How David Schweikert can unseat Harry Mitchell

From the political notebook:

• The best chance for a Republican pickup of a congressional seat in Arizona is probably David Schweikert’s challenge against Harry Mitchell in the East Valley.

There are two reasons for this. The first is the political arithmetic.

There are 38,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats in the district. That compares with a 17,000 Republican-registration advantage in Gabrielle Giffords’ southern Arizona district and a 20,000 registration disadvantage in Ann Kirkpatrick’s district in northern Arizona.

The second is the quality of candidates. Schweikert is a mainstream conservative with a track record as a state legislator and county treasurer, as well as previous congressional bids. He’s not the leap in the dark voters would be making with Jesse Kelly, Gifford’s challenger, or Paul Gosar, who’s taking on Kirkpatrick.

To maximize his chances, however, Schweikert needs to run an unconventional and unlikely campaign.

To overcome the registration disadvantage, Mitchell relies on crossover Republicans and particularly the large segment of the district, 32 percent, registered independent. Given the prevailing national and local sentiment, crossover Republicans are going to be much harder for Mitchell to find, making him even more dependent on the independent vote.

If Schweikert can hold Mitchell to less than 60 percent of the independent vote, he will probably win. If he can hold Mitchell to less than 55 percent of the independent vote, he will certainly win.

The best Schweikert approach to independents wouldn’t be to attempt to demonize Mitchell. Indeed, it would be respectful of Mitchell’s iconic status in much of the district, after 40 years of public service on the Tempe City Council, as Tempe mayor, in the state Legislature and in Congress.

And it wouldn’t attempt to depict Mitchell as a clone of Nancy Pelosi, which he is not. In fact, it would acknowledge Mitchell’s occasional acts of deviation from Democratic orthodoxy, such as on taxes.

Instead, the argument would be as follows: Mitchell is a good man who has served his community with honor. However, at this point in our country’s history, we just cannot afford a congressman who occasionally votes no on small things, such as mostly meaningless budget resolutions. Instead, we need a congressman who will vote no consistently on big things, such as a $700 billion bank bailout, an $800 billion stimulus spending spree, and a trillion-dollar health-care plan.

That’s where independent voters in the district are probably at. And in politics, the easiest way to get voters to vote your way is to show them how what they already believe naturally leads to the conclusion you want them to reach.

Nuanced arguments such as this, however, don’t come naturally to candidates or political consultants. Their instincts are always for smash-mouth politics.

Given the temper of the times, smash-mouth politics might get it done for Schweikert. But it doesn’t maximize his chances.

• This tendency toward smash-mouth politics irrespective of the circumstances was on display in last week’s attorney-general debate on “Horizon,” particularly by Democratic candidate Felecia Rotellini.

In reality, both Rotellini and her Republican opponent, Tom Horne, are well-qualified for the office. Both have extensive and relevant legal experience. Both have managed state agencies reasonably well.

And, in all likelihood, they would run the office in much the same way probably 90 percent of the time. The differences would be in the narrow circumstances in which political considerations are taken into account. Horne would probably do this more than Rotellini, but not by a large margin.

That, however, doesn’t make for much of a debate, or much of an opportunity for a Democrat to overcome a Republican statewide registration advantage of 118,000.

So, smash-mouth politics it was for Rotellini, who was constantly on the attack. I suspect it was intended to show that she’s tough and knowledgeable. Instead, it just made her seem unpleasant, which in real life she is not.

• One of Rotellini’s constant attacks was the securities ban imposed on Horne in the 1970s. Horne’s response was inadequate.

Horne repeatedly said that Rotellini was mischaracterizing the action taken against him but never once explained what was inaccurate in her description.

Whenever the issue has been raised, Horne has been dismissive, saying it was something that happened 40 years ago. When pressed, he becomes cagey rather than candid. He leaves the impression that there is something about the incident he is still hiding.

It is understandable that Horne would want voters to focus on his long legal career and his record in public office, not a failed business venture in his 20s. Nevertheless, a lifetime securities ban is a serious thing.

If Horne wants voters to set it aside, he needs to deal with it more forthrightly and fully

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/2010/09/12/20100912schweikert-mitchell-robert-robb.html#ixzz0zPs63IxN
Click here to read the full story.