The Democratic vote for President in AZ has stayed within 0.59% since 2000.

[retromike22]

I'm doing more studies on the Democratic % in Presidential elections, and I noticed this:


% Democratic for President in Arizona 2000-2012
   
2000   44.67%
2004   44.32%
2008   44.91%
2012   44.45%

From lowest to highest, that's a margin of 0.59%. 6 different candidates (Bush, Obama, Gore, Kerry, McCain, and Romney), 4 separate elections, and Arizona has barely moved. Even when it included its own Senator.

Is the rate of Hispanic growth almost exactly equal to that of new GOP converts and incoming retirees? Like a solar eclipse?

Why has Arizona stayed so consistent?

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

Nobody's made a sustained effort in the state since Clinton '96, who targeted it early. Gore pulled out in October, Kerry probably around September, and Obama basically forfeited. There's enough natural strength that the Dem tends to come in with 44-45% anyway, as long as he's doing reasonably well nationwide.

[Mehmentum]

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. 

[Kraxner]

Nobody's made a sustained effort in the state since Clinton '96, who targeted it early. Gore pulled out in October, Kerry probably around September, and Obama basically forfeited. There's enough natural strength that the Dem tends to come in with 44-45% anyway, as long as he's doing reasonably well nationwide.

Clinton won arizona due to a booming economy by 1996.


Had the two years of the GFC started in 2007 and ended in 2008 instead of 2008 and 2009. Then the full collapse of the housing bubble and the depth of the recession by the 2008 election might of propelled Obama to win that state in 2008 despite mccain being the favorite son.


You would expect Arizona given its proxmity to california and a growing latino population to make it competitive for democrats more than Florida. But i've heard that the largest source of retirees in Arizona are southerners rather than Florida where its mostly retired northerners who arent as negative towards the democrat party as southern retirees are.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

Clinton won arizona due to a booming economy by 1996.

That helped, but Clinton made a conscious effort to target retirees by talking about "Dole/Gingrich" Medicare cuts from the spring forward. That's why the two states he picked up were FL and AZ.

[IceSpear]

The reason Arizona didn't move in 2008 was because McCain was on the ticket. If he wasn't, it probably would've been in the MO/IN/NC club of an extremely narrow win either way.

[Tender Branson]

Because unlike the other 3 states, AZ has a big segment of racist Whites.

The other 3 states' Whites are much more flexible in voting for a Democrat (or a Black).

CO's Whites mostly come from liberal CA, while AZ's Whites are mostly retired Republican xenophobes and racists from other conservative parts of the US.

[Nichlemn]

If true, why do a lot of racists and/or Southerners retire to Arizona? Southerners like heat, but are sick of humidity?

[Never]

Southerners like heat, but are sick of humidity?

That's probably true. Humidity is pure torture most of the time in the South. Even though Arizona is hotter, it does feel way more comfortable than the South in my opinion, because you can actually breathe, and who knows, maybe the retirees want their comfort.

[nclib]

AZ has also had the exact same county map since 2000 with four counties Dem and the rest Rep.

[retromike22]

AZ has also had the exact same county map since 2000 with four counties Dem and the rest Rep.

Is it possible that the entire state of Arizona is stuck in the year 2000 because of a Y2K time warp?

Whenever I think of summer 2000, I think of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oai1V7kaFBk

[DS0816]

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.)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

 
2000-2004: Bush increases his percentage, but Nader doesn't take votes from the left.
2004-2008: a much less favorable year for Republicans, but McCain gets a home state advantage.
2008-2012: McCain isn't on the ticket, but it's a better year nationally for Republicans. also, Mormons.

[Antonio the Sixth]

 
2000-2004: Bush increases his percentage, but Nader doesn't take votes from the left.
2004-2008: a much less favorable year for Republicans, but McCain gets a home state advantage.
2008-2012: McCain isn't on the ticket, but it's a better year nationally for Republicans. also, Mormons.

I was about to make the same point, but great job finding the appropriate picture to illustrate it.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

A big part of the reason for the relatively stable voting patterns in AZ is that reactionary racist whites in the state are trending Republican, while the booming Hispanic population grows in voting power.

With the surge in illegal immigration and the minority population , Arizona whites have taken on a insular fortress mentality where xenophobic whites will vote increasingly Republican as Democrats become the black/brown party. Incredibly, both Texas and Arizona trended Republican this year despite the massive demographic boom amongst Hispanics. In the short to medium term Arizona whites could start voting like Southern whites and keep the state Red for a long time.

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

Jan Brewer's "papers please" law seems pretty ing racist to me. Not to mention that i've heard there's a lot of neo-nazis in Arizona. And no I don't think that all conservatives are racist by any stretch but I definitely do see a lot of it behind the anti-immigrant movement. The US has always been a nation of immigrants.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Jan Brewer's "papers please" law seems pretty ing racist to me. Not to mention that i've heard there's a lot of neo-nazis in Arizona. And no I don't think that all conservatives are racist by any stretch but I definitely do see a lot of it behind the anti-immigrant movement. The US has always been a nation of immigrants.

No doubt, not to mention Conservative hero Joe Arpaio was convicted of racial profiling to the cheers of the Tea Party.

[hopper]

A big part of the reason for the relatively stable voting patterns in AZ is that reactionary racist whites in the state are trending Republican, while the booming Hispanic population grows in voting power.

With the surge in illegal immigration and the minority population , Arizona whites have taken on a insular fortress mentality where xenophobic whites will vote increasingly Republican as Democrats become the black/brown party. Incredibly, both Texas and Arizona trended Republican this year despite the massive demographic boom amongst Hispanics. In the short to medium term Arizona whites could start voting like Southern whites and keep the state Red for a long time.

Surge? Most of the illegal immigration to the US took place from 1996/1997-2007 from Mexico.

I don't think Native Arizona Whites are anti-Hispanic. Native Arizona Whites probably have Hispanic friends and even family through inter-marriage.

[Ebowed]

Greenlee county is interesting.  It voted GOP for the first time in 2000 (it was the only AZ holdout in 1972 and 1980), swung heavily to Bush in 2004, and seems to have slowed down with the trend now.