Talk Elections

http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/0211/Kyl_to_retire_.html

No!  :(

Honestly, I had to look twice to be sure this isn't another blubber thread.

Shirtless photo in 3...2...

Good news.

I like Kyl, but yeah, it's time.  It's also time for f****ace McCain to retire as well.

I don't like either much, but I'll gladly take Kyl again in exchange for McCain leaving.

Well, yeah, sadly that's not an option :P

Are there any incumbents who plan to run for reelection in 2012? With all these open Senate seats, new House maps and presidential race, 2012 will be a great year for political junkies. 

/sarcasm

Ben Quayle for Senate!

Probably an easy R hold.  Democrats really don't have a bench in Arizona, and their best potential candidate is still lying in a hospital bed in Houston (I think).

That and I assume Obama is going to try to play up the AZ immigration law in 2012 to increase Hispanic turnout, and that's not going to help the Democrat's chances there.

Wow, this has been quite a week.

The only way it could get better is if, say, George Bush (SR) announces an intent to run in 2012.

Or if Obama decides to bow out for some reason

Be ready for JD Hayworth to tak a shot again. Quayle will likely stay in the house

Too soon, but don't count him out as a future candidate if the powers that be in AZ like him.......

All right, does anyone seriously know who will run for the seat from both sides?

Well, luckily the 2 GOP candidates have been in red states like Arizona and Texas

Jeff Flake is already declaring, practically. Should be an easy hold.

I wonder if Gabrielle Giffords would do it if she's recovered enough down the road. She'd certainly be unstoppable now.

As quickly as she's recovering, I think it would be too soon.

Probably Flake and/or Shadegg for the Republicans. For the Democrats, who knows. Phil Gordon and Terry Goddard have been bounced around as potential candidates.

Democrats always try to pull sentimental stunts like that (widows, disabled people, victims of violence), so yeah she will be recruited as long as she has a pulse. And voters are often dumb enough to base their vote on pathos, but "unstoppable" is stretching it.

Go Terry Goddard =) (I  don't think Giffords will be able to run in 2012...)

Oh, hell yes. Thanks for saving us the trouble of primarying you, Jon!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/0211/Flake_likely_to_enter_Senate_race.html?showall

"Reached on his cell phone, first-term Rep. Ben Quayle said he had no comment on Kyl's plans, accused the reporter of calling the wrong number and then hung up. "

Good news. He's one of the worst.

Arpaio for Senate!

Seriously though, it's going to be Flake.

Arizona is a badass state. They are never going to send a Flake to the Senate!

It's more than stretching it. It's pretty much pure fiction. Giffords has a leftist voting record.

I agree that Giffords has been a solid vote for the Dems. It's kind of like Casey in PA in that way. Their rhetoric differs from how they vote sometimes, and makes them be seen as moderates.

Nifty tool for a politician to have.

Flake will be tough to beat for the nomination.  And tough in the general too - not impossible (like Texas), but tough.

I can think of at least two Republican widows in Congress (Emerson, Bono Mack) right now, and the one Democratic widow which seemed to get Republicans the angriest, Jean Carnahan, happened because there was like 10 days left before Election Day and no good alternative. Saying "Democrats always try to do that" is as fair as "Republican in a sex scandal? shocking!" about Chris Lee. I think singling out disabled people as candidates as a sentimentality ploy is particularly unfair to people who already struggle to be treated as equals--James Langevin would be surprised to learn that he has a career in Congress because Democrats were doing him a favor or playing a trick.

Dangit!! He's a good, sensible Republican.  It'll be sad to see the Senate without the junior senator from Arizona.

Is it me, or do Seante retirements tend to happen in pairs?

Last yeasr we had Dodd and Dorgan annouce within days of eachother. Then it was Conrad and Lieberman, now Webb and Kyl.

Obama isn't gonna win Arizona and the Democrat wont win the senate race then, safe GOP hold.

Why? I don't understand his decision.

No, he's not.  He's an obstructionist who obstructs for the hell of it.  I'm glad to see him go.

To copy the GOP trolls, D+1.

In all seriousness, this is actually a serious pickup opportunity for the Dems.

Goddard seems to be their only semi-decent candidate. Well, that can actually run(seriously, let's be honest, Giffords probably isn't going to be physically capable).

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/02/10/giffords_was_planning_senate_bid.html (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/02/10/giffords_was_planning_senate_bid.html)

Not surprising I guess.

Probably, but unless the national mood is very pro-Democrat (highly unlikely it goes that far), Flake would easily defeat him. If Jan Brewer can beat him by 12 points, Flake shouldn't have a problem.

I'll be sad to see him go.  I've always liked him, so hopefully he stays in politics.

Honestly, given the other possibilities (Shadegg, Hayworth, Quayle, etc) Flake really doesn't seem half bad at all (although I'd obviously prefer Goddard).

How about the guy who ran against Kyl in 2006, Jim Pederson, I think is his name? He kept Kyl in the single digits, granted it was a good environment for Democrats. Think he'll be up for another run?

It's hard to find an establishment politician that BushOklahoma doesn't think is great.

I think Giffords would have been a strong candidate, but (obviously) I think she won't be able to run this time.

I think it's going to be Jeff Flake.

Are there any hispanic candidates Republicans could run?

Kurt Warner's name is being floated

I would definitely support him.

Kurt Warner is probably very far right due to his extreme religious beliefs.

He's a social conservative, obviously. I don't see how his views are extreme, though, especially in a state like Arizona.

Kurt Warner would be great, but I think Jeff Flake will be the nominee. I'm looking forward to a future political career for Peyton Manning.

Tom Brady knocks off John Kerry in 2014.

I am not so sure on Flake being a lock for the nomination. His immigration views are not in line with what the AZ gop primary would be looking for right now.

Haha. He'd do better than Schilling.

Sam,

I used to have a great deal of respect for you.

No longer the case.

Flake will NOT get the nomination.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLwb9NePt94

Luckily for the Republicans, both Senate Republican retirements are in red states, Arizona and Texas.

I don't think we need to wait for McCain's retirement. He'll die before 2016 :P.

And this will probably be an R hold. Potential Democrats that I can think of right now are Goddard, Glassman, and Napalitano (although her rep in AZ is damaged b/c of the lawsuit). Giffords is still out for awhile.

Potential GOP candidates: Hayward or (BOLD PREDICTION) Brewer. Quayle is going to stay in the House until McCain is out.

Shadegg is not running:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/143619-ex-rep-shadegg-passes-on-arizona-senate-run

Looks like the field is probably going to be pretty clear for Flake, should he choose to run. Hayworth isn't going to be any danger.

:(

And now that the GOP is tigtightening the definition of rape, maybe Roethlisberg is viaable against Casey.  Unless he's fallen out of favor for that Super Bowl interception.

You posted it like 100 times...

Not gonna give her enough time to learn how to get her life together first, huh?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49393_Page2.html

I didn't think he'd be old enough, but he is. But there's no hint AFAIK that Big Ben is a Republican.

If she decides to enter the race, she will be a difficult target for Republicans. Attacking an assassination survivor sounds very unappetizing to me.

She won't though. She has to recover first.

And yet you leftists attack Ronald Reagan all the time.

A Pelosi liberal is not winning Arizona.

Shut up troll.

Yeah, unfortunately, that's the way it will be. We should basically give her anything she wants now. She really ought to primary Obama and anyone that questions it...well...that would be very unappetizing.

Napolitano is apparently "making calls" back home about a Senate run - http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/02/12/napolitano_feeling_out_senate_bid.html (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/02/12/napolitano_feeling_out_senate_bid.html)


Does this woman realize she isn't exactly a popular figure these days?

Yeah, you tell him, px! Reagan being shot and close to death is a vastly inferior situation. Plus, he ran unopposed in the 1984 General election anyway!

Didn't you know? Reagan's popularity ballooned after March 1981, in fact, 2 years later he was at a whopping 35% approval rating!

I'm sure he didn't have the name recognition of a back benching Congresswoman.

Sadly, thats probably the best the Democrats can do in Arizona without asking Giffords.

That wouldn't stop them. If she did end up being a candidate, they would do their usual kitchen sink strategy.

Reagan fully recovered from his shot, which was not as damaging as what Giffords suffered, and is criticized for his policies that were unrelated to that. For example, it didn't take Reagan five weeks (?) to recover to actually speaking a single word, as was recently notable for Giffords. Not to mention that Reagan likely was politically untouchable immediately after the attack.

I don't expect Giffords to run because she won't be up for a full campaign because she will be in recovery. Republicans who are very angry at the potential of her running on a sympathy campaign should consider that the assassin did eliminate the strongest potential Democratic candidate for the Senate seat Kyl is vacating. She'd certainly be running if she hadn't been shot. So it's doubly vicious to attack Democrats for hypotheticals when, hey, we have likely lost a very competent and talented rising star to an assassin's bullet, even if she survives. And she's a human being, too.


krazen, why would you say something like this when it's not true? Giffords is not a "Pelosi liberal." The only reason to use language like that is to whip up partisan anger against an incumbent. That has its place, but it's not what we're about here on this forum.

First, a few things.

1. Giffords has a  leftwinged voting record in a rightwinged state. Her voting record in the last congress is mostly indistinguishable from a generic Bay Area congressperson.

2. She's not an incumbent for the office we're discussing, and of course, the election is some 90 or so weeks away.


Ah, so this dubious 'politicians who are shot get a free pass theory' depends on where the target got shot?

The hypothetical here, as you put it, is whether Giffords runs. The statement made after that, about whether she would be a difficult target in this seat, is completely baseless and stupid.

Such a theory didn't work for Reagan, who actually was attacked (fairly, on the issues) by Tip Oneill and House Democrats less than 2 months later. There are probably more examples out there if you choose to look for them.

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/05/02/us/democrats-step-up-attack-on-budget-and-reagan-tactics.html

Such a theory didn't work for Ford, who found himself down 33 points in the 1976 election cycle a year after 2 different women tried to shoot him.

Such a theory didn't work for Humphrey 6/8 months after Kennedy and MLK were gunned down. And all 3 of these men were much better known than a relatively anonymous congresswoman. 2 of them were incumbents for offices they already held.

I'm not angry about her running on whatever the heck she wants to run on. Flake will beat her by 10+ points either way. Forgive me for believing that anyone advancing such a not quite 'hypothetical' or whatever you want to call it, should have a shred of proof backing it up.

I doubt a D running in Arizona has a good chance at winning in anything but a strong D environment, although Giffords was a skilled politician who won in a district as close to marginal as it gets in Arizona. But this discussion has gotten enmeshed in an unlikely hypothetical which I wasn't engaged in, and my comments shouldn't be taken in the context of a hypothetical race where Giffords runs and Republicans decline to criticize her, both parts of which I find unlikely, and which was largely raised by Phil as a straw man so he could bash the hell out of it and all those nasty Democrats. (Yes, Phil, I know px made a comment about how Republicans would have a hard time criticizing her, which was then turned into "conceding the race.")

The distinction between Giffords and everyone else you mentioned is that she was seriously injured by a bullet passing through her brain and will require likely years of therapy. It wasn't the fact that she was the target of an assassin that would make her harder to attack; it's the fact that she was severely wounded by the attack. Any comparison with a politician who was grazed and made a quick recovery is problematic. But I don't get where you're coming from, because this same distinction means that unlike Reagan and Ford, she's not going to be back to normal and carrying out a normal political campaign.

See the last sentence. I don't care much for baseless hypothetical, and certainly not baseless hypothetical conditioned on other baseless hypothetical.

If you're (this is not you specifically, but a general you) going to provide a theory, well provide your own examples to back it up, since you don't like mine for whatever reason. I personally don't see why most people would care about your minor distinction. I find it more likely that the race manifests in accordance with traditional politics and she either sinks or swims based on the record and the time at hand.

What's minor about the distinction between being fully recovered quickly and being handicapped for life?

I reacted badly because in our non-hypothetical world, the biggest victim here is Giffords for being shot through the brain. If there is a political dimension to the loss, it's to Democrats whose strongest statewide candidate is now likely sidelined and incapable of serving. So you'll understand why I react badly to Republicans styling themselves as victims here based on a weak hypothetical or "people attacked Reagan and someone shot at him." I don't react well to that whining when in the real world Democrats have to cope with losing our senate candidate to a madman's gun.

Giffords is an anonymous Congresswoman. Your average American barely knows her name, and only because of this incident. Only a small percentage of political junkies is even interested in her day to day or week to week medical prognosis, and a year from now it'll mostly be off the news like all things go. And even of those politicians who have been 'severely wounded', I don't know of any cases where this sheerly speculative theory you're advancing has been shown to be true.

Nobody made themselves out as a victim. Someone made a stupid statement, and I provided a counterexample. You don't have to agree, and that's fine, but others do.

LOL! Apparently only well-known politicians deserve our sympathy when they are incapacitated because somebody tried to assassinate them.
And some people wonder why I call him a troll.

I think you missed 2nd grade reading class.

That's more than can be said about you.

Folks, tone it down a little.

I strongly recommend locking both this thread and Phil's. Just two cents.

I second this

If we can get back on topic, Flake is in:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/0211/Flake_to_announce_Senate_run.html#

Kyl's retirement opens up a vulnerability on the GOP's part to get to 51 seats.

Not really.  I don't see this being a particularly competitive race.  The only thing is it will force the GOP to put in more money than they had planned to, but that still won't be a lot of money.

While this seat is a potential vulnerability, I don't see losing Arizona & having the GOP gain four seats overall to be very likely.  Arizona will only flip with a good year nationally or a trainwreck of a GOP candidate.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/-203364-1.html

Flake is announcing his campaign tomorrow. It will be interesting to see who replaces him in the house.

Look, folks, unlike the other thread, I am not locking this one, as it is a viable and still relevant  discussion, regardless of the little interludes we've had.

Second, my forum operates a little bit different than everywhere else.  Don't think that every personal attack or troll post is going to get infracted unless it obviously steps over the line - and even then don't expect that big of an infraction.  What I care about are continued personal attacks, continued trolling, etc. where it completely takes over the discussion.  If that happens and we reach that line, you can expect large infractions, even if the post (posts) in question appears rather minor.  In other words, you make fun of someone once, ok fine.  You make fun of someone ten times and go around to other threads to make the same remarks - I'm going to make sure you pay - hard.

Also, I am not European or whatever - so I'm not particularly interested in censoring your content unless it clearly falls outside of the subject of Congressional elections (and even then it probably gets moved).

Its deeply Republican seat, though changes are possible of course, not knowing exactly what will happen in redistricting, I think it will probably be safely Republican. Probably be a nastly primary fight amongst several legislators, mayors, sherrifs, local officials of various types. I doubt it will be someone as principled as Flake.


Its also a shame, because Flake finally got his seat on the appropriatons committee, didn't he?

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

If the Republicans end up nominating Pearce for the district it could be an interesting race. I think he would ultimately win, but it would be a lot closer than if any other Republican ran there.

I doubt Steve Pearce is going to ditch his House seat just to move to Arizona and run for a different one. :P

http://tucsoncitizen.com/in-the-aggregate/2011/02/13/russell-pearce-to-run-for-us-congress-if-jeff-flake-runs-for-kyl%E2%80%99s-us-senate-seat/

Oh. Wrong Pearce. Sorry about that. >_>

Why would Russell Pearce make it closer. If anything he would be stronger because his name recognition is higher. Now if a bunch of hispanics get put here maybe.

But its R+15, presently with a lot of mormons in it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona%27s_6th_congressional_district

Ties to neo-nazis.

How big are the ties?

Would any of that really be problematic? It's the most Republican district in Arizona, I doubt any of that would cause him any problems in a seat that favorable.

Yea, that doesn't seem like enough for this district.


Now he will probably underperform Flake on a regular basis (which is different from asking if he would do worse then someone else as any new guy would do worse then Flake) but, like Franks has done in several elections, Pearce would stuggle to get above 60% while his predecessor won by 2-1 or more (in the case of Franks, Stump's last two results were 67% and 66%, while Franks kept getting in the high 50's in five elections until he got 65% in 2010).

Looks like Sheriff Joe is running for Kyle's seat.

Oh God, say it ain't so. On the other hand if he wins the nomination, and the sheriff of Pima County gets the Dem nomination (the guy who blamed the slaughter in Tuscon on caustic right wing political discourse), at least we will get a rather entertaining circus act. But no. No!

Now might be a good time for that conversation with God ;)  Joe might be convinced to go for it. (http://www.rollcall.com/news/sheriff-joe-arpaio-senate-poll-republican-arizona-leads-203372-1.html?ET=rollcall:e9825:80104117a:&st=email&pos=epol)

()

I guess Democrats have a chance after all. :P

Will you break out the popcorn if Arpaio decides to enter the race and perhaps win, b33?  ;)

It's one of those inside-the-tent-pissing-out things vs. on-the-outside-pissing-in things. He's the most powerful guy in the state so maybe we should just be honest about it.

I have a tough time seeing a 78-year old man (will be 80 at the time of election) as the candidate.

It was a sincere question, sort of.  If he runs, in my view, he's unstoppable.  Kyl's departure has opened the door for him........so we'll see.  Eat the popcorn quick before Sheriff Joe pisses on it.  ;)

Oh, I do take him seriously.

the pink underwear thing would also be an issue in a competitive election.

That nut might run? Oh God. Y'all know how anti-illegal I am, but he's just NUTS!

I dunno man. He didn't even do that well in his last re-election bid for Sherriff. Personally I think he's the best shot Dems have.

Speaking of which, what about Harry Mitchell?

Badg, and old worn out coot like him?  Neh.  People might vote for Sheriff Joe just get him the hell out of AZ ;)

Napolitano ain't running - guess she conducted a poll.

No doubt......and really, she has enormous power now.....Senator is almost like taking a step backward.

It's primary time: Trent Franks is running. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/0311/Trent_Franks_to_announce_for_Senate_Saturday.html?showall)

If thats the case, Flake may be screwed. His glaring vulnerability is an issue at the top of GOP primary voter's minds, and Franks is on the right side of that arguement.

Giffords aides lay groundwork for Senate run:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/us/politics/31giffords.html?_r=1

I don't think they realize the scope of the challenge in recovering from an injury like hers. One point it makes is that there are Democrats ready to enter the race but don't want to enter before they find out what Giffords ends up doing.

Although he has an ACU of 96, Flake appears a lot more rational and levelheaded then Trent Franks. Franks is a fundie pervert.

And that is supposed to challenge my point about Flake being weak in a primary?

Flake just pulled a John McCain on Immigration. (http://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/march-24-2011/ariz-voters-persuade-flake-running-senate-turn-against-amnesty-least-no)

Turns out Franks was just kidding; he's not running after all. (http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/04/franks-not-runn.php) This is not a stupid April Fool's Day joke:

So who's going to carry the tea-party mantle in AZ.  Paging J.D....

Flake does have appeal to the Tea Party. The problem is that immigration issue.

Based on what I heard about Giffords' condition on NPR this morning, there's no chance they should be considering a Senate run for her. She has made great progress but her speaking ability is severely hindered. Her brain works but she can't retrieve words easily. I hope and believe she will recover a great deal in the future and is working toward that, but a major statewide race is not realistic.

If Giffords is incapacitated and Napolitano doesn't want to run, then Ed Pastor is honestly the only decent candidate. He is the most sr member of the delegation and has survived wave elections like 1994 and 2010. He could also help increase Hispanic turnout.

Terry Goddard or Felecia Rotellini (the AG nominee who did the best of all the statewide Dems last year) would be decent candidates. I don't really see how Pastor would be a great candidate; he's a liberal Hispanic Democrat in a safe district.

She honestly wasn't that great of a candidate to begin with. Democrats would be better off giving Goddard a second chance.

Yeah, Liberal Hispanics don't play particularly well in Arizona.  Any democrat who wants to be competitive statewide has to pretend to no oppose to S.B. 1070 (or whatever one the immigration bill was), as its still widely popular there, and I'm pretty sure he staunchly opposes it.

he's still a better candidate than Raul Grijalva

Despite his loss Goddard's favorables are still quite high. He probably is the best shot for the Democrats here in AZ.


"I will never support and I will never sign a bill like sb1070" he did say this at a party gathering in flagstaff last fall.  How to handle the immigration issue in AZ is quite a problem is of course a problem for the Democratic party. Obviously they can not support it but they have tried to sidestep the issue and instead focus on economics, education, healthcare and whatnot.