to be the AG for WV, and won, unseating a long time Dem incumbent, even while Manchin cruised. In this senate race, the problem WV voters have with him is not that hes from NJ, its that he worked and took money from Big Pharma. Manchin has paired the two up to make Morrisey look like a Coastal Elite who doesnt care about WV. Its not the carpetbagging issue that gets voters, its the healthcare one. Using the carpetbagging just amplifies it, not creates it.

And to disprove your examples. The seat of WV-02 is the most partisan D seat in WV. It has the highest ceiling of all three districts. Alex had trouble not because of CBing, but because the seat had many partisan Ds in it. Trump preformed the worst in this seat as well. WV-03, while having the D base, is not partisan, allowing Ojeda and Trump to win, by large margins if we are talking about Trump.

And with the McClintock one, his opponent, Charlie Brown(yes, that is his name), ran in 2006 and had great name rec. He lost 45-55. In that case, it would make sense that without an incumbent and a larger D wave election, Charlie would overpreform. It was not McClintock's weaknesses, but Brown's strengths.

So, to sum up. They want Welder cause hes socialist, carpetbagger is not effective unless using it to pair with a larger, more important issue, and not every election is as it seems.

Y'all will take any progressive and social Democrat and proclaim him a socialist hero if he's endorsed by Bernie. Your own punditry is starting to look seriously biased.

Well, thats what he calls himself. Self-described Socialist. Of course hes a social democrat, but thats what he calls himself, and thats what will be used against him.