I’ve previously written that the most interesting Congressional race of the year was for Arizona’s newly-created Ninth Congressional District. Above is the result as posted today by the Arizona Secretary of State: Democrat Kyrsten Sinema is leading Republican Vernon Parker by 2,101 votes. This is a margin of about 1.3% of the total votes cast. The race has not yet been called for Ms. Sinema and Mr. Parker has not yet conceded. Given the closeness of the vote, that seems appropriate at this time. It’s going to be a squeaker, no matter what.
That margin, in turn, is almost exactly one-half of Barack Obama’s margin of victory in the popular vote over Mitt Romney in the Presidential election. Which makes me wonder about shirttails. If Obama had shirttails, however short, that might constitute Ms. Sinema’s margin of victory over Mr. Parker. Which would mean that Ms. Sinema owes the President, big-time, at least until she can assert the power and advantages of incumbency when it comes time for her to run for re-election in 2014.
I also have to wonder about the third party effect. Apparently, the Libertarian’s platform was to tell people not to vote at all:
The spoiler in the race may turn out to be Libertarian candidate Powell Gammill, who garnered more than 10,000 votes, despite urging voters during an October televised debate to stay home on Election Day in protest of the political system.
This, I should think, substantially deprives Mr. Gammill of the opportunity to argue that had one or the other candidate made an effort to incorporate some of his policy ideas into the platform, the race would have a more decisive outcome right now — and particularly to argue to the Republican that if only you had made more of an appeal to Libertarian-minded voters, Mr. Parker, you would be on the track headed to Washington right now instead of Ms. Sinema. Now, it’s far from clear that had Parker done this, he’d have been rewarded with a fraction of the more than 10,000 votes that went to Gammill. After all, Gammill told these people to stay home and they didn’t. But it’s also not entirely far-fetched to think that a portion of them could indeed have been persuaded to vote for Parker. Or for Sinema, for that matter, which would have her not only ahead by a nose but ahead enough that she would have had the race called for her by now.
The district is the sort of area in which future political battles will be fought. Middle-class, suburban, with reasonably well-educated voters who don’t care a whole lot about their candidates being demographically unlike the sorts of people who got to govern the country when Will and I were young. Lots of outside money and traditional ground machinery, and so far as I can tell the effort of both candidates was to reach out to people already inclined to vote in their direction, rather than to reach out to the middle and persuade the persuadable — one suspects, on the assumption that there were relatively few voters to persuade in the first place, but that making such a pitch would alienate the base. This last dimension, that of all-GOTV efforts and little, if any, effort to appeal to the moderate middle, is the single trend of modern politics that I find the least appealing and the least productive.
This isn’t the only close Congressional race in Arizona. It’s just the one I found the most interesting. It could very well work out that a majority of Arizona’s Congressional delegation are Democrats, something that I don’t think has ever been the case before. And given what incumbency does for a politician, it could be that this becomes a durable legacy of a decidedly unpleasant yesterday for Republicans nationally.
“The spoiler in the race may turn out to be Libertarian candidate Powell Gammill, who garnered more than 10,000 votes, despite urging voters during an October televised debate to stay home on Election Day in protest of the political system.”
What an odd request. How would anyone distinguish that protest from people that just don’t bother to vote? It’s like having a sit-in in your own living room.
How does Arizona redistrict? There’s a number of states where you can’t draw any conclusions based on turnover because it’s not just poll aggregates that have become massively data driven.
Gerrymandering is an art form now, down to individual houses.
Arizona uses an independent redistricting commission:
http://azredistricting.org/About-IRC/FAQ.asp
2 Republicans, 2 Democrats, and 1 independent chosen by the first four.
http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/congress.html#az
In Arizona, some of the Congressional District boundaries follow the boundaries of Native American Reservations. You can especially see this in the case of the Hopi Reservation, which is placed in District 2, even though it is effectively surrounded by the Navajo Reservation in District 1.
-For Immediate Release-
Nov. 6, 2012
Powell Picks Parker’s Pocket
Today it was my privilege to deny Vernon Parker–Neocon tool endorsed by Daddy Bush and who’s favorite Arizona politician is Sieg Kyl–a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. So disenchanted were voters with Parker that he was beaten by an avowed bisexual Marxist in a conservative state in a congressional district in which independence reigns. Mr. Gammill wants to thank everyone who just couldn’t stomach voting for either parasite for their votes.
Congressman Kyrsten Sinema, who failed to receive a majority of the vote will face a Libertarian again in two years. Mr. Gammill will keep his platform of selling off the federal government to pay off the debt, bringing home the troops from around the planet and getting them back to their families and their lives, and to restore our stolen civil liberties and our freedom to do as we please—free from government coercion.
Neither candidate bothered to answer voters concerns over their positions or proposed policies during the campaigns instead spending 98% of their time fundraising. And a compliant news media let them. Kyrsten Sinema spent $1,666,270 as of the last reporting period, while Vernon Parker spent $808,381. (source: Open Secrets) Libertarian Powell Gammill spent some $37 on gasoline and copier paper, or about a third of a penny per vote.
Fifty-three percent of the voters in District 9 followed my advice and stayed home this election. I predict it will be 60% the next time.
Powell Gammill
Libertarian Candidate
U.S. Congressional District 9 (AZ)
Dear Dr. Russell Saunders:
I’ll see your chronic Lyme diseasers and raise you one Powell Gammill.
Sincerely,
Burt Likko
So disenchanted were voters with Parker that he was beaten by an avowed bisexual Marxist in a conservative state
Wait. My head’s spinning. You’re actually criticizing the electorate for voting for someone who is an “avowed” bisexual, while you simultaneously expect to be take seriously as a libertarian candidate?
I’ve entered the time warp zone.
Still, this is not to endorse Mr. Gammill’s candidacy, positions, policies or mental state, all of which I am unfamiliar with, but I think you may be misreading his statement as criticism of Powell’s sexuality (unless “avowed” has a negative connotation besides “open”; plus I have no idea whether Powell is bisexual to begin with, nor do I care) when it is actually a statement about (the voters + the candidates) and what it all means to the speaker.
I read this to say: “Parker was such a complete turkey that conservative voters (who we may infer normally would prefer neither open Marxists nor open bisexuals) voted in Parker’s opponent (who was both.)”
It’d be like me saying, “so disenchanted were Northern Irish Republican Catholics with Republican Catholic candidate X, that they voted Monarchist Protestant Y candidate in.” I am not making any normative judgements on Monarchist Protestants or Republican Catholics to say this (or at least, not holding either side as any worse than the other – certainly as I read it, the speaker in this case seems to hold equal contempt for both Marxists and neo-cons). I am simply stating, “that’s how bad candidate X must’ve been, to have achieved this surprising result with the voters”.
Or to bring it closer to home, had Mitt Romney lost the old rich white religious guy demographic, someone here might well have said, “that’s how bad a candidate he was”, and no one would bat an eye.
(Of course, should a black candidate lose the black demographic to a white candidate, and someone say “that’s how bad a candidate he was”, that’d be racist.)
(Sorry, couldn’t resist.) 🙂
Argh, I screwed that up, let me correct that first para, it should read:
Still, this is not to endorse Mr. Gammill’s candidacy, positions, policies or mental state, all of which I am unfamiliar with, but I think you may be misreading his statement as criticism of (Parker’s opponent)’s sexuality (unless “avowed” has a negative connotation besides “open”; plus I have no idea whether (Parker’s opponent) is bisexual to begin with, nor do I care) when it is actually a statement about (the voters + the candidates) and what it all means to the speaker.
I made a comment to one of Tod’s posts on the front page concerning the drawing of diagrams around infelicitous statements. “Avowed bisexual” leaves little maneuvering room for connotations other than disapproval. You thread that needle here, Glyph, but when one adds to the mix Mr. Gammill’s presumption that every voter who failed to vote did so in response to his urge that they do so as opposed to simple apathy (AZ-9 had a turnout rate similar to the rest of the country) the overall impression is less charitable than the one suggested in your diagramming. In other words, that’s not roast beef, it’s a turd. Let’s not call it something it isn’t.
Burt, I thought of your comment as I was doing the “diagramming”. 🙂 And I get what you are saying, I really do. And Mr. Gammill strikes me as likely a bit of a nut, TBH.
But I am getting a little tired of otherwise-intelligent commenters here, who normally prize nuance and context, either carelessly or willfully glossing over what speakers are *actually* attempting to say, in favor of inferring or outright stating that the speakers are racists, or homophobes, or whatever. “Be thoughtful when sending your message” is important, no doubt; but so is “Be thoughtful upon receiving/interpreting that message”.
So with all due respect to you, I will continue to read with maximum charity, and to stick up for those who I feel are potentially being misinterpreted in ways that impugn their essential character. Even when I disagree with them. Even when I think they are a bit of a nut.
That’s a fair and generous take on it, Glyph. I admire you for that.
I usually try to stick with generous reading for at least four comments.
After four, if you’re still sounding like an ass, I’m going with “ass”. I might still respond to you charitably, but I’m sure not reading you that way.
There’s no question that he sounds ass-y. But what I find interesting is that he basically accused one pol of being a Nazi (“Sieg Kyl”) and another of being a Marxist; as near as I can tell with 2 minutes of googling, neither of those claims are true.
This is ass-like for sure, because it’s, well, lying.
But the one claim that does appear to be true (Krysten Sinema appears to be not only openly bisexual, but openly atheist to boot! The horror!*) is the one that generated the pushback. And like I said, I don’t think it’s necessary to assume that Powell himself is criticizing her sexuality, so much as implying that conservative voters in a conservative district under normal circumstances would be expected to do so.
“avowed” in Collins Thesaurus:
adjective: declared, open, admitted, acknowledged, confessed, sworn, professed, self-proclaimed; “She is an avowed vegetarian.”
It’s weird – there just seem to be trigger words for lots of people, and it’s entirely possible that Powell is “dog-whistling” there and I am missing it (it would not be the first time). But if we let people slide on the clearly false claims and real insults (and “Nazi” is frankly no small insult) while pouncing on the ones that are true claims/questionable insults (had he used a slur like “dyke” or something instead, I’d be right there with you guys), it just seems counterproductive.
Put another way – if Burt is right, and that part is in fact a turd – let it sit there, stinking, for all to see. Don’t even touch it. You’ll just get it on you.
* Actually, these two facts, plus her name, make me feel like I am finally living in the 21st century.
For what it’s worth, Glyph, “avowed” is a bit of a trigger word for me, too. When I think of the word “avowed” the context in which I think of it is “avowed socialist” or “avowed communist” or “avowed (somebody with a sinister agenda)” (as opposed to “avowed vegetarian”).
I don’t know if I would make a federal case out of it, but the usage of the word would cock my eyebrow and have me looking for other context clues for an idea of whether it was being treated as agenda-sinisterian.
Will, I consider you, Patrick and Burt to be amongst the more level-headed, slow-to-anger types around here, so if you guys think it’s a dogwhistle or coded slur, it may well be. Like I said, I have missed them before. I don’t doubt their existence, but I do find some claims of them dubious at times. I generally find people say enough indefensible shit plainly and openly, to keep us busy.
And I prefer accusations or insinuations that a person is racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or etc. to be accompanied by fairly strong and unambiguous evidence (more than one ambiguous word or sentence in one comment, anyway). That this is so, in no way means I approve of or support actual racism/sexism/homophobia etc.
I do suspect that if in the improbable event that say, Barney Frank ran for say, Texas governor and won, many of us here would consider it (literally) remarkable that an avowed/openly gay man won, without intending to denigrate Frank or gay men (and in fact, fully intending to denigrate most Texans as homophobes by implication).
BTW, you are not coming back from 1.2% with 163,000 votes cast. There is a reason the automatic recount doesn’t kick in unless the amount it less than 50 votes or under 0.2%. 1.2% is huge!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v391OHICgI8
I looked at the image and for a second, thought “LBT candidate? When did they form a party? I didn’t even know gay marriage was on the Arizona ballot!” Then I realized there was a letter missing and it meant “Libertarian.”