CO-SEN Megathread: Cory In The House

[President Johnson]

Safe D obviously, but I'm not happy. It would safe D with literally any other candidate, there's no reason for us to run an anti-progressive moderate.

The Hick isn't an anti-progressive moderate. He's just not far left. If he was anti-progressive, he'd frequently vote for the other side or against candidates of a Democratic president. His floor votes will be just fine.

[Calthrina950]

Safe D obviously, but I'm not happy. It would safe D with literally any other candidate, there's no reason for us to run an anti-progressive moderate.

The Hick isn't an anti-progressive moderate. He's just not far left. If he was anti-progressive, he'd frequently vote for the other side or against candidates of a Democratic president. His floor votes will be just fine.

This much is true. For example, I would note Hickenlooper's opposition to the death penalty, which he effectively placed on a moratorium as Governor. That is a definite progressive position in my view. And though he did not support marijuana legalization, he definitely enforced it once it was passed.

[GeneralMacArthur]

https://twitter.com/Hickenlooper/status/1164507540647862273

This ad kicks ass

[Epaminondas]

No one who refuses to support Bullock because he ran for president or whatever was ever going to vote for him anyway. He’ll definitely make the race very competitive if he changes his mind, and anyone who thinks Bullock will be easy to beat (or that the governor's race is Safe R, for that matter) is going to be in for a surprise.

I agree with this.

Would you say many Montanans have already switched on the race, or is it still low-key?
It would not surprise me to hear from a local that the "moral deadlines" to join a race is very different in DC and the Great Plains.

[President Johnson]

Just what the Senate needs. More anti-MFA centrists.

Gardner is no unbeatable titan. Let a real Democrat have the opportunity.

Lmao... unlike Saint Bernard, the Hick is actually a Democrat.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

Half of RRH is still convinced this is a tossup, as if it ever even was

[Dr. Arch]

Oh my goodness. That pool shot was insane. This ad is reminiscent of that amazing Kander ad too.

Not that this was in question, but this is an easy D+1.

[Calthrina950]

Half of RRH is still convinced this is a tossup, as if it ever even was

I don't understand it either. Cory Gardner is basically DOA at this point. His only realistic chance at survival would have been in a Clinton midterm, and even then, I'm not fully confident that he would have made it. As I've said already, Gardner would be lucky to keep it within 5%.

[Frenchrepublican]

Half of RRH is still convinced this is a tossup, as if it ever even was

I don't understand it either. Cory Gardner is basically DOA at this point. His only realistic chance at survival would have been in a Clinton midterm, and even then, I'm not fully confident that he would have made it. As I've said already, Gardner would be lucky to keep it within 5%.

Some people on RRH are too optimistic, they believe we have a real chance to win back the House

[Calthrina950]

Half of RRH is still convinced this is a tossup, as if it ever even was

I don't understand it either. Cory Gardner is basically DOA at this point. His only realistic chance at survival would have been in a Clinton midterm, and even then, I'm not fully confident that he would have made it. As I've said already, Gardner would be lucky to keep it within 5%.

Some people on RRH are too optimistic, they believe we have a real chance to win back the House

That's certainly true. I would say that the Zenome Project and Honeybee are the most optimistic, as they both believe that Trump will improve compared to how he did in 2016, and that he's a favorite for reelection. Now, Trump could do better in certain regions (i.e. Appalachia, parts of the Midwest, Utah) than he did in 2016, but on a nationwide basis, I don't think he will, as I believe he will do worse in Arizona, Georgia, and Texas, to say nothing of Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, California, etc.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

Half of RRH is still convinced this is a tossup, as if it ever even was

I don't understand it either. Cory Gardner is basically DOA at this point. His only realistic chance at survival would have been in a Clinton midterm, and even then, I'm not fully confident that he would have made it. As I've said already, Gardner would be lucky to keep it within 5%.

Some people on RRH are too optimistic, they believe we have a real chance to win back the House

That's certainly true. I would say that the Zenome Project and Honeybee are the most optimistic, as they both believe that Trump will improve compared to how he did in 2016, and that he's a favorite for reelection. Now, Trump could do better in certain regions (i.e. Appalachia, parts of the Midwest, Utah) than he did in 2016, but on a nationwide basis, I don't think he will, as I believe he will do worse in Arizona, Georgia, and Texas, to say nothing of Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, California, etc.

yeah, the comments from Honeybee, WingNutAlone, and ZenomeProject are LOL tier. They make Atlas posts look good by comparison.

For Trump to win the popular vote, he'd have to significantly improve in places like Texas and California. Which...won't happen lol

[Politician]

WingNightAlone literally said there is no way Democrats can win the Senate.

[Calthrina950]

Half of RRH is still convinced this is a tossup, as if it ever even was

I don't understand it either. Cory Gardner is basically DOA at this point. His only realistic chance at survival would have been in a Clinton midterm, and even then, I'm not fully confident that he would have made it. As I've said already, Gardner would be lucky to keep it within 5%.

Some people on RRH are too optimistic, they believe we have a real chance to win back the House

That's certainly true. I would say that the Zenome Project and Honeybee are the most optimistic, as they both believe that Trump will improve compared to how he did in 2016, and that he's a favorite for reelection. Now, Trump could do better in certain regions (i.e. Appalachia, parts of the Midwest, Utah) than he did in 2016, but on a nationwide basis, I don't think he will, as I believe he will do worse in Arizona, Georgia, and Texas, to say nothing of Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, California, etc.

yeah, the comments from Honeybee, WingNutAlone, and ZenomeProject are LOL tier. They make Atlas posts look good by comparison.

For Trump to win the popular vote, he'd have to significantly improve in places like Texas and California. Which...won't happen lol

Now, I grant that Trump might get a higher share of the vote in both states, since I expect that at least some of the Johnson/McMullin/Castle and other right-leaning independent voters, who went against Trump in 2016 due to concerns over his personality and background, will vote for him this time around, as Trump has governed as a generic Republican on virtually every issue (except for foreign policy, immigration (where he's taken a hardline position compared to the last Republican President, Bush, who supported immigration reform, and even Reagan, who oversaw an amnesty bill in 1986), and trade), particularly in regards to judges, taxes, and social policy (i.e. abortion, gay/transgender rights, etc.) However, many of the left-leaning independent voters, who went for Stein or what have you, will probably return to the Democratic fold, and of course, there are demographic/suburban trends at work.

[Frenchrepublican]

Yeah, it's really hard to see how Trump can win the PV (maybe with Harris but she has no chance to win the nomination). Trump will do worse in TX than in 2016 (as of now I think he will carry it by a 6 or 7 points margin), he will get trounced in CA (a 35 points loss is not a fantasy), IL/NY/PA/MI will likely swing a bit toward dems too. The only two large states where I think that Trump will do better than in 2016 are OH and FL.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

Half of RRH is still convinced this is a tossup, as if it ever even was

I don't understand it either. Cory Gardner is basically DOA at this point. His only realistic chance at survival would have been in a Clinton midterm, and even then, I'm not fully confident that he would have made it. As I've said already, Gardner would be lucky to keep it within 5%.

Some people on RRH are too optimistic, they believe we have a real chance to win back the House

That's certainly true. I would say that the Zenome Project and Honeybee are the most optimistic, as they both believe that Trump will improve compared to how he did in 2016, and that he's a favorite for reelection. Now, Trump could do better in certain regions (i.e. Appalachia, parts of the Midwest, Utah) than he did in 2016, but on a nationwide basis, I don't think he will, as I believe he will do worse in Arizona, Georgia, and Texas, to say nothing of Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, California, etc.

yeah, the comments from Honeybee, WingNutAlone, and ZenomeProject are LOL tier. They make Atlas posts look good by comparison.

For Trump to win the popular vote, he'd have to significantly improve in places like Texas and California. Which...won't happen lol

Now, I grant that Trump might get a higher share of the vote in both states, since I expect that at least some of the Johnson/McMullin/Castle and other right-leaning independent voters, who went against Trump in 2016 due to concerns over his personality and background, will vote for him this time around, as Trump has governed as a generic Republican on virtually every issue (except for foreign policy, immigration (where he's taken a hardline position compared to the last Republican President, Bush, who supported immigration reform, and even Reagan, who oversaw an amnesty bill in 1986), and trade), particularly in regards to judges, taxes, and social policy (i.e. abortion, gay/transgender rights, etc.) However, many of the left-leaning independent voters, who went for Stein or what have you, will probably return to the Democratic fold, and of course, there are demographic/suburban trends at work.

I think it's conceivable he could hold or even slightly increase his vote percentage in California or Texas, but even then, he could still "improve" to get 32 or 33% of the vote and still lose by about 35 points.

[Frenchrepublican]

Half of RRH is still convinced this is a tossup, as if it ever even was

I don't understand it either. Cory Gardner is basically DOA at this point. His only realistic chance at survival would have been in a Clinton midterm, and even then, I'm not fully confident that he would have made it. As I've said already, Gardner would be lucky to keep it within 5%.

Some people on RRH are too optimistic, they believe we have a real chance to win back the House

That's certainly true. I would say that the Zenome Project and Honeybee are the most optimistic, as they both believe that Trump will improve compared to how he did in 2016, and that he's a favorite for reelection. Now, Trump could do better in certain regions (i.e. Appalachia, parts of the Midwest, Utah) than he did in 2016, but on a nationwide basis, I don't think he will, as I believe he will do worse in Arizona, Georgia, and Texas, to say nothing of Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, California, etc.

yeah, the comments from Honeybee, WingNutAlone, and ZenomeProject are LOL tier. They make Atlas posts look good by comparison.

For Trump to win the popular vote, he'd have to significantly improve in places like Texas and California. Which...won't happen lol

Now, I grant that Trump might get a higher share of the vote in both states, since I expect that at least some of the Johnson/McMullin/Castle and other right-leaning independent voters, who went against Trump in 2016 due to concerns over his personality and background, will vote for him this time around, as Trump has governed as a generic Republican on virtually every issue (except for foreign policy, immigration (where he's taken a hardline position compared to the last Republican President, Bush, who supported immigration reform, and even Reagan, who oversaw an amnesty bill in 1986), and trade), particularly in regards to judges, taxes, and social policy (i.e. abortion, gay/transgender rights, etc.) However, many of the left-leaning independent voters, who went for Stein or what have you, will probably return to the Democratic fold, and of course, there are demographic/suburban trends at work.

I think it's conceivable he could hold or even slightly increase his vote percentage in California or Texas, but even then, he could still "improve" to get 32 or 33% of the vote and still lose by about 35 points.

In CA he will be Lucky to win 31%, the problem is that a good number of CA Trump 2016 voters are either dead or have left the state.

[Calthrina950]

Half of RRH is still convinced this is a tossup, as if it ever even was

I don't understand it either. Cory Gardner is basically DOA at this point. His only realistic chance at survival would have been in a Clinton midterm, and even then, I'm not fully confident that he would have made it. As I've said already, Gardner would be lucky to keep it within 5%.

Some people on RRH are too optimistic, they believe we have a real chance to win back the House

That's certainly true. I would say that the Zenome Project and Honeybee are the most optimistic, as they both believe that Trump will improve compared to how he did in 2016, and that he's a favorite for reelection. Now, Trump could do better in certain regions (i.e. Appalachia, parts of the Midwest, Utah) than he did in 2016, but on a nationwide basis, I don't think he will, as I believe he will do worse in Arizona, Georgia, and Texas, to say nothing of Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, California, etc.

yeah, the comments from Honeybee, WingNutAlone, and ZenomeProject are LOL tier. They make Atlas posts look good by comparison.

For Trump to win the popular vote, he'd have to significantly improve in places like Texas and California. Which...won't happen lol

Now, I grant that Trump might get a higher share of the vote in both states, since I expect that at least some of the Johnson/McMullin/Castle and other right-leaning independent voters, who went against Trump in 2016 due to concerns over his personality and background, will vote for him this time around, as Trump has governed as a generic Republican on virtually every issue (except for foreign policy, immigration (where he's taken a hardline position compared to the last Republican President, Bush, who supported immigration reform, and even Reagan, who oversaw an amnesty bill in 1986), and trade), particularly in regards to judges, taxes, and social policy (i.e. abortion, gay/transgender rights, etc.) However, many of the left-leaning independent voters, who went for Stein or what have you, will probably return to the Democratic fold, and of course, there are demographic/suburban trends at work.

I think it's conceivable he could hold or even slightly increase his vote percentage in California or Texas, but even then, he could still "improve" to get 32 or 33% of the vote and still lose by about 35 points.

In CA he will be Lucky to win 31%, the problem is that a good number of CA Trump 2016 voters are either dead or have left the state.

Something else to consider as well. 31.49% was Trump's share in the state in 2016. Again, a decrease in the third-party vote might enable him to increase his share, but it wouldn't matter, obviously.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Yeet

[Calthrina950]

Yeet

I bet you that Hickenlooper will win Chaffee and Garfield, and I think he would have a very good shot at Las Animas, Conejos, and Huerfano as well. Particularly Huerfano and Chaffee, as every statewide Democrat won them last year. Polis won Garfield, and Griswold won Los Animas and Conejos.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Yeet

I bet you that Hickenlooper will win Chaffee and Garfield, and I think he would have a very good shot at Las Animas, Conejos, and Huerfano as well. Particularly Huerfano and Chaffee, as every statewide Democrat won them last year. Polis won Garfield, and Griswold won Los Animas and Conejos.

True, I really struggled with those, which is why I barely gave them to Gardner. They will be close either way. While 1-2 of those breaking for Hick would not surprise me either, all of them going to Hick would really surprise me. I just think that Gardner does a bit better in the rurals and relatively low pop areas due to polarization and Trump being on the ticket, but doing relatively badly in the denver, boulder, ft collins, and Co Springs areas. Also, I do not think Hick will win by the blow out proportions that many are expecting and polls are showing, but I still expect a nonetheless very comfortable 7-8 point majority win.

[Calthrina950]

Yeet

I bet you that Hickenlooper will win Chaffee and Garfield, and I think he would have a very good shot at Las Animas, Conejos, and Huerfano as well. Particularly Huerfano and Chaffee, as every statewide Democrat won them last year. Polis won Garfield, and Griswold won Los Animas and Conejos.

True, I really struggled with those, which is why I barely gave them to Gardner. They will be close either way. While 1-2 of those breaking for Hick would not surprise me either, all of them going to Hick would really surprise me. I just think that Gardner does a bit better in the rurals and relatively low pop areas due to polarization and Trump being on the ticket, but doing relatively badly in the denver, boulder, ft collins, and Co Springs areas. Also, I do not think Hick will win by the blow out proportions that many are expecting and polls are showing, but I still expect a nonetheless very comfortable 7-8 point majority win.

Those are valid points, and Gardner winning at least some of those counties wouldn't completely surprise me. But then again, Griswold beat Wayne Williams by 8 points, and she won all of those counties except for Garfield. And Polis, as I said, won Garfield, Chaffee, and Huerfano. I too, think that Hickenlooper will probably win by high single digits, but a low double digit win like Polis' is by no means not out of the realm of possibility.

[Politician]

Here's my county prediction - Hickenlooper wins by around 9.

https://www.yapms.com/app/?m=3xy

[Pyro]

Just what the Senate needs. More anti-MFA centrists.

Gardner is no unbeatable titan. Let a real Democrat have the opportunity.

Lmao... unlike Saint Bernard, the Hick is actually a Democrat.

When it comes to actual policies, Bernie is a helluva lot more of a Democrat than Frackenlooper

[Calthrina950]

Just what the Senate needs. More anti-MFA centrists.

Gardner is no unbeatable titan. Let a real Democrat have the opportunity.

Lmao... unlike Saint Bernard, the Hick is actually a Democrat.

When it comes to actual policies, Bernie is a helluva lot more of a Democrat than Frackenlooper

Who would you prefer be the Democratic nominee against Gardner? Someone like Neguse? Or Johnston? Why the need for a bold progressive?

[Bidenworth2020]

Just what the Senate needs. More anti-MFA centrists.

Gardner is no unbeatable titan. Let a real Democrat have the opportunity.

Lmao... unlike Saint Bernard, the Hick is actually a Democrat.

When it comes to actual policies, Bernie is a helluva lot more of a Democrat than Frackenlooper

Who would you prefer be the Democratic nominee against Gardner? Someone like Neguse? Or Johnston? Why the need for a bold progressive?

I think the idea is that this is a safe race, why choose a moderate candidate when you could have  a bold progressive?