MS-Gov 2019

[walleye26]

Now that Jim Hood is running, people are claiming MS is a toss up. So, somebody explain to me how a Democrat in Mississippi can be so popular? Why is Hood popular?

[Politician]

He's been the AG of the state since 2003 and is a broadly popular moderate with a huge name ID.

[Pollster]

He is anti-choice.

[YE]

He is anti-choice.

I mean it's Mississippi... What do you expect?

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

He is anti-choice.

Which helps him quite a bit in a state as red as Mississippi.

[junior chįmp]

I think his mullet helps him alot. He doesnt have that cosmopolitan globalist haircut like most Dems do

[Bourbonfan]

I spent some time in MS awhile back and asked a few people the same thing. The answers were not exactly deep in analysis, but they did consistently describe him as relatable, and he does play up the idea that he's just a good old-boy bringing home the bacon (he brings up that tobacco settlement a lot apparently). Looking at that linked article, it appears to be saying the same thing. Why specifically that works for him and not many others, I'll leave to those more familiar with Mississippi.

[OneJ]

I would suspect that it helps that Hood isn’t from somewhere like Jackson which makes him more “relatable” to those folks as well.

[smoltchanov]

He is anti-choice.

It's a BIG plus in Mississippi... I would even say - neccessary (but - not sufficient) condition of victory. Just as JBE wouldn't beat even Vitter in Louisiana without being 100% "pro-life"...

[LoneStarDem]

He's been the AG of the state since 2003 and is a broadly popular moderate with a huge name ID.

Hood has been MS State AG since January 13th, 2004: elected in 2003 & reelected in 2007, 2011, 2015.

[Pollster]

He is anti-choice.

I mean it's Mississippi... What do you expect?

I was answering OP's question as to how he could be so popular.

Really is remarkable how elastic the South and parts of the Great Plains become once both candidates are anti-choice.

[MT Treasurer]

This was a pretty interesting profile on him done 6 years ago.

Unironically, the article starts by talking about his "folksy twang" and his haircut.

Paging MT Treasurer and IceSpear lol

We’re supposed to pretend that these things don’t matter, though.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

He is anti-choice.

I mean it's Mississippi... What do you expect?

I was answering OP's question as to how he could be so popular.

Really is remarkable how elastic the South and parts of the Great Plains become once both candidates are anti-choice.

Yeah I really don’t know why more aspiring statewide Dems in these heavily R states  don’t just claim to “find Jesus” and “become pro-life” like JBE did when they decide to run statewide.

I don't think that's a good strategy in the Trump era, because very few formerly Democratic rural whites are going to be able to be peeled off just because the Democrat is pro-life, assuming their opponent isn't socially liberal and/or scandal ridden ala David Vitter.

[smoltchanov]

He is anti-choice.

I mean it's Mississippi... What do you expect?

I was answering OP's question as to how he could be so popular.

Really is remarkable how elastic the South and parts of the Great Plains become once both candidates are anti-choice.

Yeah I really don’t know why more aspiring statewide Dems in these heavily R states  don’t just claim to “find Jesus” and “become pro-life” like JBE did when they decide to run statewide.

I don't think that's a good strategy in the Trump era, because very few formerly Democratic rural whites are going to be able to be peeled off just because the Democrat is pro-life, assuming their opponent isn't socially liberal and/or scandal ridden ala David Vitter.

It's obviously a lot harder to do than it used to be for the reasons you mentioned, but it can still be done. Just look at how Billie Sutton, Joe Manchin and Collin Peterson performed compared to Generic D in their areas. It probably wouldn't be advisable to run as a pro-life Democrat in any state roughly R+5 or less due to your base being large enough to be sufficient for a win in its own right so long as the base isn't pissed off at you (and a number of them would be with a pro-life Dem). But once you get to R+5 (or really more like R+10) or higher, it's probably more a net positive to run as a pro-life Dem since you have to rely on a a lot of cross-over voters to win and you don't have to worry about pissing off your tiny base as much.

Take a Democrat running statewide in, say, South Carolina. A credible Democrat running statewide against a flawed Republican would have a much easier go of it if they claimed to be "pro-life" rather than pro-choice

Agree 110%, and said the same thing many times. Candidates must reflect their districts/states rather closely. Except for very special cases - you don't run "bold progressive" (including social issues) in conservative states (R+5 or more) IF you want to win. If you merely want to state a position - fine. But - not, if you want to win, because you simply can't get enough crossover vote you need. The same, BTW, is even more true for Republicans in Blue states, where (if they want to win) they must run as moderate candidates as possibly, may be - utterly ignoring their miniscule "base". An example (admittedly - on non-federal level) - Baker's campaign in Massachusetts: he pissed off (and ignored) much more conservative "base" in his state, but more then compensated that with tons of crossover vote from Indies and Democrats. Of course - it's better to do in non-federal races, but still - ....

[LoneStarDem]

What's wrong with being a Pro-Life Dem ?

[smoltchanov]

What's wrong with being a Pro-Life Dem ?

Nothing. The same - with pro-choice Republican. But "activists" of both parties think differently, and try to impose their views by any means... (good, that so far - short of physical extermination of opponents, but will not be surprized if they will come to it eventualy). For such "activists" i have only one word: idiots. In fact - real idiots are smarter....

[Skunk]

What's wrong with being a Pro-Life Dem ?

Nothing. The same - with pro-choice Republican. But "activists" of both parties think differently, and try to impose their views by any means... (good, that so far - short of physical extermination of opponents, but will not be surprized if they will come to it eventualy). For such "activists" i have only one word: idiots. In fact - real idiots are smarter....

Thank you smoltchanov, very cool

[smoltchanov]

What's wrong with being a Pro-Life Dem ?

Nothing. The same - with pro-choice Republican. But "activists" of both parties think differently, and try to impose their views by any means... (good, that so far - short of physical extermination of opponents, but will not be surprized if they will come to it eventualy). For such "activists" i have only one word: idiots. In fact - real idiots are smarter....

Thank you smoltchanov, very cool

You are welcome.......

[America Needs R'hllor]

What's wrong with being a Pro-Life Dem ?

Nothing. The same - with pro-choice Republican. But "activists" of both parties think differently, and try to impose their views by any means... (good, that so far - short of physical extermination of opponents, but will not be surprized if they will come to it eventualy). For such "activists" i have only one word: idiots. In fact - real idiots are smarter....

Thank you smoltchanov, very cool

[smoltchanov]

What's wrong with being a Pro-Life Dem ?

Nothing. The same - with pro-choice Republican. But "activists" of both parties think differently, and try to impose their views by any means... (good, that so far - short of physical extermination of opponents, but will not be surprized if they will come to it eventualy). For such "activists" i have only one word: idiots. In fact - real idiots are smarter....

Thank you smoltchanov, very cool

You are welcome too.... I hope - there will be no need for me to repeat that for everyone...

[Boobs]

What's wrong with being a Pro-Life Dem ?

Nothing. The same - with pro-choice Republican. But "activists" of both parties think differently, and try to impose their views by any means... (good, that so far - short of physical extermination of opponents, but will not be surprized if they will come to it eventualy). For such "activists" i have only one word: idiots. In fact - real idiots are smarter....

Thank you smoltchanov, very cool

[smoltchanov]

^ Guys, i value your compliments to my very modest person, but i have one question: do you have nothing more to do?)))))) If you think that your sarcasm is important to me - you are VERY wrong, because for me critically important is an opinion of only one person, and it, as you may guess, is always positive.....