ugh

What is it with Arizona :-/

---

by: TXMichael @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 00:16:13 AM UTC

They're fucking crazy

and Hispanics don't vote, no matter how hard we try to get them to the polls and support them in policy.  

---

by: DNick @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 00:36:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ugh

Arizona is one just a few states that worries me.  They seem to be one of those few states where even horrible, horrible candidates can win so long as they are Republican.  Even states as partisan (on both sides) have some kind of introspection and internal dialogue, where they at least pretend to put forth their best candidates.  That seems to be completely missing in AZ.  You don't have to be a Democrat to see that people like Jan Brewer and Jon Kyl are the absolute bottom of the barrel politicians.

---

by: MIvotee @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:22:11 AM UTC

I thought

that Times article which named Kyl as one of the best senators was bullshit.  Their justification for nominating him was his extreme partisanship.  That might have seemed like an asset when he was in the majority, in the minority, it just makes him look like the biggest ass douche in the senate.  Sorry, second biggest after McCain.

---

by: benjso @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:17:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

what's funny

is the Democrats are nominated for reaching across party lines and Republicans for partisanship

that's telling  

---

by: DNick @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:44:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not necessarily

Olympia Snowe was on the list, as well as some liberal stalwarts like Kennedy, Durbin, and Levin.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

---

by: MassGOP @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 05:59:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kyl

I could do without him but he's no worse than Mitch McConnell. If you're looking for the bottom of the barrel in the Senate, it would start with Vitter, Inhofe, DeMint, etc.

41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 04:07:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kyl

Kyl is quite famous for being one of the dimmest bulbs in the Senate.  Couple that with his grandstanding, and he's absolutely one of the worst.

---

by: MIvotee @ Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 03:30:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interesting

Arizona is in sort of a bizarro-land at this point. It seems right on the verge of becoming a purple state, yet the state Democratic party is so far lost in the wilderness we're in no position to capitalize on it. SB 1070 isn't quite the death note for Democrats that everyone treats it to be (or else explain Rotellini's 48%...), but as long as we have a state party that, say, doesn't see a problem with leaving open a State Senate seat where Obama got 48% of the vote uncontested because it's somehow heavily Republican territory, then we'll get nowhere slowly.

I'm surprised to see Goddard on the verge of competitive though. The CW seemed to be that he's lost one too many statewide races. He's actually kinda old to be a freshman Senator though (64), so who knows if that's a real possibility.

I keep saying, though, that Flake has a serious Achilles heal in the Republican primary: comprehensive immigration reform. His libertarian ways could make him an attractive general election candidate, but the Arizona Republican Party would have to change very dramatically very quickly for his views on immigration to not be a major problem. Hell, in his own district some dude with almost no campaign got 35% just for being on the ballot against him in last year's primary.

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.

---

by: Nico @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:51:08 AM UTC

i was under the impression

Horne didn't have a lot of GOP support and wasn't a great candidate. Rotelinni got some GOP endorsements.

Goddard was locked to win the governorship before SB 1070. I think that combined with the fact that Hispanics just don't vote.

I'll call your Rotelinni at 48% and give you Raul Grijalva who nearly lost his seat to a teabagger who got more votes than GOP candidates did in Presidential years in that district.  

---

by: DNick @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 04:07:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Grijalva

Grijalva hurt his own cause by calling for people to boycott the state over SB 1070. He actually ran behind Glassman in Yuma county. I wouldn't use him as the poster boy for generic Democratic weakness.

41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 04:14:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Except he was the poster boy for Democrats

in Arizona during the campaign. He is what a lot of Arizonans think of when they vote.  

---

by: DNick @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 04:19:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thing is

that if SB 1070 is as big a problem for Democrats as everyone says it is then why would a woman who opposes it almost defeat a man who supported it? Horne had serious problems, but he's not even the most incompetent Republican to win office in Arizona, let alone the country. Plus, the Attorney General is the only office where ones support for or opposition to SB 1070 would actually matter because of the court case, so if people were paying attention to the matter anywhere, it should have been here.

The point is, if you buy the SB 1070 dooms us all argument, then all that should have mattered is that ad Horne ran with Rotellini's pictures and the words "opposes SB 1070" repeated several times over. Rather, I think what Rotellini's near win shows is that a Democrat who actually campaigns hard and demonstrates reasons that they will be better at the job than their opponent can still win Arizona, even with demagogy and chicanery like SB 1070 in the background.

Grijalva isn't necessarily a strong rebuttal. That race certainly demonstrates the ways in which Hispanics weren't fighting for their rights by voting with great numbers last time (though it appears that those that did vote strongly preferred Grijalva) and the ways in which "white liberals" aren't always going to be around to pick up the slack, but I think the boycott thing did ultimately end up doing more damage to him than anything else. I haven't calculated how all of the statewide candidates did in his district, but he did notably worse than most of them, which puts more weight behind the argument that the boycott is what hurt him, not just SB 1070 on its own.

Also, btw, his last GOP opponent was a white supremacist, so it's not surprising that she got more votes in absolutely numbers than he did, even though it was an off-year election.

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.

---

by: Nico @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 04:35:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

but she still lost

and Goddard who was leading an unpopular Brewer until Brewer signed the bill, and suddenly she was popular again.

i don't think SB1070 is THE reason Democrats did so poorly, but I also think it was a major factor and Rotelinni would be AG without it, and Brewer wouldn't be governor.  

---

by: DNick @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 13:49:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, Rotellini lost because it was the worst year for Democrats in decades

I'm saying that, in light of the fact that the only office where ones opinion on SB 1070 actually matters is AG, the supposed common wisdom dictates that she should have gotten blown out of the water for that fact alone. I won't deny that SB 1070 changed the political calculus in Arizona and galvanized some Republicans who might have instead been more willing to vote Democratic because of, say, the disastrous cuts to public education. However, I'm seeing it used both instate and out of state as an excuse not to even bother, when Rotellini shows us exactly why we should bother. Democrats woes in this state are complex, but piss-poor political leadership, tepid campaigns that only focus on already established Democratic strongholds instead of trying to establish new ones, an unwillingness to actually sell Democratic ideas and candidate qualifications, leaving Dems instead running campaigns on their terms; and most important a seeming disinterest in reaching out and registering voters outside of the middle-class 30+ white base of the party (seen most dramatically last year when Democratic party officially open said that they were expecting Hispanics to come flooding into their ranks after SB 1070, and, when that didn't happen, they blamed Hispanics for not seeing their superiority, not themselves for not putting any effort into reaching out to them).

I'll give you with Brewer, to an extent. But again that mostly comes down to her empowering her base. We need to empower our own base.

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.

---

by: Nico @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 14:34:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you answered your own question

However, I'm seeing it used both instate and out of state as an excuse not to even bother

Because of this

I won't deny that SB 1070 changed the political calculus in Arizona and galvanized some Republicans who might have instead been more willing to vote Democratic because of, say, the disastrous cuts to public education.

In a state where people are willing to throw school kids and teachers under the bus to get their jollies off picking on Mexicans, I see a big reason not to bother.

they were expecting Hispanics to come flooding into their ranks after SB 1070, and, when that didn't happen, they blamed Hispanics for not seeing their superiority, not themselves for not putting any effort into reaching out to them).

I would have thought that taking the unpopular position of being against and fighting SB 1070 would have done that, but what do they want, us to hold their hands while they vote? Raul Grijalva didn't reach out to his base?  

---

by: DNick @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 15:11:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If the pattern of prop 187 holds

How long will the R advantage from it last, and how long will it be before Ds start to gain political advantages? Or will the changes that result from prop 187 differ?

But if nothing else, Rs in CA did benefit in the first election after prop 187 was passed. But their advantage dissipated by the next election cycle, and CA continued on its blue road.

---

by: tietack @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 15:28:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Quite

a while actually. The problem for Republicans in California was the demographics were changing rapidly anyway. You had huge growth in the deep blue Bay Area thanks to immigration from countries like China and the Philippines. Plus the dot com boom attracted more educated voters who are really turned off by the various bells and dog whistles the GOP used. Whatever demographic changes in Arizona that were occurring have either been halted or significantly slowed by the housing crash.  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

---

by: ehstronghold @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 17:19:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

While you make good points

That does not explain the latest PPP poll that has President Obama within 6 of Romney, and leading Palin by 8 in AZ.

Without SB 1070, I wonder if AZ would have looked more like NV in the '10 election.

---

by: tietack @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 17:36:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama only lost Arizona by 8

even with McCain on the ticket. He probably would've won the state if not for McCain.

Like I said, I think without SB 1070, Rotelinni would have won, Goddard would be governor if he was facing Brewer and Republicans would not have a supermajority in the state legislature.

---

by: DNick @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 18:01:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Depends on if Hispanics show up

but whites in California in the 90s weren't nearly as universally nutzo as they seem to be in Arizona.

I mean where is the Arizona version of San Francisco? Napa Valley?  

---

by: DNick @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 17:58:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

SB 1070

I have asked this before, perhaps to you, but why do you think SB1070 was so influential? Did it dramatically shape the race by itself, by bringing out a lot of conservatives and changing the trajectory that would have otherwise favored Democrats at least in Arizona, or was it something that merely made a difference at the margins in a race that was bound to favor them in an already Republican year? Was it actually a little of both?

I'm not trying to lead with this question, by the way; I am genuinely curious.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 16:09:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What it did

was galvanize the right and pushed moderates to the GOP over  a wedge issue. It did for the Republicans what minimum wage did for Democrats.

These voters, the moderates, many probably would have stuck with Democrats over issues like what Nico mentioned, public education, but SB 1070 pushed them to the other side. That's how wedge issues work.

I don't think many of the voters who voted for Brewer would have without SB 1070.

That said, it should have, and those on the left said it would have, galvanized the left too. Why Hispanics stayed home, even though the Democratic Party made it clear they would fight this popular thing, is still a mystery. Democrats were almost better off politically just supporting it.  

---

by: DNick @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 18:05:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In some ways,

this makes it easier for Democrats to tack to the center or even slightly to the right while probably remaining in control of the left with this issue. I won't pretend to know much of anything about the specific issues facing Arizona, but there has to be a more reasonable approach than SB1070. If Democrats can become leaders on this issue with a moderate approach, they can probably reclaim voters like the ones you are talking about. At the very least, it's possible.

The thing about wedge issues is that they usually have a limited shelf life. After all, once a gay marriage ban is enacted, how can you continue to draw as many voters to the polls? Even if the Democrats can't turn things around right away like I suggested, I'm not sure if they will continue to suffer from it.  Do you think they will?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 19:06:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The problem with that

and is that they will inevitably have to propose as part of a broad solution something that would be unfavorable to the left and would be accused of precompromising, so what's the point?

Basically they need to forge the left and chase the center and I'm not so sure that's a winning combination either. Maybe in Arizona, but not other places.  

---

by: DNick @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 19:08:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why do other places matter?

I thought we were talking about Democrats in Arizona, not in other states.

At the risk of sounding obnoxious, I'm not sure we should care about the extreme base of the party in a situation like this. They are likely to be happy only with non-starter solutions, much like the extreme base of the Republican party. The idea is to satisfy the 60 to 70 percent that isn't on either end of the extreme. Like I said, I don't know what the fix is supposed to be, but there has to be something.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 20:43:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They don't

but what i was alluding to is that some people on the left take what works in, say, Vermont and Rhode Island and apply them to all 50 states.

Republicans don't usually do that, and when they do (Delaware) they quickly see the results of it.

One of the geniuses of the 50 state strategy was it allowed the party to function differently in a state like Arizona than in Vermont. The downside is there's no party unity.  

---

by: DNick @ Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 05:45:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

At least

there's a lot of room to grow, or so it seems.

Honestly though, I'm only half kidding when I say that I want Obama to nationalize the campaign and take it into red states and purple states where the party needs some help, if only to make them think, "Hey, maybe we can do this shit on our own! If we are smart about mobilizing voters, we should at the very least not get killed unless it's a really bad year!" I get that in for some races, it'll be an uphill battle and there could be worthier targets, but the lack of a hard charging attitude amongst Democrats is simply baffling.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 04:13:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's the thing that gives me hope

Is the new Arizona Democratic Party chair, Andrei Cherney. He was kind of meh as a candidate for State Treasurer (he lost by ten points against a guy who only pays his taxes when he feels like it) so I'm not sure he's ideal for the job on his merits alone. However, he actually has some pretty strong ties to the Obama campaign (he was on the transition team), along with what's left of the Clinton political machine (he was a speechwriter for Bill). Assuming he doesn't go all surrender monkey like the former AZDem chair, he might be able to convince the right people in Obama for America to come in and whip the Arizona Democratic apparatus into shape.

Or we'll keep treating Chandler (47% Obama) like some Republican wasteland where there's no point in even organizing or running candidates. Either way.

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.

---

by: Nico @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 04:46:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The redistricting commission

promises to draw another responsive map in a state that otherwise would be easily gerrymandered by the Republicans. They can't make their ridiculous legislative majorities permanent.  

---

by: andgarden @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 05:37:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

AZ

Republicans have successfully used Immigration to turn
the state away from purple state to solid Red state.The way
It Is going Obama might just give up and do no play for Arizona.

---

by: Robbins @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 17:28:02 PM UTC

Not supported by the evidence

http://www.swingstateproject.c...

President Obama is within 6 of Romney in AZ, and does better against other major R potential Presidential candidates, actually tied with Gingrich and leading Palin.

---

by: tietack @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 17:32:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

04 v 08

The most similar states to AZ are CO, NM, and NV. All 3 of those were 7-8 points more blue in 08 than in 04:

CO: 04 47D-52R, 08 54D-45R, +7D
NM: 04 49D-50R, 08 57D-42R, +8D
NV: 04 48D-51R, 08 55D-43R, +7.5D

AZ was 44D-55R in 04. Obama ignored it for the obvious reason that it was McCain's home state, and it ended up 45D-54R. If you give it the 7-point swing that the other southwestern states got, it would have been 51D-49R. It's basically an R+3 state that looks R+6 because of the distorting effect of 2008.

41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 19:01:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama didn't ignore Arizona

a Rasmussen (!!!!!!!!!!!!) poll showed him competitive towards the end and he made a last-minute push there. McCain actually won by a larger margin than the polls predicted.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:49:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Am

I the only one who doesn't hate these results? Goddard only trails him by ten. This suggests that in an open seat he would likely be competitive.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

---

by: hoosierdem @ Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 02:46:33 AM UTC