Unfortunately it wasn't just McConnell withholding funding that sunk Blake Masters.

Obviously, things were relatively bad for the GOP across the board, and people blaming it on Trump or McConnell are deflecting and trying to play politics. That said, I haven't checked personally, but if it's true that he spent money on Murkowski (against a proper GOP) and Joe O'Dea, that is a huge waste.

Masters made an ad in the primary saying Trump won 2020. That certainly hurt him in Maricopa.

I doubt that very much, at least that incident specifically.

Blake made comments about reforming social security in the primary which played terribly in the general election since Arizona is a state that has a lot of retirees.

Rick Scott as well, except that he hurt other Republicans. They learned nothing from Trump 2016, or they don't want to learn.

Generic Republicans do well in the Sunbelt and populists struggle there.

Is that true though? The sample size is not great. Who are the 'generic Republicans' who won this time? Sure, you can point to way back when McCain won, but those were different years as well.

Candidates with good optics like Abbott, DeSantis and Kemp will do well in the Sunbelt. A populist candidate in the sunbelt really needs to play the optics game better and campaign more like a generic R.

They were all incumbents, and one is very different from the other two (or you would not be supporting him). In fact, if DeSantis had lost, the anti-populists (and I'm not saying you are one) would be citing him as proof that his populism was poison.

As for the people who claim that DeSantis is some sort of electoral juggernaut: Marco Rubio won by about the same margin. Both ran against terrible candidates, so that probably played no role. Does that mean that nominating Rubio in 2016 would have been electoral gold? I part from the pro-populists in arguing, as I have always done, that any Republican would likely had won in 2016. But I don't see Rubio as having some sort of special appeal, and by extension, DeSantis probably does not have that either.

Unfortunately it wasn't just McConnell withholding funding that sunk Blake Masters.

Obviously, things were relatively bad for the GOP across the board. That said, I haven't checked personally, but if it's true that he spent money on Murkowski (against a proper GOP) and Joe O'Dea, that is a huge waste.

Masters made an ad in the primary saying Trump won 2020. That certainly hurt him in Maricopa.

I doubt that very much, at least that incident specifically.

Blake made comments about reforming social security in the primary which played terribly in the general election since Arizona is a state that has a lot of retirees.

Rick Scott as well, except that he hurt other Republicans. They learned nothing from Trump 2016, or they don't want to learn.

Generic Republicans do well in the Sunbelt and populists struggle there.

Is that true though? The sample size is not great. Who are the 'generic Republicans' who won this time? Sure, you can point to way back when McCain won, but those were different years as well.

Candidates with good optics like Abbott, DeSantis and Kemp will do well in the Sunbelt. A populist candidate in the sunbelt really needs to play the optics game better and campaign more like a generic R.

They were all incumbents, and one is very different from the other two (or you would not be supporting him). In fact, if DeSantis had lost, the anti-populists (and I'm not saying you are one) would be citing him as proof that his populism was poison.

As for the people who claim that DeSantis is some sort of electoral juggernaut: Marco Rubio won by about the same margin. Both ran against terrible candidates, so that probably played no role. Does that mean that nominating Rubio in 2016 would have been electoral gold? I part from the pro-populists in arguing, as I have always done, that any Republican would likely had won in 2016. But I don't see Rubio as having some sort of special appeal, and by extension, DeSantis probably does not have that either.