2020 AZ Senate Megathread: Kelly's Race to Lose

[OneJ]

So when is Cook going to move it to Likely or Safe R because of incumbency?

Better yet, wait until 2020 for FiveThirtyEight’s Senate model giving McSally a fairly large incumbency advantage, lol!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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 )

[Comrade Funk]

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.

This. Everyone knows about the Demosaurs. We need a catchy name for increasingly liberal suburban Republicans who vote Democrat.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[NewYorkExpress]

I'd move this one from Lean D to Tossup.

There's a reason the Senate race this year was as close as it was, and quite frankly, I wouldn't underestimate McSally yet, as the Democrats don't have much of a bench here.

[AudmanOut]

I'd move this one from Lean D to Tossup.

There's a reason the Senate race this year was as close as it was, and quite frankly, I wouldn't underestimate McSally yet, as the Democrats don't have much of a bench here.

Are you trolling? Democrats have tons of potential candidates

[NewYorkExpress]

I'd move this one from Lean D to Tossup.

There's a reason the Senate race this year was as close as it was, and quite frankly, I wouldn't underestimate McSally yet, as the Democrats don't have much of a bench here.

Are you trolling? Democrats have tons of potential candidates

Potential candidates and strong candidates do not mean the same thing.

[AudmanOut]

I'd move this one from Lean D to Tossup.

There's a reason the Senate race this year was as close as it was, and quite frankly, I wouldn't underestimate McSally yet, as the Democrats don't have much of a bench here.

Are you trolling? Democrats have tons of potential candidates

Potential candidates and strong candidates do not mean the same thing.

Are saying dems can only win in Arizona if the Democrat is a strong candidate? Just like senator bredesen in Tennessee?

[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.

[NewYorkExpress]

I'd move this one from Lean D to Tossup.

There's a reason the Senate race this year was as close as it was, and quite frankly, I wouldn't underestimate McSally yet, as the Democrats don't have much of a bench here.

Are you trolling? Democrats have tons of potential candidates

Potential candidates and strong candidates do not mean the same thing.

Are saying dems can only win in Arizona if the Democrat is a strong candidate? Just like senator bredesen in Tennessee?

Bredesen had no shot all, because Tennessee really was that Republican. A strong, compelling Democrat, can win in Arizona, especially if the Democrat is winning atop the ticket.

[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.

[AudmanOut]

I'd move this one from Lean D to Tossup.

There's a reason the Senate race this year was as close as it was, and quite frankly, I wouldn't underestimate McSally yet, as the Democrats don't have much of a bench here.

Are you trolling? Democrats have tons of potential candidates

Potential candidates and strong candidates do not mean the same thing.

Are saying dems can only win in Arizona if the Democrat is a strong candidate? Just like senator bredesen in Tennessee?

Bredesen had no shot all, because Tennessee really was that Republican. A strong, compelling Democrat, can win in Arizona, especially if the Democrat is winning atop the ticket.

Are you saying only a strong, compelling dem can win in Arizona? Then again I’m taking to the guy who thinks trump will win the popular vote if he does a few points better in small red states and thinks we should takes all republicans to camps and kill them.

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

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

[PoliticalShelter]

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.

I mean ideology did play some role in why those blue state republican governors are so popular. You tried to make it out that people like Baker and Hogan are pretty close to standard republicans, but no.

I mean Baker has raised the minimum wage to 15 dollars and signed Paid Leave, these are not the things a standard Republican or even a Susan Collins type republican would consider doing. In fact he almost governs like he is a Centrist Democrat, and the things you listed as evidence of his fake moderateness are the exact things a blue dog centrist democrat would (and do) support.

You may say that they only did these kind of things because a Democratic legislature gave them no choice, but thats kinda of the whole point of Blue state Republican governor (or their opposite the Red state Democrat governor)