2020 AZ Senate Megathread: Kelly's Race to Lose

[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.

[ON Progressive]

An average voter's ideological identification is only 63% predictive to what they would tell you two years later.

Don't worry though, because a popular governor got re-elected, that must mean voters vote on ideology.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Looking forward to Woods beating her in 2020!

[President Johnson]

LOL, I consider this a punch in the voters face. They just rejected her for this position. Democrats should be able to win the seat in 2020.

[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.

[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?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Meh, I can respect this. Everyone gets a Senator that they voted for in 2016.

[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.

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.

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 them).

Popularity doesn't exist independently of ideology.

[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.

[pppolitics]

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.

[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.

[pppolitics]

Let's say that you are a Republican (if you are not) trying to retain this Senate seat in 2020, do you think that appointing McSally to this seat is a wise choice?


_____________________________________________________________

I think, not.

She's a weak candidate and blamed losing on everybody else except herself.

Furthermore, she has Trump shackled to her ankle.

Someone else who can distance himself/herself from Trump would have been better.

[pppolitics]

Let's say that you are a Republican (if you are not) trying to retain this Senate seat in 2020, do you think that appointing McSally to this seat is a wise choice?


_____________________________________________________________

I think, not.

She's a weak candidate and blamed losing on everybody else except herself.

Furthermore, she has Trump shackled to her ankle.

Someone else who can distance himself/herself from Trump would have been better.

[Huey Long is a Republican]

Let's say that you are a Republican (if you are not) trying to retain this Senate seat in 2020, do you think that appointing McSally to this seat is a wise choice?

Hell no. All it will do will ensure its loss to the Democrats in 2020

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

Let's say that you are a Republican (if you are not) trying to retain this Senate seat in 2020, do you think that appointing McSally to this seat is a wise choice?

No, because McSally is shackled to Trump's ankle.

[Bojack Horseman]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did he not think that sentence through before he said that?

[AudmanOut]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did he not think that sentence through before he said that?

When he says respect the will of the voters, he only means republican voters.

[Huey Long is a Republican]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did he not think that sentence through before he said that?

I think Ducey was too busy daydreaming about winning the seat from the Democrat in 2022

[AudmanOut]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did he not think that sentence through before he said that?

I think Ducey was too busy daydreaming about winning the seat from the Democrat in 2022

Why? He would probably lose in 2022, especially if trump wins reelection.

[fluffypanther19]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did he not think that sentence through before he said that?

When he says respect the will of the voters, he only means republican voters.

well tbf, he has to pick a republican, so mcsally who was the republican choice for senate in this past election seemed like an obvious choice to me. she still has to defend her seat in 2 yrs.

[Blair]

Also allows the Democrats to spend two years running ‘she’s a loser’ ‘she cheated her way into D.C’ ‘McSallys best friend Mitch McConelll gave her a seat’ etc before we even get to the election- adds another soft target to hit- and beyond better funding and some soft promo I can’t see what a senate seat gives her

[Calthrina950]

This was not a wise decision on Ducey's part. McSally just lost to Sinema last month, and 2018 showed that she is not a formidable campaigner. Given how closely she has associated herself with Trump in a state where he is generally unpopular, and one that is trending Democratic, I am not sure whether or not she will manage to hold the seat in 2020. And if she does, then she will have to run again in 2022 for the full term.

[Del Tachi]

She'll be a good senator but obviously isn't the best able to hold the seat in 2020.

At this pace, it looks like we'll have:

1.  Senator McSally (R), 2019-2021
2.  Senator Gallego (D), 2021-2023
3.  Senator Ducey (R), 2023-

[pppolitics]

She'll be a good senator but obviously isn't the best able to hold the seat in 2020.

At this pace, it looks like we'll have:

1.  Senator McSally (R), 2019-2021
2.  Senator Gallego (D), 2021-2023
3.  Senator Ducey (R), 2023-

Maybe that's the plan all along. #It's a conspiracy!

Ducey appoints McSally so she would lose to a Democrat. Ducey can than compete against that Democrat two years later.

Sinema would be harder for Ducey to dislodge because he would already be out of office and Sinema would have six years of incumbency.

...and, of cause, the state is moving left the whole time

[Florida Man for Crime]

She'll be a good senator but obviously isn't the best able to hold the seat in 2020.

At this pace, it looks like we'll have:

1.  Senator McSally (R), 2019-2021
2.  Senator Gallego (D), 2021-2023
3.  Senator Ducey (R), 2023-

Maybe that's the plan all along. #It's a conspiracy!

Ducey appoints McSally so she would lose to a Democrat. Ducey can than compete against that Democrat two years later.

Sinema would be harder for Ducey to dislodge because he would already be out of office and Sinema would have six years of incumbency.

...and, of cause, the state is moving left the whole time

If that was the plan, he should have appointed Kelli Ward rather than McSally. This would also ingratiate Ducey to the R primary voters he will need in 2022.