Skip to main content

I've long been bullish on Democratic chances in Arizona, but the 2012 election saw Obama do surprisingly badly there, although Senate candidate Richard Carmona did surprisingly well (in part thanks to one of a number of strong Libertarian candidates in the state).  Obama's 45.4% of the two-party vote was barely an improvement over John Kerry.  I've computed 2012 Presidential results by legislative district, and the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission has results from 2004 and 2008.  Somewhat counter-intuitively, I think demographics and trends could actually be playing against Democrats right now, but let's see what you think.

Introduction:

Above is a map of Arizona's 30 new legislative districts, taken from the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

Obama carried 12 of these in 2012, and came close to carrying LD-18, with 49% of the two-party vote.  Then he got 46% in LD-08, 45% in LD-28, 43% in LD-20, 43% in LD-06 and LD-17, and it goes downhill from there.

The AIRC also has John Kerry's 2004 results for each district.  The advantage of comparing 2004 to 2012 is that it allows us to ignore the tricky 2008 election, where Obama faced Arizona favorite son John McCain.  As it happens, Kerry and Obama won the same 12 districts.

Below is a scatterplot of Kerry's percentage (using the "tentative final" change report) vs. Obama's percentage in 2012.  I used Obama's two-party share; I'm not sure what the AIRC did for Kerry, but that shouldn't matter too much.  

For Obama's 2012 results, I used precinct-level results by county, courtesy of the Arizona Secretary of State's compilation, except in the case of Graham County, where I had to go to the county site.  All of Arizona's votes seem to be allocated by precinct and totals match the certified canvass.  The "riding names" are my own after various kinds of research, including looking at the Arizona Capitol Times, the names of Phoenix Urban Villages, and this guy's neighborhood map.

I think the AIRC accidentally switched the numbers in that "tentative final report" for LD-01 and LD-14, so I switched those back.

(I originally placed the text automatically using R, but I think this is a bit more legible, with the sacrifice that the labels aren't placed consistently.)  

The size of the circle is proportional to the total number of votes cast for Obama and Romney in the district in 2012.  The 12 blue circles are the 12 Kerry/Obama districts; the 18 red circles are the 18 Bush/Romney districts.  The two diagonal lines represent Obama matching Kerry and Obama improving on Kerry by three points (which was more or less the national swing).  

The overall correlation is quite high, with an r-squared of about 0.92.  

As you can see, Obama galloped ahead of Kerry in LD-19, LD-29, and LD-30--all West Phoenix, and heavily Hispanic, districts.  

But Obama stagnated or fell behind Kerry in rural districts likeLD-01, LD-05, and LD-06 (which is rural outside of Flagstaff and Sedona), as well as in some suburban Phoenix districts like LD-22 (Peoria/Sun City) and LD-23 (Scottsdale).  And even LD-18--the great Democratic hope--didn't really "trend" blue relative the country.

Turnout and Swing:

Hopefully, my graph also makes clear that--unfortunately for local Democrats--the "blue-trending" seats have incredibly low turnout.  LD-29 (Maryvale/Glendale) cast just 38,699 votes for the major-party Presidential candidates; the lowest in the state.  

Compare that to LD-23 (Scottsdale), which cast an amazing 117,308 Presidential votes!

This is, in fact, a consistent pattern, and an ominous one for Arizona Democrats.  The more votes a district cast, the worse Obama did relative to Kerry.  It's statistically-significant and everything.  Slightly different names used here and in subsequent graphs:

Some of this isn't hard to explain.  Again, these numbers are from the "tentative final" districts, but they should be about the same.  LD-29--the one with the worst turnout in the state--had a Hispanic population of 142,923, but the 18+ Hispanic population was just 83,827, and the Hispanic citizen voting-age population was just 42,432.  That means that about 60,000 people in this district are Hispanics below the age of 18, and half of the Hispanic adults aren't citizens.  Between them, about half of the district's population isn't eligible to vote at all, and the Hispanic registration is just 25,590.  

On the other hand, Scottsdale's LD-23 is the whitest district in the state, and also had the state's highest turnout.  And Obama got just 36% of the two-party vote--a decent amount worse than Kerry (who got 38% or 39% of the vote).

Adjusted Turnout:

I swapped out the 18+ Hispanic population for the Hispanic CVAP (citizen voting-age population), and computed turnout as a percentage of this "adjusted" population, to see how much this was just about non-citizens.  

The correlation between this "adjusted turnout" percentage, and both Obama's 2012 performance, as well as Obama's improvement over Kerry, seems to be small in magnitude (r-squareds of about 0.34 or 0.35 in either case) but strongly statistically significant.  Here's the analogous "adjusted" graph:

That suggests that Republican-leaning areas are turning out better than Democratically-leaning areas, and that Republican-trending areas are turning out better than Democratically-trending areas, even among the likely-eligible population.

Whatever the explanation, they're (presumably) votes Democrats aren't getting.  I'm not sure how much this could be helped by registration drives and GOTV, although they might help a lot.

But some of it is surely that Arizona Republicans simply have higher-propensity voters than Arizona Democrats have.

Demographics, Turnout, and Mormonism:

The 2012 election was very highly racially polarized in Arizona.  How racially-polarized?  The adult non-Hispanic white percentage--a purely demographic figure-and Obama's results are correlated with an r-squared of 0.76.

That plot is using the NHW percentage of the total population, but it doesn't seem to matter if you look at the "adjusted" population instead, although some of the details change.

The adjusted NHW population remains strongly statistically significant in explaining Obama's 2012 results even when Kerry's results are accounted for.  In other words, less white areas trended Democratic, and whiter areas trended Republican.

Frankly, I don't think Democrats are helped by this degree of racial polarization.

Although, as is the case nationally, we really don't know how much this was a particularly racially polarized election, presumably because of Barack Obama, and how much politics is simply becoming somewhat more racially polarized.  

Arizona Democrats also aren't helped by the strong relationship between turnout and adult non-Hispanic white population (r-squared is about 0.77):

There's still a strong relationship, although the r-squared goes down to 0.47, even if you look at "adjusted" turnout and demographics--again, that just means I swapped out the 18+ Hispanic population for the Hispanic CVAP:

According to jncca, there are significant Mormon populations in Gilbert, Mesa, and Apache County (which is entirely contained in the Native American-majority LD-07).  This, along with Mitt Romney at the top of the ticket, might account for some of the relatively high turnout in LD-07 and LD-12, but I haven't compared it to turnout in previous elections (for one thing, it'd be hard to account for the significant changes in population within the state).

On the other hand, I suspect LD-18 (though it has some of Mesa) and LD-23 simply have high turnout because of their relative affluence.  I noticed in my diary on LD-28 that the posh town of Paradise Valley had surreal turnout for John McCain.  CNN's exit polls actually don't show much of a relationship between income and the 2012 election results, but I don't know how much to trust exit polls, and in any case turnout is another issue.

Legislative Prospects:

Of course, even though these districts were drawn by a commission, they're still artificial entities.  (Just artificial entities that happen to have a lot of easily accessible information.)  Their most direct importance, of course, is that they elect members of the legislature.  So how did Democrats do?  Let's see the Ballotpedia results.

In the Senate, Democrats (of course) won all 12 Obama/Kerry districts, plus LD-08 in East Pinal County (and some of Gila County). Democrat Barbara McGuire may have been helped by a strong Libertarian candidate, Dean Dill--more on that, I suspect, in a later diary.

Democrats only came within single digits in the three districts I wrote diaries about: LD-06, LD-18, and LD-28.  As you can see in my first scatterplot, these four seats form kind of a "cluster", although that's mostly because of Kerry's performance dropping sharply afterwards.  Purely based on Obama's performance, Democrats might vaguely have prospects in LD-17 (Chandler) and in LD-20 (North Mountain; i.e., mid-northern Phoenix), although realistically these are highly Republican seats.

In LD-06 (Flagstaff, Sedona, and rural outlying areas), Democrat Tom Chabin kept it within 6 points or so even as Obama lost the seat by 14 points.  This might be one of the areas where Obama's performance was a bit lower than it "should" have been, as the rural parts of LD-06 are probably quite Mormon (based on comments by jncca and by sacman701).  

It was also an open seat, like LD-08 and unlike LD-18 and LD-28.  And Chabin (like McGurie in District 8, and unlike Hydrick in LD-18 and Shelley in LD-28) was a state legislator.  Still, an impressive performance even accounting for all of that.

I also wouldn't over-state Romney's effect in LD-06, since even in 2008 it was one of Obama's worst districts relative to Kerry.

House results were similar, except that Republicans won both House seats in LD-08, and Democrats traded a seat in "blue" LD-09 for a seat in "red" LD-28.  In both cases this was probably because there were two candidates from one party running against one candidate from the other party for two seats (which is how Arizona elects its House).  CF of Aus pointed this out.

Conclusion:

I've looked at a few different things in this diary, but they're basically all correlated: The higher-turnout districts were mostly the whiter districts, which were mostly the Republican districts, and they mostly got more Republican.  The lower-turnout districts were mostly less-white districts, which were mostly the Democratic districts, and they mostly got more Democratic.  I strongly suspect that, if I could account for median household income, that would correlate with some of this too, whatever CNN's exit polls say.

What does that mean for Arizona's future?  I'm sure that GOTV operations, voter registration drives, and the "partisan activation" of an active Presidential campaign would do much for Democrats in the state.  

But remember that just because Democratic districts have low turnout doesn't necessarily mean that Republican districts, and Republican areas in Democratic districts, couldn't produce more votes as well.  A lot of people assert that Republicans are "tapped out" of support from their groups at this level or at that level and I don't always see a lot of evidence for that.  

I also think that Arizona's 2012 election results might be a useful reminder that, even though there has been a lot of discussion of the Democrats' demographic advantages, Republicans have plenty of demographic advantages of their own.

Appendix:

Here are the Presidential results I calculated for each district, along with Obama's 2008 result and Kerry's result from the AIRC:

District    DistrictName    Obama12    Obama08    Kerry
1    Yavapai County(1)    30.60%    34.02%    34.85%
2    South Tucson to Santa Cruz County(2)    57.92%    56.77%    55.13%
3    West Tucson(3)    71.34%    67.24%    66.24%
4    Southern Maricopa/Yuma Counties(4)    55.16%    52.02%    50.12%
5    Mohave County(5)    28.63%    33.34%    35.71%
6    Flagstaff/Sedona/Rural(6)    43.17%    45.51%    46.75%
7    Navajo/Apache County(7)    64.07%    60.53%    60.23%
8    East Pinal County(8)    45.69%    44.34%    45.34%
9    Tucson/Casas Adobes/Catalina Foothills(9)    54.28%    54.47%    53.47%
10    Downtown/East Tucson(10)    52.74%    51.90%    51.21%
11    West Pinal/North Pima Counties(11)    40.21%    41.87%    41.23%
12    Gilbert(12)    33.05%    34.68%    31.92%
13    West Maricopa/Yuma Counties(13)    33.95%    34.96%    33.90%
14    Cochise County(14)    36.34%    36.88%    37.05%
15    North Phoenix(15)    37.06%    39.28%    37.26%
16    East Mesa/Apache Junction(16)    35.68%    38.06%    36.55%
17    Chandler(17)    42.79%    43.31%    39.73%
18    Ahwatukee/West Chandler/South Tempe(18)    49.02%    49.45%    46.45%
19    Estrella/Avondale(19)    67.41%    60.77%    52.83%
20    North Mountain(20)    43.42%    42.69%    40.95%
21    Peoria/Sun City(21)    41.17%    41.55%    39.97%
22    Surprise/Peoria(22)    33.84%    36.72%    37.00%
23    Scottsdale(23)    36.37%    40.41%    39.34%
24    Downtown Phoenix(24)    64.77%    61.64%    58.45%
25    East Mesa(25)    33.74%    34.89%    33.37%
26    Tempe/West Mesa(26)    60.23%    58.16%    53.22%
27    Downtown/South Mountain(27)    76.39%    71.14%    67.83%
28    Sunnyslope/Paradise Valley(28)    45.44%    46.01%    44.22%
29    Maryvale/Glendale(29)    65.83%    57.41%    51.92%
30    West Central Phoenix(30)    62.58%    54.84%    52.11%

1:30 PM PT: Should have added: As usual, I hope I didn't screw anything up, and I also hope for feedback from people with local knowledge.

Originally posted to Xenocrypt on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 01:24 PM PST.

Also republished by Baja Arizona Kossacks and Phoenix Kossacks.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  What about a hispanic candidate? (0+ / 0-)

    Thanks for your work.

    What could be the results of a hispanic democratic candidate in 2016?

  •  Mormons (6+ / 0-)

    Mormons are a factor in AZ politics, though not nearly as much as in Idaho, but more than in Colorado. I would say Romney at the top of the ticket probably got a few more to show up, but Mormons in general are very active politically. They were always going to have a high turnout, except the really whackadoodle ones that want to overthrow the government and start having state sanctioned blood atonements.

  •  I honestly don't (4+ / 0-)

    See Arizona turning blue anytime soon.  To many Mormons and White Republican retirees.  The immigration from Mexico has waned with the US economy, and there are plenty of baby boomers still to retire.  Plus we have been hearing for the better part of the decade that it's ripe for the picking, yet there has been little or no electoral movement.  

  •  This pretty much encapsulates (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    charliehall2

    what has me concerned about the national map for the House over the next few years.

    Ok, so I read the polls.

    by andgarden on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 01:56:33 PM PST

  •  that Republican demos have much higher turnout (4+ / 0-)

    doesn't mean that they're tapped out, though it does mean that Democrats, given serious investment, have more room for growth.

    ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

    by James Allen on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 01:57:06 PM PST

    •  I think some of it depends (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ArkDem14

      on how much can change from investment.  How much of Scottsdale's turnout can West Phoenix rival, even with the best organization?

      27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

      by Xenocrypt on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:05:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  well (7+ / 0-)

        It is my opinion that investing heavily in registration of Hispanics and on the reservations would do a lot of good, but that would depend on how much effort the Obama campaign really put into their "experiment".  I suspect it wasn't much, but if they tried really hard and just couldn't get results, perhaps not.  And the data I've seen suggests that so long as they're registered, non-white voters will turnout out at nearly the same rate as white voters.  The problem is that they aren't registered.  Registering Hispanic voters is the most important thing Democrats in the Southwest and Texas can do.

        ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

        by James Allen on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:27:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  marginal return (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Allen

          Dems probably have a lot more low-hanging fruit in the state than the GOP does. All else equal, I'd rather have more untapped resources. If LD29's Hispanic population is typical of the state, there are going to be a lot of citizens turning 18 every year also.

          SSP poster. 43, new CA-6, -0.25/-3.90

          by sacman701 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:35:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Arizona will be a slightly harder state to turn (0+ / 0-)

    blue than many people think. I don't think it be swing until 2020 not 2016 like many others think.

    -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)!

    by dopper0189 on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:43:18 PM PST

  •  I have questions.... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ArkDem14, KingofSpades, DaNang65, slothlax

    Since the Dems gained four seats (swing of 8) in both Arizona houses and elected 5 Dems vs 4 Repubs to the U.S. House, I am a little confused as to why you have painted this past election as a "bad" omen for Arizona Democrats.

    This is the first election in which the district maps were not drawn by a Republican-controlled legislative body, but rather by an independent redistricting committee by virtue of an initiative process voted on by the citizens of Arizona. All new district boundaries, many new candidates with new staffs, a major reshuffle of voter lists.

    There was a strong GOTV effort (aimed particularly at Hispanics) by Dems in the state.

    Due possibly to confusion on the part of first-time voters, a significant number of provisional votes (presumably Democratic votes from what I have seen reported) were disallowed, particularly in heavily Hispanic areas of Maricopa County.

    GOTV efforts don't succeed in a vacuum - these efforts have to be sustained over multiple election cycles, they have to target the correct demographics, new coming-of-age voters have to be continuously recruited, and there have to be good candidates.

    So to my question: other than your statistics, how is a net gain of eight seats in each Arizona House, and electing a Democratic majority of U.S. Representatives, and a respectable showing for a Democratic Senator who until this past year was an independent, how does that all stack up to a such a downbeat outlook for Arizona?

    Do you really believe that a statistical study such as this is an accurate predictor of the future as opposed to simply a rehashing of past results?

    Finally, I'm not casting aspersions on anyone, but as you briefly allude to, is it really appropriate, given the intensely racially prejudiced nature of Obama's opposition, to compare his election results to any other election results???

    There are only two types of Republicans: 1) racists; and 2) people who are willing to be associated with racists.

    by hillbrook green on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:51:07 PM PST

    •  Bad at the Presidential level. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      melfunction, GoUBears, slothlax, lordpet8

      Dems picked up seats in the legislature because they had more seats to pick up under the new map.  Aside from McGuire and Shelley, no Democrats really won legislative seats in swing or hostile territory (unless you count LD-10)--with those exceptions, they just won the Kerry seats.  (By the way I think there was an AIRC last time too, but I also think Dems did a bit better with swing seats after 2006/2008, although I've made mistakes in my diary on that and should check again.)

      Carmona did well, but some of that could be the strong Libertarian (and the same applies to several other races).  But my main interest here is the Presidential result.  I have no idea if the racial polarization was just about Obama or a sign of things to come, but I wanted to try to understand or "rehash" this election.

      27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

      by Xenocrypt on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:15:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The second time (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GoUBears, lordpet8

      The AIRC redistricted in '01 as well.  Although those maps were more GOP-friendly than these.

      Age 23. Voting in NJ-03. Lived most of life in NJ-01. Had Rush Holt represent me during my undergrad years and am now represented by Frank Pallone in my grad school.

      by KingofSpades on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 04:53:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This does not surprise me. (5+ / 0-)

    Areas with larger minority populations have had in most cases much lower voter turnout. Example: NY-15, the almost entirely Hispanic district in New York City that is basically the central and south Bronx, cast 177,113 votes for President, 97% of which went to Barack Obama. (That is not a typo.) NY-27, the almost all white mostly rural district in the far western part of the state, cast 326,828 votes, 55% of which went to Mitt Romney. The Rethugs were surprised at how big a minority turnout we got this year, but we have a lot more work to do. New York is sufficiently blue that a 150,000 vote turnout gap between the most Democratic and the most Republican CD isn't fatal, but there are few states where that is true.

    •  yeah (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GoUBears

      The only heavily Hispanic state senate district in Oregon, which has the only minority majority state house district in the state inside it, has had many fewer votes than some state house districts in some elections.

      ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

      by James Allen on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 05:44:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not 'fatal' because even with much lower turnout, (0+ / 0-)

      NY-15 makes up for five NY-27s. Essentially just following the maxim that Dems are clustered and GOPers are spread out, and easily explaining why Dems have at least the thirty smallest CDs by area.

      ME-01 (college) ID-01 (home) -9.85, -3.85

      by GoUBears on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 12:22:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was just looking at that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        charliehall2, GoUBears

        I looked at the presidential results for the last six elections and in every one the Democrat won enough votes from Sullivan County, Ulster, and Dutchess south to beat the Republicans' vote statewide.  The Democrat also actually won the Upstate vote in every one of those elections too.  But if NY 15 was turning out more and Dems were winning 70%, maybe some more people would vote further left.

        There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

        by slothlax on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 12:34:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And a lot of those NY-15 non-voters are (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Xenocrypt, slothlax, GoUBears

          natural born US Citizens -- Puerto Ricans. For reasons not obvious to me, Puerto Rico has a higher voter turnout for elections on the island than does any US State, but Puerto Ricans in the US have about the lowest turnout of any US ethnic group.

          http://www.slate.com/...

          •  That's really bizarre (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GoUBears

            Perhaps it is the difference between feeling like you are an outsider or an insider, the majority or the minority.

            There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

            by slothlax on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:15:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  not bizarre (0+ / 0-)

              puerto ricans in Puerto rico feel they are in their own country and have a say in the future of their own homeland. puerto ricans living in the US feel they are in a foreign country: different language, culture and society, it is all foreign. no matter if they come in without need of visa, they are in a different country and are outsiders just like a salvadorian or costa rican would.

  •  racial polarization (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slothlax
    Although, as is the case nationally, we really don't know how much this was a particularly racially polarized election, presumably because of Barack Obama, and how much politics is simply becoming somewhat more racially polarized.  
    Yet I still don't see the evidence that the white vote outside of the broader south is growing more republican. And by the "broader south" I mean to include all of Appalachia, as extending into parts of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, and maybe even southern Indiana and Illinois (maybe taking this map as a rough guide).

    Except that Arizona seems to be the one prominent exception as a non-southern state that seems to be getting more racially polarized. I don't know why this is, really, though the success of figures like Jan Brewer and Joe Arpaio maybe suggests the state (and especially Maricopa County, which is mostly what we're talking about when we talk about Arizona) is just uncommonly racist for a non-southern state. And especially considering it's one of the most urban states in the country (which makes the south-like behavior all the weirder).

    But I don't see a trend of whites voting increasingly republican anywhere else outside the south - not in the West, the Midwest, the Acela Corridor, New England, or central/south Florida.

  •  Interesting analysis (0+ / 0-)

    I really think the key question is what is the makeup of the new voter in AZ going forward, and I surmise that your final conclusion about the slow move of AZ reconciles with my belief.

    For a long time, the in-migration to AZ was senior citizens retiring from the north, Califrnians fleeing CA and of course immigrants from mexico. I'm guessing the immigration from Xm has slowed but migration from seniors and people fleeing CA, likely to GOP-leaning blocks, has stayed relatively the same.

    So the "new" voters who were once trending towards Dem-leaning immigrants any have now swung less in this direction.  Like most people, the hope lies in the next generation of the immigrants familes, the ones born here and legal citizens.  

    I don't know when that tidal wave will happen but it will likely overwhelm the other 2 groups.  I actually think it could be 2024 before it flips presidentially but candidates and effort always could make it happen earlier.

    "What if you're on a game show one day and the name of some random New Jersey state senator is the only thing between you and several thousand dollars? And you'll think to yourself, "if only I had clapped faster." - sapelcovits

    by rdw72777 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:51:08 AM PST

    •  the question I have is (0+ / 0-)

      has the housing bust slowed the growth of retirees and such?

      ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

      by James Allen on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:49:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Or whether moving to (0+ / 0-)

        Chandler, Scottsdale, Peoria, Surprise, Yuma, Flagstaff, Bullhead, etc. is a good idea when it's only getting hotter and drier.

        ME-01 (college) ID-01 (home) -9.85, -3.85

        by GoUBears on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:14:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I wonder that too (0+ / 0-)

        But then i think of the types of retirees who tend to move (or even buy a second home) to Arizona and for some reason in my head pops the image of a more well-off retiree.  For such a person, lowered real estate prices might make the choice to retire somewhere impacted by the housing bust more likely to make the leap.

        And yes I'm aware my mental image of the well-off retiree ignores the concept that the retiree would get less from the sale of their original home.  For some reason my well-off retiree image has enough cash to make up for this.

        All impossible stuff to prove, just my "deep thoughts".

        "What if you're on a game show one day and the name of some random New Jersey state senator is the only thing between you and several thousand dollars? And you'll think to yourself, "if only I had clapped faster." - sapelcovits

        by rdw72777 on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:35:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Very interesting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GoUBears

    And nicely presented.

    I also like to use R.

  •  Wow (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Xenocrypt

    gets up on chair, starts slow clap

    Well done, Xenocrypt, very, very well done.

    Kansan by birth, Californian by choice and Gay by the Grace of God.

    by arealmc on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:45:44 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site