LA-Remington: Edwards only trails Kennedy, leads other Rs by a lot

[MT Treasurer]

John Kennedy (R): 37%
Ralph Abraham (R): 8%
Eddie Rispone (R): 3%
John Bel Edwards (D, inc.): 40%
Undecided: 12%

47% John Kennedy (R)
43% John Bel Edwards (D, inc.)

52% John Bel Edwards (D, inc.)
29% Eddie Rispone (R)

48% John Bel Edwards (D, inc.)
35% Ralph Abraham (R)

https://thehayride.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/LA-2019-General-Election-Survey-091218.pdf

[Suburbia]

Tossup.

Edwards is not running for president in 2020.

If he wins reelection in 2019, maybe VP?

But he is not running for president.

[DaWN]

Is Kennedy at all likely to run?

[Politician]

Tossup with Kennedy, Lean D with anyone else.

[IceSpear]

I kind of doubt Kennedy will give up a Senate seat he can hold for life just to be a nominal favorite to be the next governor, but stranger things have happened I guess.

[MAINEiac4434]

Is Kennedy at all likely to run?

Yes, he's been openly floating the idea for some time.

It's strange considering he was just elected to the Senate, the body he's spent his entire adult life trying to get into.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems have a chance in either KY or MS, should Bel Edwards lose, he is a conservative Democrat, though

[Skye]

I kind of doubt Kennedy will give up a Senate seat he can hold for life just to be a nominal favorite to be the next governor, but stranger things have happened I guess.

[MAINEiac4434]

I kind of doubt Kennedy will give up a Senate seat he can hold for life just to be a nominal favorite to be the next governor, but stranger things have happened I guess.

He's a perennial candidate. He's not comfortable not running for something.

[Senator Incitatus]

Is Kennedy at all likely to run?

Yes, he's been openly floating the idea for some time.

It's strange considering he was just elected to the Senate, the body he's spent his entire adult life trying to get into.

I have seen very few people express such open contempt for their work environment as John Kennedy, and I worked both retail and food service.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Is Kennedy at all likely to run?

Yes, he's been openly floating the idea for some time.

It's strange considering he was just elected to the Senate, the body he's spent his entire adult life trying to get into.

He likes to complain about things - granted, a lot of it is stuff regarding the work of the judiciary committee and not the senate at large, but still. He's also cast some interesting votes on the floor. In fact, until a bunch of Rs voted against Mark Bennett for being too liberal, he was the only republican to oppose a Trump circuit court nom on the floor (Gregory Katsas), and briefly threatened to torpedo the LA nom for the 5th Circuit (Kyle Duncan) because McGahn hadn't properly consulted with him.

I kind of doubt Kennedy will give up a Senate seat he can hold for life just to be a nominal favorite to be the next governor, but stranger things have happened I guess.

I kind of doubt Kennedy will give up a Senate seat he can hold for life just to be a nominal favorite to be the next governor, but stranger things have happened I guess.

The election is in 2019, his senate seat is up in 2022, so it's completely risk-free. If he wins, he's governor, if he loses, he's still Senator.

[IceSpear]

It’s absurd that Republicans can easily win re-election in dark blue states yet Democrats have to go to all-out war to win red states

It comes with the territory of being the more open minded party sadly.

GOP runs a literal pedophile in Alabama - D+1
GOP runs a nice guy FF sane reasonable moderate in Massachusetts - R+20 (or more)

[MT Treasurer]

It’s absurd that Republicans can easily win re-election in dark blue states yet Democrats have to go to all-out war to win red states

It comes with the territory of being the more open minded party sadly.

Ah yeah, that’s why all those deep red state Democratic candidates for Senate are losing right now, right? And why there are way more red state Democrats than blue state Republicans in the Senate? I kinda doubt someone like Phil Bredesen (R) would even have a 2% chance of making it competitive in a D+14 state.

Also not sure how Edwards leading by 13 and 23 points is a sign that Democrats will "have to go to all-out war" to win this race? Kennedy is probably the most popular politician in the state, so him being narrowly ahead makes sense. If he doesn’t run, it’s at least Likely D.

[IceSpear]

It’s absurd that Republicans can easily win re-election in dark blue states yet Democrats have to go to all-out war to win red states

It comes with the territory of being the more open minded party sadly.

Ah yeah, that’s why all those deep red state Democratic candidates for Senate are losing right now, right? And why there are way more red state Democrats than blue state Republicans in the Senate? I kinda doubt someone like Phil Bredesen (R) would even have a 2% chance of making it competitive in a D+14 state.

Also not sure how Edwards leading by 13 and 23 points is a sign that Democrats will "have to go to all-out war" to win this race? Kennedy is probably the most popular politician in the state, so him being narrowly ahead makes sense. If he doesn’t run, it’s at least Likely D.

Heitkamp is already losing. The rest are fighting for their lives and are deeply vulnerable. Not a single one of them is coasting to re-election like Baker, Scott, or Hogan, even in a very favorable environment for Democrats.

Republicans won a D+12 state by 5 points with someone who wasn't even a popular universally well regarded moderate former governor like Phil Bredesen, but instead was a relatively anonymous (at the time) state senator. And Bredesen will probably lose anyway, so...

Charlie Baker, Phil Scott, and seemingly now Larry Hogan are going to win in landslides in three of the deepest blue states in the country even during a probable blue wave. I guess we'll see what happens in the deep red states this time, but something tells me none of these will vote D even in a blue wave, much less in a red wave (unless there's pedophilia involved.)

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It’s absurd that Republicans can easily win re-election in dark blue states yet Democrats have to go to all-out war to win red states

It comes with the territory of being the more open minded party sadly.

Ah yeah, that’s why all those deep red state Democratic candidates for Senate are losing right now, right? And why there are way more red state Democrats than blue state Republicans in the Senate? I kinda doubt someone like Phil Bredesen (R) would even have a 2% chance of making it competitive in a D+14 state.

Also not sure how Edwards leading by 13 and 23 points is a sign that Democrats will "have to go to all-out war" to win this race? Kennedy is probably the most popular politician in the state, so him being narrowly ahead makes sense. If he doesn’t run, it’s at least Likely D.

Heitkamp is already losing. The rest are fighting for their lives and are deeply vulnerable. Not a single one of them is coasting to re-election like Baker, Scott, or Hogan, even in a very favorable environment for Democrats.

Republicans won a D+12 state by 5 points with someone who wasn't even a popular universally well regarded moderate former governor like Phil Bredesen, but instead was a relatively anonymous (at the time) state senator. And Bredesen will probably lose anyway, so...

Charlie Baker, Phil Scott, and seemingly now Larry Hogan are going to win in landslides in three of the deepest blue states in the country even during a probable blue wave. I guess we'll see what happens in the deep red states this time, but something tells me none of these will vote D even in a blue wave, much less in a red wave (unless there's pedophilia involved.)

Which race are you referring to in the bolded part?

[IceSpear]

It’s absurd that Republicans can easily win re-election in dark blue states yet Democrats have to go to all-out war to win red states

It comes with the territory of being the more open minded party sadly.

Ah yeah, that’s why all those deep red state Democratic candidates for Senate are losing right now, right? And why there are way more red state Democrats than blue state Republicans in the Senate? I kinda doubt someone like Phil Bredesen (R) would even have a 2% chance of making it competitive in a D+14 state.

Also not sure how Edwards leading by 13 and 23 points is a sign that Democrats will "have to go to all-out war" to win this race? Kennedy is probably the most popular politician in the state, so him being narrowly ahead makes sense. If he doesn’t run, it’s at least Likely D.

Heitkamp is already losing. The rest are fighting for their lives and are deeply vulnerable. Not a single one of them is coasting to re-election like Baker, Scott, or Hogan, even in a very favorable environment for Democrats.

Republicans won a D+12 state by 5 points with someone who wasn't even a popular universally well regarded moderate former governor like Phil Bredesen, but instead was a relatively anonymous (at the time) state senator. And Bredesen will probably lose anyway, so...

Charlie Baker, Phil Scott, and seemingly now Larry Hogan are going to win in landslides in three of the deepest blue states in the country even during a probable blue wave. I guess we'll see what happens in the deep red states this time, but something tells me none of these will vote D even in a blue wave, much less in a red wave (unless there's pedophilia involved.)

Which race are you referring to in the bolded part?

Massachusetts in 2010.

[Zaybay]

It’s absurd that Republicans can easily win re-election in dark blue states yet Democrats have to go to all-out war to win red states

It comes with the territory of being the more open minded party sadly.

Ah yeah, that’s why all those deep red state Democratic candidates for Senate are losing right now, right? And why there are way more red state Democrats than blue state Republicans in the Senate? I kinda doubt someone like Phil Bredesen (R) would even have a 2% chance of making it competitive in a D+14 state.

Also not sure how Edwards leading by 13 and 23 points is a sign that Democrats will "have to go to all-out war" to win this race? Kennedy is probably the most popular politician in the state, so him being narrowly ahead makes sense. If he doesn’t run, it’s at least Likely D.

Heitkamp is already losing. The rest are fighting for their lives and are deeply vulnerable. Not a single one of them is coasting to re-election like Baker, Scott, or Hogan.

Republicans won a D+12 state by 5 points with someone who wasn't even a popular universally well regarded moderate former governor like Phil Bredesen, but instead was a relatively anonymous (at the time) state senator. And Bredesen will probably lose anyway, so...

Charlie Baker, Phil Scott, and seemingly now Larry Hogan are going to win in landslides in three of the deepest blue states in the country even during a probable blue wave. I guess we'll see what happens in the deep red states this time, but something tells me none of these will vote D even in a blue wave, much less in a red wave (unless there's pedophilia involved.)

Both you and MT are comparing apples to oranges. Senators are inheritly nationalized races, where the voter's choice influences Washington, while gubernatorial races are much closer to statewide issues. If comparing Democratic governors, the Ds have had their power in hostile states. MT has always elected a Democratic governor, WY did the same by large margins, AR as well. Alaska is currently lead by an Indie who sides with the Ds, and LA is still lead by a democrat. While the Rs have more governors in Safe D state, this is probably more because the GOP had wave elections that got these guys in power in the first place, giving a higher probability of holding on. And they are spending a lot of money to keep themselves afloat, I see a Baker ad probably in every commercial break.

On the Senatorial front, the Ds certainly have the advantage. Looking at the number of R safe states that have a D senator, excluding Doug, the Democrats have a staggering 5 senators, and, in Trump states, 10. The same cannot be said about the Rs, who hold 3 seats in Clinton territory, none of which are in safe states. And this is a Democratic low, in 2014, it was much more, 2010, the same thing.

To sum it up, it appears that IceSpear is right on statewide elections, where Republicans hold an advantage due to their platform(lower taxes, tough on crime,etc.), whereas Democrats hold the advantage on federal races(spending, healthcare, etc.), as MT is saying.

[IceSpear]

It’s absurd that Republicans can easily win re-election in dark blue states yet Democrats have to go to all-out war to win red states

It comes with the territory of being the more open minded party sadly.

Ah yeah, that’s why all those deep red state Democratic candidates for Senate are losing right now, right? And why there are way more red state Democrats than blue state Republicans in the Senate? I kinda doubt someone like Phil Bredesen (R) would even have a 2% chance of making it competitive in a D+14 state.

Also not sure how Edwards leading by 13 and 23 points is a sign that Democrats will "have to go to all-out war" to win this race? Kennedy is probably the most popular politician in the state, so him being narrowly ahead makes sense. If he doesn’t run, it’s at least Likely D.

Heitkamp is already losing. The rest are fighting for their lives and are deeply vulnerable. Not a single one of them is coasting to re-election like Baker, Scott, or Hogan.

Republicans won a D+12 state by 5 points with someone who wasn't even a popular universally well regarded moderate former governor like Phil Bredesen, but instead was a relatively anonymous (at the time) state senator. And Bredesen will probably lose anyway, so...

Charlie Baker, Phil Scott, and seemingly now Larry Hogan are going to win in landslides in three of the deepest blue states in the country even during a probable blue wave. I guess we'll see what happens in the deep red states this time, but something tells me none of these will vote D even in a blue wave, much less in a red wave (unless there's pedophilia involved.)

Both you and MT are comparing apples to oranges. Senators are inheritly nationalized races, where the voter's choice influences Washington, while gubernatorial races are much closer to statewide issues. If comparing Democratic governors, the Ds have had their power in hostile states. MT has always elected a Democratic governor, WY did the same by large margins, AR as well. Alaska is currently lead by an Indie who sides with the Ds, and LA is still lead by a democrat. While the Rs have more governors in Safe D state, this is probably more because the GOP had wave elections that got these guys in power in the first place, giving a higher probability of holding on. And they are spending a lot of money to keep themselves afloat, I see a Baker ad probably in every commercial break.

On the Senatorial front, the Ds certainly have the advantage. Looking at the number of R safe states that have a D senator, excluding Doug, the Democrats have a staggering 5 senators, and, in Trump states, 10. The same cannot be said about the Rs, who hold 3 seats in Clinton territory, none of which are in safe states. And this is a Democratic low, in 2014, it was much more, 2010, the same thing.

To sum it up, it appears that IceSpear is right on statewide elections, where Republicans hold an advantage due to their platform(lower taxes, tough on crime,etc.), whereas Democrats hold the advantage on federal races(spending, healthcare, etc.), as MT is saying.

Here's my question: Is there a single state in the entire country where Democrats could nominate a literal pedophile during a red wave and only lose by 1 point? This goes for either Senate or gubernatorial races. Considering Baker, Scott, and Hogan are going to romp against non pedophiles during a blue wave solely for being nice moderate sane FFs, I kind of doubt it. And considering Coakley lost by 5 points in a red wave when her biggest sins were running a lazy campaign and being kind of elitist, I kind of doubt that as well.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It’s absurd that Republicans can easily win re-election in dark blue states yet Democrats have to go to all-out war to win red states

It comes with the territory of being the more open minded party sadly.

Ah yeah, that’s why all those deep red state Democratic candidates for Senate are losing right now, right? And why there are way more red state Democrats than blue state Republicans in the Senate? I kinda doubt someone like Phil Bredesen (R) would even have a 2% chance of making it competitive in a D+14 state.

Also not sure how Edwards leading by 13 and 23 points is a sign that Democrats will "have to go to all-out war" to win this race? Kennedy is probably the most popular politician in the state, so him being narrowly ahead makes sense. If he doesn’t run, it’s at least Likely D.

Heitkamp is already losing. The rest are fighting for their lives and are deeply vulnerable. Not a single one of them is coasting to re-election like Baker, Scott, or Hogan.

Republicans won a D+12 state by 5 points with someone who wasn't even a popular universally well regarded moderate former governor like Phil Bredesen, but instead was a relatively anonymous (at the time) state senator. And Bredesen will probably lose anyway, so...

Charlie Baker, Phil Scott, and seemingly now Larry Hogan are going to win in landslides in three of the deepest blue states in the country even during a probable blue wave. I guess we'll see what happens in the deep red states this time, but something tells me none of these will vote D even in a blue wave, much less in a red wave (unless there's pedophilia involved.)

Both you and MT are comparing apples to oranges. Senators are inheritly nationalized races, where the voter's choice influences Washington, while gubernatorial races are much closer to statewide issues. If comparing Democratic governors, the Ds have had their power in hostile states. MT has always elected a Democratic governor, WY did the same by large margins, AR as well. Alaska is currently lead by an Indie who sides with the Ds, and LA is still lead by a democrat. While the Rs have more governors in Safe D state, this is probably more because the GOP had wave elections that got these guys in power in the first place, giving a higher probability of holding on. And they are spending a lot of money to keep themselves afloat, I see a Baker ad probably in every commercial break.

On the Senatorial front, the Ds certainly have the advantage. Looking at the number of R safe states that have a D senator, excluding Doug, the Democrats have a staggering 5 senators, and, in Trump states, 10. The same cannot be said about the Rs, who hold 3 seats in Clinton territory, none of which are in safe states. And this is a Democratic low, in 2014, it was much more, 2010, the same thing.

To sum it up, it appears that IceSpear is right on statewide elections, where Republicans hold an advantage due to their platform(lower taxes, tough on crime,etc.), whereas Democrats hold the advantage on federal races(spending, healthcare, etc.), as MT is saying.

Here's my question: Is there a single state in the entire country where Democrats could nominate a literal pedophile during a red wave and only lose by 1 point? This goes for either Senate or gubernatorial races. Considering Baker, Scott, and Hogan are going to romp against non pedophiles during a blue wave solely for being nice moderate sane FFs, I kind of doubt it. And considering Coakley lost by 5 points in a red wave when her biggest sins were running a lazy campaign and being kind of elitist, I kind of doubt that as well.

I'm not sure we can really ascribe a definite political climate to a special in December 2017, so your trying to equate it to a wave is a stretch, but to answer the question, New York and California for sure, perhaps Hawaii, and while it's not a state, an election for Mayor in D.C. would also qualify.

[IceSpear]

It’s absurd that Republicans can easily win re-election in dark blue states yet Democrats have to go to all-out war to win red states

It comes with the territory of being the more open minded party sadly.

Ah yeah, that’s why all those deep red state Democratic candidates for Senate are losing right now, right? And why there are way more red state Democrats than blue state Republicans in the Senate? I kinda doubt someone like Phil Bredesen (R) would even have a 2% chance of making it competitive in a D+14 state.

Also not sure how Edwards leading by 13 and 23 points is a sign that Democrats will "have to go to all-out war" to win this race? Kennedy is probably the most popular politician in the state, so him being narrowly ahead makes sense. If he doesn’t run, it’s at least Likely D.

Heitkamp is already losing. The rest are fighting for their lives and are deeply vulnerable. Not a single one of them is coasting to re-election like Baker, Scott, or Hogan.

Republicans won a D+12 state by 5 points with someone who wasn't even a popular universally well regarded moderate former governor like Phil Bredesen, but instead was a relatively anonymous (at the time) state senator. And Bredesen will probably lose anyway, so...

Charlie Baker, Phil Scott, and seemingly now Larry Hogan are going to win in landslides in three of the deepest blue states in the country even during a probable blue wave. I guess we'll see what happens in the deep red states this time, but something tells me none of these will vote D even in a blue wave, much less in a red wave (unless there's pedophilia involved.)

Both you and MT are comparing apples to oranges. Senators are inheritly nationalized races, where the voter's choice influences Washington, while gubernatorial races are much closer to statewide issues. If comparing Democratic governors, the Ds have had their power in hostile states. MT has always elected a Democratic governor, WY did the same by large margins, AR as well. Alaska is currently lead by an Indie who sides with the Ds, and LA is still lead by a democrat. While the Rs have more governors in Safe D state, this is probably more because the GOP had wave elections that got these guys in power in the first place, giving a higher probability of holding on. And they are spending a lot of money to keep themselves afloat, I see a Baker ad probably in every commercial break.

On the Senatorial front, the Ds certainly have the advantage. Looking at the number of R safe states that have a D senator, excluding Doug, the Democrats have a staggering 5 senators, and, in Trump states, 10. The same cannot be said about the Rs, who hold 3 seats in Clinton territory, none of which are in safe states. And this is a Democratic low, in 2014, it was much more, 2010, the same thing.

To sum it up, it appears that IceSpear is right on statewide elections, where Republicans hold an advantage due to their platform(lower taxes, tough on crime,etc.), whereas Democrats hold the advantage on federal races(spending, healthcare, etc.), as MT is saying.

Here's my question: Is there a single state in the entire country where Democrats could nominate a literal pedophile during a red wave and only lose by 1 point? This goes for either Senate or gubernatorial races. Considering Baker, Scott, and Hogan are going to romp against non pedophiles during a blue wave solely for being nice moderate sane FFs, I kind of doubt it. And considering Coakley lost by 5 points in a red wave when her biggest sins were running a lazy campaign and being kind of elitist, I kind of doubt that as well.

I'm not sure we can really ascribe a definite political climate to a special in December 2017, so your trying to equate it to a wave is a stretch, but to answer the question, New York and California for sure, perhaps Hawaii, and while it's not a state, an election for Mayor in D.C. would also qualify.

Democrats had their biggest lead ever in the generic ballot in December 2017 and had just romped in the Virginia elections a month prior, so clearly it was an extremely favorable environment for them.

New York, California, and Hawaii? LOL. Republicans held moderately popular non pedophile Andrew Cuomo to a 14 point win in 2014 with a candidate who received next to no help from the national party and was dramatically outspent. In California in 2014, there were multiple down ballot races (SoS, Controller) where a generic D only beat a generic R by 8 points, so to suggest a pedophile Democrat would've won them is absurd. In Hawaii in 2014, noted non pedophile David Ige was held under 50% and only won by 12 points despite being pretty popular.

DC, maybe. But the fact that you have to get into a D+41 area for this to potentially happen as opposed to Alabama's R+14 kind of proves the point.

[Rhenna]

Tilt R with Kennedy, Toss up with Landry, and Tilt D with Abraham. Anybody else makes the race Lean D or Likely D if they're awful.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems haven't reelected a Governor in La, Blanco was easily defeated, and Bevin in KY would be more appealing than winning LA. Edwards is a conservative Dem, anyways

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

If Kennedy runs, Edwards should just jump ship and run for Kennedy's seat lol.

[BBD]

Tilt R with Kennedy, Toss up with Landry, and Tilt D with Abraham. Anybody else makes the race Lean D or Likely D if they're awful.

Landry seems like a stronger candidate than Kennedy. Unless he's got controversies I've never heard of. Will Louisiana voters take kindly to Kennedy's seat-hopping?

[😥]

Tossup with Kennedy, Lean D with anyone else.