AZ-POP/OHPI: Sharp decline in Kelly's favorability numbers, Sinema more popular among GOP than Dems

[MT Treasurer]

Kelly favorability:

41% favorable
48% unfavorable

Biden favorability:

43% favorable
54% unfavorable

Sinema favorability:

42% favorable
45% unfavorable

   - among Republicans: 48/45 (+3) (lmao, arguably even better than the Tester numbers)
   - among Democrats: 42/47 (-5)

2024 D primary:

72% "a Democrat other than Sinema"
26% Sinema

47% Gallego
24% Sinema

https://blog.ohpredictive.com/press-releases/democrats-support-ousting-sinema-in-2024-primary

Who could have possibly seen this coming? Time for Kelly to put on the NASA suit and pray Ducey doesn’t change his mind about a Senate candidacy so that the "AZ GQP" can save the day for him. /s

[MT Treasurer]

What's notable to me, though, is that both Kelly and Sinema are underwater among the general electorate, as is Biden. These numbers don't bode well for Democratic electoral chances in Arizona next year. And they also show that Sinema will be locked in for a competitive race in 2024, even if she manages to get past the Democratic primary, just like how Kelly will be in peril next year.

If Sinema retains even a small fraction of her current crossover support among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (which she likely will even after moving left during the primary), her race is unlikely to be very competitive, especially if Republicans (as has been indicated) don’t even prioritize it. In spite of their similar overall favorability ratings, Kelly's numbers are far more problematic for his prospects in a GE than Sinema's given that they’re driven by mere partisanship and far worse ratings among Republicans/independents (and the obvious fact that he’s up for reelection in a year that is more likely to be a GOP wave than 2024). It’s not like this wasn’t foreseeable either — the notion that Kelly was a stronger GE candidate than Sinema was always rather wishful thinking from Democratic partisans who don’t realize how unpopular many items on Biden's agenda are with the electorate at large or deny the effectiveness of (purely rhetorical and symbolic) performative moderation even though the candidates engaging in it have a track record of winning over Republican-leaning voters even in tough seats/poor environments (Manchin, Cuellar, Golden, Sinema, etc.).

[MT Treasurer]

In general, which politician gets away with being a fake moderate and which does not depends on (a) whether voters genuinely feel listened to by them and identify with them (selective and regular local [media] appearances are particularly important here, especially in small states like MT/ME/WV, as are identity-based appeals), (b) whether their opponent can generate emotions which stand in stark contrast to the carefully cultivated image of the incumbent (this can be done by highlighting voting record but it isn’t easy and needs to be relentlessly focused on emotion rather than abstract votes/details no one understands - see ND-SEN 2018 as a prime example, but even then Cramer substantially underperformed Trump in spite of Heitkamp's missteps and overconfidence/reliance on her "nice aunt/grandma" image, which shows you how difficult running against these kinds of candidates is)**, (c) whether the incumbent is perceived as "authentic" or not (if they are, voters are more than willing to tolerate/overlook their supposed "extremism," see: Baldwin, Johnson, Tester, Brown)***. All of these things are more about branding/marketing and basic psychology than actual voting records, which (as unfortunate as it is) basically never decide elections. Usually you’ll find that the success of any "fake moderate" can be explained by a combination of those three factors (and their opponents' inability to undermine or dismantle them). In the case of Sinema, enough Republican-leaning voters feel listened to/represented by her even though she’s going side against them whenever leadership tells her to.

**Negative emotions (especially fear) are always better motivators than positive emotions or campaigns which ask voters to "reward" the incumbent. Ideally, the voter needs to become afraid of the prospect of candidate xyz in the House/Senate — the more a candidate's personality can work against or forestall this, the better (see: Young Kim, Susan Collins, Heidi Heitkamp — it’s hard to make people afraid of these "likable women" even though most of their votes are just as "radical" as those of "partisan firebrands"). In general, it isn’t far-fetched to think of any campaign as a war over emotions.

***Hence also why I don’t think "Ron Johnson is an extremist/insurrectionist" is a particularly apt strategy for Democrats in this race given that it does nothing to combat the "I don’t like everything he does, but I like the guy because he sincerely speaks his mind" appeal his campaigns are so reliant on (and in fact risks reinforcing it at every turn). You could argue that it aims at generating emotions of fear but the problem here is that you’re dealing with an incumbent uniquely adept at generating those emotions himself (and those are likely to win out in a midterm election under a D trifecta), which is why I would go with the "you can’t trust the messenger" / "if you can’t trust the messenger, how can you trust their message?" angle rather than "the messenge is too radical" approach.