What's to say AZ senate 2020 won't be a repeat of WI 2016 Senate?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Both senate races had vulnerable Republican incumebents, Democrats think they've got a strong challenger. Polling pretty much always showed Feingold with a decent edge over Johnson, same way pretty much all polling shows Kelly beating McSally. In the end, Feingold not only lost, but he significantly underperformed Clinton. Are Democrats being too bullish about this AZ senate race in 2020, or is ther soemthing that makes this significantly different?

[libertpaulian]

Both senate races had vulnerable Republican incumebents, Democrats think they've got a strong challenger. Polling pretty much always showed Feingold with a decent edge over Johnson, same way pretty much all polling shows Kelly beating McSally. In the end, Feingold not only lost, but he significantly underperformed Clinton. Are Democrats being too bullish about this AZ senate race in 2020, or is ther soemthing that makes this significantly different?

Wisconsin was demographically and socio-politically moving to the right, starting with the Tea Party races in 2010.  It happens to be a very white, very upper-middle-aged, and less-educated state. 

Arizona, on the other hand, is much younger, less white, politically moderate, and more educated.

[ProgressiveModerate]

At one point this was the 2016 senate forecasts early on, way too much credit was givden to the quality of the canidates, but most people on this forums though it would be something like this early on:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/778267577919401984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%...

[S019]

Regarding that map, IN was looking like a sure pickup until September/October, also the race in Wisconsin tightened significantly during the final two weeks following a major ad blitz by the Republicans. However, while McSally may have lost in a Democratic wave, the truth is that the environment in Arizona was not a blue wave. The 2018 electorate in Arizona was Trump+12, which was 9 points right of the 2016 environment. It's very clear that McSally was a weak candidate and she will struggle in a year where the national environment will more closely mirror the state's environment.  Lean D, at this point.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-polls/arizona/senate

Sinema won 11% of Trump voters and it looks like there will be a decent chunk of Trump/Kelly voters this time.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Unlike Feingold, Kelly has no problem raising the money he needs.

[Lechasseur]

I mean, it's not impossible but I think it's a lot less likely for the reasons stated above

[DaWN]

It's obviously not impossible (hence 'Lean D' rather than 'Safe D') but McSally is a weaker incumbent, Kelly is a stronger challenges, and this is in a state with better demographics for Democrats and is trending their way rapidly, plus Trump and his effects are much more of a known quantity this time around than four years ago.

[ProgressiveModerate]

It's obviously not impossible (hence 'Lean D' rather than 'Safe D') but McSally is a weaker incumbent, Kelly is a stronger challenges, and this is in a state with better demographics for Democrats and is trending their way rapidly, plus Trump and his effects are much more of a known quantity this time around than four years ago.

In 2016, 243 people thought Feingold would win, whereasonly 14 people thought Johnson would win, and half of those were probably "joke" votes for Johnson winning or an unrealistic R landslide. A good 45 people rated it as safe, and the majority of people put lean. Seems to me that people were pretty confident about this flip. For the majority of the election cycle, fivethirtyeight had Feingold at a 90% chnace of winning.

[MT Treasurer]

No. Not every race is going to be like WI-SEN 2016 or FL-SEN 2018.

[Xing]

Because it’s happening in a different state in a different year and with different candidates? And Democrats haven’t already declared victory in the race and decided that they don’t have to bother spending any money on it? Races are unique, and a repeat of that Senate race would have to take place in a state that Democrats think they have in the bag, and get absurdly overconfident about.

[IceSpear]

I don't think anyone denies that it very well could be if 2020 ends up as a good year for the GOP.

[brucejoel99]

Kelly > Feingold, & McSally < Johnson.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Due to McCain being on ballot in 2016 and Speaker Ryan and Giv Walker governing in WI in 2016, allowed Johnson to upset Feingold

[ProgressiveModerate]

Due to McCain being on ballot in 2016 and Speaker Ryan and Giv Walker governing in WI in 2016, allowed Johnson to upset Feingold

What does McCain have to do with Feingold losing?

[brucejoel99]

Due to McCain being on ballot in 2016 and Speaker Ryan and Giv Walker governing in WI in 2016, allowed Johnson to upset Feingold

What does McCain have to do with Feingold losing?

Are you seriously attempting to question olawakandi?

[Devout Centrist]

Johnson was an incumbent who won an election in his own right. McSally ran for Senate, lost, and then got appointed to her own seat.

Not to mention, that race was a rematch.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

No. Not every race is going to be like WI-SEN 2016 or FL-SEN 2018.

I love you (not gay) (not ironic)

[brucejoel99]

No. Not every race is going to be like WI-SEN 2016 or FL-SEN 2018.

I love you (not gay) (not ironic)

"No homo?" What are you, 12 years old in 2011?

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

No. Not every race is going to be like WI-SEN 2016 or FL-SEN 2018.

I love you (not gay) (not ironic)

"No homo?" What are you, 12 years old in 2011?

im conscious about it sheesh

[MT Treasurer]

No. Not every race is going to be like WI-SEN 2016 or FL-SEN 2018.

I love you (not gay) (not ironic)

Aww, was getting my hopes up.

[Person Man]

No. Not every race is going to be like WI-SEN 2016 or FL-SEN 2018.

I love you (not gay) (not ironic)

Aww, was getting my hopes up.

This thread is awesome.

But I think the main takeaway here is that the primary difference is that we are going from a race in a state that is being taken for granted to a state where "we have to do better in". Of course familiarity can breed contempt  and of course as people think about the election more and more, they may decide that even though they need the change (thus why the race looks like it does now), they are not ready for the change and can wait two or four more years.

[Mr. Smith]

McSally already lost once for one thing, and I doubt Kelly's base will be as different from Biden's as Feingold's was to Hillary's...not to mention, Trump could still lose AZ.

[Lognog]

They are similar in that the person who is running lost in the state recently and is going to do it again

[Coldstream]

McSally is closer to Feingold than Johnson. But as I recall Feingold led until the last few weeks and it became very close, or Johnson was leading - I remember being disappointed but not surprised/shocked when Feingold lost.

[Del Tachi]

Both senate races had vulnerable Republican incumebents, Democrats think they've got a strong challenger. Polling pretty much always showed Feingold with a decent edge over Johnson, same way pretty much all polling shows Kelly beating McSally. In the end, Feingold not only lost, but he significantly underperformed Clinton. Are Democrats being too bullish about this AZ senate race in 2020, or is ther soemthing that makes this significantly different?

Wisconsin was demographically and socio-politically moving to the right, starting with the Tea Party races in 2010.  It happens to be a very white, very upper-middle-aged, and less-educated state. 

Arizona, on the other hand, is much younger, less white, politically moderate, and more educated.

The two states are about exactly the same in terms of educational attainment, with Wisconsin actually being marginally ahead (29% vs 28.4% college-educated or higher, which are both lower than the U.S. average of 30.9%).

Of course, let's not forget that the Democratic base is minority voters and not college-educated White people.