Skip to main content

View Diary: Why Arizona Didn't Trend Blue in 2012: Presidential Results by Legislative District. (32 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I have questions.... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ArkDem14, KingofSpades, DaNang65, slothlax

    Since the Dems gained four seats (swing of 8) in both Arizona houses and elected 5 Dems vs 4 Repubs to the U.S. House, I am a little confused as to why you have painted this past election as a "bad" omen for Arizona Democrats.

    This is the first election in which the district maps were not drawn by a Republican-controlled legislative body, but rather by an independent redistricting committee by virtue of an initiative process voted on by the citizens of Arizona. All new district boundaries, many new candidates with new staffs, a major reshuffle of voter lists.

    There was a strong GOTV effort (aimed particularly at Hispanics) by Dems in the state.

    Due possibly to confusion on the part of first-time voters, a significant number of provisional votes (presumably Democratic votes from what I have seen reported) were disallowed, particularly in heavily Hispanic areas of Maricopa County.

    GOTV efforts don't succeed in a vacuum - these efforts have to be sustained over multiple election cycles, they have to target the correct demographics, new coming-of-age voters have to be continuously recruited, and there have to be good candidates.

    So to my question: other than your statistics, how is a net gain of eight seats in each Arizona House, and electing a Democratic majority of U.S. Representatives, and a respectable showing for a Democratic Senator who until this past year was an independent, how does that all stack up to a such a downbeat outlook for Arizona?

    Do you really believe that a statistical study such as this is an accurate predictor of the future as opposed to simply a rehashing of past results?

    Finally, I'm not casting aspersions on anyone, but as you briefly allude to, is it really appropriate, given the intensely racially prejudiced nature of Obama's opposition, to compare his election results to any other election results???

    There are only two types of Republicans: 1) racists; and 2) people who are willing to be associated with racists.

    by hillbrook green on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:51:07 PM PST

    •  Bad at the Presidential level. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      melfunction, GoUBears, slothlax, lordpet8

      Dems picked up seats in the legislature because they had more seats to pick up under the new map.  Aside from McGuire and Shelley, no Democrats really won legislative seats in swing or hostile territory (unless you count LD-10)--with those exceptions, they just won the Kerry seats.  (By the way I think there was an AIRC last time too, but I also think Dems did a bit better with swing seats after 2006/2008, although I've made mistakes in my diary on that and should check again.)

      Carmona did well, but some of that could be the strong Libertarian (and the same applies to several other races).  But my main interest here is the Presidential result.  I have no idea if the racial polarization was just about Obama or a sign of things to come, but I wanted to try to understand or "rehash" this election.

      27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

      by Xenocrypt on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:15:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The second time (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GoUBears, lordpet8

      The AIRC redistricted in '01 as well.  Although those maps were more GOP-friendly than these.

      Age 23. Voting in NJ-03. Lived most of life in NJ-01. Had Rush Holt represent me during my undergrad years and am now represented by Frank Pallone in my grad school.

      by KingofSpades on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 04:53:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site