« How Could I be out of Money; I still have Checks Left? | Main | Why Good People Don't Run »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Makes sense, though if there is a full-blown recession, Republicans are going to take a beating.

Don't forget that Pesquiera won't even bother running again in LD26 and Saradnik, an otherwise strong Democrat candidate, suffered a stroke and was replaced. And her replacement wasn't even the Democrat that local Democrats wanted. They picked the woman just to have a woman on the ballot. All good news for LD26 Republicans.

What effect will Arizona's financial mess have on things? If the national economy is Bush's fault, is Arizona's economy Napolitano's fault? Or will the Republic just blame everything on the Republicans?

Put another way for Utah, if a national recession means the GOP takes a beating nationally, does Arizona's mess mean the Dems take a beating?

Who's going to have the longer coattails: Hillary, Obama or McCain?

Considering that Democrat strategists are shuddering at the thought of having Hillary show up and stump for their candidate (can you imagine if she tries to share a laugh with them? instant electoral meltdown) and that Obama's turning out to be more Malcolm X than MLK and is ever-increasing negative ratings, I'd say a rising McCain tide could lift a lot of boats this year.

Good piece, Greg, I agree.

Hi Greg:

Longtime reader but commenting for the first time. I am surprised to hear that such a prognostication of John McCain's victory in Arizona would raise eyebrows from seasoned political pros. If what you said holds through till the fall, then it would be of no great surprise that the state GOP stands to make strong gains in certain areas.

However, I disagree with you on a number of positions you presented. The "independent voter" is mentioned as key to bringing home the McCain vote but it has long been my observation that independents vote in lock step with Democrats and with a viable option in Barack Obama, it stands hard to reason that they will flock to McCain.

A second issue that should be made is the fundraising disparity between the NRCC and the DCCC. While McCain will carry Arizona, it's hard to see where the DCCC will abondon Mitchell, Giffords or the CD-1 Democrat nominee. A split ticket is plausible and nothing is more pleasing to national Democrats than seeing McCain's coattails cut short by piles of cash (see 527s).

You referred to the Rev. Wright story and the damage it is inflicting on the Obama campaign. Similarly, McCain made a gaffe that Iranians were training Al Queda and that he was a "proud liberal Republican." In the end, these errors will be shrugged off and minimized and seen as part of the vetting process campaigns experience as they work towards the general election.

Finally, the energy and turnout from the Democrat Party has been staggering this year, so where McCain will carry Arizona, how does this stand nationally? Will he win the battle but lose the war? As the venerable Michael Barone stated, the blue-red state map will be tossed out this year with certain states going different directions this year.

I have categorized this election as 1964 v. 1968. If it is the former, than McCain is swept aside in a tidal wave and President Obama claims a national mandate. If it is the latter, President McCain squeeks by with the Democrat Party in shreds amid their inability to nominate a serious candidate. With over seven months remaining, time will tell if this theory is correct.

Keep up the good work. I've immensely enjoyed reading your posts and have cheered the accolades you have deservingly earned over the years.

Arizona won't be in play, a lot of people are staying home here on election day. Arizona independents are also very used to ticket splitting. I don't think McCain has very long coattails.

Greg,

Excellent analysis. I have noticed that vote by mail is very popular with suburban, stay at home moms with young kids. They might have been too busy with church and club activities to drag a cranky 3 years old to wait in a line at the polls. This is a demographic that loves to vote at home, mail it in and be done with it. They can also be pretty conservative.

As to McCain’s coattails in CD-8. He did not do that well in the district. He won it but not nearly by as much as say CD-3. We’ll have to see on that one.

Regarding legislative races, that has been the focus of the “misunderestimated” state party. Even though there may still be a rift there with Kyl they are playing nice with the McCain people. Look for lots of state resources on competitive legislative districts. Also LD-24 is prime for some gains.

The contrarian in me wants to go for a two-fer by questioning whether Greg is one of them-there "Boys from Brazil," (JOKE JOKE JOKE)but this is important.

I agree with Greg up to the place where he speculates that McCain's coat-tails will carry a lot of Rs into office. I guess I don't march in lock-step with him very far.

McCain is absolutely the best nominee the GOP could offer, senior moments nothwithstanding. In a previous life I had a lot of personal contact with the guy, and I'm fond of him and Cindy both. Frankly I stunned that he could actually win the primary. Never thought the knuckle-draggers on the right would let it happen.

But the reason he's the best nominee is precisely because, as Greg noted, he appeals to moderates and centrists. That makes him competitive with Obama, and I think he'd kick Hillary's butt. Those same voters, however, favored Democrats by a 2-1 margin in 2006. If he brings out more of them in 2008, that favors down-ticket Dems, in my opinion.

Tim Bee is a decent guy too, but I fail to see - at least in this election - why they'd abandon Giffords. I may be wrong (again) but I think McCain's coattails will help Mitchell too by bringing more of "his" voters out than whomever survives the Republican primary slug-fest.

CD1 I'm less sure about. I think it depends on who comes out of the Republican primary. If it's Hay, the Democrat nominee (Ann Kirkpatrick, I hope) will be competitive. If it's Mayes, with her High Ground connections, not so much.

I won't go through the Legislative districts. He rightly cited Rios, and someone else cited Pasquera's decision not to run again, but there are many other dynamics at play, and frankly it's at this level that coattails have their biggest impact.

But I won't offer any "intel" to you guys. Let's just say that you might have to get used to saying "Speaker Lopes."

The Obama phenomenon has yet to be fully defined but the dye has been cast. (Using an analogy that relates to color must be excused as purely “typical” of this white woman.) His ability to overcome a lack of record, a name that sounds like anything but a historic American POTUS, and the rating as the most liberal US Senator with his oratory and demands that words matter will be determined when his “chickens come home to roost”. My guess, Americans of all colors, creeds, and religions will say the same thing. Words matter.

America has overcome the drunken stupor of hypnotic hope speech and been awakened by the screaming anger of racism cloaked in the cloth and then justified by the sins of our fathers.

His day may come but it will not be the day he is currently seeking.

Oh...Hillary, what to say that hasn’t been said.

Current polls show 20% of Dems will cross over to McCain nationally if their candidate (either one) loses the nomination. My guess, Arizona is no different.

Months can be measured in dog years in an election cycle. HRC and BHO have months to continue telling us all why neither of them are any good. And with gusto!

Nappy has gone the Obama route for years. Teflon coated words and good press. When the full cost of her hard ball play every spring comes into full focus, she will be seen as a liability and need balance. The ballot will be crowded and if ’06 looked like a prop heavy ballot, ’08 will be even more full...and much of it tax related. Lower taxes in a troubled economy, sure fire ways to get out the voters. Add in McCain and welcome the super majority. (The guv also hitched herself to what is clearly a liability in endorsing Obama. She may be collecting her state retirement and working for some think tank after her term ends.)

The Dem Congress has been an abysmal failure. They had their chance and failed. Bring in the next round of rookies and let’s see what they can do. The choices are qualified and all have as much, if not more, experience as the current members and can prove their worth. CD 5 & 8 will go Republican, again the Dem POTUS race backlash and the McCain hard press will carry over.

It will be a very good year for Arizona Republicans!

Good post Greg.

Hitler

/comments

Tim: if you want to see who's going to take the blame in Arizona, compare W's approval rating to Napolitano's.

I think we *could* have. If Randy Pullen wasn't chair and the AZGOP wasn't broke and broken.

We won't be able to capitalize on the environment.

Johnny,

I agree insofar as the national environment. But I'm talking specifically about the $3 Billion deficit we're facing here in Arizona and the fact that the Gov hasn't taken any steps to deal with it. She was in charge of Arizona while we spent like crazy, so can they really pin it on George Bush?

I never realized that downing gallons of espresso not only made you bounce off walls, but it made you a grade A optimist. Hmmm.

The scenario laid out by Greg is THE best-case for the GOPers this year in the copper state.

For the GOP to achieve the results he's sort off predicting here and now, his scenario must be exact. It won't be. C'mon, the law of averages and everything else.

Obama will have more money to spend than China has T-Bills. That money will be used to define McCain like we've never seen. Even in Arizona, Obama has a chance. IF the youngins vote like they might.

Greg,

The first thing I am going to do is copy this blog so I have it in November to compare it to the real poll.

Second, I don't share the optimism inspired by the consumption of Chilean sea bass and veal.

Third, I see that Robert Robb was able to use the politest language I have ever read by anyone to describe a lie in his column in the AZ Republic on March 21, 2008. If the Iraqi chickens come home to roost as Robb predicts they must, I think that McCain will find himself defending a growing indefensible engagement.

Presumably Schweikert? Don't the voters even get a chance to make up their minds? You have some other excellent candidates out there...let's not do campaigning on behalf of one in the disguise of reporting the facts.

Relax CD5 person, presumably Schweikert is the nice way to put it.

Ogsbury raised $100k and added $250k of his own, but not much has happened there since. No traction.

Knaperek raised an anemic $50k or maybe even less? No money and no traction.

Hatch-Miller might have been a real contender, but he got out.

Bitter-Smith? Still exploring, no traction, and adding a second woman to the race only hurts Knaperek.

Anderson? No money, no traction.

And Schweikert... $600k and counting, Club for Growth, endorsements, and by far the deepest roots in the district.

This race is over!

Money

George Soros 527's spent over $8o nillion.
Is Kerry in the White House?

Typical White Person.
Will money fix that?

The arrogance in 'John's' comments are breathtaking. Is this arrogance and obnoxiousness representative of David Schweikert? I hope to goodness not!

Belittling the other candidates doesn't make any sense. There are a number of great people running with very solid credentials.

The snide remark that Schweikert has "by far the deepest roots in the district" is laughable.

Bitter Smith, Anderson and Knaperek all represented parts of the district as elected officials for a combined total of over 40 years! Anderson and Knaperek both raised children in the district (something that can not be said of Schweikert).

Whatever might be said of Schweikert, to claim his "roots" in the district are deeper than everyone else's is just plain silly.

Since John chose to do his arm chair analysis, I'll do mine. Schweikert ran for Congress before in 1994. At the time, he was State House Minority Whip. He raised a ton of money and had the backing of luminaries such as House Speaker Mark Killian. His election was inevitable... except that on the Primary Election day he lost badly.

Maybe Schweikert will do better this time. However, maybe he won't. Just like every candidate, he'll have to earn the voter's trust. I'd suggest a good start for EVERY candidate for office is approaching their campaign with a measure of humility.

For Greg, I would suggest this: you have been good in the past in disclosing that you're close friends with David Schweikert. However, you didn't mention your friendship this time. New readers of your blog might not be aware of this relationship, and it's relevant when you're weighing in on Schwikert. I'd respectfully suggest you mention your relationship each time you write about Schweikert.

I find I agree with your comments, almost without exception (and I can't even find the exception). I believe with McCain at the top of the ticket, Arizona Republicans will do well, perhaps even a veto-proof legislature (?). A Hillary candidacy will bring out the Rs big time nationwide. As far as an Obama nationwide candidacy: you need to win some Southern states to win the White House. The Southern Belles and Southern Bubbas didn't vote for a Northern White liberal (Kerry); does anyone honestly believe (after listening to Rev. Wright) they are going to vote for a Northern Black Liberal? Not gonna happen. McCain will win big.

Espresso Fan sounds like I hit a nerve... Calls me names, tries to link me to Schweikert's campaign, then takes a cheap shot at David for not having kids? Nice...

Relax buddy, its just one person's opinion. And you didn't address any of my points regarding the very real and very large disparities in fundraising which are a very good indication of support. I just wrote a really brief description of where I think each campaign is. Hardly "breathtaking" unless you're just cranking up the rhetoric for the sake of cranking it up.

As far as who has represented the district for how long, you mention that Knaperek, Anderson and Bitter-Smith have each representated parts of the district for a combined 40 years. Technically true, but not a terribly illuminating point. Anderson's piece of the district is very small, Knaperek's piece of the district voted her out twice, and Bitter-Smith's piece was both relatively small and quite a while ago. If past legislative service was your measuring stick, why didn't you credit Schweikert for representing a big chunk of the district? You also neglect to mention that as Maricopa County Treasurer, David Schweikert has been representing the ENTIRE district.

No, I don't speak for Schweikert's campaign, so you'll have to limit your attacks to me personally, but the facts remain the same in this race and you haven't added anything that changes the fundamental primary equation. So the math remains the same and this race is still OVER!

"Obama is not electable no matter how many times he denounces his white grandmother."

I'm floored by this remark. It is not just that it's snide, smart assed, mean spirited, utterly racist and totally unworthy of anyone who labels himself a Christian. It's also just plain stupid.
Obama has raised unprecedented amounts of money. He's received contributions from over a million donors. He's turned out voters in three and four and five times the numbers they've ever turned out before in a primary campaign. He's beaten a wide open field of well known and well qualified candidates with a message of optimism, hope, and change. Dismissing him as unelectable with one snotty remark is just not all that bright.
Obama's speech on race in America was brilliant. He took on the most difficult issue facing America in its history, went straight at it, used fully thought out, nuanced language, confronted it and challenged every American to confront it. No soundbites. It's filled with the sincere hope that America can somehow transcend its ugly racial history and work toward a common goal. It's brilliant.

"But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well."

Find one speech by a Republican politician dealing with the issue of race in America that even comes close. No, Abe Lincoln doesn't count, he's been dead for a century and half. How about George Allen? Makaka. George H.W. Bush? Willie Horton. Evan Mecham? Pickaninny. You think the Republican Party might just have a racial problem?
Obama's Inaugural Address on January 20, 2009, will be a great moment in American history. Greater even than W. finally leaving office.

Commander in Chief - we've only begun to see the bile which will be spewed if Obama wins the nomination. It will be interesting to see how he will respond and what the response from the general public will be. What will be even more interesting will be to see how it will divide conservatives as some will grow increasingly uncomfortable with this line of attack.

Todd,

It doesn't really matter who wins the nominations - the bile will flow, unforunately. And the real issues will be buried under all kinds of non-consequential verbal diarreha - and we, the ordinary citizens, will be real losers.

In the end, I fear we may all end up holding our noses while we cast our ballots in November.

ron

ron - i agree, but i was in particular talking about racially bigoted bile.

As long as the public, that is, YOU, buy in to the distorted bile [of all kinds, not just racism] [instead of doing your own research regarding candidates' issue stances, proposals, experience, voting record, and, most important, character], the 527s, media, and campaign consultants will continue to spew it. Also, how can the bi-partisanship desperately needed to begin to be honest about [and solve] our problems flourish in such a nasty atmosphere?

You are correct, Gretchen.

I don't want to make excuses for people - yet at the same time - it takes time to develop those kinds of relationships, to do the research - and, the research includes checking out the sources of the research you are going to use to make your final decisions. (You can spend hours just trying to find out who is funding the PACS which is the way many people hide their influence.) Even voting records are up for debate. It is not uncommon for the publishers of the voting records of legislators to twist their results according to their agenda. Sometimes you have to go back and read the legislation to find out why your legislator voted for or against a piece of legislation. Then write him or her and try and get a straight answer on top it.

I don't know about you, Gretchen, but I work two jobs and spend about 60 hours a week putting bread on the table. I don't have a lot of time to do a lot of research. There is some benefit of the parliamentary system - I only have to worry about one candidate federally and one candidate on the state side. In this system I have to worry about all 5 state wide positons (never mind all the state commissions, county positions, city positons, etc) plus the federal offices (congress, senate, POTUS). I think the proliferation of elected offices tends to make people's heads swirl and either a. not participate at all, b. vote a straight party line - and the parties like this because the people often are sheep, c. randomly select which offices they are going to vote for, or d. decide based on the 'distorted bile' they receive via the MSM. Or e. we can do our own best research and make up our minds.

In between I subscribe to both liberal and conservative news services - I think the truth is usually someplace in the middle.

Gretchen - I can tell you one thing I have learned in all the research I have done - in most cases in the last three decades or so one can measure how bad an idea is by the amount of bi-partisan support it receives at the federal level. The worse the idea, the more bi-partisan the support. I believe you are falling for the propaganda that the reason certain problems can't be solved is because politicians are being too nasty to each other.

Regardless of friendships, the line about Schweikert as the presumptive winner is irresponsible. He has alot of out of state money, a refi'd house and some in-kind contributions, but what he doesn't have is backing of the local community.

The comments to this entry are closed.