I’ve been beating the Andy Beshear drum for a while. I’m a Kentucky Republican (though very anti-MAGA) and it’s wild how well he does speaking to moderate Republicans.
Nate isn’t wrong about Kentucky’s soft spot for Democrats in state office historically, but this isn’t true in Beshear’s races. He was the only Democrat elected to statewide office in any of those races - no one else was even close. And he ran up the margin post Covid even though he shut down schools and lost a court battle over church gatherings like any blue state governor.
I think the Republicans will nominate a MAGA candidate and I think electing that candidate would be a disaster. Beshear is a great way to pull away independents and the few swayable republicans without losing the democratic base.
Just my .02. And no, I don’t work for an eventual Beshear campaign or even know the guy. :D
I doubt we should ever be using election results in blue states or blue districts as a basis for any conclusions regarding national elections. Or using primary results to project general election results. If Ocasio-Cortez is on the general elections ballot I will be voting for her, but I will doing it while fully understanding that D are losing, again. FSM save us. Luckily, I am from Michigan and my choices are clear.
Hopefully, just hopefully, Democrats don’t go with an “electability” candidate again. It has been a near losing proposition for them for a long time. Electability is a vague term that has shifted over the years. Hopefully they go with the best candidate that has conviction in what they believe, and seems like they will have ability to bring about their platform.
In this way it is actually good that Newsom isn’t really the most “electable” candidate just looking at past wins. Because I’m not sure he has a clear modus operandi as a politician, or a reason to be running on behalf of the people. But if I hear about electability again instead of what a person actually believes in I’m going to lose my mind. Elections are just about getting elected, they’re about getting elected to enact policy. Americans are smart enough to know that policy matters. That’s why there is a gap in many of these races between the state/local level and national level, the candidate’s positions and values matter. Candidate quality, not just in terms of past elections matters. This all feels like apples to oranges comparisons, which I think ultimately highlights my point: the nuances of each race matters more than past results in separate elections.
Obviously there's no way in 2026 to put together a foolproof set of metrics for identifying the best candidate — but it's still a useful dataset, a few results surprised me. Wes Moore, for instance, I would have expected a lower SB score. I knew Andy Beshear's numbers were strong, but I didn't realize he was thunder-dunking on the rest of the field. That said, I don't think any candidate can rely purely on how they outperform in their home state. For instance Joe Manchin I think would have struggled in a national election to win over democrats. If anything, I think data like this is most useful for weeding out weaker candidates — and then among the high performers, figuring out who has the strongest play on a national stage.
The weakness of SB score is that it grades candidates relative to other candidates of the same party _in their state_ (or congressional district). That’s a useful data point, but what we really care about is how presidential candidates perform relative to other candidates of the same party nationwide (or in swing states).
For example, Gavin Newsom (full disclosure: I’m not a fan) runs behind the average replacement Democrat in California. But it matters a lot more how he performs in a general presidential election relative to the average replacement Democrat in Pennsylvania.
I’ve been beating the Andy Beshear drum for a while. I’m a Kentucky Republican (though very anti-MAGA) and it’s wild how well he does speaking to moderate Republicans.
Nate isn’t wrong about Kentucky’s soft spot for Democrats in state office historically, but this isn’t true in Beshear’s races. He was the only Democrat elected to statewide office in any of those races - no one else was even close. And he ran up the margin post Covid even though he shut down schools and lost a court battle over church gatherings like any blue state governor.
I think the Republicans will nominate a MAGA candidate and I think electing that candidate would be a disaster. Beshear is a great way to pull away independents and the few swayable republicans without losing the democratic base.
Just my .02. And no, I don’t work for an eventual Beshear campaign or even know the guy. :D
I am already sending him money from MI. "Democrat",'Republican" became useless labels in the era of T.
I doubt we should ever be using election results in blue states or blue districts as a basis for any conclusions regarding national elections. Or using primary results to project general election results. If Ocasio-Cortez is on the general elections ballot I will be voting for her, but I will doing it while fully understanding that D are losing, again. FSM save us. Luckily, I am from Michigan and my choices are clear.
Hopefully, just hopefully, Democrats don’t go with an “electability” candidate again. It has been a near losing proposition for them for a long time. Electability is a vague term that has shifted over the years. Hopefully they go with the best candidate that has conviction in what they believe, and seems like they will have ability to bring about their platform.
In this way it is actually good that Newsom isn’t really the most “electable” candidate just looking at past wins. Because I’m not sure he has a clear modus operandi as a politician, or a reason to be running on behalf of the people. But if I hear about electability again instead of what a person actually believes in I’m going to lose my mind. Elections are just about getting elected, they’re about getting elected to enact policy. Americans are smart enough to know that policy matters. That’s why there is a gap in many of these races between the state/local level and national level, the candidate’s positions and values matter. Candidate quality, not just in terms of past elections matters. This all feels like apples to oranges comparisons, which I think ultimately highlights my point: the nuances of each race matters more than past results in separate elections.
Obviously there's no way in 2026 to put together a foolproof set of metrics for identifying the best candidate — but it's still a useful dataset, a few results surprised me. Wes Moore, for instance, I would have expected a lower SB score. I knew Andy Beshear's numbers were strong, but I didn't realize he was thunder-dunking on the rest of the field. That said, I don't think any candidate can rely purely on how they outperform in their home state. For instance Joe Manchin I think would have struggled in a national election to win over democrats. If anything, I think data like this is most useful for weeding out weaker candidates — and then among the high performers, figuring out who has the strongest play on a national stage.
The weakness of SB score is that it grades candidates relative to other candidates of the same party _in their state_ (or congressional district). That’s a useful data point, but what we really care about is how presidential candidates perform relative to other candidates of the same party nationwide (or in swing states).
For example, Gavin Newsom (full disclosure: I’m not a fan) runs behind the average replacement Democrat in California. But it matters a lot more how he performs in a general presidential election relative to the average replacement Democrat in Pennsylvania.
I love the live shows. It is how I wish socializing was (instead of small talk). Huge fan of Clare's and Galen's (and obviously Nate's).