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 require…
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.
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.