11 December 2011

Rank 34 / 18: Arizona

Arizona





Results of the last 6 presidential cycles:

Year
Rank
Winning %
% Margin
Part. Value
Swing“
National Swing
Trend
2008
34 18
53.39%
+8.48%
+15.74%
-1.99%
+9.72%
+7.73
2004
30 22
54.87%
+10.47%
+8.01%
+4.19%
+2.98%
+1.21
2000
29 33
50.95%
+6.28%
+6.80%
+8.50%
+8.00%
+0.50
1996
30 22
46.52%
+2.22%
-6.30%
+4.17%
+2.96%
+1.21
1992
36 16
38.47%
+1.95%
+7.51%
-19.26%
-13.29%
+5.97
1988
44 / 08
59.95%
+21.21
+13.48%
-12.67
-10.49%
+2.18

Blue shading = DEM pick-up over the cycle before.

Red shading = GOP pick-up over the cycle before.
Arizona margin average, 1988-2008 (6 cycles): GOP +7.70%

AZ county-by-county EXCEL spreadsheet
(raw totals, margins, percentages, percentages margins, shifts, county growth by %)

Trend: DEMOCRATIC

AZ is trending Democratic in spite of the fact that John McCain retained his home state in 2008. The positive TREND value of +7.73 for the Democratic Party is the largest TREND value in 6 cycles, and 4 of the six TREND values have been toward the Democratic Party. We also have a real statistical anomaly here: for the last two incumbent presidents, the TREND was exactly +1.21 in the direction of their party: Bush, Jr. +1.21 in 2004 over 2000, Clinton +1.21 in 1996 over 1992. Up to this point in time I have not seen such a perfect matchup in TREND values between two consecutive incumbents anywhere else in the Union. It also means quite literally that their TREND values cancelled each other out. Notice also that the National Swing is almost identical between the two as well (+2.98% for Bush Jr., +2.96% for Clinton), and with such a low TREND value, this means that Arizona „hugged“ close to the national trend for 4 of 6 cycles, 3 of them in a row. This makes the +7.73 TREND value from 2008 really stand out.

Remember, a trend designation is not a prediction, it is a value that classifies the standing of the state partisan shift over the national partisan shift - did that state help a wave for a party, or did it stand in the way of a wave? That is the idea of a TREND value.

The Partisan Rankings over 44 years

Thepartisan rankings for Ranking 34 (Arizona) from 2008 backwards in history to 1964 in Table-format (highlighted in yellow):
Rank2008Margin '082004Margin - 042000Margin '001996Margin '961992Margin '921988Margin '88Rank1984Margin '841980Margin '801976Margin '761972Margin '721968Margin '681964Margin '64
29 - 23NC0,33%AR9,76%AZ6,28%TN2,41%MT2,51%TX12,60%29 - 23AL22,26%WA12,34%VA1,34%NV27,36%KY6,14%MT18,38%
30 - 22MO0,13%AZ10,47%WV6,32%AZ2,22%NJ2,37%ND13,06%30 - 22MT22,30%IA12,70%SD1,48%CO28,01%NV8,16%CA18,32%
31 - 21MT2,38%NC12,43%LA7,68%NV1,02%OH1,83%KS13,23%31 - 21LA22,60%VA12,72%CA1,78%KY28,60%NH8,18%NV17,16%
32 - 20GA5,20%WV12,86%VA8,04%KY0,96%NH1,22%NJ13,64%32 - 20IN23,99%NJ13,42%IL1,97%NH29,12%SC5,79%ND16,09%
33 - 19SD8,41%TN14,27%CO8,36%GA1,17%GA0,59%AR14,18%33 - 19NC24,00%TX13,86%NJ2,16%AZ31,26%MT9,01%WY13,12%
34 - 18AZ8,48%LA14,51%GA11,69%CO1,37%NC0,79%NC16,26%34 - 18MS24,39%CA16,78%NM2,47%IN32,77%CO9,14%AR12,66%
35 - 17ND8,65%GA16,60%NC12,83%VA1,96%FL1,89%TN16,34%35 - 17VA25,19%FL17,02%WA3,88%TX32,96%VT9,22%IN12,42%
36 - 16SC8,98%SC17,08%AL14,88%MT2,88%AZ1,95%OK16,65%36 - 16SD26,47%NM18,18%NV4,36%LA36,97%FL9,60%NC12,30%
37 - 15TX11,76%MS19,69%KY15,13%SD3,46%TX3,48%AL19,30%37 - 15TX27,50%IN18,35%CT5,17%VA37,72%TN3,83%OK11,49%
38 - 14WV13,09%KY19,86%IN15,63%NC4,69%SD3,52%IN20,16%38 - 14SC27,99%CO24,00%MI5,39%TN37,95%NC8,25%SD11,22%
39 - 13MS13,17%MT20,50%SC15,93%TX4,93%VA4,37%GA20,25%39 - 13CO28,32%MT24,39%ND5,85%AR38,11%VA10,87%TN11,01%
40 - 12KS14,92%IN20,68%MS16,91%MS5,13%KS5,14%VA20,50%40 - 12FL30,66%KS24,56%MT7,44%KS38,15%SD11,31%UT9,73%
41 - 11NE14,93%SD21,47%KS20,80%IN5,58%WY5,60%MS20,82%41 - 11ND31,04%OK25,53%KS7,55%ID38,20%NM12,10%KS9,03%
42 - 10TN15,06%TX22,86%TX21,32%SC6,04%IN6,11%NV20,94%42 - 10KS33,67%AK27,94%IN7,62%WY38,54%IA12,19%VA7,36%
43 - 9KY16,22%KS25,38%OK21,88%ND6,81%AL6,77%NE20,96%43 - 9NV33,88%SD28,83%VT11,20%NC40,58%IN12,30%NE5,21%
44 - 8LA18,63%AK25,55%SD22,73%AL6,97%SC8,15%AZ21,21%44 - 8AZ33,88%NH29,39%NH11,28%NE41,00%OK15,70%FL2,30%
45 - 7AR19,85%AL25,62%MT25,07%OK7,81%OK8,62%FL22,36%45 - 7AK36,79%AZ32,36%CO11,47%UT41,25%ND17,71%ID1,83%
46 - 6AK21,54%ND27,36%ND27,60%WY12,98%MS8,92%WY22,52%46 - 6NH37,71%WY34,67%AZ16,57%SC42,66%UT19,42%AZ0,99%
47 - 5AL21,58%OK31,14%NE28,99%AK17,53%AK9,17%AK23,32%47 - 5OK37,94%NV35,64%WY19,49%FL44,12%AZ19,76%GA8,25%





Links


Helpful Info Links Helpful Election Links
AZ VR link (1998-present)
AZ population 2008: 6,500,180 AZ Elections (1974-present)
AZ Population Density: 22.1 persons per sq. Km.
---
Electoral Vote Density: 650,018 persons per EV. ---


AZ ELECTORAL DEVELOPMENT (electors through history) : 3 (1912-1940), 4 (1944-1960), 5 (1964-1968), 6 (1972-1980), 7 (1984-1988), 8 (1992-2000), 10 (2004-2008), 11 EV (2012 - )

Summary


Arizona is the 18th most conservative state and the 34th most liberal state, with a Republican winning margin of +8.48% and having voted 15.74% more Republican than the national margin in 2008.

Arizona was the 22th most conservative state and the 30th most liberal state in 2004, with a Republican winning margin of +10.47% and having voted 8.01% more Republican than the national margin in that year.

Arizona was the 33rd most conservative state and the 29th most liberal state in 2000, with a Republican winning margin of +6.28% and having voted 6.80% more Republican than the national margin in that year.


From 1912 - 2008, Arizona went for the GOP 
17 times, for the DEMS 8 times. (2+:1 ratio)

Since 1948, Arizona went for the GOP 
14 times, for the DEMS 2 times. (2:1 ratio)

Since 1960, Arizona went for the GOP 
12 times, for the DEMS 1 time. (12:1 ratio)

Arizona was admitted to the Union early in 1912 and already participated in the General Election and in the Electoral College in November of that year. It is the 48th state in the Union and the last contiguous (continental) state. Most likely, the name „Arizona“ comes from the spanish 
'Arizonac' (small spring), but others think it comes from the spanish phrase '├írida zona' (arid zone).


From 1912 through 1956, Arizona was a bellwether state, having selected the winner for 12 cycles in a row, or 44 years. But during this time, w e see sharp change in the TREND values. Because the TRENDS become so strong and there is a lot to say about incumbent Presidents and AZ, I have increased the incumbent table to include all cycles from 1912-2008:




President - AZ Nat'l winner (year 2)
President - AZ State winner (year 2)
Year 1 / Margin
Year 2 / Margin
State Shift
National Shift:
State minus Nat'l (TREND)
Wilson
Wilson
1912 / +14.23
1916 / +21.80
+7.57
-11.32
+18.89
Harding
Harding
1916 / +21.80
1920 / +11.22
+33.02
+29.29
+3.73
Coolidge
Coolidge
1920 / +11.22
1924 / +5.79
-5.43
-0.95
+4.48
Hoover
Hoover
1924 / +5.79
1928 / +15.34
+9.87
-7.80
+17.67
FDR
FDR
1928 / +15.34
1932 / +36.50
+51.84
+35.18
+16.66
FDR
FDR
1932 / +36.50
1936 / +42.92
+6.42
+6.49
+0.07
FDR
FDR
1936 / +42.92
1940 / +27.48
-15.44
-14.30
+1.13
FDR
FDR
1940 / +27.48
1944 / +17.90
-9.58
-2.46
+7.12
Truman
Truman
1944 / +17.90
1948 / +9.97
-7.93
-3.01
+4.97
Eisenhower
Eisenhower
1948 / +9.97
1952 / +16.70
+26.67
+15.33
+11.14
Eisenhower
Eisenhower
1952 / +16.70
1956 / +22.09
+5.39
+4.55
+0.84
Kennedy
Nixon
1956 / +22.09
1960 / +11.16
-10.93
-15.56
+4.63
Johnson
Goldwater
1960 / +11.16
1964 / +0.99
-10.67
-22.42
+11.75
Nixon
Nixon
1964 / +0.99
1968 / +19.76
+18.77
+23.28
+4.51
Nixon
Nixon
1968 / +19.76
1972 / +31.26
+11.50
+22.98
+11.48
Carter
Ford
1972 / +31.26
1976 / +16.57
-14.69
-25.21
+10.52
Reagan
Reagan
1976 / +16.57
1980 / +32.57
-15.99
-11.80
+4.19
Reagan
Reagan
1980 / +32.57
1984 / +33.88
+1.31
+8.48
+7.17
Bush 41
Bush 41
1984 / +33.88
1988 / +21.21
-12.67
-10.49
+2.18
Clinton
Bush 41
1988 / +21.21
1992 / +1.95
-19.26
-13.29
+5.97
Clinton
Clinton
1992 / +1.95
1996 / +2.22
+4.17
+2.96
+1.21
Bush 43
Bush 43
1996 / +2.22
2000 / +6.28
+8.50
+8.00
+0.50
Bush 43
Bush 43
2000 / +6.28
2004 / +10.47
+4.19
+2.98
+1.21
Obama
McCain
2008 / +8.48
2012 / ???
???
???
???

Red shading = GOP pick-up
Blue shading = DEM pick-up
Bold = missed the national winner


What we are witnessing is a Democratic TREND history in the first 5th of Arizona's electoral history and a Democratic trend in the last 3rd of its history, with a large swath of Republican trends in between, for 8 consecutive cycles from 1936 through 1964.


First, the trends for 2-term incumbents in their FIRST election:

----------------------------------------------------
Wilson,1912, no comparison possible.
FDR,1932, +16.66
Eisenhower,1952, +11.14
Nixon,1968, +4.51
Reagan,1980, +4.19
Clinton,1992, +5.97
Bush 43, 2000 , +0.50
---------------------------------------------------

Notice anything about that list? The values have generally gotten smaller for each 2-termer elected to his first term, from almost +17 in 1932 for FDR, to around +11 for Eisenhower to +4-6 for Nixon, Reagan and Clinton, down to +0.5 for Bush 43. It is also interesting to note that the two 1st-term elections that were 3-man races, 1968 and 1992, brought a slight elevation of numbers over the last „1st“ term, and even more interesting, both times for the Democratic Party. One thing is for sure: the wild, wild swings for a 2-termer in his first election are now a thing of the past in AZ.


How about those same 2-termers in their SECOND election?

----------------------------------------------------
Wilson,1916, +18.89
FDR,1936, +0.07
Eisenhower,1956, +0.84
Nixon,1972, +11.48
Reagan,1984, +7.17
Clinton,1996, +1.21
Bush 43, 2004 , +1.21
---------------------------------------------------
I already mentioned the major statistical anomaly of two back-to-back 2-term presidents experiencing exactly the same TREND value in theirre-election in AZ (both Bush 43 and Clinton: +1.21).To date, I have seen this statistic in no other state.

What do we see here? We see stability in AZ for incumbents that the state really liked.Such small values like +0.07 up to +1.21 means that the state really "hugged" close to the national partisan shift, was neither a big helper nor a big drag on events at hand. The statistic for Nixon 1972 is again proof of how whacky the numbers can look when you compare two races that are unevenly yoked with each other: in 1968, it was a close 3-man race. In 1972, it was a landslide in a 2-man race. By contrast, both of Bill Clinton's elections were 3-man races, and so the two cycles were evenly yoked with each other.



The TREND history tells us two important things: first, it tells us that  the TREND more toward the Democratic Party began earlier than most realize, only, the massive landslides of the 1970s and 1980s obscure this statistical fact. Remember, a TREND is not a prediction. Second, it tells us that with ever decreasing TREND values for the state, up through Bush 2004, that the tendency of this state has been to „hold still“, essentially. It will take another quantum leap in votershift in AZ to produce a Democratic pick-up for President Obama in 2012, the main factor/main unknown being the level of hispanic voter participation in 2012. I will write more about this in the FACIT to this report.

Important details about AZ:

Republicans:


-Every 2-term Republican who has ever won the Presidency since 1912 has won AZ both times.


-Every 1-term elected Republian has won AZ the first time around.


-The only non-elected Rebublican President who lost his election bid still held AZ: Ford, 1976


-Only one 1-term Republican who lost his re-election bid also lost AZ: Hoover, 1932.



Democrats:


-Every Democratic President in the first half of the 20th century won AZ, and every time: Wilson, FDR and Truman.


-Only one Democratic President has won AZ in the second half of the 20th century: Clinton (1996), but interestingly enough, it was a Democratic pick-up. And there is more: Clinton ran in a 3-way race both times, both times against a GOP candidate (Bush 41, Dole) and Ross Perot. Perot took a huge portion of the vote in 1992 (23.79%, almost a quarter of the electorate and the best independent showing in AZ since 1912), but Clinton still lost to Bush 41 in that year. Four years later, in 1996, with a drastically reduced vote for Perot (only 7.98%,but over Perot's national average), Clinton picked-up the Grand Canyon State. Look at his popular vote percentages:


Clinton,1992: 36.42%
Clinton,1996: 46.42%


Clinton gained exactly 10.00% from 1992 to 1996, the largest percentual gain for a Democrat in AZ since 1932 over 1928 and the highest percentagefor a Democrat since LBJ 1964. Obama's 44.91% in AZ in 2008 is under Bill Clinton's 1996 percentage, but well over his 1992 (1st Term) percentage.

Independents:


-No independent candidate has ever won in AZ, but Teddy Roosevelt did take 2nd place in AZ in its very first election in 1912, with 29.29% of the PV, which is also the independent record-setter in AZ's 100 year electoral history. Strom Thurmond (States Rights Party) was not on the ballot in AZ in 1948. AZ showed only passing interest in George Wallace (American Independent Party), giving him 9.56% of the vote in 1968 and was his 25th strongest state, or right in the middle of the herd, so to speak. AZ showed more interest in third party candidates in 1980, giving John Anderson (American Independent Party) 8.81%of the vote, over Anderson's national average, and also 2.15% to Libertarian candidate Edward Clark, for a total of 11.15% independent vote in 1980, miscellaneous candidates included. In 1992, the state was very attracted to Ross Perot (Reform Party) and gave him as already mentioned 23.79% of the PVArizona was Perot's 11th strongest state in 1992. The Libertarian ticket vote in AZ has been between 0.3-1.0% of the vote for a number of cycles now, but plays a disproportionate role in the GOP nomination primary process.

Based on its voting record, AZ is not bellwether state, having missed the Electoral College winner in 5 of the last 23 cycles and having missed the PV winner in 6 of the last 23 cycles, and more recently, it has missed the Electoral College winner 5 times since1960 and the PV winner 6 times since 1960. 


Can AZ become a battleground in 2012?


There were 24 polls of AZ from December 2007 to Election 2008. McCain won 23 of those polls, but the ever narrowing margins were cause for concern within the GOP. In the middle of October, McCain dropped from double-digit margins to single-digit margins. Here is the polling for AZ in 2008:


AZ -2008
Date
Obama
McCain
Other
Und.
Margin
FINAL AVG:
11/03
44.86
49.29
1.29
4.29
+4.43
Results:
11/04
44.91
53.39
1.69
---
+8.48
Diff:
 
-0.05
-4.10
-0.40
---
+4.05
Poll wins (24):
 
1
23
 
 
 
10/31
46
50
1
3
4
10/31
47
48
3
2
1
10/30
44
48
2
6
4
10/30
46
53
--
1
7
10/28
44
46
--
12
2
10/27
41
49
2
6
8
10/27
46
51
1
2
5
10/26
41.5
43.5
--
10
2
10/26
44
48
5
3
4
09/30
38
59
1
2
21
09/17
39
56
1
3
17
08/24
41
47
--
12
6
08/20
30
40
2
28
10
08/04
38
57
2
3
19
08/04
40
52
--
8
12
07/08
42.3
39.2
13.3*
5.2
3.1
06/29
40
49
6
5
9
06/24
28
38
--
34
10
05/22
39
50


11
05/01
38
47


9
04/21
37
57
 
 
20
04/11
33
55


22
03/06
39
51


12
12/04
33
55


22



 *Barr 7 / Nader 1.6 / someone else 5 


The polling average was off by 4 points, so the pollsters just did not quite get the pulse of AZ. That being said, even John McCain, former Presidential candidate and current Senator/favorite son from AZ, has said quite openly that he thinks that AZ is firmly „in play for 2012“, based mostly on the 'Hispanics Rising“ factor and AZ's controversial SB-1070 anti-immigration law.


More about this in the Facit.




AZ Superlatives
YEAR
Candidate
Winning %
Notes
GOP
1984
Reagan
66.42%
+33.38% Margin 
DEM
1936
Roosevelt, FD
69.85%
+42.92% Margin 
IND
1912
Roosevelt, T.
29.29%
2nd place over Taft (R). 
---------------------
 
 
Winning Margin %
 
All-time “squeaker”
1964
1964
+0.99%
Only state outside the South to go for Goldwater. 
 

In Arizona, the Governor, Lt. Governor, both Senators and 5 of 8 US Representatives are Republicans. The other 3 US Representatives (including Gabrielle Giffords, who survived an assassination attempt in January 2011) are Democrats. In the Arizona Legislature, the Republicans have a hypermajority in both Houses.

Facit: in 2007, I wrote of AZ„AZ is normally a very red state with a very red history, but the DEMS are hoping to turn AZ in the next cycles. Expect a lot of money to flow into AZ for the GE. For now, this state is considered a battleground, but is the least likely to flip from the GOP to the DEMS. When enough poll data has come in to evaluate, then the state will be moved into the one or the other column. I suspect it will stay red.„

Facit 2011: that „Facit“ from 2007 was pretty prophetic. The DEMS really are working hard to flip AZ as soon as possible, for they know that the demographic shift in this state is working toward their advantage. As more of the US population shifts from the Rust/Snowbelt to the Sunbelt, this means that more large metropoles will be built and inhabited in the Sunbelt. The wave of hispanic immigration to AZ, however, has been less than to either neighboring NM or CO. That being said, it is the hispanic participation in elections that has been disproportionately low in comparison to their percentage of the population at large, mostly because of many young hispanics who in 2004 or 2008 were not yet of voting age. 2012, in my opinion, will be the year of hispanic awakening, especially in the SW corner of the Union. 


With the power and clout of the incumbency, plus the findraising advantage that comes with it, it looks to be a sure thing that President Obama will make a play for AZ, but it will be hard work, to put it mildy. 


In 2008, there were no county pick-ups for either side in AZ. The county political map looked just like it did in 2004. There was only a +0.65%margin shift toward the Democratic Party in „blue“ counties and a -1.15% shift away from the Republican Party in „red“ counties. 


Not only that, there is a huge disparity in the growth rate of „red“ vs. „blue“ counties in AZ: the „red“ counties all put together, had an 18.93% growth rate over 2004. The „blue“ counties, taken together, had a growth rate of only 7.05%. One „blue“ county, Pinal County, had a phenomenal 63.10% growth rate, but Pinal is a small county; it accounted for only 4.57% of the total vote in AZ in 2008. The disparity in growth rate for the GOP counties would have of course been good news for then Senator Obama had he made major gains in those counties, but a 1.15% shift is not much in a solid GOP state,  which means that a good deal of the new voters in those „red“ counties were Republican voters and they voted Republican.


The lynchpin to AZ is Maricopa County, which, like Clark County in NV, has the lion's share of the statewide PV. 59.53% of all of the state's votes came from Maricopa County (Phoenix and Mesa). Any Democrat who wants to win AZ needs at least a 52-48 win in Maricopa County and a good 55-45 win in Pima County.Otherwise, AZ is a „no-go“ for a Democrat. John McCain won Maricopa County by +10.52%. Obama would need to reverse that statistic and to get to 52-48,  would need a +14%partisan shift in this county. There are just not enough votes in the sparsely populated but heavily Democratic counties to counterbalance GOP dominance in Maricopa County. If we see President Obama erecting major Democratic Headquarters in Phoenix, Tuscon and Mesa and making a number of visits to AZ, then we will know that he is making a real play for the state.


But just as I suspected that the state would stay „red“ in 2008,regardless of circumstances, I will say that the cards are still in the GOP's favor in 2012, and then, based on the eventual GOP candidate, we can then make a better prognosis. But either way, it is to the President's advantage to make the GOP have to sink funds, time and energy into AZ in order for the GOP to hold it. Every battleground that Obama opens means one less battleground that the GOP can try to open, for President Obama will have the clear fundraising advantage in 2012.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Constructive comments and critique are always welcome. Please keep it polite and respectful.