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?
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?
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?