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

[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.