CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
June 13, 2008 – 1:13 p.m.
Obama Could Give McCain Home-State Blues
By Eric Pfeiffer, CQ Staff
Democrats say Arizona could be in play this year even with favorite son John McCain heading the Republican ticket, and that they would be favored to win the state if Gov. Janet Napolitano was running with Barack Obama .
“Arizona is a swing state,” said state Democratic Party spokeswoman Emily DeRose, “We’re pretty committed to making John McCain fight for the state no matter what.”
Leaders from both parties point to state population trends that have mainly favored independents. Still, Democrats have won two gubernatorial races in a row, including a landslide victory in 2006, and could realistically takeover the sate house where they are only down four seats.
A Rocky Mountain Poll conducted by the Behavior Research Center May 12 through May 20 had McCain leading presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama by 50 percent to 39 percent, but called that a smaller margin “than one might expect for a favorite son.” It said McCain could be in a “horse race” if Democrats effectively closed ranks behind Obama and remain competitive among independents.
A poll by Behavior Research last year showed Napolitano would beat McCain by double-digits, 47 percent to 36 percent, if the two were running for McCain’s seat. However, Napolitano is considered a long shot to be Obama’s running mate.
Republicans acknowledge an Obama-McCain race could be competitive although Democrats privately concede that McCain isn’t likely to end up like Al Gore, who lost his home state of Tennessee in 2000, unless Napolitano is on the ticket. Their consolation is the belief that the state is solidly trending their way and that McCain will likely to be forced to spend money, and possibly extra time,
“If McCain were not the nominee, it goes blue,” former Democratic Party Chair David Wade said. “Napolitano would be a huge, huge asset. I think we would be the favorite at that point.”.
“It’s all a matter of perspective on what’s safe and what’s not safe,” said Sean McCaffrey, Executive Director of the Arizona Republican Party, who made a point of noting that McCain manager Rick Davis listed the state as a competitive “grey” area during a recent strategy video put out by the campaign. But McCaffrey said he also expects McCain to win, saying he is up by more than President Bush was in 2004. “The Bush campaign considered Arizona ‘safe’ when they were up by eight points,” he said.
McCain has the advantage of having represented Arizona for more than a quarter century, but he also has a sometimes-unhappy base that went so far as to censure him in the 11th state district, which includes his home precinct. The state’s Party Chair Randy Pullen publicly supported an immigration proposal that went up against McCain’s. McCain won the state’s Feb. 5 presidential primary, but with only 48 percent of the vote.
As for Napolitano on the ticket, her long-time strategist Barry Dill says she would help capture the same expanding segments of the state’s population that led her to win 62 percent of the vote two years ago.
“It’s very difficult for a Democrat to win in Arizona without independents and crossover Republican women,” said Dill, who also served as the deputy state director for the Clinton-Gore re-election in 1996, the last time Democrats carried the state.
He says Obama should commit to making at least 3 visits to the state and that Arizona would be a perfect state to deploy both Bill and Hillary Clinton. “I think she could help tremendously,” he said. “The Clintons are wildly popular.”
Still, McCaffrey says Napolitano’s chances of being picked are, “so much of a long shot, it’s not even worth talking about.” He says a number of influential business leaders and state legislators will act as daily surrogates for McCain’s campaign and said he expects McCain to both buy campaign airtime and to make stops in the state. “Make no mistake, it’s our goal to delivery a victory bigger than in 2000 and 2004,” he said.
Obama Could Give McCain Home-State Blues
The major downside to Democrats if Napolitano was on the ticket is that if she gives up her post it would go to Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer. Wade says the benefits of a Napolitano vice presidency, or cabinet post, along with the possible state house majority, would outweigh ceding the governor’s mansion for two years.
In fact, he says Brewer’s tenure would likely lead to a contentious Republican primary in 2010. “There’s already a list of heavy hitters that are wanting to run on the GOP ticket who are not going to be deterred by Jan Brewer as governor,” he said.
Comments
If Napolitano is Obama's running mate, they might win Arizona but theycould lose a nu;mber of close states. I'm a devoted Clinton supporter. I'm angry enough at the way Clinton was treated by the press and the party, if she is further insulted by Obama choosing a different woman as his vp running mate I wouldn't just stay home - I'd vote for John McCain. The Democratic Party was put on this suicidal course by Obama himself, with the help of the three stupid advisers Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle. In 2007 they encoufaged Obama to run in 2008 even though everyone knew that Hillary Clinton would run. That had to pitch one half the party against the other half. Each side is very emotionall about their historic candidate. The residue of bad feelings among a significant minority of Clinton supporters across the nation is already a threat to Obama's candidacy. Choosing a woman other than Hillary as vp would be the last straw.
Putting clinton as VP is basically suicidal. This will bring all the republican base out and vote for McCain even though they don't like McCain. McCain will laughing so hard that he would probably couldn't close his mouth. Obama would not be that stupid to help McCain united the republicans. One thing I just don't understand is that whymust we think clinton is the best possible choice for VP or the ultimate fighter for woman. There are plenty other well qualified female candidates who can be potential president material. So I simply just can't understand the unweilding support for clinton who is not the only well qualified champion for woman in the highest political office.
I am a Virginian but I love Janet Napolitano. I said months ago that if Obama should win the nominee, Janet was the woman for the VP slot. After the bitter primary, there is no way that Clinton can join the ticket. I honestly believe that Janet Napolitano is the kind of woman that every woman can get behind as our first female VP and, potentially, President. Clinton has mixed reviews across the board where Napolitano is a strong, bipartisan leader in a relatively Republican state. She is well-respected by many with real executive leadership experience, which I might remind you is not on Hillary's resume.
Obama win Arizona??? Rasmussen and other pollsters have McCain with between 55 and 60% of the vote against Obama. Napolitano or no Napolitano it still wouldn't be enough for Democrats to win Arizona. Remember how much Lloyd Bentsen helped Dukakis win Texas in 1988? What's next, an article on the potential coattails for Democrats in Arizona? I'd like to see some polling on the general election match up in Illinois. Is Obama headed toward a landslide there or is there a chance for McCain to win? I'll be waiting for that article.
The national public opinion polls consistently demonstrate Hillary Clinton is very polarizing. Put her on the ticket and then Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa will be in play for John McCain. Right now, he consistently runs behind in the state polls. A Democrat can't win without the Upper Midwest and Obama will have to take the chance that he will still carry the Northeast even with some disappointed fans of Hillary Clinton there and in other states that are not in play.
The best thing the Democrats can do here is make McCain spend money on Arizona. Senator Obama has raised more money than any other candidate in the history of primaries. As of April, he's got almost 50 million in cash while McCain had half that. He's also raised 2.5 times as much money as McCain. You get some of Clinton's top money people (I'm talking about you Terry McAuliffe.) and Obama 08 is off to the races with more money than any other Democrat previously. If Obama can get McCain to spend a lot of money to win his home state, money which for once the RNC doesn't have, he's got a heck of moon shot!
'm a devoted Clinton supporter. I'm angry enough at the way Clinton was treated by the press and the party, if she is further insulted by Obama choosing a different woman as his vp running mate I wouldn't just stay home - I'd vote for John McCain. OK. First, how did the party treat Clinton poorly? And please don't talk to me about Florida or Michigan, who clearly violated rules they agreed to, and where half of the membership of the rules committee that made the final decision to award half-delegates (which Clinton agreed to) were Clinton loyalists. Second of all, exactly what is it that drives you so desperately to want to vote for John McCain? Is it his 0% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, and 100% rating from the Eagle Forum? And his recently repeated statements that he'd like to Roe vs. Wade overturned, and would appoint Supreme Court Justices accordingly? Or is it his stated belief (as once again he said on the campaign trail just a few weeks ago) that it's A-OK to pay women less than men for the same or comparable work? I'm just curious why someone would clearly vote to cut off their nose to spite their own face?
Vivian, anyone who claims to share Hillary Clinton's values but says they will vote for John McCain is either a liar or a spiteful moron. Period.
Vivian, I'm not trying to be clever here but I really do not understand the argument of those who would be insulted if Obama picked another woman. Could you try to run through the arguments for me?
Vivian, because Sen. Clinton was going to run, no one else should have run? Everyone should have just coronated her? Is this not a democracy? Does it stop being a democracy whenever one of Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriends wives run? Should all the Republican candidate not have run either, since Senator Clinton was running? A woman who obviously was owed the oval office, who is the only living American citizen that has the ability to answer a phone at 3AM, who has the robitic vision to see sniper fire where simple mortals see a happy greeting on a tarmac? I can totally understand the rational logic from which you rant...uggg! The injustice that woman has endured... being challenged by actual opponents!
Please let me try to understand you better. Are you saying that we can work to advance the cause of women in politics by shutting women out of the Democratic ticket? This seems to be an admission that you are relatively uninterested in advancing the cause of women; instead, you are merely supporting a cult of personality. That strikes as spiteful, selfish, and immature. Way to be principled.
Vivian, seriously? Why should everyone have stepped out of the way for Senator Clinton? And not only that, why would you, as a supporter of Senator Clinton and her beliefs, be willing to support a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN who opposes everything Senator Clinton stands for? Just to spite the earned primary victory of her opponent? Clinton lost, fair and square. It wasn't Ted Kennedy or Durbin or Daschle or Obama or the DNC. It was Senator Clinton.
while I understand the disappointment that many of Hillary's supporters feel, I don't understand how they can blame Obama, or the press entirely. She had all the advantages going into this campaign. Please remember that Senator Clinton bears some responsibility for how her campaign was run. It was her decision to hire,and listen to, Mark Penn. She holds some responsibility for her loss, and to hold the entire Democratic party responsible is troubling. This election is so important to the country that we cannot put our "hurt feelings" ahead of what is one of the most important political decisions of out generation. Please take time to consider the consequences of 4 more years of republican policies. For a lot of us with family in the military we are begging you to reconsider. My nephew contracted Hepatitis C from exposure to blood and tissue from people blown up around him, not just once. He was involved in 4 roadside bomb explosions. Shouldn't the good of the country come first for a change?
Well, here is one of what I believe are MANY Democrats who did not want to bring the Clintons back into the White House. Maybe Vivian and some other Clinton kool-aid drinkers might have been happy to see Clinton as the nominee but millions of others would have been turned off. With Obama we now have a reason to give money and go to the polls.
How would women be more angry at Obama for picking a woman other than Hillary than if he would pick a man? That argument makes no sense to me.
Vivian, what a sad statement. Even if your theory is correct--that somehow the world has conspired to disrespect Hillary out of a nomination that she was somehow entitled to--or that you are somehow entitled to Hillary as president even though she ran so poor a campaign that she couldn't make it through the primaries--I'm amazed that you, as a woman, would throw out Roe vs. Wade, would leave our troops in Iraq for years to come (and possibly throw their lives away in Iran), would prefer to have the Supreme Court stacked with wingnuts of the Scalito variety, have no problem with being wiretapped, would be happy to have a terrible energy policy (not to mention no economic policy) for years to come... In a nutshell: what the hell is wrong with you? You are a poor excuse for a Democrat if you even consider voting for McCain. And Hillary herself would (and should) turn her back on people like you whose votes are based on spite, hatred, and a false sense of entitlement, rather than on sound thinking and sound policy. I can't speak for Hillary but you, Vivian, certainly are not entitled to anyone's respect.
Vivian, I apologize. I assumed you were a Democrat, but it's quite likely that you're a Republican troll trying to stir up a non-issue. Polls show that Obama is doing far better with Democratic women then Gore or Kerry did (two terrible campaigners compared to Obama, one of whom won the popular vote, and one that came close). So I won't lose any sleep over your silly sentiments. In fact, I'm pretty certain that you're not a woman. And if you somehow are a Democratic woman, than you're thankfully in a very small, misguided, and marginalized minority, where you rightly belong.
Vivian: I get that you are angry and hurting, I do. Neither Obama or Hillary was well-served and I'm not sure that that will change until we have evolved further on our issues of racism, sexism, classism, etc. Hillary lost my support when she retained a pig fat sexist pig as her chief strategist and kept defending him as brilliant, and when she kept harping on her experience and readiness on day 1 when the most personal political experience she provided was cleaning up behind the elephant after her husband's numerous bimbo eruptions. I began to see that 20 years of Bushes and Clintons was quite enough. I didn't want to have to make excuses and keep telling the younger generation that there is a way they should live and just ignore their President, Bush or Clinton, who is living very differently from the Right Way.
Re: vivian. Hillary was a qualified candidate not because of her gender but because of her experience. It is insulting to say if Obama picks another woman you bolt, but if he picks a man that is less sexist. I hope he picks the best vp candidate and Hillary gets to choose whatever role she wants (probably not the realitively powerless role of vp).
I am so tired of the few Clinton supporters who spend all their time complaining and trying to sell the idea that Clinton was defeated by some evil plot. Obama was not my first choice, Clinton was. She ran a bad campaign. She had bad advisors. They assumed she would win Iowa and then clean-up in Super Tuesday. They never had a plan to contest the caucuses. The result was she lost. Obama simply ran an amazing campaign. In 2007 Hillary had every advantage. She had all the money, all the name recognition. She was the presumed candidate. Let that be a warning. McCain barely stumbled in only because he was all that was left. Go talk to Muskie, Hart, Dean, and other presumed candidates. History is litered with them. Then go look at who ran with big money and who ran with millions of small donations, it speaks volumes. Obama's views are very close to hers. Why in gods name would you vote for McCain? Just to make sure the Republicans get that reliable 5th and 6th vote on the supreme Court? Is it because he's black? It just makes no sane sense. She is not the right choice for a VP. I would look at an ex military person, someone to balance the ticket, not just to satisfy the small group of Clinton supporters who would vote for McCain when he represents everything Clinton hates. That you would spit on Clinton's beliefs just to spite yourself over some paranoid view of Obama is just too weird. Clinton is not a follower and has a great career in the Senate or Supreme Court ahead of her, or perhaps Governor of New York. Those are her her destinies. If she had run a better campaign I would have been happy to vote for her as President. In the meantime she has made it so much easier for the next woman who runs at this level. Vote for what you believe in, not for spite.
Fun Fact: Obama declared his presedential campaign before Hillary. Saying that, it was a long campaign, everybody had a chance to see both candidates, their policies were analyzed, and then Obama won. The thing holding Obama back is people holding a grudge. Losing close games hurt the most, but you still lost and we all got to move on. Obama played by the rules of the game and won at them, and frankly I'm tired of some trying to villianize Obama for simply doing his best to win an election. He didn't take away delegates from Florida and Michigan, it was people like Ickes who did. He didn't set up caucuses, it was the states who did that. He doesn't control the media, others do that. Hillary clinton received some sexist coverage, but Obama has received racist coverage. "Terrorist fist jab" and "Obama's Baby Mama" from FoxNews are the most recent. Email smears are spreading whereas many actually believe he's muslim. Obama has faced his share of problems too, as well as Clinton. Saying all of that, Obama won this nomination fair and square, he played by the rules and nothing barring Clinton simply doing a better job herself at winning more votes would have changed that. So using Clinton losing as a reason to vote for McCain is rediculous as if you support McCain, then you never really supported what Clinton was about.
VivianVoting for john mcbush because Barack choses a woman other that Hilary doesn't make any sense at all. Right now you'r just upset that Hilary did'nt win the primary. Don't you see that with Baracks message of "change", it would be political suicide to choose a Clinton to run with you. The republicans would then have all the ammo they would need to shoot down Barracks main theme of change. In your heart you know this is true and when you get over being bummed at the primary results you'll have to admit that mcbush would be an unmitigated disaster for our country. One which we would'nt be able to set right for decades if ever. Our country needs a Dem. in the White house more than ever if we are to confront and repair what Bush and his incometent, crooked admin has done. The last thing we need is more of the mcsame.
AZ dems, let's really work hard to make McBush fight for this state. I'm attending a fundraiser for Obama today and have been hitting the malls every other saturday for 2 hrs to register people. We need to make McCain fight to keep this state. Now, anyone voting for McWar b/c Hillary lost is just being silly. Hillary will still be living pretty in one of her many vacation homes, while you pay high gas prices, get Roe vs. Wade overturned, the Iraq war goes on indefinetely, etc etc... So, your vote to McCain will only hurt you. Don't throw a tantrum, be an adult and think twice before you do something stupid in the name of spite! Obama '08 PHX, AZ
This would be simply wonderful if it happens.
This is all good, every bit of it. First off the party will get rid of any racist persons who would never vote for a black man. Secondly we will lose the close minded "Hillary or Death" voters. Upon this crucible that is the new political vetting process the Democratic Party will become a party of true liberals, and open-minded persons that know how to think before they open their mouths.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: