MyDD :: Watch Nevada

Watch Nevada

by Chris Bowers, Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:02:04 AM EST

Today the DNC announced that Nevada will hold a caucus between Iowa and New Hampshire. Now, this caucus will be on Saturday, January 19th, 2008. This is particularly interesting and important for several reasons:

1. Unlike South Carolina, the southern state chosen to have a primary shortly after New Hampshire, Nevada has no tradition as an important, early state in the nominating process. This could lead to a more unpredictable, and potentially less establishment-friendly, state of play in the caucus.
2. Because it is a caucus, and because it is on Saturday, you can expect extremely low turnout. Like #1, this could again favor the progressive movement in this state.
3. This year, the presumptive Democratic nominee for US Senate is Jack Carter, who for all his establishment pedigree, has become something of a movement candidate. Just as interestingly, Dana Titus, who is leading the Democratic primary for Governor, is also something of a progressive movement candidate. I'm not sure if either of these candidates fall into the A-list of movement candidates, ala Cegalis, Webb, Tester, McNerney and Lamont, but they are not bad. The progressive movement in Nevada seems to have real teeth.
4. Las Vegas is not only a heavily unionized town, but it is a town heavily dominated by the Change to Win coalition. Again, another new, rising progressive power has some real teeth in Nevada.

What this could all add up to is an important state in the nominating process that is very favorable to the progressive movement. Now, Montana would have been much more favorable, but us movementarians should actually be quite pleased with Nevada's newfound importance. It should give us--the progressive movement--a much bigger say in determining the nominee in 2008 than just about any other state in the country would have. In one scenario, a progressive movement candidate could target a strong second in Iowa, leading to a victory in Nevada, that could propel that candidate into near-frontrunner status in just one week.

Or, momentum from Iowa five days earlier could complete control the results of Nevada, and having the caucus on a Saturday only three days before New Hampshire might make the momentum benefits of Nevada negligible. Either way, even the possibility that Nevada could potentially be a stronghold for movement candidates in 2008 makes the August 15th Gubenatorial primary in Nevada worth watching. If Titus wins, and wins comfortably, it can be taken as a sign of the increasing power of the progressive movement in Nevada. How Carter and Titus do in November will also be a key sign. If you are interested in the future of the progressive movement, you should now be very interested in what happens in Nevada this summer and fall.

Tags: Senate 2006, Governor 2005-6, progressive movement, primary elections, Democrats, General 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 60 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

What the hell has Webb got that Jack Carter doesn't? Jeez.

Also, lack of tradition could easily lead to a tendency towars traditionalism...proving onesself as it were.

by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:21:01 AM EST

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

A conection to the REagan administration rather thant he Carter one?

OK, that isn't really a good thing. But he does seem to have turned his race into a higher profile and more competitive race, at least for now. He also won a very comptetive primary.

by Chris Bowers on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:35:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (3.00 / 3)

I think I may have to call bullshit on you for the first time ever Chris. The Carter campaign has been way more engaged with the netroots from the very beginning, and has gotten just as much, if not more, love as a result. Who was at YearlyKos? which campaign has recommended diaries here and at dailykos all the time?

If the boost to Webb is that he was drafted, well... great, Carter didn't need to be drafted, he WANTED to do it. I'll give you that the VA polls are more favorable, but since when did we not love an underdog? Allen is terrible sure, but John Ensign isn't far behind. And Nevade, by rights, should be Dem way before Virginia.

I say all this as a proud, born and bred Virginian and a big Webb supporter. The lukewarm reception to Carter among the big-name bloggers frankly baffles me. I realize that it's a longshot, and I really don't want to represent myself as a crazed Carter guy here, but man- what more do any of us want here? A straight up liberal, all about the netroots, all about net neutrality, all about empowering liberalism, progressivism and the Democratic Party...what's possibly missing besides sexy polling?

by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:40:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (1.00 / 1)

Support from Nevada blogs. That's what's missing.

by Matt Stoller on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:53:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (3.00 / 1)

Not being sarcastic- what's the Las Vegas Gleaner then?

by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 01:06:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (1.00 / 1)

There's not a lot of real support there.

by Matt Stoller on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:28:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

What does this mean, Matt? That these blogs aren't tied into the nexus of northeastern cool kids?

That these campaigns don't have Tagaris/Stoller/Armstrong allied blog consultants?

The reason these aren't "first tier" is because you've paid almost no attention here.

But glad to see you are doing so now and I'll try to post some more information about the Titus campaign and other progressive vs. establishment democratic primaries ( Chris Giunchigliani vs Myrna Williams as we move towards early voting next week.

by desmoulins on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 01:33:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

Read the Las Vegas Gleaner, and tell me he's pushing Carter instead of just disliking Ensign. He won't put his credibility on the line for Carter, and that should tell you something.

By the way, it's a really good way to get banned if you imply that I'm paid to say certain things and you have no evidence for it. And if you have evidence for it, I'd like a raise.

by Matt Stoller on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 01:39:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

I look forward to Hugh's comment tomorrow AM about how he isn't willing to put his "credibility" on the line for Jack Carter. THats comical if you had any idea what you are talking about.

I've posted elsewhere that Carter is a good man and I hope he wins but he's not the race that local progressives are focused on because we don't know him (he just moved here 18 months ago), he hasn't laid out a clear platform of progressive positions like Titus has, and although he himself has been charming and his daughter has done a great, admirable job to win online support, the campaign hasn't been very present either in terms of helping organize democrats to vote in NV. Thats largely because it started late and is underfunded, which is understable ...but for you to sit there and issue dictates about who "the movement" ought to support is really just plain silly.

Matt, just relax and admit that you aren't familiar with the landscape and that you would like to learn more about it. You don't have to be the expert on everything.

by desmoulins on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:05:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

"By the way, it's a really good way to get banned if you imply that I'm paid to say certain things and you have no evidence for it."

___

I didn't see that in his comment

by v2aggie2 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:29:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hello! Say What? (3.00 / 2)

You're kidding me, right? As part of the Nevada blogosphere I'm appalled by this comment! I can only assume you're not following the Nevada blogosphere at all. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying something like that.

It's not like it were all that difficult to follow the Nevada blogosphere. Sarah Carter has a daily blog roundup on the Carter Blog and in yesterday's roundup alone she linked to three blogs which had written about the Jack Carter vs John Ensign race on that day, a slow Saturday.

There are several Nevadan blogs covering this race regularly:

Desert Beacon

Reno and its Discontents

Las Vegas Gleaner

Say NO to Jim and Dawn Gibbons (which, despite its name, also covers the Carter campaign regularly)

Nye County Blog

Blue Lyon

Plus, my very own blog:

Turn Tahoe Blue (which despite me not living in the state only covers local issues)

So, there you have seven Nevada blogs (not counting the invaluable Carter Blog) that cover the Carter campaign and the outrage of a Senator that is John Ensign on a regular basis. And there is no support from Nevada blogs? Honestly?

Just out of curiousity I've checked out the Netroots Endorsed Act Blue page and counted the blogs you've listed for your endorsed (Senate) candidates:

Ned Lamont: 4
Jon Tester: 5
James Webb: 2

At last count (2000, according to Wikipedia) Nevada had close to 2m people, Connecticut 3.4m and Virginia 7.1m

So, for a small state like Nevada Jack Carter has significant local blog support, not to mention the support among numerous bloggers on both MyDD and Daily Kos.

Turn Tahoe Blue | Nevada Caucus 2008

by jedinecny on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:07:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

Matt,

Look at Desert Beacon.

More later, gotta go to work...

by NvDem on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:43:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

It is one thing to be supporting by hte porgressive movement. It is another entirely to be able to turn that support into a competitive campaign. Pennachio was generally supported by the progressive movement in Pennsylvania, but he didn't get anywhere. Anne Dicker was the progressive movement in her area in Pennsylvania, and she beat the establishment candidate.

It is the ability to turn that support into success. Sometimes, people have nothing but the movement, or simply turn ot the movement because they have nothing else. Or they aren't very good campaigners. That was the difference I was trying to get at.

by Chris Bowers on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:46:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (3.00 / 1)

ehhh...not sure I'm down with this argument either. I fully appreciate your point- Carter is down by a lot and Webb isn't, and I get it. But when the netroots started getting behind Webb in the first place, what fantasy polling was it before he entered the race that led you to conclude that he would be competitive? Or did you just decide he would be?

How was Ned Lamont looking compared to a snowball in hell when he was first mulling a run at Lieberman? Where was Tester when he campaign was in disarray and Burns hadn't been implicated in Abramoff? Hell, half the House candidates on the Actblue page haven't cracked 40% in any poll.

I agree with the logic that knocks Carter down a notch because things aren't very competitive (yet?) but most of the other candidates that have been supported by the netroots weren't super competitive to start with and many aren't still. Just seems like a rather inconsistent application of the standard. Can't help but look at Ciro where it never actually got all that competitive but we all felt like it SHOULD be that competitive, so we went after it anyhow. I can't shake the feeling that maybe John Ensign just hasn't done enough to piss people off in the blogosphere.

by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 01:17:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

It is inconsistent, because the progressive movement, while national, is stronger in some areas than others. It is also inconsistent because, while we are a national movement, we remain far below the operating capacity of the DNC. Our attentiona nd our resoruces can only be spread to so many areas at once. See, for example, Winograd. We couldn't do much on the nationla level to help her out because we were preoccupied elsewhere. And it is also inconsistent because, as I mentioned, not all candidates and not all campaigns are created equal.

I sincerely hope there will come a point where we are not restricted in these ways. However, at this time, I still believe we are. IF the local scene can make the rce clsoe, you better believe that national scene will come in for support, even here. But right now, we can't possibly thorw our rsources into Nevada to try and make his thing competetive. At least, we can't do it right now. But things can change.

by Chris Bowers on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:01:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (3.00 / 2)

I appreciate the restrictions. My only point is that if you're going to disqualify certain candidates for reasons that don't disqualify other candidates, then it's BS. I know you/we can't get behind everyone we'd like or everyone we should, but when that's the issue, just say so. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not expecting major support for literally every candidate. But the tone of your post was that Carter is a lesser netroots candidate than Webb, Cegelis, McNerney, etc. But I'll tell ya what...I never saw Cegelis posting around here (supporters sure, but not the campaign). I haven't seen McNerney around here at all. I've seen Webb pop up a few times, but nothing much (and by "here" I mean netroots in general, not just right here). Maybe I'm just missing it when it happens, but I doubt it.

It's one thing if you're prioritizing who to support or if it's just that for whatever reasons, other candidates got to the pot before Carter. That might be unfortunate or whatever, but I understand that it happens and so fine. But suggesting that Carter is less of a candidate because of that is where the BS comes in. I dunno...waiting until candidates make it close on their own is what the DSCC does. I thought we were going about things differently- i.e. helping candidates make it close so they could unlock the big institutional money. If I'm simply mistaken, then ok I guess, but why wouldn't people just give to the DSCC then?

by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:27:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

Well, there is another variable that I think you are ignoring. Different campaigns have higher priority in and of themsevles. Defeating Lieberman was widely seen as a major priority ever since PEter Daou came out with his Triangle theory. But off the head the the main facilitating chicken, and the body will just wander around aimlessly (while the other, lesser facilitating chickens run for cover). In other words, simply because it was CT-Sen, that race had priority. It was the mother of all primary challenges--and I think everyone knew that.

As for Montana and Virginia, those were closer than Nevada from the get go--and I think the variables I already listed apply to those. This entire discussion seems to be making me list out my personal theory of evaluation criteria, so I mine as well list them out right now:

The closeness of the race.
The strength of the progresive movement in the local area.
The strength of the candidate and the campaign they have put together.
The relative importance of the race in relation to the progressive movement as a whole.

I think the degree to which we hae focused on the various movement candidates can be understood pretty well through those four criteria. I think it is safe to say that Tester is ahead of Carter in all four categories. I think a very strong case could be made that every other candiate I listed is ahead of CArter too. And I don't think that's a bullshit double standrard.

Now, as a poster below notes, I think it is a reasonable strategy to try and push hard for Carter after the Connecticut primary is over, and see if anything shakes out there between August 9th and the end of the month. That is somehting I am going to think about. It would indeed be the final step to take in expanding the battlefield before the campaign season really begins on Labor Day. Howver, as things tand right now, I think you can look at the four criteria I have laid down, and I think any honest appreciation of the situation would indicate that Carter is behind several candidates, including all of hte ones I listed.

by Chris Bowers on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:57:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

I know that there are many reasons that the netroots need to get behind winners right now, not least of which is...you know...getting people elected. My problem lies in the implication from the original post that Carter has any less netroots cred than the rest of the mentioned candidates. It's one thing to say that he's a much bigger longshot and so you're going to focus on other folks instead- that's fine, and I'd be kinda pissed if you weren't doing that. It's another to imply that the reason you aren't supporting said candidate is because they don't fit in with the netroots movement as well. If it's pragmatic concerns, go ahead and say so and I won't complain. But you made it out (I thought) to be ideological, as though something about Carter himself, rather than his situation, is what keeps him from being an A list candidate. I suppose perhaps it's just a turn of the phrase, and perhaps this has all spiralled into something much bigger than it should have been, but I guess I'd just like to see, in the future, some distinction between the race having drawbacks and the candidate themselves having drawbacks. It's an important distinction and, at least in this case, it wasn't clear.

by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:46:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"we" (none / 0)

This is precisely my point about Titus. This is not only close; she's ahead, due to a combination of smart policies, a hard-workign volutneer coalition of labor, students, citizen-activists, and yes "bloggers" (though you may not consider them up to your level). And she's up against precisely the people you don't like.

Here's a real chance to make a real difference.

by desmoulins on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:45:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If Lamont wins by 5+ (3.00 / 1)

And Bill and Hill and Chuck and Harry pull their support from Lieberman, and there is some R, any R, still on the ballot, then I think we need to declare victory, pivot away from that race (not entirely, but partly), and go for Jack Carter. That's the only place left on the Senate map where the netroots can make a real difference (ok, that and Virginia). We have already won our primaries in Montana and Virginia. The Ohio primary is over; the CT primary is about to be. Almost every campaign, including MT AZ and TN, is now or is going to be fully funded from DC or the local party or whoever the hell funds these things. All the blogosphere can do is seed money / seed publicity, and the only place left to plant it is Nevada. (And Virginia)

Jack Carter really could be a last minute surge candidate. He's been laying his groundwork in rural NV, which will pay off if he makes it to a final stretch. He has instant name rec and even some instant credibility, once he's on the air in Reno and Las Vegas and the whole electorate actually knows he's running. If you're an angry disenchanted disgusted independent voter, and you hear that Carter's kid is running... well, the door is automatically open to hear one more thing about him. ("Really? What's he want to do?" Knock that question out the ballpark and you have a real candidate going.) Ensign's support is much softer than George Allen's, and in a much more pro-D and anti-Bush state. Niether party is as well organized in Nevada as they are in Virginia, PA, RI, etc, so there's a little bit of a vacuum that netroots + Change to Win could fill. And Ds are going to be excited to vote for Dina Titus in the general (I assume she wins the primary), whereas Rs are stuck with Gibbons, whom even governor Guinn won't endorse. A Gibbons + Ensign ticket isn't going to motivate anyone, whereas Titus + Carter will, if they're both competitive down the final stretch.

Sure, Harry Reid's operation is on the sidelines, and lots of insiders are sitting the race out. But these are the exact same people who were coronating Morrison in Montana. Nevada is a relatively wide-open political environment (that was your argument in this post!), and small and cheap and anti-Bush to boot. Lots of disengaged suburbanites might respond to Jack Carter on TV.

If CT plays out like it increasingly looks like it will (Joe Klien wrote his eulogy this week. Joe Klien!!), then Nevada is the only place we can throw our weight, other than some House races. House candidates don't benefit from national attention (of the Lamont type) nearly as much as Senate candidates, and the Carter name is an instant hook for journalists. We can close Peter's triangle with Carter a lot more than we can with Darcy Burner or Jerry McNerney. (Incidentally, this Lamont thing is probably the best we've ever done at closing the triangle -- getting the press and politicians to keep our story going and even heat it up for us.)

After August 8th, Nevada and Virginia may well be the only overtly electoral pools we can play in. MN and MO and OH and RI and TN and most of the others will be out of our hands. We could do oppo on Jon Kyl, I guess, but I'm not sure that's our strong suit yet. Publicity for a guy named Carter, though... we can do that.

And we should. With really good publicity, Carter could make a serious run at Ensign. That's the whole standalone argument. Making a serious run at Ensign is so valuable that if my statement is true, we almost have to do it.

by texas dem on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:01:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

Also wanted to add- Virginia is more high profile because 1. Allen is more high profile than Ensign and 2. Every major media outlet is already covering DC so they just drive 15 minutes out 66 and interview a few people in Fairfax and file a story. Nevada is out of the way. You've complained about this with Connecticut relative to everywhere else, not sure why you're accepting the bias now.

by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:33:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (3.00 / 2)

I agree Webb and Carter should be in the same tier. I really like Carter.

by abc on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 11:23:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah Carter should really be netroots endorsed. (3.00 / 2)

I've said it for awhile and I still feel that way... yeah, yeah I know not enough "local blog support" whatever that means, considering that only a few people decide it.

But as far as i'm concerned he's a netroots candidate in all but name.

-C.

by neutron on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 01:30:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeah Carter should really be netroots endorsed (none / 0)

The guy has lived in Nevada for three years.

by Matt Stoller on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 01:40:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeah Carter should really be netroots endorsed (3.00 / 2)

Hillary Clinton lived in New York for 0 years before becoming US Senator

by v2aggie2 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:31:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeah Carter should really be netroots endorsed (3.00 / 1)

Fair enough and I don't hold it against him.

All I meant was that there might be a reason that people who are on the ground here might have longer-standing allegiances to other candidates, like Titus or Guinchigliani, than to Carter. I find it mildly offensive (and mostly amusing) that folks who live far away think they can determine who has local support and who doesn't or can dictate who "deserves" support.

Anyway, enough; I'm thrilled there is such interest in NV politics.

by desmoulins on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:41:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeah Carter should really be netroots endorsed (none / 0)

I think your points are great ones.
Thanks for the insight into Nevada politics -- it is greatly appreciated!

by v2aggie2 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:45:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that's what is holding him back? (none / 0)

Come on he isn't Alan Keyes here.

Besides I thought you liked to win.

:)
-C.

by neutron on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 08:24:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (3.00 / 1)

You know, this might produce some high-profile help for Carter this year. Winning the seat would be a feather in any potential 08 nominee's cap (if they could plausibly take some credit for it), and being visible in NV this year is an important first step to win loyalty from the ground troops in the state.

by scvmws on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:30:34 AM EST

Re: Watch Nevada (3.00 / 3)

It should. I'd advice any and all potentials to do whatever they can for Carter now.

by Chris Bowers on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:33:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

John Edwards (none / 0)

will be one to make that move.

http://oneamericacommittee.com/

He had a podcast with President Carter last week. You don't think they talked about Jack any do you?

by Bear83 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:42:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Edwards (none / 0)

yeah and if Kos is to be believed Edwards is the candidate the unions--especially Change to Win--are going to chew glass for in the next cycle. He especially has deep ties to the hotel workers unions...

by KevStar on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 01:05:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Edwards (none / 0)

i don't think you have to believe Kos on this one, considering how much edwards has been working the union thing... The catch is that the Change to Win coalition is not exactly shy about poaching members from other unions - which may split them and cause the rest to endorse a second "union candidate".

I am assuming that this rift would only last through the primaries.

And by "assuming" I mean "praying".

(disclosure: I work for Tom Udall for Senate) Join us at http://www.TomUdall.com

by steveolson on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:38:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Help for Nevada (3.00 / 1)

With a caucus set for 2008, surely you will see
lots of helpers coming in to the state this year.

Lessee: Warner, Biden, Bayh, Vilsack, Feingold,
Dodd, Clark, Edwards, Hillary, others who I'm
forgetting or to be announced later? Maybe even
Al Gore will want to come in to help fund-raise
and campaign for Nevada Democrats.

This outside attention could in fact help raise
significant funds, and get valuable media
coverage this year, not only for Jack Carter,
but for Nevada candidates for the U.S. House
who may be only long shots now.

by Woody on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:29:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

I like these choices. My personal preference for a southern state would be Florida (shouldn't one big state have a say???!!!), but hey, what can you do. At least this way African-Americans (who would be expected to dominate Democratic primaries in South Carolina) get a real say in picking the nominee, and then of course there's Nevada, a state known for unpredictable politics, where Hispanics, labor, and maverick liberals would presumably get better representation than in Iowa or New Hampshire.

My ActBlue page

by Ament Stone of California on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:33:20 AM EST

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

big states equal big bucks, which narrows the field.

by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:42:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

I find the fact that the Nevada caucuses will be held on the Saturday after Iowa to be an interesting detail to recent developments. Was that placement a part of a secret compromise deal to keep New Hampshire from blowing up the calendar sequence?

by bi66er on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:35:27 AM EST

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

I don't know if it was a deal, but the more I look at this DNC plan, I failt o see a way for New Hampshire to circumvent it. I honestly can't think of a single say they would move it to now. How can they "retaliate?" It really was a good plan by the DNC.

by Chris Bowers on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:37:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

The deal was open, not secret at all.

I agree with almost everything Chris has said with one caviat. The law of unintended consequences. It is impossible to predict how these moves will play out. If logic & order prevail this will be a boost to progressive forces. The problem is that these things rarely play out as the DNC think they will. This time might be different.

Also, while the focus is about how Nevada reduces the impact of New Hampshire it does the same to Iowa. Iowa is still Number one but the calander change will also force most candidates to spend less time in the Hawkeye state.

by howardpark on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:13:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

My point being that weekend caucuses during what is likely to be a major NFL playoff weekend, and maybe a week before Bush's final state-of-the-union means that the press will not be paying the slightest bit of attention to the results out of Nevada. There will be a tremendous temptation to fall into their established pattern of simply waiting for New Hampshire to come around.

by bi66er on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:39:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

no way will they ignore it. it'll certainly have competition, but it can't be ignored.

by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:43:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

New Hampshire will do what ever it takes to retain the traditions of its Primary. I wouldn't be suprised to see NH move its date ahead of Iowa now.

by abc on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 11:25:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

The western states enjoy disproportionate representation in the Senate, and I've long thought that they provide an opportunity for progressives to make some inroads. With small populations, they don't require such huge $$ investments in campaigns, and are much more grass-roots friendly.

Democrats tend to do pretty well in Senate races in the more populous states (NY, CA, IL, MI, FL). Imagine what could happen if we can capture a few of the sparsely-populated western states.

by global yokel on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:39:25 AM EST

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

# 2. Because it is a caucus, and because it is on Saturday, you can expect extremely low turnout. Like #1, this could again favor the progressive movement in this state.

A lot of times the "progressives" of the party show how out of touch they can be when their chosen candidates get waxed in Democratic primaries. Why should a state like Nevada (with a hard to vote in caucus) be set up to help an out of the mainstream group make it easier to elect their candidate of choice. I think it's ironic that groups like "Democracy for America" often see their candidates lose when there is actually...an election, ie an exercise of "Democracy".

by chrisishardcore on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 01:29:06 AM EST

I caucused for Edwards in 2004 (3.00 / 1)

This is extremely interesting. Will New Hampshire try to persuade Democrats to avoid or downplay Nevada? I could almost see that being an unstated theme, don't rely on us for bailout support, if you think Nevada is suddenly more important.

At least this will force the candidates to understand and focus on issues important in the West. It's almost as if we've had generic commercials the past several cycles. Other than Yucca Mountain which was pathetically overplayed in 2004 when it should have been shouted by Gore in 2000.

In 2004 we had an incredibly lackluster and unsophisticated caucus. Not that I'd ever caucused before but I expected much more. I think the statewide turnout was 9000, or something in that neighborhood. In my case I went to a local school. Of course, Kerry was already the presumptive nominee but I was shocked at the lack of passion and involvement.

Anyway, regarding 2006 races, a month ago I thought Dina Titus would lose the primary but now she's back on TV and the commercials are very effective. Still, I don't see how she wins the primary easily. Gibson is well spoken and their frequent head-to-head debates on Jon Ralston's local political show have been heated and very even. Gibson is mayor of nearby Henderson so that will lead to natural competitiveness in Clark County.

That's what outsiders don't seem to realize about Nevada. Clark County has significantly more than half the votes in the state. Ensign's base is Clark County which is why he's much less vulnerable than a typical Republican in a statewide race. Hell, he lost to Reid by only 400 votes and requiring a statewide hand recount in '98.

I volunteered for a Democrat I knew had no chance in '02, ethics challenged Dario Herrera. I realized how vital it was to get the first jump on that new district 3. Now you've got a boring mediocrity in Jon Porter entrenched in that district, which was designed by the state legislature to start 50/50 but drift slightly Republican. Carter in the senate race has much less chance than Herrera did in district 3. I'll work GOTV on election day but this is a hopeless cause. There is no way Carter wins Clark County, let alone the rural sections of the state.

The governors race is much more feasible. GOP frontrunner and certain nominee Jim Gibbons is an bumbling implosion waiting to happen, which is why he's been hiding for months, refusing to debate. Titus or Gibson (yes, could be Jim Gibson vs. Jim Gibbons) will emerge from the primaries perhaps 4-7 points behind and in poor comparitive shape financially, but I never concede anything to a mediocre Republican who doesn't have a strong base in Clark County.

BTW, we have Diebold in Nevada. Thank god that's not a daily obsession on MyDD. It drives me nuts elsewhere.

by jagakid on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:43:06 AM EST

re: Diebold in NV. (none / 0)

Ensign's one actually good issue seems to be election integrity and verified voting. He's one of the only Republicans who seems to "get it", and it's the one place where he isn't a totally superfluous backbencher.

I guess losing an election by 400 votes will do that to somebody.

Of course as far as i'm concerned it's all a bunch of talk since he won't actually do anything on it.

And of course, Jack is better on it too!

-C.

by neutron on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 01:14:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: Diebold in NV. (none / 0)

We don't have Diebold here. The contract for a statewide system went to a California based company called, IIRC, Sycamore (or some other tree), but they botched it and failed to deliver a statewide voting roll. The machines are all electronic and the law is, if I understand correctly, every polling place has to have one paper-receipt machine. Some polling places have all paper-receipt machines, and the Secy of STate confirms a random sample of those polling places to make sure the #s match up. Perception is that its a pretty clean system but thats not yet been tested -- and in any event irrelevant to the caucus.

by desmoulins on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 01:54:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: Diebold in NV. (none / 0)

Sequoia

by roller on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:28:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I should have changed the subject line. (none / 0)

As there is a difference between Diebold and others, but the rest comes back to verified voting.

As a (self proclaimed) election integrity system specialist, I can tell you that's not good enough, for instance the problem is still an insecure and inauditable central tabulator.

it's needle in the haystack time if you are talking random audits.

but that's not the point, NV at least has SOME legislation on it. Which is good, and Ensign is good on the issue, luckilly Carter is better.

And my main point is that losing an election by 400 votes or so is enough to even make a backbencher Bush Republican take notice of election integrity

-C.

by neutron on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 08:27:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

I would like to see an explanation of the Nevada Caucus system with a brief history of the winners of past presidential caucuses. My read of the caucus system is Iowa and other states is that they trend more to the establishment candidate rather than an outsider. Having to show up in a neighbor's house, or similar location, and try to convince people to switch who they are supporting, can be very intimidating.
Outside of Jimmy Carter, who set up camp 2 years earlier, Iowa has usually been won by an establishment Dem.

IMHO, the southern states have again diminished the role of New England in the process. Nevada will be the focus after Iowa. And after Nevada, SC will be the focus as it will be a window into the Southern SuperTuesday which would follow (prob. in less than 30 days). New Hampshire, the only northeastern State to have an impact, will be diminished. I can only hope that Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Main, and Rhode Island (yes I know NJ is considered a Mid-Atlantic State) will move up an combine for a regional primary. From a progressive standpoint, we have much higher concentration of latinos and other immigrant groups, unions, etc...

by mactworivers on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:58:19 AM EST

Maine's caucuses favor progressives (none / 0)

Maine's caucuses have always favored Progressives - Kerry barely won the state in 2004, with Dean coming in a close second, and Kucinich breaking the 15% barrier. Previous caucuses have seen Brown, Kennedy and Jackson do extremely well.

I was surprised that no one ever pays attention to Maine's caucus, as it comes in early February. Maybe because we're so unpredictable.

And don't expect Maine to join other states in a primary - Maine feels very strongly about its caucus, and in fact tried a primary once (1996), only to return to the caucus the very next cycle.

by MBW on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:13:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

Recent past is that the caucus, in Clark, has been held at a single, central site and it was a long, boring affair that drew a very small percentage of registered Democrats. That has changed already; after getting overwhelmed by turnout in Feb 04, the county broke this year's precinct-level caucuses up to 5 locations; don't know if there will be a reorganization now so that caucuses are held in precincts.

The caucus has been a beauty-pageant, with presidential preference being only a sideshow to the election of county convention delegates. That too is now likely to change.

Finally, recent past has been that a single candidate has consolidated most of the support. In 88 and 2000, it was Gore, who had been and remains something of a mentor to Reid; in 92, I don't actually know but I'm sure someone else can fill in; in 2004, Kerry was the only one to campaign here and the caucus was held a week after NH so he won the preference poll overwhelmingly with Dean a distant second. But Gephard had, until Iowa, a lot of union support and would have made a run for it if he had still been in the race.

by desmoulins on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 01:50:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Nevada (3.00 / 2)

i disagree that saturday will bring low turnout. louisiana's saturday elections seem to raise turnout and i think that having a day off from work will encourage more people to go to the polls, not fewer.

by ahf8 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:03:06 PM EST

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

Both of Nevada's current senators lost their first senate race. Reid lost to Laxalt in 1974, and Ensign lost to Reid in 1996. If Carter doesn't make it this time, he may get a second shot. And the state seems to be moving toward us, given increased Democratic support among Hispanics.

by Ron Thompson on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 01:27:27 PM EST

Re: Watch Nevada (3.00 / 1)

Chris, I think you are on the money for most of your post but a couple of caveats:

Its not all CtW. AFL-CIO is still the largest statewide and most effectively politicall statewide. Building trades unions are the bulk of that. Also, AFSCME.

Culinary (UNITE-HERE) and SEIU are big and CUlinary is politically very important in parts of Clark County; SEIU has great people but not as good a history of turning out its own voters but its also become more politically active and less strategic.

Teamsters, oddly, represent a lot of public employees here and they've got a decent but not great political organization in Clark.

(Time was, the largest union in the state was IWW
which dominated the mines, but those days are long, llong past.)

Also, "low turnout" is relative. Saturday caucus in January may well draw more people than a Tuesday primary in August, as we'll have htis year. A lot will depend on whether Clark County DP continues to use a single site or, as is now necesssary and likely, goes to multiple sites for the precinct level caucuses. If the caucuses are held in the precincts, that would help turnout a lot. But whether that will draw more or less progressives is hard to say at this point.

Finally, in addition to Dina Titus's historic campaign, the race to watch in the upcoming primary to gauge the strength of progressive infrastructure (including SEIU) vs. gaming-backed party hackery is the primary in District E between progressive activist Chris Giunchgliani running a grass-roots campaign against long-time incumbent (and former progressive, turned development and gaming lackey) Myrna Williams whose campaign is being run by a republican firm backed by massive developer and gaming corporate donations.

by desmoulins on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 01:44:54 PM EST

Saturday elections (none / 0)

As ahf8 said above, weekend turnouts increase turnout, not decrease them...

Where are you getting your information from? Data actually suggests the opposite (google scholar it)...

As for Caucuses, we should eliminate them for the simple reason that they violate the idea of secret ballot.

In Iowa, you are forced to declare your support by going off to stand in a corner, thereby letting all your friends and neighbors who you are going to support...so someone may simple vote with the majority.

It is even worse with the urban-rural divide. Large urban centers are ill-equipt to do it this way some resort to a primary, while out in the smaller population areas, the secret ballot is stripped.

If you want to keep the caucuses, you should have to use secret paper ballots and perhaps a lower threshold (currently 15% in Iowa)...

My two cents anyway!

by Nazgul35 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:14:26 PM EST

morning after (none / 0)

Today's Zobgy interactive/WSJ has some good news on these races.

Titus gains on Gibbons (probably Republican nominee), now well within MOE , at 40-45, AND her spread is less than half of Gibbons' advantage over dem primary opponent, conservative Jim Gibson , who trails Gibbons by 13. So much for Gibson's DLC-stlyle "conservatives are more electable" argument.

And Carter has gained considerably on Ensign, now within 15 points and Ensign below 50%.

by desmoulins on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 09:48:58 AM EST

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

Well, my blog isnt the Gleaner, but it has been fairly vocal in its support of Carter, as well as its disgust with Ensign. I'm even bringing that to a national stage now that I am guest blogging at TaylorMarsh.

I don't understand why Wyoming is preferable to Nevada as a caucus state? Do they have as much organized labor? as many minorities? Isnt that why Nevada was chosen (besides it being Reid's state)? Or is it just because the "netroots" have a candidate they are in love with there? And how exactly does that happen?

I think Carter's potential is huge--if he could get the "netroots" to "lamont" him.

Oh, and its DINA Titus.

by myrnatheminx on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 12:08:18 PM EST

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

Another great progressive blog, much better than mine is The Desert Beacon: http://desertbeacon.blogspot.com/

by myrnatheminx on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 12:09:55 PM EST

Re: Watch Nevada (none / 0)

In my experience, which is limited to 2004, a Saturday caucus in a state that has never before had one is held for the express purpose of ensuring that those who control the party can control the outcome. But maybe things will be different in Nevada in 2008.

I have to say, I was more than a bit taken aback at the Dems' choice of their four early primary states (to say nothing of how much everyone screamed bloody murder about how bad Terry M's idear was, to front-load the primaries in 2004, and then promptly front-loading them even more for 2008). As I understand it now...

Iowa - a caucus, the perfect setting for all kinds of shenanigans. Is it true that they don't even report the actual votes...just how many delegates each candidate will get?

Nevada - not just a caucus, but a Saturday caucus. Even worse. I won't be at all surprised if they only have a few polling locations open, and/or only for a few hours.

New Hamphsire - an open primary, perfect for blaming any "unusual" outcomes (ie, inconsistent with poll results) on Republicans crossing over.

South Carolina...more than just an open primary, a primary in a state where no one evem has to declare their party affiliation. They had their first "Democratic" presidential preference primary in 2004 (not on a Saturday, at least), and the SCDP made a last minute effort to require voters to sign a party loyalty oath in order to vote in it, but that got razzed off the map in less than a day.

Sounds to me like four separate recipes for a rigged election. Is it just me, or is it odd that not one of these first four states has a nice, straightforward Democratic primary? You know, one in which only Democrats can vote, and where they can do so simply by walking into their neighborhood polling location at any time between 7 AM and 7 PM on a Tuesday?

by thepollyannafromhell on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 01:13:34 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.