Last Friday, on the Economist’s Checks and Balances podcast, Economist Washington bureau chief Idrees Kahloon stated:
I think if you define “worst” as a candidate not in terms of whether or not they lose them, but instead how much they underperform how well they should be doing, I would argue that J.D. Vance could prove to be the worst Senate candidate, even though he’s likely to win in Ohio. It’s just that Ohio is such a red state that it shouldn’t even be as close as it is right now, so I think by that metric, he might prove to be the worst.
This might go too far. But Ohio is undoubtedly a red state at this point. Meanwhile, a newly released poll gives Vance’s Democratic opponent, Tim Ryan, a slight edge in the race. And it doesn’t look like Vance is making any serious effort to change course, even as the MAGA cavalry rides in to help Vance salvage the contest.
That new poll is a small outlier, to be sure. Most recent polling gives Vance a small but hardly commanding lead. And there is a real possibility of systemic polling error, as pollsters have misunderstood the state badly before. But this year, many of the same pollsters showing a tight Senate race give incumbent governor Mike DeWine, establishment “normie” Republicanism personified, a double-digit lead over his Democratic opponent. And retiring senator Rob Portman, another Republican of the normie stripe, managed two double-digit wins for the very same seat Vance now seeks.
Could J. D. manage to lose this race? At this point, it seems unlikely, but not impossible. Either a loss or a narrow win would invite serious questions about the nationalist-populist narrative that conservatives need more “fighters” in the vein of Josh Hawley representing the GOP in general elections.