AZ-02: Dem internal shows McSally in trouble

[heatcharger]

PPP poll, sponsored by McSally's 2016 Dem opponent:

48% Heinz (D)
44% McSally (R)

48% Kirkpatrick (D)
44% McSally (R)

Obviously should be taken with a grain of salt, but McSally's not exactly entrenched. She got elected in  2014 by ~150 votes, so I think this is pretty high up on the list for seats to flip.

[Maxwell]

and both Heinz and Kirkpatrick are second tier candidates - very bad numbers for Martha "The deciding vote" McSally!

[mds32]

It would be amazing to see McSally go down, many have said she would be John McCain's replacement in 2022.

[Ebsy]

Get her out of here.

[Figueira]

But..but...rising star!

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Now lets see how a candidate who is A) not damaged by a failed senate run, B) from this district, and C) not a complete joke who can't fund-raise and already lost does.

[The_Doctor]

She won 56-43% in 2016, even as Trump won by 1.1%. It means that she's established some crossover support. I wouldn't also rule out her given that midterm electorates are older and whiter; and thus, more Republican in nature.

[Figueira]

She won 56-43% in 2016, even as Trump won by 1.1%. It means that she's established some crossover support. I wouldn't also rule out her given that midterm electorates are older and whiter; and thus, more Republican in nature.

Uh, Clinton won her district.

And midterms are generally bad for the President's party regardless.

[Xing]

She'll be vulnerable, but not because of this poll. It's too early to be putting much stock in polls.

[Maxwell]

She won 56-43% in 2016, even as Trump won by 1.1%. It means that she's established some crossover support. I wouldn't also rule out her given that midterm electorates are older and whiter; and thus, more Republican in nature.

I mean that's fair, but that's probably because she previously never had to take a contentious stand on any issue - now she's not only pro-AHCA, but arguably one of its most notable faces.

[DrScholl]

She won 56-43% in 2016, even as Trump won by 1.1%. It means that she's established some crossover support. I wouldn't also rule out her given that midterm electorates are older and whiter; and thus, more Republican in nature.

What numbers are you using? Clinton won this district by 5%.

[JerryArkansas]

She won 56-43% in 2016, even as Trump won by 1.1%. It means that she's established some crossover support. I wouldn't also rule out her given that midterm electorates are older and whiter; and thus, more Republican in nature.

You have this district and the 1st confused on the presidential level.  Trump won the 1st by like 1 or 2 points, Clinton easily carried this one.

[Gass3268]

She won 56-43% in 2016, even as Trump won by 1.1%. It means that she's established some crossover support. I wouldn't also rule out her given that midterm electorates are older and whiter; and thus, more Republican in nature.

I mean that's fair, but that's probably because she previously never had to take a contentious stand on any issue - now she's not only pro-AHCA, but arguably one of its most notable faces.

"Let's f**king do this!" Is going to be in like every attack ad.

[The_Doctor]

She won 56-43% in 2016, even as Trump won by 1.1%. It means that she's established some crossover support. I wouldn't also rule out her given that midterm electorates are older and whiter; and thus, more Republican in nature.

You have this district and the 1st confused on the presidential level.  Trump won the 1st by like 1 or 2 points, Clinton easily carried this one.

She won 56-43% in 2016, even as Trump won by 1.1%. It means that she's established some crossover support. I wouldn't also rule out her given that midterm electorates are older and whiter; and thus, more Republican in nature.

What numbers are you using? Clinton won this district by 5%.

Sorry, I stand corrected but doesn't that bolster my argument she's harder to knock off than anticipated? If Clinton won by 5 and she by 13 that means she had considerable crossover. It means she's not considered as radical by her constituents as you guys are claiming. Even the Democratic internal is showing her trailing by 0-4 points and we're seeing national polling showing Democrats up double digits.

She won 56-43% in 2016, even as Trump won by 1.1%. It means that she's established some crossover support. I wouldn't also rule out her given that midterm electorates are older and whiter; and thus, more Republican in nature.

Clinton won by just over four points here. Also, the cross-over votes that almost every Democrat that lost in 2010 got in 2008 didn't end up mattering a whole lot two years later. Same thing with the Republican incumbents in 2006.

Well it depends on the district. I just don't feel this is a reverse 2010. A lot of blue dogs were in Bush districts and conservative ones. The deep blue ones with Republicans are not that sizable.

She won 56-43% in 2016, even as Trump won by 1.1%. It means that she's established some crossover support. I wouldn't also rule out her given that midterm electorates are older and whiter; and thus, more Republican in nature.

I mean that's fair, but that's probably because she previously never had to take a contentious stand on any issue - now she's not only pro-AHCA, but arguably one of its most notable faces.

"Let's f**king do this!" Is going to be in like every attack ad.

Absolutely but it depends on what the final bill (or if anything) passed at all. Constituents might give her more of a pass if nothing happens and their benefits remain there with no challenge.

Now if the Senate passes a draconian bill I definitely think she'll pay a polotiv price for it.

[KingSweden]

carpetbagging Kirkpatrick down here would be an awful idea

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

She won 56-43% in 2016*

*Against a really weak democratic candidate

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Kirkpatrick's senate campaign last year consisted of  "John McCain isn't a leftist on immigration", "I wear cowboy boots", and "Trump!! Palin!!! Waahh!!!", all of which were obvious bad arguments for her election. If she's going to be the nominee, she needs to attend a class on how to campaign first. A long one. And if Heinz is the nominee, then you can start congratulating McSally on her reelection right now. Democrats should just find a new candidate.

[politicallefty]

I'll predict right now that this district is going to be very highly competitive next year, though not necessary to a Democratic Majority in the House any more than OH-15 or PA-06 were to Democrats in 2006.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

She won 56-43% in 2016*

*Against a really weak democratic candidate

Isn't that like all Arizona democrats though?

[publicunofficial]

Friese or Mach run please!

Hell, I'll take a Ron Barber retread.

[Klartext89]

PPP is no serious polling firm, just look at their Twitter Feed, it's a Dem cheerleader.

[PAK Man]

I never understood why Democrats didn't seriously challenge her in 2016. She only won her first term by a couple hundred votes, and before that she lost by a couple hundred votes. Plus Clinton won her district. I don't care if she's a great fundraiser - the fact that deterred Democrats from recruiting a serious challenger to her when she had the closest House race in 2014 is inexcusable. I'm glad they're finally going back and taking another look here.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

She won 56-43% in 2016*

*Against a really weak democratic candidate

Isn't that like all Arizona democrats though?

No, not really.  Not even close, tbh.  I also like how everyone's suddenly decided Kirkpatrick is the worst candidate ever after most red avatars spent most of 2016 going on about what a high-energy campaign she was running (especially her ads).  

For my part, while I think there are better candidates than Kirkpatrick here, I'd really like to see her run for some sort of statewide office this cycle (ideally a row office).  Yes, she lost to McCain, but McCain is kind of an institution in AZ and 2016 was a Republican wave year.  Kirkpatrick ran a strong, aggressive campaign and did a great job of tying McCain to Trump (one of her ads, the first one about McCain's support for Trump which included the line "there was a time when country first meant something to Senator McCain," was one of the best ads of the cycle).  IIRC, her fundraising was pretty strong too, but I'm not positive about that.  Sometimes you can get the right candidate at the wrong time and in this case, McCain simply wasn't going to lose in a Republican wave.  

It's really a shame Kirkpatrick didn't wait until 2018 and run against Flake as she'd be a much better candidate than Sinema (who has paper-tiger written all over her and plenty of baggage).  It's easy to play Monday morning quarterback or buy into Wulfric's revisionist history of the campaign (especially since this didn't end up being a marquee Senate race in 2016), but doing so is going to lead to some highly inaccurate analysis.  

TL;DR: Kirkpatrick isn't our best candidate for AZ-2 and would probably be attacked for carpet-bagging, but at the same time, we could do a lot worse too.  If 2018 turns out to be a Democratic wave, Kirkpatrick could definitely beat McSally (even there are other candidates if I'd prefer we run) and ran a pretty strong Senate campaign in 2016.  

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

She won 56-43% in 2016*

*Against a really weak democratic candidate

Isn't that like all Arizona democrats though?

Certainly not to the extent of Heinz. Remember that Barber had it down to the wire in 2014; he was no FDR, but he certainly wasn't Heinz.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Fearless Leader X, 2016 was not a republican wave, as Republicans lost the Senate races in NH, NV, CO, lost NV, VA, CO, NH at the presidential level, lost NC-GOV, and lost a net six house seats.