What makes an appointed senator successful in getting elected?

[MargieCat]

It seems like appointed senators often have mixed luck.

Some success stories have been Tina Smith, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Tim Scott. Cindy Hyde-Smith to a lesser extent seems to hang on due to partisanship, but doesn't win by the margins a MS republican should.

Some unsuccessful ones have been McSally and Loeffler (who lost to the opposition party), as well as Luther Strange (who lost in the primary).

The jury is out on how Padilla will perform. I don't see a republican picking up that seat, but a more progressive challenger from the left can defeat him with California's jungle primary system. Although that does seem rather unlikely.

What makes an appointed senator successful in getting elected?

Is it candidate quality? Pure partisanship? Similarity to their predecessor? Someone that has held a statewide position (Governor/Lt. Governor/AG/Secretary of State)?

[brucejoel99]

Nice try, Alex. You'll have to pay us our mandatory political consulting fees before we're able to consider helping you out.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Partisanship and staying relatively on the down low. Also, trying to be genuine and recognize that the people of your state haven't directly chosen you. People like McSally and Loeffler were heavily targeted because they were in key states and both came across as disingenuine which looks bad when the people of your state never even elected you as a Senator (or in the case of McSally, rejected you).

[Niemeyerite]

I think you missed the most successful story of an appointed Senator: Michael Bennet. He survived the 2010 wave even after being appointed by an unpopular governor and being an unknown guy.

[Pollster]

Customarily, appointed Senators have to walk a fine line between keeping a low profile out of recognition that they have an asterisk next to their title, while still building name recognition and trust with voters through media appearances, legislative pushes, and general politicking.

It's also important to remember that both McSally and Loeffler represented narrowly divided states but voted and campaigned as though they represented Alabama. You could argue that they'd have done worse had they not done this, though it's worth noting that both lost to candidates who ran with gentler, more unity-focused rhetoric.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Obviously it helps to have not lost in the immediately previous cycle.

[beesley]

Satisfying enough people to avoid being challenged by someone higher profile or ideologically different.

[The Houstonian]

The ones who lose are probably more likely to be appointed only as a political favor.

[gerritcole]

Luther Strange had corruption painted all over him (fair or not i dont know) cause he was AG and was handling a case involving incumbent Gov Bentley and then got the nod perhaps for a favorable outcome in the case

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Luther Strange had corruption painted all over him (fair or not i dont know) cause he was AG and was handling a case involving incumbent Gov Bentley and then got the nod perhaps for a favorable outcome in the case

Avoiding shady politics also helps.

[Coldstream]

It helps if there’s a general expectation that they would be elected to the Senate anyway, so they aren’t seen as having been raised above their ability. Or that it’s generally on merit. So when it’s a statewide official (Tina Smith, Brian Schatz) or a prominent congressperson (Dean Heller) who could reasonably have been expected to get elected on merit people react better to them.

I think McSally suffered from this most acutely since she’d just lost an election, but Loeffler is another example of someone who’d be unlikely to win the nomination in a normal race. Strange suffered from the merit argument since it looked like Bentley had appointed him to get a favourable investigation.

Another thing that helps is being seen as a like for like replacement. Again I think McSally suffered because she was so obviously lacking in principle compared to McCain.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Luther Strange had corruption painted all over him (fair or not i dont know) cause he was AG and was handling a case involving incumbent Gov Bentley and then got the nod perhaps for a favorable outcome in the case

I’m amazed at how quickly I forgot about this Strange guy.

[Roll Roons]

Luther Strange had corruption painted all over him (fair or not i dont know) cause he was AG and was handling a case involving incumbent Gov Bentley and then got the nod perhaps for a favorable outcome in the case

I’m amazed at how quickly I forgot about this Strange guy.

He wasn't exactly memorable. I'm sure a lot more people on here and in Alabama remember Roy Moore.

[PAK Man]

I think there are a few factors that go into it.

1. Knowing your electorate. This is probably the most important factor. This is how Bennet, Gillibrand and Smith succeeded and how Loeffler and McSally failed. They knew what the electorate was like. Loeffler and McSally were either ignorant of the fact that their states are changing demographically or didn't care.

2. Knowing how to fend off a primary challenger. Several appointed senators faced primary challengers. Bennet faced Andrew Romanoff, Schatz faced Colleen Hanabusa, etc. Both of them survived, I feel, because they were able to frame their races as, "Why should you vote me out?" Schaz especially I think had a great argument in that the only reason Hanabusa challenged him was because she felt entitled to the seat. Strange, on the other hand, was embroiled in scandal, not only because of Robert Bentley's scandals, but because there seemed to be some suspicious circumstances involving his appointment (I'm actually convinced Kay Ivey only did the special election because she wanted to get Strange out of office and this was her only option; I don't think she expected Roy Moore to unseat him. Clearly Ivey wanted a clean slate after Bentley and this was one way of her doing that).

Although I do have a question for people who were paying attention to politics in 1996 (I was in first/second grade at the time). Why did Sheila Frahm lose the primary to Sam Brownback? That's something I've always been curious about.

[Torrain]

I think there are a few factors that go into it.

1. Knowing your electorate. This is probably the most important factor. This is how Bennet, Gillibrand and Smith succeeded and how Loeffler and McSally failed. They knew what the electorate was like. Loeffler and McSally were either ignorant of the fact that their states are changing demographically or didn't care.

2. Knowing how to fend off a primary challenger. Several appointed senators faced primary challengers. Bennet faced Andrew Romanoff, Schatz faced Colleen Hanabusa, etc. Both of them survived, I feel, because they were able to frame their races as, "Why should you vote me out?" Schaz especially I think had a great argument in that the only reason Hanabusa challenged him was because she felt entitled to the seat. Strange, on the other hand, was embroiled in scandal, not only because of Robert Bentley's scandals, but because there seemed to be some suspicious circumstances involving his appointment (I'm actually convinced Kay Ivey only did the special election because she wanted to get Strange out of office and this was her only option; I don't think she expected Roy Moore to unseat him. Clearly Ivey wanted a clean slate after Bentley and this was one way of her doing that).

Although I do have a question for people who were paying attention to politics in 1996 (I was in first/second grade at the time). Why did Sheila Frahm lose the primary to Sam Brownback? That's something I've always been curious about.

^All of this!

[gerritcole]

Luther Strange had corruption painted all over him (fair or not i dont know) cause he was AG and was handling a case involving incumbent Gov Bentley and then got the nod perhaps for a favorable outcome in the case

I’m amazed at how quickly I forgot about this Strange guy.

He was the tallest senator by far

[brucejoel99]

Luther Strange had corruption painted all over him (fair or not i dont know) cause he was AG and was handling a case involving incumbent Gov Bentley and then got the nod perhaps for a favorable outcome in the case

I’m amazed at how quickly I forgot about this Strange guy.

He was the tallest senator by far

Also played NCAA basketball at Tulane back in the '70s.

[Blair]

I think you missed the most successful story of an appointed Senator: Michael Bennet. He survived the 2010 wave even after being appointed by an unpopular governor and being an unknown guy.

He's also one of the rare ones who won after surviving a primary; appointments often led to ugly fights in the party (Gillibrand was nearly primaried in 2010 & imo could have lost that, Strange in '18, Loeffler in '20) especially as Governors tend to use them to enrich themselves.

[Motorcity]

Actually do your job?

The ones who actually want to be senators and work hard on day 1 get elected

Look at Loeffler. She owns a WNBA team and her husband is the literal CEO of the NYSE. She was appointed literally because she wanted the title, nothing else. Did anyone really think a billionaire cared about some out of work truck driver in rural Georgia?

Since being a senator, she has made no attempt to meet with her constituents. No attempt to work with the opposing party. No attempt to appeal to minorities. This isn't Wyoming, this is Georgia a purple state. She spent all her time as a Trump loyalist and running silly Atalia the Hun ads.

[I’m not Stu]

Will Alex Padilla win? He seems very popular in California. I can't imagine a serious Democrat challenging a former CASOS who won by a wider margin than Gavin Newsom.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Will Alex Padilla win? He seems very popular in California. I can't imagine a serious Democrat challenging a former CASOS who won by a wider margin than Gavin Newsom.

His pro-M4A/GND statements will probably stave off challenges on the left flank, but London Breed said his appointment was a blow to the African-American community and could challenge him from the right. I doubt she has the profile to win, but like Newsom and most other major officeholders in California (but not Padilla), she is from the San Francisco set and could build a base out of there if she could do it anywhere. That's a double-edged sword, though; emphasising that part of her background could turn off potential Republican supporters by reminding them of their history with SF Democrats.

[I’m not Stu]

Will Alex Padilla win? He seems very popular in California. I can't imagine a serious Democrat challenging a former CASOS who won by a wider margin than Gavin Newsom.

His pro-M4A/GND statements will probably stave off challenges on the left flank, but London Breed said his appointment was a blow to the African-American community and could challenge him from the right. I doubt she has the profile to win, but like Newsom and most other major officeholders in California (but not Padilla), she is from the San Francisco set and could build a base out of there if she could do it anywhere. That's a double-edged sword, though; emphasising that part of her background could turn off potential Republican supporters by reminding them of their history with SF Democrats.

Padilla supports court packing and abolishing the filibuster. I'm not sure if anyone would seriously challenge Padilla from the left.

[SevenEleven]

Will Alex Padilla win? He seems very popular in California. I can't imagine a serious Democrat challenging a former CASOS who won by a wider margin than Gavin Newsom.

His pro-M4A/GND statements will probably stave off challenges on the left flank, but London Breed said his appointment was a blow to the African-American community and could challenge him from the right. I doubt she has the profile to win, but like Newsom and most other major officeholders in California (but not Padilla), she is from the San Francisco set and could build a base out of there if she could do it anywhere. That's a double-edged sword, though; emphasising that part of her background could turn off potential Republican supporters by reminding them of their history with SF Democrats.

What a disgusting statement.

[I’m not Stu]

Jerome Horton is running against Padilla, but he has very little name recognition.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Actually do your job?

The ones who actually want to be senators and work hard on day 1 get elected

Look at Loeffler. She owns a WNBA team and her husband is the literal CEO of the NYSE. She was appointed literally because she wanted the title, nothing else. Did anyone really think a billionaire cared about some out of work truck driver in rural Georgia?

Since being a senator, she has made no attempt to meet with her constituents. No attempt to work with the opposing party. No attempt to appeal to minorities. This isn't Wyoming, this is Georgia a purple state. She spent all her time as a Trump loyalist and running silly Atalia the Hun ads.

Well, now she has the title, for life. I guess she got what she wanted.

Anyway, to the point of the question, it’s essentially the same qualities you need to win an open seat.