MT-SEN 2020: Time for Bullock?

[IceSpear]

This isn't anything like Tennessee which was obviously never anything besides safe R, but Daines is still favored simply because in this age of polarization it's going to be extremely tough for Bullock to overcome the fact that Trump is going to win the state by double digits. Lean R.

[IceSpear]

This isn't anything like Tennessee which was obviously never anything besides safe R, but Daines is still favored simply because in this age of polarization it's going to be extremely tough for Bullock to overcome the fact that Trump is going to win the state by double digits. Lean R.

He did it in 2016...

Polarization clearly took its toll on him in that race even though he won. He was a popular incumbent governor, which theoretically should have no problem being re-elected by a wide margin (see Beebe, Baker, Scott, Hogan, etc.) I don't recall many people thinking the race would be particularly close, but it was. Red states clearly don't want to give landslides to noncontroversial popular incumbent Democratic governors anymore (blue states have no problem with it though.) The days of Mike Beebe winning by the same margin Blanche lost by simultaneously are over.

[IceSpear]

Yeah but generally gubernatorials are less polarizing than federal races. It’s why Justice and Scott did so well in 2016 despite their state voting heavily for the opposite party presidents. Bullock only won by 3.8 points too.

I mean, Tester did better than Bullock in 2012, and this year he won even though turnout was higher than in 2016(!!) and Trump actively campaigned against him. Sure, Rosendale wasn’t exactly the best candidate, but that wasn’t the only factor.

I’d be absolutely shocked if Daines did better than someone like Joni Ernst or if he won by more than 5%.

I actually do agree with you on the latter. I could definitely see Daines being more vulnerable than Ernst. I rate them both as lean R for now, but assuming Bullock really does run, I'd probably rather be Ernst.

[IceSpear]

I don't recall many people thinking the race would be particularly close, but it was.

Well, then those people simply didn’t follow the race very closely. My prediction was Bullock +3, he won by 4. For some reason, Atlas really tends to overestimate incumbents in Montana (Bullock in 2016, Tester in 2018, now Daines).

As for the MA/NH comparison, the thing is that "red" states like Montana (which is obviously nowhere near as Republican as MA is Democratic), West Virginia, Alabama, Missouri, Kansas, etc. are actually very open to splitting tickets, which simply isn’t the case with blue states like MA or NH anymore. Collins is basically the only one left, and ME isn’t even that Democratic anyway. CO wasn’t really all that blue in 2014 either, and yet Gardner is basically DOA in 2020 in a Clinton +5(!) state.

Governor Gonzalez, Governor Jealous, and Governor Hallquist are very happy that blue states don't split tickets, and especially not in a D+9 Democratic wave. And Governor Sutton, Governor Edmondson, Governor Cordray, and Governor Hubbell are thrilled that red states love to split tickets, and that they probably loved doing so even more in a D+9 Democratic wave.

[IceSpear]

I don't recall many people thinking the race would be particularly close, but it was.

Well, then those people simply didn’t follow the race very closely. My prediction was Bullock +3, he won by 4. For some reason, Atlas really tends to overestimate incumbents in Montana (Bullock in 2016, Tester in 2018, now Daines).

As for the MA/NH comparison, the thing is that "red" states like Montana (which is obviously nowhere near as Republican as MA is Democratic), West Virginia, Alabama, Missouri, Kansas, etc. are actually very open to splitting tickets, which simply isn’t the case with blue states like MA or NH anymore. Collins is basically the only one left, and ME isn’t even that Democratic anyway. CO wasn’t really all that blue in 2014 either, and yet Gardner is basically DOA in 2020 in a Clinton +5(!) state.

Governor Gonzalez, Governor Jealous, and Governor Hallquist are very happy that blue states don't split tickets, and especially not in a D+9 Democratic wave. And Governor Sutton, Governor Edmondson, Governor Cordray, and Governor Hubbell are thrilled that red states love to split tickets, and that they probably loved doing so even more in a D+9 Democratic wave.

Senator Rosendale, Senator Moore, Senator Morrisey, Senator Renacci, Governor Gianforte, Governor Vitter, Governor Kobach, etc. are all very happy that red states don’t split tickets anymore.

Some blue states might elect a moderate/liberal Republican governor every now and then, but no Republican can win a Senate race in any blue state these days. Scott Brown's special election victory was the exception to the rule, and he got btfo in 2012.

Only one of those people lost in a landslide though, which was exactly my point. As opposed to those three Democrats who just lost in a landslide in the deepest of blue states in a blue wave a month ago.

I thought you'd have gotten over your PTSD about red states electing Democrats after Bredesen, Heitkamp, and Edmondson got destroyed, Espy, McCaskill, Donnelly, Sutton, Hubbell, and Cordray got thumped, and Manchin and Tester had close calls and probably would've lost too if the GOP was more competent. And all this brutal carnage in the midst of a D+9 Democratic wave. Won't be satisfied until there's not a single red state Democrat left, huh?

[IceSpear]

I don't recall many people thinking the race would be particularly close, but it was.

Well, then those people simply didn’t follow the race very closely. My prediction was Bullock +3, he won by 4. For some reason, Atlas really tends to overestimate incumbents in Montana (Bullock in 2016, Tester in 2018, now Daines).

As for the MA/NH comparison, the thing is that "red" states like Montana (which is obviously nowhere near as Republican as MA is Democratic), West Virginia, Alabama, Missouri, Kansas, etc. are actually very open to splitting tickets, which simply isn’t the case with blue states like MA or NH anymore. Collins is basically the only one left, and ME isn’t even that Democratic anyway. CO wasn’t really all that blue in 2014 either, and yet Gardner is basically DOA in 2020 in a Clinton +5(!) state.

Governor Gonzalez, Governor Jealous, and Governor Hallquist are very happy that blue states don't split tickets, and especially not in a D+9 Democratic wave. And Governor Sutton, Governor Edmondson, Governor Cordray, and Governor Hubbell are thrilled that red states love to split tickets, and that they probably loved doing so even more in a D+9 Democratic wave.

Senator Rosendale, Senator Moore, Senator Morrisey, Senator Renacci, Governor Gianforte, Governor Vitter, Governor Kobach, etc. are all very happy that red states don’t split tickets anymore.

Some blue states might elect a moderate/liberal Republican governor every now and then, but no Republican can win a Senate race in any blue state these days. Scott Brown's special election victory was the exception to the rule, and he got btfo in 2012.

Only one of those people lost in a landslide though, which was exactly my point. As opposed to those three Democrats who just lost in a landslide in the deepest of blue states in a blue wave a month ago.

I thought you'd have gotten over your PTSD about red states electing Democrats after Bredesen, Heitkamp, and Edmondson got destroyed, Espy, McCaskill, Donnelly, Sutton, Hubbell, and Cordray got thumped, and Manchin and Tester had close calls and probably would've lost too if the GOP was more competent. And all this brutal carnage in the midst of a D+9 Democratic wave. Won't be satisfied until there's not a single red state Democrat left, huh?

Are you talking about yourself? You are always saying snarky comments about how red states are obviously full of 'hicks' who won't vote Dem anymore, and IndyRep just listed a few Dems that won in red states. Polarization doesn't just work one way.

That said, this race begins as a tossup (w/maybe Daines in advantage). It's clear that Bullock, being an incumbent by the time of the election, is clearly in a better position than Bredesen. But then again, Bredesen was clearly in a better position than Bayh and lost like him.

I think you missed the point of the Racist Hick comments. I'm simply pointing out facts, not celebrating it. I supported Bredesen, Edmondson, Heitkamp, etc. MT Treasurer hates most red state Democrats but still tends to overestimate them, I guess to keep his expectations low because Republicans were burnt so many times in red states in the past. But it's pretty obvious at this point that things have changed considering the slaughterfest 2018 was for red state Democrats even in a D+9 Democratic wave.

And in regards to the bolded, no, that was not clear at all. Bredesen was running in a better environment against a weaker candidate but in a far more hostile state. The latter won out, which was always a very strong possibility.

[IceSpear]

Atlas dems on Bullock running for senate: OMG TILT D/TOSS UP!!!
Atlas dems on Baker running for senate: Massachusetts is solid D, never going to vote for a republican to the senate.

Atlas Dems? The only two people in this thread to call it toss up or tilt D are both Republicans.

[IceSpear]

I think you missed the point of the Racist Hick comments. I'm simply pointing out facts, not celebrating it. I supported Bredesen, Edmondson, Heitkamp, etc. MT Treasurer hates most red state Democrats but still tends to overestimate them, I guess to keep his expectations low because Republicans were burnt so many times in red states in the past. But it's pretty obvious at this point that things have changed considering the slaughterfest 2018 was for red state Democrats even in a D+9 Democratic wave.

I think you were the one that missed my point? I obviously know that you, as a fairly partisan Democrat, support these candidates. And I'm well aware that you believe that your "hicks" narrative is a fact. I'm simply saying it's not a fact. Let's not forget how you so adamantly denied the possibility of a Senator Doug Jones until the last moment.

And in regards to the bolded, no, that was not clear at all. Bredesen was running in a better environment against a weaker candidate but in a far more hostile state. The latter won out, which was always a very strong possibility.

I should have worded that differently. Bredesen was running a stronger campaign, which is what I meant. It was due to the fact that he was running in TN, a far more hostile state than IN for Dems, that didn't make his position better than Bayh's, which is why I thought Blackburn would win back then.

Oh, how could I forget Alabama? A literal pedophile losing by 1 point isn't exactly a strong rebuttal to the theory. I mean, it was a literal pedophile...and he only lost by 1 point. Because it was a psychotically partisan red state. So if anything it adds to the polarization/Racist Hick narrative, not takes away from it. The only error was that my theory was a tiny bit too aggressive in the case of truly exceptional circumstances, otherwise it was pretty much spot on. Luckily, unlike many people here, I can learn from my mistakes. Which is why my upgraded mind model now takes into account pedophilia if it is present (except in Oklahoma, where the Republican would win even if they were a pedophile.)

In short, if your argument for why red states aren't extremely partisan and polarized is "a pedophile Republican lost by 1 point in a red state", well...all I can say is I rest my case.

Anyway, I also remember ND-Sen, TN-Sen, OK-Gov, etc, races in crimson red states that Atlas insisted were toss ups and said I was insane for rating them safe R, only for the Democrats in those races to get BTFO by double digits. Seems the latter might be a tad more relevant due to recency, plus the fact that it's unlikely there will be any pedophile Republican candidates in 2020.

[IceSpear]

I think you missed the point of the Racist Hick comments. I'm simply pointing out facts, not celebrating it. I supported Bredesen, Edmondson, Heitkamp, etc. MT Treasurer hates most red state Democrats but still tends to overestimate them, I guess to keep his expectations low because Republicans were burnt so many times in red states in the past. But it's pretty obvious at this point that things have changed considering the slaughterfest 2018 was for red state Democrats even in a D+9 Democratic wave.

I think you were the one that missed my point? I obviously know that you, as a fairly partisan Democrat, support these candidates. And I'm well aware that you believe that your "hicks" narrative is a fact. I'm simply saying it's not a fact. Let's not forget how you so adamantly denied the possibility of a Senator Doug Jones until the last moment.

And in regards to the bolded, no, that was not clear at all. Bredesen was running in a better environment against a weaker candidate but in a far more hostile state. The latter won out, which was always a very strong possibility.

I should have worded that differently. Bredesen was running a stronger campaign, which is what I meant. It was due to the fact that he was running in TN, a far more hostile state than IN for Dems, that didn't make his position better than Bayh's, which is why I thought Blackburn would win back then.

Oh, how could I forget Alabama? A literal pedophile losing by 1 point isn't exactly a strong rebuttal to the theory. I mean, it was a literal pedophile...and he only lost by 1 point. Because it was a psychotically partisan red state. So if anything it adds to the polarization/Racist Hick narrative, not takes away from it. The only error was that my theory was a tiny bit too aggressive in the case of truly exceptional circumstances, otherwise it was pretty much spot on. Luckily, unlike many people here, I can learn from my mistakes. Which is why my upgraded mind model now takes into account pedophilia if it is present (except in Oklahoma, where the Republican would win even if they were a pedophile.)

In short, if your argument for why red states aren't extremely partisan and polarized is "a pedophile Republican lost by 1 point in a red state", well...all I can say is I rest my case.

Come on Icespear, you and me both know that AL has absolutely nothing to do with the R rural trends, and that AL is one of the most inelastic, and Republican states in the union. Thats just lazy.

Okay, what about OK-Gov, TN-Sen, and ND-Sen, all of which you were hilariously convinced were "toss ups."

[IceSpear]

I think you missed the point of the Racist Hick comments. I'm simply pointing out facts, not celebrating it. I supported Bredesen, Edmondson, Heitkamp, etc. MT Treasurer hates most red state Democrats but still tends to overestimate them, I guess to keep his expectations low because Republicans were burnt so many times in red states in the past. But it's pretty obvious at this point that things have changed considering the slaughterfest 2018 was for red state Democrats even in a D+9 Democratic wave.

I think you were the one that missed my point? I obviously know that you, as a fairly partisan Democrat, support these candidates. And I'm well aware that you believe that your "hicks" narrative is a fact. I'm simply saying it's not a fact. Let's not forget how you so adamantly denied the possibility of a Senator Doug Jones until the last moment.

And in regards to the bolded, no, that was not clear at all. Bredesen was running in a better environment against a weaker candidate but in a far more hostile state. The latter won out, which was always a very strong possibility.

I should have worded that differently. Bredesen was running a stronger campaign, which is what I meant. It was due to the fact that he was running in TN, a far more hostile state than IN for Dems, that didn't make his position better than Bayh's, which is why I thought Blackburn would win back then.

Oh, how could I forget Alabama? A literal pedophile losing by 1 point isn't exactly a strong rebuttal to the theory. I mean, it was a literal pedophile...and he only lost by 1 point. Because it was a psychotically partisan red state. So if anything it adds to the polarization/Racist Hick narrative, not takes away from it. The only error was that my theory was a tiny bit too aggressive in the case of truly exceptional circumstances, otherwise it was pretty much spot on. Luckily, unlike many people here, I can learn from my mistakes. Which is why my upgraded mind model now takes into account pedophilia if it is present (except in Oklahoma, where the Republican would win even if they were a pedophile.)

In short, if your argument for why red states aren't extremely partisan and polarized is "a pedophile Republican lost by 1 point in a red state", well...all I can say is I rest my case.

Come on Icespear, you and me both know that AL has absolutely nothing to do with the R rural trends, and that AL is one of the most inelastic, and Republican states in the union. Thats just lazy.

Okay, what about OK-Gov, TN-Sen, and ND-Sen, all of which you were hilariously convinced were "toss ups."

...... I didnt have any of those as tossups. I never rated OK gov as D favored, ever. And I was one of the people saying TN would surge R late at the end, and low and behold, it did. ND, I saw it being closer, but R favored.
Edit: Im guessing that you are talking about my predictions? I like to be broad on tossups on that thing. I was going to rate FL as a tossup, but I thought it wouldnt happen. Shame I didnt .

Nice Pivot, BTW. Doesnt cancel the fact that your use of AL is pretty lazy and doesnt even help your argument(in fact, it kinda hurts it that, in such polarized times, the state would do such a thing as elect from the other party).

So you rated them as toss ups, but didn't think they were toss ups. Okay, that makes lots of sense. Also, it's utterly mindboggling and defies all logic to think that ND/TN/OK were more likely to vote D than FL was to vote R. It is the epitome of the Dem hackery that permeates this forum.

It's not a pivot, it's the exact same topic. This forum has a nasty habit of overestimating Democrats in red states (actually, overestimating Democrats in general, but particularly in red states/districts.) You mentioned WV-03 earlier. Case in point:

Call me crazy, but this is a lean D race. While the 2016 results are a bit terrifying, it should be noted that this state loves to split tickets, and Trump's rhetoric was a perfect fit for the area. The same year they elected Trump, they also put in a D governor, which shows they are still receptive. And that was for the whole state, this race is only for the 3rd, the D base in the state.

Everything has already been said about Ojeda and Miller, one is stellar, the other is an empty shell.

Polling, which should favour Miller at this point in the cycle, so far, has actually favoured Ojeda. And not by some tiny margin, but by, like 6 points. And this was done by Monmouth, which is not known for terrible polling.

Miller really has nothing but the PVI going for her, and even then, its a false sense of security, since this is the most D downballot district.

Ojeda definitely has the advantage.

Nobody was denying Ojeda was going to do far better than Hillary Clinton (not a high bar.) But the D hacks of course took it into overdrive and assumed he would win (and even that he was significantly favored!) solely because of MUH candidate quality and MUH polarization doesn't matter! How did that one work out for you again? Miller had "nothing but the PVI going for her", and yet Ojeda got BTFO by double digits. Hmm...what does that tell you? The same exact thing you argued in that post you're arguing here. And you made the same exact mistake in North Dakota and Tennessee as well. This election should've been a learning experience for people who so cavalierly dismiss partisanship, polarization, and fundamentals in favor of nebulous factors like "candidate quality" or "muh Cramer's Akin gaffes" or whatever other idiocy. But I guess some people are incapable of learning.

Republican governors/senators in blue states and Democratic governors/senators in red states are at a historic low. As are House members in districts that tend to be hostile to their party. To ignore the significant increase in partisanship, polarization, and the urban/rural divide is to ignore someone continually whacking you in the head with a sledgehammer. The trend is far from subtle. You can cherrypick random examples if you want, but it's missing the forest for the trees. Janet Mills losing and Jared Golden barely winning in a rural district in a D+9 Democratic wave that Obama won in a landslide twice doesn't disprove the point. Nor does a Democrat underperforming the national PV in an Iowa district Obama carried by a landslide. If anything these examples prove the point. And I have no idea what you meant in regards to New York, considering both Cuomo and Gillibrand collapsed in rural NY compared to their previous elections, even though Cuomo's previous election was a Republican wave!

As for Alabama? All I can do is laugh at thinking that means a damn thing. It'll be hilarious to see the reactions here when Jones inevitably gets curbstomped by a non pedophile Republican. My guess is it goes down the same memory hole the Bredesen/Heitkamp cheerleading went down, and the day after the election everyone will pretend they knew he was DOA all along despite being incredibly hackish and irritating cheerleaders continually shaking their pom poms on the subject a mere 24 hours ago.

[IceSpear]

Atlas in general seems to have a problem understanding that just because a trend exists doesn't mean there are no deviations to the trend. It's either gross overgeneralizations or "it's all about MUH CANDIDATE QUALITY!" nonsense.

National demographic trends create baseline conditions, and then there is variance around these baseline condition based on things like, yes, candidate quality.

This is true. And as partisanship and polarization increases, those baselines become increasingly harder to overcome, particularly in overtly hostile territory. And in cases such as Tennessee and Alabama, completely impossible except in the most extreme of circumstances (like a literal pedophile being the Republican candidate.)

[IceSpear]

stuff

Well then I'm not sure exactly what you're even arguing against here. I never stated that it was impossible for any Democrat to win in a Republican and/or rural state/district. In fact, my final prediction had Tester narrowly winning as well as West Virginia being a close race due to polarization and the Trump effect (yes, I picked the wrong winner, but most people here didn't even think it would be a close race at all because they underestimated these factors.) I also had Delgado, Brindisi, and Golden winning. The point is, polarization, partisanship, fundamentals, etc. are major factors that need to be given heavy weight and be fully accounted for, and this forum dismisses them far too easily, as was shown in 2018.