The last time someone named “Clinton” was on a presidential ballot in Arizona, they won 47% of the vote and carried the state. Of course, Bill Clinton was the incumbent president and he had a little help from H. Ross Perot who siphoned off some of the proto-Tea Party vote. But, still, he won.
Yet, 47% was a high water mark. In the four elections since 1996, the Democrat has received either 44% or 45% every single time. That’s interesting because it’s been so stable despite major differences in the political climate in each election and despite Arizona’s well-known explosive growth of the Latino population.
Next year, Sen. John McCain will seek reelection and he might expect that he’ll have a little help from the Republican at the top of the ticket. The historical record largely supports that assumption, but there are two factors that should concern him. The first I have already mentioned. Bill Clinton won the state in 1996, so it’s conceivable that House Clinton could cobble together another winning coalition. The second is that eventually the changing demographics of the state are going to show up and cause a shift. The Democrats won’t be trapped in the 45% range forever, and 2016 could be the year this becomes evident.
Republicans in the state seem highly confident that McCain will cruise to reelection despite getting a strong challenger in Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick. What’s notable about what they’re saying is that they think they can tie Obamacare around Fitzpatrick’s neck and sink her campaign. They tried this last year in a great year for Republicans and they failed to knock her off, but they think a statewide race will be different.
The thing is, even former Governor Jan Brewer realized that the Medicaid expansion in the Affordable Care Act was a good deal for Arizona and she used it to cover about 300,000 Arizonans. It turns out, all the hyperventilating about the law was just hot air. And if you ask people about it, they support it right up until the moment you call it Obamacare.
The Medicaid expansion was broadly supported in polls conducted by Brewer’s office as she sought to implement the program. But whenever “ObamaCare” was included in one of the questions, “support fell off the table,” [GOP strategist Matthew] Benson said.
“That term and that issue are going to be a huge problem” for Kirkpatrick, he added.
You know? I’m thinking, not so much.
The assumption here is that statewide President Obama is unpopular and that the voters there will be voting for the Republican nominee in strong numbers. But the election should be relatively close regardless of who wins, and there’s at least a possibility that the Democrat will carry the state.
If John McCain is going to rely much on Kirkpatrick’s vote for Obamacare, he’s setting himself up for a big defeat.
Let it be so.
Isn’t it an open question whether John McCain will be able to make it through the Republican primary this time around? I recently read somewhere that he’s hated by the Republican base in Arizona (even more so than before); this just might be the time that they finally kick him out, so it would end up being the Democrat against a loon.
Being Arizona, I’d still bet on the loon in the general election, but it would certainly seem possible for the Democrat to win.
You mean, ” the Democrat against a bigger loon”.
Yes. The Democrat against an “eating his own feces” loon rather than a “blood thirsty prima-donna” loon.
Fitzpatrick doesn’t have to say the word “Obamacare.” She can say, I think the Medicaid expansion was good for Arizona, I think the subsidies so people can buy health insurance are good for Arizona, I think the opportunity to shop on the exchange gives people choices and helps them pick the plan they want, I think people should be responsible and buy insurance now that they can afford it so they don’t have to go on the public dole if they become seriously ill or injured . . . Let’s fix the problems with the Affordable Care Act.
Tah dah.
OT: this went through an entire food chain of executives and nobody said..
THIS IS A BAD PHUCKING IDEA.
……………………………………….
The Hunger Games: New CBS reality show exploits poor families by making them grovel for $101,000
30 MAY 2015 AT 09:59 ET
As if to prove there are new depths to be plumbed in the world of reality television (because who knew?), CBS just debuted The Briefcase, a show which takes poverty porn, class anxiety, emotional manipulation and exploitation and packages them all neatly into a pretty despicable hour of primetime television. Kicking off each episode with the question, “What would you do with $101,000?” the show then deep-dives into a competition that asks two unwitting, financially strapped families to choose between two no-win options: being financially solvent yet appearing heartless and greedy, or drowning in debt yet having audiences recognize them as selfless and giving.
It’s hard to imagine a network executive didn’t get the idea for this show from the “Button, Button” episode of the Twilight Zone. The Briefcase focuses on two “middle-class” families–a questionable but highly American take on the phrase, since both are debt saddled, with one primary breadwinner, and essentially living on the edge of financial ruin. Both are told they’ll be participating in a documentary about money. Instead, a producer from the show unexpectedly comes to their house with a suitcase full of cold, hard cash: $101,000 to be exact. That could be a life-changing – and in the case of families so near the financial cliff, nearly life-saving – sum of money. But this being reality TV, instead of just giving them the cash, there’s a major catch.
Both families are informed that somewhere out there, there’s another family “who’s also in need,” and are given a choice: “You can keep all of the money, you can keep some of the money, or you can give it all away.” Neither family knows that the other family also has a suitcase full of cash and is debating how much, if any, they’ll share. And since both families were originally told they were merely going to be the subjects of a documentary, neither of them really signed up for this exercise in televised torture.
What follows, predictably, is a gut-wrenching look at the two families being guilted this way and that over whether to choose charity or financial survival. In the first episode, the Bergins of North Carolina, a family of five–mom, Kim; dad, Drew; and three teenage daughters–are trying to make do on Kim’s salary of $15.50 an hour, since Drew’s ice cream truck business is failing. And in New Hampshire, the Bronsons–featuring dad Dave, an Iraq war vet who lost his leg in combat–are scraping by on the earnings of mom Cara, who works the night shift as a nurse and is pregnant with their second child.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/the-hunger-games-new-cbs-reality-show-exploits-poor-families-by-maki
ng-them-grovel-for-101000/
that’s just unbelievably creepy.
Everything you’ve said about it, yes, but it also shows imo that Suzanne Collins, author of Hunger Games, was onto alot more than ppl generally acknowledge;
OT:I guess the moral of this story is that it’s hard out there for a Libertarian Ho
………………………..
… While his rivals cultivate wealthy backers who will pump millions of dollars into their candidacies, Paul has struggled to find a similar lifeline. It’s led to considerable frustration in his campaign, which, amid rising concerns that it will not be able to compete financially, finds itself leaning heavily on the network of small donors who powered his father’s insurgent White House bids.
It hasn’t been for lack of trying. In recent months, Paul has sought to woo a string of powerful Republican megadonors — from Silicon Valley executives to a Kentucky coal mogul to the billionaire Koch brothers — who, it was believed, would be philosophically aligned with his free-market views. In each case, he met disappointment.
At the top of the list was Peter Thiel, the eccentric Northern California venture capitalist who funneled $2.6 million to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign. But Thiel is being far less generous this time around, leaving Paul’s crestfallen advisers with the distinct impression that he won’t give them a dime. They’ve been left guessing as to why. One speculated that Thiel, who didn’t respond to requests for comment, was unhappy with the rollout of Paul’s policy platform. Another surmised he was skeptical of Paul’s 2016 prospects or that he’d become tired of political giving and would sit out 2016 entirely.
There was Sean Parker, the flashy Napster co-founder who was portrayed by Justin Timberlake in the hit 2010 movie “The Social Network.” But Parker, who has known Paul for several years and has met with him to discuss 2016, isn’t expected to endorse Paul — or any Republican candidate, for that matter. Those familiar with Parker’s thinking say he’s most likely to provide financial support to Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
There was Larry Ellison, the former Oracle CEO known for his penchant for megayachts. In October, Ellison hosted a Silicon Valley fundraiser for Senate Republicans that Paul attended — an event that led to speculation that Ellison, whose net worth is said to hover around $54 billion, would get behind the Kentucky Republican. But he’s instead thrown his support to Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and will host a fundraiser for him on June 9.
“It was love at first sight,” one person close to Ellison said of his feelings toward Rubio.
Not even two months into his presidential campaign, Paul is scrambling to compete with opponents who have established fundraising vehicles underwritten by well-heeled contributors. Jeb Bush has tapped his family’s formidable network of donors, a wide-ranging list of names that includes real estate developer Mel Sembler and Anheuser-Busch distributor John Nau, to fund a super PAC that’s expected to raise an historic $100 million by the end of this month. Rubio has won the backing of Norman Braman, a Miami auto dealer who’s expected to pour anywhere from $10 million to $25 million into his bid. Ted Cruz is expected to receive around $30 million of support from Robert Mercer, a New York hedge fund manager.
Even Rick Santorum, who barely registers in polls, is expected to have a deep-pocketed benefactor: Foster Friess, a businessman who helped keep Santorum’s 2012 presidential bid alive, has said he will donate again…
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/rand-pauls-money-problem-118397.html#ixzz3bXNBDlF2
Republicans in the state seem highly confident that McCain will cruise to reelection despite getting a strong challenger in Democratic Rep. Ann Fitzpatrick.
Who says she is strong? Because she is a Blue Dog?
AZ is the poster child for the GOP racial polarization strategy. Xenocrypt did an awesome job explaining why, but the GOP has reason for optimism.
It is interesting to compare New Mexico (which is far less polarized). This has to do with the very different history of the two states, but right now we are not close to turning AZ blue.
Xenocrypt’s analysis (warning, very data intensive) here.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/13/1178469/-Why-Arizona-Didn-t-Trend-Blue-in-2012-Presidential
-Results-by-Legislative-District
Everything you’ve said about it, yes, but it also shows imo that Suzanne Collins, author of Hunger Games, was onto alot more than ppl generally acknowledge;
Cleveland Browns
____________________