In the same article about John Bel Edwards, it says
Mr. Schumer has told associates that he sees an intriguing opportunity in Mississippi, which has the largest percentage of Black residents of any state. One possible candidate there is Scott Colom, a district attorney who was appointed by President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to a federal judges…
In the same article about John Bel Edwards, it says
Mr. Schumer has told associates that he sees an intriguing opportunity in Mississippi, which has the largest percentage of Black residents of any state. One possible candidate there is Scott Colom, a district attorney who was appointed by President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to a federal judgeship — only to be blocked by Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, whom Mr. Colom would be running against in 2026. The state is also appealing for Democrats because it is small and relatively cheap to compete in.
Let's see the maths: (from Wikipedia)
White Americans: 55.4
Black Americans: 36.4
Latinos: 3.6
Asians: 1.1
Native: 0.5
Around 16% of the African American voting age population is disenfranchised, let's assume that in contrast 8 percent of the rest of the population is disenfranchised (and the Mississippi delta suffers from systemic poverty).
So assuming 90 percent of Black people vote for Democrats and taking into account the disenfranchisement, you get ≈ 30 percent of the vote.
Would we be able to get another 20 percent of the vote that too in Mississippi? Maybe it's a loser's game or maybe running a pro life candidate with the midterm electorate differences may make it possible.
We win 30% of the white vote in Georgia.
Note: The largest shifts in Trump's approval have been seen in non-white voters.
I think it’s very possible to get to 45% in MS, but nearly impossible to get that last 5%.
The only pathways I could imagine are four scenarios imo (and to be quite honest some of these are 1 in a million chances to occur, but these are the only options)
1) Is if no candidate in the primary/general election hits 50% and a runoff is required with a lower turnout 1v1 popular D vs damaged/unpopular R (think Roy Moore level).
2) Is a runoff with 3 candidates (2 R’s, 1D) after 2nd and 3rd place candidates tie in the primary/general, while 1st place is below 50%.
Considering Republicans have an incumbent these 2 seem all, but impossible.
3) Is if a popular politician runs as an Independent, holds the incumbent below 50% in the primary/general while making 1 of the top 2 spots, then wins the runoff.
4) Is if a popular politician runs as an Independent and wins 50% outright against the incumbent with no other Democrat/left/centrist candidate running.
Running as a Democrat in the Deep South, regardless of who that is, makes it not possible to win a federal race. Doesn’t matter how pro-life or conservative they are, the party name alone dooms them.
The only politicians who could theoretically run as Independents who are popular in the state is Gubernatorial candidate Brandon Presley or maybe former State Attorney General Jim Hood. And even if they do run (Presley was looking at a 2027 Gov rematch against the unpopular R Reeves), that’s a lot of ifs, hurdles and obstacles to get past.
TLDR: Florida is probably a better pickup opportunity for Democrats than Mississippi even though it has a much lower floor than MS does. Or in other words, extremely unlikely.
Running as a Independent in the South makes you lose Black voters who may be very socially conservative but are extremely loyal to Democrats according to a Split ticket Analysis. So that's out of the equation.
That’s why I said no Democrat runs against the Independent.
From the link you provided:
RED scores also don’t predict the success of specific independent campaigns, only a state’s suitability for one. For example, Al Gross’s campaign in Alaska veered too close to the national Democratic campaign, contributing to his loss. Yet, by RED score, Alaska remains fertile ground for a strong independent campaign.
Brandon Presley almost won with Biden in the White House and strong minority turnout in an off year election. Yes, he ran as a Democrat, but if an Independent candidate shows up and actively courts black voters, they can get strong support from minority voters.
This analysis makes a lot of assumptions I don’t agree with, starting with the fact we know minority turnout is lower in midterms than it is in presidential years. So is it the Independent label turning them off? Or is it them just tuning out any politics until the next presidential and any Democrat running would face the same lower minority turnout in off year elections as an Independent, thus shifting the precincts rightward?
2 of the only 4 examples (which is already far too low a sample size to draw conclusions from) are from midterm elections. In Presidential years when minority turnout goes up, we have 2 examples of Independents running. 1 of which had the I basically run as a D with an I label, the other put actual distance between his views and the D party. The latter gained among all voters. So not only is it an extremely small sample size to make conclusions from, but the type of campaign matters too.
Another one is saying a Libertarian vs a Republican is the same as an Independent vs Republican race in the minds of voters. That’s ludicrous. Voters know libertarians are on the right. It’s equally plausible (if not the actual case) that Democratic voters (aka black voters) saw no choice to vote for and decided to stay home. To assume they would also stay home in an I vs R race has no actual evidence to back it up.
Finally, the only presidential year where the independent candidate actually tried to distance themselves from the party resulted in vote gains among all voters! So that’s 1 race that confirmed the theory, 1 race that doesn’t. And 2 races with lower minority turnout regardless of if an I or D is running. I’d bet that Democrats also had minority voter precincts shift right these same years and for all we know, maybe even worse than the I!
It’s not enough data to definitively say Independents running would have trouble in the Deep South. Even more so because there hasn’t actually been an Independent statewide run in the Deep South! But if you look at the Independents who ran for office in State House/State Senate, you can see them outperforming the district Democratic baseline overall, which means even if this theory is correct, Democrats gain more voters than they lose, so it’s still worth it to run as I’s instead of D’s.
In the end imo this conclusion is flawed at best and is extremely misleading, portraying shaky assumptions as facts.
According to the link you gave me, it says that minority precincts shifted more towards the Independent in Nebraska compared to Democrats? Or am I misunderstanding what you’re saying?
Good post. If 2 candidates have a tied vote for 2nd place, they really have a 3-person runoff instead of doing some kind of coin flip or something? Same if there are 2 candidates tied for 1st?
Yup, here’s the constitutional word on ties (I didn’t include the full write up of the state constitution, only the relevant parts, you can look up the entire thing if you wish)
Mississippi Code Title 23. Elections § 23-15-833
The two (2) candidates who receive the highest popular votes for the office shall have their names submitted as the candidates to the runoff and the candidate who leads in the runoff election shall be elected to the office. When there is a tie in the first election of those receiving the next highest vote, these two (2) and the one receiving the highest vote, none having received a majority, shall go into the runoff election and whoever leads in the runoff election shall be entitled to the office.
It's worth a half court shot because if Cassidy manages to win a bloody primary, there're potential for a lot of R voter drop-off. I don't think it'd be enough, but if it's a blue tsunami environment, it's worth a go for at least money diversion purposes.
I too think that’s the most likely outcome. However, I do think there’s a path to victory (although very narrow) only if Cassidy after a brutal primary and JBE make it to the runoff. Republicans despise Cassidy in the way many of them hated Tate Reeves in MS or Roy Moore in AL (not for the same reasons obviously, but the intensity of the dislike) causing those Republicans to massively underperform the GOP baseline. If it’s anyone, but Cassidy, JBE’s toast.
You could easily imagine part of them sitting out though if he’s in the runoff, lowering the threshold for JBE to be victorious. With Trump in the White House turbocharging D turnout, that might just barely be enough for a conservative Democrat to pull off a remarkable major upset with 48-51% of the vote (I say less than 50% is possible for him to still win because of blank ballots or write-in protest votes).
It depends on if JBE runs or not, but theoretically in a Cassidy vs JBE runoff, it’s definitely possible!
Whether the tradeoff of any potential gain among swing voters is worth losing the number of MAGA GOP who already turnout at lower rates than the rest of the electorate when Trump is not on the ballot is not at all clear and imo given how few swing voters there are (especially in MS), I’d be far more worried if less Trump voters showed up if I was the GOP than any potential gains among swing voters for having Cassidy make the runoff.
Any other R no matter how controversial is a slam dunk win. Cassidy is the bigger risk for the GOP imo. It’s basic math, there’s more Trump voters than there are swing voters, so more of a base turnout problem is a bigger concern than say a non-Cassidy Republican turning off swing voters.
Especially facing a Democratic candidate Louisiana voters voted for not once, but twice into the Governorship. It could be arguable Cassidy could theoretically face two simultaneous serious, if not catastrophic electoral problems in the runoff, which could lead to a major upset: low GOP turnout and high crossover/swing voters going for JBE.
One caveat: If there’s a runoff in Louisiana and control of the Senate is up for grabs, Cassidy will still win fairly easily as partisanship takes hold (and I still think that’s the most plausible outcome in a JBE vs Cassidy runoff).
But if there’s a bloody primary, if Cassidy advances damaged and broke, if JBE runs a great campaign and advances to the runoff with a large amount of cash and if Senate control is already settled whether by D’s or R’s, then there’s a narrow path along the lines of AL 2017 to squeak a 6 year term. Lot of ifs obviously, so the path in LA is very small, but probably larger than MS and maybe even FL.
In the same article about John Bel Edwards, it says
Mr. Schumer has told associates that he sees an intriguing opportunity in Mississippi, which has the largest percentage of Black residents of any state. One possible candidate there is Scott Colom, a district attorney who was appointed by President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to a federal judgeship — only to be blocked by Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, whom Mr. Colom would be running against in 2026. The state is also appealing for Democrats because it is small and relatively cheap to compete in.
Let's see the maths: (from Wikipedia)
White Americans: 55.4
Black Americans: 36.4
Latinos: 3.6
Asians: 1.1
Native: 0.5
Around 16% of the African American voting age population is disenfranchised, let's assume that in contrast 8 percent of the rest of the population is disenfranchised (and the Mississippi delta suffers from systemic poverty).
So assuming 90 percent of Black people vote for Democrats and taking into account the disenfranchisement, you get ≈ 30 percent of the vote.
Would we be able to get another 20 percent of the vote that too in Mississippi? Maybe it's a loser's game or maybe running a pro life candidate with the midterm electorate differences may make it possible.
We win 30% of the white vote in Georgia.
Note: The largest shifts in Trump's approval have been seen in non-white voters.
Odd last sentence. No, it didn't look like you were being racist. Good post, too.
The Georgia white vote is not the Mississippi white vote. Not many northern transplants or metropolitan areas like Atlanta.
Yeah I know that, I emphasized "that too in Mississippi".
I think it’s very possible to get to 45% in MS, but nearly impossible to get that last 5%.
The only pathways I could imagine are four scenarios imo (and to be quite honest some of these are 1 in a million chances to occur, but these are the only options)
1) Is if no candidate in the primary/general election hits 50% and a runoff is required with a lower turnout 1v1 popular D vs damaged/unpopular R (think Roy Moore level).
2) Is a runoff with 3 candidates (2 R’s, 1D) after 2nd and 3rd place candidates tie in the primary/general, while 1st place is below 50%.
Considering Republicans have an incumbent these 2 seem all, but impossible.
3) Is if a popular politician runs as an Independent, holds the incumbent below 50% in the primary/general while making 1 of the top 2 spots, then wins the runoff.
4) Is if a popular politician runs as an Independent and wins 50% outright against the incumbent with no other Democrat/left/centrist candidate running.
Running as a Democrat in the Deep South, regardless of who that is, makes it not possible to win a federal race. Doesn’t matter how pro-life or conservative they are, the party name alone dooms them.
The only politicians who could theoretically run as Independents who are popular in the state is Gubernatorial candidate Brandon Presley or maybe former State Attorney General Jim Hood. And even if they do run (Presley was looking at a 2027 Gov rematch against the unpopular R Reeves), that’s a lot of ifs, hurdles and obstacles to get past.
TLDR: Florida is probably a better pickup opportunity for Democrats than Mississippi even though it has a much lower floor than MS does. Or in other words, extremely unlikely.
Running as a Independent in the South makes you lose Black voters who may be very socially conservative but are extremely loyal to Democrats according to a Split ticket Analysis. So that's out of the equation.
https://split-ticket.org/2025/03/26/where-should-democrats-run-independents/
That’s why I said no Democrat runs against the Independent.
From the link you provided:
RED scores also don’t predict the success of specific independent campaigns, only a state’s suitability for one. For example, Al Gross’s campaign in Alaska veered too close to the national Democratic campaign, contributing to his loss. Yet, by RED score, Alaska remains fertile ground for a strong independent campaign.
Brandon Presley almost won with Biden in the White House and strong minority turnout in an off year election. Yes, he ran as a Democrat, but if an Independent candidate shows up and actively courts black voters, they can get strong support from minority voters.
This analysis makes a lot of assumptions I don’t agree with, starting with the fact we know minority turnout is lower in midterms than it is in presidential years. So is it the Independent label turning them off? Or is it them just tuning out any politics until the next presidential and any Democrat running would face the same lower minority turnout in off year elections as an Independent, thus shifting the precincts rightward?
2 of the only 4 examples (which is already far too low a sample size to draw conclusions from) are from midterm elections. In Presidential years when minority turnout goes up, we have 2 examples of Independents running. 1 of which had the I basically run as a D with an I label, the other put actual distance between his views and the D party. The latter gained among all voters. So not only is it an extremely small sample size to make conclusions from, but the type of campaign matters too.
Another one is saying a Libertarian vs a Republican is the same as an Independent vs Republican race in the minds of voters. That’s ludicrous. Voters know libertarians are on the right. It’s equally plausible (if not the actual case) that Democratic voters (aka black voters) saw no choice to vote for and decided to stay home. To assume they would also stay home in an I vs R race has no actual evidence to back it up.
Finally, the only presidential year where the independent candidate actually tried to distance themselves from the party resulted in vote gains among all voters! So that’s 1 race that confirmed the theory, 1 race that doesn’t. And 2 races with lower minority turnout regardless of if an I or D is running. I’d bet that Democrats also had minority voter precincts shift right these same years and for all we know, maybe even worse than the I!
It’s not enough data to definitively say Independents running would have trouble in the Deep South. Even more so because there hasn’t actually been an Independent statewide run in the Deep South! But if you look at the Independents who ran for office in State House/State Senate, you can see them outperforming the district Democratic baseline overall, which means even if this theory is correct, Democrats gain more voters than they lose, so it’s still worth it to run as I’s instead of D’s.
In the end imo this conclusion is flawed at best and is extremely misleading, portraying shaky assumptions as facts.
Good analysis but how do we explain Dan Osborn’s underperformance with Black voters compared to Kamala?
According to the link you gave me, it says that minority precincts shifted more towards the Independent in Nebraska compared to Democrats? Or am I misunderstanding what you’re saying?
Good post. If 2 candidates have a tied vote for 2nd place, they really have a 3-person runoff instead of doing some kind of coin flip or something? Same if there are 2 candidates tied for 1st?
Yup, here’s the constitutional word on ties (I didn’t include the full write up of the state constitution, only the relevant parts, you can look up the entire thing if you wish)
Mississippi Code Title 23. Elections § 23-15-833
The two (2) candidates who receive the highest popular votes for the office shall have their names submitted as the candidates to the runoff and the candidate who leads in the runoff election shall be elected to the office. When there is a tie in the first election of those receiving the next highest vote, these two (2) and the one receiving the highest vote, none having received a majority, shall go into the runoff election and whoever leads in the runoff election shall be entitled to the office.
Wild! Probably fairer than a coin flip, though.
Prediction: If JBE runs for Senate:
1) He'll substantially outperform the Democratic baseline, and
2) He'll still lose.
Trump won Louisiana 60-38 last year. I suspect JBE would get about 45% if he ran.
Agree.
It's worth a half court shot because if Cassidy manages to win a bloody primary, there're potential for a lot of R voter drop-off. I don't think it'd be enough, but if it's a blue tsunami environment, it's worth a go for at least money diversion purposes.
Personally, I'd rather he run for governor again in 2027. (Governors in Louisiana are limited to two consecutive terms, but not two lifetime terms.)
I'd be shocked if he broke 42%
I too think that’s the most likely outcome. However, I do think there’s a path to victory (although very narrow) only if Cassidy after a brutal primary and JBE make it to the runoff. Republicans despise Cassidy in the way many of them hated Tate Reeves in MS or Roy Moore in AL (not for the same reasons obviously, but the intensity of the dislike) causing those Republicans to massively underperform the GOP baseline. If it’s anyone, but Cassidy, JBE’s toast.
You could easily imagine part of them sitting out though if he’s in the runoff, lowering the threshold for JBE to be victorious. With Trump in the White House turbocharging D turnout, that might just barely be enough for a conservative Democrat to pull off a remarkable major upset with 48-51% of the vote (I say less than 50% is possible for him to still win because of blank ballots or write-in protest votes).
Would Cassidy get more swing voters, though?
It depends on if JBE runs or not, but theoretically in a Cassidy vs JBE runoff, it’s definitely possible!
Whether the tradeoff of any potential gain among swing voters is worth losing the number of MAGA GOP who already turnout at lower rates than the rest of the electorate when Trump is not on the ballot is not at all clear and imo given how few swing voters there are (especially in MS), I’d be far more worried if less Trump voters showed up if I was the GOP than any potential gains among swing voters for having Cassidy make the runoff.
Any other R no matter how controversial is a slam dunk win. Cassidy is the bigger risk for the GOP imo. It’s basic math, there’s more Trump voters than there are swing voters, so more of a base turnout problem is a bigger concern than say a non-Cassidy Republican turning off swing voters.
Especially facing a Democratic candidate Louisiana voters voted for not once, but twice into the Governorship. It could be arguable Cassidy could theoretically face two simultaneous serious, if not catastrophic electoral problems in the runoff, which could lead to a major upset: low GOP turnout and high crossover/swing voters going for JBE.
One caveat: If there’s a runoff in Louisiana and control of the Senate is up for grabs, Cassidy will still win fairly easily as partisanship takes hold (and I still think that’s the most plausible outcome in a JBE vs Cassidy runoff).
But if there’s a bloody primary, if Cassidy advances damaged and broke, if JBE runs a great campaign and advances to the runoff with a large amount of cash and if Senate control is already settled whether by D’s or R’s, then there’s a narrow path along the lines of AL 2017 to squeak a 6 year term. Lot of ifs obviously, so the path in LA is very small, but probably larger than MS and maybe even FL.
Mike Espy should run again.
3rd time's the charm?
Real shot, in this environment!!
💙🇺🇲
Where are you getting these "disenfranchisement" numbers?
Presumably how many were convicted of a felony at some point.