@pareen brings it w this article using my research. Earlier today I was talking about why AZ Sen was a better pick-up opp for Ds than NC, largely bc of their milquetoast "Rolodex" nominee in a state where the very vulnerable GOP senator's fortunes hinge on black voter turnout. 
As I pointed out then, what may save this race is the fantastic grassroots orgs in the state working to flip the state leg & the potential for an Abrams VP pick- which would solve NC D's turnout problem for them. But as I will reiterate in the forecast update, and as @pareen
so awesomely articulates in his piece, the Ds have a "no not what they do" issue. @jontester truly believes he won his red state seat back via crossover appeal. That is certainly the message all these candidates are told. Problem is, data tells a different story: he won bc the
same way the D House candidates won-turnout surges of Ds and more Dem friendly left-leaning or center/left (at least) + progressive leftists showed up in droves bc they were pissed off at Trump. If HRC had 1 2016- Tester likely would have lost his seat running the exact same
campaign he ran. And a reminder- I'm talking about Dem coalition turnout, that means the whole enchilada, not just progressives or Sanders people. Young voters, black voters, Latinos, women, college educated men & women. The alt candidate in NC descriptively fits the state & the
modern Dem coalition. No matter how many old, white dudes you throw at white people in the South, you're still only going to pick up 25% of them. So there's no benefit, but there is a cost. That said, the rolodex problem is a real issue & its a constraint the party faces that is
harsh reality. They are giving up strong candidates all over the country over the Rolodex problem, as is the GOP. You need $80 million to contest a senate seat- at least, and only the country club crowd have contact lists like that. This is 1 of the reasons the GOP is becoming
an all, white male party (among other reasons, obviously)
