Arizona poll : McSally+1

[DrScholl]

Except, of course, that's exactly what it did take to defeat her by 2 pts in 2018.

and it certainly isn't a matter of new left-wing voters turning out, it's the fact that moderates who previously voted Republican are flipping.

Great anecdotal analysis, we'll see if it holds.  Moderate suburbanites were apparently supposed to save Hillary Clinton 2016 too, if I remember correctly. 

You also have to consider all of Trump's 2016 voters who didn't turn out for McSally in 2018, and how many of these voters will turn out once again for Trump in 2020 and vote for the Republican Senate nominee while they're there.     

What defeated her was the fact that the state is realigning, not a supposedly D+9 electorate. Sinema won because she picked up Republican votes. We aren't talking about 2016, because that's over. The senate race has no electoral college, so Hillary Clinton winning or losing is irrelevant to the equation. Trump is at great risk of losing Arizona, so let's not even pretend like he has coattails.

[Del Tachi]

Except, of course, that's exactly what it did take to defeat her by 2 pts in 2018.

and it certainly isn't a matter of new left-wing voters turning out, it's the fact that moderates who previously voted Republican are flipping.

Great anecdotal analysis, we'll see if it holds.  Moderate suburbanites were apparently supposed to save Hillary Clinton 2016 too, if I remember correctly. 

You also have to consider all of Trump's 2016 voters who didn't turn out for McSally in 2018, and how many of these voters will turn out once again for Trump in 2020 and vote for the Republican Senate nominee while they're there.     

What defeated her was the fact that the state is realigning, not a supposedly D+9 electorate.

Firstly, how are you able to even distinguish the two phenomena?  They aren't independent events.  Secondly, it sure is some "realignment" when the Republican governor is reelected by 15 pts and the GOP keeps the majorities in the AZ House and Senate + state row offices.

Sinema won because she picked up Republican votes.

We aren't talking about Sinema, because she won't be on the ballot in 2020.  She's a conservadem who ran against a damaged McSally in a D+9 year.  It's debatable if Kelly or another Democrat would achieve the same result in a more neutral environment.  Other Democrats running for statewide office certainly didn't, even considering they had the same national environment.

We aren't talking about 2016, because that's over. The senate race has no electoral college, so Hillary Clinton winning or losing is irrelevant to the equation.

It's relevant when it comes to the fact that Clinton lost Arizona, even after making an effort to campaign among "moderate suburbanites" who then turned on her because they wanted a Republican tax cut and spending spree more then they cared about "normalcy" or whatever.  If the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee is Bernie Sanders or otherwise an anathema for AZ suburbanites, Mark Kelly is going to have a fun time trying to out-run him.   

Trump is at great risk of losing Arizona, so let's not even pretend like he has coattails

That's not how coattails work.  Even if Trump is unpopular come 2020, there is a core group of his constituency that will turn out to support him.  That benefits McSally and other Republicans on the ballot.  In a marginal race given a more neutral environment (which is what AZ-SEN in 2020 probably will be), Trump being able to get those Republican voters to the polls is of invaluable assistance to McSally. 

[DrScholl]

Firstly, how are you able to even distinguish the two phenomena?  They aren't independent events.  Secondly, it sure is some "realignment" when the Republican governor is reelected by 15 pts and the GOP keeps the majorities in the AZ House and Senate + state row offices.

We aren't talking about Sinema, because she won't be on the ballot in 2020.  She's a conservadem who ran against a damaged McSally in a D+9 year.  It's debatable if Kelly or another Democrat would achieve the same result in a more neutral environment.  Other Democrats running for statewide office certainly didn't, even considering they had the same national environment.

It's relevant when it comes to the fact that Clinton lost Arizona, even after making an effort to campaign among "moderate suburbanites" who then turned on her because they wanted a Republican tax cut and spending spree more then they cared about "normalcy" or whatever.  If the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee is Bernie Sanders or otherwise an anathema for AZ suburbanites, Mark Kelly is going to have a fun time trying to out-run him.   

That's not how coattails work.  Even if Trump is unpopular come 2020, there is a core group of his constituency that will turn out to support him.  That benefits McSally and other Republicans on the ballot.  In a marginal race given a more neutral environment (which is what AZ-SEN in 2020 probably will be), Trump being able to get those Republican voters to the polls is of invaluable assistance to McSally. 

The Democratic gubernatorial candidate wasn't exactly a great fit for the state and defeating an incumbent is a lot harder than winning an open seat. The state House went from a Republican majority of 10 to just 2, which isn't exactly a huge mandate of Republican strength. Realignments don't always happen all at once and often occur little by little.

Democrats did win also Secretary of State and Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Trump's core supporters alone aren't enough for him to win. If he loses the state, McSally loses as well because ticket splitting is less and less common every cycle. Trump running as an incumbent in 2020 is a lot different than 2016.

[smoltchanov]

Generally - as expected...

[S019]

Since when do we take early polls at face value

This remains Tilt/Lean R

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Since when do we take early polls at face value

This remains Tilt/Lean R

No, its a tossup

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Tossup race is Tossup. Nothing new

[Woody]

Since when do we take early polls at face value

This remains Tilt/Lean R

No, its a tossup

For once I agree with you.

[Pericles]

2018 was more like a presidential environment due to most midterms as turnout was historically high for a midterm (highest in a century and only a few points behind 2016 turnout I believe) and there wasn't a significant enthusiasm gap-both parties' bases were energized and Democrats still got a wave. So while midterms and presidential elections are usually different universes, this effect could be reduced in 2020 (but would still exist somewhat, plus a lot can happen in 2 years).

[pbrower2a]

I wonder how many Republicans in this poll are saying they aren't voting for McSally.  After she consolidates GOP support as the nominee, she'll beat Kelly.

That was the argument was made the last time and McSally still lost.

Yes, in a D+9 year.  If you think 2020 will be D+9 then you're deluded. 

It was also a midterm election year.

A presidential election year will most certainly have higher turnout, which will definitely help most Democratic candidates (except maybe Doug Jones).

Will it?  Sinema actually received more votes than Hillary Clinton did in 2016, and McSally won over 90% of Trump's 2016 total.  Same story with Abrams in GA and Beto in TX.  Where is this huge swell of left-wing voters in 2020 going to come if they all voted in 2018?  There's less room for Dems to grow; everything is already baked into the cake, so to speak.

As for it being a midterm year, what's your point?  Midterms don't always favor Republicans, they favor the more organized/energized base - in 2018, that was obviously the Democrats.  Turnout differential (more Democrats turning out than Republicans in 2018) made all the difference in midterm contests around the country.  That should be pretty obvious since the national electorate in 2018 was D+9.

Midterms in recent years have generally been better for Republicans than subsequent Presidential elections. I see Democratic turnout in 2018  indicating a trend of people who used to not vote developing the habit of voting -- and those are younger, often non-white voters.

The Millennial Generation is supplanting older generations in the electorate. The elder end of the electorate dies off or gets too senile to vote at a rate of roughly 1.5% per year. There are few new Silent, Boom, or X voters entering the electorate. People under 40 are replacing older voters at a rate of about 1.5% a year. The Millennial electorate is about 65-35 D in its voting, and it is replacing people about 55-45 R in their voting. A 20% swing toward the Democrats among new voters replacing older voters is 0.6% per year, or 2.4% for a Presidential term. Such is more than enough to change the political environment in some states.

But not Arizona? Arizona is getting lots of people priced out of California by high costs of real estate. A difference of $2000 a month in rent for a one-bedroom apartment can pay for a lot of air conditioning. Add to this a rapidly-increasing Hispanic vote that has not been going R even when going middle-class and marrying Anglo whites, and Arizona could be shifting rapidly D as Florida isn't.

McSally is an appointed pol, and most appointed pols lose when running for re-election. Many appointed pols are nominated for 'long and loyal service to the Party' or having a connection to their predecessor. Sure, there can be a Tina Smith (D-MN) and Tim Scott (R-SC) who is an investment of Party talent useful elsewhere... but most show themselves unelectable. Elected incumbents have shown at the least that they can be elected.

Here's the oddity -- McSally was appointed to the Senate after losing an election to the other US Senator in an election year!