Republican sweep in District 20 has subtext
Arizona's Legislative District 20 returned three Republicans to the State Legislature in this month's elections, but gerrymandering and the Dem district leadership's failure to field any House candidates are major factors in the Republican advantage.
From Newszap.com:
First of all, let me say that the day one sees anything akin to humility in service from John Huppenthal is one for the history books. This is a man who has literally taken credit for just about everything, from Intel's expansion to the Desert Breeze Park to the housing bubble. And for him to suggest that his narrow victory is anything akin to a mandate is simply risible.
All that's missing here is for Huppenthal to say something about inventing the Internets and "earning and spending political capital."
Seriously. When an incumbent Republican wins an election by five percent of the vote in a district with a 12-14% Republican registered voter advantage, what the voters are saying about the incumbent really isn't very flattering. Or, if you prefer, it says extraordinarily good things about his opponent, Donna Gratehouse.
It means that a huge number of Huppenthal's own party rejected him and voted for the Democratic challenger. And what's more, a majority of Independents also favored Gratehouse over Huppenthal. If the District weren't gerrymandered such that Huppenthal had a massive voter registration advantage, we'd be welcoming Senator Gratehouse to the AZ Senate.
So congratulations on your victory, Senator Huppenthal. But the elephant in the room is that a shift of only 1000 voters in this race would have meant you would have lost and Gratehouse would have won. When so many in your own party cross the line to vote for a newcomer, it's time to wake up and smell the coffee: even a significant number of your own party want you out of office and want Donna Gratehouse to replace you.
Again, from the article:
Sadly, the Democratic leadership fielded NO candidates in the House race for LD20. This was a HUGE missed opportunity, given the dynamics of this election cycle (see my previous post on the House race in LD21). Hopefully, 2008 will not see a repeat of them ceding the battlefield without a fight on the House side.
From Newszap.com:
In a seemingly Democratic-dominated national race, Chandler has spoken in favor of Republican House and Senate candidates.
Nearly 38,000 voters participated in the District 20 state senator race, where Republican Sen. John Huppenthal (R-Chandler) will remain in office after he defeated competitor Donna Gratehouse by nearly 2,000 votes, according to unofficial Maricopa County election results. Some early and provisional votes were still being counted last week after the Independent’s press deadline.
“I am always humbled by the opportunity to continue to serve,” Sen. Huppenthal said. “The voters spoke with a loud voice here. They want people to sit down and get the problems solved.”
First of all, let me say that the day one sees anything akin to humility in service from John Huppenthal is one for the history books. This is a man who has literally taken credit for just about everything, from Intel's expansion to the Desert Breeze Park to the housing bubble. And for him to suggest that his narrow victory is anything akin to a mandate is simply risible.
All that's missing here is for Huppenthal to say something about inventing the Internets and "earning and spending political capital."
Seriously. When an incumbent Republican wins an election by five percent of the vote in a district with a 12-14% Republican registered voter advantage, what the voters are saying about the incumbent really isn't very flattering. Or, if you prefer, it says extraordinarily good things about his opponent, Donna Gratehouse.
It means that a huge number of Huppenthal's own party rejected him and voted for the Democratic challenger. And what's more, a majority of Independents also favored Gratehouse over Huppenthal. If the District weren't gerrymandered such that Huppenthal had a massive voter registration advantage, we'd be welcoming Senator Gratehouse to the AZ Senate.
So congratulations on your victory, Senator Huppenthal. But the elephant in the room is that a shift of only 1000 voters in this race would have meant you would have lost and Gratehouse would have won. When so many in your own party cross the line to vote for a newcomer, it's time to wake up and smell the coffee: even a significant number of your own party want you out of office and want Donna Gratehouse to replace you.
Again, from the article:
Nearly 47,000 votes were cast in the District 20 state representative race, where Republican candidates Reps. John McComish (R-Ahwatukee) and Bob Robson (R-Chandler) earned nearly 20,000 and 18,000 votes, respectively, while Libertarian opponent Jack Heald brought in about 9,000 votes, according to the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office unofficial results.
Sadly, the Democratic leadership fielded NO candidates in the House race for LD20. This was a HUGE missed opportunity, given the dynamics of this election cycle (see my previous post on the House race in LD21). Hopefully, 2008 will not see a repeat of them ceding the battlefield without a fight on the House side.
posted by Geo at 6:40 PM
2 Comments:
Why won't the Democrats field candidates in this district? In 2004, there was no Democratic challenger to Huppenthal, but the Dems did manage to field one candidate for the House. In my mind there should always be at least one Dem running for the House in each district.
Hi anon,
I agree.
The conventional wisdom is that, with the district drawn so as to give the Republicans a 12-14% registered voter advantage, it's an extremely challenging uphill climb for a Dem to win it.
That dampens the interest for any potential Dem candidates to expend the blood, sweat and tears of a campaign. It also dampens the interest of volunteers to participate in Dem campaigns because of a sense that their investment of time will not avail much in the end.
That's the conventional wisdom, anyway. And while I think there's truth to it, I also think these factors cannot be allowed to prevent the party from contesting these seats.
It is absolutely critical to not have uncontested elections if you intend to build the party and ever have a real chance of victory. Campaigns educate, mobilize and motivate the electorate in ways that no other activity or event can do. Even if you don't have a hope of winning, it's critical to have a candidate that is standing up for the party, championing its values, challenging the incumbent and giving voters an alternative.
NOT fielding a candidate in a race, on the other hand, is extremely unwise. It quenches interest in the party's platform, kills hope that they will ever succeed and strips away the primary unifying and socializing factor that gives the local party cohesion. Namely, a candidate they can get behind and support.
The effect of that, over time, is that the local party becomes numb and dispassionate and prospects for identifying candidates and engaging volunteers get less and less bright. Disengagement of this kind becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.
So, yes, there are conventional reasons why not fielding candidates is a reasonable outcome of the voter demographics. But it is THE KEY responsibility of party leadership to identify and prepare candidates to run in elections. Unfavorable demographics is an unacceptable excuse.
It's quite understandable if there are no strong candidates in a given cycle. We can't always contol that - though our leadership should be developing and preparing them. But it's not acceptable that NO ONE would run at least to be a stalking horse for a strong contender in a future cycle.
Sadly, LD20 isn't alone in this trend. Other Districts have races with no candidates contending, either. It seems to be a shared lassitude, or willingness to accept less than stellar performance in our candidate recruitment. Or, it's just a weariness with dealing with the voter registration disadvantage. But even long-shot candidates are worth fielding and can be very constructive to the party's future chances.
Take, for example, Elizabeth Rogers' 2004 run against JD Hayworth. She knew she had no chance of winning, but ran anyway to keep the message alive that there was an alternative to JD and many people didn't want him in office. She was a 25-year-old newcomer to politics and only spent $5,000 on her campaign, compared with Hayworth's $1.3 million. But she got 39% of the vote. Over 100,000 people in CD-5 voted for her! As I've said before, her showing helped to energize the Democrats in CD-5 and indicated that there was a base of support for a Hayworth contender. And we saw this year how good exploitation of that dynamic led to a Dem victory.
In the past two cycles, we've had three seats in LD20 come up for re-election twice. That's six races. It's the party leadership's responsibility to field candidates. But for four of those six races, they've recruited no one - not even a 25 year old neophyte - to run.
I was extraordinarily appreciative that Donna Gratehouse stepped forward to contest Huppenthal. If she hadn't, I suspect we would have had NO candidates running in D20 at all this cycle.
I also knew Donna would do well because she has a very sharp mind with a good grasp of the issues, the passion to go toe to toe with Hupp to challenge his policies and the sincere desire to represent D20 and see real progress for Arizona. I hope she runs again because I believe she has very good potential to win this race her next time out.
From my perception, the party leadership in many districts need to get much more serious - passionately serious - about candidate recruitment. As I say, that's the NUMBER ONE job of the party leadership. Their performance on this task shows a lot of room for improvement.
That's my take on it, anyway.
Post a Comment
<< Home