Arizona

[nclib]

Why is Arizona reliably Republican in Presidential elections? It has a high Hispanic and Native American population, and is not extremely socially conservative (defeated a gay marriage/civil union ban; elects politicians such as McCain, Flake, and Kolbe).

It also was one of the few Western states to swing Republican in 2004 (though possibly Dems overperformed in 2000 due to McCain's primary challenge).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That Arizona is as Republican as it is, is evidence that class plays some role in American voting patterns.

[Padfoot]

That Arizona is as Republican as it is, is evidence that class plays some role in American voting patterns.

very true.  Arizona is also full of West Coast retirees who are fleeing the high living costs of California.  I imagine that makes for many moderate Republicans leaving California for Arizona in recent years.

Recent elections may even be an indication that Arizona is moving closer to the swing state category.  Arizona has a Democratic Governor and the state's House delegation is split evenly between the two parties.  However, this is by no means comparable to the leftward swing that Colorado has seen recently.

[gorkay]

Arizona is a state that is becoming much less reliably Republican, along with a few others in the west. The Democrats have a realistic shot at it in '08, along with New Mexico (which of course they have won recently), Colorado, Nevada, and perhaps Montana.

[Jaggerjack]

Arizona is a state that is becoming much less reliably Republican, along with a few others in the west. The Democrats have a realistic shot at it in '08, along with New Mexico (which of course they have won recently), Colorado, Nevada, and perhaps Montana.

Scratch out Montana and I'll agree with you.

[Padfoot]

Arizona is a state that is becoming much less reliably Republican, along with a few others in the west. The Democrats have a realistic shot at it in '08, along with New Mexico (which of course they have won recently), Colorado, Nevada, and perhaps Montana.

Scratch out Montana and I'll agree with you.

Montana is more of a stretch than the others on this list but it is by no means impossible for the Dems to take.  They are doing particularly well on the state level right now so a good candidate could perhaps do well here.  I think Bill Richardson is probably the most likely Democrat to win Montana given his previous endorsement from the NRA and the fact that he is the governor of another small Western state.  He is the most likely to know what kind of issues will ring true for Western voters.

[Aizen]

 While Arizona does have a good Hispanic and Native American population, it also has one of the higher Mormon populations. Regardless, Arizona will probably be competitve in 2012.

[AndrewTX]

Arizona is a state that is becoming much less reliably Republican, along with a few others in the west. The Democrats have a realistic shot at it in '08, along with New Mexico (which of course they have won recently), Colorado, Nevada, and perhaps Montana.

Yeah, take Montana out and I'll agree with it. Montana is not going to trend in Presidential elections anytime soon.  The only reason Montana went Democrat in 1992 was because Bush was never that popular in the state, and Perot dropped the percentages.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Montana, for the most part, is an unrealistic Democratic fantasy borne out of the DailyKos brand of overoptimism.  Just because a state elects a "populist" Democratic governor doesn't mean it's going to elect a Democrat for President.  (And the Senate results are almost inconsequential—Montana has been heavily Democratic on the U.S. Senate level for decades.  It's never had a GOP Senator leave office voluntarily—each one in its history has been tossed by the voters.)

Remember: Democrats actually lost ground in Montana in 2006, one of the few states where they did so.  And it was meaningful ground, too: control of the State House flipped.

A Democrats could win Montana, but if they ever did, it wouldn't matter.  The Dem would already have enough EVs to win easily.

I think Bill Richardson is probably the most likely Democrat to win Montana given his previous endorsement from the NRA and the fact that he is the governor of another small Western state.  He is the most likely to know what kind of issues will ring true for Western voters.

Okay—yeah, Bill Richardson is the most likely Democrat to win Montana.  But he still probably wouldn't, and he has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination anyway.

[gorkay]

I did say "perhaps" Montana, based largely on the facts that they elected a Democratic senator last year, and that it was one of the western states Clinton carried in '92. Obviously it would be the longest shot of all the states where the Dems have any chance at all, and everything would have to fall into place for them to carry it.

[Jaggerjack]

I did say "perhaps" Montana, based largely on the facts that they elected a Democratic senator last year, and that it was one of the western states Clinton carried in '92. Obviously it would be the longest shot of all the states where the Dems have any chance at all, and everything would have to fall into place for them to carry it.

I think you missed Mr. Moderate's post.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I did say "perhaps" Montana, based largely on the facts that they elected a Democratic senator last year, and that it was one of the western states Clinton carried in '92. Obviously it would be the longest shot of all the states where the Dems have any chance at all, and everything would have to fall into place for them to carry it.

Clinton only carried it because of Perot. As for a Democratic senator, in addition to what Mr. Moderate said, go look at the margin of victory, and then take into account the idiot senile old fool who was the GOP incumbent. If you can only beat a guy like that by a point, how does any Democrat win it against anyone else?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I did say "perhaps" Montana, based largely on the facts that they elected a Democratic senator last year, and that it was one of the western states Clinton carried in '92. Obviously it would be the longest shot of all the states where the Dems have any chance at all, and everything would have to fall into place for them to carry it.

Clinton only carried it because of Perot. As for a Democratic senator, in addition to what Mr. Moderate said, go look at the margin of victory, and then take into account the idiot senile old fool who was the GOP incumbent. If you can only beat a guy like that by a point, how does any Democrat win it against anyone else?

Indeed, Tester's performance was surprisingly underwhelming, considering.

[gorkay]

Okay, okay, you guys win. The Democrats have no chance in Montana. Unless...

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Okay, okay, you guys win. The Democrats have no chance in Montana. Unless...

...Larry Craig is the GOP nominee?

[gorkay]

Okay, okay, you guys win. The Democrats have no chance in Montana. Unless...

...Larry Craig is the GOP nominee?

Funny.

[Adlai Stevenson]

In 2008 I think the Democratic Presidential nominee will get between 45%-48% of the vote in Arizona and should top 40% in Montana.  There a number of states which will remain out of reach of the Democrats, however, a good Democratic campaign could hope to get over 40% of the vote in the following states (in order of likelihood) -

1. Indiana
2. Kentucky
3. Montana
4. Kansas
5. South Dakota
6. Texas
7. Alabama?

[auburntiger]

In 2008 I think the Democratic Presidential nominee will get between 45%-48% of the vote in Arizona and should top 40% in Montana.  There a number of states which will remain out of reach of the Democrats, however, a good Democratic campaign could hope to get over 40% of the vote in the following states (in order of likelihood) -

1. Indiana
2. Kentucky
3. Montana
4. Kansas
5. South Dakota
6. Texas
7. Alabama?

Alabama has probably topped out at 63% GOP given the large black population. Given the current candidates, I doubt they could break 40%, but the Republican could fall short of 60%.

[Nym90]

I did say "perhaps" Montana, based largely on the facts that they elected a Democratic senator last year, and that it was one of the western states Clinton carried in '92. Obviously it would be the longest shot of all the states where the Dems have any chance at all, and everything would have to fall into place for them to carry it.

Clinton only carried it because of Perot.

I really don't think that's true, considering Dukakis came within only 6 points of carrying it in 1988. Now granted, it was trending Republican in the 90's, but I don't think it would've trended Republican fast enough to go from being a Democratic leaning state in 1988 to a pretty strongly Republican leaning one in 1992.

Montana also historically has an anti-incumbent streak; along with the Dakotas it might be the most anti-incumbent state in the nation overall. This helped Perot in 1992 most of all of course, but also benefited Clinton and would've likely resulted in a larger than normal percentage of Perot's voters going to Clinton.

[Stranger in a strange land]

In 2008 I think the Democratic Presidential nominee will get between 45%-48% of the vote in Arizona and should top 40% in Montana.  There a number of states which will remain out of reach of the Democrats, however, a good Democratic campaign could hope to get over 40% of the vote in the following states (in order of likelihood) -

1. Indiana
2. Kentucky
3. Montana
4. Kansas
5. South Dakota
6. Texas
7. Alabama?

The dems should break 40% quite easily in Texas this time. Bush isn't running, so there's no home-state advantage, plus the GOP has done a good job alienating Hispanic voters the past few years. Keep in mind the dems won't even come close to winning it, but they'll probably hold the republicans to around 55-57%.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

In 2008 I think the Democratic Presidential nominee will get between 45%-48% of the vote in Arizona and should top 40% in Montana.  There a number of states which will remain out of reach of the Democrats, however, a good Democratic campaign could hope to get over 40% of the vote in the following states (in order of likelihood) -

1. Indiana
2. Kentucky
3. Montana
4. Kansas
5. South Dakota
6. Texas
7. Alabama?

The dems should break 40% quite easily in Texas this time. Bush isn't running, so there's no home-state advantage, plus the GOP has done a good job alienating Hispanic voters the past few years. Keep in mind the dems won't even come close to winning it, but they'll probably hold the republicans to around 55-57%.

Interesting and how does this affect the election?

[Stranger in a strange land]

In 2008 I think the Democratic Presidential nominee will get between 45%-48% of the vote in Arizona and should top 40% in Montana.  There a number of states which will remain out of reach of the Democrats, however, a good Democratic campaign could hope to get over 40% of the vote in the following states (in order of likelihood) -

1. Indiana
2. Kentucky
3. Montana
4. Kansas
5. South Dakota
6. Texas
7. Alabama?

The dems should break 40% quite easily in Texas this time. Bush isn't running, so there's no home-state advantage, plus the GOP has done a good job alienating Hispanic voters the past few years. Keep in mind the dems won't even come close to winning it, but they'll probably hold the republicans to around 55-57%.

Interesting and how does this affect the election?

It won't affect 2008, but 3 or 4 cycles down the road texas could become competitive. My point is that in 2000 and 2004 Texas got about as republican as it was going to get.

[Mr.Phips]

In 2008 I think the Democratic Presidential nominee will get between 45%-48% of the vote in Arizona and should top 40% in Montana.  There a number of states which will remain out of reach of the Democrats, however, a good Democratic campaign could hope to get over 40% of the vote in the following states (in order of likelihood) -

1. Indiana
2. Kentucky
3. Montana
4. Kansas
5. South Dakota
6. Texas
7. Alabama?

Indiana, Kansas, Montana, South Dakota, Texas and Alabama should all go Republican by about 57%-42%.  I bet Kentucky is more like 53%-46%.