Nail biter in North Carolina

Oct 2009
33,046
27,396
Kansas
#81
It certainly appears that Trump's personal intervention in the race was absolutely crucial to Bishop's victory. That is just where the GOP is now. If Trump backs you to the hilt, you get the Republican vote (which is what's needed to win in this district). If he doesn't, you lose. The GOP has mounted a tiger and it can't get off, no matter what.

For a previously Republican-held seat in a district Trump won by 16 points in 2016, winning by ~2 percent is less than ideal for the GOP. But they staved off disaster, and part of the turn is likely owed to people who ordinarily vote Republican becoming fed up with the previous election fraud.

That's the main takeaway from this: Because of the first modern example where an elected member of Congress was not seated and then had to quit completely because of election fraud, his Republican Party ... the party that claims to be concerned first and foremost with preventing fraud ... had to fight like hell to hang on to the otherwise safe seat.

Meanwhile, Bishop has basically no time to relax, he will be campaigning again for the election next fall and this time for a district that's less gerrymandered. I kinda pity that.
 
Feb 2010
34,654
24,595
between Moon and NYC
#82
It certainly appears that Trump's personal intervention in the race was absolutely crucial to Bishop's victory. That is just where the GOP is now. If Trump backs you to the hilt, you get the Republican vote (which is what's needed to win in this district). If he doesn't, you lose. The GOP has mounted a tiger and it can't get off, no matter what.

For a previously Republican-held seat in a district Trump won by 16 points in 2016, winning by ~2 percent is less than ideal for the GOP. But they staved off disaster, and part of the turn is likely owed to people who ordinarily vote Republican becoming fed up with the previous election fraud.

That's the main takeaway from this: Because of the first modern example where an elected member of Congress was not seated and then had to quit completely because of election fraud, his Republican Party ... the party that claims to be concerned first and foremost with preventing fraud ... had to fight like hell to hang on to the otherwise safe seat.

Meanwhile, Bishop has basically no time to relax, he will be campaigning again for the election next fall and this time for a district that's less gerrymandered. I kinda pity that.
Not as convinced as you are about your premise.

Seems many on the Left are claiming/celebrating that the Republicans were only able to win by a tiny margin here. Because Trump sucks. While at the same time claiming the only reason the GOP won this election was because Trump campaigned for the guy. (Anxious to hear the rationalization behind the contradictory theory...)


Don't disagree that The Donald is a pompous, overbearing, doofus at times (sucks). So how do we know that the republican candidate would not have won by more if Trump had not shown up to campaign for him??



..
 
Mar 2012
57,883
39,438
New Hampshire
#84
Not as convinced as you are about your premise.

Seems many on the Left are claiming/celebrating that the Republicans were only able to win by a tiny margin here. Because Trump sucks. While at the same time claiming the only reason the GOP won this election was because Trump campaigned for the guy. (Anxious to hear the rationalization behind the contradictory theory...)


Don't disagree that The Donald is a pompous, overbearing, doofus at times (sucks). So how do we know that the republican candidate would not have won by more if Trump had not shown up to campaign for him??



..
Interesting point. Cant recall the specifics but there were posts here right after the midterms and I think Trump had like a 90% or higher chance of winning when he held a rally there. Thats pretty good if he can rally these people and get them out. Its hard to really say though whether this would have happened or not without the rallies. We also saw in 2016 as the campaign was ending, Trump was in PA, OH, MI and WI right up until the election. Its possible it could have eeked out some crucial votes.
 
Mar 2019
8,337
2,932
California
#85
Interesting point. Cant recall the specifics but there were posts here right after the midterms and I think Trump had like a 90% or higher chance of winning when he held a rally there. Thats pretty good if he can rally these people and get them out. Its hard to really say though whether this would have happened or not without the rallies. We also saw in 2016 as the campaign was ending, Trump was in PA, OH, MI and WI right up until the election. Its possible it could have eeked out some crucial votes.
Actually ,that is what campaigning is all about. Obama was pretty good at this also ,if you recall.
 
Oct 2009
33,046
27,396
Kansas
#86
Not as convinced as you are about your premise.

Seems many on the Left are claiming/celebrating that the Republicans were only able to win by a tiny margin here. Because Trump sucks. While at the same time claiming the only reason the GOP won this election was because Trump campaigned for the guy. (Anxious to hear the rationalization behind the contradictory theory...)

Don't disagree that The Donald is a pompous, overbearing, doofus at times (sucks). So how do we know that the republican candidate would not have won by more if Trump had not shown up to campaign for him??

..
Admittedly, it's a little complicated, but I hypothesize that it kind of works like this:

Trump is unpopular nationwide, so the GOP has to fight like hell to win races it should ordinarily run away with.

In addition, this district is only voting amid Republican-orchestrated election fraud, so that demoralized some folks.

However, it is still a heavily (15+ points) Republican-leaning district, and in the natural order of things, the Republican electorate decides who wins.

At the same time Trump is generally unpopular, he is very unpopular among loyal Republican voters, so he rallied Bishop over the top. Barely.