Stating the obvious time: The R demographic skews older

From an article from KTVK/KPHO, re-published from Stacker -

Counties with the most seniors in Arizona

Seniors will comprise more than 20% of U.S. residents in 2030, up from 15% in 2020.

By 2034, older adults will outnumber children, according to Census Bureau projections. Across the U.S., 52 million Americans are 65 years or older, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and a quarter of them live in just three states: California, Florida, and Texas. By comparison, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, and Alaska each have fewer than 150,000 senior residents.

[snip]

Stacker compiled a list of counties with the most seniors in Arizona using data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Counties are ranked by the highest percentage of residents 65 years or older according to 2020 5-year estimates. Keep reading to find out which counties have the most seniors in Arizona.

I noticed that some of the highest-ranked counties tended to be red counties.

(Ranks and senior citizen data from the article; voter registration [as of August 2022] and voting history data from the Arizona Secretary of State's office)

Most counties in AZ voted the way their registration advantage indicated they would (i.e. - D counties voted for Biden; R counties voted for Cheeto).  There were two exceptions to this - D-leaning Yuma County voted for Cheeto while R-leaning Maricopa County voted for Biden.  Both voting margins were close and the registration advantages are also close.

It isn't a coincidence that the six counties in AZ with the highest percentage of senior citizens are also R-leaning.    

Hate crimes up; reporting agencies down

Trump infamously said that if there were fewer Covid tests, there'd be fewer cases of Covid.

Turn out it doesn't work that way for Covid, or for other things.

Ignoring the truth doesn't change it.

From NPR -

Hate Crimes Reach The Highest Level In More Than A Decade

There were 7,759 reported hate crimes in the U.S. last year — the most in 12 years, the FBI reported this week. But some experts and advocacy groups say the true number is probably even higher.

The number of recorded bias incidents reported by the FBI was the highest since 2008, when 7,783 hate crimes were reported to the agency, federal data shows.

From the website of the FBI -

In 2020, 81 of 125 law enforcement agencies in AZ reported hate crime data.

In 2019, 92 of 125 LE agencies did so.

Yet, there was an increase in hate crimes reported.

In 2019, there were 209 reported, or 2.2717 per reporting agency -

In 2020, there were 282 reported, or 3.4815 per agency -

That's a 65% increase per reporting agency.

Not a good thing.

Campaign finance reports: Lies, damn lies, and statistics

Because of a special election in Tempe, candidates for city council there had to file campaign finance reports early.

That has led to some misleading reporting, some cherry-picking of the numbers to try to put a positive spin on things.

So here are the numbers, taken from the summary pages of the reports:




So based on cash on hand, it looks like candidate Matt Papke is doing great with more than $49K on hand, but...

He loaned his own campaign $51K, or more than 77% of his total funds raised.

In other words, he may have more than $49K on hand, but he is $2K (and counting) in the hole personally.  Not a huge issue in itself (he's hardly the first candidate to self-fund); trying to deceive people as to the nature of his funding is an issue - the practice gives possible insight into how he would conduct himself in office if he actually wins.


In contrast, candidate Lauren Kuby, a newcomer to running for office (but not to community, environmental, or political activism), raised more than $41K, with the vast majority (more than 99%) of the money coming from people not named "Lauren Kuby"*.

Otherwise, the numbers reported by the candidates aren't surprising - sitting council members Shana Ellis and Robin Arredondo-Savage had solid fundraising efforts, to be expected from incumbents.  Challengers David Schapira and Dick Foreman had late starts, which shows in their totals this time.  Ernesto Fonseca is a total political newbie and got a late start, with both factors seeming to impact his fundraising so far.

* - Full disclosure time: I am one of the many people who have contributed to Kuby's campaign.

Quick $ analysis of 2012 AZ Congressional races

It has to be quick - it only includes net operating expenditures from candidates' principal committees.  I searched the FEC's website for a while, but could not find a way to filter independent expenditure reports by particular candidate, race, or even state.  Could have gone through every IE report filed this year, but that would take more time than is available on a Sunday afternoon.

There was a *lot* of IE money expended during the 2012 elections.

The sources of information:

Arizona Secretary of State's Official Election Canvass of Results
Post-General Election campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission

Further caveats:  The "net operating expenditures" number is from the applicable candidate's final 2012 campaign finance filing; it includes funds expended during the primary election, if any.  Since I could not think of a way to separate funds that only affected the primary vote, all expenditures were included, not just monies spent during the general election part of the cycle.

In addition, some candidates faced a "real" primary (viable opposition) while facing a walkover in the general, some faced the opposite combination, some neither, and one race, CD9, had both competitive primaries (D and R) and a competitive general election.

Candidate	CD	Net Operating Expenditures		Gen. Election Votes		$/gen elect vote
Kirkpatrick  - W	1	2313080.23		122774		18.840
Paton	1	1390118.16		113594		12.238
Barber - W	2	1254521.72		147338		8.515
McSally	2	1342020.03		144884		9.263
Grijalva - W	3	934605.93		98468		9.491
Gosar - W	4	1089090.06		162907		6.685
Salmon - W	5	1049982.19		183470		5.723
Schweikert - W	6	1668447.82		179706		9.284
Pastor - W	7	637532.76		104489		6.101
Franks - W	8	386233.88		172809		2.235
Parker	9	1062250.42		111630		9.516
Sinema - W	9	2024619.87		121881		16.611
Flake - W	Sen	9133038.17		1104457		8.269
Carmona	Sen	6016542.06		1036542		5.804

W = Won race


Of these, the following had

- a competitive primary and an uncompetitive general - CDs 4 (R), 5 (R), 6 (R)

- an uncompetitive primary and an uncompetive general - CDs 3 (D), 7 (D), 8 (R)

- an uncompetitive primary and a competitive general - CDs 1 (D), 2 (D and R), US Sen (D)

- a competitive primary and a competitive general - CD 9 (D and R), 1 (R), US Sen (R)

Note: "competitive" and "uncompetitive" are not synonyms for "contested" and "uncontested".  In many cases, in the primary, the general, or both, there were other candidates on the ballot, but their likelihoods of winning fell into the "snowball's chance in Phoenix...in August" category.  Not a commentary on the character of the "minor" candidates, just an assessment of their electability.

I would have expected that there would be a correlation between competitive races and $/vote, there doesn't seem to be one. 

For example, Trent Franks (R) spent the lowest amount per vote, and his race was all but completely uncontested, with only token opposition in both the primary and the general.

On the other hand, Ann Kirkpatrick (D) spent the most money per vote, and while she had a competitive general election race against Jonathan Paton (R), she had a practically noncompetitive race (Wenona Benally Baldenegro).

There might be a way to show a correlation between money spent and votes earned, but other factors would have to be part of the formula - some combination of partisan voter registrations, partisan advantage/disadvantage, some way to account for the influence of primary election expenditures on the general election (and make no mistake, there is such an influence), and, of course, Independent Expenditures.

I can find some of the info (voter reg stuff), but does anybody have any ideas on how to find and work with the other data?

Metro Phoenix lagging behind other metro areas in recovering from the recession

...as if those of us who live here haven't figured that out already.

Brookings Mountain West, a partnership between the Brookings Institute, a Washington D.C. think tank, and the University of Nevada - Las Vegas (UNLV), today released its quarterly Mountain Monitor, tracking and evaluating economic data for the Intermountain West area (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah).

The latest Monitor covers the fourth quarter of 2010.

Based on their research, it's evident that the pre-bubbleburst growth fueled by the economic focus on home construction is now inhibiting the recovery of the Mountain West metro areas, particularly Las Vegas, Boise, and, of course, Phoenix.

From the Monitor -

The severest downturns foreshadowed the weakest recoveries in the Mountain Region. Reflecting the structural nature of a recession whose origins lay in an inflated housing bubble, the boomtown metros that fell the hardest are finding it the most difficult to turn around. In this category fall Boise, Las Vegas,  Phoenix, and, to a lesser extent, Tucson. On the other hand, Albuquerque, which stood apart with a temperate pre-recession housing boom and a well-educated, public sector-oriented workforce, weathered the mildest recession in the region.

The data shows that while metro Phoenix is among the leaders when it comes to job growth, ranking 7th nationally out of the top 100 metro areas in new jobs created (+1.5%) since its trough (Q3 2009) and 3rd nationally in growth between the Q3 and Q4 2010 (+0.7%), it ranks 87th nationally relative to its employment peak (Q3 2007), down 10.6% (national average: -5.3%; largest 100 metro areas average: -6.3%).

This chart, from Brookings Mountain West, charts the relative employment numbers for the Phoenix area over the course of four recent recessions, with 100% indicating the employment level at the beginning of the recessions.  Historically, 12 quarters (three years) after the start of a recession, we are well into a period of sustained net employment growth. 

Not so this time around.




Phoenix' Gross Metropolitan Product, or GMP, a measure of the area's economic activity, is still down significantly from its peak, and GMP growth here is lagging that of most of the other metro areas.  There may be a few new jobs here, but they aren't translating into a stronger economy.

While metro Phoenix ranked 7th in terms of shrinking the number of bank or lender-owned properties (aka - foreclosure inventory), it's still 98th nationally in terms the total proportion of such properties (meaning that only 2 out of the top 100 metro areas have a larger proportion of their properties owned by financial institutions.  Simply put, we have a large excess housing capacity but as yet, we don't have the economic growth needed to absorb that excess.

That's an economic reality that's reflected in the fact that home prices here are still plummeting.

Given that so much of Phoenix' past (and current) economic growth scheme was based building homes for new residents and that we don't have the sort of employment base to attract people who are young enough that they don't spend their days golfing, it looks as if the economic recovery here will be slow, intermittent, and protracted.

Other data (from the Phoenix snapshot from Brookings) -

                                                  Phoenix          Rank*           100-metro average           U.S. average

Unemployment

Unemployment rate               8.4 %              46                        9.1 %                             9.1 %

Three-year percentage point change in unemployment rate
                                                4.5 points       67                     4.5 points                       4.3 points

One-year percentage point change in unemployment rate
                                                0.1 points      76                      -0.4 points                       -0.6 points
 
 
Gross metropolitan product (GMP is defined as the market value of all final goods and services produced within a metropolitan area in a given period of time)

Change in GMP from peak
(2007Q4)                                -3.0 %              84                     0.9 %                               1.5 %

Change in GMP from trough
(2009Q3)                                  4.1 %             65                      4.2 %                              6.6 %

One-quarter change in GMP 0.4 %            86                      0.8 %                              0.8 %
 
 
Housing prices

Change in housing prices from peak
(2006Q4)                                   -48.2 %         92                      -23.6 %                          -18.5 %

Change in housing prices from trough
(2010Q4)                                      0.0 %         47                        0.0 %                              0.0 %

One-year change in housing prices
                                                    -10.6 %       98                        -3.4 %                             -3.0 %

One-quarter change in housing prices
                                                      -4.0 %     100                        -1.2 %                              -1.2 %


Real estate owned properties (REOs) (Bank or other financial institution owned)

REOs per 1,000 mortgageable properties
                                                       14.84        98                          5.19                                  4.23

One-quarter change in REOs per 1,000 mortgageable properties
                                                        -1.31        7                           -0.39                                 -0.33
 
* - Rank is out of the top 100 metro areas.  A rank of "1" indicates the strongest performance in a given category; a rank of "100" indicates the weakest performance in a given category.
 
 
Phoenix' snapshot page can be found here; Tucson's here; snapshots for other metro areas can be found here.
 
A powerpoint presentation on Arizona's economic recovery from the Arizona Legislature's Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) is here.  While it tracks different data than Brookings does, and there aren't any comparisons with other states/metro areas, the conclusion from looking at JLBC's report is similar to the conclusion based on the  "Mountain Monitor" - while there are glimmers of economic life here (slightly increased employment [Brookings], increased sales tax revenue [JLBC]), Arizona's recovery is a weak one so far.

Census numbers - Arizona's Legislative and Congressional Districts

All information available at the Census Bureau's American Factfinder page (watch the instructional videos, trust me :) )...

Census numbers for the state's 30 legislative districts -

Geographic area                    Total population


Arizona                                   6,392,017

LD1 (2010)                                 217,022


LD2 (2010)                                 177,904

LD3 (2010)                                 216,687

LD4 (2010)                                 294,239

LD5 (2010)                                 192,258

LD6 (2010)                                 219,170

LD7 (2010)                                 190,272

LD8 (2010)                                 185,419

LD9 (2010)                                 178,499

LD10 (2010)                               163,683

LD11 (2010)                               161,630

LD12 (2010)                               378,298

LD13 (2010)                               207,107

LD14 (2010)                               158,881

LD15 (2010)                               155,897

LD16 (2010)                              247,146

LD17 (2010)                              171,129

LD18 (2010)                              165,729

LD19 (2010)                              195,221

LD20 (2010)                              176,043

LD21 (2010)                              274,260

LD22 (2010)                              297,687

LD23 (2010)                              370,479

LD24 (2010)                              207,694

LD25 (2010)                              208,220

LD26 (2010)                              195,881

LD27 (2010)                              199,340

LD28 (2010)                              170,527

LD29 (2010)                              184,459

LD30 (2010)                              231,236

Average                                   213,067


A map of the current LDs is here.

Most LDs should experience significant changes to their borders, but with many LDs, significant changes are guaranteed because their populations vary significantly from the average, and the new legislative districts have to be pretty much the same size.  There can be a little variation, but it's small.

Looking at the raw numbers of residents in each legislative district, a few things are obvious - LD12 (western Maricopa County), LD21, LD22 (both SE metro Phoenix), and LD23 (mostly Pinal County, but reaching into Maricopa) are going to be split up - they're far too big to continue in anything resembling their current forms.

Also likely to see significant changes are current Phoenix-area LDs 8, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20 - all have populations significantly below the average of 213K.  The areas covered by those LDs will absorb or be absorbed by other areas.

Tucson-area LDs 26, 28, and 29 are in the same boat as the Phoenix-area LDs above.


Congressional districts -

Geographic area                         Total population

Arizona                                         6,392,017


CD 1                                                 774,310

CD 2                                                 972,839

CD 3                                                 707,919

CD 4                                                 698,314

CD 5                                                 656,833

CD 6                                                 971,733

CD 7                                                 855,769

CD 8                                                 754,300

Current average (for 8 CDs)         799,002

New average (for 9 CDs)              710,224


Map of the current Congressional districts here.

In some ways, tea leaf reading when looking at potential changes to lege districts is easy - there are 30 LDs now, and there will be 30 LDs after redistricting.

Looking at potential changes to Congressional districts is more difficult because there are 8 districts now but there are going to be 9 after redistricting.  Once the new district is carved out (expected to be in the East Valley/Pinal County area or in the West Valley, in the area where the current CDs 2 and 7 meet), there will be a cascade effect of changes to all of the other CDs, and I cannot even begin to predict those changes.

Expect significant changes to all CDs.

More on that as the redistricting process grinds on...

Fun with campaign finance reports...

Oh, the stuff that I dig into when I'm feeling bored diligent... :)

Notes:  Most information gathered from the last four finance reports of the cycle.  In addition, I didn't go through the reports of Democratic candidates.  Partly because I'm a partisan hack (like that's breaking news to any regular readers! LOL) and partly because most of the Democratic candidates financed their campaigns through Clean Elections, and CE candidates are actively discouraged from using their campaign funds for non-campaign purposes.  I checked a few, but their reports, as well as the reports of R candidates who utilized CE funding, were really boring.

Today, between basketball games and gift unwrappings, I was perusing some Maricopa County and State of Arizona campaign finance reports (political geek that I am), and learned that many candidates and PACs use their campaign funds "creatively".  Nothing that is necessarily illegal, but stuff that doesn't seem to have much to do with electing candidates.

From recent reports filed with the Maricopa County Recorder and the Secretary of State -

Associated Highway Patrolmen of Arizona PAC, 11/18/2010 - $1000 to the ALEC Scholarship Fund (page 51 of the linked .pdf), which pays for legislators to attend various ALEC functions.  The memo on the contribution was "Various Republican Candidates/Committees Contribution."  They can contribute to anyone they want to, but have they forgotten who leads the annual charges to underfund DPS and to mess with the public safety employees' pension fund?  It sure isn't the Democrats...

Arizona Dairymen PAC, 11/15/2010 - $500 to the ALEC Scholarship Fund.

Transportation Association (Legislative and Educational PAC), 9/15/2010 - $449.41 to SRP for "ALEC AZ Nite Dinner"

Apollo Group Inc. Organization for Legislative Leadership in Arizona, 10/14/2010 - $2500 directly to ALEC

Note: The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a somewhat shadowy* right-wing group dedicated to putting state legislators into contact with lobbyists and executives from its corporate sponsors.  The Scholarship Fund is intended to pay for member legislators to attend various ALEC functions.


* = shadowy because its membership is semi-secret (members can self-publicize their association with ALEC, but generally ALEC doesn't publish a complete list of its members, and it also keeps secret its contributors and the amounts contributed).

Other interesting entries include -

Frank Antenori, R for Senate in LD30, spent $104.90 on 11/3/2010 for a power strip for his laptop and a blue tooth headset.  The election was on *11/2.*  He's not the only candidate to use campaign funds for computers/electronics, but most were discreet enough to make the expenditures *before* the election.

Nancy Barto, R for Senate in LD7, spent $334.40 on 11/11/2010 for airfare, $246.34 for lodging on 11/13/2010 (and a $25 baggage fee on that date), and $175 on 9/25/2010 for a fee for a Wallbuilders conference in Texas.  Wallbuilders is an anti-choice/historical revisionist group based in Texas.

Chuck Gray, R Senator in LD19...well, actually, since Gray is retiring (for now, anyway) and didn't run this year, technically speaking nothing he spent from his campaign funds this year was intended to help him win an election, but let's not quibble over details. How about we just cover some of the highlights. 

He spent $265.43 on 10/28/2010 to renew a subscription to the Wall Street Journal.  Also, $194.04 from 10/1/2010 through 10/6/2010 on miscellaneous charges related to a trip to Boston, over $1500 on travel-related charges from 8/9/2010 through 9/13/2010.  Many, but not all, of the other things that he used his campaign funds for this year were also travel-related.

Jack Harper, R for House in LD4, spent $100 on 9/23/2010 on a two-year membership in ALEC.

John McComish, R for Senate in LD20, spent $130 on 8/13/2010 for a donation to Tempe Right To Life.

Steve Montenegro, R for House in LD12, spent $82 on 7/17/2010 to pay the fee for submitting a ballot proposition argument to the Arizona Secretary of State.

Russell Pearce, R for Senate in LD18, spent $551.17 on 11/5/2010 for "airfare and lodging" (no destination listed).

Michelle Reagan, R for Senate in LD8, spent $418.80 on 11/18/2010 for airfare to Colorado for a fellowship.  In August, she spent $675 on dues for the National Rifle Association and AZ Citizens Action for the Arts.   On 7/26/2010, she spent $86 out of campaign funds on a subscription to the Arizona Republic.

Bob Robson, R for House in LD20, spent $227.70 on 9/2/2010 on "newspaper subscription to Phoenix Newspapers (aka - the Arizona Republic).

Jim Weiers, R for House in LD10, spent $75 on 7/7/2010 to submit a ballot proposition argument to the Arizona Secretary of State.

Interesting stuff...interesting to political geeks.  :))
 

Could the Republican reliance on secret third party contributions undercut the 2010 "wave"?

Two step recipe for screwing up what should have been a walkover election season for the Republicans: 

One - nominate a number of unelectable candidates (like this one).

Two - get caught being arrogantly, overwhelmingly, sleazy.  Sleazy to the point of being anti-American.


One of the expected effects of the Citizens United v. FEC ruling earlier this year was the infusion of massive amounts of corporate money into this (and future) election cycles.

That expectation has come to fruition, in spades, with nearly $200 million spent by "outside" groups on U.S. Senate and House races just since September 1.

And while Democrats are leading in traditional, candidate-focused, fundraising and spending, they are being outspent by 9:1 or 10:1 depending on who is doing the scorekeeping.  All observers agree however, that Republican-leaning groups are totally swamping their Democratic-leaning counterparts.

Into that mix, add the $75 million that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spending to buy Republican control of Congress, money raised anonymously from questionable, possibly foreign, sources.

Now stir and simmer for a bit, and then do a little polling on the subject.

Two polls came out in the last couple of days that independently reinforce each other.

One, commissioned by Allegheny College and conducted by Zogby International, shows that nearly 2/3 of Americans across all partisan, age, and economic demographics, oppose the idea of groups spending heavily in districts in which they aren't located.

The other, commissioned by MoveOn.org and conducted by SurveyUSA, shows that 84% of all voters believe that they have a right to know who is funding political advertisements and most will be less likely to trust candidates supported by anonymous backers.

Looking at the data (and I've done an admittedly superficial overview here), the conclusion seems to be that Americans of all strips are saying -


1. Outside groups butt out!

2. If you're going to ignore that, tell us who you are and who is paying for your message, otherwise we may not vote for your candidate.


It remains to be seen if the average voter is going to look at the overwhelming support that anonymously-funded outside groups have provided for GOP candidates (almost all of whom are pushing regressive economic policies that will benefit large and foreign corporations) before casting their ballots.

Guess we'll just have to wait for the November 3rd and beyond election post-mortems to figure that out.

Latest poll: Arizonans dissatisfied with the legislature's handling of the state's finances

ASU's Morrison Institute of Public Policy has released the results of a poll showing that a solid majority, one that crosses all partisan lines, is dissatisfied with the legislature's handling of the state's budget.

In the poll, 61% of Republicans, 76% of Democrats, 67% of Independents and 68% overall disapproved or strongly disapproved of the job that the Arizona legislature has done with the state's budget.


Other highlights included:

66% (63% R, 71% D, and 62% I) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "I believe the state Legislature has the wrong priorities."

52% (73% R, 29% D, and 49% I) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "I believe the governor has provided good leadership in formulating state public policy."

74% (61% R,  83% D and 75% I) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "There is too much partisan conflict at the Arizona State Capitol."

67% (59% R, 71% D, and 70% I) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "I would like to see more moderate candidates elected to public office."

Generally speaking, the results cited above (and not cited, due to space constraints here) favor Democrats in Arizona (though Terry Goddard is going to have to do better than split independents down the middle to have a chance to win the race for governor.)

There was one result that best illustrates the possible problem that faces Republicans this fall -

Only 36% (45% R, 20% D, and 38% I) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "I am generally statisfied with the way things are going in Arizona state government."

I expected the low Democratic number on that one, but less than 1/2 of Republican respondents approved of the job that the incumbent majority has done on down on West Washington????

Maybe R candidates and officials should expand their sphere of constituent contact beyond local LD meetings and country club restaurants and golf courses (that's probably good advice in general, including for Democrats.)

No guarantees here, but numbers like those presented in the poll, if more than remotely accurate, speak to the possibility of Arizona running counter to the national trend of 2010 being a down year for Democrats.


There was also one seriously disappointing surprise in the poll -

45% (42% R, 50% D, and 44% I) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "In times of budget crisis, the Legislature should be able to use funds protected by voter ballots."

HALF of Democrats trust the lege to appropriately handle funds from things like First Things First in times of "budget crisis"??  A larger percentage than even the Republicans?

I'll take this to mean that at least half of all Democrats don't read this blog, or Blog for Arizona, or Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion, or Democratic Diva, or Dry Heat Democrat, or....


Anyway, more poll info can be found here and here.

A Cronkite News Service story on the poll, via the Arizona Capitol Times, is here.

FEC Reports - Congressional primary races

Some of these are eye-opening...

All info courtesy the website of the Federal Election Commission, reporting period 7/1/2010 thru 8/4/2010 (three weeks before the primary)...

In order of interest to me (call it "blogger's privilege" or something :) ) -

CD5

Schweikert: $225529.45 cash on hand, raised slightly less than $36K during the period, spent over $244K.  Debt of $500K (to himself).

Ward: $172944.21 on hand, raised $28657, spent $264K, $315548.83 in debt.

Bitter Smith: $48454.60 on hand, raised less than $20K, spent slightly less than $83K, $81329.02 debt.

Salvino: $27.6K on hand, raised less than $10K, spent more than $91K, debt of $210958.04.

Spinks: $41.82 cash on hand (not "41.82K" but forty-one dollars and eighty-two cents), raised $170, spent $557, no debt.

Gentry:  I couldn't find a report for the most recent reporting period.

Analysis*: It isn't over per se, but Salvino, Spinks and Gentry are toast, and Bitter Smith is on life support.  Ward has a shot, but Schweikert seems to think he has it wrapped up, and is coasting a little, ticking off supporters of some of the other candidates.

These folks seem to be Republican B-teamers - perennial wannabes looking for one last shot at glory or carpetbaggers looking for a district where they can buy a nomination.  Not talking smack here, one of these folks could move up to A-team status (Bitter Smith and Schweikert have held offices before, and Ward has access to cash), but they've got it to prove.


CD3

Crump: Less than $7300 on hand, raised $11456, spent slightly over $17K.  No debt.

Gorman: Less than $26K on hand, raised $14K, spent $5371.  No debt.

Morris: Slightly more than $40K on hand, raised $16K, spent $74K, $50K debt.

Moak: $121K on hand, raised a little more than $15K, spent more than $577K.  Debt of more than $592K ($300K in this period alone).

Parker: $63K on hand, raised $36K, spent $123K, debt of $26431.60.

Quayle: $429K on hand, raised $218K, spent $473K, $1223 debt.

Waring: $29.5K on hand, raised $17K, spent $81K, debt of $41K.

Winkler: $24.5K on hand, raised $5225, spent $8253, no debt.

I cannot find reports for the other candidates (Branch, Hull).

Analysis*: Based on the money numbers, the race is between Quayle (tapping Daddy's friends for cash) and Moak (placing a big bet on his own candidacy), but Parker, Waring, Gorman, and Morris still have a heartbeat.  In a free-for-all like this one, money for mailers and ad buys may not mean as much as an effective street-level GOTV machine.  Crump, Winkler, Branch, and Hull are done.  Quayle should be just as done after his recent gaffes, but Daddy's money and name may purchase some short memories among GOP primary voters.

Probably the strongest set of candidates that the GOP has fielded this year (3 former legislators, 2 former mayors, 1 son of a former USVP, a well-funded businessman, and Morris, who is moderate, female, intelligent, articulate, attractive, Jewish, and Cuban.  In Florida, they'd have already cancelled the election and administered the oath of office to her, but in AZ she'll be lucky to break out of single digits), but they are slicing each other to ribbons and whittling down the funds that donors will have available in the general election.  Look for lots of independent expenditures from GOP-friendly groups as they try to retain this seat in the general.


CD8

Paton: almost $187K on hand, raised $46K, spent $146K, debt of slightly less than $13K.

Kelly: almost $79K on hand, raised $78K, spent $159K, no debt.

The other candidates have dropped out or haven't filed reports that I can find.

Analysis*:  This race could be the one to watch - Paton is the candidate of the GOP "establishment" and may be the better general election candidate, but Kelly has enough Tea Party support to pull the upset, and enough cash to make a last minute push.


CD7

McClung: $15K on hand, raised slightly less than $11K, spent slightly less than $18K, debt of $2300.

Myers: more than $23K on hand, raised $1820, spent $56K, debt of more than $95K.

I couldn't find reports for the other candidates. 

Analysis*: The top GOP candidates to unseat Raul Grijalva raised less than $13K between them.  Candidates who are toast in other districts were able to raise more.  Any other questions? 


CD1

Bowers: A little more than $10K on hand, raised $11K, spent a little less than $15K, no debt.

Gosar: Nearly $41K on hand, raised slightly less than $40K, spent $130K, no debt.

Hay: More than $116K on hand, raised $32K, spent $60K, debt of $100K.

Jensen: Reporting $1195 cash on hand on the summary page, but also reports $1595 raised and $1595 spent.  Hand-written reports, wife or other relative as treasurer.  'Nuff said.

Mehta: Less than $2600 on hand, raised $7300, spent $25K, debt of slight less than $11K.

I could not locate reports for the other candidates.

Analysis*: Hay's got the cash, Gosar seems to have the momentum.  Hay may be holding on to the cash to pay down her debt after the primary.  If the CD5 Rs are B-teamers, these folks are C- and D- teamers.


CD4

Contreras: $2500 on hand, raised $6800, spent $4300, $25K in debt.

Penalosa hasn't filed a report that I could find, but his July report showed numbers in line with Contreras'.

Analysis*: Either one could win the R nomination, though considering that incumbent Ed Pastor has $1.5 million on hand, I'm not sure that qualifies as a good thing for whichever one wins the nod. 


CD2

Black reports $69 (not $69000 or even $6900, but *$69.00* cash on hand in his quest to unseat fellow Republican Franks (cash on hand of $69K).


CD6

Smith reports cash on hand of $5593 in his quest to unseat fellow Republican Flake (almost $800K on hand).

Analysis*: Both Franks and Flake face primary challenges from the right, of all places, but other than the hardcore Tea Party types, no one can say (with a straight face, anyway) that Franks and Flake are "too liberal" to be "good" Republicans.  The lack of financial support for the upstarts indicates that both are safe from serious intra-GOP challenges.

Key:  "Analysis*" equals "opportunity to let loose a little snark."

Note: The candidates who didn't file reports that I could locate are all long shots anyway, so I'm not worrying about them.  If one of them pulls out a primary victory, I'll eat my computer**.

** = Not really.  I will admit to making a mistake, however.  Call it "eating crow instead of a computer."

Note2: I didn't really cover the Democratic races because there aren't any primary races for Congressional seats.

This year has been ugly, but Democrats *are* making progress in Arizona

It's been hard to tell, what with the Republican caucus in the lege and the Accidental Governor ignoring Democrats and trying "out-wingnut" each other, but there are signs that the Democratic Party has been making serious gains in Arizona.

Just in time for next year's elections.

In the area of voter registrations, the AZ Dems have cut the Rep registration advantage to 90,000 (as of July 2009). That sounds like a lot, until you remember that at this same time going into the 2006 Congressional midterm elections/statewide constitutional officer elections (July 2005), the Rep advantage was almost 150,000.

Just a reminder - In 2006, Democrats made gains in the lege and won two statewide seats, as well as gaining control of two more Congressional seats.


Even better than that is the latest report on state-by-state party affiliation figures from Gallup.

Not only is Arizona in the "competitive" category, we're actually listed as one having a slight (2%) advantage in people identifying themselves as "A Democrat" or "Leaning Democratic."


This is far from a guarantee of success for individual candidates or for the AZDems in next year's elections, but it does show that strong candidates combined with a strong outreach effort from all AZ Democrats could reap some serious benefits next year.

For both the ADP and, more importantly, the people of Arizona.

AZ U.S. House members' budgets

Info courtesy Politico.

The linked article is dated June 19, so for the sake of easy math, I'm assuming the numbers are current as of June 15. The presumption is that the amount spent represents the amount spent through 5.5 months of a 12-month year, 0r 45.83% of the year.

That might not be perfectly accurate (I don't know for sure what Politico's cut-off date was), but since everyone is subject to the same assumption, it works for comparison's sake.

Representative
2009 Allotment ($)
Total Spent ($)
% of budget spent

Jeff Flake (R-AZ6.)
1,559,332.00
301,492.87
19.33%

Trent Franks (R-AZ2)
1,604,247.00
278,691.39
17.37%

Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ8)
1,527,622.00
270,642.79
17.72%

Raul Grijalva (D-AZ7)
1,508,218.00
276,943.30
18.36%

Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ1)
1,515,010.00
135,196.04
8.92%

Harry Mitchell (D-AZ5)
1,515,410.00
264,989.60
17.49%

Ed Pastor (D-AZ4)
1,483,786.00
268,599.51
18.1%

John Shadegg (R-AZ3)
1,512,691.00
298,370.28
19.72%

Other than a few outliers (like Kirkpatrick's <9%), the AZ delegation and Congress as a whole is pretty consistent. At nearly the halfway point of the year, most House members have spent 17 - 21% of their budgets, leading me to believe that either -

1. Some of their bigger expenses are yet to come; or

2. Their office budgets are incredibly inflated, perhaps so that members can generate good press in December with press releases touting their frugality as evidenced by how much money they are returning at the end of the year.

The Goldwater Institute Proves That The Cuts To Education Are Devastating Arizona

The Goldwater Institute released an article yesterday declaring that the vast majority of Arizonans didn't protest and don't oppose the cuts to education, yet their own article served to highlight the drastic impact a lack of education can have on people.

The headline of the article (emphasis mine) -

99.999999999999 percent of Arizonans choose not to protest spending cuts

Ummm...the federal government (the USDA, to be specific) estimated AZ's 2007 population at 6,338,755.

Some basic math -

If, as the Goldwater Institute claims, 99.999999999999% of Arizonans didn't protest the cuts to education, that would mean that 0.000000000001% of Arizonans *did* protest them.

Based on their mathematical calculations, that would mean that out of over 6 million Arizonans, all of 0.000006338755 people showed up to protest the cuts at the legislature last week.

As the pictures of that rally show, significantly more than six millionths of a person were there.

I suggest that the authors of the article, Matthew Ladner and Byron Schlomach, look into registering for MAT082 at any Maricopa County community college (MAT082 - "Basic Arithmetic - Primary emphasis placed on fundamental operations with whole numbers, fractions, decimals, integers, and rational numbers; proportions, and percentages. Other topics include representations of data, geometric figures, and measurement. Prerequisites: None. ")

That is, if the education cuts that they've championed haven't necessitated cancellation of that class.

Note: at the end of the article, the authors state that the article itself "celebrates the long history of satire in American politics". If that is the case, then they do satire as well as they do math.

Later!

Crash Course On School Finance - Public invited

From the sidebar of an AZ Republic article on successful traditional educational programs at public schools -

What: Rep. David Schapira, ranking Democratic member of the House Education Committee, and Rep. Rich Crandall, House Education Committee chairman, invite the public to a Crash Course on School Finance, a presentation focused on educating legislators on the financing of Arizona schools.

When/where: 9-11 a.m. Thursday at the House of Representatives, - House Hearing Room 1, 1700 W. Washington St., Phoenix.

Details: The forum, hosted by Arizona Business and Education Coalition Executive Director Susan Carlson and moderated by Chuck Essigs, director of governmental relations for the Arizona Association of School Business Officials, will focus on the business side of schools and school-finance reform.

House Hearing Room 1 is accessed via the main lobby in the House building.

On a related note, over at Blog for Arizona, David Safier has been doing stellar work covering the state's budget crisis and the intention of the lege's Republican caucus (aka - the Arizona Chapter of the Flat Earth Society) to use the budget deficit as political cover to shred funding for public education...while protecting funding for things such as prisons. (Safier references an Arizona Guardian article here)

I'd just like to point out one thing to those that think that Arizonans' tax money is better invested by imprisoning people than by educating them -

Arizona spending per prisoner, FY2001 - $22476
US average for that year - $22650
No rank listed in the linked report, but you can see AZ was nearly average in this regard, so the rank was probably in the mid-20s.


Arizona spending per student, School year 2000-2001 - $5100
US average for that year -$7284
Rank: 49

Arizona crime rate rank, 2001 - 1


So could someone explain to me how solidly funding prisons while cutting, even destroying, public education funding, is cost effective in the long term?

Note: I used 2001 figures to compare apples to apples as 2001 was the most recent year that I could find reliable figures and ranks for all three areas (prison spending, education spending, crime rates)