I feel like if it weren't for the massive Hispanic growth rate, Arizona would have shifted as heavily against the Democrats as Arkansas and West Virginia.
Its important to remember how consistently Republican Arizona has been. It voted for Clinton in 1996, but before that the last time a Democrat won Arizona was Truman in 1948.
No.
Arkansas and West Virginia are historically more favorable to Democrats. That is, when the party's base of states were in the Old Confederacy.
Arizona carried for every presidential winner its first five decades of participation, the 1910s to 1950s. Then it became Republican.
The difference is with Barack Obama and not Hillary Clinton as the 2008 Democratic nominee plus a realigning map that has had the Republicans in the Old Confederacy with 1988 and the Democrats outside of it beginning in 1992 (though Bill Clinton carried Oregon oh-so-slightly below his national numbers while the 18 "blue firewall" states were above the national margins for Barack Obama).l
Arizona is more persuadable, for the Democrats, than Arkansas and West Virginia. It's just that the numbers aren't there yet. And there's no shame in that. Arkansas carried for a string of losing Democrats in elections won by Republicans during much of the 20th century. West Virginia was not immediately on board for winning Republicans and carried for losing Democrats during those winning Republicans' first-term victories (think of Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan).
Those wanting to talk up Hillary Clinton and the Arkansas-and-West Virginia duo should, if they want to look to her winning in 2016, and outperforming Barack Obama's 2012 re-election numbers, should cast aside Arkansas and West Virginia and eye Arizona. (That is, if she ends up winning with less than 40 states.)
