Hypothetical Senate primary: Kyrsten Sinema vs. Ruben Gallego?

[Tekken_Guy]

Who wins a senate primary between Kyrsten Sinema and Ruben Gallego?

[xavier110]

Even with nominal opposition she’ll probably only get 65-70 percent, so if Gallego got in the race, it could get interesting.

She’s pissed off enough white libs here, and Gallego would probably pull Hispanics unlike other Ds could, so I would give him the slight advantage tbh, because that’s basically the D base here, white libs and Hispanics lol

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Sinema, assuming she gets the DSCC endorsement.

[Spectator]

Sinema. Democrats are more rational than Republican voters when it comes to who they think has the best chance in the general election.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Sinema will win, Sinema isn't Vulnerable but Tester and Manchin are, the irony is that Tester, Manchin and Sinema are blocking Filibuster reform and DC Statehood that will be wave insurence for 2024, in case it's only a 52/48 or 51/49 Senate losing GA in a Runoff

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

If Mark Kelly loses in 2022, could he run against Sinema?

[TML]

If Mark Kelly loses in 2022, could he run against Sinema?

He is legally allowed to do so, but his loss would count as baggage against him.

[Roronoa D. Law]

Depends on how she conducts herself for the next couple of years. If she is going into 2024 without bringing anything home but bipartisan talking points then I could see her lose to someone like Gallego pretty handly.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

She’d lose and it might even be by high single/low double-digits.  The real question is whether Gallego runs.  Sinema would lose to a strong primary challenger, especially Gallego.  What remains to be seen is whether she’ll get one as opposed to either some random whackivist or a nobody-tier fringe state legislator.

[I’m not Stu]

Gallego wins. Polls show Arizona voters care more about governing than protecting the filibuster.

[Schiff for Senate]

Sinema, if by a narrow margin. She is the incumbent (not that that's necessarily a good thing in this case), and logical centre-left and leftist Democrats may realize that Gallego would be hard-pressed to win while Sinema would likely win reelection. Electability should be the first priority of (logical) Arizona Democrats. It's not like they are in a safe blue state like Hawaii or Massachusetts where they can nominate anyone they want and win - Arizona is a distinctly purple state where not any Democrat can win. The reason Sinema would win reelection is because she has popularity among centrists/independents and even some centre-right, (especially Trump/Biden) Republicans. Gallego would win 100% of the base, but 5% of centrists/indepednents and centre-right Republicans. Sinema might win about 60% of the base (40% stay home), but she'd win a majority of centrists/independents and centre-right Republicans, which is a crucial electorate for Democrats to win statewide in Arizona. Sinema might win the primary narrowly, or possibly even lose to Gallego if she continues her centrist path, but based on pure electability, she should win the pimaries. Because the real option for Arizona Democrats is a winnable but centrist incumbent (Kyrsten Sinema) who would win in the general election, or a liberal with low chance of victory (Ruben Gallego), who could very well lose to the Republican nominee (who might easily be someone like Governor Doug Ducey, an anti-mask advocate, or Representative Paul Gosar, one of the most conservative Republican House members accoridng to some analyses). And given the choice between Sinema (with 70% chance of victory) or Gallego (with 35-40% chance of victory), they really ought to choose Sinema, no matter that she's a centrist.

[MargieCat]

If Mark Kelly loses in 2022, could he run against Sinema?

I don't think he is that far to the left of Sinema.

They say there are other democrats besides Manchin and Sinema that want to protect the filibuster. But said democrats are hiding behind the aforementioned.

I am wondering if Mark Kelly is one of those. Giffords was a former Republican before switching parties and running for congress and she was part of the blue dog coalition.

She is going to get primaried by someone from the progressive wing.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

Sinema, if by a narrow margin. She is the incumbent (not that that's necessarily a good thing in this case), and logical centre-left and leftist Democrats may realize that Gallego would be hard-pressed to win while Sinema would likely win reelection. Electability should be the first priority of (logical) Arizona Democrats. It's not like they are in a safe blue state like Hawaii or Massachusetts where they can nominate anyone they want and win - Arizona is a distinctly purple state where not any Democrat can win. The reason Sinema would win reelection is because she has popularity among centrists/independents and even some centre-right, (especially Trump/Biden) Republicans. Gallego would win 100% of the base, but 5% of centrists/indepednents and centre-right Republicans. Sinema might win about 60% of the base (40% stay home), but she'd win a majority of centrists/independents and centre-right Republicans, which is a crucial electorate for Democrats to win statewide in Arizona. Sinema might win the primary narrowly, or possibly even lose to Gallego if she continues her centrist path, but based on pure electability, she should win the pimaries. Because the real option for Arizona Democrats is a winnable but centrist incumbent (Kyrsten Sinema) who would win in the general election, or a liberal with low chance of victory (Ruben Gallego), who could very well lose to the Republican nominee (who might easily be someone like Governor Doug Ducey, an anti-mask advocate, or Representative Paul Gosar, one of the most conservative Republican House members accoridng to some analyses). And given the choice between Sinema (with 70% chance of victory) or Gallego (with 35-40% chance of victory), they really ought to choose Sinema, no matter that she's a centrist.

If Sinema is only winning 60% of Democrats in a general election, she is losing spectacularly. (Fortunately for her, she would win a much greater share than that.)

Yes, it's not a cakewalk for Democrats to win in Arizona, but Kelly, Hobbs, and Hoffman have demonstrated that you don't need to constantly capitulate to the GOP in order to do so.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Sinema, if by a narrow margin. She is the incumbent (not that that's necessarily a good thing in this case), and logical centre-left and leftist Democrats may realize that Gallego would be hard-pressed to win while Sinema would likely win reelection. Electability should be the first priority of (logical) Arizona Democrats. It's not like they are in a safe blue state like Hawaii or Massachusetts where they can nominate anyone they want and win - Arizona is a distinctly purple state where not any Democrat can win. The reason Sinema would win reelection is because she has popularity among centrists/independents and even some centre-right, (especially Trump/Biden) Republicans. Gallego would win 100% of the base, but 5% of centrists/indepednents and centre-right Republicans. Sinema might win about 60% of the base (40% stay home), but she'd win a majority of centrists/independents and centre-right Republicans, which is a crucial electorate for Democrats to win statewide in Arizona. Sinema might win the primary narrowly, or possibly even lose to Gallego if she continues her centrist path, but based on pure electability, she should win the pimaries. Because the real option for Arizona Democrats is a winnable but centrist incumbent (Kyrsten Sinema) who would win in the general election, or a liberal with low chance of victory (Ruben Gallego), who could very well lose to the Republican nominee (who might easily be someone like Governor Doug Ducey, an anti-mask advocate, or Representative Paul Gosar, one of the most conservative Republican House members accoridng to some analyses). And given the choice between Sinema (with 70% chance of victory) or Gallego (with 35-40% chance of victory), they really ought to choose Sinema, no matter that she's a centrist.

If Sinema is only winning 60% of Democrats in a general election, she is losing spectacularly. (Fortunately for her, she would win a much greater share than that.)

Yes, it's not a cakewalk for Democrats to win in Arizona, but Kelly, Hobbs, and Hoffman have demonstrated that you don't need to constantly capitulate to the GOP in order to do so.

Centrists vastly overrated their own numbers and tend to struggle with math.


Also, I love how moderate Republicans are the crucial demographic for Democrats.
Yes how ever will a Democrat win without a huge chunk of GOP support

[Non Swing Voter]

Feels like she is way too far right for the AZ democratic electorate and can't justify it the way Manchin can (because he isn't running in anything close to a swing state).  Seems like he could easily take her out.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Likely Sinema

[Schiff for Senate]

Sinema, if by a narrow margin. She is the incumbent (not that that's necessarily a good thing in this case), and logical centre-left and leftist Democrats may realize that Gallego would be hard-pressed to win while Sinema would likely win reelection. Electability should be the first priority of (logical) Arizona Democrats. It's not like they are in a safe blue state like Hawaii or Massachusetts where they can nominate anyone they want and win - Arizona is a distinctly purple state where not any Democrat can win. The reason Sinema would win reelection is because she has popularity among centrists/independents and even some centre-right, (especially Trump/Biden) Republicans. Gallego would win 100% of the base, but 5% of centrists/indepednents and centre-right Republicans. Sinema might win about 60% of the base (40% stay home), but she'd win a majority of centrists/independents and centre-right Republicans, which is a crucial electorate for Democrats to win statewide in Arizona. Sinema might win the primary narrowly, or possibly even lose to Gallego if she continues her centrist path, but based on pure electability, she should win the pimaries. Because the real option for Arizona Democrats is a winnable but centrist incumbent (Kyrsten Sinema) who would win in the general election, or a liberal with low chance of victory (Ruben Gallego), who could very well lose to the Republican nominee (who might easily be someone like Governor Doug Ducey, an anti-mask advocate, or Representative Paul Gosar, one of the most conservative Republican House members accoridng to some analyses). And given the choice between Sinema (with 70% chance of victory) or Gallego (with 35-40% chance of victory), they really ought to choose Sinema, no matter that she's a centrist.

If Sinema is only winning 60% of Democrats in a general election, she is losing spectacularly. (Fortunately for her, she would win a much greater share than that.)

Yes, it's not a cakewalk for Democrats to win in Arizona, but Kelly, Hobbs, and Hoffman have demonstrated that you don't need to constantly capitulate to the GOP in order to do so.

Centrists vastly overrated their own numbers and tend to struggle with math.


Also, I love how moderate Republicans are the crucial demographic for Democrats.
Yes how ever will a Democrat win without a huge chunk of GOP support

Not a huge chunk - but she needs centrists. The reason she would need some moderate conservatives would be is progressives decided to stay home. Conversely, I get the feeling that someone like Gallego (more liberal than even Kelly) might be too progressive - it would get him the progressive vote but put off more than enough moderate conservatives / centrists to offset this gain. Arizona is a purple state. It's impossible to win without centrist or crossover support as a Democrat unless there's 2020-level turnout (which is the only reason Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock were elected in Georgia). And 2024 likely won't be as high turnout for liberals (and, admittedly, conservatives) as 2020, which might be worse for Democrats in Arizona (with less Arizona Democrats likely to turn out). The point is, if Gallego can win, so can Sinema. If 2024 shows to be a great Democratic year, then nominate a true liberal like Gallego. But if it seems like a more swing / Republican-leaning year, then nominate Sinema, because if any Democrat can win a senate election in Arizona, she can. She did in 2018, which was a year where Republicans gained two senate seats. For all the talk about comparing Kelly to Gallego - 1.) Gallego is more liberal (which will only cost him votes; it's not as if Kelly's being centre-left cost him many liberal/progressive votes, but allowed him to capture some centrist votes that Gallego will lose), and 2.) 2020 was a good year for Senate Democrats, and 2024 may not be.

[Donerail]

Feels like she is way too far right for the AZ democratic electorate and can't justify it the way Manchin can (because he isn't running in anything close to a swing state).  Seems like he could easily take her out.

It's not just that she's taking conservative positions, it's that she's doing so in a way that seems to betray some level of active contempt for Democratic activists (not in a left-wing sense — talking about the kind of people who show up and staff precincts for you). The comparison here is not Joe Manchin, it's Joe Lieberman.

But if it seems like a more swing / Republican-leaning year, then nominate Sinema, because if any Democrat can win a senate election in Arizona, she can. She did in 2018, which was a year where Republicans gained two senate seats.

Kyrsten Sinema, electoral titan, winning despite the massive Republican surge in... 2018? What? 2018 was a great year for Democrats—they gained 40 seats in the House, took a bunch of governorships and state legislative seats. That wasn't reflected in the topline Senate numbers because Democrats were trying to win in North Fucking Dakota, but it was a highly favorable partisan climate. Sinema winning in 2018 is not some great show of strength.

[MargieCat]

If Sinema were smart, she'd brand herself as a centrist but not stand in the way of Joe Biden's agenda. She could support some progressive legislation and veto others. Blocking the $15 minimum wage would have been a lot less harmful to her future prospects if she didn't curtsy and draw attention to herself.

She should be more like Amy Klobuchar in terms of her voting record.

[Schiff for Senate]

But if it seems like a more swing / Republican-leaning year, then nominate Sinema, because if any Democrat can win a senate election in Arizona, she can. She did in 2018, which was a year where Republicans gained two senate seats.

Kyrsten Sinema, electoral titan, winning despite the massive Republican surge in... 2018? What? 2018 was a great year for Democrats—they gained 40 seats in the House, took a bunch of governorships and state legislative seats. That wasn't reflected in the topline Senate numbers because Democrats were trying to win in North ing Dakota, but it was a highly favorable partisan climate. Sinema winning in 2018 is not some great show of strength.

Calling 2018 a good year for Senate Republicans may be somewhat exagerrated - they had just 9 seats to defend - but it wasn't necessarily a good year for Democrats, either. They still lost 4 seats (and gained 2), which is still a net loss of two. You're right though, 2018 wasn't a great year for Senate Republicans given that the vast majority of seats up were held by Democrats, making it easier for the GOP to gain some of them. However, 2020 was certainly a better year for Democrats in the Senate, especially in states like Arizona and Georgia, where the concurrent presidential election, with record-high turnout, boosted turnout among Democrats in senate and other elections as well. Democrats gained 2 and lost 4 seats in 2018; and they gained 4 and lost 1 in 2020. Either way, you can't deny that Mark Kelly's election was easier than Sinema's, given that a.) Martha McSally was unpopular, b.) Trump fatigue in Arizona and c.) the fact that it was a presidential year that was great for Democrats, translating to gains in the Senate as well. And, until we know for sure that 2024 will be like 2020 (in that it's good for Democratic turnout and for Democrats in Arizona), which it probably won't (given that many suburbanites in Maricopa County supported Biden only because of a disdain for Trump, which may change in 2024 if Trump isn't the nominee), Sinema would most likely be a better, more electable choice than a progressive. Because while moderate, suburbanite Trump/Biden voters may support a moderate like Sinema or Kelly versus a staunch Trump supporter, that almost certainly won't extend to a progressive. At best, they stay home or vote third-party. At worst, they vote Republican (assuming the Republican doesn't tie him or herself too tightly to Trump), deciding a mainstream conservative is better than a progressive.

[Xing]

Sinema would win with around 60% of the vote. Gallego wouldn't be a bad candidate, but I'll believe a Democratic Senator getting primaried for being too friendly with Republicans when I see it.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Depends on how much more leftward Arizona has lurched within that time. I could see Sinema losing in 2024 if migration from California was actually high enough. I think Sinema only loses if the general electorate is friendly enough for Gallego to win against the R nom.

[Meatball Ron]

Because while moderate, suburbanite Trump/Biden voters may support a moderate like Sinema or Kelly versus a staunch Trump supporter, that almost certainly won't extend to a progressive.

logical centre-left and leftist Democrats may realize that Gallego would be hard-pressed to win while Sinema would likely win reelection

I don't really understand these takes at all? I wouldn't support a Justice Dems style challenger to Sinema, because that person wouldn't win a general election, but that's not Gallego? Sure, he's to Sinema's left, because just about every elected Dem politician is to her left, but he's squarely in the mainstream of the Democratic Party - not "Squad" or Squad adjacent by any means. Doesn't seem too different from Mark Kelly, who has legislated as a mainstream Dem since taking office and hasn't dissented from the party on any notable votes. Gallego would be a very formidable candidate, by no means guaranteed to win, but probably not too much less likely than Sinema (and any difference in likelihood that does exist has to do with the incumbency advantage, not ideology).

[CookieDamage]

Because while moderate, suburbanite Trump/Biden voters may support a moderate like Sinema or Kelly versus a staunch Trump supporter, that almost certainly won't extend to a progressive.

logical centre-left and leftist Democrats may realize that Gallego would be hard-pressed to win while Sinema would likely win reelection

I don't really understand these takes at all? I wouldn't support a Justice Dems style challenger to Sinema, because that person wouldn't win a general election, but that's not Gallego? Sure, he's to Sinema's left, because just about every elected Dem politician is to her left, but he's squarely in the mainstream of the Democratic Party - not "Squad" or Squad adjacent by any means. Doesn't seem too different from Mark Kelly, who has legislated as a mainstream Dem since taking office and hasn't dissented from the party on any notable votes. Gallego would be a very formidable candidate, by no means guaranteed to win, but probably not too much less likely than Sinema (and any difference in likelihood that does exist has to do with the incumbency advantage, not ideology).

Gallego would fare just as well in a general as Sinema imo. Anyone saying he's some DSA justice dem has no idea what they're talking about and is likely talking out of their a**

[NewYorkExpress]

Simena would win.

In any event, Progressives would be better off trying to primary Feinstein, Menenedez and Carper instead.