While I can see the similarities in that comparison, since both are heavily rural, white and conservative states, there are some notable caveats to consider. Kansas has a ridiculously long history of electing Republicans - in fact from what I can see the last Democrat elected was George McGill back in 1939. Contrast that with Nebraska, w…
While I can see the similarities in that comparison, since both are heavily rural, white and conservative states, there are some notable caveats to consider. Kansas has a ridiculously long history of electing Republicans - in fact from what I can see the last Democrat elected was George McGill back in 1939. Contrast that with Nebraska, which elected Bob Kerry in the 90s then Ben Nelson until he retired in 2013. Nebraska may not be a left leaning state, but if definitely has a history of electing left leaning or at least moderate Democrats to the senate. I would also add that there's a strong culture of voting for and supporting independent and nonpartisan politicians. Osborn especially fits that ideal, especially considering he spurned help from both parties. Is the race still an uphill climb? Probably sure, but I'd say Osborn is well within striking distance more than we may realize.
The Dakotas and Iowa also had pretty recent histories of voting for Democratic senators - not to mention West Virginia. So just how much relevance should we give that history to this year's elections?
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that voting histories are the only relevance or credibility we should give to taking these races seriously, let alone supporting them. I could just as easily also point out that the Kansas senate race was during 2014, a historically low turnout year for midterm elections. The bigger point, at least for me, isn't just how remotely winnable these races are, it's the fact that they are even this competitive to begin with. Truth be told, just having some evidence that helps show these races can be competitive just reinforces a stronger case for folks like me to consider donating and investing to such races. I have always been a big fan of the old 50 state and I am ecstatic to see Harris and Walz hire a rural director to that end. We should make a good faith effort to engage all voters, even those that we may not agree with. If we don't even try, then, why should they make an effort to listen to us? That's sadly what happens in many of these rural states and remote areas - voters including many of those who may often otherwise support our ideas get ignored, neglected and worse barely know who the candidate is outside their bubbles. If there's a even a chance to win over these voters, why not make an effort, especially when circumstances indicate you have a chance at a victory like here in Nebraska?
While I can see the similarities in that comparison, since both are heavily rural, white and conservative states, there are some notable caveats to consider. Kansas has a ridiculously long history of electing Republicans - in fact from what I can see the last Democrat elected was George McGill back in 1939. Contrast that with Nebraska, which elected Bob Kerry in the 90s then Ben Nelson until he retired in 2013. Nebraska may not be a left leaning state, but if definitely has a history of electing left leaning or at least moderate Democrats to the senate. I would also add that there's a strong culture of voting for and supporting independent and nonpartisan politicians. Osborn especially fits that ideal, especially considering he spurned help from both parties. Is the race still an uphill climb? Probably sure, but I'd say Osborn is well within striking distance more than we may realize.
The Dakotas and Iowa also had pretty recent histories of voting for Democratic senators - not to mention West Virginia. So just how much relevance should we give that history to this year's elections?
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that voting histories are the only relevance or credibility we should give to taking these races seriously, let alone supporting them. I could just as easily also point out that the Kansas senate race was during 2014, a historically low turnout year for midterm elections. The bigger point, at least for me, isn't just how remotely winnable these races are, it's the fact that they are even this competitive to begin with. Truth be told, just having some evidence that helps show these races can be competitive just reinforces a stronger case for folks like me to consider donating and investing to such races. I have always been a big fan of the old 50 state and I am ecstatic to see Harris and Walz hire a rural director to that end. We should make a good faith effort to engage all voters, even those that we may not agree with. If we don't even try, then, why should they make an effort to listen to us? That's sadly what happens in many of these rural states and remote areas - voters including many of those who may often otherwise support our ideas get ignored, neglected and worse barely know who the candidate is outside their bubbles. If there's a even a chance to win over these voters, why not make an effort, especially when circumstances indicate you have a chance at a victory like here in Nebraska?
Agreed. But on Harris' Rural Director, aren't they concentrating on votes in swing states, not places like the non-Omaha-based districts in Nebraska?