2020 AZ Senate Megathread: Kelly's Race to Lose

[pppolitics]

I hope it's McSally!

It would be fun to beat her again!

[pppolitics]

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey likely to pick Martha McSally to replace Sen. Jon Kyl, sources say

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/14/politics/jon-kyl-resignation-arizona-senate/index.html

[pppolitics]

I actually hope ducey appoints mcsally. The attack ads write themselves for a situation like this. We look forward to defeating her again.

This, but it's so unfair she'd be the senior Senator.

...doesn't matter


Sinema gets to be senior senator in a couple of years

[pppolitics]

One thing more I would say is that Sinema's victory, in part, was due to her ability to draw from independents and more moderate Republican voters. The exit polls, I believe, indicated that she won ~10-12% of Republican voters, and got close to 60% among independents. Independents and Republican defectors were key to her victory; without them, she would have lost. By contrast, Garcia did badly with those two groups; hence, part of the reason why Ducey defeated him by 14%.

Definitely.

Had she just won Democrats and evenly split independents, she would have lost.

[pppolitics]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/16/politics/ip-forecast/index.html

[pppolitics]

BREAKING

Ducey appoints McSally to the Senate.

https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2018/12/18/martha-mcsally-named-doug-ducey-kyl-mccain-arizona-senate-seat-lost-sinema/2277884002/

Hehe

It's clobberin time!

[pppolitics]

McSally's tactics against Sinema were ineffective. She'll have to run a much better campaign in 2020 in order to win, obviously. Pros are that maybe she won't have a circus of a primary to deal with. Cons are that if Trump screws up and loses, she probably will too.

The fact that she just lost means that other Republicans are itching to primary her.

[pppolitics]

He should've appointed a placeholder and leave Republican voters to decide who will be the person  they want to defend this seat.
Appointing a loser only a few weeks after she lost, is indeed a huge middle finger to the electorate.

Ducey hasn't given up his own asperations to get to the Senate after finishing his 2nd Term as Governor.

He has some Options now especially if McSally loses in 2020. He could then run in 2022 or run against Sinema in 2024.

It's getting harder every year with Arizona fast moving to the left.

[pppolitics]

Hehe!

It's clobberin time!

[pppolitics]

McSally is going to fulfill Arizona Democrats' dream of having both senate seat.

[pppolitics]

In what universe is this a savvy political move on Ducey’s part? The voters literally just rejected McSally.

McSally is going to fulfill Arizona Democrats' dream of having both senate seat.

[pppolitics]

In what universe is this a savvy political move on Ducey’s part? The voters literally just rejected McSally.

McSally is going to fulfill Arizona Democrats' dream of having both senate seat.

Word on the street is Ducey told McSally she needed a better operation in 2 years. Also keep in mind Sinema won due to 12% Republican support (she was the only Dem to win Maricopa) in a Democratic year thanks to having so long to paint herself as a centrist, and I don't think anybody can replicate that formula to the extent she did, the extent that just barely let her win.

McSally has Trump shackled to her ankle and Trump is going to be on the ballot.

[pppolitics]

He should've appointed a placeholder and leave Republican voters to decide who will be the person  they want to defend this seat.
Appointing a loser only a few weeks after she lost, is indeed a huge middle finger to the electorate.

Ducey hasn't given up his own asperations to get to the Senate after finishing his 2nd Term as Governor.

He has some Options now especially if McSally loses in 2020. He could then run in 2022 or run against Sinema in 2024.

It's getting harder every year with Arizona fast moving to the left.

Not for a Popular Governor like Ducey.

Everyone said it would be hard for Rick Scott to beat Bill Nelson. He's now a Senator-elect and AZ is still more Republican than Florida is.

I can see Ducey running in 2022 when his Term is up if McSally loses in 2020. If she wins he could run against Sinema.

Florida is moving to the right.

Arizona is moving to the left.

[pppolitics]

Eh McSally should win in 2020 because Trump should win AZ but it is going to be the second best pickup opportunity for Dems imo

AZ is going to be the next state to flip after MI, PA, and WI.

Luckily for the Democrats, McSally has Trump shackled to her ankle.

[pppolitics]

He should've appointed a placeholder and leave Republican voters to decide who will be the person  they want to defend this seat.
Appointing a loser only a few weeks after she lost, is indeed a huge middle finger to the electorate.

Ducey hasn't given up his own asperations to get to the Senate after finishing his 2nd Term as Governor.

He has some Options now especially if McSally loses in 2020. He could then run in 2022 or run against Sinema in 2024.

It's getting harder every year with Arizona fast moving to the left.

Not for a Popular Governor like Ducey.

Everyone said it would be hard for Rick Scott to beat Bill Nelson. He's now a Senator-elect and AZ is still more Republican than Florida is.

I can see Ducey running in 2022 when his Term is up if McSally loses in 2020. If she wins he could run against Sinema.

Florida is moving to the right.

Arizona is moving to the left.

Doesn't matter if you're Popular.

If you look back. Since the 2008 Elections Democratic Governors, Republican Governors and Purple State Governors alike have a very high success rate getting elected.

Governor Mark Warner (now a Senator)
Governor Tim Kaine (now a Senator)
Governor Jeanne Shaheen (now a Senator)
Governor Maggie Hassan (now a Senator)
Governor Angus King (now a Senator)
Governor Mike Rounds (now a Senator)
Governor John Hoeven (now a Senator)
Governor Rick Scott (now a Senator)

and that's just a few. The Senate itself has a lot of former Governors right now.

...and what does that have to do with my comment, "It's getting harder every year with Arizona fast moving to the left."?

[pppolitics]

He should've appointed a placeholder and leave Republican voters to decide who will be the person  they want to defend this seat.
Appointing a loser only a few weeks after she lost, is indeed a huge middle finger to the electorate.

Ducey hasn't given up his own asperations to get to the Senate after finishing his 2nd Term as Governor.

He has some Options now especially if McSally loses in 2020. He could then run in 2022 or run against Sinema in 2024.

It's getting harder every year with Arizona fast moving to the left.

Not for a Popular Governor like Ducey.

Everyone said it would be hard for Rick Scott to beat Bill Nelson. He's now a Senator-elect and AZ is still more Republican than Florida is.

I can see Ducey running in 2022 when his Term is up if McSally loses in 2020. If she wins he could run against Sinema.

Florida is moving to the right.

Arizona is moving to the left.

Hmm i don't think so. Florida isn't moving to the right. It's just slightly right to the nation, and it has quite a strong right-wing and a strong left-wing base. Hispanics and rural voters might have moved to the right though a bit, but it's not a trend that will be consistent i think, as other groups might move to the left. It's still winnable for Democrats.

Arizona might be moving to the left, because they hate Trump and because of demographics, but i don't think a progressive right now has a chance in Arizona. Those states have a lot of suburbs, and i think suburbs rather want moderate Democrats.

...sounds like a good match for Joe Biden

[pppolitics]

I guess that McSally winning the special election requires Trump winning Arizona in 2020 by a bigger margin than in 2016 when he won it by just 3.5 percentage points over Hillary Clinton.

And McSally didn't lose by that much. It was so close.

McSally has Trump shackled to her ankle, so if Trump loses AZ, she probably loses too.

That's why it would have been wise for the Republicans to appoint someone else who can distance himself/herself from Trump.

[pppolitics]

Eh McSally should win in 2020 because Trump should win AZ but it is going to be the second best pickup opportunity for Dems imo

Knowing your track record with Arizona predictions, that means Trump and McSally will lose in 2020. Sounds great to me.

Yeah, I don’t get why Republicans are so confident about AZ. It’s definitely not a "Likely R" state, unless you’ve been in a coma since 2004. I could see McSally and Trump losing AZ even if Trump narrowly wins reelection.

Then again, the same people also consider VA a swing state, so why am I even surprised?

It's obvious.

Arizona is going to be the third or fourth state to flip.

If Arizona flips, Trump almost certainly lost re-election.

So if you are Republican and you convinced yourself that Trump will definitely win reelection, you've also convinced yourself that Trump will definitely win Arizona.

[pppolitics]

I don't think so. Sinema won 12% of the Republican vote. That was key for her victory.

I can't see Gallego winning 12% of the GOP vote.

Just because someone is registered as a Republican doesnt make them a Republican voter. In fast trending states, registration always lags behind. For instance, the Democrats have the majority in KY, WV and LA, yet those states vote R all the time. Same with VA, CO, and AZ, with many safe D voters voting D but having an R next to their name.

Um no lol.

Arizona is trending left but it still a long way off from electing progressives like Gallego on a statewide level.

And your proof is?.......

No race in 2018 was decided by ideology, and if you can name 5, simply 5, then perhaps I will admit that the popular, military veteran cannot win the state.

...and it can be any five statewide races?

[pppolitics]

I don't think so. Sinema won 12% of the Republican vote. That was key for her victory.

I can't see Gallego winning 12% of the GOP vote.

Just because someone is registered as a Republican doesnt make them a Republican voter. In fast trending states, registration always lags behind. For instance, the Democrats have the majority in KY, WV and LA, yet those states vote R all the time. Same with VA, CO, and AZ, with many safe D voters voting D but having an R next to their name.

Um no lol.

Arizona is trending left but it still a long way off from electing progressives like Gallego on a statewide level.

And your proof is?.......

No race in 2018 was decided by ideology, and if you can name 5, simply 5, then perhaps I will admit that the popular, military veteran cannot win the state.

...and it can be any five statewide races?

Sure, why not? 5 of the 2018 statewide races(Ill let you do congressional too, just to make things easier).

Let's see.

Joe Manchin

Laura Kelly

Charlie Baker

Phil Scott

Larry Hogan

[pppolitics]

I don't think so. Sinema won 12% of the Republican vote. That was key for her victory.

I can't see Gallego winning 12% of the GOP vote.

Just because someone is registered as a Republican doesnt make them a Republican voter. In fast trending states, registration always lags behind. For instance, the Democrats have the majority in KY, WV and LA, yet those states vote R all the time. Same with VA, CO, and AZ, with many safe D voters voting D but having an R next to their name.

Um no lol.

Arizona is trending left but it still a long way off from electing progressives like Gallego on a statewide level.

And your proof is?.......

No race in 2018 was decided by ideology, and if you can name 5, simply 5, then perhaps I will admit that the popular, military veteran cannot win the state.

...and it can be any five statewide races?

Sure, why not? 5 of the 2018 statewide races(Ill let you do congressional too, just to make things easier).

Let's see.

Joe Manchin

Laura Kelly

Charlie Baker

Phil Scott

Larry Hogan

Good, now I can deconstruct all of them!

The governors is easy, much of their appeal came from their popularity. If you were to actually look at their ideology, one would see moderate to standard Republicans. In fact, Baker supported an anti-LGBTQ ballot initiative, as he did with school choice, and opposed marijuana legalization, not to mention his want to privatize much of the state gov. And he is the most Liberal of the 3. Doesnt sound so moderate to me, but dang, do I like the guy.

For the Kelly, I ask, did her victory have more to do with her "moderate-ness", or with the fact that her opponent was severely unpopular, and the state's large boom in D votes, in specifically the 3rd district? In fact, Kelly campaigned as a standard Democrat, not a Blue Dog or some other Conservative that are believed to be needed in such R states.

Joe Manchin is also easy, just by looking at the exit polls. His opponent had a 20% approval. Think about that, 20%. If Manchin had faced an opponent with, say, 30% approval, I bet Manchin would have gone down. The race was, like the others, based on popularity, not on ideology.

I do appreciate the challenge, though.

Face it, if it was a race of generic D vs generic R, all the people above would have lost.

[pppolitics]

just cutting down to save space

Face it, if it was a race of generic D vs generic R, all the people above would have lost.

Of course, but thats not what Im talking about. I specified that ideology doesnt make a difference, not other factors, such as personal popularity, appeal, party tag, incumbency, etc.

Without such horrid opponents, its likely Kelly and Joe would have lost, and without the personal popularity the 3 Rs gathered over years and years, its unlikely they would have survived as well. There are other factors in play, but ideology had no discernible difference over both statewide and congressional races.

If Kelly ran on banning guns and allowing unrestricted abortion, she would have lost.

If Baker ran on banning abortion and banning gay marriage, he would have lost

I can go on.

[pppolitics]

just cutting down to save space

Face it, if it was a race of generic D vs generic R, all the people above would have lost.

Of course, but thats not what Im talking about. I specified that ideology doesnt make a difference, not other factors, such as personal popularity, appeal, party tag, incumbency, etc.

Without such horrid opponents, its likely Kelly and Joe would have lost, and without the personal popularity the 3 Rs gathered over years and years, its unlikely they would have survived as well. There are other factors in play, but ideology had no discernible difference over both statewide and congressional races.

If Kelly ran on banning guns and allowing unrestricted abortion, she would have lost.

If Baker ran on banning abortion and banning gay marriage, he would have lost

I can go on.

Alright, I shall offer a counter hypothetical.

Lets say Kelly is running on banning guns and unrestricted abortions, rather extreme positions in the current political sphere. She herself, however, has extremely high approvals, around 80%(following the extreme positions she has). Would she win, or lose? According to you, even though she is extremely popular, she loses because of her positions, while my position, supported by real life examples such as the upper 5 I described, would be that Kelly wins, because she is popular.

No matter what you think of the hypothetical, however, real life supports my argument, as ideology has never really been a factor in the modern political era. From CPC, to BD, all preformed relatively the same, and it was elasticity, and candidate popularity that determined how the district voted, not the positions of candidates.

That's where your argument fails.

She wouldn't have those approval if she has those extreme positions. (Or maybe she has those extreme positions, but she doesn't talk about them).

Popularity doesn't exist independently of ideology.

[pppolitics]

That's where your argument fails.

She wouldn't have those approval if she has those extreme positions. (Or maybe she has those extreme positions, but she doesn't talk about it).

Popularity doesn't exist independently of ideology.

Go ask Chuck Grassley how hes doing, with such extreme positions in a state like IA, he must be doomed. And lets not forget Beto, he ran in TX, for gods sake, why didnt he moderate, his popularity must be in the dumpster? He wouldnt have lost by such a large margin of....*checks notes...2 points if he had risen his popularity by moderating. And dont get me started on that PA representative, Cartwright, in such a Trumpy district, how can he be so Leftist?! he must have a 10% approval! /s

Popularity can be completely separate from ideology, and its rather easy to do, I mean, you can look at a good portion of the newly elected House Dems and the Senate class for that. To give some counters, Joe Donelly ran on establishing the wall, and still was unpopular. Sinema was painted as a anti-war Green Party activist, and was still popular. Charlie Baker, in 2010, ran as a Tea Party Republican and still captured a lot of support from MA.

This getting more and more off-topic.

Let's continue this on a different thread.

[pppolitics]

Let's say that you are a Republican (if you are not) trying to retain this Senate seat in 2020, do you think that appointing McSally to this seat is a wise choice?


_____________________________________________________________

I think, not.

She's a weak candidate and blamed losing on everybody else except herself.

Furthermore, she has Trump shackled to her ankle.

Someone else who can distance himself/herself from Trump would have been better.