Correcto. UsualTard has it backasswards as usual. Bishop was a marginal candidate and Trump had the power to lift him up. Just imagine if Trump is at the top of the ticket in 2020. Could happen.
Really? You think Bishop was able to rally a crowd the way that Trump has been able to do from day one? You might want to tidy up your thinking a little. Mr. Buy1 has also made a pertinent point that you should reflect upon - ie. the other candidate did not experience a decline from usual support for republicans, even though you have tried to make the case that Trump has poisoned the whole well.
He was behind by 17 points a little while ago. MSNBC was calling it a shoe-in. Trump comes in, tells his folks to go vote, and the cat stomps the other guy by 2 points.
That district was never in contention and democrats made zero effort there. Bishops district was telling because the large amount of suburban voters. Democrats will not make inroads with non college whites in 2020. Its college educated that is the key. If y’all had half of a brain, you’d really be dangerous. Take 5 minutes and look at the district make ups, incomes etc. then get back to me.
It's always some other reason when the vote totals don't fit your narrative. ---"Oh we didn't want that district anyway--"
Ahh no. If your argument were correct -ie Trump had downgraded the entire lanscape- he (the other guy- not bishop) should have still experience a major decline even if he won. And if you are saying the dems did not challenge him there, as they did in bishop's district, then that only makes the point that there were differences that are explained by differences in the quality of the candidates- not Trump's alleged downgrading of all things republcan. Those dogs don't hunt. Try again.