No the Democrats Did Not Steal Arizona From McSally

Instead of playing the victim, learn an actual lesson from Martha McSally's loss.

No election is without problems, but there is rarely sufficient problems to throw an election. The people who are looking at AZ and see fraud because Governor Ducey won and Representative McSally lost are missing the forest for the shadows of trees.

Ducey had years to establish himself as his own person with his own record of governance as Governor of a State. McSally, though not a Trump supporter, couldn't get out from his shadow in this race. Likewise, Ducey was running against a person who ran a rather incompetent campaign and McSally was running against a wave of Democrat money and ambition. Candidates matter.

Ducey was not campaigning on going to Washington to stand for or against Trump's agenda. That's what the Senate race was about. It should make Republicans nervous that so many people were willing to vote for Ducey who weren't willing to vote for McSally.

That difference has a lot to do with Trump. And McSally also undoubtedly lost some votes from Republicans who rejected her because she wasn't sufficiently pro-Trump. The path forward for 2020 runs through places like Arizona.

Republicans can win by establishing their own brand separate from the President's. That, however becomes harder in federal races where so many federal races will be based on the President's agenda.

The good news for the President is that he has two years to try to figure out how to get a lot of these independent, but Republican leaning voters back. The bad new for the GOP is that the President seems incapable of trying anything different.

These voters in Texas, Arizona, Georgia, etc. didn't become socialists in the last two years. They haven't changed. They think the GOP has. Heck, the GOP lost suburbs in Oklahoma because of these issues. For God's sake, people, a Democrat picked up SC-1 by running against Trump and tariffs and for free trade.

Republicans waving their hands claiming fraud need to come back to reality and pay attention. 2020 is very winnable. But it will require some strategic rethinking to get the suburbs back.

Comments
No. 1-11
Tristan Heiss
Tristan Heiss

The writer of this article is a pathological liar, and typical of all democrats. They cant tell the truth to save their lives,.

BUBI1200
BUBI1200

So, so-called democRATS have the MONEY, lots of it, and THAT is REASON enough to have THEM "win" and SCREW-UP an election...???? In other words, we HAVE TO hand THEM the election BECAUSE they have BIG MONEY and REPUBLICAN VOTES/VOICES should NOT be HEARD because THEY "don't have the MONEY or NOT enough MONEY", really DOESN'T make ANY SENSE

DavidMKern
DavidMKern

Trump's stance on a wide-variety of issues has undoubtedly had an impact on the 2018 elections, with every issue causing some set of voters to rejoice and another set of voters to moan in agony. However, many voters agree with Trump on some issues and disagree with him on others. In my opinion, most voters are not unanimously for/against all items on Trump's agenda, and so they should not vote along pro-Trump and anti-Trump lines.

For example, tax cuts probably cost some previously reliable Republican voters due to a limit on SALT (State and Local Tax) deductions in wealthy suburban districts of high tax states, but picked up other voters because of the economic gain. Similarly, Erick and others utterly detest Trump's using the leverage of tariff's to renegotiate trade deals, but the voters who are benefitting from increased manufacturing jobs are leaping for joy.

Every issue on Trump's agenda has it's own set of plus and minuses in terms of voters gained and voters lost. But there is also the issue of what is good for our country. For example, unlimited SALT deductions undoubtedly force low tax states to subsidize high tax states. Should Republicans restore unlimited SALT deductions to win these suburban districts, reasoning that Republicans won't lose elections by penalizing low tax states?

Assume the voters of SC1 elected a Democratic Congressmen because he ran against Trump on tariffs and free trade, as Erick contends. Was that really an intelligent vote? For example, nothing Trump's has done on tariffs or free trade has had any Congressional vote. If the SC1 voters would normally support many of the other issues on Trump's agenda, what did their vote for a Democratic agenda really accomplish?

If Republicans divide themselves into strict pro-Trump and anti-Trump clans, it is a recipe for disaster. In contrast, if Republicans in various districts/states seek to settle disagreements about individual issues on Trump's agenda in primary elections, and agree to support the winning Republican candidate in the general election, that is our best chance to avoid a Democratic-agenda, which is not in the interest of any true Republican.

Badmoon
Badmoon

I'm wondering where these candidates that can appeal to moderates but not turn off the base are? Middle earth maybe or some place with unicorns. Because if anyone espouses some sort of constitutional principles is automatically unsuitable.

joeyfalcon
joeyfalcon

When other Coutries tariff our goods out of their markets, why would a traditional "patriotic" Republican be against a president reciprocating....