I've always thought this race is going to be like TN-Sen 2018. Hogan will keep it much closer than any other Republican would but he'll still lose solidly.
In 2020 the most a Senator outran Trump by was 7%. That was Susan Collins in Maine. Hogan is no Collins and Maryland is not Maine. Hogan would need to outrun Trump by roughly 15-20% in order to make it competitive. Roughly a third to a fourth of Dem voters are going to have to pull the lever for Harris and Hogan for Hogan to win.
I just dont see that happening in a presidential year.
Exactly. I can see Hogan outrunning Trump by a lot, and maybe if this race was in like Colorado or Oregon instead it could genuinely be competitive, but in Maryland he has no shot at actually winning.
With due respect, Hogan would never have been elected in those states, therefore he would not have become a viable candidate(Hogan was elected originally due to bad state party dysfunction imo)
Yes, of course, but saying the Democratic Party had a terrible year in 2014 isn't really getting to the point.
Democrats during both 2010 and 2014 midterms were running away from their accomplishments and not being confident in messaging when it came to President Obama's agenda. He certainly didn't please all of the most liberal of the base but that still wasn't an excuse for Democrats, especially Michelle Nunn in the GA-SEN race and Alison Grimes in the KY-SEN Race, to run away from Obama.
If Democrats got their act together and ensured higher turnout in 2014, Hogan might not have benefitted as much in the MD-GOV race.
You are trying to blame the quality and behavior of the Democrats, but that's very dubious, especially in 2010, when the economy SUCKED. But it wasn't that good in 2014, either. And come on! Grimes? You think there was actually a way for her to win? Gimme a break!
I'm putting the blame on the campaigning and messaging. Democrats were not showing a spine in 2010 and 2014 when it came to this and were regularly on the defensive. This wasn't specific to one or several Democratic candidates but the larger national party apparatus. There was no reason why Democrats needed to be on the defensive although President Obama and his administration did royally F up with the initial roll out of the healthcare.gov website. The PR of the ACA during 2010 was awful and didn't help Democrats heading into midterms.
2014 economy was better than 2010 but it depends on who nationwide was benefitting. Democrats didn't do anything to really change what happened in 2010 and it was a broken record once again.
There are no assurances Alison Grimes running a different and spine-free campaign would have given her a victory. Even while his popularity ratings were always lower than many GOP Senators, Mitch McConnell has always been an entrenched incumbent notoriously difficult to unseat. Bruce Lunsford came the closest to unseat McConnell back in 2008 but after that, he got re-elected comfortably.
That said, there was no reason for Grimes to run away from Kynect and its association with the Affordable Care Act. Governor Steve Beshear did not, and his popularity ratings didn't tank. Grimes had multiple opportunities to go after McConnell but didn't. Certainly, she didn't have a chance to win but my god, she was no fighting Democrat. Put someone up in KY who can put up a good fight.
Also, Tim Kaine was AWFUL as DNC Chair. He didn't do anything.
Debbie Wasserman-Shultz wasn't much of an improvement except in helping President Obama get re-elected. After that, it was like the 2014 midterms were a repeat of 2010, just with the Senate being the focus of the loses.
I'm glad Jaime Harrison is DNC Chair now. He's getting Democrats to show fire and it's showing to work. Thank god!
Hold on a second there, youтАЩre missing important context. Michelle Nunn and Alison Grimes running away from Obama and the ACA, got those Democrats some of their best over performances in recent years.
LetтАЩs compare with context:
National environment vs Dem nominee
2014 KY R+6 vs R+15 Difference R+9
2014 GA R+6 vs R+8 Difference R-2
Notice how close they are? Now letтАЩs look at other elections for Senate compared to national environment and how Dems did:
KY:
2002 R+29 vs R+5 Difference R+24
2004 R+1 vs R+3 Difference R-2
2008 R+6 vs D+11 Difference R+17
2010 R+11 vs R+7 Difference R+4
2016 R+14 vs R+1 Difference R+13
2020 R+20 vs D+3 Difference R+23
GA:
2004 R+18 vs R+3 Difference R+15
2008 R+15 vs D+11 Difference R+26
2010 R+19 vs R+7 Difference R+12
2016 R+14 vs R+1 Difference R+13
At best, you can argue this is true for Alison Grimes, but she also performed better or equal to 3/6 candidates Democrats nominated for Senate, so that claim imo, is sketchy at best. Taking into account the national environment, she did better than 2/3rds of the Democrats nominated in KY Senate races, making that claim even more shaky than it was.
You absolutely cannot claim the same of Michelle Nunn however and the evidence is strong for not including Grimes either. They did well because they framed themselves as a different kind of Democrat in their campaigns and ran away from some party policies that were unpopular in their states at the time.
It's all about the numbers. And based on the following data, Grimes did in fact perform worse than Bruce Lunsford did. Her percentage of the votes in 2014 was similar to President Obama's percentage of the votes in 2008. Therefore, her pivot to running away from Obama and Governor Beshear's accomplishments with Kynect really didn't help her much (it was also popular in KY). Keep in mind that Lunsford did better than Obama in 2008.
Also, with respect to GA, Nunn was a credible candidate in the GA-SEN race who IMO didn't exactly do any better than Obama did in 2012. Both their margins of loss in the state comparatively in 2012 and 2014 respectively weren't exactly far apart.
There really is nothing to lose by giving it straight and not having to pretend like you're Republican lite. I have no reason to believe Grimes and Nunn would have gotten less votes if they had done this.
YouтАЩre arguing that 2 different things are the same. No, she didnтАЩt do better than Lunsford, but that doesnтАЩt mean she didnтАЩt do well compared to most Democrats. Meaning she did better than the average Democrat and your claim is not grounded with strong enough evidence. That doesnтАЩt mean she was the best. ThatтАЩs a different argument and one IтАЩm not making.
Also comparing the presidency which often depends on the person that can wildly differ from the literal agreed upon measure of the national environment, is only going to lead you astray. Your insistence on focusing on the best Democratic candidate is making you miss the full picture. Just because someoneтАЩs worse than the best, doesnтАЩt automatically mean they werenтАЩt good.
MD Senate Emerson: Alsobrooks up 49-42.
I've always thought this race is going to be like TN-Sen 2018. Hogan will keep it much closer than any other Republican would but he'll still lose solidly.
In 2020 the most a Senator outran Trump by was 7%. That was Susan Collins in Maine. Hogan is no Collins and Maryland is not Maine. Hogan would need to outrun Trump by roughly 15-20% in order to make it competitive. Roughly a third to a fourth of Dem voters are going to have to pull the lever for Harris and Hogan for Hogan to win.
I just dont see that happening in a presidential year.
Exactly. I can see Hogan outrunning Trump by a lot, and maybe if this race was in like Colorado or Oregon instead it could genuinely be competitive, but in Maryland he has no shot at actually winning.
With due respect, Hogan would never have been elected in those states, therefore he would not have become a viable candidate(Hogan was elected originally due to bad state party dysfunction imo)
Agreed. The Republican Parties in Colorado and Oregon are way too extremist for Hogan.
And Hogan was also elected during the 2014 midterms, when the Democratic Party ran candidates who had no spine.
That also
You mean when the party had a terrible year.
Yes, of course, but saying the Democratic Party had a terrible year in 2014 isn't really getting to the point.
Democrats during both 2010 and 2014 midterms were running away from their accomplishments and not being confident in messaging when it came to President Obama's agenda. He certainly didn't please all of the most liberal of the base but that still wasn't an excuse for Democrats, especially Michelle Nunn in the GA-SEN race and Alison Grimes in the KY-SEN Race, to run away from Obama.
If Democrats got their act together and ensured higher turnout in 2014, Hogan might not have benefitted as much in the MD-GOV race.
You are trying to blame the quality and behavior of the Democrats, but that's very dubious, especially in 2010, when the economy SUCKED. But it wasn't that good in 2014, either. And come on! Grimes? You think there was actually a way for her to win? Gimme a break!
I'm putting the blame on the campaigning and messaging. Democrats were not showing a spine in 2010 and 2014 when it came to this and were regularly on the defensive. This wasn't specific to one or several Democratic candidates but the larger national party apparatus. There was no reason why Democrats needed to be on the defensive although President Obama and his administration did royally F up with the initial roll out of the healthcare.gov website. The PR of the ACA during 2010 was awful and didn't help Democrats heading into midterms.
2014 economy was better than 2010 but it depends on who nationwide was benefitting. Democrats didn't do anything to really change what happened in 2010 and it was a broken record once again.
There are no assurances Alison Grimes running a different and spine-free campaign would have given her a victory. Even while his popularity ratings were always lower than many GOP Senators, Mitch McConnell has always been an entrenched incumbent notoriously difficult to unseat. Bruce Lunsford came the closest to unseat McConnell back in 2008 but after that, he got re-elected comfortably.
That said, there was no reason for Grimes to run away from Kynect and its association with the Affordable Care Act. Governor Steve Beshear did not, and his popularity ratings didn't tank. Grimes had multiple opportunities to go after McConnell but didn't. Certainly, she didn't have a chance to win but my god, she was no fighting Democrat. Put someone up in KY who can put up a good fight.
Also, Tim Kaine was AWFUL as DNC Chair. He didn't do anything.
Debbie Wasserman-Shultz wasn't much of an improvement except in helping President Obama get re-elected. After that, it was like the 2014 midterms were a repeat of 2010, just with the Senate being the focus of the loses.
I'm glad Jaime Harrison is DNC Chair now. He's getting Democrats to show fire and it's showing to work. Thank god!
Hold on a second there, youтАЩre missing important context. Michelle Nunn and Alison Grimes running away from Obama and the ACA, got those Democrats some of their best over performances in recent years.
LetтАЩs compare with context:
National environment vs Dem nominee
2014 KY R+6 vs R+15 Difference R+9
2014 GA R+6 vs R+8 Difference R-2
Notice how close they are? Now letтАЩs look at other elections for Senate compared to national environment and how Dems did:
KY:
2002 R+29 vs R+5 Difference R+24
2004 R+1 vs R+3 Difference R-2
2008 R+6 vs D+11 Difference R+17
2010 R+11 vs R+7 Difference R+4
2016 R+14 vs R+1 Difference R+13
2020 R+20 vs D+3 Difference R+23
GA:
2004 R+18 vs R+3 Difference R+15
2008 R+15 vs D+11 Difference R+26
2010 R+19 vs R+7 Difference R+12
2016 R+14 vs R+1 Difference R+13
At best, you can argue this is true for Alison Grimes, but she also performed better or equal to 3/6 candidates Democrats nominated for Senate, so that claim imo, is sketchy at best. Taking into account the national environment, she did better than 2/3rds of the Democrats nominated in KY Senate races, making that claim even more shaky than it was.
You absolutely cannot claim the same of Michelle Nunn however and the evidence is strong for not including Grimes either. They did well because they framed themselves as a different kind of Democrat in their campaigns and ran away from some party policies that were unpopular in their states at the time.
It's all about the numbers. And based on the following data, Grimes did in fact perform worse than Bruce Lunsford did. Her percentage of the votes in 2014 was similar to President Obama's percentage of the votes in 2008. Therefore, her pivot to running away from Obama and Governor Beshear's accomplishments with Kynect really didn't help her much (it was also popular in KY). Keep in mind that Lunsford did better than Obama in 2008.
Also, with respect to GA, Nunn was a credible candidate in the GA-SEN race who IMO didn't exactly do any better than Obama did in 2012. Both their margins of loss in the state comparatively in 2012 and 2014 respectively weren't exactly far apart.
There really is nothing to lose by giving it straight and not having to pretend like you're Republican lite. I have no reason to believe Grimes and Nunn would have gotten less votes if they had done this.
YouтАЩre arguing that 2 different things are the same. No, she didnтАЩt do better than Lunsford, but that doesnтАЩt mean she didnтАЩt do well compared to most Democrats. Meaning she did better than the average Democrat and your claim is not grounded with strong enough evidence. That doesnтАЩt mean she was the best. ThatтАЩs a different argument and one IтАЩm not making.
Also comparing the presidency which often depends on the person that can wildly differ from the literal agreed upon measure of the national environment, is only going to lead you astray. Your insistence on focusing on the best Democratic candidate is making you miss the full picture. Just because someoneтАЩs worse than the best, doesnтАЩt automatically mean they werenтАЩt good.