Again, all info courtesy the Arizona Secretary of State's website...
Kara Kelty, Democrat (Clean Elections financing) - Raised $9000, spent $2600, cash on hand $6300.
Sandra Kennedy, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $7700, spent $1400, cash on hand $6200.
Paul Newman, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $7300, spent $900, cash on hand $6400.
Sam George, Democrat (Traditional financing) - Raised $30000, spent $18000, cash on hand of just under $12000. All $30K raised was from the candidate himself and all but $4.00 (four!) of the reported expenditures went to AZ Petition Partners of Scottsdale.
Barry Wong, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $13500, spent $13000, cash on hand $500. Most interesting name: David Iglesias, the ousted U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, gave $130 in seed money.
Bob Robson, Republican (Traditional) - Raised $54000, spent $9000, cash on hand $133000. *Lots* of contributions from lawyers, lobbyists, and PACs. Used paid petition circulators/consultants, Lincoln Strategy Group - all but approximately $400 of this report's expenditures went to them.
Rick Fowlkes, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $1000, spent $1800, cash on hand of just under $500.
Marian McClure, Republican (Traditional) - Raised $8800, spent $4000, cash on hand $5300. More than $3700 of her expenditures went to Lincoln Strategy.
Bob Stump, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $14000, spent $9700, cash on hand $7600. He paid Lincoln Strategy $5300.
Joseph Hobbs, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $3500. spent $3600, cash on hand $260. Interesting names: Colette Rosati and Don Goldwater gave him seed money, $130 each. Not exactly voices of moderation, even by the skewed standards of the Arizona Republican Party. He also had paid petition circulators.
John Allen, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $8500, spent almost $8700, cash on hand $200. He received seed money from Colette Rosati, too.
Keith Swapp, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $5800, spent $1900, cash on hand $4200. Interesting names: Received seed money from Colette Rosati, State Rep. Jerry Weiers and Don Goldwater.
One thing that I've learned from doing these posts - Clean Elections candidates tend to have very boring lists of contributors and expenses.
*Very* boring.
Later!
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Campaign Finance Reports - LD8, LD17, LD18
All info courtesy the website of the Arizona Secretary of State...
LD8 State Senate -
Carolyn Allen, Republican (traditional financing) - raised $22000, spent $8000, cash on hand $68000. Interesting names: Her entire list of contributors reads like a "Who's Who" of the Arizona business community (heavy on the healthcare sector), so in the interests of brevity, I won't list any of them, but one of the non-business community folks to contribute to her campaign was David Waid, former ED of the Arizona Democratic Party, who gave $100.
Robert Weber, Libertarian (Clean Elections financing) - Nada. Zip. Bupkes. No activity. At all. When I saw this report, I was going to question why go to the effort of getting on the ballot if he wasn't going to at least *try* to mount a campaign, but upon further reflection, I've decided not to go there.
Not because I'm feeling nice, but because Mr. Weber didn't actually qualify for the ballot.
LD8 State Representative -
Michele Reagan, Republican (Traditional) - Raised $11000, spent $11000, cash on hand of just under $46000. Interesting name: David Waid (again!) gave $200.
Stephanie Rimmer, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $2000, spent $1600, cash on hand of $400.
John Kavanagh, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $930, spent slightly less than $400, cash on hand slightly more than $500.
LD17 State Senate -
Meg Burton Cahill, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised almost $2900. spent $86, cash on hand of a little more than $2700.
Jesse Hernandez, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $250, spent $0, cash on hand $250.
LD17 State Representative -
David Schapira, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $16000 ($12921 CCEC funding), spent $2500, cash on hand $14200.
Ed Ableser, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $14600 ($12921 CCEC funding), spent $2400, cash on hand $12600.
Wes Waddle, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $500, spent $150, cash on hand $350.
Mark Thompson, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $1200, spent $100, cash on hand $1100.
LD18 State Senate -
Judah Nativio, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $960, spent just under $800, cash on hand of just under $800.
Kevin Gibbons, Republican (Traditional) - Raised $66000, spent $3500, cash on hand of just under $63000. Interesting names: State Rep. Lynne Pancrazi donated $200; Jean McGrath, former legislator and current member of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District board, gave $100; Jim Pederson, former Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate gave $390. In addition, he had a large number of agriculture-related contributors, a large group from Yuma, of all places.
Russell Pearce, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $2300, spent $24000 ($23K had to do with closing the books on the Pearce Exploratory Committee), cash on hand $2600. Received $19382 CCEC funding after the reporting period ended.
I thought that Pearce's exploratory committee was a federal one formed for his abortive run at Jeff Flake's CD6 seat, so I'm not sure why anything related to it is showing up on his state report. I'll see what I can find out (aka - I'll call the Secretary of State's office and ask :) ).
LD18 Representative -
Tammie Pursley, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $1700, spent $350, cash on hand of $1300.
Cecil Ash, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $2950, spent $800, cash on hand of $2150. Received $19382 CCEC funding after the reporting period ended.
Steve Court, Republican (Clean Elections) -Raised almost $14700 ($12921 CCEC), spent $6500, cash on hand $8200. Received supplemental CCEC funding of $6461 ($19382 total) after the reporting period ended.
Kanani Henderson, Republican (Traditional) - Raised $1300, spent $260, cash on hand of nearly $1100.
Ron Middlebrook, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $1245, spent $0, cash on hand $1245. Received $19382 CCEC funding after the reporting period ended.
CCEC's LD18 candidate forum for Republican candidates (House and Senate) will be held on Thursday, July 10 at EVIT, 1601 W. Main St., Mesa, AZ from 6:00 p.m until 8:00 p.m.
I'll do a post on Corporation Commission candidate reports later on Thursday.
Later!
LD8 State Senate -
Carolyn Allen, Republican (traditional financing) - raised $22000, spent $8000, cash on hand $68000. Interesting names: Her entire list of contributors reads like a "Who's Who" of the Arizona business community (heavy on the healthcare sector), so in the interests of brevity, I won't list any of them, but one of the non-business community folks to contribute to her campaign was David Waid, former ED of the Arizona Democratic Party, who gave $100.
Robert Weber, Libertarian (Clean Elections financing) - Nada. Zip. Bupkes. No activity. At all. When I saw this report, I was going to question why go to the effort of getting on the ballot if he wasn't going to at least *try* to mount a campaign, but upon further reflection, I've decided not to go there.
Not because I'm feeling nice, but because Mr. Weber didn't actually qualify for the ballot.
LD8 State Representative -
Michele Reagan, Republican (Traditional) - Raised $11000, spent $11000, cash on hand of just under $46000. Interesting name: David Waid (again!) gave $200.
Stephanie Rimmer, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $2000, spent $1600, cash on hand of $400.
John Kavanagh, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $930, spent slightly less than $400, cash on hand slightly more than $500.
LD17 State Senate -
Meg Burton Cahill, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised almost $2900. spent $86, cash on hand of a little more than $2700.
Jesse Hernandez, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $250, spent $0, cash on hand $250.
LD17 State Representative -
David Schapira, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $16000 ($12921 CCEC funding), spent $2500, cash on hand $14200.
Ed Ableser, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $14600 ($12921 CCEC funding), spent $2400, cash on hand $12600.
Wes Waddle, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $500, spent $150, cash on hand $350.
Mark Thompson, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $1200, spent $100, cash on hand $1100.
LD18 State Senate -
Judah Nativio, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $960, spent just under $800, cash on hand of just under $800.
Kevin Gibbons, Republican (Traditional) - Raised $66000, spent $3500, cash on hand of just under $63000. Interesting names: State Rep. Lynne Pancrazi donated $200; Jean McGrath, former legislator and current member of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District board, gave $100; Jim Pederson, former Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate gave $390. In addition, he had a large number of agriculture-related contributors, a large group from Yuma, of all places.
Russell Pearce, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $2300, spent $24000 ($23K had to do with closing the books on the Pearce Exploratory Committee), cash on hand $2600. Received $19382 CCEC funding after the reporting period ended.
I thought that Pearce's exploratory committee was a federal one formed for his abortive run at Jeff Flake's CD6 seat, so I'm not sure why anything related to it is showing up on his state report. I'll see what I can find out (aka - I'll call the Secretary of State's office and ask :) ).
LD18 Representative -
Tammie Pursley, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $1700, spent $350, cash on hand of $1300.
Cecil Ash, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $2950, spent $800, cash on hand of $2150. Received $19382 CCEC funding after the reporting period ended.
Steve Court, Republican (Clean Elections) -Raised almost $14700 ($12921 CCEC), spent $6500, cash on hand $8200. Received supplemental CCEC funding of $6461 ($19382 total) after the reporting period ended.
Kanani Henderson, Republican (Traditional) - Raised $1300, spent $260, cash on hand of nearly $1100.
Ron Middlebrook, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $1245, spent $0, cash on hand $1245. Received $19382 CCEC funding after the reporting period ended.
CCEC's LD18 candidate forum for Republican candidates (House and Senate) will be held on Thursday, July 10 at EVIT, 1601 W. Main St., Mesa, AZ from 6:00 p.m until 8:00 p.m.
I'll do a post on Corporation Commission candidate reports later on Thursday.
Later!
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
A quick look at financial reports for County races
Some of the highlights of reports covering the period from January 1 thru May 31, courtesy the Maricopa County Recorder's website -
Sheriff's race -
Joe Arpaio - received $121000, spent $23000, cash on hand of $358000. Nearly all of his expenditures went toward fundraising and consulting fees from a company called Summit Consulting Group ($22500+). The report was hand-written, but at least was somewhat more legible than Mayor Manross'.
Dan Saban - Couldn't find the report on the County Recorder's site, but Dennis Welch of the Trib had an article stating that Saban has raised $48000 for his campaign to unseat Arpaio; no details on expenditures, cash on hand, or whether the funds raised are from the reporting period or for the entire campaign (since 2006). The article goes on to cite "$430000" as the amount raised by Arpaio, but that is for the entire campaign, plus the rollover of cash left over from his previous campaign committee.
However sloppily the article was written, it's clear that the Arpaio money machine is fully up to speed, and Dan Saban needs all of us to help him restore professionalism to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. Contribute here.
County Attorney race -
Gerald Richard - Raised $60000, spent $26000, cash on hand of $40000. $10000 of the money raised was a candidate loan to the campaign.
Tim Nelson - Raised $207000, spent $29000, cash on hand of $177000.
Note: there is an open forum for candidates for County Attorney scheduled for next Tuesday at Changing Hands Bookstore, 6428 S McClintock Dr, Tempe (SW corner of McClintock and Guadalupe) at 7 p.m.
Andrew Thomas - Raised $39000, spent $26000, cash on hand of $213000. Over $14000 of his expenditures went to Summit Consulting, the same folks that Arpaio has hired; in addition, he spent over $6000 on paid petition circulators.
Ummm...Tim Nelson's supporters are crowing over his successful fundraising during the period (as they should be), but what shouldn't be lost in the hubbub is the fact that Gerald Richard outraised the incumbent Thomas, too.
Not a good sign for any incumbent when two (2!) would-be challengers do a better job at fundraising. And for a Republican incumbent is what is shaping up to be a horrible year for Republicans in general????
BTW - his report was typewritten, but with lots of "info requesteds" and "retireds" under the "Occupations" headings. The "retireds' might be legit, but any report with more than a few "info requesteds" tends to raise eyebrows.
County Supervisor, District 1 -
Ed Hermes - Raised almost $66000, spent $2000, cash on hand of >$63000. Candidate loan - $10000. Interesting names: OK, there were a lot of names that I recognized on the list of contributors to Hermes, former vice-chair of the LD17 Democrats, but standing out was former U.S. Senator Dennis Deconcini, who gave $390. Oh yeah, and the Hermes family is a large one. :))
Fulton Brock - Raised $34000, spent $14000+, cash on hand of $120000. He also used paid petition circulators.
Sooooooo....did anyone else notice that the relative rookie seriously outraised the long-time incumbent (by almost $30K) and out-organized him too? (Obtained nearly as many nominating sigs - 1254 to 1598 - and got them the hard way, walking and knocking and meeting people.)
County Supervisor, District 2 -
Joel Sinclaire - Raised $5700, spent $560, cash on hand of $5200. Candidate loan of $3200.
Don Stapley - Raised $50,000, spent $7400, cash on hand $83000. Interesting fact found in the financial report - Keith Russell, Republican candidate for County Assessor, paid for a mailing of Stapley's nominating petitions. From the report (page 6) -
Interesting names: Grady Gammage, a developer's favorite attorney, gave $390; Eddie Basha Jr., CEO of Basha's (AZ supermarket chain) gave $390; Jerry Colangelo, yes, *that* Jerry Colangelo, gave $390. There was one really interesting campaign expenditure - $40 for a subscription to Newsweek Magazine.
How does a committee for a county office candidate rationalize calling a subscription to a national news magazine a necessary campaign expense? Inquiring minds want to know. :))
County Supervisor, District 3 -
Marilyn Fox - Raised $1400, spent $200, cash on hand $900.
Andy Kunasek - Raised $81000, spent $15000, cash on hand . Like Arpaio and Thomas, Kunasek has hired Summit Consulting. However, unlike with the Nativist Twins, payments to Summit do not constitute a majority of his expenditures.
Contribute to Fox here. Not sure why she deserves our support? Read about Kunasek in action here (courtesy Sam Coppersmith at Liberal Desert). 'Nuff said.
I'm not going to bother with the reports from Supervisor Districts 4 and 5 (Mary Rose Wilcox and Max Wilson are unopposed) or for the other county offices (the candidates are either unopposed or the winner of the Republican primary will be unopposed in the general election.)
Later!
Sheriff's race -
Joe Arpaio - received $121000, spent $23000, cash on hand of $358000. Nearly all of his expenditures went toward fundraising and consulting fees from a company called Summit Consulting Group ($22500+). The report was hand-written, but at least was somewhat more legible than Mayor Manross'.
Dan Saban - Couldn't find the report on the County Recorder's site, but Dennis Welch of the Trib had an article stating that Saban has raised $48000 for his campaign to unseat Arpaio; no details on expenditures, cash on hand, or whether the funds raised are from the reporting period or for the entire campaign (since 2006). The article goes on to cite "$430000" as the amount raised by Arpaio, but that is for the entire campaign, plus the rollover of cash left over from his previous campaign committee.
However sloppily the article was written, it's clear that the Arpaio money machine is fully up to speed, and Dan Saban needs all of us to help him restore professionalism to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. Contribute here.
County Attorney race -
Gerald Richard - Raised $60000, spent $26000, cash on hand of $40000. $10000 of the money raised was a candidate loan to the campaign.
Tim Nelson - Raised $207000, spent $29000, cash on hand of $177000.
Note: there is an open forum for candidates for County Attorney scheduled for next Tuesday at Changing Hands Bookstore, 6428 S McClintock Dr, Tempe (SW corner of McClintock and Guadalupe) at 7 p.m.
Andrew Thomas - Raised $39000, spent $26000, cash on hand of $213000. Over $14000 of his expenditures went to Summit Consulting, the same folks that Arpaio has hired; in addition, he spent over $6000 on paid petition circulators.
Ummm...Tim Nelson's supporters are crowing over his successful fundraising during the period (as they should be), but what shouldn't be lost in the hubbub is the fact that Gerald Richard outraised the incumbent Thomas, too.
Not a good sign for any incumbent when two (2!) would-be challengers do a better job at fundraising. And for a Republican incumbent is what is shaping up to be a horrible year for Republicans in general????
BTW - his report was typewritten, but with lots of "info requesteds" and "retireds" under the "Occupations" headings. The "retireds' might be legit, but any report with more than a few "info requesteds" tends to raise eyebrows.
County Supervisor, District 1 -
Ed Hermes - Raised almost $66000, spent $2000, cash on hand of >$63000. Candidate loan - $10000. Interesting names: OK, there were a lot of names that I recognized on the list of contributors to Hermes, former vice-chair of the LD17 Democrats, but standing out was former U.S. Senator Dennis Deconcini, who gave $390. Oh yeah, and the Hermes family is a large one. :))
Fulton Brock - Raised $34000, spent $14000+, cash on hand of $120000. He also used paid petition circulators.
Sooooooo....did anyone else notice that the relative rookie seriously outraised the long-time incumbent (by almost $30K) and out-organized him too? (Obtained nearly as many nominating sigs - 1254 to 1598 - and got them the hard way, walking and knocking and meeting people.)
County Supervisor, District 2 -
Joel Sinclaire - Raised $5700, spent $560, cash on hand of $5200. Candidate loan of $3200.
Don Stapley - Raised $50,000, spent $7400, cash on hand $83000. Interesting fact found in the financial report - Keith Russell, Republican candidate for County Assessor, paid for a mailing of Stapley's nominating petitions. From the report (page 6) -
Total cost of mailing 463.91
Payment 231.95 Russell 08
231.95 Contribution in-kind to Don Stapley campaign from Keith and Becky Russell
Interesting names: Grady Gammage, a developer's favorite attorney, gave $390; Eddie Basha Jr., CEO of Basha's (AZ supermarket chain) gave $390; Jerry Colangelo, yes, *that* Jerry Colangelo, gave $390. There was one really interesting campaign expenditure - $40 for a subscription to Newsweek Magazine.
How does a committee for a county office candidate rationalize calling a subscription to a national news magazine a necessary campaign expense? Inquiring minds want to know. :))
County Supervisor, District 3 -
Marilyn Fox - Raised $1400, spent $200, cash on hand $900.
Andy Kunasek - Raised $81000, spent $15000, cash on hand . Like Arpaio and Thomas, Kunasek has hired Summit Consulting. However, unlike with the Nativist Twins, payments to Summit do not constitute a majority of his expenditures.
Contribute to Fox here. Not sure why she deserves our support? Read about Kunasek in action here (courtesy Sam Coppersmith at Liberal Desert). 'Nuff said.
I'm not going to bother with the reports from Supervisor Districts 4 and 5 (Mary Rose Wilcox and Max Wilson are unopposed) or for the other county offices (the candidates are either unopposed or the winner of the Republican primary will be unopposed in the general election.)
Later!
Maybe they should just retire the "Straight Talk Express" in favor of the "Swift Boat Express"
Want to know why the "Sunday Morning Crappie Award" was renamed the "John Sydney McCain Memorial Crappie Award"? Bush, Shadegg, Bee, and the rest of the Republicans are just pretenders to McCain's flip-flop supremacy.
Basics of the current dustup -
First the McCain campaign expresses outrage at the remarks of Gen. Wesley Clark on Face The Nation this weekend, wherein Clark opined that McCain's military service as an naval aviator and POW didn't especially qualify McCain for the White House as nothing in his service involved "executive responsibility."
The McCain campaign responded quickly and loudly, claiming that Clark was insulting McCain's military service and calling on Barack Obama to repudiate Clark.
Obama countered by stating the he honored McCain's service and distancing himself from Clark's comments.
The McCain campaign and its echo chamber (Fox News and the right-wing blogosphere) are still trying to pump the story, but it will probably fade by the end of the week.
Anyway, the hypocritical part?
McCain objected so much to the perceived criticism of his military service that he relied upon an old friend and cellmate from his POW days to help him fend off the attack (imagined or otherwise).
Col. Bud Day joined the McCain "Truth Squad."
The same Bud Day who was part of the 2004 Swift Boat campaign of lies and innuendo targeted at the military service of Sen. John Kerry.
Yup, McCain objects so strongly to criticism of a presidential candidate's military service, even open and honest criticism, that he has commissioned the services of people with a history of lying about the military service of presidential candidates.
...But for the McCainiacs' twisting and twisted two-step, this next story would have taken the lead on everyone's "Republicans and their hypocritical follies" report (credit for the heads-up goes out to Countdown With Keith Olbermann on MSNBC)...
A proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution was recently introduced in the Senate, one that would restrict marriage to the union of one man and one woman.
S.J.Res. 43 was introduced by Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS).
Two of the original cosponsors of the measure (Note: in this context, 'original cosponsor' means that they signed on to the bill from the moment it was introduced) -
Sen. Larry "Disorderly Conduct" Craig (R-ID) and Sen. David "Family Values" Vitter (R-LA).
Note: in *this* context, "disorderly conduct" means "sexually propositioned an undercover police officer in a public restroom" and "family values" means "married but a regular customer of a Washington, D.C. madam because hismommy wife wouldn't let him wear diapers."
All of the Republicans involved in today's post have many times previously, claimed that people were spreading lies about them.
To that I say, "why would anyone bother with the effort, when the truth is so much easier, and a *lot* juicier."
Plus, there's no way that anyone could make up something as outlandish as their reality.
Coverage at The Huffington Post here.
Later!
Basics of the current dustup -
First the McCain campaign expresses outrage at the remarks of Gen. Wesley Clark on Face The Nation this weekend, wherein Clark opined that McCain's military service as an naval aviator and POW didn't especially qualify McCain for the White House as nothing in his service involved "executive responsibility."
The McCain campaign responded quickly and loudly, claiming that Clark was insulting McCain's military service and calling on Barack Obama to repudiate Clark.
Obama countered by stating the he honored McCain's service and distancing himself from Clark's comments.
The McCain campaign and its echo chamber (Fox News and the right-wing blogosphere) are still trying to pump the story, but it will probably fade by the end of the week.
Anyway, the hypocritical part?
McCain objected so much to the perceived criticism of his military service that he relied upon an old friend and cellmate from his POW days to help him fend off the attack (imagined or otherwise).
Col. Bud Day joined the McCain "Truth Squad."
The same Bud Day who was part of the 2004 Swift Boat campaign of lies and innuendo targeted at the military service of Sen. John Kerry.
Yup, McCain objects so strongly to criticism of a presidential candidate's military service, even open and honest criticism, that he has commissioned the services of people with a history of lying about the military service of presidential candidates.
...But for the McCainiacs' twisting and twisted two-step, this next story would have taken the lead on everyone's "Republicans and their hypocritical follies" report (credit for the heads-up goes out to Countdown With Keith Olbermann on MSNBC)...
A proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution was recently introduced in the Senate, one that would restrict marriage to the union of one man and one woman.
S.J.Res. 43 was introduced by Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS).
Two of the original cosponsors of the measure (Note: in this context, 'original cosponsor' means that they signed on to the bill from the moment it was introduced) -
Sen. Larry "Disorderly Conduct" Craig (R-ID) and Sen. David "Family Values" Vitter (R-LA).
Note: in *this* context, "disorderly conduct" means "sexually propositioned an undercover police officer in a public restroom" and "family values" means "married but a regular customer of a Washington, D.C. madam because his
All of the Republicans involved in today's post have many times previously, claimed that people were spreading lies about them.
To that I say, "why would anyone bother with the effort, when the truth is so much easier, and a *lot* juicier."
Plus, there's no way that anyone could make up something as outlandish as their reality.
Coverage at The Huffington Post here.
Later!
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Scottsdale campaign finance reports are in...
Ari Cohn of the Trib beat me to this subject with this story in today's paper (darn you Ari!!! LOL)...Guess I'll have to go for a little depth instead of simple numbers...
Campaign financial reports are in for the period of January 1 through May 31.
Council candidates -
Lisa Borowsky, raised $3100, cash on hand $200. Most of her contributions came in $390 increments (the max amount in local elections) and many came from her family. Interesting name: Travis Junion, a vice chair of the LD8 Republicans handled printing her nominating petitions ($25 in-kind contribution.)
Joel Bramoweth - No money raised during the period, but he had raised a lot of money previous to the period and has almost $8700 cash on hand.
Oren Davis - A late entrant into the race, he raised more than $4200 and spent more than $4100. Reports cash on hand of $94.16. All funds from himself; most of expenditures were for paid petition circulators.
Betty Drake - Raised $8600, spent a little less than $600, cash on hand $9800. Interesting names: Former Councilman Kevin Osterman made a $50 contribution, the UFCW contributed $2000.
Tom Giller - Raised $2300, spent $680, almost $1700 cash on hand. Interesting names: Bob and Kathy Littlefield, City Councilman and treasurer of the LD8 Republicans respectively, each contributed $300, Jim Derouin, former candidate for mayor, gave $390.
Suzanne Klapp - Raised $6500, spent just under $1900, and has cash on hand of more than $11000. Note: She loaned her own campaign $5000. Interesting names: State Rep. Michele Reagan gave her $300; Virginia Korte, Scottsdale business leader, gave $100; Joyce Schweikert, wife of Republican congressional candidate David Schweikert, gave $50; and SRP's PAC gave $400. She used paid petition circulators, The Campaign Finance Company LLC, which is operated by the infamous Derrick Lee.
OK kiddies, can you say "Establishment Candidate"?
Ron McCullagh - Raised $1240, spent $586, cash on hand of $17000. Nothing too interesting as far as names contributing money.
Richard Mueller - Nada. Filed a report with no activity; should have formed his committee as a $500 Exemption one.
Nan Nesvig - Raised just over $1500, spent just over $3100, cash on hand of $120. Loaned her own campaign $350. She used paid petition circulators Petition Pros of Gilbert.
Mayoral Candidates -
John Washington, write-in candidate, set up his campaign as a $500 Exemption candidate - no report filed.
Jim Lane - Raised $25000, spent a little more than $10000, cash on hand of $22000. Interesting names: Clint Bolick, director of the very conservative Goldwater Institute (sort of the business community's version of the Center forArizona Policy), gave $100; Jim Derouin, former candidate for Mayor, gave $250; returned a $390 contribution from the infamous (around Scottsdale, anyway :) ) Henry Becker. Lane's biggest expense was $3368 for TV spots currently airing on cable.
Mary Manross - the incumbent Mayor raised $31000, spent just under $4000, cash on hand of $30000. Interesting names: Jim Bruner, former county supervisor, gave $250, as did his wife Sandy; Debbie Gaby, owner of mattress retailer Sleep America (trust me, you've heard her on one of her ubiquitous radio spots), gave $100; Kevin Osterman gave $100; David Waid, former ED of the Arizona Democratic Party, gave $200. Note: whoever writes up her financial reports either needs to improve their handwriting, or should just type them...and use fewer acronyms, too.
Given the cash on hand numbers for both Lane and Manross, expect lots of mailers, TV spots, and newspaper ads to plaster the city in the weeks leading up to Scottsdale's election in September. As for campaign signs, those are frowned upon in the culture of Scottsdale (they're 'eyesores' or something like that.) There should be some yard signs, but few if any larger signs.
Caveat - All of the "interesting names" are limited to names that I recognized (or in the case of Manross' report, names that I could both read and recognize.) It's very likely that there were other contributors of note; visit the City of Scottsdale's Elections homepage and search through the campaign finance reports for more details.
Later!
Campaign financial reports are in for the period of January 1 through May 31.
Council candidates -
Lisa Borowsky, raised $3100, cash on hand $200. Most of her contributions came in $390 increments (the max amount in local elections) and many came from her family. Interesting name: Travis Junion, a vice chair of the LD8 Republicans handled printing her nominating petitions ($25 in-kind contribution.)
Joel Bramoweth - No money raised during the period, but he had raised a lot of money previous to the period and has almost $8700 cash on hand.
Oren Davis - A late entrant into the race, he raised more than $4200 and spent more than $4100. Reports cash on hand of $94.16. All funds from himself; most of expenditures were for paid petition circulators.
Betty Drake - Raised $8600, spent a little less than $600, cash on hand $9800. Interesting names: Former Councilman Kevin Osterman made a $50 contribution, the UFCW contributed $2000.
Tom Giller - Raised $2300, spent $680, almost $1700 cash on hand. Interesting names: Bob and Kathy Littlefield, City Councilman and treasurer of the LD8 Republicans respectively, each contributed $300, Jim Derouin, former candidate for mayor, gave $390.
Suzanne Klapp - Raised $6500, spent just under $1900, and has cash on hand of more than $11000. Note: She loaned her own campaign $5000. Interesting names: State Rep. Michele Reagan gave her $300; Virginia Korte, Scottsdale business leader, gave $100; Joyce Schweikert, wife of Republican congressional candidate David Schweikert, gave $50; and SRP's PAC gave $400. She used paid petition circulators, The Campaign Finance Company LLC, which is operated by the infamous Derrick Lee.
OK kiddies, can you say "Establishment Candidate"?
Ron McCullagh - Raised $1240, spent $586, cash on hand of $17000. Nothing too interesting as far as names contributing money.
Richard Mueller - Nada. Filed a report with no activity; should have formed his committee as a $500 Exemption one.
Nan Nesvig - Raised just over $1500, spent just over $3100, cash on hand of $120. Loaned her own campaign $350. She used paid petition circulators Petition Pros of Gilbert.
Mayoral Candidates -
John Washington, write-in candidate, set up his campaign as a $500 Exemption candidate - no report filed.
Jim Lane - Raised $25000, spent a little more than $10000, cash on hand of $22000. Interesting names: Clint Bolick, director of the very conservative Goldwater Institute (sort of the business community's version of the Center forArizona Policy), gave $100; Jim Derouin, former candidate for Mayor, gave $250; returned a $390 contribution from the infamous (around Scottsdale, anyway :) ) Henry Becker. Lane's biggest expense was $3368 for TV spots currently airing on cable.
Mary Manross - the incumbent Mayor raised $31000, spent just under $4000, cash on hand of $30000. Interesting names: Jim Bruner, former county supervisor, gave $250, as did his wife Sandy; Debbie Gaby, owner of mattress retailer Sleep America (trust me, you've heard her on one of her ubiquitous radio spots), gave $100; Kevin Osterman gave $100; David Waid, former ED of the Arizona Democratic Party, gave $200. Note: whoever writes up her financial reports either needs to improve their handwriting, or should just type them...and use fewer acronyms, too.
Given the cash on hand numbers for both Lane and Manross, expect lots of mailers, TV spots, and newspaper ads to plaster the city in the weeks leading up to Scottsdale's election in September. As for campaign signs, those are frowned upon in the culture of Scottsdale (they're 'eyesores' or something like that.) There should be some yard signs, but few if any larger signs.
Caveat - All of the "interesting names" are limited to names that I recognized (or in the case of Manross' report, names that I could both read and recognize.) It's very likely that there were other contributors of note; visit the City of Scottsdale's Elections homepage and search through the campaign finance reports for more details.
Later!
Thank you, Senate Republicans
This is the second, less gentle, smack talk post (I meant to do this over the weekend, but work sort of intruded... :) )
...In the waning hours of this year's legislative session, the Arizona Chapter of the Flat Earth Society caved in the Center for Arizona Policy and the other ideological bullies in their party when they voted to send a ban on same-sex marriage to November's ballot.
All sorts of legislative arm-twisting, shenanigans, and outright rule-breaking were used to bring the measure to the floor and force its passage and referral to the fall ballot.
Let's be clear on one thing - the measure is spiteful, petty, and vindictive and should be opposed by anyone with a moral center, a shred of humanity, and a soul.
Having said all that, there's a silver lining to Friday's debacle.
They've now thoroughly pissed off and motivated a voting bloc that overwhelmingly votes Democratic.
The heretofore fairly well-behaved wingers in the lege, or at least heretofore ineffective (more on that point in a moment), hadn't done much harm this session.
Lots of preening and posturing could be seen, and bellowing and bloviatingcould be heard, but they never could quite muster the votes necessary to push their anti-everything agenda of ballot measures (doing an end-run around the Governor's veto pen).
Unlike, say, in 2006, when they placed 8 measures on that fall's ballot, most of which were of the anti-immigrant or anti-education. Note: Prop 107, the anti-same sex marriage measure on the ballot that year, was placed there by initiative petition.
Guess it was easier this time around to get 16 Senators and 35 Representatives to sign on rather than go out and gather >230,000 signatures. Probably cheaper, too - they spent more than $1,000,000 in 2006.
Of course, that election in 2006 with the anti-same sex marriage question is the same election that brought some voices of sanity to the lege, leading to, or at least contributing to, the wingers' ineffectiveness in 2007 and 2008.
There just wasn't quite enough of them to work their hate with their usual glib, saccharin-tongued ease.
As evidenced by Friday's vote in the Senate, they still have some sway in the lege, but it's much less than in sessions past, and they had to work a *lot* harder to wield the influence they had remaining.
To sum up, they've motivated the Democratic Party base and a large bloc of independent voters in Arizona to a degree not seen since...
2006, the last really bad year for Republicans in AZ.
If Barack Obama actually beats McCain in AZ, or if the Dems take control of one or both chambers of the state lege, the Reps should look back at the ballot measure and their zeal and ruthlessness in railroading it through when parceling out the blame.
While I won't predict either of those outcomes at this time (still too much of an uphill battle for the lege), I do have one prediction - while the CD8 campaigns will play out over the summer and into the fall, for all practical purposes, Tim Bee's quest to unseat Gabrielle Giffords is over.
In CD8, only a relatively moderate Republican like Jim Kolbe has a chance of winning (not that Kolbe was actually a moderate) but with his behavior in railroading through SCR1042, Tim Bee has painted himelf as being an extremeist a la Randy Graf.
11 of the 16 Senators who voted for SCR1042 are facing general election challenges (a couple are termed out, one is facing only a primary challenge, or two are totally unchallenged in their quests for reelection). All of their challengers deserve support, but none more so than Robert Boehlke, the Democratic challenger to Jack Harper in LD4. Tim Bee may have been the conductor on this railroad, but Harper was the engineer driving the train.
Harper's a complete tool, brazen ideological thug and utter loon, which would be fine if he only impacted his own district (then it would a problem for the voters there, not the rest of us).
Unfortunately, he's hurting the entire state now, and deserves to be turned out of office.
What they did wasn't just petulant, it abominable. However, it may not be the end of the world - a measure that was put on the ballot to raise their own voter turnout may have an even stronger effect on the turnout of Democrats and Independents.
Pico at Wild Chihuahas has some great coverage on this issue.
Later!
...In the waning hours of this year's legislative session, the Arizona Chapter of the Flat Earth Society caved in the Center for Arizona Policy and the other ideological bullies in their party when they voted to send a ban on same-sex marriage to November's ballot.
All sorts of legislative arm-twisting, shenanigans, and outright rule-breaking were used to bring the measure to the floor and force its passage and referral to the fall ballot.
Let's be clear on one thing - the measure is spiteful, petty, and vindictive and should be opposed by anyone with a moral center, a shred of humanity, and a soul.
Having said all that, there's a silver lining to Friday's debacle.
They've now thoroughly pissed off and motivated a voting bloc that overwhelmingly votes Democratic.
The heretofore fairly well-behaved wingers in the lege, or at least heretofore ineffective (more on that point in a moment), hadn't done much harm this session.
Lots of preening and posturing could be seen, and bellowing and bloviatingcould be heard, but they never could quite muster the votes necessary to push their anti-everything agenda of ballot measures (doing an end-run around the Governor's veto pen).
Unlike, say, in 2006, when they placed 8 measures on that fall's ballot, most of which were of the anti-immigrant or anti-education. Note: Prop 107, the anti-same sex marriage measure on the ballot that year, was placed there by initiative petition.
Guess it was easier this time around to get 16 Senators and 35 Representatives to sign on rather than go out and gather >230,000 signatures. Probably cheaper, too - they spent more than $1,000,000 in 2006.
Of course, that election in 2006 with the anti-same sex marriage question is the same election that brought some voices of sanity to the lege, leading to, or at least contributing to, the wingers' ineffectiveness in 2007 and 2008.
There just wasn't quite enough of them to work their hate with their usual glib, saccharin-tongued ease.
As evidenced by Friday's vote in the Senate, they still have some sway in the lege, but it's much less than in sessions past, and they had to work a *lot* harder to wield the influence they had remaining.
To sum up, they've motivated the Democratic Party base and a large bloc of independent voters in Arizona to a degree not seen since...
2006, the last really bad year for Republicans in AZ.
If Barack Obama actually beats McCain in AZ, or if the Dems take control of one or both chambers of the state lege, the Reps should look back at the ballot measure and their zeal and ruthlessness in railroading it through when parceling out the blame.
While I won't predict either of those outcomes at this time (still too much of an uphill battle for the lege), I do have one prediction - while the CD8 campaigns will play out over the summer and into the fall, for all practical purposes, Tim Bee's quest to unseat Gabrielle Giffords is over.
In CD8, only a relatively moderate Republican like Jim Kolbe has a chance of winning (not that Kolbe was actually a moderate) but with his behavior in railroading through SCR1042, Tim Bee has painted himelf as being an extremeist a la Randy Graf.
11 of the 16 Senators who voted for SCR1042 are facing general election challenges (a couple are termed out, one is facing only a primary challenge, or two are totally unchallenged in their quests for reelection). All of their challengers deserve support, but none more so than Robert Boehlke, the Democratic challenger to Jack Harper in LD4. Tim Bee may have been the conductor on this railroad, but Harper was the engineer driving the train.
Harper's a complete tool, brazen ideological thug and utter loon, which would be fine if he only impacted his own district (then it would a problem for the voters there, not the rest of us).
Unfortunately, he's hurting the entire state now, and deserves to be turned out of office.
What they did wasn't just petulant, it abominable. However, it may not be the end of the world - a measure that was put on the ballot to raise their own voter turnout may have an even stronger effect on the turnout of Democrats and Independents.
Pico at Wild Chihuahas has some great coverage on this issue.
Later!
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Rejected Campaign Slogans From CD5
Time for a couple of posts worth of smack talk...this is the gentle one. :)
BTW - this concept is shamelesslystolen borrowed from the Arizona Report...
From the trash baskets of the various Republican candidates in CD5 who are competing for the chance to take on Harry Mitchell -
Lee Gentry - "Don't think of it as zero name recognition, think of it as low negatives."
Jim Ogsbury - "The 'legislator to lobbyist' career track historically leads to corruption; going from lobbyist to legislator means the opposite, right?
Mark Anderson - " 'Really Conservative But Sane*' * = when compared to some of the other state legislators from LD18"
Susan Bitter Smith - "That Darn Ogsbury! He beat me into the race, and he beat me to that slogan!"
Laura Knaperek - "I've lost to Harry twice already and my friends lost to his son for Tempe City Council earlier this year, but I can beat him this time. I promise."
David Schweikert - "It may have been only a county gig, but at least I wasn't indicted, sued, or faced possible disbarrment because of the way that I performed my duties."
:))
BTW - this concept is shamelessly
From the trash baskets of the various Republican candidates in CD5 who are competing for the chance to take on Harry Mitchell -
Lee Gentry - "Don't think of it as zero name recognition, think of it as low negatives."
Jim Ogsbury - "The 'legislator to lobbyist' career track historically leads to corruption; going from lobbyist to legislator means the opposite, right?
Mark Anderson - " 'Really Conservative But Sane*' * = when compared to some of the other state legislators from LD18"
Susan Bitter Smith - "That Darn Ogsbury! He beat me into the race, and he beat me to that slogan!"
Laura Knaperek - "I've lost to Harry twice already and my friends lost to his son for Tempe City Council earlier this year, but I can beat him this time. I promise."
David Schweikert - "It may have been only a county gig, but at least I wasn't indicted, sued, or faced possible disbarrment because of the way that I performed my duties."
:))
Friday, June 27, 2008
John Shadegg - Newest Punter For The Cardinals??
Maybe he thinks that by not voting *against* a bill that would help American consumers facing skyrocketing gas prices, the consumers (and voters) of his district won't notice that he didn't vote *for* it, and them, either.
On Thursday, the House had nine roll call votes -
Roll Call #462, 11:52 a.m. EDT, Ordering the previous question (aka - ending debate) on H. Res. 1304, allowing for consideration of H.R. 6052 (a bill encouraging Americans to conserve energy by using public transportation). The motion passed 228 - 198, Shadegg voting nay (to continue deliberations).
Roll Call #463, 12:02 p.m., On passage of H. Res. 1304. Resolution passed 230 - 196, Shadegg voting nay (against allowing consideration of H.R. 6052).
Roll Call #464, 12:09 p.m., On passage of H. Res. 1291; passed 421 - 0, Shadegg voting yea.
Roll Call #465, 4:45 p.m., On approval of an amendment of H.R. 6052; passed 421 - 0, Shadegg voing yea.
Roll Call #466, 5:21 p.m. On a motion to recommit (aka - kill) H.R. 6052; failed 199 - 211, Shadegg voting yea.
Roll Call #467, 5:28 p.m., On Passage of H.R. 6052; passed 322 - 98, Shadegg voting nay (apparently he doesn't want people to use public transportation, perhaps because it might cut into the profit margins of Big Oil and the auto industry.)
Roll Call #468, 5:36 p.m.. On passage of H.R. 6377, the Energy Markets Emergency Act of 2008; passed 402 - 19, Shadegg voting yea. This bill would "direct the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to utilize all its authority, including its emergency powers, to curb immediately the role of excessive speculation in any contract market within the jurisdiction and control of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, on or through which energy futures or swaps are traded, and to eliminate excessive speculation, price distortion, sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in prices, or other unlawful activity that is causing major market disturbances that prevent the market from accurately reflecting the forces of supply and demand for energy commodities."
Roll Call #469, 5:44 p.m., On passage of H.R. 6251, the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act; failed 223 - 195 (2/3 required), Shadegg not voting. This bill would have compelled oil companies that leased public lands to drill for oil to actually drill and produce oil from that leased land, or be barred from acquiring more leases.
Roll Call #470, 5:51 p.m., On passage of H. Res. 1098, Supporting the goals and ideals of the Year of the American Veteran; passed 409 - 0, Shadegg voting yea.
So let's see...during an agonizingly long voting day of almost 6 hours (yes, that "agonizingly" is dripping with sarcasm), Shadegg makes every vote but for the one on the only bill under consideration that day that had some teeth in it, one that could have made a difference to the American people.
Coincidence? Probably not. Consider this -
One one hand, Shadegg is beholden to Big Oil, having received hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from petroleum and other energy interests over the years.
On the other hand, he's been getting some serious heat for being out of touch with his constituents and their concerns and needs.
Hmmm......so, what to do, what to do??? If he votes for the measure, he alienates some of his biggest campaign contributors (and possible future employers); if he votes against it, he further alienates the average resident of his district (increasing the likelihood that he will need a "future employer" after November's election).
Damned if you do, damned if you don't....
What's a weary, ready-to-retire-but-they-won't-let-him=go pol to do?
What else? Call upon all of his experience and guile and do something that no one will expect.
The legislative equivalent of football's quick kick - simply skip the tough vote.
And for this he gets paid almost $170K per year???
Anyway, perhaps somebody should let Shadegg know - it was a nice try, but he didn't fool anyone.
BTW - I'm not exactly the first one to notice Shadegg's little attempt at a slide-step. From a Bob Lord for Congress press release -
Expect a counter-release from the Shadegg campaign admonishing the Lord campaign for not saying "thank you" for the early Christmas gift. :)
Oh, and if Shadegg takes the title of this post to heart - Cards training camp starts July 25th.
Skipping out on that means that you get cut from the team. Keep this up, and Shadegg will be cut from the Congressional teams.
Later!
On Thursday, the House had nine roll call votes -
Roll Call #462, 11:52 a.m. EDT, Ordering the previous question (aka - ending debate) on H. Res. 1304, allowing for consideration of H.R. 6052 (a bill encouraging Americans to conserve energy by using public transportation). The motion passed 228 - 198, Shadegg voting nay (to continue deliberations).
Roll Call #463, 12:02 p.m., On passage of H. Res. 1304. Resolution passed 230 - 196, Shadegg voting nay (against allowing consideration of H.R. 6052).
Roll Call #464, 12:09 p.m., On passage of H. Res. 1291; passed 421 - 0, Shadegg voting yea.
Roll Call #465, 4:45 p.m., On approval of an amendment of H.R. 6052; passed 421 - 0, Shadegg voing yea.
Roll Call #466, 5:21 p.m. On a motion to recommit (aka - kill) H.R. 6052; failed 199 - 211, Shadegg voting yea.
Roll Call #467, 5:28 p.m., On Passage of H.R. 6052; passed 322 - 98, Shadegg voting nay (apparently he doesn't want people to use public transportation, perhaps because it might cut into the profit margins of Big Oil and the auto industry.)
Roll Call #468, 5:36 p.m.. On passage of H.R. 6377, the Energy Markets Emergency Act of 2008; passed 402 - 19, Shadegg voting yea. This bill would "direct the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to utilize all its authority, including its emergency powers, to curb immediately the role of excessive speculation in any contract market within the jurisdiction and control of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, on or through which energy futures or swaps are traded, and to eliminate excessive speculation, price distortion, sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in prices, or other unlawful activity that is causing major market disturbances that prevent the market from accurately reflecting the forces of supply and demand for energy commodities."
Roll Call #469, 5:44 p.m., On passage of H.R. 6251, the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act; failed 223 - 195 (2/3 required), Shadegg not voting. This bill would have compelled oil companies that leased public lands to drill for oil to actually drill and produce oil from that leased land, or be barred from acquiring more leases.
Roll Call #470, 5:51 p.m., On passage of H. Res. 1098, Supporting the goals and ideals of the Year of the American Veteran; passed 409 - 0, Shadegg voting yea.
So let's see...during an agonizingly long voting day of almost 6 hours (yes, that "agonizingly" is dripping with sarcasm), Shadegg makes every vote but for the one on the only bill under consideration that day that had some teeth in it, one that could have made a difference to the American people.
Coincidence? Probably not. Consider this -
One one hand, Shadegg is beholden to Big Oil, having received hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from petroleum and other energy interests over the years.
On the other hand, he's been getting some serious heat for being out of touch with his constituents and their concerns and needs.
Hmmm......so, what to do, what to do??? If he votes for the measure, he alienates some of his biggest campaign contributors (and possible future employers); if he votes against it, he further alienates the average resident of his district (increasing the likelihood that he will need a "future employer" after November's election).
Damned if you do, damned if you don't....
What's a weary, ready-to-retire-but-they-won't-let-him=go pol to do?
What else? Call upon all of his experience and guile and do something that no one will expect.
The legislative equivalent of football's quick kick - simply skip the tough vote.
And for this he gets paid almost $170K per year???
Anyway, perhaps somebody should let Shadegg know - it was a nice try, but he didn't fool anyone.
BTW - I'm not exactly the first one to notice Shadegg's little attempt at a slide-step. From a Bob Lord for Congress press release -
"While we are paying $4.14 per gallon for gas here in Phoenix, John Shadegg intentionally skipped a vote that would force oil companies to drill for oil on the land they already lease," said Andrew Eldredge-Martin, Lord's campaign manager. "The Bush-Shadegg philosophy on energy gives the oil companies all our public lands, lets the companies sit inactive on the land, leaves consumers to fend for themselves, and allows Shadegg to keep taking big checks from the oil, gas and energy industry. This philosophy is bankrupt, just like we will all be soon if we don't take action on gas prices."
Expect a counter-release from the Shadegg campaign admonishing the Lord campaign for not saying "thank you" for the early Christmas gift. :)
Oh, and if Shadegg takes the title of this post to heart - Cards training camp starts July 25th.
Skipping out on that means that you get cut from the team. Keep this up, and Shadegg will be cut from the Congressional teams.
Later!
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Here and there...
Some of this stuff has been posted elsewhere, some hasn't...
...The big event tomorrow, Friday June 27, will be held at the grand opening of John McCain's regional campaign headquarters.
Event: A gathering of Democrats to "celebrate" (aka - "protest") the opening of McCain's campaign's office.
Time: 5:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.
Place: 5353 N. 16th Street, Phoenix (just south of Missouri on 16th Street)***
Info: Contact Aaron at the Arizona Democratic Party, 602.298.4200
*** = The campaign office (Suite 120) is at the same address as McCain's district office (Suite 105). That should be convenient for his taxpayer-paid staffers who want toviolate the Hatch Act by engaging in campaign activities while on the federal clock volunteer for the presidential campaign in their spare time.
...Gen. Wesley Clark has endorsed Congressman Harry Mitchell for his re-election bid (at least, he's sent out a fund-raising email for the Mitchell campaign and has campaigned for Mitchell in the past.)
From the email -
...Judah Nativio, candidate for the LD18 seat in the state senate, today announced that he has received the endorsement of Mesa City Councilman Dennis Kavanaugh.
From Nativio's press release on his website -
In other LD18 news, Nativio and Ed Hermes, candidate for Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, will be holding a joint neighborhood canvass on Thursday, July 3 from 4 p.m. until 7 p.m. Call 480-266-1466 for more info.
...In pleasant news (what? You're surprised that I don't consider walking from door-to-door in 110-degree heat to be a "pleasant" activity? LOL)...Kara Kelty, candidate for Arizona Corporation Commission, happily reports that she successfully beat back the legal challenge to her nominating petitions.
Turns out that the challengers didn't show up; apparently they had a problem with making their case while under oath.
From an email from the campaign -
...and in Scottsdale election news, here's a list of upcoming Mayoral and City Council candidate forums (courtesy an email from Sonnie Kirtley at COGS):
Wednesday, 16 July, 2:00 p.m. 1st Arizona Republic Mayoral Forum. Held at the CityCable11 studios. It will be aired at various times up until the election. No guests will be allowed in the studio.
Thursday, 17 July, 7:00 p.m. COPP Forum for all Mayoral and Council candidates. The forum will be at the Legend Trail Community Center, 34575 North Legend Trail Parkway, Scottsdale, AZ 85262, Pima Rd, N of Lone Mountain.
Tuesday, 22 July, 6:00 p.m. Scottsdale Tribune’s Mayoral Candidates Forum. Broadcast live on City Cable Channel 11 from 6 to 7 p.m. Tuesday, from the Kiva of Scottsdale City Hall. Mark Scarp and a Tribune writer/editor TBA will moderate.
Thursday, 7 August, 7:00 p.m. Scottsdale Area Association of Realtors Forum. Held at the City Hall Kiva. 6:00 p.m. for Council candidates; 7:00 p.m. for Mayoral candidates.
Wednesday, 13 August, 8:00 a.m. Heart of Scottsdale Realtor's Tour Group. McCormick Ranch Golf Club, 8:00 a.m. for networking, 8:30 a.m. speakers begin. (This doesn't specifically say that the public isn't invited, but this seems to be a 'realtors-only' event. And they charge $8.00 for breakfast.)
Monday, 18 August, 2:30 p.m. Second Arizona Republic Mayoral Forum. Again at the CityCable11 studios, again the forum will be recorded and aired repeatedly on CityCable11, and again, no guests will be allowed in the studio.
Later...
...The big event tomorrow, Friday June 27, will be held at the grand opening of John McCain's regional campaign headquarters.
Event: A gathering of Democrats to "celebrate" (aka - "protest") the opening of McCain's campaign's office.
Time: 5:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.
Place: 5353 N. 16th Street, Phoenix (just south of Missouri on 16th Street)***
Info: Contact Aaron at the Arizona Democratic Party, 602.298.4200
*** = The campaign office (Suite 120) is at the same address as McCain's district office (Suite 105). That should be convenient for his taxpayer-paid staffers who want to
...Gen. Wesley Clark has endorsed Congressman Harry Mitchell for his re-election bid (at least, he's sent out a fund-raising email for the Mitchell campaign and has campaigned for Mitchell in the past.)
From the email -
A lot of politicians in Washington talk about supporting our troops, but there’s a difference between talk and action.
Thankfully for veterans, when it comes to taking care of those returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan, Harry Mitchell is taking action and changing the way we treat our veterans.
{snip}
The Republicans have not chosen their nominee yet, but we know they will be funded by the special interests and will stop at nothing during this campaign.
Please help Harry build the resources he needs to fight back.
...Judah Nativio, candidate for the LD18 seat in the state senate, today announced that he has received the endorsement of Mesa City Councilman Dennis Kavanaugh.
From Nativio's press release on his website -
Judah's law enforcement background, his energy, passion and concern for the community are key assets that would make him an effective state senator for District 18" said Kavanaugh.
In other LD18 news, Nativio and Ed Hermes, candidate for Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, will be holding a joint neighborhood canvass on Thursday, July 3 from 4 p.m. until 7 p.m. Call 480-266-1466 for more info.
...In pleasant news (what? You're surprised that I don't consider walking from door-to-door in 110-degree heat to be a "pleasant" activity? LOL)...Kara Kelty, candidate for Arizona Corporation Commission, happily reports that she successfully beat back the legal challenge to her nominating petitions.
Turns out that the challengers didn't show up; apparently they had a problem with making their case while under oath.
From an email from the campaign -
"We always knew that our petitions would withstand any challenge," said Kelty this morning. "I am just sorry we won't be able to confront the plaintiff in court and find out who is really behind this."R-Cubed coverage here.
...and in Scottsdale election news, here's a list of upcoming Mayoral and City Council candidate forums (courtesy an email from Sonnie Kirtley at COGS):
Wednesday, 16 July, 2:00 p.m. 1st Arizona Republic Mayoral Forum. Held at the CityCable11 studios. It will be aired at various times up until the election. No guests will be allowed in the studio.
Thursday, 17 July, 7:00 p.m. COPP Forum for all Mayoral and Council candidates. The forum will be at the Legend Trail Community Center, 34575 North Legend Trail Parkway, Scottsdale, AZ 85262, Pima Rd, N of Lone Mountain.
Tuesday, 22 July, 6:00 p.m. Scottsdale Tribune’s Mayoral Candidates Forum. Broadcast live on City Cable Channel 11 from 6 to 7 p.m. Tuesday, from the Kiva of Scottsdale City Hall. Mark Scarp and a Tribune writer/editor TBA will moderate.
Thursday, 7 August, 7:00 p.m. Scottsdale Area Association of Realtors Forum. Held at the City Hall Kiva. 6:00 p.m. for Council candidates; 7:00 p.m. for Mayoral candidates.
Wednesday, 13 August, 8:00 a.m. Heart of Scottsdale Realtor's Tour Group. McCormick Ranch Golf Club, 8:00 a.m. for networking, 8:30 a.m. speakers begin. (This doesn't specifically say that the public isn't invited, but this seems to be a 'realtors-only' event. And they charge $8.00 for breakfast.)
Monday, 18 August, 2:30 p.m. Second Arizona Republic Mayoral Forum. Again at the CityCable11 studios, again the forum will be recorded and aired repeatedly on CityCable11, and again, no guests will be allowed in the studio.
Later...
Voter Reg Trends and other numbers
Looks like it's the week for really dry and numbers-heavy posts...
...The AZ Republic and PolitickerAZ each have stories up on the latest voter registration figures from the Arizona Secretary of State's Office. The stories discuss some of the statewide numbers and the gains that the Arizona Democratic Party has made since the 2006 election.
The SOS's voter reg figures repository is here.
A more local look at the numbers ('local' meaning CD5 and LDs 8, 17, and 18) -
In CD5, Democratic registrations have increased by more than 10000 since October of 2006 while Republican registrations are down slightly (379). Overall registrations are up a little more than 14000. The most encouraging aspect of this is that more than 71% of the increase in registered voters in CD5 since October 2006 has been Democratic.
In the shorter term, since March of this year (after the bump in registrations brought on by the Presidential primaries), Democratic registrations increased by more than 4200, Republican registrations by more than 2200 and overall registrations by 9600.
In LD8, the Democrats there continue to make headway against the daunting Rep registration advantage.
Since October 2006, Democratic registrations in LD8 have increased by over 3000; Republican registrations are up by 370, and overall registrations are up 5200.
Yes, the Democrats have more than 8 times the new registrations as the Reps since 2006.
Since March (post-primary bump), the Dems are up nearly 1000, the Reps just under 900, and overall registrations up 2600.
In LD17, Democratic registrations are up more than 2400 since October 2006, Rep registrations down more than 200, and overall registrations up 2750.
Yes, more than 88% of the overall increase since the last election is due to Democratic registrations.
Since March, Dem registrations are up 1300, Rep registrations are up 400, and overall registrations are up by more than 2600.
Yes, even post-bump, the LD17 Democrats have been adding to their 2006 momentum.
Some of the most encouraging registration numbers are in LD18, where Democratic registrations have increased by more than 1700 since October 2006 while Rep registrations have decreased by more than 700 over the same period. Overall registrations have increased by more than 1800.
Since March, Democratic registrations have increased by just under 1000, Reps by just under 600 and overall registrations by more than 2200.
The Reps still have a registration advantage in LD18, but it's now a manageable one. Tammie Pursley (House) and Judah Nativio (Senate) are running in LD18; look for one or both to pull off a major surprise come November.
Raw figures (and apologies for the formatting, or lack thereof :) ) -
Key - Party, June 2008 figures, March 2008, October 2006
CD5 -
Democratic, 96842, 92595, 86743
Republican, 138678. 136430, 139057
Overall, 329264, 319622, 315185
LD8 -
Democratic, 26536, 25555, 23500
Republican, 53525, 52654, 53155
Overall, 110687, 108085, 105458
LD17 -
Democratic, 26571,25249, 24131
Republican, 24880, 24478, 25101
Overall, 72909, 70245, 70159
LD18 -
Democratic, 15839, 14852, 14109
Republican, 25009, 24437, 25745
Overall, 55979, 53705, 54123
...The latest KAET/ASU poll asked respondents the following question - "If Arizona state government shuts down because the governor and the state legislature cannot agree on the budget, who do you think is most responsible for the impasse – the governor or the state legislature? "
52% of respondents hold the legislature most responsible for the budget impasse.
Seems like that in spite of the Republicans' best efforts to destroy public education in Arizona, some intelligence and perceptiveness still remains. :)
Later!
...The AZ Republic and PolitickerAZ each have stories up on the latest voter registration figures from the Arizona Secretary of State's Office. The stories discuss some of the statewide numbers and the gains that the Arizona Democratic Party has made since the 2006 election.
The SOS's voter reg figures repository is here.
A more local look at the numbers ('local' meaning CD5 and LDs 8, 17, and 18) -
In CD5, Democratic registrations have increased by more than 10000 since October of 2006 while Republican registrations are down slightly (379). Overall registrations are up a little more than 14000. The most encouraging aspect of this is that more than 71% of the increase in registered voters in CD5 since October 2006 has been Democratic.
In the shorter term, since March of this year (after the bump in registrations brought on by the Presidential primaries), Democratic registrations increased by more than 4200, Republican registrations by more than 2200 and overall registrations by 9600.
In LD8, the Democrats there continue to make headway against the daunting Rep registration advantage.
Since October 2006, Democratic registrations in LD8 have increased by over 3000; Republican registrations are up by 370, and overall registrations are up 5200.
Yes, the Democrats have more than 8 times the new registrations as the Reps since 2006.
Since March (post-primary bump), the Dems are up nearly 1000, the Reps just under 900, and overall registrations up 2600.
In LD17, Democratic registrations are up more than 2400 since October 2006, Rep registrations down more than 200, and overall registrations up 2750.
Yes, more than 88% of the overall increase since the last election is due to Democratic registrations.
Since March, Dem registrations are up 1300, Rep registrations are up 400, and overall registrations are up by more than 2600.
Yes, even post-bump, the LD17 Democrats have been adding to their 2006 momentum.
Some of the most encouraging registration numbers are in LD18, where Democratic registrations have increased by more than 1700 since October 2006 while Rep registrations have decreased by more than 700 over the same period. Overall registrations have increased by more than 1800.
Since March, Democratic registrations have increased by just under 1000, Reps by just under 600 and overall registrations by more than 2200.
The Reps still have a registration advantage in LD18, but it's now a manageable one. Tammie Pursley (House) and Judah Nativio (Senate) are running in LD18; look for one or both to pull off a major surprise come November.
Raw figures (and apologies for the formatting, or lack thereof :) ) -
Key - Party, June 2008 figures, March 2008, October 2006
CD5 -
Democratic, 96842, 92595, 86743
Republican, 138678. 136430, 139057
Overall, 329264, 319622, 315185
LD8 -
Democratic, 26536, 25555, 23500
Republican, 53525, 52654, 53155
Overall, 110687, 108085, 105458
LD17 -
Democratic, 26571,25249, 24131
Republican, 24880, 24478, 25101
Overall, 72909, 70245, 70159
LD18 -
Democratic, 15839, 14852, 14109
Republican, 25009, 24437, 25745
Overall, 55979, 53705, 54123
...The latest KAET/ASU poll asked respondents the following question - "If Arizona state government shuts down because the governor and the state legislature cannot agree on the budget, who do you think is most responsible for the impasse – the governor or the state legislature? "
52% of respondents hold the legislature most responsible for the budget impasse.
Seems like that in spite of the Republicans' best efforts to destroy public education in Arizona, some intelligence and perceptiveness still remains. :)
Later!
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The Whitest Of White Guys Accuses Obama Of Not Being Black Enough
I'm not normally someone who writes about race-related issues (something about not being black and not caring if someone else is or isn't), but sometimes something happens that just cries out for a response...
I suppose we should thank Ralph Nader for his attempt to make sure that he doesn't pull enough Democratic votes away from Senator Obama to cause a repeat of 2000's debacle in Florida, but something tells me that Nader's interview with the Rocky Mountain News wasn't intended as a selfless attempt to end his viability as a third party candidate who could garner protest votes from Dems who believe that Barack Obama isn't progressive enough.
Nope, it really seems more to be the attention-getting stunt of an inveterate egomaniac.
Much of that interview (partial transcript here) consisted of Nader opining that Obama isn't progressive, or is too corporate, etc. However, that sort of talk doesn't get the level of attention that Nader needs and craves.
So he resorted to rhetorical bomb-throwing, by talking about Obama appealing to "white guilt" and "talking white." He also accused Obama of neglecting the inner-city poor in his quest for the White House.
It's bad enough that in this "modern" day and age, the GOP is still going after a candidate because of his skin color (the infamous pins sold at the Texas GOP's state convention, for example), but as with the FISA bill last week, the Republican Party is benefitting from low expectations.
They're expected to be bigots, and, rather consistently, they live down to those expectations.
Everybody, including the Obama campaign, knows what to expect from them and can prepare for it.
Nader, on the other hand, had built up an impressive resume of consumer and environmental activism. He was one of the "good" guys, until he decided to piss away his legacy.
BTW - my favorite part of Nader's comments was when he criticized Obama for not going after payday loan operations. That's a local issue mostly, or perhaps a state-level issue (licensing, etc.).
What's next? Griping that Obama hasn't done enough on zoning enforcement in Dubuque or Pocatello?
Somebody who Mr. Nader respects should sit him down and advise him to stick with consumer issues - he's good at them.
He's not so good at electoral politics.
Later!
I suppose we should thank Ralph Nader for his attempt to make sure that he doesn't pull enough Democratic votes away from Senator Obama to cause a repeat of 2000's debacle in Florida, but something tells me that Nader's interview with the Rocky Mountain News wasn't intended as a selfless attempt to end his viability as a third party candidate who could garner protest votes from Dems who believe that Barack Obama isn't progressive enough.
Nope, it really seems more to be the attention-getting stunt of an inveterate egomaniac.
Much of that interview (partial transcript here) consisted of Nader opining that Obama isn't progressive, or is too corporate, etc. However, that sort of talk doesn't get the level of attention that Nader needs and craves.
So he resorted to rhetorical bomb-throwing, by talking about Obama appealing to "white guilt" and "talking white." He also accused Obama of neglecting the inner-city poor in his quest for the White House.
It's bad enough that in this "modern" day and age, the GOP is still going after a candidate because of his skin color (the infamous pins sold at the Texas GOP's state convention, for example), but as with the FISA bill last week, the Republican Party is benefitting from low expectations.
They're expected to be bigots, and, rather consistently, they live down to those expectations.
Everybody, including the Obama campaign, knows what to expect from them and can prepare for it.
Nader, on the other hand, had built up an impressive resume of consumer and environmental activism. He was one of the "good" guys, until he decided to piss away his legacy.
BTW - my favorite part of Nader's comments was when he criticized Obama for not going after payday loan operations. That's a local issue mostly, or perhaps a state-level issue (licensing, etc.).
What's next? Griping that Obama hasn't done enough on zoning enforcement in Dubuque or Pocatello?
Somebody who Mr. Nader respects should sit him down and advise him to stick with consumer issues - he's good at them.
He's not so good at electoral politics.
Later!
Shadegg: Voting For Ideology and Big Business Before Constituents. Again.
On Tuesday, the House passed H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 by a vote of 355 - 59. All 59 opposing votes were from Republicans.
Among other things, the Act would stop a reduction in Medicare reimbursements to doctors, lowers payments to Medicare Advantage Plans (private Medicare plans), and require that any health care providers who are delinquent in their federal income taxes have the back taxes deducted from their Medicare reimbursement payments. (KGMB-TV in Hawaii)
Unsurprisingly, John Shadegg (CD3) was one of those opposed to the bill.
At first blush, his opposition to what is essentially a "cleanup" bill seems counterintuitive - the bill sounds good (improving Medicare? That's something everyone wants, isn't it?) and Shadegg is in the toughest election fight since he entered Congress (thank you Bob Lord!) - he needs all the "good" votes that he can get. In addition, the bill is relatively inexpensive (reducing federal expenditures by $100 million over the next 5 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.)
So why did Shadegg oppose efforts to improve Medicare for patients and health care providers?
He just doesn't *like* Medicare or any program that allows elderly or poor patients to bypass profiteering corporate gatekeepers to health care.
He shows this by combining efforts to make Medicare unworkable (like with this vote) and sponsoring bills like H.R. 4460, a bill to push private insurers' plans by allowing them to bypass state regulations and consumer safeguards.
Lastly, he has a supreme [lack of] understanding of and empathy for the uninsured folks in the country and his district.
According to The Yellowsheet Reports, a newsletter published by the Arizona Capitol Times, on Monday, he spoke at a cocktail party for The Center for Medicine in the Public Interest (CMPI). (Yellowsheet is subscription-only, so no link, but here is Kos' take on the same topic, with a quote.)
CMPI is something of a misnomer - the "public" interest isn't really their interest - it's actually just a Big Pharma and Big Health Care industry front group. (Source Watch)
The organization opposes any government involvement in health care, including enacting and enforcing such trivial things as safety regulations for pharmaceuticals.
Anyway, during the party, Shadegg dropped this gem (courtesy the Yellowsheet Report via Kos) -
Apparently, Shadegg doesn't understand the difference between "health" care and "acute" care. Furthermore, he doesn't understand the impact that forgoing an actual long-term health care regimen can have on quality of life, especially in growing children and the elderly.
Somebody needs to sit Congressman Shadegg and tell him to keep his mouth closed until they can figure out if Congress' taxpayer-funded health insurance covers foot-ectomies (removal of the foot from the mouth).
Later!
Among other things, the Act would stop a reduction in Medicare reimbursements to doctors, lowers payments to Medicare Advantage Plans (private Medicare plans), and require that any health care providers who are delinquent in their federal income taxes have the back taxes deducted from their Medicare reimbursement payments. (KGMB-TV in Hawaii)
Unsurprisingly, John Shadegg (CD3) was one of those opposed to the bill.
At first blush, his opposition to what is essentially a "cleanup" bill seems counterintuitive - the bill sounds good (improving Medicare? That's something everyone wants, isn't it?) and Shadegg is in the toughest election fight since he entered Congress (thank you Bob Lord!) - he needs all the "good" votes that he can get. In addition, the bill is relatively inexpensive (reducing federal expenditures by $100 million over the next 5 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.)
So why did Shadegg oppose efforts to improve Medicare for patients and health care providers?
He just doesn't *like* Medicare or any program that allows elderly or poor patients to bypass profiteering corporate gatekeepers to health care.
He shows this by combining efforts to make Medicare unworkable (like with this vote) and sponsoring bills like H.R. 4460, a bill to push private insurers' plans by allowing them to bypass state regulations and consumer safeguards.
Lastly, he has a supreme [lack of] understanding of and empathy for the uninsured folks in the country and his district.
According to The Yellowsheet Reports, a newsletter published by the Arizona Capitol Times, on Monday, he spoke at a cocktail party for The Center for Medicine in the Public Interest (CMPI). (Yellowsheet is subscription-only, so no link, but here is Kos' take on the same topic, with a quote.)
CMPI is something of a misnomer - the "public" interest isn't really their interest - it's actually just a Big Pharma and Big Health Care industry front group. (Source Watch)
The organization opposes any government involvement in health care, including enacting and enforcing such trivial things as safety regulations for pharmaceuticals.
Anyway, during the party, Shadegg dropped this gem (courtesy the Yellowsheet Report via Kos) -
Shadegg said, that contrary to what many believe, no one in this country goes without health care. "We're covering them in the emergency rooms and paying a very, very high price to have them walk into the emergency room with a cold or flu."
Apparently, Shadegg doesn't understand the difference between "health" care and "acute" care. Furthermore, he doesn't understand the impact that forgoing an actual long-term health care regimen can have on quality of life, especially in growing children and the elderly.
Somebody needs to sit Congressman Shadegg and tell him to keep his mouth closed until they can figure out if Congress' taxpayer-funded health insurance covers foot-ectomies (removal of the foot from the mouth).
Later!
I hate that when it happens...
...the staff cuts/exodus at the AZ Republic are really impacting the professional quality at the paper, and that impact isn't a positive one.
Earlier today, I wrote a post stemming from an AZ Republic article about the effects of polling place locations on voter behavior. The Rep article was itself rooted in the publication of the study in another publication (The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences).
It was an interesting, if dry, insight into some of the more mundane operational aspects of elections themselves, as opposed to the campaign and candidate aspects that most folks (including activists!) think of when they think of elections.
Too bad the Rep didn't at least note that they had published another article on the same study, written by Robbie Sherwood, former reporter and current District Director for Congressman Harry Mitchell. .
In 2006.
There's no reason to criticize Anne Ryman, the reporter who wrote Tuesday's article. Presumably, she was just fulfilling an assignment from an editor.
The editor who gave her that assignment should be given a refresher course in "how to research your own archives to make sure you don't repeat yourselves."
Or at least a course on using Google. :))
One good result was that I contacted two of the authors of the study, Marc Niederehe Meredith of Stanford and Dr. Jonah Berger of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Turns out that Meredith is working on another project that is looking into some of the effects of vote-by-mail upon campaigns and elections. A rough draft of the report should be available later this summer, and it should be very interesting.
Later!
Earlier today, I wrote a post stemming from an AZ Republic article about the effects of polling place locations on voter behavior. The Rep article was itself rooted in the publication of the study in another publication (The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences).
It was an interesting, if dry, insight into some of the more mundane operational aspects of elections themselves, as opposed to the campaign and candidate aspects that most folks (including activists!) think of when they think of elections.
Too bad the Rep didn't at least note that they had published another article on the same study, written by Robbie Sherwood, former reporter and current District Director for Congressman Harry Mitchell. .
In 2006.
There's no reason to criticize Anne Ryman, the reporter who wrote Tuesday's article. Presumably, she was just fulfilling an assignment from an editor.
The editor who gave her that assignment should be given a refresher course in "how to research your own archives to make sure you don't repeat yourselves."
Or at least a course on using Google. :))
One good result was that I contacted two of the authors of the study, Marc Niederehe Meredith of Stanford and Dr. Jonah Berger of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Turns out that Meredith is working on another project that is looking into some of the effects of vote-by-mail upon campaigns and elections. A rough draft of the report should be available later this summer, and it should be very interesting.
Later!
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Nice but irrelevant study: The effect of polling locations on election results.
...while the following post is incredibly dry, it does have the redeeming feature of being non-partisan.
That may be its *only* redeeming feature. :)
The Arizona Republic has an article on a study conducted in Arizona on the impact of polling location on the likelihood that a voter will support an education funding initiative that's on the ballot.
The upshot of the study was that 56% of voters casting their ballots in school supported education measures, while only 54% of those voting in other public buildings did so.
Ignoring for the moment the statistical similarity (56% to 54%? 2% is within the margin of errors of most statistical analyses of election trends, but I digress :) ), what the Rep article notes, but fails to note the significance of, is the fact that the study analyzed data from Arizona's 2000 elections.
In short, while the study may end up serving as a good snapshot of voting trends at the time (or, given the 2% difference, a good hint of a suggestion of a snapshot), changes in voting activity is just 8 short years render the study nearly useless.
In 2000, a negligible number of voters cast their ballots early; so neglibile, in fact, that the Maricopa County Recorder doesn't show the number in the results listed on its website (no direct link; use the drop down menus on this page.)
In 2006, more than 49% off all votes cast in Maricopa County were cast early or by mail.
In 2008, the trend has continued. During the various municipal elections held so far, early voting has accounted for approximately 80% of ballots cast (i.e. - Tempe's early voting percentage for the general election last month was over 82%).
While the early voting numbers for this November's election probably won't be quite so high, given the trend and the parties' efforts to persuade voters to use vote-by-mail, the percentage of early votes should be well over 60% or even 70%.
In short, the effect of location of polling place, while minimal to begin with (2%!) has been rendered all but moot -
There are an average of 1370 voters per precinct in Maricopa County (a smidge more than 1.5 million voters total). In 2006, voter turnout was approximately 60%; assuming a similar percentage turnout this year, that would mean an average of 822 voters casting ballots in each precinct, and assuming 60% EV, that would leave 329 voters physically casting their ballots at each polling place.
2% of 329 is less than 7 (6.579).
Even assuming that all 1142 precincts in the county cast their ballots in a school (they don't), that means the impact of voting in a school is approximately 7500 votes county-wide.
Most school districts (hence, most school-related ballot questions) don't have nearly that many precincts (Scottsdale Unified #48 has 97).
In other words, while the effect of polling place location does exist, it was small to begin with (2%), is minimized by the fact that most education-related ballot questions cover relatively small areas, and is already shrinking due to the growth of 'vote-by-mail' behavior.
Perhaps the scientists who performed this study, Jonah Berger, Marc Meredith, and S. Christian Wheeler, should do a follow up, studying the effects of vote-by-mail (aka "Vote-in-the-comfort-of-home) on voting patterns.
An abstract of the study is here; the article is here, courtesy the website of Dr. Jonah Berger, one of the authors.
What can I say - I'm a numbers geek. Boring is part of the package. :))
Addendum - I emailed Dr. Berger the question that I asked, regarding whether he and his colleagues planned a follow-up regarding the effects of VBM. His reply was surprisingly prompt (I emailed him at his school email addy, after 7 p.m. local time, during the summer. I wasn't sure that he would reply within a month, much less an hour. :)) ). As of right now, they don't have any plans to do a follow-up on VBM effects.
That may be its *only* redeeming feature. :)
The Arizona Republic has an article on a study conducted in Arizona on the impact of polling location on the likelihood that a voter will support an education funding initiative that's on the ballot.
The upshot of the study was that 56% of voters casting their ballots in school supported education measures, while only 54% of those voting in other public buildings did so.
Ignoring for the moment the statistical similarity (56% to 54%? 2% is within the margin of errors of most statistical analyses of election trends, but I digress :) ), what the Rep article notes, but fails to note the significance of, is the fact that the study analyzed data from Arizona's 2000 elections.
In short, while the study may end up serving as a good snapshot of voting trends at the time (or, given the 2% difference, a good hint of a suggestion of a snapshot), changes in voting activity is just 8 short years render the study nearly useless.
In 2000, a negligible number of voters cast their ballots early; so neglibile, in fact, that the Maricopa County Recorder doesn't show the number in the results listed on its website (no direct link; use the drop down menus on this page.)
In 2006, more than 49% off all votes cast in Maricopa County were cast early or by mail.
In 2008, the trend has continued. During the various municipal elections held so far, early voting has accounted for approximately 80% of ballots cast (i.e. - Tempe's early voting percentage for the general election last month was over 82%).
While the early voting numbers for this November's election probably won't be quite so high, given the trend and the parties' efforts to persuade voters to use vote-by-mail, the percentage of early votes should be well over 60% or even 70%.
In short, the effect of location of polling place, while minimal to begin with (2%!) has been rendered all but moot -
There are an average of 1370 voters per precinct in Maricopa County (a smidge more than 1.5 million voters total). In 2006, voter turnout was approximately 60%; assuming a similar percentage turnout this year, that would mean an average of 822 voters casting ballots in each precinct, and assuming 60% EV, that would leave 329 voters physically casting their ballots at each polling place.
2% of 329 is less than 7 (6.579).
Even assuming that all 1142 precincts in the county cast their ballots in a school (they don't), that means the impact of voting in a school is approximately 7500 votes county-wide.
Most school districts (hence, most school-related ballot questions) don't have nearly that many precincts (Scottsdale Unified #48 has 97).
In other words, while the effect of polling place location does exist, it was small to begin with (2%), is minimized by the fact that most education-related ballot questions cover relatively small areas, and is already shrinking due to the growth of 'vote-by-mail' behavior.
Perhaps the scientists who performed this study, Jonah Berger, Marc Meredith, and S. Christian Wheeler, should do a follow up, studying the effects of vote-by-mail (aka "Vote-in-the-comfort-of-home) on voting patterns.
An abstract of the study is here; the article is here, courtesy the website of Dr. Jonah Berger, one of the authors.
What can I say - I'm a numbers geek. Boring is part of the package. :))
Addendum - I emailed Dr. Berger the question that I asked, regarding whether he and his colleagues planned a follow-up regarding the effects of VBM. His reply was surprisingly prompt (I emailed him at his school email addy, after 7 p.m. local time, during the summer. I wasn't sure that he would reply within a month, much less an hour. :)) ). As of right now, they don't have any plans to do a follow-up on VBM effects.
George Carlin passes away at age 71
SHIT.
I was first exposed to his brand of humor by his album "Class Clown." The fearlessly savage yet totally personal brilliance of that album was eye- and ear-opening, to say the least. Prior to that release, he had mostly been a mainstream (for that era) "Vegas-style" comedian, aka - safe enough to take your grandmother to one of his shows.
PISS.
That album marked a professional change in Carlin. Gone were the slyly rebellious but ultimately bland personas (Al Sleet, Hippy Dippy Weatherman) It their place was a counterculture icon, showcasing his irreverent takes on his own childhood and Catholic school years (the title track, "Special Dispensation," among others) and life in general. The comedic riffs were both riotous and poignant in their truth - most people in that certain place and time could identify with Carlin's stories.
FUCK.
However, the routine for which he is still most well-known for, "Seven Words You Can Never Say On Television" stole the album.
CUNT.
That routine was so controversial that it led to a Supreme Court in 1978 that upheld the government's authority to censor what is broadcast over the airwaves. That case didn't slow Carlin down one bit, though - during his career, he released more than 20 albums, wrote three best-selling books, appeared in movies and TV shows, and made a number of cable specials for HBO.
He made a career out of needling self-inflated authority figures, dissecting cultural taboos, and just plain shredding "conventional wisdom."
COCKSUCKER.
Even today, 35 years later, he still offends the tender sensibilities of the country's self-appointed guardians of propriety, as illustrated in this post at Seeing Red AZ.
MOTHERFUCKER.
While that Supreme Court decision still stands, and all over-the-air broadcasts are subject to federal censorship (hence the infamous "Nipplegate" incident at the SuperBowl a few years ago, the rest of society has moved on where the government, via its proxies at the FCC, has not.
These days, each of the infamous seven words can be heard on basic cable, with special thanks in this regard going out to Turner Classic Movies, aka TCM. They aired an unedited version of "Apocalypse Now" during their Academy Award commemorative programming.
That very quickly took care of any of the seven that hadn't already been uttered on "The Shield" or late-night programming on Comedy Central.
TITS.
To anyone who was offended by some of the language in this post: You're too old, too young, or just too full of shit.
Note: above photo of the Class Clown album cover courtesy Amazon.com.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)