Arizona US Senate seat : Jim Pederson taking on Republican incumbent Kyl

by Jerome Armstrong, Mon May 02, 2005 at 08:12:57 AM EDT

Over the weekend I wrote a brief outlook here on the chances for Democrats retaking the Senate, mentioning that in Arizona, Kyl is not the strongest of Republicans, but there's not an obvious Democratic candidate yet running. While true, the more substantive statement is that Jim Pederson, the millionaire entrepreneur state Dem chair, is highly likely to take on Kyl, and it'd be a huge surprise to insiders in Arizona if he doesn't. An Arizona polling outfit, Wright Consulting Services, tagged onto a poll done last week in the state two horse race questions for the US Senate race. Here are the results:

Wright Consulting Services, poll completed 4/24; MoE +/- 4.1; 95% level of confidence.

                    Kyl        Pederson     Undecided/Other

Statewide:          46%        17%          37%

Democrat:           19         41           40
Republican:         72          2           26
Indep./Other:       27         11           62

 
Maricopa county:    48         18           34
Pima county:        42         22           36
Rural AZ:           44         12           44

 
Fund. Christian:    68          5           27   (20% of voters)
Main./Lib. Christ.  44         24           32   (38% of voters)
Not religious:      30         23           47   (15% of voters)

Here's the analysis:Off the top, Kyl doesn't break 50% from the get-go and this is without ANY declared opposition. This is very encouraging for Pederson, as Kyl has been an incumbent, congressman or senator, for a long damned time. And it's a Red-leaning state. The guy hasn't bothered to build an identity or a constituency here, as he's always faced wimpy and/or under-funded D's and always has been able to call in the corporate/local good old boy dough whenever he needs it. Pederson has dough, can raise more dough. If he goes, this is not the `normal' reelection cakewalk for Kyl from the start.

Second, Kyl is weak in Pima (not surprising) and his numbers in the rurals are very underwhelming (very surprising). And you get an indication from the religion xtab his base support is theocon Republican.

Bottom line, this guy Kyl is vulnerable, especially if Pederson has the wherewithal to go for it and go for it aggressively. Framing Kyl as an extremist and a corporate lackey will fly in these parts, especially in rural AZ. And Pederson has a crucial need to declare early lest voters think it's another `slam dunk' for Kyl coming up. Kyl is the poster boy for an aggressive progressive campaign in 2006 which can help to begin turning the extremist tide.

Obviously, there's more going on with this race than CW would suggest.

A related general note here. One of the obvious things that Democratic candidates need to do in these type of races is attack the stronghold of Republican support. The Democratic Senate candidate in Kentucky, Mongiardo, who lost by a whisker to the incumbent, did this effectively by turning the 10 commandments against Bunning. That might sound silly to the secular campaign warrior, but it's the playing field. If the Republicans are going to resort to statewide mailings telling fundamentalist-believing voters that Democratic gay marriage activists are out to destroy the Bible (like the RNC did in WV & AR), we should be mailing those same voters a checkoff list showing how unfaithful in their actions that Republicans are-- not to turn them to Democratic voters, that's a lost cause; but at least engage the fight by arguing why they should not vote Republican.

Tags: Senate 2006 (all tags)

Comments

22 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Still a long shot

Kyl always seems to poll poorly, yet he manages to win by heathy margins. The one thing that could do him in is social security. But Arizona is not yet Florida when it comes to that issue.

by Paleo 2005-05-02 08:31AM | 0 recs

permalink

But

No Democrat ran against Kyl in 2000, and in 1994, he had the benefit of the Republican revolution. He may not be so much strong as lucky.

by Drew 2005-05-02 09:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

hasn't bothered to build an identity or constituen

OT but not really:

Similar analysis could be made of Ensign in NV. Likewise, a self-funded candidate willing to campaign hard in the rural counties and hold Ensign accountable for his votes on sec security and budget would be able to give him a race.

by desmoulins 2005-05-02 08:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

thats an awesome idea

We can't cower on the whole God issue. GOP trying to make people think they are the party of God. We have to attack the GOP and their poor record on poverty and how they favor corporations over the individual, that is something Jesus wouldn't take too kindly. On social issues, we'll never win as a party. Biblically speaking, the stances on abortion and gay marriage appear to be inconsistent with what liberal democrats believe, but I'm surprised at how weak or scared to fight the Democrats as a whole are. GOP is inconsistent with Jesus's message. So inconsistent that it's sickening! They are picking and choosing what issues to target, we can take back some of these religious voters, while we hammer home the injustice in the health care system and the inequity in this country as a whole.

We have to run a candidate in every race. You never know when that anti-incumbent feeling will brew in America, and when it comes, we need to have competent, qualified candidates who stands for the rights of the little guy.

by falcon4e 2005-05-02 08:47AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: thats an awesome idea

YES! YES! The staple, traditional, Democratic social agenda (sans abortion and gay rights) is more inline with the Bible than any election-convient philosophy than Karl Rove can come up with.
There is NO WAY that if challenged, that the GOP can continue to be "G.od's O.wn P.arty" based on their social agenda. Their attacks on Social Security, Medicare and Medicade gives the Dems fuel to seperate the libertarians from the christian conservatives.
As far as the pro-life/gay rights goes, it's simple. I am pro-life leaning. I do not support abortion, but I do not feel that it should be illegal, ONLY because people will continue to do it anyway.
The Dems really need to move to the right a little bit on these two issues. It is the only real dog that the Repugs have in the fight.

But it's a big, nasty, dog.

by Bruticus 2005-05-03 07:23AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: thats an awesome idea

Why would the libertarians support the Dems over those issues? Most libertarians are against Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The civil rights violations of the Patriot Act and the interference on Schiavo are issues that will attract libertarians.

by yitbos96bb 2005-05-03 08:04AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: thats an awesome idea

That's what I meant. Most Christian conservatives are older and Social Security, Medicare and Medicaide are issues that Dems can use to form wedge between them and the Libertarians. The Democrats need a secular issue that will make it easier for the moderate chritians to split with the party. Make Karl Rove choose between the big businesses and Christians.
You're right about the Patriot though. The Democratic party has always been for civil rights. Why John Kerry didn't ride that horse in 04 is beyond me, he could have taken a huge chunk of the libertarians from the Repug's left flank.

by Bruticus 2005-05-04 05:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

Western candidates

Running a strong candidate in NV seems a no-brainer, if there is one. The West really seems up for grabs to me, given its strong libertarian streak. Faith is one thing, but meddling a la Schiavo is quite another.

On Pedersen: I was very disappointed that Paul Babbitt did so poorly against Rick Renzi. He seemed like he would be a strong candidate. I heard he ran a poor campaign, but in what respects was that true? Pedersen seems much more aggressive and more comfortable with fundraising. Hope he can do it.

by Mimikatz 2005-05-02 08:55AM | 0 recs

permalink

Let's all pray Arizonans rid us of Kyl

Framing Kyl as an extremist and a corporate lackey will fly in these parts, especially in rural AZ.

While getting rid of a Neanderthal like Kyl is always a good thing, it's going to be extremely difficult for any Democratic challenger to ever frame a Repug as a "corporate lackey" as long as the checks from the corproate donors keep rolling into the campaign chest.

The Democratic Senate candidate in Kentucky, Mongiardo, who lost by a whisker to the incumbent, did this effectively by turning the 10 commandments against Bunning.

Mongiardo came within a whisker down here in the commonwealth because Jim Bunning is senile and kept pitching wild screwballs every time Mitch McConnell's Repug bodyguards allowed anybody close enough to him to ask a question. Bunning was still re-elected on the coat-tails of the standard Repug ban of gay marriage to the state constitution: Pretty damn sad.

An update on Dr. Dan: The unmarried 44 year-old mountain doc was recently photographed being affectionate with a 19 year-old UK co-ed. Doh!

by Seldom Seen Smith 2005-05-02 09:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Let's all pray Arizonans rid us of Kyl

Hey... at least he's unmarried and she is of age. It might be ill-advised but at least it's not illegal.

by Andrew C White 2005-05-02 11:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Let's all pray Arizonans rid us of Kyl

Doctor Who?

by craverguy 2005-05-02 11:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Let's all pray Arizonans rid us of Kyl

English guy... affinity for telephone booths.

by Andrew C White 2005-05-02 12:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Let's all pray Arizonans rid us of Kyl

HA!!!! :D

--sam

by samizdat 2005-05-03 11:30AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Let's all pray Arizonans rid us of Kyl

snark aside...

Mongiardo is a Doctor.

by Andrew C White 2005-05-03 11:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

Source?

Jerome,

Do you know who the poll source is?

by pwj 2005-05-02 11:14AM | 0 recs

4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal

permalink

Re: Source?

Yea, I do, but it's not public info.

by Jerome Armstrong 2005-05-02 11:52AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Source?

source is now listed.

by Jerome Armstrong 2005-05-02 07:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

Reform vs. anti-Corporate

I'm not sure exactly how one frames this... but thinking about Seldom Seen Smith's comment above...

Democrats don't need to run "anti-corporate." I don't think that is right or a winning ticket (for multiple reasons not just the one that SSS mentions above). Rather I think Democrats need to run on Reform. Governmental Reform, campaign finance reform, ethics reform, budget reform, tax reform, intelligence reform, healthcare reform, education reform, legislative reform, etc.

The Republicans have given us so much material to work from. Reform, reform, reform, reform, reform. No matter what the topic bring it back to reforming the mess that the Republicans have made of things. Make sure to hit on typical conservative issues and the need to reform the mess the Republicans have made of them too. Tax reform is a good one there. How many people have really noticed a significant difference in their lives due to tax cuts? Not too damn many. Tax Reform. How screwed up is the deficit, the debt, and the budget? Budget Reform. A return to fiscal sanity. Everyone knows the nations intelligence community is screwed up. Intelligence reform... ties right into government reform to make sure that the administration can't manipulate intelligence again. It sells itself since most folks know today (whether they admit it or not) that Bush and his cronies lied about WMD's and the reasons for going to war.

Reform, reform, reform.

(oh... and make sure we Democrats keep our side of the street clean in the meantime. No ethics problems. Make sure the little girls are over 18, single, and that the men are too. And Follow the Damn Law!)

by Andrew C White 2005-05-02 12:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

How well known is Pederson?

I assume not very, because otherwise being down by 30 points is not good news.

by Geotpf 2005-05-02 12:15PM | 0 recs

permalink

Oh, and one more thing

20+38+15=73%

So 27% of Arizona is Muslim or Jewish or Wicca or Buddist? Or is there a "declined to state" in the relgion stats?

by Geotpf 2005-05-02 12:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

Interesting

Pederson has zero name recognition but already commands 17%. Kyl is under 50%.

I think Pederson has a shot if we make '06 our '94.

by raginillinoian 2005-05-02 02:08PM | 0 recs

permalink

Kyl is a shameless liar

Over and over on TV interviews he says crap that is just an outright lie. Most recently he was pontificating on the Dems and judicial nominees and Senate practice over the years.

He uttered lie after lie - convincingly, I might add. Dick Durbin (D. IL) took him down issue by issue, but Kyl just kept on lieing.

Some effective ads using Kyl's TV performances and contrasting facts would reinforce a Kyl image of being extremist and A LIAR.

It is a shame to have the only out gay in the Senate be such a shameless lie-whore. I think he has further ambitions in Senate leadership, so taking him down now would prevent more trouble later because he lies well.

by JimPortlandOR 2005-05-02 02:48PM | 0 recs