Democrats do not have a challenger against Cotton, and the only alternative may not

[jorgevlorgan]

Get on the ballot. Dan Whitfield is a Bernie Sanders type Independant but did not collect enough signatures due to covid19. He hired a canvassing firm, and had hundreds of volunteers, but the order to stay at home stopped the process. He collected more than 6000 signatures, and is appealing in federal court for extra time to collect them. If he does not get them, he will not qualify for the ballot. There is also a libertarian running, and it is also not certain he will be on the ballot.


https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/may/29/pandemic-impeded-efforts-on-ballot-acce/?elections

[Patterson]

1. The Democratic challenger dropped out two hours after the filing deadline.

[jorgevlorgan]

2. yeah. so now we have an independent who could be formidable if he gets on the ballot

But he might not get on the ballot. Cotton may be having a freebie this year.

[brooklynite]

18. A pro-Bernie Independent will be formidable in Arkansas?

Uh huh....

[jorgevlorgan]

20. crazy right?

Almost how a black pro bernie candidate in Kentucky is formidable. We need to stop assuming that the population lean entirely the way that the voters do. The numbers of folks who dont vote outweigh those that do, and having somebody who actually gives solutions can help those people come out of the woodwork.

[brooklynite]

23. But he's not...

He was competitive with a moderate Democrat in the Primary. McGrath already had a long haul to beat McConnell. Booker's odds are much worse, and he won't have anything approaching the money McConnell will have to work with.

[jorgevlorgan]

26. If Booker wins against mcconnell, will you concede I'm right?

Because polling already shows he is way more competitive against McConnell than McGrath. People want contrast, not a watered down version of the same. Even in red state.

[DTomlinson]

29. I wouldn't count on *anyone* being competitive against McConnell. Trump voters will be out in force

They'll pull the lever for McConnell. And as already noted, McConnell is a master at fundraising and campaigning, for himself and for his colleagues. How else can someone as dull and repulsive as him keep winning elections?

I hate to say this, and I hope I'm wrong...but I suspect I'm not.

[jorgevlorgan]

32. itll be tough, but competitive to me is anybody who is able to recruit

Massive volunteers, and beat out a candidate with a 10-1 fundraising and name recognition advantage like mcgrath.

[brooklynite]

35. Competitive to me is being able to win or make it a close race...

The latest Civiqs poll has McConnell +14 over Booker.

Keep in mind, I'm NOT supporting McGrath, because I don't think either can win, and there are much more competitive races to focus my resources (AZ, CO, ME, NC, GA1, GA2, IA, MT, KS). Reality sucks, but its the way I treat politics.

[jorgevlorgan]

38. polling is not everything.

Somebody can be ahead by 20 points, but if they are being out volunteered and out raised by huge margins, that 20 points can become meaningless.

[brooklynite]

39. Polling ISN'T everything...if the race is relatively close

Let me be blunt. I get 3-4 calls a week from Democratic candidates looking for support, many in races that I consider hopeless --which I'm happy to tell them (I track every competitive race in the Country). I've learned to 1) squeeze my emotions out of decision making (I don't care that I hate McConnell, I care only whether someone can realistically beat him); and 2) how to crunch data. Volunteer support and enthusiasm is great, but it doesn't alway result in success (see Bernie Sanders) and it doesn't overcome double-digit leads backed by a massive war chest and political infrastructure (nb - McGrath CAN'T give her financial resources to Booker to compensate).

[jorgevlorgan]

42. anybody can realistically beat somebody, usually

But whether they do or not is largely based on the decisions they make with the resources they have. I said "may" in regards to winning with more resources, etc, but at the end strategy is everything. Also the connections somebody has with the community (something Rick Scott did incredibly well when he beat Bill Nelson by the slimmest margin).

[brooklynite]

45. "anybody can realistically beat somebody, usually"

40+ years in politics has taught me that's not true.

[Celerity]

55. that same poll that shows Booker down 14 has McGrath down 20 versus Moscow Mitch

[DTomlinson]

24. To be honest, I think the "Democratic" label is often what scares some people away.

Without them looking at whether they agree with the policies or principles.

[NurseJackie]

3. To spend more time with the spouse and kids? Or was it some underhanded and dishonest...

To spend more time with the spouse and kids? Or was it some underhanded and dishonest strategy? Was the Democrat being blackmailed or threatened?

[jorgevlorgan]

5. I think there was something about a scandal that was brought to light

At the filing deadline.

[NurseJackie]

6. Vetting is important.

[jorgevlorgan]

7. Yeah...

They really screwed the pooch on that one.

[RhodeIslandOne]

41. It's not like anyone's lining up to be led to slaughter

Arkansas is now as bad as Alabama or Mississippi or Nebraska.

[dawg day]

4. WTF? Bring back Howard Dean and the 50-state project.

It's absurd they didn't put anyone up against Cotton.

[sarisataka]

9. Democrats had the seat with Mark Pryor

until 2014. It was felt then we didn't need him and let the seat go

[jorgevlorgan]

10. which shows that the seat is winnable.

If given the effort. Especially against somebody like Cotton

[Celerity]

56. the last time Pryor won against a Republican opponent was 2002

Arkansas is now cherry red, unfortunately, at least at Senate race level. Biden is polling quite well against the orange anus atm though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Pryor#U.S._Senate

In late 2001, Pryor announced his candidacy for the Senate seat held by Tim Hutchinson, who six years earlier had become the first Arkansas Republican to serve in that body since Reconstruction. The seat had been held by his father David Pryor (also a former Arkansas governor), who actively campaigned for his son. Pryor defeated Hutchinson 54% to 46% and was the only Democratic candidate for the Senate to defeat a Republican incumbent in that election cycle.

Pryor won reelection in 2008 without a Republican opponent. There had been speculation that former Governor Mike Huckabee would run against Pryor if his presidential bid was unsuccessful, but on March 8, Huckabee said he would not contest the race. The only Republican to express interest in the race, health care executive Tom Formicola, decided not to run. Pryor's only announced opponent was Green Party candidate Rebekah Kennedy, whom he defeated 80% to 20%.

Pryor ran for reelection to a third term in 2014, against Republican U.S. House Rep. Tom Cotton. In March 2014, during an MSNBC news segment regarding the Senate race, Pryor said that Cotton gave off a "sense of entitlement" to a seat in the Senate due to his service in the military. After receiving much criticism for the remark, Pryor later said he was not attacking Cotton’s military service, but his perceived lack of accomplishments in the House: "But the point remains that he's been in the House now for a little over a year, he hasn't passed any legislation. There's not one thing he's done for Arkansas." FactCheck.org called two ads aired by Pryor's 2014 Senate campaign misleading in their criticisms of Paul Ryan's Medicare plan, supported by his opponent. Pryor lost to Cotton by a 57% to 39% margin.

[Drunken Irishman]

30. Thank you. I get a laugh at the liberals who talk about the 50 state strategy.

Yeah - and that got us people like Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu, Democrats many on the left were happy to see go.

[dawg day]

51. You'd rather have Cotton?

More and more I think... don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Besides, you could have put forward some super progressive, and just... didn't. Don't blame liberals for that.

[Drunken Irishman]

54. No. But a lot on the left seemed indifferent to Pryor's loss.

[SharonClark]

34. Who decided they didn't need him and who let the seat go?

That makes no sense to me.

[sarisataka]

48. He voted against the universal background check bill

The consensus was "we don't need Democrats like that" even though he voted with the party the overwhelming majority of the time. Many here cheered on Bloomberg as he ran attack ads against Pryor.

A close race turned into an easy win for Cotton. The loss of the Senate seat took second place to the belief that we had improved the party somehow.

[crickets]

21. Howard Dean's 50-state approach should never have been dropped. nt

[Drunken Irishman]

31. It wasn't dropped. This is ridiculous, revisionist history.

The Democrats who were elected turned around and lost in Republican wave years - many who the left turned against and didn't care to see lose in the first place.

Mark Pryor lost by nearly 20 points in 2014.

You can readily read what DU thought of this Democrat back in the day:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1014721098

[crickets]

36. We seem to have different memories.

The strategy didn't always work as well in all areas, and some election eras were easier for the Democrats than others, true. But to say 50-State strategy been continued through from its inception to now is false, and it's not revisionist to point that out. I live in one of the states that got dropped like a hot potato, so ask me how I know.

I sympathize with Arkansas for getting stuck with the likes of Mark Pryor, but I don't see how that really negates all the good that the strategy managed to accomplish.

Looking Back at Howard Dean's 50-State Strategy MAY 2013

Dean has long since left the DNC -- he served four years, departing in early 2009 -- and the 50-state strategy has faded from memories. But looking at it from today's vantage point, the project offers a nifty example of how modest investments in party infrastructure can pay tangible dividends -- and how those dividends can disappear once the investments dry up.

Races Dems narrowly lost show party needs to return to Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy DEC 2018

In 2005, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean became chairman of the Democratic National Committee and embarked on a movement to create infrastructure, influence, and engagement in every state in America. He called it, the "50 State Strategy." Dean believed that Democrats should have an operation in places that it usually ignored in order to secure the future. This plan was met with consternation by many of the DNC's top brass and slowly disappeared. Failure to embrace Dean’s vision is one of the biggest mistakes the party has made in recent history.

Party folks at the national level love the fat war chests for their high profile darlings and seem to find the hard slog of bothering with national outreach in less lucrative areas of the country to be beneath them. The 50-State strategy netted sometimes modest, but still important, gains. Given how razor thin the difference can be in gaining majority in the House and Senate, seems like the effort would be worth it if the DNC could be bothered.

[Drunken Irishman]

46. There's no different memories. There's the right - and there's the wrong.

In 2006, led by Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign (DSCC) focused on specific key races and were instrumental in picking out specific candidates to run for the Senate.

They included:

Claire McCaskill
Jon Tester
Bob Casey Jr
Jim Webb

These four moderate-to-conservative candidates are what won back the Senate for the Democrats.

Rahm Emanuel took on a similar assignment with the DCCC.

The playbook was written by SENATE DEMOCRATS & SENATE HOUSE MEMBERS.

The DNC had little influence in either, especially Howard Dean.

[TheFarseer]

40. It has to be implemented correctly

You can’t go into Wyoming and expect to run someone for Senate, throw some money at the race and win. We needed to concentrate on local races, mayors and state legislatures in such places. Then we will have people to run that hopefully have a record of success they can run on. Just like in Major League Baseball, you have to build up your minor leagues before you can consistently compete. I feel like we did not take that approach.

[dawg day]

52. Field someone.

Why not?

[JI7]

49. That would mean running some right wing democrat

[dawg day]

53. Or a super progressive

Really, anyone. Take a flyer.

[Sgent]

8. People want to know how

we got a 60 vote majority in the Senate? It was Howard Dean's insurgent campaign as DNC chair in 2004. Not even running someone for Senator in this climate is inexcusable. Its not like we are throwing our support to an R against an worse R (See Sen Cochran - MS)

[qazplm135]

11. we did run someone

they dropped out at the last minute.

[jorgevlorgan]

12. maybe my question is why was he the only one?

If we had multiple candidates, we wouldnt be in this situation.

[qazplm135]

13. Probably because no one else wanted to run?

You can't force someone to run for a major nomination like Senator unless you know they want to do it.

[jorgevlorgan]

14. True. But recruitment efforts usually involve some persuasion, and a state with 3 million people

outta have somebody interested. Hell, just getting Dan Whitfield to run for the nomination would have made everything so much better.

[qazplm135]

15. they did have someone interested...

he dropped out at the last minute.

So you are left with a day or two to find someone to run. You make it seem like that should be a piece of cake.

Sometimes, you just get screwed by someone.

[jorgevlorgan]

16. again, they could have recruited more than one.

Would have been too easy. Also vetting. He dropped out because he was not qualified.

[qazplm135]

17. if you want to cite vetting sure ok

so what's the magic number of minimum number of candidates they need to recruit per race that's acceptable to you?

[jorgevlorgan]

22. vet, and keep recruiting. if the vetting comes out poorly, recruit harder.

No magic number, but vetting is key and that wasn't done here by any means.

[TheFarseer]

43. In a bright red state

You’re lucky to get even one semi-credible candidate to run, let alone multiple.

[jorgevlorgan]

44. in this case we just needed a warm body.

We couldnt even get that

[Drunken Irishman]

33. False.

The Democrats got a 60 vote majority because they ran moderate/conservative candidates in these Republican districts and won on the heels of Bush's disastrous second term. Those Democratic wave elections gave us 60+ members to the US senate (which Pryor already was a member of, since he won back in 2002) - not anything Dean did.

[Sgent]

47. Umm....

Dean was the one who funded the state parties in those deep red states so those candidates were able to hit the ground running. He also provided cover for many liberal donors who were skeptical of conservative candidates.

[Drunken Irishman]

50. No. The DSCC and DCCC did a bulk of the heavy lifting.

Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel went into these states and got the candidates to run - people like Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester and Bob Casey, moderates. They were the ones who set the fund raising goals and succeeded in these races.

The 50 State Strategy wasn't even a 50 State Strategy. It was a Vulnerable State Strategy.

The problem is that America is even more divided today than it was in 2006 when these candidates won.

McCaskill received a shit-ton of funding in her race. She out-raised her opponent, Hawley, by double. Her losing wasn't because the 50 State Strategy disappeared. That's illogical because the commitment absolutely was there in in 2018, when the Democrats won back control of the House but did worse in the Senate.

She lost because Missouri has shifted ever further to the right over the last 12 years from her initial win.

Hell, McCaskill was on her way to potentially losing reelection in 2012 up until Todd Aiken made his rape comment and torpedoed his campaign. She lost pretty handily for a statewide race in 2018, despite a wave year for the Democrats, because of the shift - not because the Democrats had abandoned her. I pointed out how much money was dumped into her campaign: the party did everything they could to save that seat.

But this is how Missouri has gone at the presidential level the last three elections:

2008: R+.13 (POINT 13 - not 13%. We're talking less than a half of a percent.
2012: R+ 9.3
2016: R +18.5

Now maybe Biden does better in Missouri than Hillary (I think it's probable) but a clear trend is there.

So, the 50 State Strategy was more a Vulnerable Republican State strategy.

Arkansas is not vulnerable - not at the level Missouri was in 2006.

Georgia? Much more vulnerable.

And I expect the Dems will focus on that. But it wasn't like Dean was pouring in millions in every state. In 2006, no one from the party was supporting Pete Ashdown, the Democrat, against Orrin Hatch in Utah's Senate election.

No one was up in Idaho throwing money at those campaigns.

Arkansas, like Missouri, is another state that has consistently shifted more and more conservative.

Which is why I disagree that this is a result of moving away from the 50 State Strategy. It is not. It's a result of the continued regression of political viability for Democrats in some of these staunchly conservative states. You're only as good as the demographics who elect you. Right now, Arkansas isn't voting for a Democrat. Not against Cotton.

[rockfordfile]

19. What a failure not to have a challenger

[tavernier]

27. Can a write in candidate win if they receive enough votes?

[jorgevlorgan]

28. yes. he is filing as a write in candidate just in case he doesn't get on the ballot

The one time I remember it happening was with Murkowski in 2010, I think.

[superpatriotman]

37. Unacceptable

Bordering on political malpractice