2020 AZ Senate Megathread: Kelly's Race to Lose

[Hindsight was 2020]

This thread has become Woods vs Gallego while I’m over here supporting Mark Kelly. Come on guys with Ben Nelson gone we need a new astronaut in the senate

[Free Bird]

Sinema, who ran as an Blue Dog moderate and listed Joe Manchin as her political hero, won by 2.4 in a democratic +8.5 year. People think Gallego, a radical progressive without as much charisma, can win in a Presidential year that has 0 chance of being as liberal as 2018 nationally??? (even if a Dem wins the presidency, its unlikely that translates down ballet to a nine point national popular vote in congress). Peak Atlas. Lean McSally.

Sheesh, you narrowly win one Senate race under absolutely perfect conditions and suddenly you have a Solid D state.

[LeBron]

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.

Yeah because nothing says "winner" to me like some crummy has been straight out of the 1990s.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Sinema, who ran as an Blue Dog moderate and listed Joe Manchin as her political hero, won by 2.4 in a democratic +8.5 year. People think Gallego, a radical progressive without as much charisma, can win in a Presidential year that has 0 chance of being as liberal as 2018 nationally??? (even if a Dem wins the presidency, its unlikely that translates down ballet to a nine point national popular vote in congress). Peak Atlas. Lean McSally.

Sheesh, you narrowly win one Senate race under absolutely perfect conditions and suddenly you have a Solid D state.

Not the first time that’s happened https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_United_States_Senate_election_in_Virginia

[ON Progressive]

Sinema, who ran as an Blue Dog moderate and listed Joe Manchin as her political hero, won by 2.4 in a democratic +8.5 year. People think Gallego, a radical progressive without as much charisma, can win in a Presidential year that has 0 chance of being as liberal as 2018 nationally??? (even if a Dem wins the presidency, its unlikely that translates down ballet to a nine point national popular vote in congress). Peak Atlas. Lean McSally.

Sheesh, you narrowly win one Senate race under absolutely perfect conditions and suddenly you have a Solid D state.

Nice strawman. Nobody is saying Arizona is a Solid D state. It is hardly absurd to believe Democrats can win a rapidly D trending state that Trump won by only 3.5% in 2016. Especially in a Presidential year, where Latino voters will turn out better than a midterm.

This state is a Tossup with Woods, Kelly, Gallego, or any remotely competent Democrat. It’s also a Tossup at the Presidential level. The fact Atlas Republicans think AZ is Safe R like this is 2004 instead of 2018 is absolutely hilarious to me and I hope the NRSC has the same view.

[NOVA Green]

I don't get the big deal.. McSally only lost by 2% in a very democratic year. This isn't a slap in the face to the voters, because she isn't taking the seat that she lost. Its a different one...

Well, to be fair it's not just that she lost, but perhaps most importantly where she lost (Maricopa County), among which voters support collapsed (Anglos), and when she lost (Midterm Election with much lower Latino and Younger Voter Turnout).

Sure, it's entirely possible that somehow Middle-Class and Older Anglos sat out the election in '18 in Maricopa County, while meanwhile there was a massive surge of younger voters and Latinos, but something tells me there were massive swings among Middle-Class and Older Anglos in Maricopa, a bit of a surge (Compared to traditional Midterm Turnout among Millennials), and perhaps a small spike in Latino Turnout....

Still, we have precinct level data that anyone can go take a look at now and run compare/contrast models vs the '16 GE, do swings compared to various elections, etc....

Is there any reason based upon what we know now to expect that a 'PUB SEN candidate will perform better in 2020 than in 2018??? (Call me skeptical)

[Xing]

I like how very liberal candidates are always "too far left" for swing states, but extreme right-wingers are never "too far right" for swing states. It's a pretty big double standard, if you ask me.

[UncleSam]

I like how very liberal candidates are always "too far left" for swing states, but extreme right-wingers are never "too far right" for swing states. It's a pretty big double standard, if you ask me.

Of course they are. Kelli Ward is too right wing to win AZ. Just one example but the GOP blew several races by nominating extreme right wingers in Corey Stewart (they’d have never won VA but Stewart almost certainly blew a house seat or two) and Patrick Morrissey, for example.

[MillennialModerate]

Mark Kelly, please run. He would win.

If it’s Gallego then Likely McSally, even as the state would go D for President

[Skye]

I like how very liberal candidates are always "too far left" for swing states, but extreme right-wingers are never "too far right" for swing states. It's a pretty big double standard, if you ask me.

But it has become an issue in the past? Sharron Angle, Richard Mourdock, Ken Buck, even Corey Stewart this year, to name a few. Also, let's not pretend Ward or Arpaio wouldn't have played that part had they won the primary.

Nice strawman. Nobody is saying Arizona is a Solid D state. It is hardly absurd to believe Democrats can win a rapidly D trending state that Trump won by only 3.5% in 2016. Especially in a Presidential year, where Latino voters will turn out better than a midterm.

This state is a Tossup with Woods, Kelly, Gallego, or any remotely competent Democrat. It’s also a Tossup at the Presidential level. The fact Atlas Republicans think AZ is Safe R like this is 2004 instead of 2018 is absolutely hilarious to me and I hope the NRSC has the same view.

I wouldn't say AZ is a tossup on the presidential level yet. Let's not forget that this was a D+8 year and the 2016 presidential was D+2. We'd need a clearer picture of the race to rate it. But I agree that AZ could definitely be very vulnerable for the GOP because it's trending D rapidly. McSally probably won't have an easy race. Yet to dismiss her chances just because she lost this year is also wrong. Just saying.

[Zaybay]

You would think 2018 would have finally proved to some folk that people dont care about the ideology of candidates, for they are all painted the same way. You would think that these people would want the young military veteran who is highly popular in the state, but hes """too Liberal""". We need the guy who just became a Democrat a couple months ago and has a long and rather controversial record to defend. You would think that after all the talk of enthusiasm and getting the Democrats out to vote, they would want someone energizing, but I guess some will never learn, huh?

[ON Progressive]

I wouldn't say AZ is a tossup on the presidential level yet. Let's not forget that this was a D+8 year and the 2016 presidential was D+2. We'd need a clearer picture of the race to rate it. But I agree that AZ could definitely be very vulnerable for the GOP because it's trending D rapidly. McSally probably won't have an easy race. Yet to dismiss her chances just because she lost this year is also wrong. Just saying.

Uh, it is very clearly a tossup at the Presidential level if it was only Trump +3.5 in a D+2 year, especially with how much the state is trending Dem.

[pppolitics]

I like how very liberal candidates are always "too far left" for swing states, but extreme right-wingers are never "too far right" for swing states. It's a pretty big double standard, if you ask me.

Sen. Ken Buck and Sen. Sharron Angle say "Hi!"

[Stranger in a strange land]

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.

It's possible this is a House of Cards-type Galaxy Brain gambit by Ducey, who wants McSally to lose in 2020 so he can run for the seat himself in the regular election in 2022 (which at this point is probably a greater than 50% chance of being a Democratic president's midterm).

[pppolitics]

I like how very liberal candidates are always "too far left" for swing states, but extreme right-wingers are never "too far right" for swing states. It's a pretty big double standard, if you ask me.

Sen. Ken Buck and Sen. Sharron Angle say "Hi!"

To be fair, Ken Buck was running against Unbeatable Titan Michael Bennet (the next president), so he didn't exactly have a chance from the start.

Anyway, Mark Kelly is probably the best candidate here assuming he wants to run, although I've started to come around to Grant Woods as well.

Assuming he runs, Mark Kelley would be the best candidate. (probably the dream candidate)

He has a biography that's even better than McSally's.

The problem is that he has so far shown no sign of running.

[wesmoorenerd]

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.

[Dr. MB]

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.

Yeah, agreed. An actual Democrat should be nominated for f**k's sake.

Anyway, go Gallego if he runs.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

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.

[brucejoel99]

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)

[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.

[Zaybay]

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.

[pppolitics]

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.

Maybe he was a moderate or liberal Republican and the Republican Party moved so far to the right that his feels that his ideology is closer to that of the Democratic Party.

Not supporting someone just because he was Republican is not a good reason.

[brucejoel99]

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. He's a Sinema moderate, which candidate-wise would be the safest bet to place in regards to trying to take the seat. At this time, fielding a liberal like Gallego would be risking keeping the seat in Republican hands, & that's a risk not worth taking when either Woods or Gallego would just vote the same way once elected anyway.

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.

Maybe he was a moderate or liberal Republican and the Republican Party moved so far to the right that his feels that his ideology is closer to that of the Democratic Party.

Not supporting someone just because he was Republican is not a good reason.

Also, this. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity (& by that I mean the GOP's overall stupidity, not Woods' lol).

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

Stanton was considered one of the top tier candidates for AZ-SEN this year; I don’t know much about him personally, but posters around here mostly praised him when his name came up for that race.

[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.