2020 AZ Senate Megathread: Kelly's Race to Lose

[Zaybay]

Well, it appears that McSally has fallen out of favor with Ducey, but she is still a top contender for that seat. Otherwise, the most likely choice is one of the House Republicans, though none of them would really be good incumbents for the seat. Its also possible he appoints himself, though that would give the Democrats the governorship(since there is no Lt.Gov, the SoS steps up). He could also appoint an unknown, like a higher-up in the AZGOP, or a state legislator, but I personally see one of the Reps as the most likely.

On the D side, 3 names have really been thrown around. Woods, a former Republican and Conservative Democrat who worked for McCain. Stanton, former mayor of Phoenix and current representative of Sinema's old seat, kinda middle of the road. and Gallego, a Liberal popular representative of the Phoenix metro. All three have been angling for the senate seat, and all have their respective strengths and weaknesses, but overall, a pretty B+ to A- slate of candidates.

AZ is likely going to see a lot of attention come 2020.

[Zaybay]

Senator McSally here we come.

Becoming unlikely. McSally has apparently fallen out of favor with Ducey.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/for-arizona-governor-mcsallys-star-dims-as-possible-choice-for-senate-seat/2018/12/13/866f6cc0-ff0c-11e8-ad40-cdfd0e0dd65a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f9ae1125fe74

[Zaybay]

I already posted this on another thread, but apparently McSally has fallen out of favor with Gov. Ducey. Not sure if shes the frontrunner.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/for-arizona-governor-mcsallys-star-dims-as-possible-choice-for-senate-seat/2018/12/13/866f6cc0-ff0c-11e8-ad40-cdfd0e0dd65a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f9ae1125fe74

[Zaybay]

If Ducey is smart he won't nominate McSally. That'll be a smack in the face to voters, but then again, so is appointing someone for 2 years that the people have no say in so...

who else could he appoint besides her and Kimberly Yee

AZ GOP bench is absolutely garbage. And the voters didn't say no to Mcsally but more yes for Sinema.

Garbage bench? LMAO. I will remind Atlas that AZ is still a pink state, McSally just ran as a 2004 neocon and wasted all the opportunities afforded her to attack Sinema.

So, who do they pick? If they dont have a garbage bench, who do they pick?

[Zaybay]

Congratulations Senator Gallego

Why Gallego and not mark Kelly?

Coz astronut lost

Gallego would probably be too progressive for Arizona. Someone more moderate like Greg Stanton would do better.

Ideology hasn’t had a single ounce of effect on general elections so far, I doubt it starts to have one now

[Zaybay]

Congratulations Senator Gallego

Why Gallego and not mark Kelly?

Coz astronut lost

Gallego would probably be too progressive for Arizona. Someone more moderate like Greg Stanton would do better.

Ideology hasn’t had a single ounce of effect on general elections so far, I doubt it starts to have one now

^^^^^^^^

I'm not the first one to say this about Stanton and Gallego. And I don't particularly care that much for what you guys have to say anymore.

if a lie is repeated by everyone, does that make it a truth? No. There has been no correlation between ideology and general election performance, moderates dont do better than Progressives, and vice versa. There are barely any examples, especially in the modern political era, of a candidate's ideology causing them to over/underpreform.

Dont know why you dont want to hear from me, I am just pointing out a misconception in your analysis, nothing wrong with that, in fact, its the whole point of this forum.

[Zaybay]

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%.

I mean, it could just be, just like in GA, D voters who use the label R in registration, considering Sinema didnt overpreform the congressional PV. Ducey was very popular, so these previous Rs turned Ds still voted for him.

Ideology had no effect.

[Zaybay]

The thing about states like Arizona and Colorado, though, is that a decent number of registered Republicans pretty vote straight-ticket Democrat now. Kind of the opposite of Appalachia. Sinema was always going to win more Republicans than McSally would Democrats.

Where did you derive your impression of this from Colorado? I've been under the assumption that unaffiliated voters (independents) fueled the Democratic statewide, congressional, and legislative successes in my home state this year.

Check the registration numbers. In heavily D trending states, specifically GA, AZ, CO, and TX, voters are switching to Ds faster than they change their registration(no one wants to go to the DMV). So what you have is a large chunk of Republicans voting straight ticket Dem, because they are Dems. Same thing in Appalachia.

Looking at Co, specifically, Dems had high turnout, and the unaffiliated vote split towards them, but the Democrats won a good chunk of the R vote(this would be the voters previously described). Though, then again, you could attribute the D victory to high D turnout, or the R "defections".

[Zaybay]

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%.

I mean, it could just be, just like in GA, D voters who use the label R in registration, considering Sinema didnt overpreform the congressional PV. Ducey was very popular, so these previous Rs turned Ds still voted for him.

Ideology had no effect.

It absolutely can. Just look at how much Harley Rouda outperformed Katie Porter, despite CA-45 being more D-friendly than CA-48. One to two percent is the difference between a win and a loss in modern Arizona.

I see that in CA-45, a Democrat was going against the unpopular incumbent Dana, so yeah, makes sense why Rouda did well, and also there was Porter's fight against the relatively popular incumbent Walters, so yeah. Seems to have been popularity, not ideology.

I mean, to show how fickle that argument can be, you can compare the performance of CA-50 with ACN with any of the OC Democrats and conclude that Progressives like him do better, when there are external factors at play.

[Zaybay]

https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1075051872925421569

[Zaybay]

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.

Thats why suburban districts elected such moderates as Mike Levin and Katie Porter.....wait.

Lets just be honest, the voters dont care about ideology, and taking the wave of D+8 and applying to the 2016 results gets around the same margin Sinema got, D+3. AZ is definitely moving Left, due to the Coloradification of the Maricopa area, not because of some appeal to centrist

[Zaybay]

What 2016 is pointing out is actually true, sitting governors have a very high success rate when it comes to running for senate, around 80% in the recent political era. What people are conflating here is former governors, who have a rather low success rate, but then again, so do former senators, former representatives, and former AGs. Really, if you are still in the public sphere, you have a much higher chance of moving up than if you have been out of the political arena for an extensive period of time.

[Zaybay]

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.

[Zaybay]

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.

[Zaybay]

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.

[Zaybay]

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.

[Zaybay]

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? If either of you two can find 5 races in the 2018 general election cycle where ideology lead to a candidate winning/losing, then I shall concede.(Ill let you guys do congressional as well, just to make things easier )

[Zaybay]

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.

[Zaybay]

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.

I wish you would tell me how I was wrong instead of just repeating how wrong I am, with no supporting evidence, I might add.

[Zaybay]

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.

[Zaybay]

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.

[Zaybay]

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.

Do you think ideology exists in a void and in no way effects any of those other factors. Manchin, Baker, Scott etc. are popular because of their ideology and the fact that its not generic d or r

Its possible, though history can point to many candidates that have been popular even with rather "extreme" policies relative to the state(WI is a great example of this, just take a look at every state elected official). Its highly possible, in fact likely, to have extreme positions and still be popular( I also look towards Chuck Grassley, another good example of this). Of course, it goes the other way too, moderates and centrists can be super unpopular, even if they are close to the state's values(enter in a good chunk of the Republicans who lost, and many D senators over the years).

If you want solid evidence, I believe ONProgressive just provided it.

[Zaybay]

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.

If you want to know the extent, in 2018, only two unpopular candidates relative to the other were able to win their races, Scott in FL, and Noam in SD. Besides those two, every candidate that won had more popular support than the other, and I doubt that ideology was the reason all of them had higher/lower popularity.

[Zaybay]

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.

You want to make a thread about this, Im all ears, but if you want to end debate now, Im cool with that too.

[Zaybay]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Gallego is going to win by like five points.

Wtf no

That won't happen. Even Sinema only won by 2. Gallego would probably lose by the same margin.

Ruben Gallego is too liberal

Democrats have to offer moderate Republicans and indepenents a palatable alternative.

Grant Woods is a good candidate.

Grant Woods was a Republican until this year. He can screw right off.

I like winning and I don't like leaving something to chance.

We need someone with the best chance of beating McSally.

I am all for running liberals in safe seats, but this isn't one of them.

Republican lite is not acceptable. Period. If woods wants to be senator let him run in the GOP primary

...so you rather have McSally?

She sure isn't a Republican-lite

Gallego....Is..Electable
Period
I'll leave it at that

Tell that to Andrew Gillum (Gwen would have won)

lol, I dont see how, but keep dreaming.