That sound you hear is shoes dropping in multiple CDs

...Expect more "names" to enter these races (and more)...

- the former sheriff of Pinal County, Mark Lamb, has filed a Statement of Interest (SOI) with the AZSOS for a run at replacing Andy Biggs in CD5.

...as was widely expected, the current chair of the AZGOP, Gina Swoboda has throw her hat in the CD1 race to replace David Schweikert - she's formed a committee with the FEC -

Both Biggs and Schweikert are running for AZ Governor.

Arizona Mirror has stories up on Lamb and Swoboda.

Q3 Reports Are In!

This covers covers Congress only, and then only those candidates that I've deemed as having a legit chance of winning their race or being "interesting". If a reader wants to know the numbers for a candidate not included here, please let me know in a comment.

David Schweikert (R-CD1) is included here because while he's declared for Arizona Governor, he was fundraising for his race to retain his seat in Congress well into the reporting period. While no Republican "names" have yet entered the race so far, I expect quarter's post to have different names on it.

Lastly, Adelita Grijalva (D-CD7) did not yet file a quarterly report for Q3; as such, her numbers are from her Pre-Special election filing covering the period through 9/3/2025.

Q2 reports are in!

At least they are for federal candidates, candidates for AZ offices have an extra week to file reports.

Some caveats:

It's still very early, so this only includes candidates who formed committees with the FEC before the Q1 2025 deadline (6/30/2025).  Candidates who haven't yet formed a committee or formed one in Q2 aren't covered here.

This isn't meant to predict who will actually be on a ballot.

Nor is it meant to predict who will win any primary.

Listed dates of formation are from the FEC.

Some definitions:

COH = Cash on Hand

SOI = Statement of Interest

CD7 will be ignored until Q4 2025 as they just completed a special primary election and are going into a special general election.  This is about 2026.

Betrayal - it may hurt Eli Crane the most

Yesterday, I wrote a post about how AZ's delegation voted on Cheeto's budget bill, crafted to devastate society by taking from the poor and giving to the wealthy.

Summary: the R members supported the scheme; the Ds opposed it.

Today, I compared district size (based on number of registered voters) and the number of AHCCCS enrollees in that district (AHCCCS is the acronym for "Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System", which is what Medicaid is called in AZ) -

Voter registration figures are as of January 2025 and courtesy the Arizona Secretary of State.

AHCCCS enrollee figures are as of January 2025 and courtesy AHCCCS.

(Pic below)

I wanted to include district median household income figures from the US Census Bureau, but while they indicate their data was from a couple of their 2023 surveys, they didn't put an actual date on the data, so I didn't use it here.

Member with the most registered voters in their district?  Eli Crane of CD2.

Member with the most AHCCCS enrollees in their district?  Yassamin Ansari of CD3.

Note: AHCCCS enrollees may NOT be registered voters.  Many are too young to vote.

Member with the highest ratio of AHCCCS enrollees to registered voters in their district?  Ansari.

Member with the lowest ratio?  Andy Biggs of CD5.

Democrat with the highest ratio?  Ansari.

Republican with highest ratio?  Crane.

As promised, the pic from the AHCCCS report -

Q1 reports are in!

At least they are for federal candidates, candidates for AZ offices have an extra week to file reports.

Some caveats:

It's still very early, so this only includes candidates who formed committees with the FEC before the Q1 2025 deadline (3/31/2025).  Candidates who haven't yet formed a committee or formed one in Q2 aren't covered here.

This isn't meant to predict who will actually be on a ballot.

Nor is it meant to predict who will win any primary.

Listed dates of formation are from the FEC.

Some definitions:

COH = Cash on Hand

SOI = Statement of Interest

A "0" in an amount cell means that was what was reported; a blank means no report was filed.

No surprises here, though Aversa (CD7) was interesting - in 2024 he ran as the Green Party candidate for AZCD3; at the beginning of this month, he wanted to run as a write in candidate in the special election in FL-CD1 but was disqualified there, and now wants to run in the special election in AZ-CD7.

He can call himself a Green, but he's stridently anti-choice.

My guess: he doesn't appear on a ballot here, or loses in a big way if he does appear on one.

Biggs is in (sort of) in the race for AZ Governor

Pointed at this by a fundraising text from Team Hobbs.

I say Congressman Andy Biggs is only "sort of" in because, at this point, he's only filed a statement of interest (SOI), not formed a committee yet.  However, it's early yet.  One of his presumed opponents in the primary, Karrin Taylor Robson, hasn't done either, though she's already secured Cheeto's endorsement.

From the list of statements of interest filed with the AZ SOS -

My guess: Biggs won't be last "big name" to express an interest in the race for Arizona governor.

Whoever gets through the R primary for the chance to face off against Governor Katie Hobbs will be a supporter of Cheeto.

That person will also make voting for Hobbs easy, because it will be a vote for competence over extremism.

What will be more interesting, in a "get out your popcorn" sort of way, will be the Republican primary contest to replace Biggs in Congress.  

His CD5 district is a safe one for Rs, meaning that the R primary winner will almost certainly win in the general election.

One person, former legislator Travis Grantham, has already filed a statement of interest in the race for CD5.

But he won't be the last to do so.

All of the Rs in that race will have a platform of "I'm Trumpier than thou".

No one, not even Grantham, has yet formed a committee with the FEC as of the writing of this post.

Interesting side note: Grantham filed his SOI 2.5 hours after Biggs did so.  I'm guessing that he got a phone call. 

Matt Salmon announces his retirement from Congress: Let the political battle royal begin

On Thursday, Congressman Matt Salmon announced that he will not be seeking reelection to Congress in 2016.

This wasn't a sudden move - senior Salmon staffers have been looking for, and finding, soft landing spots for  weeks now, and his announcement was followed quickly by an endorsement of Andy Biggs, president of the Arizona State Senate, to be his replacement.

While the Biggs endorsement was (presumably) an attempt to preempt a primary battle for the safe R seat, there are a number of Rs looking at the race, or at least being speculated about for the race.

From AZCentral.com, written by Rebekah L. Sanders -

The open seat left by retiring U.S. Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., is going to be tempting bait to a school of East Valley Republicans.

When a safely Republican district without an incumbent  came open in Arizona in 2010, that race attracted 10 GOP candidates.

{snip}

The first name on most insiders' lips for Salmon's seat is his former rival, Kirk Adams, who now serves as Gov. Doug Ducey's right-hand man. Adams lost to Salmon in the 5th District primary in 2012 and formerly was leader of the Arizona House.

{snip}


Republicans who say they'll have to think about entering the race include:

• State Rep. Justin Olson, R-Mesa, who said he could scrap a bid for state House Speaker.
• State Rep. Kelly Townsend, R-Mesa: "I am seriously considering it. ... I'm going to really have to pray."
• Maricopa County Supervisor Steve Chucri: "Have I been getting calls? Yes. ... I'll have to look at it and talk to my family."
• Aviation businessman and former congressional candidate Travis Grantham: "I'm eyeing that very closely. And also the state House."
• Former GoDaddy executive Christine Jones, who ran for governor in 2014: Salmon's retirement "was the talk of the town (at Scottsdale Mayor Jim Lane's state of the city luncheon) today. ... I hadn't had this on my radar at all."
• Mesa Councilman Alex Finter: "My phone's been ringing off the hook. At this point I'm not ruling anything out."

A number of others could run, but they didn't respond to calls from The Arizona Republic. They include:

• Former Mesa Mayor Scott Smith, a 2014 gubernatorial candidate
• Maricopa County Supervisor Denny Barney
• Outgoing Gilbert Mayor John Lewis 
• State Sen. Bob Worsley, R-Mesa
• Former Senate President Russell Pearce

Other names being bandied about (some from Sanders' Twitter feed, some from other Twitter feeds, some from people I've spoken to), and my quick takes on them:

Chandler Mayor Jay Tibshraeny - very conservative, but suffers from occasional bouts of sanity, which will disqualify him in any R primary

Former member of Congress Ben Quayle - Hey, he bought his way past low expectations in 2010, it could work again

Perennial candidate Vernon Parker - like Christine Jones, above, he hasn't won anything yet, but he has enough connections, money, and ambition that his name will always be bandied about

Businessman Stephen Viramontes - because in the R worldview, "has money" = "qualified for public office"

Former candidate for governor Gary Tupper (2006) - every large field of candidates needs at least one "Who's that?" candidate

Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema - nominally a Democrat but widely viewed as an aspiring R.  And has been known to at least consider district shopping

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio - because, you know, he throws his name into the discussion for every race



Note: as of this writing, the FEC's website doesn't show CD5 filings by any of the people listed above.

Note2: Travis Grantham, mentioned in the article above, has opened an exploratory committee for a run for the AZ House from LD12 (committee ID - 201600462).  With Biggs running for Congress, LD12 House member Warren Petersen will be running for Biggs' Senate seat, opening up a House slot.

Schweikert votes to protect oil companies

Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.J. Res 44, a resolution continuing government operations for another two weeks, by a vote of 335 - 91.  As one can see from those totals, support for the measure was bipartisan, even if a lot of that support was of the "I'll hold my nose and vote for this anyway" variety.

Less bipartisan was the vote on a proposal by Rep. Bill Keating (D-MA) to add a clause to the measure "prohibiting the use of funds to be used for tax benefit or relief for any major integrated oil company."

What is possibly the single most profitable industry in the world is also one of the most highly subsidized.

Arizona's David Schweikert (R-CD5), a self-professed fiscal hawk, someone who never fails to grab an opportunity to rail about the federal deficit, had an opportunity to vote to cut the federal deficit by BILLIONS of dollars.

So what did he do?

Voted with every other Republican in the House of Representatives to continue the budget-busting (but oh-so-campaign-contribution-friendly) corporate subsidies.

The proposal to end oil company subsidies for as long as the federal government is operating under a continuing resolution (as opposed to an actual budget) went down 176 - 249.

Of course.

David Schweikert's vote to repeal health care reform: Impacts on his "constituents"

Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2, a bill to repeal last year's health care reform legislation, by a vote of 245 - 189.  All Republicans, including AZCD5's David Schweikert, voted in favor of the bill.

The bill, the debate, and the vote were a triumph of ideology over reality, because if health care reform is repealed, it will increase the federal deficit and harm people all over the country, including thousands here in CD5.

From the Minority Staff of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce -

This analysis describes the impact of repeal of the Affordable Care Act in the 5th Congressional District of Arizona, which is represented by Rep. David Schweikert. It finds that repeal of the health reform law would have significant consequences in the district by:


Allowing insurance companies to deny coverage to 122,000 to 320,000 individuals, including 8,000 to 36,000 children, with pre-existing conditions.

Rescinding consumer protections for 469,000 individuals who have health insurance through their employer or the market for private insurance.

Eliminating health care tax credits for up to 15,700 small businesses and 143,000 families.

Increasing prescription drug costs for 10,100 seniors who hit the Part D drug “donut hole” and denying new preventive care benefits to 84,000 seniors.

Increasing the costs of early retiree coverage for up to 11,600 early retirees.

Eliminating new health care coverage options for 4,000 uninsured young adults.

Increasing the number of people without health insurance by 43,000 individuals.

Increasing the costs to hospitals of providing uncompensated care by $50 million annually.

Repeal of Protections Against Insurance Company Abuses

Repeal would eliminate the ban on discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions. Under the health reform law, insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions and will be banned from discriminating against adults with pre-existing conditions in 2014. There are 122,000 to 320,000 residents in Rep. Schweikert’s district with pre-existing conditions like diabetes, heart disease, or cancer, including 8,000 to 36,000 children. Repeal would allow insurance companies to refuse to insure these individuals if they seek coverage in the individual or small-group markets. The consequences would be particularly acute for the 18,000 to 48,000 individuals in the district who currently lack insurance coverage and who would be unable to purchase individual policies if the law is repealed.

Repeal would eliminate the ban on annual and lifetime limits. The health reform law prohibits insurance companies from imposing annual and lifetime limits on health insurance coverage. This provision protects the rights of everyone who receives coverage from their employer or through the market for private insurance. If this protection is repealed, insurers would be able to impose coverage limits on 469,000 individuals in the district with employer or private coverage.

Repeal would eliminate the ban on rescissions. The health reform law prohibits insurers from rescinding coverage for individuals who become ill. Repeal would allow insurance companies to resume the practice of rescinding coverage for the 48,000 district residents who purchase individual health insurance.

Repeal would eliminate other consumer protections. The health reform law protects individuals from soaring insurance costs by requiring reviews of proposed rate increases and limiting the amount insurance companies can spend on administrative expenses, profits, and other overhead. Repeal would deny these new protections to tens of thousands of district residents who either buy their own insurance or receive coverage through employers who do not self-insure.

Repeal of Benefits for Individuals and Families

Repeal would eliminate the requirement that insurance companies provide free preventive care. The health reform law promotes wellness by requiring insurance companies to offer free preventive care as part of any new or revised policies they issue after September 23, 2010. Repeal would allow insurance companies to charge for these essential benefits, which would increase out-of-pocket costs for 98,000 district residents.

Repeal would eliminate health insurance options for young adults. The health reform law allows young adults to remain on their parents’ insurance policies up to age 26. In Rep. Schweikert’s district, 4,000 young adults have or are expected to take advantage of this benefit. Repeal would force these young adults to find other coverage or return to the ranks of the uninsured.

Repeal would eliminate tax credits for buying health insurance. Starting in 2014, the health reform law gives middle class families the largest tax cut for health care in history, providing tax credits to buy coverage for families with incomes up to $88,000 for a family of four. Repeal would deny these credits to 143,000 families in the district.

Repeal would increase the number of uninsured. When fully implemented, the health reform law will extend coverage to 94% of all Americans. If this level of coverage is reached in the district, 43,000 residents who currently do not have health insurance will receive coverage. Repeal would mean these residents would lose their health insurance.

Repeal of Benefits for Seniors

Repeal would increase drug costs for seniors. Beginning in 2011, the health reform law provides a 50% discount for prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries who enter the Medicare Part D “donut hole” and lose coverage for their drug expenses. The law then increases the discount to Medicare beneficiaries each year until 2020, when the donut hole is finally eliminated. There are 10,100 Medicare beneficiaries in Rep. Schweikert’s district who are expected to benefit from these provisions. Repeal would increase the average cost of prescription drugs for these Medicare beneficiaries by over $500 in 2011 and by over $3,000 in 2020.

Repeal would deny seniors new preventive care and other benefits. The health reform law improves Medicare by providing free preventive and wellness care, improving primary and coordinated care, and enhancing nursing home care. The law also strengthens the Medicare trust fund, extending its solvency from 2017 to 2029. Repeal would eliminate these benefits for 84,000 Medicare beneficiaries in the district and cause the Medicare trust fund to become insolvent in just six years.

Repeal of Benefits for Small and Large Businesses and Health Care Providers

Repeal would eliminate tax credits for small businesses. The health reform law provides tax credits to small businesses worth up to 35% of the cost of providing health insurance. There are up to 15,700 small businesses in Rep. Schweikert’s district that are eligible for this tax credit. Repeal would force these small businesses to drop coverage or bear the full costs of coverage themselves.

Repeal would increase retiree health care costs for employers. The health reform law provides funding to encourage employers to continue to provide health insurance for their retirees. As many as 11,600 district residents who have retired but are not yet eligible for Medicare could ultimately benefit from this early retiree assistance. Repeal would increase costs for employers and jeopardize the coverage their retirees are receiving.

Repeal would increase the cost of uncompensated care born by hospitals. The health reform law benefits hospitals by covering more Americans and thereby reducing the cost of providing care to the uninsured. Repeal would undo this benefit, increasing the cost of uncompensated care by $50 million annually for hospitals in the district.

Repeal of Benefits for Taxpayers

Repeal would increase the long-term debt by over $1 trillion. The health reform law reduces the nation’s debt by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in the health care system, reducing the growth of health care costs, and preventing excessive profit-taking by private insurers. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill will reduce the deficit by over $200 billion over the next ten years and by over a trillion dollars in the decade after that. Repeal would eliminate these cost-cutting measures, adding more than $3,000 to the national debt for each American, including the 680,000 residents of the district.

Of course, while Schweikert has enthusiastically worked to reduce his constituents and their families' access to health care, he has no problem accepting taxpayer-funded healthcare coverage for himself and his family, nor does he have a problem with shielding from public scrutiny the members of his own caucus who have done the same.
 
 

David Schweikert: Health care hypocrite

To be fair to our Foreclosure Dave though, it's not like he was alone.

On Wednesday, the new Republican majority in the U.S. House passed all sorts of new rules for the 112th Congress.  Some of them are really interesting, but we'll save those for another day.

The highlight of the rules package was one that *didn't* make it into the package.

Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) proposed a rule that would have required members of Congress to disclose whether or not they take advantage of the taxpayer-funded and government-run health care offered to members.

The proposal was defeated on a party-line vote, 191 - 238.

Huffington Post has a full report here.

Now, I could criticize all 238 Republicans who voted to defeat transparency, but they aren't the elected representatives of Arizona's 5th Congressional District.

David Schweikert is.

David Schweikert is the one, who on his website, stated "the liberal politicians in Washington continue to support government run healthcare that will effectively dismantle our healthcare system."

He's pledged to work for the repeal of health care reform and coverage for the average American...

Yet on the same day that he voted to conceal his and other members' acceptance of taxpayer-funded health insurance, he also voted to pass H. Res. 26, providing for next week's consideration of H.R. 2, the Republican scheme to repeal the health care reform and coverage for the average American.

So Schweikert is a *conservative* politician in Washington who supports "government run healthcare" for people who will "dismantle" healthcare for average Americans.

Something tells me that this won't be the last example of shameless hypocrisy coming from Schweikert.

David Schweikert, a Constitutional expansionist?

From the Phoenix Business Journal (quoted in its entirety because it is only two sentences) -

New U.S. Rep. David Schweikert, R-Scottsdale/Tempe, was on CNN Monday night talking about health care.

Schweikert toppled Democratic incumbent Harry Mitchell in November. Schweikert will be part of the GOP efforts to dismantle President Barack Obama's health plans. Schweikert made the argument on CNN against the individual mandate in the Obama plans saying Americans have the 'right to be dumb' and not have insurance even if they can afford it.

Check out this CNN video for more.

I don't see anything in the U.S. Constitution specifying that right (and wasn't one of the R arguments against health care reform something about it not being in the Constitution?), but Schweikert seems to be well on his way to proving that 110,374 voters have already taken advantage of that Schweikert-granted "right".

Congressman Harry Mitchell's farewell to Congress

From page H8247 of the Congressional Record -

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, Mo Udall once said that those elected to positions of leadership have a moral obligation to exercise leadership. Since coming to Congress, and throughout my whole career, I have always done what I believed was in the best interests for this district, for our State, and for our country. This is what I was elected to do, to make tough decisions, knowing that some were not always as popular as others; and I would not have changed one thing, not one vote, not one decision.


When I think about what we have accomplished together in Congress over the last 4 years, I know that there are many reasons to be proud. We were able to make college more affordable for millions of young Americans. We were able to invest in clean energy technology that will clean our environment and set our Nation on a path to energy independence.

We raised the minimum wage for working families across this country. We were able to ensure equal pay for an equal day's work for women. We passed historic health care reform that will benefit millions of Americans, making health care insurance more accessible and affordable for thousands of individuals, families, and small businesses.

But I am most proud of the work we've done to take care of our Nation's veterans. Together, we made it possible for our veterans, active duty, National Guard, and reserve to empower themselves by furthering their education. I was honored to be part of an effort to pass the 21st century GI Bill into law.

We also know that many of our returning veterans and those who served in past generations bear wounds that can't be seen. Too many continue to struggle with post-traumatic stress disorder and are at risk for suicide. Together, we've pushed the VA to provide more mental health assistance to those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan because our veterans deserve the highest attention and respect they have earned when they come home, and we have work to do to bring them all home.

But as much as we've accomplished, there is still more to do. I have always said that you can't be successful unless a lot of other people want you to be. And I have been blessed to have so many people who have been supportive of me. For the better part of close to 40 years, I've held the titles of teacher, councilman, mayor, senator, and Congressman.

And there are a lot of people I want to thank for being with me every step of the way. A special thanks goes to my family: My wife, Marianne; my son, Mark; my daughter, Amy; and my five grandchildren. I also want to thank my staff. They were the most hardworking, talented, and loyal bunch that you would ever find, and I am very grateful for them. Lastly, I want to thank the people of Arizona's Fifth Congressional District for allowing me to represent them in the United States Congress for the past 4 years. It's been an overwhelming honor to have had the opportunity to serve my district.

Thank you Harry, for your work for the people of CD5 and for America's veterans.  And thank you for reminding us why we voted for you in the first place and why you were the best representative that any Congressional district could ask for.

I'd say something along the lines of "you will be missed" but I don't believe your lifetime of service is over.  You aren't ready to ride off into the Arizona sunset and we aren't ready to let you.

Thank you.

Ugh.

Chalk one up for the politics of demonization.  A big one...

Last night was definitely ugly.

Many good people, and at least one great one, lost their jobs last night.

The results page on the AZ Secretary of State's website is here.

First, the genuinely ugly - Harry Mitchell, the icon of public service, lost the CD5 race to real estate vulture David Schweikert.  Apparently, the majority of voters in CD5 have decided that they don't want a public servant to represent them in Congress, instead giving their nod to a public predator (geez, can ya tell I'm still pissed over this one? ).

The entire Schweikert campaign platform can be summed up thusly:  Obamacare!

Seriously, that was it. 

I was on sign detail for one of the down ballot candidates here, and every polling place had at least 5 - 8 little signs that had one word on them - "Obamacare."  Sometimes they were placed at random, sometimes they were placed next to Mitchell signs, and at least once, place *in* a Mitchell sign.

More on this race in the next few days, after I decompress.

...There was lots of bad (some really bad) on Tuesday.

- The Rs swept the statewide races.  Some of the D losses were expected, but to elect two people who have long records of being crooks to positions of great public trust like Attorney General and Treasurer?

As noted above, last night was a triumph of the politics of demonization, but "willful ignorance" also ran wild in Arizona on Tuesday.

- The Rs also increased their majority in the legislature, mostly by knocking off a number of Democratic women.

Former State Representative Jackie Thrasher (LD10) lost her bid to return to the House, down by almost 3000 votes.

State Representative Rae Waters (LD20) is down 1400 votes in her reelection bid.

State Senator Rebecca Rios (LD23)  is down almost 5000 votes her race.

State Representative Barbara McGuire (LD23) is down almost 7000 votes.

State Senator Amanda Aguirre (LD24) is down more than 3000 votes in her race.

State Representative Pat Fleming (LD25) is down more than 3000 votes.

State Representative Nancy Young Wright (LD26) is down slightly less than 900 votes in her race.

In keeping with the Rs' anti-woman theme, Dirty Scottsdale writer and "chip off the ol' potatoe" Ben Quayle won the CD3 seat being vacated by John Shadegg.  His opponent ran as a Republican dressed up in a Democrat's clothing.  Turns out that didn't inspire the D base to turn out.  Who knew?

The politics of demonization was effective on a number of ballot propositions, too.

Prop 106 (anti-healthcare reform), Prop 107 (anti-affirmative action), and Prop 113 (anti-union) were all approved by the voters.

...There were a few nuggets of good in yesterday's carnage.  OK, less "good" than "not horrificly bad" -

 - Prop 301 (ending and sweeping the monies from the Land Conservation Fund) and Prop 302 (ending First Things First, the early childhood education program that was created by the voters in a previous election) have been turned away by the voters.  The Rs in the lege will use this as a rationalization to further gut education and social infrastructure programs in the name of "balancing the budget," but they were going to that anyway.  They just would have found a different excuse if the Props had passed.

- In out-of-state results that may have a direct impact on Arizona, Kris Kobach, the nativist lawyer who wrote SB1070 for fellow traveller Russell Pearce, won his election as Secretary of State in Kansas.  He'll be overseeing elections there.  He ran on a anti-immigrant platform, and has pledged to work to minimize the number of immigrants voting there.  God help Kansas.  On the plus side, we can always hope that his duties/schemes in KS serve to distract him from Arizona.

- Also turned away were R challenges to U.S. Reps. Gabrielle Giffords (CD8) and Raul Grijalva (CD7) (however, CD8 remains close, so there is a chance that one will change, though Giffords is ahead by approximately 2000 votes as of this writing.)

- In my home LD, District 17, State Rep. David Schapira has fended off what had appeared to be a strong challenger for the LD17 Senate seat.  Wendy Rogers was touted as the kind of conservative who could win in a Democratic-leaning swing district.  Turns out she was actually just a polished version of her ticketmate, Don Hawker.  House candidate Hawker was the epitome of the "single issue" candidate, literally blaming all that ails Arizona (and the country) on abortion.

Both were wrong for the community, wrong for the district, and wrong for the state, and voters in D17 saw that.  One of the advantages of living in a district with a lot of university professors and students in it.

- In some of the down ballot races, there was some good news -

Retiring State Senator Meg Burton Cahill defeated a retired barber for the Justice of the Peace spot in the University Lakes Justice Precinct.  Some ugly robocalls funded by the Arizona Multihousing Association failed to defeat the popular Tempean.

Dana Saar of Fountain Hills defeated embarrassment Jerry Walker of Mesa for Walker's seat on the Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District.  Walker has shamed his constituents and the District a number of times with his thuggish behavior.  Saar taking the seat will help restore the credibility of this embattled board.


...The one spark of hope, in Arizona and across the nation, that I can find from yesterday's results (and I had to dig deep to find this one) -

In 1994, that national R wave occurred two years *after* redistricting took place.  

In 2010, the wave took place two years *before* redistricting.  The Rs, especially the tea baggers, won't have time to entrench themselves before having to run in radically different districts in 2012.

More later, on CD5 and some of the local races and ballot questions...

Spin, Half-truths and Lies: Schweikert campaign running on empty

...but that's all they have left...and "half-truths" may be giving them too much credit...

Early yesterday, the Schweikert campaign breathlessly sent out an email press release, touting a police report in Tempe concerning a Tempe resident who "pushed down" two anti-Mitchell signs.

The one piece of truth?  Such an incident did, in fact, occur, at least according to this police report (courtesy the Arizona Capitol Times).

After that, the press release gets more than a little light on facts.

The press release starts by conflating this incident with a 2000 incident where Mitchell was accused of stealing some signs.

The press release pontificates on that one with "[t]here was no question that Congressman Mitchell broke the law then."

The problem with that? 

The charges were dismissed, and that dismissal was upheld on appeal.  No matter how often Rs like to bring up the incident from 2000, they always seem to forget to mention that a judge ruled that no crime occurred.

Call this one the "half-truth, barely" part.

The press release then goes on to include a picture of some signs with "the kind of damage that has been occurring."

The problem with that?

The picture included in the press release wasn't of the signs that were part of the incident detailed in the police report.  It was of some of the unsightly "insult" signs that Schweikert has carpetbombed CD5 with.  The pic looks to have been staged in a parking lot, perhaps outside of Schweikert's campaign headquarters (I don't actually know where it was staged, just that it definitely looks staged).

Call this one the "spun into an outright lie" part, but at least it gave them an excuse to push their lies about Harry Mitchell one more time.

The Arizona Capitol Times has a story up that refutes the Schweikert campaign's spin and press release. 

In it, the writer points out that neither the alleged "damager" nor the complainer involved in the incident are directly involved in either the Mitchell or the Schweikert campaigns other than in expressing support for the respective candidates.  Speaking personally, I've been a frequent visitor to the Mitchell campaign office in Tempe, and I've never heard of the man accused of damaging the signs.

The Schweikert supporter, however, is a somewhat different story.

I've never heard of him by name, but he is quoted in the police report saying that he "has a company called Jet Media."

The Cap Times' story quotes Jim Torgeson, the owner of Jet Media, as claiming that the signs weren't commissioned by the Schweikert campaign.

From the story -

"But Jet Media owner Jim Torgeson said that Sanders’ signs were not commissioned by the Schweikert campaign, and that they personally belonged to Sanders, not the company."

That opens up a big can of worms for the Schweikert campaign.

The press release claims very specifically that the signs involved in the Tempe incident *are* the property of the Schweikert campaign.

From the press release -

"The signs in question are the property of David Schweikert’s campaign."

That's pretty unequivocal.

It also means that someone is violating campaign finance laws.

Either the complainer owns them and is engaging in political advocacy without filing campaign finance paperwork with the AZ Secretary of State (which he hasn't), or Schweikert owns them and needs to put the appropriate "paid for by" on the signs (which he hasn't, apparently, because there isn't one on the signs.)

Other issues -

Mr. Torgeson is a Republican operative of long standing, using his sign company to harass Democratic candidates in Tempe for years now.

Mr. Torgeson's company, Jet Media, received over $7400 worth of sign business from the Schweikert campaign just between late August and late September, according to Schweikert's FEC filings.  I don't know if the signs that the Schweikert campaign purchased from Torgeson were the ones involved in the above incident, but that's a lot of money going to a small sign company relatively late in the cycle.

Mr. Torgeson is listed with the Arizona Corporation Commission as President of Jet Media Promotions, Inc.  That corporation was administratively dissolved by the ACC earlier this year because of its failure to file an annual report.  Not sure how/if that impacts the legal operation of the sign business, but it's definitely sloppy on Mr. Torgeson's part.


Still, given that we are now less than five days from Election Day, this is just a meaningless distraction.  Any proceedings stemming from the above incident will take weeks or even months to run to completion; any possible campaign finance violations could take *years* to resolve.

Time to do a little canvassing.

Later...

CD5: All Politics Isn't Just Local, It's People

Nearly two decades ago, former House Speaker Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill published a followup to his best-selling autobiography (Man of the House) titled "All Politics Is Local."

That's a truism that all successful elected officials, before and since, have taken to heart.  Taking care of the district that elected them and understanding its needs is paramount for any elected looking to be a "re-elected."

Even more important than that, though, is people.

Specific artificially-created land areas on a map like political districts don't have needs, the people who live in those districts do.

Districts don't vote for candidates, people do.

And most importantly for the point of this post, districts don't form the backbones of political campaigns, people do.

The ground game of any campaign, particularly in a close race like CD5, is what makes the difference on Election Day.

An effective ground game that connects with voters can turn back a high-powered and heavily-funded aerial attack.

All of the TV ads and mailers funded by secretive corporate front groups and bungee campaign appearances by national figures employed by Fox News mean nothing next to volunteers talking to their neighbors.

In this, Harry Mitchell's lifetime of service to Tempe, Scottsdale, and Arizona is standing him in good stead. 

People are turning out in droves to help defend the man who has worked for them for decades, from teaching their children in school to advocating for them in the halls of Congress.

His ground game, hundreds of volunteers dialing or knocking and talking, is thumping the Schweikert campaign's. 

Over Columbus Day weekend, the Schweikert campaign bragged about making 5000 calls to voters.

By comparison, the Mitchell campaign made over 50,000 calls that same weekend.

It's not just on the holiday weekends that the respect and affection for Mitchell is showing through.

Anecdotally, this past weekend, I was at the Mitchell campaign office to make some calls.  I put down my stuff to go get some water before getting on the phones.  By the time I returned to that particular phone just a couple of minutes later, somebody else had already moved in to that seat and was making calls.  I had to wait a little while (~15 minutes) before another station opened up.

More than the volunteers in the office and out walking in neighborhoods, thousands of voters across the district have turned out for dozens of house parties for Mitchell.

By contrast, the Schweikert campaign's ground game seems to be floundering.

Just this past weekend, they sent out a "desperate" call for volunteers (their word, not mine) to do the things that the Mitchell campaign's volunteers have been doing for months - walk and talk to their neighbors.

Early last week, they sent out an equally desperate email, calling for "volunteers" to make their campaign office look busy during a visit from a reporter from the national political news site, Politico.

From the email from the Schweikert campaign's volunteer director, forwarded to me (misspellings theirs, not mine) -

I am in urgent need of your help. I need a ton of phone callers in the office tomorrow from 1:30pm until 3:30pm.. Here is why-- We have reporters coming in from one of the biggest political sites in the nation. We need to look like the best run, well staffed campaign in the natin..

I've never seen such an email from the Mitchell campaign, even though they also received a visit from a Politico reporter.
There's no need for it - -the only times when I haven't seen the office busy is when most volunteers were out walking neighborhoods.


The sad thing is, in a close race in a Republican-leaning swing district, money can make a difference, and David Schweikert has access to a LOT of out-of-state corporate cash.  Just during the writing of this post, I've seen at least three Schweikert spots on TV, none actually paid for by Schweikert. (My favorite:  the perfectly-timed for Halloween spot paid for by John McCain with McCain and Jon Kyl touting Schweikert while wearing dark suits in front of a black background.  They look like disembodied heads floating in the air from a cheesy grade-Z horror movie from the 1950s.  Seriously spooky.)

He may not be *earning* the seat, but we are in danger of he and his allies *buying* the seat.

There are eight days left before the election, and Harry Mitchell needs our support, votes, and time more than ever.  Keeping the phones staffed and neighborhoods covered is what will put Harry over the top.

Sign up here to volunteer to walk or call voters between now and Election Day.

Harry Mitchell on KNXV-TV

Harry Mitchell's website is here.

From Phoenix's channel 15.

Funny, but painfully true, video parody of David Schweikert and the Tea Party platform

A new video is up on YouTube.  It's definitely worth a chuckle, especially if you're watching the CD5 race.

Or have to deal with another tea party candidate ("Obama, Obama, Obama! Pelosi, Pelosi, Pelosi!" - priceless!  :) )

Letter to the editor regarding Harry Mitchell

Recently, but more than a week ago, I submitted a letter to the editor to the Arizona Republic.  It was considered for publication, but apparently was passed over.

No problem.  There are other outlets for my insightful (yet humble) observations.  :)

The letter as submitted -

Dear Editor,

I urge everyone in the 5th Congressional District to support one of Arizona's longtime public servants, Congressman Harry Mitchell.


People, including me, may not agree with every single vote that he casts in Congress, but I've never disagreed with the motivation behind those votes - looking out for the best interests of his constituents.

Whether it is fighting for America's (and Arizona's) veterans, striving for fiscal responsibility in Washington, or working to strengthen our schools, Mitchell has always put his constituents first, and deserves our renewed support.

While his detractors like to ridicule him for "having his heart in the right place," they should consider the idea that in an ideal world, every elected official should have their hearts in the right place..

Voters can send a message by voting to reelect Harry Mitchell.

CD5 is one of the places that still values public service instead of vilifying it.

Volunteer to help Harry keep helping us.

More fun with campaign signs...

An indicator of the status of the Schweikert campaign, this sign has been in upside down for weeks.  In fact, it was the sign that I was going to snap a pic of when I sprained my ankle over a week ago.

The best part is that the Schweikert campaign had the time to put up one of their juvenile insult signs (damaged by last week's storms), next to a Mitchell sign at the same location but they didn't have the time to correct one of their own while they were there..

Mitchell lead widening in CD5

From the DCCC (link added) -

Mitchell Leads Schweikert by 7 in New AZ-05 Poll

A new Benenson Strategy Group poll shows Representative Harry Mitchell leading Republican challenger David Schweikert by 7 percent. Mitchell leads Schweikert 46 percent to 39 percent. Conducted October 5-7, the poll surveyed 400 likely voters and has a 4.9 percent margin of error.

This news, on top of the news that Terry Goddard has closed to within 3 percentage points (among all voters) of Jan Brewer in a recent poll, drives home the point that while Democrats in AZ have made strides, getting out the vote will be vital for the next 3 weeks.

Volunteer to help Arizona.  Volunteer to help elect Democrats.