logo
Led by a Vulnerable Governor, Arizona Democrats Brace for a Bumpy Campaign Ahead

Led by a Vulnerable Governor, Arizona Democrats Brace for a Bumpy Campaign Ahead

New York Times17-05-2025

Any Democrat trying to win an election in Arizona, most political strategists agree, must do nearly everything right — and still hope for a little luck.
By that standard, next year's elections are looking worrisome for Democrats in the Grand Canyon State.
Their standard-bearer, Gov. Katie Hobbs, is among the nation's most vulnerable Democrats seeking re-election in 2026. And, rather than bolstering her with vital political muscle and support, the party has been consumed by an acrimonious and seemingly petty feud between the new state Democratic chairman and Arizona's two Democratic senators.
In a swing state with around 300,000 more Republicans than Democrats, and where President Trump stormed to victory in November, Ms. Hobbs is also likely to face a more formidable opponent than she did in 2022, when she squeaked out a win against Kari Lake, whose stolen-election lies had alienated voters across the political spectrum.
Representative Andy Biggs, a hard-right populist, and Karrin Taylor Robson, a businesswoman from the party's more moderate McCain wing, have entered the G.O.P. primary. Both have been endorsed by Mr. Trump, but their contest is already shaping up as a fierce battle, with die-hard Trump supporters mocking Ms. Robson as having suddenly jumped on the president's bandwagon.
If Ms. Hobbs's first task is to consolidate her own support, however, her low-key approach may be holding her back, according to interviews with more than a dozen Democratic politicians, strategists and their allies in Arizona, many of whom insisted on anonymity to speak candidly.
'It's really hard to win in Arizona as a Democrat, always,' said Andy Barr, a longtime strategist for Democrats in the state. 'Anyone who feels confident is just not living in reality.'
While serving as Arizona's secretary of state, Ms. Hobbs, who declined to be interviewed for this article, gained prominence by vocally resisting Mr. Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Running for governor in 2022, though, she took such an under-the-radar approach that it led to hand-wringing by supporters, a perception she was avoiding the news media and a jeering question from Republicans: 'Where's Katie?'
In office, Ms. Hobbs — a former social worker who drove for Uber to help pay the bills when she was a state senator — has stuck with that low profile, casting herself as a moderate pragmatist focused on business interests. But she may not have done enough to earn affection from Democrats.
She rarely campaigned last year for former Vice President Kamala Harris, opting to focus on down-ballot races. She frustrated the left by vetoing a bipartisan housing bill that would have encouraged more starter homes, saying the legislation would have 'unintended consequences.' She disappointed teachers by failing to clamp down on Arizona's costly private-school voucher program. And, courting moderates, she dismayed immigration activists by backing a migrant detention law signed by Mr. Trump, though she has also vetoed bills that would force cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
As immigration rhetoric has shifted rightward, 'Governor Hobbs was not bold in protecting people or opposing that narrative,' said Viri Hernandez, former executive director of Poder in Action, a progressive Arizona group. Echoing others on the left, Ms. Hernandez said she believed the governor and other Democrats were taking an overcautious approach to working-class issues that 'continues to be a failing strategy.'
Worse, Ms. Hobbs's bridge-building attempts are short on results, as the Republican-controlled State Legislature has blocked many of her priorities.
They stymied Ms. Hobbs's school voucher efforts, and so effectively stonewalled the approval of her appointees to run state agencies that the governor installed them without confirmation, running afoul of the courts.
Democrats have been encouraged to see Ms. Hobbs play a little hardball more recently. Exasperated by Republicans' delay in funding a program for disabled people, she threatened in April to veto all other bills until the Legislature funded the program, which it soon did.
Indeed, Ms. Hobbs's strongest case for re-election may lie in what she has stopped Republicans from doing: She has rejected hundreds of bills, including legislation that would have legalized gun silencers and treated fetuses as people, shattering records and earning bragging rights as the state's 'Veto Queen.'
Ms. Hobbs has other things to brag about, too. Despite rising costs, Arizona's economy is in good shape. Her pro-business attitude has borne fruit: She signed a bill last month allowing a technology company, Axon, to build a local headquarters without voter input, after it had threatened to leave the state.
'It sends a message that Arizona is open for business and we're not gonna let politicians use the government to shut business down,' Ms. Hobbs told a local radio station.
A spokesman for the governor, Christian Slater, pointed to other housing bills Ms. Hobbs has signed, as well as actions she has taken to protect the state's water supply, repeal a restrictive abortion ban and combat drug cartels.
'Governor Hobbs is a common-sense leader who will work with anybody, no matter their party, to deliver results for everyday Arizonans,' Mr. Slater said in a statement. A spokesman for her campaign also noted that Ms. Hobbs had never lost an election.
If voters continue to sour on Mr. Trump's presidency, Ms. Hobbs could enjoy a favorable national environment for Democrats in 2026. And her team has sought to exploit the natural advantages of incumbency by arranging for her to appear on local radio and television shows with more frequency this year.
Still, she is dealing with a fractured state party.
Adrian Fontes, the Democrat who succeeded Ms. Hobbs as secretary of state, last year considered challenging her for governor. Both Mr. Fontes and Attorney General Kris Mayes, who has aggressively opposed Mr. Trump, are viewed as more visible Democratic leaders, and tensions between them and Ms. Hobbs are an open secret. Both declined to comment.
The stakes are high, and will only rise: Mr. Fontes, who announced last month that he was instead running for re-election, and Ms. Mayes, also are expected to face tougher re-election opponents.
A potentially more damaging conflict broke out into the open this spring within the state party, whose responsibility it is to raise money and help Democrats get elected.
Angered by Mr. Trump's victory, Democrats installed a new party chairman: Robert Branscomb, an insurance company owner who had been a vice chair. Mr. Branscomb soon began clashing with staff members over personnel decisions and accused them of sabotaging him by withholding financial documents.
Mr. Branscomb, who declined to comment for this article, wrote to party members detailing the infighting and attacking Senators Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly, both Democrats, for criticizing one of his staffing choices. He claimed that one of the senators had called him, 'demeaning me and demanding I reverse my decision within 24 hours or 'face consequences.''
'I will not be coerced, and I will not be silenced,' Mr. Branscomb added.
The backlash against him was swift. Some Democrats called on Mr. Branscomb to resign and compiled lists of potential replacements. A statement signed by both senators and the three statewide elected Democrats said Mr. Branscomb had 'lost our trust.'
Some joked, darkly, that Mr. Branscomb had accomplished the impossible: uniting the state's constantly bickering Democratic elected officials. But the disarray posed an unwanted distraction for the party as Ms. Hobbs steels for a tough re-election fight.
Party infighting 'hurts the vibes,' acknowledged Eric Chalmers, a Democratic political consultant, though he said it ultimately wouldn't make or break anyone's campaign.
More infighting could lie ahead when, under a new state law, Ms. Hobbs will choose a running mate who would serve as lieutenant governor if their ticket wins: It is not assured that she would pick a Democrat.
John Giles, the Republican former mayor of Mesa, a Phoenix suburb, confirmed that Ms. Hobbs had discussed the role with him last year and told him that he was on her informal shortlist for the job. (A spokesman for Ms. Hobbs, Michael Beyer, said the governor had never initiated a conversation about the role and was noncommittal when the topic came up because it was 'far too early' to think about a running mate.)
In an interview, Mr. Giles, who backed Ms. Harris last year, said he was flattered to be considered, but also questioned whether picking a moderate Republican like himself would be of much help if Ms. Hobbs faced Ms. Robson in the general election rather than the far-right Mr. Biggs.
'If it's Karrin Taylor Robson — she's a more moderate candidate, and I don't know,' Mr. Giles said. 'That would be a very competitive race.'
Ms. Hobbs's defenders argue that the most consequential factor in her bid for re-election will be how voters perceive her in November 2026.
Unlike other Democrats, she has not sought the spotlight as the national party searches for a direction after Mr. Trump's victory. Even the governor's allies acknowledge that she does not often demonstrate the soaring oratory or charismatic appeal that has turned other Democratic governors into political celebrities.
But they say that Ms. Hobbs's understated demeanor and eat-your-vegetables approach to governing helps her relate to the average voter.
'She really shines through when she can interact with day-to-day people,' Mr. Slater said, 'because she is such a normal person.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts
Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts

Black America Web

time32 minutes ago

  • Black America Web

Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts

Source: The Washington Post / Getty / Elon Musk / Donald Trump It should come as no surprise that the bromance between these two ego maniacs would have come to a fiery end. We knew this day would come, but no one had Musk and Trump beefing with each other so soon on their bingo cards. The alleged ketamine abuser couldn't keep his disdain for Trump's 'one big beautiful bill,' calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk began. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' Trump was uncharacteristically quiet following Musk's initial comments about his legislative centerpiece of his second presidency, the 'one big beautiful bill.' That all changed when Trump finally 'clapped back' at Musk while taking questions during his meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Trump said he was 'very surprised' and 'disappointed' by his former financier's comments about his stupid bill, claiming the Tesla chief saw the bill and understood its inner workings better than anybody, while suggesting that Musk was mad because of the removal of subsidies and mandates for electric vehicles. Elon Musk Had Time For Donald Trump Musk responded in real time via his 'former platform,' X, formerly Twitter, with a flurry of posts on X accusing Trump of 'ingratitude' and 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election,' while refuting the orange menace's claims. 'Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill,' Musk wrote. Oh, and he wasn't done. Musk then hit the president with a low blow, writing, 'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Donald Trump Claps Back Trump finally fired back on his platform, Truth Social, by threatening to cut Musk's government contracts. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it.' Felon 47 wrote. Musk replied by threatening to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, which could be detrimental to the International Space Station and NASA, as it is described as 'the only spacecraft currently flying that is capable of returning significant amounts of cargo to Earth' and can seat seven passengers. Musk also agreed with a post stating that Trump should be impeached and replaced by JD Vance. Oh, this is getting spicy. While all of this was going on, CNN reports that Tesla stocks took a hit and Musk's net worth shrank. Per CNN : Tesla shares plummeted 15% this afternoon as Elon Musk's battle with President Donald Trump intensified. Trump threatened in a social media post to target Musk's business empire. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. The Tesla selloff has wiped off more than $150 billion off the market value of Telsa, which started the day worth nearly $1.1 trillion. It has also erased a chunk off the net worth of Musk, the world's richest person. Social media has pulled up all the seats, grabbed some popcorn and are currently watching Musk go at with Trump and his supporters, you can see those reactions in the gallery below. Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE

How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign
How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign

CNN

time32 minutes ago

  • CNN

How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign

As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they're winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official's alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, 'cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.' A year later, the court's decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump's attacks on them. 'Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,' said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case. For free speech advocates, the application of the NRA decision in cases pushing back against Trump's retribution campaign is a welcome sign that lower courts are applying key First Amendment principles equally, particularly in politically fraught disputes. In the NRA case, the group claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, had threatened enforcement actions against the insurance firms if they failed to comply with her demands to help with the campaign against gun groups. The NRA's claims centered around a meeting Vullo had with an insurance market in 2018 in which the group says she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with her campaign. 'The great hope of a principled application of the First Amendment is that it protects everybody,' said Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'Some people have criticized free speech advocates as being naive for hoping that'll be the case, but hopefully that's what we're seeing now,' he added. 'We're seeing courts apply that principle where the politics are very different than the NRA case.' The impact of Vullo can be seen most clearly in the cases challenging Trump's attempts to use executive power to exact revenge on law firms that have employed his perceived political enemies or represented clients who have challenged his initiatives. A central pillar of Trump's retribution crusade has been to pressure firms to bend to his political will, including through issuing executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Among other things, the orders denied the firms' attorneys access to federal buildings, retaliated against their clients with government contracts and suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firms. (Other firms were hit with similar executive orders but they haven't taken Trump to court over them.) The organizations individually sued the administration over the orders and the three judges overseeing the Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block suits have all issued rulings permanently blocking enforcement of the edicts. (The Susman case is still pending.) Across more than 200-pages of writing, the judges – all sitting at the federal trial-level court in Washington, DC – cited Vullo 30 times to conclude that the orders were unconstitutional because they sought to punish the firms over their legal work. The judges all lifted Sotomayor's line about using 'the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,' while also seizing on other language in her opinion to buttress their own decisions. Two of them – US district judges Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Richard Leon, who was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush – incorporated Sotomayor's statement that government discrimination based on a speaker's viewpoint 'is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.' The third judge, John Bates, said Vullo and an earlier Supreme Court case dealing with impermissible government coercion 'govern – and defeat' the administration's arguments in defense of a section of the Jenner & Block order that sought to end all contractual relationships that might have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow to the firm. 'Executive Order 14246 does precisely what the Supreme Court said just last year is forbidden: it engages in 'coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,'' wrote Bates, who was also appointed by Bush, in his May 23 ruling. For its part, the Justice Department has tried to draw a distinction between what the executive orders called for and the conduct rejected by the high court in Vullo. They told the three judges in written arguments that the orders at issue did not carry the 'force of the powers exhibited in Vullo' by the New York official. Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how 'Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately.' 'It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we're now seeing from the administration,' he said. Justice Department lawyers have not yet appealed any of the three rulings issued last month. CNN has reached out to the department for comment. In separate cases brought in the DC courthouse and elsewhere, Trump's foes have leaned on Vullo as they've pressed judges to intervene in high-stakes disputes with the president. Among them is Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who has drawn Trump's ire for his representation of whistleblowers. Earlier this year, Trump yanked Zaid's security clearance, a decision, the attorney said in a lawsuit, that undermines his ability to 'zealously advocate on (his clients') behalf in the national security arena.' In court papers, Zaid's attorneys argued that the president's decision was a 'retaliatory directive,' invoking language from the Vullo decision to argue that the move violated his First Amendment rights. ''Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,'' they wrote, quoting from the 2024 ruling. 'And yet that is exactly what Defendants do here.' Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals 'have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers' views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets.' 'The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration's coercive strategy,' Zick added. That notion was not lost on lawyers representing Harvard and faculty at Columbia University in several cases challenging Trump's attacks on the elite schools, including one brought by Harvard challenging Trump's efforts to ban the school from hosting international students. A federal judge has so far halted those efforts. In a separate case brought by Harvard over the administration's decision to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the nation's oldest university, the school's attorneys on Monday told a judge that Trump's decision to target it because of 'alleged antisemitism and ideological bias at Harvard' clearly ran afoul of the high court's decision last year. 'Although any governmental retaliation based on protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, the retaliation here was especially unconstitutional because it was based on Harvard's 'particular views' – the balance of speech on its campus and its refusal to accede to the Government's unlawful demands,' the attorneys wrote.

Johnson brushes off Musk campaign spending threats: ‘It doesn't concern me'
Johnson brushes off Musk campaign spending threats: ‘It doesn't concern me'

The Hill

time34 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Johnson brushes off Musk campaign spending threats: ‘It doesn't concern me'

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) in an interview Friday brushed off Elon Musk's campaign spending threats in light of the tech billionaire's public fallout with President Trump, suggesting he isn't worried. The spat between Trump and Musk began with the latter's criticism of the president's legislative agenda making its way through Congress. Johnson said he built a closer relationship with the then-special government employee and that the tech mogul has been led astray regarding the 'big beautiful' spending package. 'Look, it doesn't concern me. We're going to win either way because we're going to win on our policies we're delivering for hardworking Americans and fulfilling those promises,' Johnson told Fox News's 'Jesse Watters Primetime.' 'But look, I like Elon and respect him. I mean, we became friends in all this process,' he continued. 'I've been texting with him even this week … in trying to make sure that he has accurate information about the bill. I think he has been misled about it.' Musk, who contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to assist in Trump's win in the 2024 presidential election, was the biggest donor during the White House race. Amid his recent spat with Trump, which broke out in public as the two traded insults and threats, Musk argued that without his political expenditures, Trump would have lost to former Vice President Harris, Republicans would lose the majority in the House and the GOP would have failed to flip the majority in the Senate. Trump then threatened to have all federal contracts associated with the billionaire's companies to be cut off. As the fight between the two intensified, the tech executive floated the idea of forming a third party and accused the president of being named in the late Jeffrey Epstein's files. Trump has denied close ties to the disgraced financier. Musk's opposition to the GOP megabill — which he called a 'disgusting abomination' — is largely tied to deficit spending. The billionaire argued the legislation would balloon the national debt and fails to slash enough spending. The package faces an uphill battle in the Senate. While Musk, who recently left his position as the top adviser to Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), seemed open to repairing ties on Friday, the president appeared to be OK with moving on. Johnson in the interview Friday defended the spending bill and commended Trump for his handling of the squabble. 'We're going to make good on this… I like the president's attitude. You know, he is moving on. He has to,' he told the host. 'He's laser-focused on delivering for the people. And House and Senate Republicans are as well. So, we've got our hand at the wheel.' 'We're going to get this done just like we told the people,' the Speaker continued. 'And if you are a hardworking American that is struggling to take care of your family, you are going to love this legislation.' The Louisiana Republican added, 'I'm telling you, all boats are going to rise and everybody's going to be in a much better mood before we go into that midterm election in 2026.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store