The battle for political supremacy rages on in suburban Arizona, with Representative David Schweikert, a jeopardized Republican, striving to retain his seat in the face of a fiercely contested race. Political factions anticipate a closely fought battle in Arizona’s First Congressional District, serving as a potential model for how they might eventually bring in the essential suburban voters during the Election Day.
Activists, drumming up support for the Democratic contender for the U.S. House, encountered a wide spectrum of political attitudes while they knocked on doors in Scottsdale and Phoenix during the culminating moments of the electoral campaign. They came across an enthusiastic liberal from Kansas who was poised to remove Donald J. Trump and any other members of his party from power.
They also found a wavering Republican lady who planned to make her voting decision at the last hour. Meanwhile, an elderly conservative pair, despite their support for the former president, were open to engaging in a conversation about why they might also endorse a Democratic candidate for Congress.
This ecletic mix is the reason why Arizona’s First Congressional District, characterized by its wealthy, well-educated populace and moderate Republicans fondly reminiscent of Senator John McCain, is pivotal for wielding power in the House of Representatives, currently dominated by Republican majority. The preferences of these voters, along with those residing in strongly contested suburbs throughout the swing states, could potentially decide the presidential polls.
This scenario places incumbent Republican Representative David Schweikert, vying for his eighth term, and Democratic contender Amish Shah on the vanguard of a relentless quest for voters’ support. Both factions acknowledge the stiff competition and are finalizing strategies to effectively persuade the suburban portion of the electorate prior to Election Day.
“This race is a must-win for Democrats if the aspiration is to reclaim majority,” stated Chuck Rocha, a Democratic strategist working alnogside a group that’s investing funds in the race in favor of Mr. Shah. Campaign parties supporting Mr. Shah, which includes leading Democratic entities such as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and House Majority PAC, are wagering on suburban voters’ distaste for Mr. Trump.
Their belief is that these voters are shaken by the prospect of democracy’s future and worried about securing access to abortion. They are counting on Mr. Shah’s political reputation as a doctor and former member of the Arizona House to appeal to this demographic by projecting a moderate image. They hope his support for enhanced border security during his state legislature tenure and his promise of a sane approach amidst a divisive political atmosphere would resonate with voters.
Comparable to the approach of Ms. Harris, Mr. Shah is aiming to tap into voters’ frustration over abortion restrictions and their antipathy towards Mr. Trump to ensure his victory, even in traditionally conservative pockets. Counterwise, Mr. Schweikert, aligning with Mr. Trump’s priorities, is endeavoring to spotlight one of the Republican party’s key strengths—the economy, and downplaying contentious issues such as abortion.
At the top-end of the competition, Mr. Trump holds a marginal lead of about four percentage points against Ms. Harris in Arizona, as revealed by a survey conducted by The New York Times and Siena College. “Bipartisanship is something that Arizonians cherish,” said Mr. Shah during an interview. He displayed his backing of bipartisan bills in the State Legislature and stressed his focus on practical solutions, even if it meant giving bills to Republicans to execute.
Mr. Schweikert’s support comes from influential Republican groups like the National Republican Congressional Committee and Congressional Leadership Fund. These organizations highlight Mr. Shah’s perceived leniency on matters of border security and crime, and draw connections between him and Senator Bernie Sanders due to Mr. Shah’s previous endorsement of Sanders’ healthcare proposal.
Mr. Schweikert seems to be knee-deep in the most challenging fight of his political career. In 2020, his victory margin in his district amounted to approximately 18,000 votes. The electoral map’s redrawing to include more politically leaning sections of Phoenix saw his election victory in 2022 shrink to just over 3,000 votes. Voters in his new district had given Mr. Biden an advantage of 1.5 percentage points four years ago.
Current polls for this year’s race have been scanty, with a nonpartisan analyst classifying it as a “tossup.” In the district’s television advertising war, Democrats have outpaced Republicans in spending, devoting $15.1 million to the latter’s $9 million since the primary on July 30. This is according to data from tracking firm AdImpact.
Mr. Schweikert, notwithstanding the odds, has a personal strategy to regain his district’s trust. During a recent visit to his local Costco, being recognized by customers allowed him to engage with potential voters. Postulating calmness, Mr. Schweikert stated, “I am really comfortable with my ticket-splitting.”
In the realm of economics, Mr. Schweikert is a staunch advocate for reducing national debt and minimizing the deficit. Over an hour-long conversation, he seemed to flit between various topics, infused statistical insights, and shared his optimism regarding the potential financial savings arising from advancements in technologies across sectors, from weight-loss medication to artificial intelligence.
He believes that his sole focus on economics would resonate strongly with matured and wealthy voters even more than issues like abortion or border security, and that they can distinguish him from their dislike of Mr. Trump.
On the other side of the aisle, Democrats contend that Mr. Schweikert is simply a far-right lawmaker operating under the radar who has achieved little during his tenure. However, he exited the stringent conservative Freedom Caucus the previous year in what Democrats interpreted as an attempt to portray himself as a moderate. Mr. Schweikert argues it was because the caucus members were “much too populistic and lacked engagement with the Constitution and mathematics.”