AZ-SEN 2018: Sinema Paradiso

[Zaybay]

From 538, The Democrat Is Up Big In Arizona’s Senate Race — For Now

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-democrat-is-up-big-in-arizonas-senate-race-for-now/

Sinema is no lock, but it is absolutely R hackish to say that at the end of the day, it will be a pure tossup with no side with a clear advantage. That's baloney, Sinema is the favorite.

Eh, Sinema may be the favorite but the point of the article is that it is silly to take the poll result at face value this far out, with so many convoluting factors. Bear in mind also that people will believe Arizona is purple when they see it - Arizona has been a solidly red state for all of our lifetimes, and even with increasing Democratic competitiveness there it is hard to see it as fully a toss up state yet.

AZ is changing fast. Look at what happened in AZ-08. The teacher strikes, and radical immigration policies are absolutely imploding the AZ GOP. All of these polls showing dems doing really well, both in the generic ballot in AZ AND Krysten Sinema are *NOT* an anomaly.

It took me a long time to figure out why AZ-08 shifted so dramatically democratic, but after seeing all of these AZ polls, I finally understand: Suburban & Urban Arizona are changing super fast (and like 85% of AZ's population lives in urban/suburban areas, and many rural Arizonans are native americans who vote D anyways).


"Muh AZ was always republican" would be making the same mistake as dems in West Virginia in 2000... sh!t can change in the blink of an eye.

I think this is whats happening as well. The population in Urban areas such as Phoenix is exploding and the Suburbs around it are bluing, possibly due to the natural expansion of cities or the browning of suburbs or some other reason. People keep putting Arizona as a tossup for senate or likely R for Gov, but I see Arizona as the next sort of VA, barely any noticeable shift, and then BAM. It was suppose to be NC, but Ill take AZ any day.

[Zaybay]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/02/krysten-sinema-democrats-senate-chuck-schumer-687120

Sinema says she won't support Schumer for party leader

I think she's really going a little bit too far with the whole moderate schtick. I mean, every sign points to her being another Gillibrand, a progressive masquerading as a conservadem during her time in the House before becoming a progressive in the Senate once again. Her past certainly wouldn't suggest her being a conservative Democrat, so why is she going with a move even more radical than what Manchin and Heitkamp are doing? Like, I get why House candidates go after Pelosi, she's been in power forever and is incredibly unpopular, but Schumer's only been party leader for a few years. I just think Sinema is going a little bit too far to get elected (and honestly, she doesn't need to, she's definitely the favorite at this point).

I believe she is a progressive masquerading as a conservadem, but I think Gillibrand is mostly being progressive for opportunism rather than being one at heart. My theory is that she is..."playing 4D Chess"...god, I hate that phrase.

If she goes progressive as a senator, she will likely support a more progressive senator to be leader, such as Elizabeth Warren. So, she is appealing to the conservatives who hate Chuck Schumer for election, but then she can play the "I wasnt specific" card and support a progressive challenger.

 Either that or she really has embraced the Conservadem and wants Joe Manchin to be the Senate Democratic leader. Either or.

[Zaybay]

With Schumer's conceding to Trump/McConnell and allowing Dems to confirm Drumpf's judges, maybe Sinema's "I won't vote for Schumer" line makes sense.  At least, if you're a Democrat pissed off at this administration.

I personally think shes another Gillibrand, pretending to be more Conservative so she can win and move up. She was a super-Liberal in the state senate when she had a lean D seat, and when she won a tossup seat, she suddenly shifted. She could be setting up for a "I did say I wouldnt vote for Schumer" by going after Schumer from the Left. At least, thats what I hope. Her behavior has just been way too odd and seems like shes trying to be a fake moderate.

[Zaybay]

With Schumer's conceding to Trump/McConnell and allowing Dems to confirm Drumpf's judges, maybe Sinema's "I won't vote for Schumer" line makes sense.  At least, if you're a Democrat pissed off at this administration.

I personally think shes another Gillibrand, pretending to be more Conservative so she can win and move up. She was a super-Liberal in the state senate when she had a lean D seat, and when she won a tossup seat, she suddenly shifted. She could be setting up for a "I did say I wouldnt vote for Schumer" by going after Schumer from the Left. At least, thats what I hope. Her behavior has just been way too odd and seems like shes trying to be a fake moderate.

The difference is that Gillibrand is the Senator of an already liberal state.  Sinema is poised to become the Senator of a light pink state that, while rapidly trending D, hasn't shed its libertarian or moderate conservative tendencies.

True, but its just a character analysis. For most of her life, she was a Left Dem, then as soon as she won the conservative seat, she changed. And, listening to most of what shes saying on the campaign trail, it all sounds like something Lefties would mock moderates over. Also, to note, that if she does win, then she is up in 2024, which by then, the state should be tilt D, at the least.

[Zaybay]

Sinema remains one of the worst Democrats running in a competitive Senate race.

[Zaybay]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eH6ZSLvsak

A new undercover video of Democratic Senate nominee Krysten Simena pretending to support gun rights.

Will gun voters actually vote for a Democrat if a Republican is not pro-Second Amendment or their type of voter?

For the twenty millionth time, nobody cares about Project Veritas other than Republican hacks. Not a single damn vote will be swung by this. Not one.

That is true. But why would the Pittsburgh attacks sway votes but not Project Veritas?

Oh my f**king god. Mods please drone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eH6ZSLvsak

A new undercover video of Democratic Senate nominee Krysten Simena pretending to support gun rights.

Will gun voters actually vote for a Democrat if a Republican is not pro-Second Amendment or their type of voter?

For the twenty millionth time, nobody cares about Project Veritas other than Republican hacks. Not a single damn vote will be swung by this. Not one.

That is true. But why would the Pittsburgh attacks sway votes but not Project Veritas?

Because only like .07% of the population knows about Project Veritas. Are you this dumb or do we need the Mods to smite you?

What has bronz4141 done to earn your ire? This seems to be another case of this forum not tolerating those with views that are not those of the ideological majority here.

You do realize you are talking about Bronz, right? This isnt ideological, its just poster specific.

[Zaybay]

The next batch (buckets) of Votes won't be as Democratic-friendly as those from yesterday
https://twitter.com/VaughnHillyard/status/1060688348321378307

We already know that. The order is currently Sinema, McSally, , . The problem for Rs is that the Sinema bucket was much more pro-Sinema than expected, and the are more likely to be Sinema than McSally.

[Zaybay]

Bagel losing ND was expected. MO and IN were within the realm of possibility and they made sense to lose although margins were big. Losing Florida has no excuse in a blue wave year. The margins were still close there so it just looks incompotence. However look what happened to Ohio. Brown barely survives by 5 points and all other candidates are lost. I think Ohio republicans try for a 12-3 gerrymander next decade with how quickly Ohio is going republican.

Waves dont break perfectly, there will always be races that slip through the cracks, and ones that come up unexpected. For Democrats, FL was the state that slipped. In 2016, it was PA for the Rs. In 2012, it was NV and AZ for the Ds. In 2010, it was DE, NV, CO, and WV. Even in a wave, you cant win'em all.

Also, about the OH thing. The Dems are already in complete vote sinks, making such a gerrymander would be practically impossible, especially with the new commission, which, even thought it will be run by Rs, lays out some guidelines that would probably give Ds another seat, and one tossup in Cincinnati.

[Zaybay]

Bagel losing ND was expected. MO and IN were within the realm of possibility and they made sense to lose although margins were big. Losing Florida has no excuse in a blue wave year. The margins were still close there so it just looks incompotence. However look what happened to Ohio. Brown barely survives by 5 points and all other candidates are lost. I think Ohio republicans try for a 12-3 gerrymander next decade with how quickly Ohio is going republican.

Waves dont break perfectly, there will always be races that slip through the cracks, and ones that come up unexpected. For Democrats, FL was the state that slipped. In 2016, it was NH for the Rs. In 2012, it was NV and AZ for the Ds. In 2010, it was DE, NV, CO, and WV. Even in a wave, you cant win'em all.

Also, about the OH thing. The Dems are already in complete vote sinks, making such a gerrymander would be practically impossible, especially with the new commission, which, even thought it will be run by Rs, lays out some guidelines that would probably give Ds another seat, and one tossup in Cincinnati.

2006 and 2014 say hi.  If either had been a real miss, Kay Hagan would still be in Congress and Allen would've been leased to 2012.

Nope, 2014 also saw a state lost by Rs, PA. And so did 2006, as TN was also in contention, but didnt flip. There is always one per cycle.

[Zaybay]

The fact that Sinema and the Green candidate combined have 52% of the vote...

Republicans should be nervous about this state in 2020.

Who on the Democratic side could run and win then?

They could run Stanton, Gallego, Kelly, etc. There are many good choices!

[Zaybay]

The fact that Sinema and the green candidate are taking a combined comfortable majority only makes the party's abandonment of Garcia look more stupid.

Ducey is currently at 56% of the vote, so I don’t see how it would have made any real difference. The real wonder is how Dems managed to win 3 (and probably 4) statewide races despite the Gov blowout

Garcia ran too far to the left.

He needed support from independents and Republicans to win and he didn't get that.

If 2018 proved anything, its that voters dont care about ideology. The more likely reason for the blowout was Ducey's nuking of the airwaves, and the abandonment of Garcia by the Democrats. It also looks like his rise in approvals from the McCain replacement were also a boon, as he never dropped after that point.

[Zaybay]

The fact that Sinema and the green candidate are taking a combined comfortable majority only makes the party's abandonment of Garcia look more stupid.

Ducey is currently at 56% of the vote, so I don’t see how it would have made any real difference. The real wonder is how Dems managed to win 3 (and probably 4) statewide races despite the Gov blowout

Garcia ran too far to the left.

He needed support from independents and Republicans to win and he didn't get that.

If 2018 proved anything, its that voters dont care about ideology. The more likely reason for the blowout was Ducey's nuking of the airwaves, and the abandonment of Garcia by the Democrats. It also looks like his rise in approvals from the McCain replacement were also a boon, as he never dropped after that point.

From talking to people in Arizona, that's not necessary true.

McSally aligned herself too closely to Trump and that's why she lost.

Arizona's educated whites really dislike Trump.

They found Sinema palatable enough to be able to pull the lever for her.

That doesnt explain the SOS race, the closeness of the AG race, nor the state legislature gains made by the Ds. Neither does it match the results from the rest of the midterm, where all three factions of the Ds preformed relatively similar.

Its most likely the difference between state and federal politics, along with the reasons I listed above.

[Zaybay]

The fact that Sinema and the green candidate are taking a combined comfortable majority only makes the party's abandonment of Garcia look more stupid.

Ducey is currently at 56% of the vote, so I don’t see how it would have made any real difference. The real wonder is how Dems managed to win 3 (and probably 4) statewide races despite the Gov blowout

Garcia ran too far to the left.

He needed support from independents and Republicans to win and he didn't get that.

If 2018 proved anything, its that voters dont care about ideology. The more likely reason for the blowout was Ducey's nuking of the airwaves, and the abandonment of Garcia by the Democrats. It also looks like his rise in approvals from the McCain replacement were also a boon, as he never dropped after that point.

From talking to people in Arizona, that's not necessary true.

McSally aligned herself too closely to Trump and that's why she lost.

Arizona's educated whites really dislike Trump.

They found Sinema palatable enough to be able to pull the lever for her.

That doesnt explain the SOS race, the closeness of the AG race, nor the state legislature gains made by the Ds. Neither does it match the results from the rest of the midterm, where all three factions of the Ds preformed relatively similar.

Its most likely the difference between state and federal politics, along with the reasons I listed above.

The AG race isn't even close.

Anyway, in a lot of these down-ballot races, the Democrats can keep low profiles and ran inoffensive campaigns.

A full blown liberal would get blown out of the race.

Last I checked, 52-48 is a rather close margin, one to be proud of against the incumbent attorney general.

Anyway, there is little proof to suggest that Sinema won due to being a blue dog, or a full blown liberal would have been blown out, since, as stated before, there was almost no difference between how a candidate preformed and their ideology, and the downballot of AZ, with many running as progressives, were able to mount large comebacks.

Unless you have proof that Sinema won because of ideology, and not because it was a highly partisan election that, in a state trending D, went to the D thanks to a Blue Wave, then I wont concede.

[Zaybay]

Guys, the governor's race has nothing to do with ideology or "candidate quality" or whatever. Ducey was popular, so he got re-elected. It's not that complicated. Had Sinema ran against Ducey instead of the Senate race she'd be getting BTFO too.

Thanks Icespear. Couldnt have said it better myself.