The Battle for Change: Emotions Run High in Arizona's United States Senate Election

On November 3, 2020, the United States held its general elections, which included a closely watched senatorial race between incumbent Republican Martha McSally and Democratic challenger Mark Kelly in Arizona. The race was tense, emotional, and ultimately historic, ending in Kelly's victory by a margin of 2.4 percentage points. This article seeks to provide an objective comparison of the two candidates' strengths and weaknesses, the issues that shaped the campaign, and the factors that influenced the outcome of the election.

Candidates' background and platform

Both McSally and Kelly are seasoned public servants with impressive resumes. McSally, a retired Air Force colonel, was elected to Congress in 2014 and appointed to the Senate seat vacated by John McCain in 2018. She emphasized her experience in national security and economic issues, as well as her support for conservative policies such as tax cuts, deregulation, and gun rights.

Kelly, a former astronaut and Navy combat pilot, has never held political office but was very active in promoting gun control, healthcare reform, climate change action, and campaign finance reform. He gained national recognition and sympathy for his personal tragedy of losing his wife, former Rep. Gabby Giffords, in a 2011 assassination attempt.

The issues that shaped the campaign

The campaign in Arizona, like in many other states, was dominated by the COVID-19 pandemic and its fallout, including the economic downturn, healthcare access, and racial justice. McSally was criticized for downplaying the severity of the crisis, supporting the repeal of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), and aligning with President Trump, who was unpopular in Arizona. Kelly, on the other hand, focused on his credentials as a science advocate and reasoned that solutions would require compassion, competence, and bipartisanship.

Other issues that made headlines in the Arizona race were gun violence prevention, environmental protection, education reform, and immigration policy. McSally, a vocal pro-gun advocate, criticized Kelly for supporting expanded background checks and banning high-capacity magazines. Kelly, however, highlighted his support for a more comprehensive approach to reducing gun violence, including mental health care, community policing, and safe storage requirements. Similarly, while McSally praised Trump's record on cutting regulations to boost the economy, Kelly proposed investing in clean energy technology and conserving public lands to create new jobs and address climate change.

The factors that influenced the outcome

The Arizona Senate race was one of the most closely watched and expensive contests of the 2020 cycle. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the candidates and outside groups spent over $175 million on ads, mailers, and other outreach efforts. This amount shattered the previous record for a Senate race in Arizona, which was set in 2018 when McSally lost to Democrat Kyrsten Sinema.

Several factors were at play in Kelly's win over McSally. One was simply the changing demographics of Arizona, which sees more Latino voters, suburban women, and independent retirees who tend to favor Democrats or moderate Republicans. Another factor was the unusually high turnout, which benefited Democrats overall, especially younger voters and people of color who might have been energized by protests against police brutality and systemic racism. Finally, Kelly had a stronger appeal to moderate and crossover voters who prioritize bipartisanship, compromise, and competence over party loyalty and ideology.

Table Comparison of the Candidates' Key Positions

Reflection and Conclusion

In conclusion, the battle for change in Arizona's United States Senate election shows how emotions can run highs in American Politics, even as norms and rules are questioned. The increasingly polarized electorate and media environment have complicated the task of electing competent leaders who can bridge differences, overcome crises and serve the common good. While every election is different, some patterns and lessons from Arizona's historic race have wider implications for our democracy.