If I recall correctly, the DCCC put a couple hundred grand into this district a few days ago.  I'd have to double check on that, though...

Her campaign has been impressive from the outset, easily the best of the three major Democratic candidates I've watched in Nevada this cycle -- Titus, Carter and Hafen. Shelly Berkley is my district but she's basically unopposed and has been invisible.

The Sun is excellent, exploring the Gibbons issue and now this Porter allegation. Even the sports section ran a funny column regarding the Gibbons episode: http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/storie s/births/2006/oct/21/566636187.html

Unfortunately, the Sun is a minor player now, a daily insert in the Review Journal which is a right wing fish wrapper that ignores and spins to favor the Republican.

Jon Porter is a sleaze. No one will be surprised he broke the law. He got incredibly fortunate when Dario Herrera imploded in scandal in '02, the first cycle for NV-3. Porter was a verbal bumbler in that campaign and quickly realized his shortcomings. In '04 and this year he revived the same attack-and-condemn strategy, even when it doesn't fit the campaign or the opponent. This year his commercials have been called "comically misleading," or worse, by Las Vegas political analysts. He is calling Hafen a carpetbagger and political opportunist even though she grew up in Henderson, a few miles from Las Vegas, and her family has Nevada roots dating three generations.

The Sun article mentioned that Porter won't answer questions from the Sun on this issue. That's his MO. Many reporters have said Porter won't return their calls or answer simple questions. In a candidate forum before the second Titus/Gibbons debate at Bally's, Porter was the only major absence. He's trying to run out the clock with the lead.

Frankly, Las Vegans won't be horrified by phone calls from Point A instead of Point B. But Hafen has a skilled ad campaign and they may be able to abuse this. Similar to the secretary of state race in which Democrat Ross Miller has a great spot that amplifies his opponent Danny Tarkanian allowing his law license to expire. For some reason the lower office Democratic candidates here are running much better commercials than the senate or gov nominees. Plus, Hafen still has two debates and this issue will undoubtedly come up. She was terrific in the first debate, as detailed in this Sun column from Jon Ralston: http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/storie s/commentary/2006/oct/22/566627395.html

One problem, it's not a slight Democratic district. That may be true in terms of registration but in Nevada you have to apply a pointspread to that. Many registered Democrats here are more conservative than typical, and easily traitorous if they hear words like taxes or liberal or gun control. Those items may be losing steam elsewhere but not here. Las Vegas Review Journal political reporter Erin Neff called NV-3 a conservative district the other day on TV. I wouldn't go that far but it's definitely slightly right of center. The district was drawn by the state legislature to begin 50/50 then trend conservative due to the huge expensive housing developments being built on the outskirts of the district. Democrats have done a great job overcoming the natural tilt with union-led registration drives.

Hafen is more moderate than Titus so she has a chance in that district. Hafen prioritizes education but you don't hear her calling for all-day kingerdarden as the top priority, which is Titus' stance. Seriously, does that sound like Nevada, all-day kindergarden? It reminds me of the casinos in the mid-'90s, trying a family emphasis and putting in arcades and amusement parks. That quickly flopped and gave way to racy night clubs. I haven't given up on Titus but her general election campaign has been disappointing so far.

My instinct is Porter leads by 4-6 points.

The one thing I find confusing is the suggestion that an attack ad by the DCCC would leave Hafen "remaining above the fray."  Really?  Would most voters actually distinguish between the DCCC (if they even know what that is) and the Democratic candidate running in the district?  I doubt it.  I suspect that those who would make such a distinction are smart enough to have their minds made up already.

I'd be wary of making too much out of this.  It's the sort of thing that just seems petty.  It is a violation of the law, and it should be, but it's also the sort of thing that's hard to become emotionally invested in.  Mark Foley hits on pages, that's an emotionally charged scandal.  Bob Ney takes bribes, that's got an emotional component to it.  Because everybody knows that adults hitting on teens and taking bribes is just wrong.  Not only illegal, but wrong.  Making phone calls from the wrong place might be illegal, but it doesn't carry the same weight of wrongness.

The only way this becomes a useful issue is if it can be shown that he was deliberately doing something illegal.  It's going to be intent that makes this matter.