2020 AZ Senate Megathread: Kelly's Race to Lose

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Kyl retiring on December 31st means that whoever is appointed will be senior senator over Krysten Sinema. That's really a d!ck move by Kyl.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

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

This make it even worse. McSally just lost and now she has a good chance of becoming senior Senator. SMH.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Kyl retiring on December 31st means that whoever is appointed will be senior senator over Krysten Sinema. That's really a d!ck move by Kyl.

And also makes McSally Arizona's first female U.S. Senator rather than Sinema, who was duly elected as such.

And this also helps arizona by helping it keep seniority in the senate. I would absolutely support this move if i lived in arizona.

I would not. Arizona just elected Kyrsten Sinema NOT Martha McSally.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

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

That's not guaranteed. Also, it's still just not right that McSally who just LOST to Sinema gets to be senior senator.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

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.

Now that you bring this up I can only imagine how this only adds to the already very bad optics, an illegitimate senator becoming the senior senator.

looking forward to this, please ducey.

To be fair, it doesn't matter who the appointee to replace Kyl is (whether it's McSally or not), they won't be the senior Senator, regardless of whether his resignation is December 31st or January 3rd.

The Senate won't be in session between Kyl's resignation on Dec. 31st & the convening of the 116th Congress on Jan. 3rd, so they'll end up being sworn in on the same day. Seniority is determined by the day one is sworn in, not necessarily the date of an appointment. W/ Sinema having served 6 years in the House & McSally having served 4 years in the House, Sinema will have the first tiebreaker, so she'll still be the senior Senator.

No, that's false. Seniority is based on date of appointment. However, McSally would be sworn in on January 3rd just like everybody else.

That means that McSally would have seniority over 10 senators even though she LOST her race.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

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.

Now that you bring this up I can only imagine how this only adds to the already very bad optics, an illegitimate senator becoming the senior senator.

looking forward to this, please ducey.

To be fair, it doesn't matter who the appointee to replace Kyl is (whether it's McSally or not), they won't be the senior Senator, regardless of whether his resignation is December 31st or January 3rd.

The Senate won't be in session between Kyl's resignation on Dec. 31st & the convening of the 116th Congress on Jan. 3rd, so they'll end up being sworn in on the same day. Seniority is determined by the day one is sworn in, not necessarily the date of an appointment. W/ Sinema having served 6 years in the House & McSally having served 4 years in the House, Sinema will have the first tiebreaker, so she'll still be the senior Senator.

No, that's false. Seniority is based on date of appointment. However, McSally would be sworn in on January 3rd just like everybody else.

That means that McSally would have seniority over 10 senators even though she LOST her race.

No, she'd have to face the seniority tiebreaker on the day she's sworn in like everybody else. The prime recent example is Tina Smith, who was appointed to the Senate to fill Franken's vacancy on December 12, 2017, yet her date of seniority is the day she was sworn in, January 3, 2018. Doug Jones was also sworn in alongside her, & Smith won the seniority tiebreaker b/c Minnesota's population is greater than that of Alabama's.

Oh OK, I hope that is correct. I hope that Ducey chooses Kirk Adams.

I know some Democrats want Ducey to pick McSally because she would be "easier" to defeat in 2020. However, I just don't feel that McSally should be appointed since she just LOST. That just irks me the wrong way.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

McSally is a bad choice. Slap in the face to the many Arizonans who just rejected her, and she’s not exactly a favorite of the base out there...

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

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.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Damn you, Ducey!

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Wasn’t former Sen. Kyl appointed for this seat ? What happened ?

Kyl was never planning on holding the seat until the special.

So why did he agree to the appointment if he’s only serving a few months ?

To put Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Gallego is going to win by like five points.

Grant Woods and Mark Kelly would be better candidates.

Gallego is probably too left wing for Arizona.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Gallego is going to win by like five points.

Grant Woods and Mark Kelly would be better candidates.

Gallego is probably too left wing for Arizona.

Nah, people dont vote based on ideology. There really is no threat to running Left Wing challengers or Centrist challengers, both preform relatively the same.

Not true. Sinema won thanks in large part to her moderate image.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Gallego is going to win by like five points.

Grant Woods and Mark Kelly would be better candidates.

Gallego is probably too left wing for Arizona.

Nah, people dont vote based on ideology. There really is no threat to running Left Wing challengers or Centrist challengers, both preform relatively the same.

Not true. Sinema won thanks in large part to her moderate image.

Sinema won because she was a Democratic candidate in a Trump +3 state in a D+9 midterm. There’s no reason to believe a liberal like Gallego couldn’t have performed about the same.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Gallego is going to win by like five points.

Grant Woods and Mark Kelly would be better candidates.

Gallego is probably too left wing for Arizona.

Nah, people dont vote based on ideology. There really is no threat to running Left Wing challengers or Centrist challengers, both preform relatively the same.

Not true. Sinema won thanks in large part to her moderate image.

She preformed almost exactly the same to the national swing, not to mention the fact that Democrats of all stripes, from Blue Dogs to CPCs, preformed almost exactly the same, with fewer exceptions. There is little proof to suggest that Sinema won thanks to her moderate image, especially since she was painted as a Left Wing anti-War crazy the entire election.

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.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

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.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

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.

I guess you don't much about Arizona then lol.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

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.

Now that you bring this up I can only imagine how this only adds to the already very bad optics, an illegitimate senator becoming the senior senator.

looking forward to this, please ducey.

To be fair, it doesn't matter who the appointee to replace Kyl is (whether it's McSally or not), they won't be the senior Senator, regardless of whether his resignation is December 31st or January 3rd.

The Senate won't be in session between Kyl's resignation on Dec. 31st & the convening of the 116th Congress on Jan. 3rd, so they'll end up being sworn in on the same day. Seniority is determined by the day one is sworn in, not necessarily the date of an appointment. W/ Sinema having served 6 years in the House & McSally having served 4 years in the House, Sinema will have the first tiebreaker, so she'll still be the senior Senator.

No, that's false. Seniority is based on date of appointment. However, McSally would be sworn in on January 3rd just like everybody else.

That means that McSally would have seniority over 10 senators even though she LOST her race.

No, she'd have to face the seniority tiebreaker on the day she's sworn in like everybody else. The prime recent example is Tina Smith, who was appointed to the Senate to fill Franken's vacancy on December 12, 2017, yet her date of seniority is the day she was sworn in, January 3, 2018. Doug Jones was also sworn in alongside her, & Smith won the seniority tiebreaker b/c Minnesota's population is greater than that of Alabama's.

Not trying to dispute but doesn't this tweet mean that if McSally was sworn-in first, she would become the senior senator?

https://mobile.twitter.com/WaPoSean/status/1075083033529729024

Thankfully, Sinema will be senior senator.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

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.

So why did Scott Baker get elected in 2014?

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

I endorse Mark Kelly. He'll be a great candidate.

We need more astronauts in Congress. If he's elected, I hope that Kelly becomes the next John Glenn.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Potentially stupid question, since this is a special election: If/when Mark Kelly wins the election, will he be seated as senator immediately, or does he got sworn in the with the rest of the senators elected on January 3, 2021? Being sworn in earlier would give him seniority over fresh(wo)men senators elected in 2020. It appears to be that some House members get sworn in immediately or within days after a special election that takes place simultaneously with a general election and not on January 3. 

He gets sworn in on January 3, 2021.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Potentially stupid question, since this is a special election: If/when Mark Kelly wins the election, will he be seated as senator immediately, or does he got sworn in the with the rest of the senators elected on January 3, 2021? Being sworn in earlier would give him seniority over fresh(wo)men senators elected in 2020. It appears to be that some House members get sworn in immediately or within days after a special election that takes place simultaneously with a general election and not on January 3. 

He gets sworn in on January 3, 2021.

This isn’t for a new term. He’d likely get sworn in sometime in late November or early December

OK cool.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

If Kelly wins this year, what do you guys think that his re-election chances will be in 2022 for a full-term?

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1321584466880458752