Agree or Disagree? (Mississippi Governor question)

[ElectionsGuy]

I would strongly agree. Espy got a little more than 46% by having higher black turnout and lower white turnout (overall). This is not to say he can't try and pursue both, but I think focusing on turnout is going to be more key to him winning (if he does). Getting black turnout to Espy levels, getting some Trump-skeptical (but generally Republican) urban and suburban whites to vote for him, plus getting the few right DINOs to vote Democrat one last time is pretty much his path. This also (kinda) has to do with luck. Wishing for lower white turnout is kind of a luck based proposition, especially when Trump will do rallies with Reeves toward the end.

Please know that I am generalizing referring to black turnout (obviously there are black Republicans and Trump supporters too, just far less of them)

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

I think he needs to focus on both; getting high black turnout and winning over a decent share of DINOs who voted for him in the past. getting high black turnout should be his main priority, while winning over ancestral Democrats should be secondary, but it's still important for him to win.

[smoltchanov]

I think he needs to focus on both; getting high black turnout and winning over a decent share of DINOs who voted for him in the past. getting high black turnout should be his main priority, while winning over ancestral Democrats should be secondary, but it's still important for him to win.

[skbl17]

Hood needs to do whatever he needs to do to win both a majority of the vote and a majority of state house districts, so I'd say he needs to do both.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Hood has to do both, and that's not easy.

Hood has to ensure that his base sees him as a National Democrat, loyal to the National Democratic Party, and not just a mere local Democrat.  At the same time, he needs to distance himself from a degree of the social liberalism National Democrats embrace.

Mississippi has always had a strand of economic populism.  Hood could, and should, run in that manner.  He could probably be a pro-life Democrat successfully.  He'll be more successful doing that and having populist economics than by being an economic Republican who is pro-choice.

[smoltchanov]

Hood has to do both, and that's not easy.

Hood has to ensure that his base sees him as a National Democrat, loyal to the National Democratic Party, and not just a mere local Democrat.  At the same time, he needs to distance himself from a degree of the social liberalism National Democrats embrace.

Mississippi has always had a strand of economic populism.  Hood could, and should, run in that manner.  He could probably be a pro-life Democrat successfully.  He'll be more successful doing that and having populist economics than by being an economic Republican who is pro-choice.

What for does he need a "National Democrat" badge? In the past successfull Democratic candidates in Mississippi ran as far as possible from national party, and stressed, that they are "Mississippi Democrats, not National Democrats"....

[lfromnj]

Hood needs to do whatever he needs to do to win both a majority of the vote and a majority of state house districts, so I'd say he needs to do both.

There’s no way he wins a majority of legislative districts even if he convincingly wins the PV. He only won a majority of LDs in his 2015 re-election bid by two seats, and that was when he was winning by double digits. His hope is to win a majority and hope the courts do the right thing

THis is wrong. The electoral vote in MS only comes in if he doesn't win a majority.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Hood has to do both, and that's not easy.

Hood has to ensure that his base sees him as a National Democrat, loyal to the National Democratic Party, and not just a mere local Democrat.  At the same time, he needs to distance himself from a degree of the social liberalism National Democrats embrace.

Mississippi has always had a strand of economic populism.  Hood could, and should, run in that manner.  He could probably be a pro-life Democrat successfully.  He'll be more successful doing that and having populist economics than by being an economic Republican who is pro-choice.

What for does he need a "National Democrat" badge? In the past successfull Democratic candidates in Mississippi ran as far as possible from national party, and stressed, that they are "Mississippi Democrats, not National Democrats"....

He has to indicate that, at a minimum, he'll vote for the National ticket in 2020.

There are not enough "Mississippi Democrats" that vote Republican in the Presidential contest to win anymore.  Hood cannot run as a Massachusetts liberal, but he does have to indicate that he's a Democrat and will vote for the national ticket in 2020 if he's pressed on this issue.

One reason Allison Lundergan Grimes lost her race against McConnell was that she would not say that she voted for Obama in 2012.  Everyone knows that she did, and she ended up looking ridiculous in refusing to say how she voted for, claiming a secret ballot.  She was a Senate candidate, and it's not unreasonable to expect that a nominee of a political party be open as to whom they voted for in the last election, who they are voting for in the present election, etc.  Hood doesn't want to be there, and no Democrat outside Mississippi is going to view Hood as worth supporting if he's going to turn out to be a Trump Democrat in 2020.  One Jim Justice is enough.

[S019]

He needs to do both


But AA consistently vote 90% D, he can call down surrogates to get out AA vote


Hood needs to focus on winning Trump voters, by highlighting moderate positions

[smoltchanov]

Hood has to do both, and that's not easy.

Hood has to ensure that his base sees him as a National Democrat, loyal to the National Democratic Party, and not just a mere local Democrat.  At the same time, he needs to distance himself from a degree of the social liberalism National Democrats embrace.

Mississippi has always had a strand of economic populism.  Hood could, and should, run in that manner.  He could probably be a pro-life Democrat successfully.  He'll be more successful doing that and having populist economics than by being an economic Republican who is pro-choice.

What for does he need a "National Democrat" badge? In the past successfull Democratic candidates in Mississippi ran as far as possible from national party, and stressed, that they are "Mississippi Democrats, not National Democrats"....

He has to indicate that, at a minimum, he'll vote for the National ticket in 2020.

There are not enough "Mississippi Democrats" that vote Republican in the Presidential contest to win anymore.  Hood cannot run as a Massachusetts liberal, but he does have to indicate that he's a Democrat and will vote for the national ticket in 2020 if he's pressed on this issue.

One reason Allison Lundergan Grimes lost her race against McConnell was that she would not say that she voted for Obama in 2012.  Everyone knows that she did, and she ended up looking ridiculous in refusing to say how she voted for, claiming a secret ballot.  She was a Senate candidate, and it's not unreasonable to expect that a nominee of a political party be open as to whom they voted for in the last election, who they are voting for in the present election, etc.  Hood doesn't want to be there, and no Democrat outside Mississippi is going to view Hood as worth supporting if he's going to turn out to be a Trump Democrat in 2020.  One Jim Justice is enough.

You can be "Non-National Democrat" withouth being "Trump Democrat"....

[Fuzzy Bear]

Hood has to do both, and that's not easy.

Hood has to ensure that his base sees him as a National Democrat, loyal to the National Democratic Party, and not just a mere local Democrat.  At the same time, he needs to distance himself from a degree of the social liberalism National Democrats embrace.

Mississippi has always had a strand of economic populism.  Hood could, and should, run in that manner.  He could probably be a pro-life Democrat successfully.  He'll be more successful doing that and having populist economics than by being an economic Republican who is pro-choice.

What for does he need a "National Democrat" badge? In the past successfull Democratic candidates in Mississippi ran as far as possible from national party, and stressed, that they are "Mississippi Democrats, not National Democrats"....

He has to indicate that, at a minimum, he'll vote for the National ticket in 2020.

There are not enough "Mississippi Democrats" that vote Republican in the Presidential contest to win anymore.  Hood cannot run as a Massachusetts liberal, but he does have to indicate that he's a Democrat and will vote for the national ticket in 2020 if he's pressed on this issue.

One reason Allison Lundergan Grimes lost her race against McConnell was that she would not say that she voted for Obama in 2012.  Everyone knows that she did, and she ended up looking ridiculous in refusing to say how she voted for, claiming a secret ballot.  She was a Senate candidate, and it's not unreasonable to expect that a nominee of a political party be open as to whom they voted for in the last election, who they are voting for in the present election, etc.  Hood doesn't want to be there, and no Democrat outside Mississippi is going to view Hood as worth supporting if he's going to turn out to be a Trump Democrat in 2020.  One Jim Justice is enough.

You can be "Non-National Democrat" withouth being "Trump Democrat"....

Perhaps.

My definition of a "National Democrat" is a Democrat that endorses the national ticket.  You can be conservative, but if you say "I'm voting for the Democratic ticket in November!" you are a national Democrat, even if you go no further than that.

[smoltchanov]

Hood has to do both, and that's not easy.

Hood has to ensure that his base sees him as a National Democrat, loyal to the National Democratic Party, and not just a mere local Democrat.  At the same time, he needs to distance himself from a degree of the social liberalism National Democrats embrace.

Mississippi has always had a strand of economic populism.  Hood could, and should, run in that manner.  He could probably be a pro-life Democrat successfully.  He'll be more successful doing that and having populist economics than by being an economic Republican who is pro-choice.

What for does he need a "National Democrat" badge? In the past successfull Democratic candidates in Mississippi ran as far as possible from national party, and stressed, that they are "Mississippi Democrats, not National Democrats"....

He has to indicate that, at a minimum, he'll vote for the National ticket in 2020.

There are not enough "Mississippi Democrats" that vote Republican in the Presidential contest to win anymore.  Hood cannot run as a Massachusetts liberal, but he does have to indicate that he's a Democrat and will vote for the national ticket in 2020 if he's pressed on this issue.

One reason Allison Lundergan Grimes lost her race against McConnell was that she would not say that she voted for Obama in 2012.  Everyone knows that she did, and she ended up looking ridiculous in refusing to say how she voted for, claiming a secret ballot.  She was a Senate candidate, and it's not unreasonable to expect that a nominee of a political party be open as to whom they voted for in the last election, who they are voting for in the present election, etc.  Hood doesn't want to be there, and no Democrat outside Mississippi is going to view Hood as worth supporting if he's going to turn out to be a Trump Democrat in 2020.  One Jim Justice is enough.

You can be "Non-National Democrat" withouth being "Trump Democrat"....

Perhaps.

My definition of a "National Democrat" is a Democrat that endorses the national ticket.  You can be conservative, but if you say "I'm voting for the Democratic ticket in November!" you are a national Democrat, even if you go no further than that.

Yes. Given what Republican candidates of present days usually are - it's not that difficult. In extreme cases (like JBE's) you may even add "though i disagree with my party position on ..... (some issues)"