2020 AZ Senate Megathread: Kelly's Race to Lose

[brucejoel99]

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.

[brucejoel99]

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.

[brucejoel99]

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if that's the case, doesn't that mean Sinema becomes the senior senator from AZ, as she's been in the House longer than McSally and thus wins the 'former rep' tiebreaker?

Exactly. That's what I already said above lol

[brucejoel99]

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if that's the case, doesn't that mean Sinema becomes the senior senator from AZ, as she's been in the House longer than McSally and thus wins the 'former rep' tiebreaker?

Exactly. That's what I already said above lol

So do you did, thanks

Np

[brucejoel99]

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.

Oh OK, I hope that is correct. I hope that Ducey chooses Kirk Adams.

I know some Democrats want Ducey to pick McSally because she would be "easier" to defeat in 2020. However, I just don't feel that McSally should be appointed since she just LOST. That just irks me the wrong way.

I thought actual age comes next to swearing-in date.

No, age has nothing to do w/ determining seniority.

When several new senators usually join on the same day at the beginning of a new Congress, seniority is determined by prior federal or state government service &, if necessary, the amount of time spent in the tiebreaking office. These tiebreakers in order are:

1. Former Senator
2. Former Vice President
3. Former House member
4. Former Cabinet secretary
5. Former state Governor
6. Population of state based on the most recent census when the Senator took office
7. Alphabetical by last name (in case 2 Senators came from the same state on the same day & have identical credentials)

When more than 1 Senator has served in the same previous role, length of time in that prior office is used to break the tie (e.g. Sinema having served 6 years in the House but McSally having served only 4 years in the House).

[brucejoel99]

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.

Oh OK, I hope that is correct. I hope that Ducey chooses Kirk Adams.

I know some Democrats want Ducey to pick McSally because she would be "easier" to defeat in 2020. However, I just don't feel that McSally should be appointed since she just LOST. That just irks me the wrong way.

I thought actual age comes next to swearing-in date.

No, age has nothing to do w/ determining seniority.

When several new senators usually join on the same day at the beginning of a new Congress, seniority is determined by prior federal or state government service &, if necessary, the amount of time spent in the tiebreaking office. These tiebreakers in order are:

1. Former Senator
2. Former Vice President
3. Former House member
4. Former Cabinet secretary
5. Former state Governor
6. Population of state based on the most recent census when the Senator took office
7. Alphabetical by last name (in case 2 Senators came from the same state on the same day & have identical credentials)

When more than 1 Senator has served in the same previous role, length of time in that prior office is used to break the tie (e.g. Sinema having served 6 years in the House but McSally having served only 4 years in the House).

Interesting. What about a former prez?

Not part of the seniority hierarchy; i.e. if Obama returned to the Senate, he could only be treated as a former Senator for seniority purposes. If Bush, Clinton, or Carter went to the Senate, they could only be treated as former state Governors. And if Trump ran for the Senate after his term is up & had a tie to break w/ a fellow incoming Senator, said tie could only be broken based on the population of their states based on the most recent census when the Senators took office.

[brucejoel99]

To me, this whole McSally appointment honestly feels both democratic & antidemocratic at the same time. It feels like a slap in the face to the electorate that just rejected her, but it was a very close race, w/ nearly half of voters wanting McSally. Not to mention, Ducey is legally obligated to appoint a Republican to the seat, & McSally is actually the most recent winner of an AZ Republican U.S. Senate primary. She's the candidate Arizona's Republicans want representing them, so maybe she should be the appointee. As much as I'm not a fan of her personally, this honestly really isn't as much of an objective slap in the face as it may feel like it is (even though it does feel like a slap in the face lol).

[brucejoel99]

So it looks like the freshmen seniority order will be as follows:
1. Blackburn (former Rep for 16 yrs)
2. Sinema (former Rep for 6 yrs)
3. Cramer (former Rep for 6 yrs)
4. McSally (former Rep for 4 yrs)
5. Rosen (former Rep for 2 yrs)
6. Scott (former Gov)
7. Romney (former Gov)
8. Braun (IN 17th in pop. in 2010 census)
9. Hawley (MO 18th in pop. in 2010 census)

Scott's delaying his swearing-in by 5 days to finish out his term as Governor, so he'll be 100th.

*also added the rationale for Braun & Hawley's seniority placements lol

[brucejoel99]

It would be hilarious if Arizona went from two Republican Senators to two Democratic Senators in just two years, due to a so-called "rising star" that was hyped up so much after 2014 getting beaten twice.

Also, is this the first time that someone becomes the Senior Senator less than two months after losing a Senate race?

Sinema will be the senior Senator, as described in the other thread.

[brucejoel99]

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.

Her seniority benefiting from being sworn in first would only apply if she was sworn in after Kyl resigned on Dec. 31st but before the new Senators are sworn in on Jan. 3rd. However, the Senate won't be in session between Kyl's resignation & the new Senators' swearing-in so she would've been sworn in on the same day as Sinema &, thus, been 2nd in seniority even if Ducey hadn't clarified it.

[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)

[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).

[brucejoel99]

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), & on that note...

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.

You're fools, & as to why, well I couldn't have said it better myself than this...

Do you know what Democrats need?

A governing majority.

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

A purity test.

...& this...

Ideological purism is not good for either party.

Theres also the fact that there is no proof whatsoever, no polling, no favorables, nothing, that suggest Grant Woods would somehow be a stronger candidate, other than 'muh centrists do better', when 2018 should have been the nail in the coffin of that "school" of thought.

Except Kyrsten Sinema literally just won in the state relevant to our discussion (partly) b/c of her moderate centrist persona, & in the year you claim should've been the "nail in the coffin" on that school of thought too.

Yes because the way to get a Democratic governing majority is to run Republicans.

By that same "logic", then I guess it's the Republicans who get the last laugh by nominating a Democrat to be their 2016 presidential nominee, seeing him become President, & having him implement their party's policy anyway.

[brucejoel99]

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.

Nobody's saying the Democrats don't have an ideology; even as the big tent we are, we're all still advocates for social & economic equality, precisely b/c we seek to help people out as best we can. But last I checked, wackos like Tom Cotton or actual conservatives like Dubya aren't trying to become Democrats. And if a former Republican hypothetically realizes that they're no longer in agreement with their party's stances & policy, but is moreso in agreement with those of our party's, then I'm not gonna slam the door in their face if they're willing to actively help us achieve our own policy goals which, if/when implemented, helps those real people who are really facing real problems.

[brucejoel99]

But, he could easily pull a Simena and become/present himself as more moderate in the run up to the election.

Being a moderate hero doesn't help you win elections any more.

*cough* Sinema *cough*

[brucejoel99]

Out of curiosity, is this the quickest ascension to senior senator in history? Since McCain/Kyl’s seat was vacant at the time Sinema took the oath, she immediately became the senior senator. If that were so, it would, by extension, be the first time anyone served in the Senate without being the junior senator for even a second (all of this excluding when the Senate was first constituted as a bidy in 1789, of course).

That does seem to beat out Feinstein who was junior senator from November-January 1992.

And Elizabeth Warren as well, who was only MA's junior senator from January 3 to February 1, 2013.

[brucejoel99]

Will not run "As a Democrat"

Greattttt

It's ok: later in the same interview, he clarified that he isn't running at all.

[brucejoel99]

Kelly's in.

https://kvoa.com/news/2019/02/12/mark-kelly-announces-run-for-u-s-senate/

Go Kelly go, go go Kelly go. Go Kelly go, go go Kelly!

[brucejoel99]

I've gotta say, although I'm a liberal who has preferred progressive candidates over moderate centrists before, I'm compelled to support Kelly due to the dedication w/ which he & Gabby Giffords have worked to keep the issue of gun control in the headlines for the last several years.

I'm from Broward County, & MSD's right in my own backyard. I've been there plenty of times, & I have good friends who go to school there. This issue matters to me. So I'm happy to support the candidate who has stepped up & done something; who has taken a stand against gun violence; who has taken the time to remember the lives lost to mass shootings all over the nation; & who, alongside his brave wife, has been affected by gun violence moreso than any of us could imagine.

I don't need to have met the man to be able to see that Kelly is kind, gracious, & above all interested in listening & engaging us as voters & activists on the vital issue of ending mass shootings in our schools & elsewhere. So I don't care what other Democrat may enter this race now. He's got my full support.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/ShuttleCDRKelly/status/1095722143906549761

Very good haul to start off with.

its actually more than 1.1 mill!!

thats more than klobuchar

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2019/02/13/mark-kelly-senate-campaign-reports-raising-1-1-million-1-day-since-launch/2865815002/

You made it sound both extravagant(1.1 Million) and rather small(more than Klobuchar) at the same time.

To be fair, it's quite amazing to see a Senate candidate raise more on their first day than a major presidential candidate.

[brucejoel99]

Paul Gosar

Would lose in a landslide the instant his ties to actual European Nazis is breathed to the press.

Please, this is a Republican primary we're talking about here. They wouldn't bat an eye. (As for the general, though, of course; Senator-elect Mark Kelly would be just fine.)

[brucejoel99]

The fact that y'all are allowing yourselves to get annoyed by OC is disconcerting.

[brucejoel99]

https://mobile.twitter.com/azdemparty/status/1296978269590495232?s=21

August: "Fast a meal."

September: "I'm way behind. Skip a mortgage payment!"

October: "You don't need that medication today."

Nov. 2nd: "Even if the gauge is sitting right on E, your vehicle can still go on for miles. You can wait 'til tomorrow to fill up!"

[brucejoel99]

Deucy really should have just appointed himself to the Senate. He might have actually won.

The goal was probably to appoint somebody he'd know would lose so he could run himself in 2022.

[brucejoel99]

Deucy really should have just appointed himself to the Senate. He might have actually won.

The goal was probably to appoint somebody he'd know would lose so he could run himself in 2022.

But then Ducey destroyed his own chances with his response to COVID.

I bet he's kicking himself for not appointing himself now.

To be fair, one can't really predict something (let alone a global pandemic) that could come along & destroy your governing reputation.

In any event, though, no Governor should ever regret not appointing themselves to a Senate seat, since the precedent for doing so would dictate that the inevitable result when they have to run again is near-certain defeat.