Ted Simons: Good evening, and welcome to Election Night on "Horizon". I'm Ted Simons. The polls are closed, early returns are on the way. For the next two hours we'll bring you the latest results and some of the best analysis in town from Bob Robb, editorial columnist for the "Arizona Republic"; Christa Severns, a former political and public affairs consultant, now doing government affairs work for Fennemore Craig; Stan Barnes, a former state legislator, now president of Copper State Consulting; and Bob Grossfeld, publisher of the "Arizona Guardian", and president of The Media Guys. We will also bring you reaction and speeches from the Republican and Democratic election night celebrations in downtown Phoenix. Through a partnership with ASU's Cronkite School of Journalism, we have reporters at those locations who will check in with from time to time. First, this is supposed to be a big night for Republicans. Let's find out if it's turning out that way. Bob, we'll start with you. Landslide predicted. Landslide seen?
Bob Robb: Well, all of the major networks are projecting that the Republicans will comfortably take back over the house. A lot of Senate races such as that in Wisconsin and the defeat of long-time progressive leader Russ Feingold would suggest that this is going to be a very big Republican night. Republicans picked up congressional seats in Virginia and New Hampshire. They are cracking the northeast which they have been shut out of for a couple of election cycles. We'll see whether that trend comes here, and if what I think is in some congressional districts a superior ground game by Democrats in Arizona bucks that national trend. But it certainly seems like a trend and a big one.
Ted Simons: What are you seeing out there? Does it matter out here all that much?
Christa Severns: We are such an unusual state, Ted, I think it's really just a matter of wait and see on what's going to happen here. The Democratic Party itself has struggled this year looking for messages within with the State. And with the nation going the way it is, we'll probably see some not necessarily good times for Democrats. But looking forward to seeing what's going to happen and go from there.
Ted Simons: Stan, what do you make of what you've seen so far?
Stan Barnes: It's an exciting night for a guy like me. I'm a center right thinker and I feel like the empire is striking back a little this whole thing, nationally speaking. It is a 60 or so house pickup nationally, but Arizona is not in. That's the fun we have tonight, there are so many Arizona congressional races that are in play. We actually have a national impact on the whole numerical outcome, meaningful. Plus we have such personalities and situations here, the Quayle-Hulburd situation, the Grijalva-McClung situation, the rematch of Harry Mitchell and David Schweikert. And the legislature is projected to step even further to the right. It's going to be an interesting evening.
Ted Simons: What do you think, Bob?
Bob Grossfeld: I don't know.
Ted Simons: That's an honest answer. We need more from you tonight.
Bob Grossfeld: Thank you very much, I'll see you later. So far nothing that we've seen had not been predicted. There's a little variation here and there, some of them are much closer than we had thought. The Republicans won a couple on the edge and vice versa. I think at the end of the night and probably in another couple days the story is going to be that 2008 was not the end of the desire for change in the country, that it was a moment that just happened to hit the Democrats quite well. And then because of incredible marketing on the part of Republicans nationally, and incredibly bad marketing on the part of Democrats, here we are.
Ted Simons: And here we are indeed getting some early returns. As you can see on the screen, those will be up on the screen throughout the entire night. We will update some of the major hot races, as well, as the evening progresses. Let's stick with Arizona here. Bob, SB 1070 ruled everything for the summer. Is that still going to be the defining feature in this election?
Bob Robb: I believe certainly in the governor's race, and I don't think it's as much SB 1070 as the national and even international reaction to 1070, with Arizona being compared to the segregationist south and even Nazi Germany. It gave Jan Brewer an opportunity to stand up for Arizona and defend not only the law, but the honor of the state. I think that completely changed the dynamics in the Governor's race. Certainly the Republicans are running on an all-SB 1070 ticket. Even the mine inspector, the Republican mine inspector, by God, will do what he can to enforce SB 1070. Down-ballot it would have been a big Republican year anyway. But I do believe it kept Democrats from coming up with a counter-narrative to try to change the dynamic.
Ted Simons: Why didn't SB 1070 galvanize the Democrats? We saw a lot of marching and shouting, why not a lot of votes?
Christa Severns: Great question. I think it's an issue that, when you believe in something, you tend to be supportive of it. But the feeling -- feeling strongly about it hasn't come out on that side nearly as much as the pro-1070 side. I think it's a matter of, it just didn't -- it didn't carry. It didn't bring through the type of response that is on that side. It's really much more, we're going to do it right, we're going to do it our way. And it's also for the following -- the Arizona way of going your own way and doing what you think needs to happen.
Stan Barnes: I have a more mechanical answer. The Democrats running statewide couldn't find the space in the political spectrum to betray their base, if you will, and say I support 1070, and still hold to the center left as it is in Arizona. All the statewide Democratic candidates had themselves in a bit of a pretzel the entire time, trying to be opposed to that on certain grounds, but at the same time not conceive the issue. Felecia Rotellini has hit that issue on as wide and on all degrees as possible. As one statewide candidate told me, the issue is held on statewide Democrats. It would take 25 words or more to explain your opposition to it. The people of Arizona are locked in on it and that's a difficult situation.
Bob Grossfeld: The conundrum for Democrats in a nutshell, this was a very well crafted wedge issue. It was designed to do what in fact it did, which is split Democrats off. I think the other thing that occurred was that either Democrats were not listening to their own polling, which has been universal -- it has been strong from the day it was first polled -- and were simply afraid to follow probably their instinct and probably to some extent also the polling. And I think it was a failure to really take a look at and respect the Latino population of the state, and not acknowledge that a great many Hispanics in this state are in fact opposed to illegal immigration.
Ted Simons: Let me ask you this then. If I'm a Democratic candidate and trying to figure out what to do, do you suggest if you're against 1070, be against 1070 in capital letters and be as strong as you can on that, knowing what the polling says, but just be strong and not all over the triangulation, all over the map. Do you be as strong as you possibly can and let the chips fall where they may?
Bob Grossfeld: The very first thing do you is you don't enable the people behind 1070 to get the kind of traction they got. The left created 1070 because our folks, if you will, came out heavy protesting. It was a dead horse, it was not getting any attention until the reaction took place. As the reaction grew, more and more and more, there was more publicity, more coverage, and all of a sudden, bingo, it's a big issue.
Bob Robb: I think Democrats did make a mistake on immigration. Uniformly they tried to run as close to the Republican opponent on illegal immigration as they could, and even in some cases, in Terry Goddard's case, investing in the message that I'm tougher on illegal immigration than Jan Brewer is. It wasn't an argument that was going to fly. To the extent Democrats were investing more than minimal funds in that, and buying into the agenda and trying to create a different agenda for voters to base their ballots on.
Ted Simons: Stan, the idea that the left created 1070 in great part. Do you agree?
Stan Barnes: I think that insightful. How many times did we see marches in Phoenix, and there it was. The flag of Mexico as part of the march. I could feel center right, majority Arizonans just knuckling up when they saw that, thinking this doesn't make sense in my town to have that kind of protest about a law about illegal immigration waving the Mexican flag. The left, unorganized as it is, just handled it wrong. But that's the nature of society. As it played out, people of the center right got hardened on that thing and wanted to act out at the ballot box.
Ted Simons: The left unorganized as it is. Do you agree with that? And secondly, if you do, how come?
Christa Severns: I don't think it was the Democrats with a capital D, it was democrats with a small D. You have a group that feels strongly about the issue, carrying the Mexican flag, and going about the business of protesting. That's not middle- America, the moms taking their kids to school. They may feel they know illegal immigrants or work with them but they are not going get all fired up about this. The people that got fired up about it turned most of the swing voters, the middle voters off. And the right or the more conservative side were there the way they had planted the issue and turned it into a wedge issue to capture those people.
Ted Simons: A slate of candidates on the left, I like Goddard and I also like 1070. Does my like of 1070, that is strong enough to where I'm not going to vote for candidates I might agree with?
Bob Robb: Prior to this election, immigration has not been a large influence on the outcome of general elections in Arizona. It has played in Republican primaries. I do believe, as I said previously, that it wasn't so much the issue of 1070, and I think Bob's correct, it was the reaction to the passage of 1070 and the demonization of Arizona which occurred. It became less whether you support the law and more whether you supported the state, as it was under attack. That's an unfair characterization, but I believe that's the way voters were seeing it. In ordinary circumstances I think Democrats would have been fine. It became more than about illegal immigration, and that's where Democrats got in trouble.
Stan Barnes: Number one Democrat, the man in the White House, picked a fight over this issue. What a platform for Governor Brewer. She gets to go to the Oval Office and compel the president to receive her on this issue. All of a sudden it became us versus the federal government, us versus illegal immigration, and it was just a natural for the center right functioning majority of Arizona.
Ted Simons: Bob, again, back to my original question. I think somewhere along the line there was the idea, what Stan and Bob just said, is that enough, if you are maybe leaning toward rote lean new, no, no, Tom Horne was in San Francisco for that hearing. He has come out totally in favor of 1070. I like Rotellini but I gotta vote Horne?
Bob Grossfeld: If you're on the edge like that, chances are 1070 probably will not help you make up your mind. But most of the voting has occurred before election night. Most of the voting occurred while all of these things were hot, while things were going on. At least what I'm seeing here from the A.P.'s exit polling, Brewer was getting support from -- I'm sorry -- Goddard won nine out of 10 voters who didn't like 1070. And unfortunately for him, that's not many people. According to the -- they said he got almost all of it. He got almost all of it. When you hit in politics, when you hit a '95 like that, you can't un-hit it. And so is there a way of calming it down, capturing it? No, there really isn't. All you can do is try and manage it. Jan Brewer probably would not -- definitely would not be in the position she's been in the last couple of weeks had she not signed the bill, because she wasn't involved in 1070 until that point. All of a sudden there was this ruckus being made, sign the bill, sign the bill. She signed it, all of a sudden she's on the national stage.
Ted Simons: The idea that the President fighting Arizona hurt Democrats, do you agree with that?
Christa Severns: I also think Democrats siding with Arizona hurt themselves. They came out and said, let them boycott my state. I think that's breaking the second rule of politics, which is to boycott your state.
Ted Simons: Don't do it.
Christa Severns: Not a good move. We'll see if that plays out in his race, which should be a very, very safe district.
Ted Simons: Let's start with Raul Grijalva. Did you think he's in trouble?
Bob Robb: I did not. He's currently running behind but there's very few votes in. There's a 67,000 Democratic registration advantage in that district. While I can see a large crossover vote against Grijalva occurring in the Yuma part of the district, I just don’t see it occurring in the Tucson part of this district over that particular issue. I will be very surprised, even though at present with very few votes in, he's running behind at the end of the evening that he won't walk away with it.
Ted Simons: A year ago the concept of Raul Grijalva in trouble would have provoked chuckles. Is he in trouble?
Bob Grossfeld: Oh, it would have provoked belly laughter. Yes, he is. And I think Raul would be the first to say it's all because of his position on 1070. Having said that, you know, there's a part of me that just admires any politician who will take a position based on their own principle and pay the consequences if need be. I just hope the consequences aren't as severe as they might be.
Ted Simons: Stan, that center right population that you talk about, obviously it could not have been pleased with Raul Grijalva doing this. But again, as Bob mentioned, the registration advantage for him in that district is so strong. Is he really in trouble?
Stan Barnes: That is not a center right district, it's a center left district, one of at least two we have in Arizona. He's in trouble because he's a special circumstance. He has his own arrogance about him. People in Tucson that have to deal with him have had reason to feel like this is a bit of a payback for a guy down on his luck. That's inside politics. Yuma doesn't get along with Tucson politically so he's got a district that's kind of bifurcated. He also has an attractive young woman running against him on a perfect pitch platform. He's a guy that's easy to strike at in this environment and he's got a real candidate. You can't beat somebody with nobody is the old joke. If there was a fluky candidate on the ballot, he might not have been in trouble.
Ted Simons: Would she be considered fluky candidate if he had not done the boycott?
Stan Barnes: Maybe we'll know in 20 minutes, it's kind of coming in now. But that and the Quayle-Hulburd situation, they are really a strange yin and yang in the Arizona congressional races.
Ted Simons: With Quayle and McClung, you've got people three years ago you'd say, maybe, who's that? We now know not only who's that, they could be representing the state in Washington. How does that happen?
Christa Severns: It's the American dream. It happens every cycle. You had Sam Coppersmith back in 1992, Stan remembers that race. We've always had this opportunity to come up out of nowhere. When people decide to run for office, everyone looks at them and says, why are you going to do that? Well, why not? One thing I admire about people that go out and run, if they really believe in something and they really want to do it, you can't look at the basic -- you can't handicap it like a horse race. You have to go, this is what I believe and this is what I'm going to do. Who knows what's going to happen. The Quayle-Hulburd is one story and the Grijalva race is another. We will have a number of American dreams or nightmares for some, I don't know.
Ted Simons: We have Gosar in C.D. 1, Jesse Kelly in C.D. 8, no one was that familiar with him, either. There are a lot of upstarts who are starting up there, Bob, ready to go.
Bob Grossfeld: And in a way that's -- whether it's the American dream or, you know, the media getting slugged across the head and going, there's more than just conventional wisdom, I think the result is going to be long-term. That the media will perhaps wake up and realize that there are contests going on and things are happening below the surface of conventional wisdom, and won't just automatically write off, this one's going to go this way, and this one's going that way.
Ted Simons: You can see Gosar, as far and early ballots and returns are concerned, he is ahead relatively handily.
Stan Barnes: That's not early, that's half of the votes in.
Ted Simons: As far as the first things being counted, it's pretty impressive.
Bob Robb: My guess is that more than half the vote is in based upon turnout. He's got a 15,000-vote advantage. A lot of Coconino County is in, which would be where Kirkpatrick would figure to make up some ground. A lot of Yavapai is in, as well. That would be an area where you would think Gosar would do well.
Ted Simons: Surprise you?
Bob Robb: It does, this is a big Republican wave, but Ann Kirkpatrick has struck me as someone who fits that district well. And Gosar clearly was awkward, particularly in the early stages. He got better as a candidate as the campaign developed but never got comfortable enough to really take her on one on one. He ducked debates and was running kind of a stealth campaign. Right now it looks like he figured that her vote for the stimulus and health care was all he needed to say. And it appears at present that he may have been right.
Bob Grossfeld: What we're seeing now is that Gosar just had a commanding win, if you will, of the early ballots, 51,000 to what is now showing as 28,000. And that is -- that's showing tactical intelligence. That's showing how to win a campaign. Apparently something Kirkpatrick either didn't do or we're not seeing the results yet.
Ted Simons: Again, the question has to be, if Ann Kirkpatrick, considered hard worker in that district, seemed to represent a lot of what that district represents, if this holds up with this kind of a margin, Stan, could you just almost run anyone for that district?
Stan Barnes: What are you saying?
Ted Simons: I'd love to say more, but he ducked our debates.
Stan Barnes: Fair enough. Congresswoman Kirkpatrick is a hardworking smart woman who was born in that district. She's carrying Barack Obama around on her shoulders from Flagstaff to Casa Grande and all points in between on the eastern Arizona side. That's just a ton of bricks. I don't think the campaign is any more complicated than that. If she loses tonight, I think she will say someday, I had to carry around the President of the United States and he was too heavy in that part of rural Arizona.
Ted Simons: The President?
Christa Severns: Again, she's defined by her party and the President, versus being able to simply run against, which is what Gosar is doing. He's just saying this is bad and this is bad. Right now that's a very responsive chord with voters right now. You don't need as much money or time, your message is very simple. Her message is much more complex. She doesn't get to talk about her story or the things she's done, because she's so busy carrying around the President. Unfortunately, that comes with a lot of baggage. Sometimes it's good, in this case probably not so good.
Bob Grossfeld: I think one of the things we're seeing that perhaps is filtering down to local areas is what we saw nationally with the Tea Party way of doing a campaign. Which is basically treat the media as an enemy, don't respond to them, run your own communications campaign, and use the media as a foil if you need to. We saw that with Sharron Angle in Nevada, the witch in the east, and for most of them, that was the cookie-cutter approach. You don't need them. They are only going to hurt you.
Ted Simons: Is that the cookie-cutter approach for this election?
Bob Grossfeld: Yeah, I think so.
Ted Simons: Or the approach you can often or always use, from now on?
Bob Grossfeld: From now on, unless the media frankly gets more activists, that's exactly what you're going to see.
Ted Simons: You think the media should be more activist as far as getting better candidates or closer races or all of the above?
Bob Robb: My predecessor once described covering the Mecham administration like falling in a vat of chocolate. This election season was like falling in a vat of chocolate. It may be that Bob's disappointed with the quality of candidates and the nature of the contests. I think his complaint is more with what voters respond to, than what the media reports, not that I'm a big defender of the performance of the media. But these were candidates delivering the messages that they chose to deliver with an electorate that is more engaged than perhaps at any time in a couple of decades in terms of an off-presidential election. You've got lots of contests, you've got vast voter interest, and I'm sorry that Bob's side is getting swamped, but I don't think --
Bob Grossfeld: I have a few inches.
Bob Robb: I don't think it was inattention or irresponsibility by the media that produced these particular results.
Ted Simons: Idea of -- hold on a second, I think we do have -- do we have Senator John McCain? I believe he's coming up to the podium at the Hyatt at Republican Headquarters.
John McCain: I think we did. Thank you all, thanks very much. Great to be here with all of you on a great night for Arizona and a great night for America. I thank all of you. [Applause] All of you know Cindy, Cindy and Megan and Bridget and Jimmy and Jack's not here. He's in pilot training, I hope he's a better pilot than I was. Can I say, it's wonderful to see all of you. It's wonderful to bring in to the House of Representatives a new group of great young Republican Congressmen and women. [cheering] And what a job Jan Brewer has done as governor of the state of Arizona and standing up for Arizona! [cheering] So, my friends, I came to say -- extend my good wishes to Mr. Glassman and I wish him well in the future. May I also say, I came here primarily tonight to say thank you. There are people in this room who for many, many years have been my friends and supporters and contributed so much to the state of Arizona. I intend to go back to Washington, and I intend to get to work. And I intend to work as hard as we can to get this economy back, stop the spending and stop mortgaging our children and grandchildren's futures. [cheering] Repeal and replace Obama-care as soon as possible. [cheering] And my friends, do not surrender in Afghanistan and bring our troops home in victory and with honor. [cheering] The great honor of my life has been being able to work for you in the Congress of the United States of America. I can never express to you adequately the gratitude I feel for so many of you who have done so many for me personally and for Arizona and for our Republican Party. We're in a historic night and I'm very proud to be part of it. I'm very proud of the fact that Arizona has stood tall, it's still the most magnificent state in the union with the best citizens of any state in America. [cheering] And I've been deeply honored to represent you, so let's have a great night. You've earned it! Thank you and God bless, and God bless America. [cheering]
Ted Simons: That was again Senator John McCain downtown at the Hyatt. He has a very comfortable, 25-some-odd-point lead and will obviously be winning tonight. In spite of the conventional wisdom says when you get bruised and bloodied in a primary, it didn't seem to matter.
Stan Barnes: Conventional wisdom does not apply to John McCain. He's about to go to his fifth term in the U.S. Senate. Rodney Glassman is a nice guy who is not that good of a singer we found out.
Bob Grossfeld: He had a boatload of money.
Stan Barnes: And $25 million. Do I hear 30? Whatever, it doesn't matter.
Bob Grossfeld: And as much money as he would want.
Stan Barnes: He had much more than he needs.
Ted Simns: J.D. Hayworth, no one knows where he is or what he's doing anymore. McCain's up here and going back and no one is surprised at all.
Bob Robb: No, and in a Republican year when you can outspend your opponent a bazillion to nothing, and congressional districts didn't invest anything in this particular race.
Ted Simons: Rodney Glassman have a future in Arizona politics, perhaps a different time in a different arena?
Christa Severns: No. They shot him down, I don't see how he comes back.
Ted Simons: Pretty much one and done?
Bob Grossfeld: He's got to make a living now, and that'll determine which way he goes if anywhere at all.
Ted Simons: Are there coattails? The McCain, just being there on the ballot, how much of an influence down-ticket?
Bob Robb: I don't think so much. If McCain had a close race, he would have invested his money not just in television ads but in kind of a ground game. He didn't do that, it was up to the individual candidates pretty much to develop their own ground game. It appears they did a pretty good job of it, the way the results are turning out. The only thing with coattails in this election is Senate Bill 1070. I don't think McCain had coattails, I don't think Brewer had coattails. I think she clung to 1070 coattails.
Ted Simons: Do you think there was a little bit of a chain going on there?
Stan Barnes: I think it became gospel among voters looking out for that moment to say, the Republicans are for 1070 and the Democrats generally aren't. It plays with the middle-ground voter. Where does the independent go? In Pinal County, there are more Independents than there are Republicans and Democrats in that order, and the state's kind of going that way. Looks like the independents are going Republican. The results tonight have Republicans statewide doing very well. Tom Horne is closer to Felecia Rotellini than the other statewide candidates are to their challengers. Quayle is up and Schweikert is up, most of them by double digits. It's looking like the Republican wave is doing its thing in Arizona tonight.
Ted Simons: If the Republican wave is doing its thing in Arizona, was there anything Democrats could have done better, differently? Anything at all? I mean, if the tide that is high, is it just a question of how wet you're going to get?
Christa Severns: It could be. This could be just one of those years where you just take it and come back. We've had our good years or Democrats have had good years two years ago, pretty great. And we're in a really tumultuous time. It's going to be like this for a while. As long as the economy is chugging along at the level that it is, which is not good, as long as we can focus on -- or we have these flash issues that really ignite emotions, it's going to play back and forth. And that's what we've got this year. It's almost a duck and cover year.
Ted Simons: What do you think, Bob? As far as the future, where do both parties going from here? You're an insider of the Democratic Party, is it going to be a rebound thing in two years? What are you seeing here?
Bob Grossfeld: That's kind of a big question. What I'm seeing overall nationally, as well as spreading throughout the country, is something really quite simple that those of us involved in politics probably don't see, which is we see distinctions between 2008 and six, and now 2010. And I think to most people and certainly most voters, there are no distinctions. It's their lives that they are looking at, punctuated by every once in a while they get a vote and express how they feel. 2008 they expressed we don't like this Bush character anymore, get rid of him. Great. We'll go for Obama and we'll go for anybody. Now it's 2010, problems haven't changed. In many respects they have gotten worse because the Bush thing is now hitting. Who takes the heat for it? The President. And the Congress, on down.
Ted Simons: If it's such a very quick turn-around and we had Democrats here at this table during debates asking voters, do you want to go back to what it was like before 2008? First of all, was that emphasized enough? And secondly, why wasn't the answer to the Democrats' liking?
Bob Grossfeld: Because I think to agree with my esteemed colleague Mr. Robb, voters are better educated and more in touch, if you will. They are seeing all that stuff as just hyperbole. If the Democrats could have done one thing from the top on down, it would have been follow a prescription that I've tried to follow when I do this kind of work. Never defend, always attack. They were put on the defensive from the beginning of the Obama administration and never got off the defense. For those of you with college degrees, defense, and that, you can't win from that position for my friends who watch NFL football.
Stan Barnes: I think that Bob is trying to spin straw into gold a little bit here. I don't think it's any more complicated than this president is an erudite liberal who overreached. Everybody watching has their own reasons. There he is, overplayed their hand and the health care thing became the example of that overplay. This is the empire striking back. The Independent voter, the middle voter, the nonpartisan, non-base of either side voter says, I'm not with this, I'm with something else. There had to be something at the ballot to vent all of that. Down-ballot in Arizona legislative races, some of the ones we're watching tonight are breaking Republican. We are going to pick up four or five house seats, looks like we're going pick up Senate seat, Republicans are. There's going to be a big shift there that emanated from the white house first. It affected voters who went to the polls to say something.
Christa Severns: Two years ago people voted for hope. This year they are voting out of frustration. It's a different message a different time. We'll have two more years now trying to figure out what goes on in that time. Both sides will have to talk to each other and figure out what they are going to do. How each side crafts their message, are they going to get anything done or not? And whose fault is it if they don't?
Ted Simons: We have seen polls where people would say, if you asked them specific questions about health care reform and what wound up as that, they like that or they like that or think it's a pretty good idea. Ask about health care reform, they are proving tonight they didn't vote for that. What's going on there?
Bob Robb: Certainly individual elements of what was in the health care reform proposal that were adopted are politically popular, if you don't put a price tag on them. The American people believe that this piece of legislation -- and I think they are correct -- irrespective of what Democratic budgeteers spin it, is going to cost a billion dollars the country doesn't have. This was a reaction to the bailouts, the stimulus spending, and a trillion-dollar expansion of the entitlement state, at a time the didn't country doesn't think we can afford it. I think it's that simple, particularly among independents. Independents turned against Republicans in 2006 on the Iraq War. I think Bob is correct. In 2008, I don't think they were voting for hope. I think they were voting to eject George W. Bush and Republican rule, and it was just a fact that the Democrats were the other side. This year they are voting sticker shock, and a sense that the country just simply can't afford what’s going on.
Ted Simons: Go ahead, please.
Christa Severns: I don't think so. I don't think it's sticker shock. I think it's when you take a very large concept that has millions of details, as this one did. It's very easy to find details that are -- that were miswritten or not well laid out. It never went back. I mean, on the health care bill, it never went back to have the work done in a joint session to make it more palatable. When it came out it was this thing with a lot of issues. So the -- you can say we've declared victory and we're going to give all these people health care, sure, but sure it’s way too expensive and bureaucratic. The Republicans had the general sense that nothing was getting better and I'm still frustrated.
Ted Simons: What do you think, Bob?
Bob Grossfeld: I have become absolutely convinced, unfortunately, almost all of these things are determine beside what you name them and what you call them and how frequently and repetitively you can do it. Which is how death panels came about.
Stan Barnes: That's how we got clean elections, too, don't you think?
Bob Grossfeld: I'm glad you could check.
Stan Barnes: The marketing campaign of all time. I'm making your point for you.
Bob Grossfeld: Thank you. You're a good man despite everything. But -- and assuming that, then what we saw was the Democrats in Congress, Democrats in the White House calling it health care, this, that and the other, and it was changing. What it ended up as was health insurance reform. If they had said that from the beginning and said, here what's we're going to do, they can't do this, this, or do this to you anymore, and by the way, they can only have a profit of X.
Bob Robb: It's early for 2012 predictions, but I will predict this. If Democrats don't understand this election was about spending, then 2012 is not going to be any different than 2010.
Ted Simons: What about the idea of spending two to make three? Spending stimulus money for infrastructure or whatever you want to spend it for, whether it's this sort of thing. Is the electorate all that excited about the idea that we're going to get you help buying a new car?
Bob Robb: The American people don't buy it. There is a very respectable argument among economists as to whether that's the right or the wrong thing to do. We're seeing the judgment of the American people today. It is a reaction against the bailouts which began under the Republicans. Stimulus, which began under the Republicans. But it was inflated enormously under the Democrats. And a trillion-dollar entitlement program the government does not perceive that we can't afford.
Ted Simons: We're talking a lot about Washington, President Obama and his policies and how they were presented and pushed. The response now to those policies. Yet in Arizona, we have got a budget problem that, at the end of this evening, might be even a bigger budget problem. It will be.
Bob Robb: 301 and 302 are going down big-time.
Ted Simons: And no real surprise there. Are voters in Arizona, are they still voting against health care reform, against spending, not enough cutting? Or do folks realize what's going on here with this budget and the economic condition of the state?
Stan Barnes: I'm glad you asked that. When I get the chance, I say as loud as I can say it politely, no one in Arizona understands how bad things are financially. When you sell the state capitol for a title loan to make payroll, that's how bad it is. That seems to bounce off people's forehead and they go back to their lives and are doing their own thing. We are in such bad shape, whoever's rung the state is going to have to do something with nothing and it's going to be a terrible situation.
Ted Simons: Hold on for a second. Cronkite News Reporter Jacqueline Kelly is standing by with Terry Goddard.
Jacqueline Kelly: You got a huge round of applause when you spoke about Russell Pearce. What is it you would like to see change?
Terry Goddard: I think we need to stop empowering him. He's given Arizona a very bad name throughout the country, a spokesperson for anti-Latino people. We are inclusive and Russell’s not about that. Regardless of what happens tonight, we've got to stand up against that kind of hate talk.
Jacqueline Kelly: Speaking of what's happening tonight, it's 41-56 with Governor Jan Brewer right now. I'm just wondering what you can do to turn this around?
Terry Goddard: I can't do a thing tonight. Campaign is over, I took my button off and we have to see what voters decide.
Jacqueline Kelly: Thank you, Terry. We are live at the Democratic headquarters, back to you.
Ted Simons: Terry Goddard again speaking there, and she's right, he's down 41-55 here. It's pretty obvious that he is not going to be the next governor of Arizona. It's also obvious that he's already attacking Russell Pearce and the idea of a legislature that has perhaps gone too far off a particular end. Let's get to the legislature.
Stan Barnes: There's an irony right off the top. The polite and smart but losing Democratic candidate for governor is on the attack that the legislature has gone too far, on a night when the legislature is growing in its Republicanness and in its conservativeness, as a result of what the voters of Arizona are doing. Maybe that's the problem for the Democratic Party in Arizona. Their flag-bearer is tone deaf to that phenomenon, even at this moment.
Bob Robb: If Terry had done more of that, it would be a much closer election.
Ted Simons: More in terms of passionate responses?
Bob Robb: More in terms of presenting himself as the guy that can check an out-of-control and out of touch Arizona legislature. That didn't play hardly at all in his messaging. He invested 10 times as much trying to prove he was tougher on illegal immigration than Jan Brewer something the public was never going to believe. Rather than this, that he will be a check on the legislature that the public perceives isn't responsive or reflective of their views. He said very little about that.
Bob Grossfeld: Had that Terry Goddard been seen at the very beginning of this campaign, and worked to change the subject, he would have -- he wouldn't be in this down position right now.
Ted Simons: We talked about that on the Friday roundtable here on "Horizon" a lot. We kept waiting for the big splash from the Goddard campaign. Earlier on he didn't have much of a reason to splash because it was considered his race to lose. Looks like he's lost it. What happened to that campaign?
Christa Severns: Unfortunately, it's pretty typical for a Goddard campaign. Everyone expects there to be a splash. But Terry is a -- is a good governing person but not a good politician. He never does that kind of -- he cannot bring his passions out in a campaign. We've watched it over 25 years in races.
Ted Simons: Let's talk about that and the idea of what wins -- let's keep it to Arizona and even, if you can, do some of the statewide races. But as far as the legislature is concerned and these sorts of things. What is the winning strategy for a candidate? How far can -- how much marching and shouting do you have to do, yelling and shouting, before you hit other side and people go, I'm sick of that. We saw a little in the Republican primary for attorney general. I don't know if people were voting for Tom Horne or against Andrew Thomas. When do you hit the point, he's making a little too much noise out there, I'm getting tired of it.
Stan Barnes: We reached that in a number of races, but I don't know how. Every candidate and race and office has its own different microcosm and the personalities are a big way into that. You could make a lot of money consulting if you answer that question.
Ted Simons: That's one of the reasons I'm doing what I'm doing.
Bob Robb: One Democrat who’s bucking the tide at least so far is Gabby Giffords in Congressional District 8. She's up by about 9,000 votes. She beat Kelly in the early ballots, usually a Republican-leaning trend. So she's looking pretty good. What really impressed me about her advertising campaign was that it was understated. Unlike all these races where the Republicans and Democrats on both sides are saying that their opponent is the spawn of the devil, in deep voices and dramatic music, she quoted Kelly’s words directly, in some cases ran clips of Kelly, explained why that wasn't a policy that the voters of her district would like. And then the tag line wasn't Jesse Kelly, spawn of the devil. It was Jesse Kelly, a risk we just can't afford. The fact that it was understated, usually the consultants say you've got to be pitched as shrill as you can in order to be noticed. I think her understatement grabbed attention.
Ted Simons: There were certain things I thought I saw, and I've seen so many fly by, some of those were looking at Governor Brewer saying essentially, we can do better.
Bob Robb: It was doing more than that. It was saying that she's incompetent and not up to the job. I just think again, after Senate Bill 1070 and the leadership she showed on that, that wasn't an argument the people of Arizona were going to listen to. They had already decided she was a woman of flint with leadership qualities.
Christa Severns: We saw it nationally with the 13-second, 17-second pause. My relatives were calling me saying, wow, what's going on. Here that was like a two-second blip and people just didn't care. They thought they knew who she was and what was going on and it didn't matter to them. When you're viewed from the outside as being something that should be bad or is judged that way from somewhere else, it's different when you're on the inside.
Ted Simons: We're looking right now, we just saw flashed on the screen the Raul Grijalva race with McClung and it looked as though McClung had a lead. I'm not sure if we can get that back up there. We talked earlier about that. How we doing, as far as finding those numbers?
Bob Robb: She's currently up by a little over a thousand.
Ted Simons: There we have it right there. Actually we have Grijalva up with about -- We're dueling numbers.
Bob Robb: There's still a lot of people Pima County left to be voted.
Ted Simons: But that is --
Bob Robb: It's a race.
Ted Simons: That's a race no one expected, bob. Still early and a lot of playing field to go but that's a close race.
Bob Grossfeld: This just shouldn't be. And it is the -- again, it's the price that Representative Raul Grijalva is saying paying, speaking from the heart, and it turns out not necessarily to be the politically best thing to do.
Stan Barnes: An unfortunate moment of honesty on his part. I think the Quayle-Hulburd race is instructive tonight. Quayle is leading by double digits the whole night. Mr. Hulburd must have had polling that gave him confidence to put $250,000 of his own money in late in the game. A lot of insiders were expecting that campaign to be a lot closer than it is, and it’s not.
Ted Simons: We're looking at it right now and that's quite a difference there with 43% reporting. Bob, is that thing pretty much over with that kind of a span?
Bob Grossfeld: That's about -- there's still enough out that I'd hold off for a while.
Stan Barnes: Wait a minute, Bob, Bob, you missed your math class in your college degree. That can't be made of. To have that kind of lead? That's not going change tonight.
Bob Robb: It's also a homogeneous district. You're not going to have Pima County come in for the Democrats.
Christa Severns: I don't know, Paradise Valley Mall.
Ted Simons: Indeed. Let's talk about that. How did Ben Quayle defeat a slew of experienced politicians with a modicum of name recognition out there?
Bob Grossfeld: Money.
Ted Simons: Is it really money and name? That is really the ballgame here?
Bob Grossfeld: Money, name, daddy's connections throwing fund-raisers in Texas, getting the Texas fellows to help the lad.
Ted Simons: Okay. We're working on getting Felecia Rotellini at the Democratic Headquarters. That race is closed. Ben Quayle, 33 years old, and again a bruising primary and even a bruising general election with stuff you wouldn't want in your background, would you?
Bob Robb: He won a 10-way primary with a little over 20% of the vote. You had a whole bunch of Republican challengers to him that were all pretty much the same. If it had been one on one, Quayle and any of them, there's a good chance he might not have made it out of the primary, having made it out of the primary in this election year, the Republican having a 50,000-vote registration advantage in that district. You have an election where Republicans think there's something really important at stake nationally. They have to have a really atrocious candidate in order to abandon their candidate this election cycle. And Quayle was decent on the issues and he does have a good Republican pedigree. Then you have the fact that Hulburd was going to get over 60% of the Independent vote to make it a contest, in a year in which the Independents were breaking towards Republicans by double digit margins.
Ted Simons: Hulburd, and even in the debate we had here on "Horizon", I think it was pretty obvious he wanted to extend Bush Tax Credits and benefits, I should say, and also looking at SB 1070, he found like a Republican candidate.
Christa Severns: Remember what Bob said about the way you name a proposition or a ballot? His name had a D next to him. You know, it's -- you can't -- obviously what we're finding is you can't override that D in this election on that district.
Ted Simons: What do you think, Bob? Again, does he become Rodney Glassman if he comes out more liberal than he was?
Bob Grossfeld: I think that would be unfair to him. I suspect -- look. You have to be a moderate or as Stan might describe it, right middle, up-down thing, just in order to think that you're going to run in that district. If you really just wanted to be a Congressman, he would have gone someplace else.
Bob Robb: 2006, 2000 site, Hulburd might have had a chance. 2010, not a chance.
Stan Barnes: It's easy to see that in hindsight. Right before the polls closed, people were saying Quayle was a weak candidate that would come up in the general.
Ted Simons: I want to get on to the Mitchell-Schweikert race because the numbers are interesting. If Quayle wins, does he face a primary in two years? Could he be vulnerable from his own flank?
Stan Barnes: You looking at me?
Ted Simons: Yeah, I'm looking at you.
Stan Barnes: I don't think so. He'll have a ton of money, everything he had this time, so I think he'll succeed as long as things go normally.
Bob Robb: I agree.
Ted Simons: We're looking now at the Congressional District 5 race between Mitchell and Schweikert. Mitchell is not winning this matchup. Bob Grossfeld, why?
Bob Grossfeld: He has fewer votes.
Ted Simons: Thank you for that.
Bob Grossfeld: Assuming it continues like this, I think it comes down to the same mistake that so many Democrats, particularly at the congressional level made from Day 1, is that they weren't bragging about the good things that they had done. They were playing defense, running away from it, and that, you cannot sustain that.
Stan Barnes: I think it's interesting that, if I had put myself in that equation, Bob, I'd think the spread between Schweikert and Mitchell would be even further. If Harry ran as an Obama Democrat in that district, instead of a 12-point spread, it would be a 22-point spread.
Bob Grossfeld: Don't -- you know, -- we're very close but don't put words in my mouth like that. It's not about run as an Obama Democrat. It's simply explaining to people, I did this, I did this, I did this, from a very large menu.
Bob Robb: Harry's been defying political gravity in that district which has a 40,000-vote advantage in that district. And he could capture the independents. This election Republicans thought there was something significant at stake. His crossover Republican vote evaporated and he had to get just too much of the independent vote to succeed in a year that the independents were leaning against the Democrats.
Ted Simons: If Republicans did think something significant was at stake, and thus the energy and turnout and results, why weren't Democrats saying something very important is at stake, we could return to the policies that got us in this mess back in 2008. To Bob's point, if Mitchell comes out and really hammers home what would be considered a little more left, would it not have energized some folks in that district?
Christa Severns: No, I don't think so. I think what Stan and Bob had said, we're looking at the middle now, the independents, the swing Republicans and the swing Democrats. Harry was always getting those voters. This time around with everything that was going on out there, on the national level, how the Dems in Congress have been painted, really probably the only way to do it was to be seen as the icon, Harry Mitchell, and not the Democrat Harry Mitchell.
Stan Barnes: He tried to do that.
Christa Severns: The jack in the box, the problem is stuffing it back in the box.
Bob Robb: I don't think he did that nearly enough. He was rung mostly negative ads against Schweikert, rather than reminding voters of his 40-year record of service to that community. I think he had a card to play that he underplayed.
Christa Severns: Bob, I think what you said about the negative ads is absolutely correct, it's been the conventional wisdom that you beat up your opponent and don't define yourself. I think that, in this election, maybe the tide was just too strong any. In this election, people were tired of it.
Ted Simons: As far as the legislative races, let's get down to some of the finer points in the election. I noticed that District 23, Rebecca Rios seems to be in a little bit of trouble there. There are a number of candidates on the Democratic side that look like they are -- a lot of folks are watching those races. What are you seeing shaking out there?
Stan Barnes: I made myself a few notes while Bob was going off on his discussion point. It looks like the Republicans are going to pick up three Senate seats. If the numbers hold, Senator Rios will be second in Pinal County in that District 23 race. But there are still votes and it is still close.
Ted Simons: We have 52-47 right now.
Stan Barnes: And two other southern Arizona races projected to be in place, Senator Gary out of the Yuma area is losing to Don Shooter. He's also the leader of the Tea Party movement in Yuma County. And he appears to be winning handily, also, in another southern Arizona district, in Cochise County along the border, the Democrats losing to Gail Griffin. Gail Griffin is now running as a state senator and leading her race, as well.
Ted Simons: What does that mean at the state capitol come next session?
Stan BarneS: That means we go from the present -- assuming everything else remains the same, and it looks like it is, Senator Gray for instance in the West Valley is leading Johnson who gave her a real run. He's a great candidate, he knocked on a million doors, but she appears to be winning the race because she reflects that constituency very well. And Mr. Shapira appears to be winning in the east. The Senate Republican caucus goes from 18 to 21a historical state record in Arizona for republicans in the State Senate.
Ted Simons: Bob, Republicans on the other hand? We talked about that a lot on the program, as well. They were almost MIA as far as the last session was concerned. What does this mean?
Bob Grossfeld: They could take up hobbies, I guess. What it means, if they are going to do things correctly, they get sworn in, they hold their caucuses in a nice little restaurant. And basically make a decision. They are either going try and play within that, or -- and I think what most outside consultants would tell them, you have no chance of influencing anything. So your best advice is use the two years you have to take names, write down bad things the other folks are doing, and start running against them now.
Ted Simons: Okay.
Bob Grossfeld: They probably won't do that.
Ted Simons: Christa, we are looking at Shapira's numbers and that's part of Congressional District 5 where Harry Mitchell is not doing very well. Is that politics is all local, or just a more vibrant candidate?
Christa Severns: Harry could be doing great in that district, too, we just don't know. It's Tempe, yeah, and it is what it is.
Ted Simons: Okay. By the way, there's the numbers on the screen right there.
Stan Barnes: And he is a good candidate, to your point. He's a sharp, likeable guy but he's had a real run. Rogers, too, knocked on a million doors and is a very sharp woman. But I think it's all politics, the local thing.
Christa Severns: One way to figure out if the candidate is going win or not, on election night they are skinnier than they started probably is going to win.
Ted Simons: With that, Bob, let's move over to the idea of leadership. Let's talk about the Senate President and how that could possibly shake out. Did Russell Pearce lose what chance he had by going with that press conference and his 14th Amendment concerns? Or does he have a pretty good shot at being Senate President?
Bob Robb: Stan would have superior insights on this to me. What people who follow this process closely tell me that is it's highly unlikely that Pearce will end up to be president. Who will be the anyone but Russell candidate is yet to be determined. But the assumption is as candidates fall out, their votes will go to who's left other than Russell, that when the caucus first votes, Russell will probably be close to his high point, in terms of the number of votes he has for Senate President. That is pure speculation. One thing we know is that people lie about who they are going vote for in these things. But in part it doesn't matter. Irrespective of whether Russell is Senate President or not, he will set the anti-illegal immigration agenda for the Republican caucus. The Senate Bill 1070, a complete unwillingness to be found on the other side of that issue from Russell, and I don't think that that will change.
Ted Simons: Do you agree with that?
Stan Barnes: I agree with the part that I have more insight than he does.
Bob Robb: Sure.
Stan Barnes: Just kidding, trying to line some of it up.
Bob Robb: We'll see.
Stan Barnes: A good lobbyist doesn't disclose what he knows, especially on broadcast television. I will say it's a fun day tomorrow for the newly elected if it turns out to be what we think, 21 Republican senators. They will gather in a windowless room in a non-disclosed location and Bob Burns will conduct the meeting. They will all sit there, the 21 and President Burns. They will decide who is going to be the leader or the leadership of the Republican majority caucus. In the old days when he was there, we had to actually stand up in the room when it was your guy's turn to be the man or not. And now they vote by secret ballot. To Bob's point, if you took the four men -- there happen to be four men running for Senate presidents. They counted up the votes, everybody double-talks everybody else and it's like a game of "Survivor", the television show. You don't know who votes for whom until the votes are counted on a piece of paper. We'll know tomorrow who's going to be the leader of the state Senate.
Ted Simons: So you do have more insight but you won't share it?
Stan Barnes: That's right.
Ted Simons: We're going down to I believe Democratic Headquarters at the Wyndham Hotel. I believe there is Superintendent of Construction Candidate John Huppenthal standing by. Are we ready to go with that?
Tony Spehar: Yes, we're ready to go. We have here John Huppenthal. We've seen the numbers coming in and I was really interested to hear you talking about how politics has been really divisive this year. You were talking about how much respect you have for your opponent in this race.
John Huppenthal: Her and I have worked together on projects and we were friends before the race started. I hope we're still friends. I still look forward to working with her in the future.
Tony Spehar: About the future, what do we see in the future from John Huppenthal?
John Huppenthal: The things we talked about in the race. Accountability at the School District level, accountability measures for School Districts, relationship measures we think are assets for improving education for our children. When voters and parents know that data, they can evaluate their School Districts, that galvanizes School Districts to come together as a team to improve results for students.
Tony Spehar: All right. How are you feeling about this Republican -- these Republican gains here across the state? Do you feel that's going to be helpful to you?
John Huppenthal: Well, everything -- pride goeth before a fall. You have to -- I think we all have to be humble, humble, humble. We've been faced with an enormous responsibility and strip away any arrogance we have and buckle down and do the work. Even though we win the race, we have to think about their values and reflect their values in the work we do, too.
Tony Spehar: Thank you very much, John Huppenthal. We're live from Republican Headquarters.
Ted Simons: Huppenthal I think has 13 points here. Are we surprised that race is double digits?
Bob Robb: I am not. Down-ballot elections tend to be party identification elections unless there's something that mixes them up and changes that dynamic. And so large close to double digit or double digit wins by Republicans in all the down-ballot races I think is to be expected. It is when it's tighter than that I think there's something different going on in the race.
Ted Simons: Bob, was this a candidate you talked b the passion you talked b getting out there and pounding the first and doing this sort of business? Penny Kotterman, no shrinking violet, she knows her business and came out hard. Huppenthal ahead by 13 or 14 points, again, what is a Democrat to do?
Bob Grossfeld: Sometimes a tsunami is just a tsunami. And there isn't anything you can do. And especially at the office that are just less known, less aware. She had some things going for her, just as a candidacy. A woman in that office tends to do better than a male. That was offset I suspect by the fact that she was a woman who had been working for the union for so many years. You just can't fight it off completely.
Ted Simons: Christa, the idea that the union label was somehow stuck on her, and also John Huppenthal was a member of the legislature. And by most accounts or surveys, regardless of who's doing them and how they are doing them, lots of folks are not all that excited about the way the Arizona legislature has been doing business as of late. He has been part of the legislature and seems like folks want to keep education funding as high as it can be, he's winning by 13 points.
Christa Severns: He's also a skilled politician, this is not his first campaign. It's Penny's first campaign. He gets out there, energetic, he's staying on message. You couple that with being a Republican year, having more Republican voters in the state, and the fact that Penny was a good candidate but, you know, a union president and part of the Democratic Party. You know, it's breaking the other way this time.
Bob Robb: During the 1970s and the 1980s it was generally a Republican state. But the voters tended to trust Democrats more for superintendent of public instruction, education and the corporation commission, keeping an eye on the utilities. Something happened in the 1990s to change that equation. I initially thought it was just going to be a temporary interruption, and I still don't fully understand why Democrats can't take advantage of the public sentiment they tend to care more about education, they are more likely to keep a tight eye on the utilities and haven't done any better than they have in the Superintendent race and in the Corporation Commission races.
Christa Severns: I was wondering the same thing about the Corporation Commission races. It used to be the Democrats' to lose. Now recently that's changed.
Stan Barnes: One more word on Huppenthal. The Huppenthal-Kotterman race was the perfect scientific Petri dish of the reformer versus the defendant of the establishment. I think that had meaning. Even though you had to work at it to be a voter and get that. But the extend world around the capitol knew that's what was happening. Defender of the system, the reformer of the system. To Christa’s point, no one has ever out-campaigned John Huppenthal at that. Guy knows how to get it done.
Bob Robb: The debate you had with the two of them on the show was civic democracy as well as we've ever seen it.
Ted Simons: Both candidates left and seemed to get along with each other.
Bob Robb: And it was an exchange of very well-informed views about how to improve education.
Ted Simons: Bob, have you got the word about the A.P. calling the Governor's race?
Bob Grossfeld: Jan Brewer has a full term.
Ted Simons: And that must be why Randy is speaking right now at the Hyatt. We'll try to go to that when she begins the victorious speech. Four more years of Jan, what does that mean for Arizona?
Stan Barnes: It means legitimacy for Jan Brewer. This was her election, she was elected to this office.
Ted Simons: I want to get back to that. Some folks didn't think she had the proper capital to do what she wanted to do. But Governor Brewer is speaking at the Hyatt in downtown Phoenix, let's go to her.
Jan Brewer: Wow! You know, at the end of every campaign, win or lose, we have to say the same thing. Thank you! [cheering] Before I begin I want to recognize and say thank you to my family. For 28 years my husband, Dr. John Brewer, has stood by my side through thick and thin as I ran for office and served my constituency. Thankfully, the good times far outnumber the bad. He's always been there as my closest confidante and my biggest supporter. Thank you, John. [Applause] Thank you. To my dear sons, I thank you for all your support and sacrifice. Thank you so very, very much. You truly have been an inspiration to me and a motivational force in my quest to make our state a better place for all. [Applause] Countless people have been working and striving toward this moment for a long time. I certainly can't begin to name all of them. But you know who you are, and you should feel good about yourself and about our state and about our country. You should look around here tonight and thanks each other right now with all your hearts. [cheering] Because it's you, it's the people who have come through tonight. Congratulations to my great friend, John McCain. We've campaigned together since the primary. And tonight we see the fruits of a united party. [cheering] And at this moment it appears that Ken Bennett will be our Secretary of State. [cheering] Tom Horne our attorney general! [cheering] Doug Ducey our State Treasurer! [cheering] Don Huppenthal our Superintendent of Public Instruction! [cheering] And Joe Hart our State Mine Inspector! A clean sweep for Republicans! I am so proud of our Republican team. Oh, I'm so proud, I'm so proud of all of you. I'm so proud of all of you, too. Tonight the cavalry has just come riding over the hill! [Applause] Tonight the people have redeemed and renewed America! [Applause] Tonight we foreclosed on a house! The one that used to be run by Nancy Pelosi! [Cheering] And you know what? If the message doesn't get through, there is one more house at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. [cheering] That will face foreclosure in another two years! [cheering]
Ted Simons: All right. That is Governor Brewer at the Republican celebration, and a celebration it is. I think we all were startled a little bit by the foreclosure metaphor until it finally played out.
Bob Robb: Particularly since the state has mortgaged the state capitol, not a good metaphor.
Ted Simons: We don't want to go too far in that direction. I want to get to Stan's point for a second. Let's get to the pauses and the whole nine yards of a candidate that seemed -- Chris, I'll start with you -- that would seem in a game of politic, if it were a board game that would not be the best of candidates. She is winning, she is winning handily. There's no stopping her. What happened? Is it literally all 1070? Is that the only reason we heard what we just heard?
Christa Severns: No, she's a great candidate. I mean, we all saw her out there. She is who she is, she embraces it. She is very clear in articulating in her way what she thinks and feels, and she has moved forward and stepped in and is doing her job. It's hard to beat somebody like that. And it's very hard to beat somebody like that in a year when you're with the party of a president and you don't have the momentum and things like that.
Ted Simons: What do you think, Stan? Again, it's not the smoothest of campaigns but this is a decisive victory.
Stan Barnes: She happens to be authentic. And authentic is a very good thing to be in this time of air-brushed and over-fluffed and all of the other. And that came through. And she is reflective of, as I say, the center right functioning majority of Arizona. Yes, 1070 but, let's not forget, she announced for a billion-dollar tax increase in her first message to the legislature, not exactly a Republican play. She's more than 1070. The people were with her on that tax increase. She's more multifaceted than folks give her credit for. She's not the most articulate candidate in the race.
Bob Robb: I don't think you can separate the acceptance of her limitations as a public speaker and presenter from the substance of the issue. I do think that the electorate had a sense that she was authentic, and that her values were aligned with their values and they weren't bothered with her poor presentation skills. Whether that will remain true after she announces what she is going to do to solve a $1.7 billion deficit without a billion in federal funds to help cover it over will be a serious test.
Ted Simons: What do you think, Bob?
Bob Grossfeld: Well, I think until 1070 came along, she didn't have a really good story to tell, other than she stepped in when, you know, Napolitano left town. And as soon as that occurred, all of a sudden she had a story, which she didn't initially take to very well. But over time it grew and it became her campaign.
Ted Simons: Stan, before we took to the podium there at the Hyatt, you were talking about what happens next and that she now has a little bit of gravitas behind her. She's got the oomph she may not have had in the last session.
Stan Barnes: She's legit now, she's won the office and did it her way. She did it counter part majority of Republican legislators. Back before 1070 when she was running for governor and everyone knew it, there was not one single member of the Republicans' caucus in the House or Senate that was on her team. That in itself is extraordinary. No Republicans in the legislature were with the Governor and their party. Now she's got momentum, wind at her back, political capital to spend. It's always a little easier to be the Executive Branch because you control the message and the legislators are independent actors. The Senate caucus of 21 people is going to be hard to control. I think she's going to sound together and cogent compared to the legislature, not because she's necessarily any smarter or better, but because it's easier as one person versus all the new actors in the legislature.
Ted Simons: Do you agree with that?
Bob Robb: I think her honeymoon will last about a minute and a half with the Arizona legislature. She prevailed on the sales tax only after a decisive majority of Republicans have tried everything else and had cut the budget as far as they could find the votes or had the stomach to do. And there is no politically popular or even not extraordinarily politically unpopular way to address a $1.7 billion deficit. And the fact that -- and that's looking at next year's budget. The defeat the Proposition 301 and 302 this election means that what was a misunderstanding I believe deficit of $300 to $350 million becomes I believe $700 to $750 million. She's going have to make a proposal on what to do about it. I just frankly think the state budget is in such serious jeopardy that this is not going to be fun or enjoyable for anybody.
Ted Simons: Bob, as far as the budget what, Republican agents legislature will have to do in working with the Republican governor, what can she do that she didn't do before? What can she do differently? Does she have a bit of a mandate and a bully pulpit now? She was never elected before. She's now got that going for her.
Bob Grossfeld: In theory. To a great extent it depends on the Senate Organizational Meeting tomorrow and who becomes the Senate President. It also depends on how she re-staffs and who she brings in, particularly as her lobbyist downstairs, in essence. But the real problem -- and I agree with bob -- is that the problem, you know, the 800-pound gorilla in the room isn't 800 pounds anymore, it's 1600 pounds, if not bigger. It's going to fall in her lap and it's going to be horrific.
Stan Barnes: It's a good time to be in the minority. This is silver lining for my Democratic friends, all nine of them in the State Senate. They get to unhook from trying to answer this problem. I know that's a little crass because they are elected and supposed to be in there. It looks like we will get 21 Republican Senators. They are not going to look the Democrats' way to make a majority. The Democratic minority gets to watch the Republicans do magic, if they can. To extend what Bob said a moment ago, there's no rolling over, we've maxed that out. There's no more borrowing, we've already sold the state capitol. We've done everything possible and the federal money is gone and there's about a $2 billion hole we started in, and about a billion dollar hole we have to cure before June. And as Senator Pierce says, there ain't no beer. This is the day conservative legislators have looked for, to have a governor who is not going raise any other taxes, as she says, and a governor is not running again for this office. So she's got liberty to do what she needs to do to get this thing under control. But those cut their way out. That's the big part.
Bob Robb: Rollovers and borrowing are still on the table. There's still a perception among state budget experts that there's more room there.
Ted Simons: Well, we won't use this met format but when something hits the fan and the blades start to come down and people start to see what gets cut, how much is cut, who is behind these cuts, first of all, where are Democrats in that particular dynamic, A? And B, how does the governor work that particular minefield?
Christa Severns: Democrats are sitting on the sideline saying, hmm, okay. They are not going to be at the party or the table doing those things. What's going to be interesting are all of these new little ideas of how you can bring in money, including casinos and racetracks. There will be all these different ways to bring you money, do it this way. You'll see a lot of that going on, too, down there. As far as what she needs to do and how it moves forward, it's time to slash and burn. It's cut, cut, cut, and it's not going to be pretty. I'm really happy she's happy tonight. She looked really happy tonight and that's great. Tomorrow morning the reality is in. Bless her, good for her for running but it's going to be tough.
Ted Simons: Bob, does she dance around those minefields? And if so, for how long?
Bob Grossfeld: Not very long. She has to deliver a budget. They can play the game and go, here's our budget and we're making these assumption and these and we will tie it up in a nice little bow, and we didn't do it, and pass it on downstairs. I don't think they are going do that. I think they will basically say, look, here's what we have to do. It isn't going to be pretty. And try to put the best face on it and probably throw in some tax increases.
Ted Simons: Possibly throw in some tax increases.
Bob Grossfeld: What is the other way of dealing with --
Stan Barnes: I'm having fun with it because they have already done that to the tune of $1 billion which ain’t a small number. It takes a super majority of legislators to do this. We couldn't even get a majority to put it on the ballot until it was 18 months of brow-beating and no other options as Bob said earlier. I don't think a tax increase is going to happen.
Bob Robb: Brewer changed her approach to the budget this year. And she brought in a new team and they addressed the budget honestly and didn't duck the hard choices. The same people are there. I don't think she's going duck the hard choices. When she previously confronted cutting the state budget as much as would be necessary in order to make ends meet, she blanched and she supported a tax increase. She will have to, in order to balance this budget without a tax increase, cut even deeper, significantly deeper than at the point that she said, no mas. Even though she's adamantly against it, even though all the politics are against it, they have a very, very difficult decision, decisions that in the past she said, revenues rather than make cuts that deep.
Ted Simons: We will go now to the podium at the Wyndham Hotel. Terry Goddard is speaking to a Democratic group there. Let's go there.
Terry Goddard: And we know how [inaudible]. This campaign has been about our love for the State of Arizona. And how painful it's been -- [Applause] -- to watch the troubles accumulating over the last years, to know what's going on. The attack on the schools, the insecurity of the budget, the attacks on our fellow Latino citizens, the cuts that have ravaged so many of our friends and neighbors. Two years ago we all got together to discuss what we were going to do about it. We agreed we would do everything that we humanly could to get Arizona working again. From the very start of this race, that has been the concern I've had and the number one thing I thought we had to focus on, which is bringing jobs back to our state, the great state of Arizona. [Cheering] Working with so many of you here this evening, way down the road we agreed that we would speak out rationally and counter the fear-mongering and divisive politics that were tearing our state apart. [Applause] We vowed to tell the truth about Arizona's problems for the future. First and foremost, what's needed is teamwork and bipartisanship and cooperation in the state of Arizona. I believe in this crisis it is needed to save it. [Cheering] You know, there is no Republican or Democrat or Independent way to deal with the crisis ahead of Arizona today. We've got to do it together and that is my prayer and my absolute belief. But here, our message has been a little hard to hear sometimes amid the turmoil of national issues, the furor over immigration. And for sure -- I'm getting to that -- this was not a great year to run as a Democrat. You know, there were just a few problems we had to deal with that came from the names of the but you got to play the cards you're dealt and do the best you can with the time you have. I'm very proud of what we've done and what every member of this Democratic team has done. I continue to be very proud. [cheering] I'm very proud that we are the first state of America to be nominated --
Ted Simons: Okay, that is Terry Goddard at the Wyndham hotel, a few blocks from us right here, saying it's not a good year to be a Democrat and that his message seemed to have gotten lost amid the clamor. Did his message get lost amid the clamor? We're talking about things like the budget on this program and jobs yet, and what the legislature might do on those lines which does not involve bringing more revenue to the government. Did the message that Terry Goddard pushed, whether it was his ideas of enforcement at the border, did they get lost?
Christa Severns: I don't think they ever found it. I think it's always been the problem. Again, Terry Goddard is a wonderful leader, a great attorney general. But you don't -- he can't tell his story. Even up there tonight, it's like, what is he saying? I just didn't hear it, it just wasn't there. Again, it's somebody with great leadership skills who's never been a good campaigner.
Ted Simons: It's almost a microcosm of the whole campaign, at the Wyndham the microphone was working as well as it could have. If it was a wrong step or someone else was stepping ahead of him?
Bob Grossfeld: I would say that's a pretty good analysis. You know, and Terry said it, wrong year.
Ted Simons: Yeah.
Bob Grossfeld: But it would be I think unfair just to let it go at that. And I think Christa is quite right. To this day I don't think any of us could sit here and go in 10 seconds, here's the Terry Goddard message. It wasn't designed that way. It was a list. And if there's one difference I noted this year, it is that the Republicans had messages. Democrats had lists. It could be a short list, I'm going to do this, this, and this. Or it could be a very long list but it wasn't a message. And that's the difference.
Ted Simons: Interesting. Do you agree with that, list versus message?
Bob Grossfeld: He'll never agree with that.
Bob Robb: I substantially do. And there isn't any question that Terry did not run a very good campaign. But I think he could have run a dynamite campaign. He could have had a message but the question is what would the message be? It would have to be it's time for new blood because things are a mess at the legislature, what do you say next? The problem Terry had was there was nothing he could say next because the state budget deficit is so huge that it crowds everything else off the agenda and makes everything else seem irrelevant. There's nothing that Terry could have said about the budget that would not have been hugely politically unpopular. I think he was boxed in by circumstances.
Ted Simons: Stan, before we get to the propositions, and maybe I we should get into them here -- people are voting for Republicans. They are voting for Republicans in state races and local races and in national races. It seems as though obviously the tsunami has hit and we're seeing right now that it looks like the House now will go – United States House now will go Republican. Yet here in Arizona, the Propositions, 301 and 302, you know that is going to punch a big old hole in the budget. And yet the people that are being -- are you going to tell me the people being elected out there -- especially if you wind up with changes in 23 and 24 in southern Arizona -- there's a hole punched in the budget, we gotta find revenue?
Stan Barnes: Voters are sending a dual message or conflicting message?
Ted Simons: Yeah.
Stan Barnes: On one time electing a conservative legislature and governor and tying their hands even further on the budget matter. You might conclude that either voters got their specialties and they want to hold on to them. Or they don't understand the complexities that the state is up against. It could be a lot of different things. The no vote is the easier vote in a proposition. If you don't understand something you're more likely to vote no.
Christa Severns: A national pollster said simply, and I love to quote: Americans are conflicted, and perfectly comfortable in their conflictions. Until you tell someone you're going to cut their Social Security, then they go crazy. It's the same thing, you're very comfortable in it until you feel it. You're not paying attention to it.
Ted Simons: Bob, 301, 302, they are losing big-time here. Republican candidates who want to cut the budget, not in any way, shape or form raise taxes, they are winning. Where does the twain meet?
Bob Robb: I have no idea. This budget deficit is so huge -- they will figure out a way to solve the $700 so $750 million problem this year. I think they will do another rollover, borrow, try to fudge around it and they will make some additional cuts outside of education and public safety. But when you get to next year's budget and you've got a $1.7 billion hole, even after you've got the billion dollars in additional sales tax revenue and without any federal funds to help you out because the republicans that get elected to Congress aren't going vote for any more state bailouts, I have no idea what you do. All these Republicans saying cut, cut, cut, cut, once they are handed a budget that does that, it'll be interesting to see how many of them are willing to stick with it.
Stan Barnes: The 301 no side ran a campaign that the majority of their message was the most disingenuous thing I've ever seen. In full disclosure, I volunteered on the yes side. As Bob said in one of his columns, it's just a horrible, horrible, sleight of hand with the voters. It said tell the legislature to balance the budget, there's a lot of fat in there. Doing the opposite of what they are standing for in their whole program. You can't blame voters sometimes because they are being manipulated and sold things that aren't true and the like.
Ted Simons: But was that particular argument enough for the landslide we're seeing?
Stan Barnes: I don't think so. It's that plus the no is the more likely of the confused voter.
Ted Simons: Because of your connections at the legislature, you know that jobs bill to Speaker Adams is going to get another hearing or more play this time. That jobs bill cuts more in the way of taxes. That's -- obviously I know the trickle-down theory and this sort of business. But in the immediate scenario that's not going help matters at all, is it?
Stan Barnes: That's why the bill didn't get to the light of day the way the speaker wanted it in the first place. Maybe he has a new opinion on how to best motor that thing, but your point is well made. Even the most conservative legislator will be hard pressed to figure out how to test his theories about revenue by cutting taxes in the midst of this debacle. I like the way Bob has said it. It's worse than anyone understands and the options are getting very few. Whether or not conservatives revel in that, this is a chance to tame the beast, remains to be seen.
Bob Grossfeld: I'm just astonished that, as I've been looking through the -- a number of people who have now won election, is the influence now of the Tea Party. I think y'all might need to begin describing things down there as not just conservatives but the Republicans, the conservatives, and the Tea Party folks. Because they are not the same. And I think they will be the problem when it comes to all of the budget issues, because from what I've been able to see, they are just into cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, without caring pretty much where it's cut.
Stan Barnes: The House and the Senate Republican majority caucuses are going to be as homogeneous as you get, really. They are going to be like-minded. There's really no truly moderate Republican left down there in this. There's going to be conservative, very conservative. There will be factions, personality changes. My calculations are the statehouse will pick up about four Republican house seats along the way. There are still some in play and the like but they are going to go to 39 or so members?
Ted Simons: Okay. I want to make sure we get to the propositions here. We've had a lot of discussion on propositions. It looks like 106 looks like it is passing, the health care -- Well, it had a double-digit lead when last checked. The 107, the affirmative action seemed to be ahead big-time. The hunting and fishing as a constitutional right is not winning. So the idea of vote no on everything, Bob, apparently some folks said yes, but no.
Bob Grossfeld: Well --
Ted Simons: That's not even close to the hunting and fishing proposition.
Bob Grossfeld: But within that community, statewide, they are very smart. They pay attention to this stuff where most of us really take a look at it and go, I don't know. I might just vote one way or the other. But this was a sham. This was basically a legislative takeover of the State Game and Fish Department and they don't like that.
Bob Robb: To sort of illustrate it, right now Proposition 109 is going down by about 130,000 votes. 100,000 of those come from Maricopa County.
Ted Simons: Interesting.
Bob Robb: So it fared a bit better than the rest of the state. Still lost but it was lost here in Maricopa County.
Ted Simons: The Arizona Trust Lands, Bob's laughing, I can't keep going if you're laughing.
Bob Grossfeld: It's about trust lands. This is the child without a country. It cannot pass ever. I think they should just give up or name it something else. This is not --
Ted Simons: What I was going to say before your outburst there was that 110 and 112 were the propositions it seemed as those there was a movement saying vote no on everything, but 110 and 112 seemed to have some traction. The State Trust Lands, Christa, did they buck the no on everything here? What's going on here?
Christa Severns: I don't know. Every time you say trust lands, my eyes cross. I have worked both sides of the issue and I still can't follow what goes on with it. So again, it's not simple. If it's not simple to me, I just say no.
Ted Simons: Initiative petitions, you can't get much closer than that vote is right now.
Bob Robb: But these are both re-treads. The voters of Arizona have turned down exchanges of trust lands several times in the past. It's simply a matter that the public doesn't trust the government not to be taken in those exchanges. This time it may pass because they bought off the environmentalists by saying, after you negotiate a trade, the trade itself has to go back on the ballot. I voted against it for that reason, but it bought off the organized environmental opposition. In terms of 112 pushing back the deadlines initiatives so the Secretary of State has more time to do that, this also has been rejected in the past because it's seen as a way to sort of short pitch.
Christa Severns: The other thing about the issues is there's no money in them so there's no campaign. If you don't have a campaign you have your ballot arguments that you read and kind of get a balance there. It's sort of like the Petri dish that's different than the rest of the election because you don't have these organized paid campaigns for them.
Ted Simons: I want to go to Prop 20, the Medical Marijuana Proposition. Bob, let's go to you on that. What are your thoughts?
Bob Grossfeld: We're actually trending better than California which I guess is something.
Ted Simons: Interesting.
Bob Grossfeld: Basically, California's marijuana proposition clearly goes much further than this. And at least as of a few minutes ago was going down. And clearly the gentleman who opened up the first medical marijuana dispensary and invited the press over the other day might have been a little ahead of himself. But as an issue it's clearly something that is going to happen. And it's just going to go through the cycle, one after the other. And eventually all the baby-boomers will have gotten to the point where they are just going say, oh, pass it, it doesn't harm anybody.
Bob Robb: If it ends up getting defeated, it is to meet most interesting result of the evening.
Bob Grossfeld: Very close.
Bob Robb: Because Arizona voters are supposedly becoming more liberal, more centrist, more independent. Yet Arizona voters voted for medical marijuana twice in the 1990s. And if they turn it down this time I think it will be because in the 1990s it was a theory. In 2010 there are now states with medical marijuana. You can see the way that it operates. And I think there was greater concern about the way it would change sort of our landscape if we were to adopt it.
Ted Simons: The conventional wisdom in some elections in the past that is Pima County comes in straggling, especially as vote recording is enhanced. Seems like they are a little behind the curve on that one just a touch. Stan, do you think that's a kind of race that could change as Pima county comes in hot and heavy?
Stan Barnes: They smoke a lot of marijuana in Pima County.
Ted Simons: Okay. All right.
Stan Barnes: It's entirely possible. I think Bob's point is well made. It used to be kind of a fun theory and now it's more of a reality. What I find fun about 203, it was conventional wisdom in my world that's going to pass. Yet, it's not. So I like it when people surprise us.
Bob Robb: It's leading in Pima County by about 30,000 votes and there is a lot of Pima County left out. You may indeed be right. They may change this result.
Ted Simons: It happens occasionally. I try to celebrate when it does. Speaking of being right, you came out about as hard as anyone, anywhere, against I think Prop 111, the Lieutenant Governor from Secretary of State, Secretary of state trans-morphing into the lieutenant governor. You blasted that saying it was one of the worst written initiatives you have ever seen?
Bob Robb: I said it was the worst written initiative I had ever seen because its language would have precluded an independent from running for governor or lieutenant governor. I would love to believe that the potency of my argument yielded these results. But the lieutenant governor position was defeated by an equally large margin in the early 1990s. I think it's simply a matter that the electorate just doesn't see a need for it and certainly doesn't see any need to support another politician.
Ted Simons: Was this a question -- Bob, I'll ask you this. If the governor -- if SB 1070 had never happened and Governor Brewer were not in the position she is now, and there was still as much grumbling as there seemed to be, how come we voted for a Democratic governor and now there's a Republican governor, in a different world a non-SB 1070 world, is the vote still the same on Prop 111?
Bob Grossfeld: If it hadn't ever been written, yes. It was piece of dog doo-doo.
Ted Simons: Wow.
Bob Grossfeld: It was not well written. I assume where it was pushed through should have done a much better job of it. To the issue? Should we have a lieutenant governor? Yes. Should they be of the same party and run as a ticket? Yes. I think had it been put out in a nice clean way with somebody behind it, somebody as Christa was saying, some money or messaging behind it, it might have passed.
Ted Simons: Real quickly, the Cubs vote in Mesa looks like it's winning and winning handily.
Stan Barnes: I live out there and I voted it for. I'm pleasantly surprised it's winning, you say.
Ted Simons: Yes.
Stan Barnes: Me being from Mesa, there has to be an anti-campaign against it. But the mayor is a well-liked guy. Scott Smith is a leader presently and in the future. A lot of people believe him when he says we need to do this. That's just enough for a great many voters. It's a big victory for minimum.
Ted Simons: A few minutes left here, let's go around the horn and get some final thoughts, observations. What have you taking from tonight so far?
Bob Robb: Just a huge Republican victory, I think it is a matter of spending. And I think that Republicans will learn to rue the large margins they have in both the Senate and house and state legislature because they are in for some very, very painful times.
Ted Simons: Quickly, two years from now, are we looking at the same conversation, just switching the letters?
Bob Robb: I don't -- it depends upon how Obama changes his approach and if he changes his approach. And what the economy does. Certainly his attempts to expand federal spending and the entitlement state even more are ended. So the question is, what does he do? Does he try to run for renewal of his endorsement of his ideas in 2010? Does he play small ball the way Bill Clinton did? Does the economy improve? And probably most importantly, do Republicans overreach and think they govern from the House of Representatives the way Newt Gingrich believed he could, incorrectly, in 1995?
Christa Severns: I think we'll see a lot of making sausage. No one ever wants to see government making sausage. Obama will have to change his tack and they will have to see if they can make deals. With the Tea Party folks coming in, that'll be a very interesting thing to watch. The country's dialogue will be interesting to watch as it moves forward, much of it having to do with what happens to the economy.
Stan Barnes: I'm thinking when the headline's written it'll be Republicans march. We swept the statewide offices, won races like the Harry Mitchell race, the Ann Kirkpatrick race, added maybe three state senators to set a record level of Republican senators in Arizona. Added to tie the house record, I believe, 39-ish for members of the House. In other words, it's a Republican state. If Arizona was purple in Bob and Christa's mind because we had Janet Napolitano back in the day and Terry Goddard as attorney general, we just went back to that Republican color and that's where we are.
Ted Simons: You got about a minute, Bob.
Bob Grossfeld: One minute. Well I also live out in Mesa, every single elected official who represents me and my neighbors is a Republican. Most everyone in my neighborhood and I now know who to hold responsible from potholes up to cutting education. And the only issue in my mind is whether anybody will stand up to do that, because right now I'm not seeing any evidence that the accountability is going to be the job of doing that is going to be embraced by the Democrats. If that doesn't happen, then it's a bad, bad thing for this state.
Ted Simons: All right. Panel, thank you very much. Great insight, great analysis. We certainly appreciate it and that's all the time we have for tonight.