2020 AZ Senate Megathread: Kelly's Race to Lose

[MAINEiac4434]

Cindy or Meghan McCain would make the most sense, and neither would likely run for the full term.

[MAINEiac4434]

Congratulations Senator Gallego

[MAINEiac4434]

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.

Brian Schatz

Bean Schatz hadn't just lost a statewide Senate race when he was nominated.

Can you argue about anything honesty?

[MAINEiac4434]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Gallego is going to win by like five points.

[MAINEiac4434]

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 ?

His job before becoming Senator was literally Help The Senate Confirm Brett Kavanaugh.

[MAINEiac4434]

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.

Let me believe

[MAINEiac4434]

https://twitter.com/RubenGallego/status/1075066876139515904

King

[MAINEiac4434]

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.

[MAINEiac4434]

I'm all for choosing electable candidates, but Woods is a bridge too far. I'm not supporting somebody who was a Republican during the rise of Trump. Stanton is a palatable enough alternative, but I could not in good conscience support Woods.

I dunno. He was never super partisan nor right wing, and if Charlie Crist can switch parties, so can he.

This. And it's stupid to abide by the "once a Republican, always a Republican" attitude. People change. As can their legislative voting patterns which is what would matter at the end of the day (as Charlie Crist exemplifies)

He's literally only changing because he sees that his state is rapidly moving towards the Democratic Party. He saw the entire Trump campaign unfold and was like "this is fine."

He's a craven political hack.

[MAINEiac4434]

I'm all for choosing electable candidates, but Woods is a bridge too far. I'm not supporting somebody who was a Republican during the rise of Trump. Stanton is a palatable enough alternative, but I could not in good conscience support Woods.

I dunno. He was never super partisan nor right wing, and if Charlie Crist can switch parties, so can he.

This. And it's stupid to abide by the "once a Republican, always a Republican" attitude. People change. As can their legislative voting patterns which is what would matter at the end of the day (as Charlie Crist exemplifies)

He's literally only changing because he sees that his state is rapidly moving towards the Democratic Party. He saw the entire Trump campaign unfold and was like "this is fine."

He's a craven political hack.

I'm all for choosing electable candidates, but Woods is a bridge too far. I'm not supporting somebody who was a Republican during the rise of Trump. Stanton is a palatable enough alternative, but I could not in good conscience support Woods.

I dunno. He was never super partisan nor right wing, and if Charlie Crist can switch parties, so can he.

This. And it's stupid to abide by the "once a Republican, always a Republican" attitude. People change. As can their legislative voting patterns which is what would matter at the end of the day (as Charlie Crist exemplifies)

Using Charlie Crist is a pretty poor example, as its well documented that he only switched parties because he was unable to win the R primary for senator against Marco Rubio. He is literally the definition of opportunism.

Look, all I'm saying is that, [if the end goal is to ensure that there's one less Republican vote in the Senate by actually electing a Democrat who, once elected, would vote w/ the Democrats in the Senate to implement Democratic policies & block Republican policies, then Woods is your guy.

How am I supposed to trust Grant Woods to actually do that? There is nothing in his history that indicates he’d be further to the left than Joe Manchin.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Will Grant Woods back single payer? Will Grant Woods seek to break up the military industrial complex? Will Grant Woods fight to protect the rights of labor unions? Will Grant woods fight for environmental justice? Because those are things many Democrats in the senate won’t do, but Ruben Gallego would.

You’re not undestanding me: electing Grant Woods is keeping this seat in Republican hands, even if he has a D next to his name.

I do not want someone like Grant Woods to be welcome in this party.

[MAINEiac4434]

Will Grant Woods back single payer? Will Grant Woods seek to break up the military industrial complex? Will Grant Woods fight to protect the rights of labor unions? Will Grant woods fight for environmental justice? Because those are things many Democrats in the senate won’t do, but Ruben Gallego would.

You’re not undestanding me: electing Grant Woods is keeping this seat in Republican hands, even if he has a D next to his name.

I do not want someone like Grant Woods to be welcome in this party.

I couldn't have said this better. Grant Woods is an oppurtunistic, right-wing Republican. He is not a Democrat and never will be. So-called “moderates” have no place in the Democratic Party and they will be the first ones selling out the working class to corporate interests. They are complacent in the destruction of our democracy. Anyone supporting Woods over Gallego should be ashamed of themselves.

Do you know what Democrats need?

A governing majority.

Do you know what's not going to get the Democrats there?

A purity test.

So why not welcome Tom Cotton into the caucus, right? How about Dubya? I mean, who cares about a million dead Iraqis, he gives Michelle those werthers originals all the time and he doesn’t like Trump, so clearly that makes him a Democrat. Why not Roy Moore while we’re at it? After all, the Democrats don’t need purity tests!

What the Democrats actually need is an ideology. You can’t win just by saying “listen we’re not the other guys.” Advocate for things that will have a demonstrably positive impact on the lives of your constituents. What is the point of a governing majority if not to improve the lives of people?

I don’t want a caucus full of glassy-eyed Seth Moulton-like psychopaths who care only about their next donor meeting. There are real problems real people are really facing, and if the Democratic Party refuses to actually address those issues, then they will become obsolete.

[MAINEiac4434]

Will Grant Woods back single payer? Will Grant Woods seek to break up the military industrial complex? Will Grant Woods fight to protect the rights of labor unions? Will Grant woods fight for environmental justice? Because those are things many Democrats in the senate won’t do, but Ruben Gallego would.

You’re not undestanding me: electing Grant Woods is keeping this seat in Republican hands, even if he has a D next to his name.

I do not want someone like Grant Woods to be welcome in this party.

I couldn't have said this better. Grant Woods is an oppurtunistic, right-wing Republican. He is not a Democrat and never will be. So-called “moderates” have no place in the Democratic Party and they will be the first ones selling out the working class to corporate interests. They are complacent in the destruction of our democracy. Anyone supporting Woods over Gallego should be ashamed of themselves.

Do you know what Democrats need?

A governing majority.

Do you know what's not going to get the Democrats there?

A purity test.

So why not welcome Tom Cotton into the caucus, right? How about Dubya? I mean, who cares about a million dead Iraqis, he gives Michelle those werthers originals all the time and he doesn’t like Trump, so clearly that makes him a Democrat. Why not Roy Moore while we’re at it? After all, the Democrats don’t need purity tests!

What the Democrats actually need is an ideology. You can’t win just by saying “listen we’re not the other guys.” Especially when you run the people who are actually the other guys. Advocate for things that will have a demonstrably positive impact on the lives of your constituents. What is the point of a governing majority if not to improve the lives of people?

I don’t want a caucus full of glassy-eyed Seth Moulton-like psychopaths who care only about their next donor meeting. There are real problems real people are really facing, and if the Democratic Party refuses to actually address those issues, then they will become obsolete.

How am I supposed to trust Grant Woods to actually do that? There is nothing in his history that indicates he’d be further to the left than Joe Manchin.

[You’re not undestanding me: electing Grant Woods is keeping this seat in Republican hands, even if he has a D next to his name.]

I am understanding you; you're just wrong. But if we're going down the example road, then fine:

Donald Trump used to be a Democrat. He changed to being a Republican. When elected President as a Republican, did he reveal himself to be a Republican snake & further Democratic policy goals once in office? No. He very much implemented as many Republican policy goals as he could, & would've done a hell of a lot more too if not for incompetency & institutional roadblocks as well. Another case-in-point, there was nothing in Charlie Crist's history to indicates that he'd be further to the left than Joe Manchin either, but now he's a center-left Democrat (&, more importantly (but what you don't seem to care about), he votes as a Democrat in Congress). Maybe don't be so quick to judge party switchers (especially if said judgement actually serves to hinder any potential achievement of your own political/policy goals)...

You don’t actually believe Donald Trump, whose brain is disintegrating faster than the goddam speed of light, has any actual political ideology beyond “help Donald Trump”, do you?

The man comes out of one-on-one meetings parroting whatever the other person just told him. Historically he joined parties and espoused political views that he felt would help his business. That’s why he signed that climate change open letter, despite saying it doesn’t exist now.

And Charlie Crist is not a center-left Democrat. He is not equally between Dan Lipinski and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Charlie Crist is a middle of the road, staid centrist. It’s just unfortunate that the Democrats are the party of middle of the road staid centrists.

Electing Grant Woods would hinder my policy goals, just like electing Tom Carper hinders my policy goals. The difference is, Tom Carper was at least a Democrat for his entire life. Grant Woods saw everything nasty about the modern Republican Party, and stayed. Not for electoral reasons, because he hasn’t run for anything in a quarter of a century. He stayed because the party represented him. But he’s also smart. He sees a state that’s rapidly getting younger and more Latino, and he knows Arizona is prime to become the next Virginia — from solid red to solid blue without any purple stage in between.

We can do better. You keep trying to draw this false equivalence between Sinema, who was a freaking Green Party activist, and Woods, as if they are politically similar at all. They are not.

Beto O’Rurke ran a progressive campaign in Texas of all places, and nearly knocked off a Republican incumbent. He did not lose excuse he was too far left, he lost because Texas is too Republican at this point to elect a Democrat. I guarantee though, if the TXDems had trotted out some former Republican Attorney General from 25 years ago who also served as chief of staff to, like, Sam Johnson or Kay Bailey Hutchison or whoever, they would’ve done worse than Beto, because the natural supporters of the Democratic Party — young people and minorities — would not have wanted to vote for this person and therefore would not save voted for this person.

Democrats don’t win elections by flipping Republican voters. They win elections by effectively turning out their base. Grant Woods would suppress the base. Because what appeal does Republican Attorney General from 25 Years Ago But He’s A Democrat Now, Promise, have to Democrats’ natural base?

Conversations like this are why I hate the Democratic Party and why I don’t really consider myself a Democrat anymore. The entire party seems to be whistling past the graveyard, unaware of the very real and very prescient future consequences of its actions right now.

[MAINEiac4434]

“But Grant Woods worked for a popular senator of the opposite party and gave a good speech once!”

[MAINEiac4434]

And his odds of winning the Democratic primary just dropped precipitously.

It’s hard to drop precipitously from “zero.”

[MAINEiac4434]

I’m not militantly anti-moderate, but nominating Woods is going too far. Anyone who ran Jan Brewer’s campaign should not be our nominee.

HAHA holy shit. I didn’t even know that.

Backing the Green if Woods wins the nomination (he won’t, he will finish last behind everyone listed in RogueBeaver’s post).

[MAINEiac4434]

Why are most people here so fixated upon Gallego?

Because we agree with him and he has a great story.

Why are centrists so fixated on Woods?

[MAINEiac4434]

Yeah, the combined Green+Sinema vote exceeded 50% (even with Green withdrawing and backing Sinema). McSally just didn't make the case to Arizonans, and I doubt her being anointed this seat after being rejected by the people are going to endear her to those whose votes she did not earn in 2018, even if they may not be as progressive as Gallego.

[MAINEiac4434]

Why people are so excited for Kelly? He has never ran for anything, so it's totally unknown if he is actually at all this campaigning thing.

Kelly also endorsed PAT TOOMEY in a crucial Senate race.

He also backed Mark Kirk over Tammy Duckworth up until Kirk was racist.

Kelly has a great backstory, but the safest candidate here is clearly Gallego.

[MAINEiac4434]

Why people are so excited for Kelly? He has never ran for anything, so it's totally unknown if he is actually at all this campaigning thing.

Kelly also endorsed PAT TOOMEY in a crucial Senate race.

I think that was Giffords anti-gun PAC, not Kelly himself.

I am certain it wasn't done without their willing consent.

[MAINEiac4434]

I am vindicated

[MAINEiac4434]

Very solid launch video. I’d like to see what Gallego could do.

[MAINEiac4434]

Also I’m 9000% sure that Toomey will endorse and max out contributions to McSally.

[MAINEiac4434]

Why did he endorse Pat Toomey? I only know him as a gun control advocate in the vein of Lucy McBath.

Toomey has authored and supported major gun control legislation. Basically, if your gun rights group isn’t endorsing him, they’re not endorsing any Republican (which I’m fine with).

It’s kind of like how the Human Rights Campaign endorses Susan Collins every six years.

[MAINEiac4434]

I’m not even sure Gallego gets in at this point. Unnecessarily risky for him.

[MAINEiac4434]

If Gallego gets in, he better be sure he can win. Don’t want him losing his House seat in a primary election.