Tag: Nevada

The consensus is Nevada will have 4 congressional districts after 2010. Here is what it may look like:

Las Vegas area:

#	map	incumbent	White	Hispanic	Black	Asian	Native	Other
1	Blue	no incumbent	29.50%	49.22%	13.74%	5.94%	0.52%	2.08%
2	Green	Shelley Berkley	61.75%	17.47%	8.19%	9.23%	0.59%	2.76%
3	Purple	Dina Titus	67.84%	16.42%	5.40%	6.82%	1.01%	2.51%
4	Red	Dean Heller	70.47%	19.72%	1.89%	3.92%	2.08%	1.91%

A VRA-Hispanic district in Nevada would have been unthinkable 20 years ago but it looks likely in 2010. The fastest-growing demographic in America will almost certainly reach 50% of the 1st district in time for the 2010 census. (hence the title)

The 3rd district, despite its appearance, is mostly an urban-suburban district surrounding Las Vegas. 87% of its population is in Clark County. Most of the existing 3rd district (the propeller, represented by Dina Titus) is in the proposed 3rd district.



The propeller does lose some of its inner parts, possibly its most liberal parts, to the new 2nd district. But by then Dina Titus will have had 4 years to become popular and entrenched, and the Las Vegas region will have had 4 years to become even more liberal. Dina Titus, or whoever represents this district, will have to make some occasional obligatory appearances in the far-flung parts of this district.

Why Chruchill County? Because it had the right number of people. It was the only way to get population equality without dividing any northern counties. Churchill looks like it belongs in the 4th district. In order to do that I could either put part of Elko in the 3rd, or put all of Elko in the 3rd and part of Nye in the 4th.

Any information about what features are in what district (casinos, brothels, Yucca Mountain, Area 51, etc) is welcome in the comments.

I read Nathaniel90’s material concerning redistricting in Nevada.  Our growth has slowed way down during the the last four years, and as a result it is unlikely that we (Nevada) will get a fourth congressperson.  But if we do get a fourth congressperson, those CD boundaries have already been decided.  Well, I shouldn’t say that, but nearly everyone who counts has signed off on the new boundaries.  If you are interested I will e-mail you these new boundary lines.  Also, per the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Abrams v. Johnson, 177 S.Ct. 1925 (1997) we will need to redistrict, even if we continue with three CDs.  These new boundaries have also been decided upon.  Forrest.Darby@cox.net

Episode 2 in my series of diaries mapping out possible redistricting scenarios in the states has arrived! Today, I map Michigan and Nevada.

Grain of salt alert: my districts are based on county estimates from 2007 which are due to be adjusted soon with 2008 numbers. Also, I am using projected seat totals that are equally subject to change.

The number geeks among us will really enjoy what’s below the fold…

Michigan

The battle for control of redistricting in Michigan is wide open in the 2010 elections, with a competitive open race for the governor’s mansion being vacated by term-limited Democrat Jennifer Granholm and the state Senate standing at a narrow 21-17 Republican advantage. Since Democrats have a strong 67-43 edge in the House, the one scenario that seems unlikely is a repeat of 2001’s GOP gerrymander. Given the difficulty of both holding Granholm’s spot and picking up those three Senate seats, my best bet would be a continuation of split redistricting power when map-making time comes around in 2011-2012…and usually, split control means incumbent protection.

But hark, Michigan is expected to lose a seat in redistricting, going from 15 down to 14. Someone will have to be the unlucky loser. If Democrats somehow won the trifecta, they could force two GOP incumbents (say, Mike Rogers and Dave Camp) to run against each other. But since I’m presuming split control, it will have to be a Republican against a Democrat.

At first, the logical choice seemed to be eliminating Thad McCotter by pitting him against longtimer Sander Levin. But I decided against this for a very good reason: Gary Peters must be protected in any plan, and since Oakland County is a relatively competitive county, its Republican voters have to go somewhere. So if McCotter and Levin went against each other, it would likely have to be a GOP-leaning district, one a liberal like Levin would have trouble winning. Meanwhile, there was one incumbent other than Peters (Mark Schauer) whom I pointedly wanted to protect, and the only way to make him safe that I saw was to encroach on heavily Democratic Ingham County (Lansing). Thus the solution was reached: a Democratic-leaning 7th District that forces Schauer against Mike Rogers in a seat Schauer would likely win.

Would Republicans in the state Senate vote for such a plan? Well, they probably would if it protected the congressional delegation’s weakest GOP member, McCotter…and by giving him Livingston County, it does.

There is only one problematic side effect of my map: it pushes Sander Levin’s home out of the district in which he’d presumably run. I’m not clear whether his hometown of Royal Oak would be represented by Peters or McCotter, but his base would be shifted to working-class Democratic parts of Macomb and Wayne Counties. I’m sure he’d move if necessary; Michigan isn’t new to messy redistricting plans. In retrospect, I probably could have split Oakland County three ways and allowed Levin to stay put, but the way my map is configured, he’d need to pick up a lot of Macomb County’s Democrats anyway.

Without further ado, here it is:

District 1 – Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) — I think I finally found the way to make his district relatively strong for a future Democrat (face it, some day, 10 to 15 years down the road, Stupak will retire, and the Upper Peninsula isn’t as Democratic as it once was): I gave Stupak 89% of Bay County, making Bay City the largest source of district population.

District 2 – Pete Hoekstra (R-Holland) — Hoekstra will likely run for Governor in 2010, but another conservative West Michigan Republican should succeed him, and that person will be plenty safe in 2012 under my plan.

District 3 – Vern Ehlers (R-Grand Rapids) — had to expand a little and take Kent County whole, but will remain strongly GOP-leaning.

District 4 – Dave Camp (R-Midland) — this thing stretches from Lake Michigan to the Saginaw area now because of lagging population, but it should stay strong for Camp and any credible Republican in most years.

District 5 – Dale Kildee (D-Flint) — like most of the state’s districts, this one had to expand geographically, taking much of Michigan’s Thumb from Candice Miller. With all of Genesee County intact, no doubt it stays a Democratic seat.

District 6 – Fred Upton (R-St. Joseph) — possibly became a bit more Republican by taking some of Mark Schauer’s more conservative turf, but not significantly so. Stays safe for Upton, competitive or slightly GOP-leaning in a future race.

District 7 – Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek) vs. Mike Rogers (R-Brighton) — the horror of hard-right Rogers representing 66% Obama-supporting Ingham County is coming to an end! Rogers’ saving grace, heavily Republican Livingston County, is removed from the district as Ingham combines with Schauer’s less Democratic geographical base to make Rogers a goner. After 2012, Schauer could likely rely on Lansing more than Battle Creek or Jackson to get him reelected.

District 8 – Gary Peters (D-Bloomfield Township) — contained entirely within Oakland County, grabbing more Democratic areas from Sander Levin, who presumably has enough clout and seniority to make it in a modified but definitely Dem-friendly Macomb/Wayne district. As I said before, if there’s anything I would have done differently with this map, it’s keeping Levin in Oakland, but since these are based on 2007 county population estimates anyway, this plan is only a rough guideline of how I see redistricting going down in two or three years.

District 9 – Candice Miller (R-Harrison Township) — heavier in Macomb County, snatching its more Republican areas while only creeping a bit up the Thumb.

District 10 – Thad McCotter (R-Livonia) — he finally becomes safe, because no matter the trends in Oakland or Wayne, he’ll have Livingston County to keep him in Congress. It was a tough call figuring out which Republican would be hurt by redistricting, but as I mentioned, Oakland County is relatively 50/50 in neutral election years and those Republicans have to go somewhere…it’s far easier to imagine a bipartisan plan targeting Rogers, whose district is one of the truest gerrymanders in the state.

District 11 – Sander Levin (D-Royal Oak) — okay, maybe the legislature can find a way to keep him in Oakland County, but regardless, his district will stay safely Democratic (though it has to shed a few Dems for Peters’ sake).

District 12 – Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-Detroit) — while population loss has been severe in Detroit, the Voting Rights Act as practiced today would seem to protect both Kilpatrick and Conyers. Her district will grow in area but should stay majority-black and overwhelmingly Democratic.

District 13 – John Conyers (D-Detroit) — ditto.

District 14 – John Dingell (D-Dearborn) — stays safely Democratic. When Dingell retires, it will be fascinating to see the primary battle play out between a Dingell-esque old-school “GM-approved candidate” and an Ann Arbor latte liberal.

Most likely result of this plan: 8 Democrats, 6 Republicans. While the Senate won’t like losing a Republican, the fact is that people like Upton, Rogers, and McCotter already represent districts that voted for Obama, so to cement GOP seats in the future, something’s gotta give. Saving McCotter should be enough of a consolation prize/sweetener to win Senate approval for a plan like this.

On to Nevada

Over the last decade, no state has represented a more different kind of America from Michigan than Nevada. While a slowdown in migration is currently resulting from the poor economy, and a “desert foreclosure crisis” has slowed Nevada’s growth to something of a halt compared to past years, the Silver State is still a lock for a new seat. As in Michigan, Democrats have a realistic chance at a takeover, but for now, control is split. 2010 will be a huge year in Nevada, with Harry Reid fighting for reelection, GOP Gov. Jim Gibbons badly unpopular, and term limits finally taking effect in the Democratic-controlled legislature. Gibbons’ approval ratings render him DOA either in the primary or the general, but the difference could be crucial. Term limits could help either party, and might affect control of the Senate, though the Assembly is lopsided enough to remain Democratic regardless.

In any case, while Democrats will gun for a shutout, the current state of affairs is split control, and I drew my map accordingly. What you’ll immediately notice is that the “cow counties” north of Las Vegas finally have not one, but two, districts representing them in Congress. Yet appearances can be deceiving; Dean Heller’s District 2 will actually be dominated by Reno and Carson City, while my proposed District 4 (likely a competitive seat) will have mixed turf in northern Clark County as its population base.

District 1 – Shelley Berkley (D-Las Vegas) — will probably become even tinier in area and stay solidly Democratic.

District 2 – Dean Heller (R-Carson City) — I tried my darnedest to protect Heller knowing that whether Democrats control the process or power is split, Heller will not be a target, but he will lose the southern part of his district no matter who draws the lines. In a Democratic wave year like 2008, this district would not look great for him what with Dem trends in Washoe County and Carson City, but if he can endear himself to Reno and hold strong at home, he should be fine.

District 3 – Dina Titus (D-Las Vegas) — will also contract and become more Democratic regardless who draws the lines.

And the new District 4 – stretches up from North Las Vegas to Elko County — this should be a competitive seat, with a Democratic-leaning Clark County base counterbalanced by Art Bell libertarians in Pahrump and cowboy conservatives up north. If Democrats manage to hold the Senate and win the governor’s mansion in 2010, they will seek to make the new 4th more Democratic than did I and further protect Heller in his increasingly centrist turf, but again, I’m assuming split control for now.

Net result: Berkley and Titus are safe, Heller is fine as long as he can win Reno, and a new wild card is introduced. The question is: is there any politician in Nevada who would know how to win over the suburbs of Las Vegas and Elko?

Episode 3 (coming soon): will cover Iowa and Ohio (two of my best)

Episode 4: New Jersey and Georgia

Episode 5: Florida and Louisiana

Episode 6: Pennsylvania and Utah

EDIT: Re: my Michigan plan, it seems that I inadvertently am forcing two Republicans against each other. Brighton is in Livingston County, not Ingham County. Very well, then, let Rogers and McCotter have each other out, but would Senate Republicans go for it? I would point out that a similar situation occurred in Indiana back in 2001 (the state lost a seat, and a Democratic Governor and House passed a plan — with approval from a Republican Senate — that forced GOPers Brian Kerns and Steve Buyer against each other).

(Proudly cross-posted at C4O Democrats)

This year has been quite transformative for The West, especially The Southwest. Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico have gone from Red to Blue. Utah and Arizona don’t look quite as Red as they used to. Oh yes, and California now looks bluer than ever before.

But will this last? Will The Southwest continue to trend blue? And can Democrats continue to make gains here?

Honestly, I think so. Why? First off, demographics are shifting our way. Latinos continue to grow in population and political influence. “Creative Class” professionals continue to breathe new life into the region’s urban areas. The area has changed, and the changes favor us.

And because the demographics of The Southwest has changed, so has the politics. The old “rugged individualism” and “libertarian conservatism” that used to define the region’s politics have faded away as these formerly rural states are becoming much more urban and suburban. After all, why would young parents in Henderson, NV, worry about whether or not they can own assault rifles when they have to make plans for their kids’ college education, keep their kids safe from dangerous air and water pollutions, and be able to afford a home and food and health care? Why would a couple of biotech researchers in Aurora, CO, feel threatened by public park land in the state when they’re worried about keeping their jobs?

See where I’m going? The West has changed. I know. I’ve witnessed how my native Orange County, CA, has changed from “John Birch Society” embarrassment to dynamic urban environment. I’ve seen firsthand how Las Vegas has transformed from small casino town to world-class destination. I’ve been amazed by how the entire region has changed, and how we all saw this on full display as Democrats won across the board here.

So what should we do next? Let’s first talk about Nevada. Barack Obama won here by 12% (vs. a 2% Bush win in 2004), Democrat Dina Titus defeated GOP incumbent Jon Porter for Congress in NV-03, and Democrats now control both houses of the state legislature. So what next? We keep Majority Leader Harry Reid in the Senate and put a good Democrat in the Governor’s seat to replace the disgraced GOP incumbent Jim Gibbons, as both are quite doable. I’d now peg the Senate race as “Leans Democratic” and the Governor’s race as “Toss-up”. Oh yes, and we’d be wise to take advantage of Obama’s possible 2012 coattails here by finding a legitimate challenger to GOP Senator John Ensign.

Colorado was also good to us this year, as Obama won by 9% (vs. a 5% Bush win in 2004), Mark Udall won a formerly GOP Senate seat, and Betsy Markey unseated GOP Rep. Marilyn Musgrave in CO-04. So what can we do now? I’d peg incumbent Senator Ken Salazar’s 2010 race as “Likely Democratic” now, but we should keep a close watch to make sure we win again. And of course, we’ll need to make sure Obama wins again in 2012.

But what about California? Obama won here by a whopping 24% (vs. a 10% Kerry win in 2004) and Democrats already have both Senate seats & 33 of 53 House seats. What more can we have? How about the Governor’s seat, which I already consider “Leans Democratic” as the GOP has no strong candidate to succeed Arnold Schwarzenegger? And how about winning the “Toss-up” House races in CA-03, CA-04, and CA-44 in 2010, where we came so close this year? Same goes for the “Leans Republican” races in CA-46 and CA-50?

And what about Arizona? McCain won his home state by 9% (vs. an 11% Bush win in 2004), but Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick still managed to win a formerly GOP seat in AZ-01. So is there still potential here? I think so. Without the McCain win here in 2012. And better yet, we can beat McCain in 2010, as well as fellow GOP Senator Jon Kyl in 2012, with the right candidates. Same goes with the 2010 Governor’s race, which can be a “Toss-up” if we can have a quality candidate run against newly minted GOP Governor Jan Brewer.

So where do we go from here out West? We win! Ready to win?

(Proudly cross-posted at C4O)

This week has been nothing short of amazing! Barack Obama will be our next President. More and better Democrats will be going to Congress. The electoral map has undergone a major blue shift.

So why has this whole experience been bittersweet at best for me? Well, all is not well in my own home state. So what can we celebrate and what must we fix? Let me share with you the story of this election from behind the scenes.

First off, let’s start with the bad news. We lost in California. But wait, you ask, didn’t Obama win by about 24%? Isn’t that good? Of course it is, and that isn’t the problem.

The problem in California is that Barack Obama had hardly any coattails here. Look at how Prop 8, the marriage ban, may end up having to be stopped at the courts (again, hopefully). Look at how, barring the results in CA-44 & CA-04 changing in the provisional vote count, we have not gained any new Congressional seats. Look at how we’re still short of a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of the state legislature.

Simply put, we failed our mission in The Golden State. There were hundreds of thousands of “undervotes” here, meaning that people voted Obama for President but did NOT continue downballot to vote on Congress, the initiatives, and local races. This is nothing short of tragic, and there’s no excuse for the nation’s biggest Blue State to still show so much red! Because of the inept and disastrous “leadership” of the state party, the refusal of the DCCC to invest in real races like CA-44 & CA-46, and the horribly gawd-awful “leadership” by The Task Force & Equality California on the No on 8 campaign & their failure to have a real ground game, we missed the opportunity to turn the Obama victory into a progressive victory in California.

Now contrast what happened in California on Tuesday to what happened in Nevada on the same day. While one state didn’t change much, the other state next door underwent a massive transformation! Like Mountain West neighbors New Mexico & Colorado, Nevada is now officially a Blue State! And not just that, but Democrats now have a broad and clear mandate for progressive change.

Progressive Democrat Dina Titus was elected to Congress in a “swing district” that Bush won in 2004. Democrats now control both houses in the state legislature for the first time since 1991, including a 2/3 supermajority in the Assembly. Voters approved a good initiative that will actually help Nevada fully fund its schools. And of course, Barack Obama won the ex-Red State by a whopping 12%, including an 18% win in Clark County (Las Vegas Metro) and wins in the formerly Republican Carson City & Washoe (Reno) Counties!

So why were the results in Nevada so dramatically different? Let’s see, Harry Reid and the state party leaders actually began early in registering more Democrats and building an aggressive field operation while the GOP was power drunk and asleep at the wheel. The Obama campaign and the state party were effective in coordinating with the Dina Titus campaign, the Jill Derby campaign up north, and the local campaigns. All the candidates up and down the ballot had a clear and consistent message for change more. economy, energy & environment, education, health care, and so much more. Basically, Democrats worked together on the ground and that’s why we won!

So what lessons can we learn from this tale of two states? First off, there’s no real substitute for a grassroots door-to-door, face-to-face campaign. Despite the good last-minute ads, they may have been too little & too late to make up for the lack of a ground game for No on 8 in California. Meanwhile in Nevada, no amount of negative attack ads from the Republicans against Dina Titus & Barack Obama could make up for their complete lack of a ground game while we Democrats truly rocked the vote!

OSecondly, Nevada Democrats succeeded in translating an Obama victory into a progressive victory while California Democrats were simply lost in translation. Why couldn’t we win the 45th & 48th Congressional Districts when Obama carried them? Why couldn’t Debbie Cook win in the 46th when Obama carried it? Why were there so many undervotes statewide? Whatever the Nevada Democratic Party did right, the California Democratic Party needs to learn how to do it.

And finally, we should all be of good cheer! The West is ours if we want it! The results across the region prove that where Democrats work, Democrats win. But in places like California where state party leaders grew complacent, we lost out on real opportunities.

So what do we do next? After we’re done celebrating, we will go back to work! We have more work to do to keep progress going, so let’s do it! 😀

Back in August, we took a look at the big gains that Democrats were making across Nevada in terms of voter registration. Well, the Nevada Secretary of State has updated its numbers with the final pre-election voter registration tallies for the state, and Democrats have widened their statewide voter registration edge by 39,000 voters since August.

Just like we did in August, let’s tally the Democratic and Republican registration advantages in all three of Nevada’s congressional districts from November 2006, August 2008, and today, with blue indicating a Democratic registration advantage and red indicating a GOP advantage. Here’s what we get:

My friends, that’s change that we can believe in. While Dean Heller may hold on in the 2nd District, he does have a lot of new (Democratic) voters to deal with. And if your name is Jon Porter, well… you’ve gotta be sweating some serious bullets right now.

On the presidential level, the polls may show a tossup in Nevada, but these numbers are telling us something else entirely.

It’s been a while since we’ve talked about state legislatures, so here are some bits and pieces on where we stand right now (if you need a primer on where the most hotly contested chambers are and what the margin of seats held is, see my previous diary here). New York remains the big prize, with Democrats within one flipped seat of a tied State Senate and two seats away from taking control. This is the only state I know of where individual races have been polled; over the past month Siena has polled 10 of the 62 races, and with one GOP-held open seat poised to fall to the Democrats, one Dem incumbent trailing a GOP challenger, and one GOP incumbent tied with his Democratic challenger, the outcome is too close to call.

In Texas, the House is possibly the next juiciest legislative target after the NY Senate, which looks more like a two-cycle project but might actually get done this year. Republicans currently hold the House 79-71. Burnt Orange Report recently put together an impressive set of projections, and it seems like a 75-75 split is possible if Dems run the table on the closest races.

They peg two Democratic challengers, Diana Maldonado (open seat in HD-52 in Austin’s northern suburbs) and Chris Turner (against incumbent Bill Zedler in HD-96 in Ft. Worth’s southern suburbs), as “Lean Dem,” with two more potential Democratic pickups at the “Tossup” level (Joe Moody in an open seat in HD-78 in El Paso and Joel Redmond in an open seat in HD-144 in Houston’s eastern suburbs). A Houston Chronicle article from yesterday seems to support this analysis; while it doesn’t delve in to specific seats, it looks at fundraising and general mood to conclude “Climate is ripe for Texas House takeover.”

There’s more over the flip…

Governing Magazine’s Ballot Box blog has, in the last month profiled some of the other most hotly contested state legislature races. One race recently profiled that presents the GOP with a takeover opportunity in an unlikely place: the Maine Senate, based on the Dems’ narrow 18-17 lead and, in an example of all politics being local, an unpopular tax on alcoholic beverages intended to pay for improved health care access. The swingiest district seems to be the 1st district in the state’s southernmost tip, matching a freshman Dem against his GOP predecessor.

The Nevada Senate is another prime pickup opportunity for the Democrats, as the GOP currently controls it by an 11-10 margin. As they point out, this turns on only two races, both involving endangered GOP incumbents, Bob Beers and Joe Heck in the suburbs of Las Vegas. Beers and Heck, if they survive, are both considered possible gubernatorial candidates, seeing as how embattled Jim Gibbons isn’t likely to try again… however, first they have to survive Gibbons’ unpopularity.

One of the Democrats’ toughest holds this year is the Indiana House, where the Dems have a 51-49 edge. This race is hard to handicap because it’s likely the Republicans will pick up a few open seats in rural areas left open by Dem retirements (including ones in West Lafayette and the rural area near Evansville), while Dems pick up a few GOP-held but Dem-heavy seats in Indianapolis (including the seat held by Jon Elrod, whom you might remember getting demolished by Andre Carson in the IN-07 special election).

The Oklahoma Senate is the closest in the nation, as it’s a 24-24 tie, although Democrats maintain control because of the Lt. Governor. Democrats face big trouble in a Dem-held open seat in Stillwater, where a former president of Oklahoma State University is the GOP nominee. However, they feel they have several possible pickups elsewhere, including in the Oklahoma Panhandle, one of the most conservative places in the country but where they’re running a professional bull rider by the name of Bowdy Peach who seems uniquely suited to the district.

In the New Hampshire Senate, Democrats hold a 14-10 edge and are likely to hold on to that. They may even add to that, starting with the seat being vacated by Joe Kenney, the GOP sad sack currently losing the New Hampshire governor’s race by a margin of about 70-10; the Union-Leader projects this seat as “Lean Democratic.”

Both chambers in Florida are heavily Republican right now, but Democrats are optimistic they might pick up a few seats in each, especially a Republican-held open senate seat near Sarasota. However, Florida Dems sound more focused on 2010, when term limits will turf out 21 House Republicans and 8 Senate Republicans.

The Tennessee Senate is one place where the Republicans may take over (despite a 16-16-1 tie, they effectively wield control already; the one independent, who claims to belong to the “NASCAR Party,” generally votes Republican). Several retirements in rural seats held by Democrats may lead to GOP pickups, such as the seat in rural areas just east of Memphis held by long-time Senate leader John Wilder since 1966.

Louis Jacobson at Stateline.org is apparently the only prognosticator who goes so far as to try to assign state legislatures to the “tossup/lean/likely” framework; he published his newest ratings yesterday. They’re mostly in line with what we’ve seen discussed above, and movements that he’s made lately have generally been in the Democratic direction. He forecasts two currently Republican-held chambers, the New York Senate and Delaware House, as being Lean Democratic. He also forecasts seven Republican-held chambers (Alaska Senate, Nevada Senate, North Dakota Senate, Arizona House, Montana House, Ohio House, and Wisconsin Assembly) as being Tossups. He forecasts one Democrat-held chamber, the Montana Senate, as being Lean Republican, and four Democrat-held chambers (Maine Senate, New Hampshire Senate, Indiana House, and Pennsylvania House) as Tossups. Finally, he forecasts the Tennessee Senate and Oklahoma Senate (both tied) as ending up in Republican hands. Some of these choices (NH Senate?) seem to turn merely on the small number of seats needed to flip the chamber, rather than broader trends in each state, but it’s an interesting starting point.

That’s a lot of information to digest… still wondering what to do? Well, the DLCC maintains its own blog, which has been, over the last few weeks, rounding up dozen of Essential Races, focusing on up-and-coming candidates in key races. You can learn more about our Democratic bench as we build it, and there are links for contributions, too.

(Proudly cross-posted at C4O)

Last weekend, I was lucky enough to see the state of the race for myself. I traveled to the heart of Battleground Country. Because Nevada’s 5 electoral votes are up for grabs and two Nevada Republicans may lose their House seats this fall, I wanted to do something to help. That’s why I packed my bags, took some spare change for my favorite slot machines (NOT!), and made sure my family in Henderson had an extra bed for me to crash on.

I went to Vegas, baby, and I’m giving you the full report on what’s happening there!

Luckily for me, my cousin’s house is in the eye of the electoral storm. She lives in the 3rd Congressional District, the part of Nevada where Obama needs to win to carry the state… And the district where a Dina Titus win will give Democrats the majority in Nevada’s Congressional Delegation. So when I left my house on Friday, I was thrilled to go to a place where I can double the impact with the same amount of time!

When I arrived in town on Friday night, the Presidential Debate was just ending. I had listened on the radio while my friend Harriet and I were driving up the 15, and I was personally impressed by Obama’s performance. Still, I was anxious to find out what my moderate-conservative Republican cousin in Henderson thought about it. And to my surprise, she was also impressed!

Believe it or not, my Republican cousin will be voting for Democrat Barack Obama this fall. Why? Believe it or not, she may be upper middle-class… But she and her husband are still only a couple paychecks away from losing their home. Their house has now lost about $80,000 of its value while they still have to pay an “interest only mortgage” that’s now after the “interest only” period. They consider themselves blessed that they have a beautiful house in a great neighborhood just down the hill from the most exclusive estates in the Las Vegas Valley, but they still fear what would happen to them and their two kids if one of them were to have a health scare or lose a job. That’s why both my Republican cousin and her Democratic husband are voting for Obama.

And you know what? This isn’t an isolated case. In fact, I would find more of this the following two days when I strapped on my tennies and hit the pavement.

On Saturday morning, I regrouped with Harriet and joined with all the other California Obama volunteers who drove to Nevada for the weekend. Before we were sent off to knock doors, we were given the lay of the land. In just four years, Nevada has turned from a Republican plurality state into a state with 80,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans! In the 3rd District alone, Democrats now have a 29,000 voter registration edge! And now in previously GOP friendly Vegas suburbs like Henderson, voters are afraid of losing their jobs, losing their health care, losing their houses, and losing the middle-class American Dream they thought they had achieved. That’s why it was critical to get volunteers like us on the ground here to explain to voters what Democrats like  

Barack Obama and Dina Titus will do to help working people.

So that’s what we did over the next two days. We knocked doors. We talked to voters who still had doubts about Obama. We urged Obama voters to vote early. We reminded everyone not to forget Dina Titus and the state legislature candidates.

Oh yes, and we also listened. We listened as retirees told us about their health care worries. We listened as young people were telling us about their plans to finish college and get a real career. We listened to parents telling us about how they want to leave to their kids a better nation and a healthier planet. We listened to Democrats thrilled about a chance for us to make history (in a good way!). We also listened to Indpendents and Republicans, who have never voted for a Democrat before in their lifetimes, tell us that Barack Obama is the only candidate who they can trust with our nation’s future.

And believe it or not, I could count the number of McCain supporters we encountered on our walks with one hand. Even though we were mainly walking middle-class and upper middle-class neighborhoods in leafy (for the desert) suburban Henderson, hardly anyone on our lists turned out to be McCain supporters. This just goes to show how Southern Nevada’s changing and how much the people who live here are yearning for real change.

Now I know my experience in Las Vegas last weekend was only a snapshot of what’s really happening in Nevada right now. However, I must admit came back on Sunday feeling more confident of the Democratic operation in Nevada. We have a real chance of winning and winning BIG here… But only if we support our Democrats!

There’s plenty we can all do to help Democrats win this year. We can drive. We can walk. We can call. And yes, we can give. So please join us in helping in any way you can. The stakes are too high, and we can’t afford to lose this time. Let’s win, and let’s take our country back!

UPDATE: On September 16 EMILY’s List announced their endorsement of two more Congressional challengers: Becky Greenwald in IA-04 (D+0) and Sharen Neuhardt in OH-07 (R+6).



Maybe someone out there who knows the inner workings of EMILY’s List can explain to me why this group has not put money behind Becky Greenwald, the Democrat challenging loyal Republican foot-soldier Tom Latham in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district.

I have been going over the list of Democratic women running for Congress whom EMILY’s List is supporting, with a particular focus on the six challengers most recently added to this group in early August. I do not mean to denigrate any of those candidates, and I recognize that every race has its own dynamic.

However, after comparing Greenwald’s race to those of other candidates, I remain puzzled that EMILY’s list is not more involved in IA-04.

Follow me after the jump for more.

First things first: IA-04 has a Cook Partisan Voting Index of D+0. Since 2004, every Congressional district in Iowa has seen big gains in Democratic voter registration, which surged in connection with this year’s presidential caucuses. For the first time since Iowa’s districts were last redrawn, IA-04 now has more registered Democrats than Republicans.

Democrats have an advantage in the generic Congressional ballot nationwide, but what may be more relevant for this district is Barack Obama’s big lead over John McCain in Iowa (double-digits according to the two most recent polls). The Obama campaign’s enormous ground game in Iowa will be working in Greenwald’s favor too. Her staffers and volunteers seem pleased with the level of coordination between the campaigns’ turnout efforts.

Turning to Greenwald as a candidate, you can see from her bio that she has strong roots in the district as well as experience in the business world and a history of volunteering for causes including the Iowa Democratic Party. She dominated the four-way Demomcratic primary on June 3, winning over 50 percent of the vote. As of June 30, she had raised about $143,000 for her campaign but had only about $82,000 cash on hand because of her competitive primary.

Several Iowa political analysts observed this summer that Greenwald can beat Tom Latham if she can raise enough money to compete. Latham serves on the House Appropriations Committee and was sitting on more than $800,000 cash on hand as of June 30. Then again, plenty of well-funded incumbents have lost seats in Congress when facing a big wave toward the other party. Cook has this race as likely R, but I would consider it lean R. There have been no public polls on the race yet.

The current reporting period ends September 30. I don’t have inside information about Greenwald’s cash on hand now, but I know she has been aggressively fundraising all summer long. I assume things have gone fairly well on that front, because the DCCC just put IA-04 on its “Emerging Races” list. One thing working in Greenwald’s favor is that the Des Moines and Mason City markets, which cover most of the 28 counties in the district, are not too expensive for advertising. So, she can be up on the air for several weeks, even though she clearly won’t be able to match Latham dollar for dollar.

Side note: Shortly after the Democratic primary in IA-04, the sore loser who finished third vowed to run for Congress as an independent. However, he quickly turned his attention to the fight against Iowa’s new smoking ban. He then failed to submit petitions to qualify for the ballot, took down his Congressional campaign website and reportedly moved to Florida. In other words, he won’t be a factor in November.

Why should EMILY’s list get involved in this race? Not only is Greenwald a good fit for the district, she is pro-choice whereas Latham has a perfect zero rating on votes related to abortion rights.

As a bonus, Greenwald has the potential to end Iowa’s disgrace as one of only two states that have never sent a woman to Congress or elected a woman governor.

Now, I will briefly examine the six candidates for U.S. House whom EMILY’s list most recently endorsed. As I said earlier, I don’t mean to knock any of these candidates, but I do question why these districts would be considered more winnable than IA-04.

1. Anne Barth. She is running against incumbent Shelley Moore Capito in West Virginia’s second district (R+5, somewhat more Republican than IA-04). Cook has this race as lean R, Swing State Project sees it as likely R. As of June 30, Barth had about $353,000 cash on hand, compared to more than $1.2 million for Capito. My understanding is that this district is quite expensive for advertising because of its proximity to Washington, DC.

2. Sam Bennett. She is running against incumbent Charlie Dent in Pennsylvania’s 15th Congressional District (D+2, slightly more Democratic than IA-04). Cook and Swing State Project both rate this race as likely R, although Chris Bowers is optimistic given the partisan lean of the district. As of June 30, Bennett had just under $354,000 cash on hand, compared to about $687,000 for Dent.

3. Jill Derby. She is running against incumbent Dean Heller, who beat her in the 2006 election to represent Nevada’s second district (R+8, markedly more Republican than IA-04). It’s not too uncommon for Congressional candidates to win on their second attempt, but Cook and Swing State Project both view this district as likely R. As of June 30, Derby had about $314,000 cash on hand, while Heller had just over $1 million in the bank.

4. Judy Feder. This is another rematch campaign, as incumbent Frank Wolf beat Feder by a comfortable margin in 2006 in Virginia’s 10th Congressional District (R+5). Again, Cook and Swing State Project agree that this is a likely R district. As of June 30, Feder was doing quite well in the money race with about $812,000 cash on hand, not too far behind Wolf’s $849,000.

5. Annette Taddeo. She is running against incumbent Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in Florida’s 18th Congressional District (R+4). Cook and Swing State Project both rank this district as likely R. Taddeo made a great impression on people at Netroots Nation and had just under $444,000 in the bank on June 30, while the incumbent reported nearly $1.9 million.

6. Victoria Wulsin. In 2006, she fell just short against incumbent “Mean Jean” Schmidt in Ohio’s second district (R+13). Granted, Schmidt is ineffective as an incumbent, which is probably why Swing State Project has this in the lean R category (it’s likely R according to Cook). Wulsin also had about $378,000 in the bank on June 30, compared to about $390,000 for Schmidt. Still, this is a markedly more Republican district than IA-04.

I understand that EMILY’s List does not have unlimited resources, but I still find it surprising that they have not jumped in to support Greenwald. A little money goes a long way in the Mason City and Des Moines media markets.

If you want to help send her to Congress, go here and give what you can. September 15 is her birthday, by the way.

I look forward to reading your comments about EMILY’s list or any of these Congressional races.

Note From Diarist:  This diary is primarily about the Presidential campaign.  I wrote it for Daily Kos but didn’t feel it got the exposure I was hoping for.  It’s very much inside baseball politics so I thought it might have some fans around here, but it is about the Presidential campaign which I know is no longer the focus of the website.  If the moderator wishes to delete it, I’ll understand.

Anybody following the horse race at all has a pretty good idea where the key battlegrounds are expected to be. My personal opinion is that the three markets that are most likely to determine the 2008 election winner are, in this order, Denver (including Boulder and Fort Collins), Detroit, and Northern Virginia. Beyond those three, there are at least a dozen markets in key battleground states that will be sucking up the vast majority of campaign resources in the next 50-some days until the election. That’s the way the game is played and always will be for as long as the Electoral College is a reality. My thought process this morning was dedicated to isolating some geographic hotspots that are perhaps under-the-radar of conventional wisdom yet could nonetheless be very productive investments of time and resources for the Obama campaign. The top-10 I came up with are listed below in descending order.

10. Flagstaff, Arizona–Because it’s John McCain’s home state, nobody expects Arizona to be a swing state in 2008. It probably won’t be, but the most recent poll released from the state showed McCain leading by only six in Arizona, a smaller lead than he held in the expected battleground state of Nevada. The Obama campaign needs to do some internal polling in Arizona and see if their findings reflect the recent polling of a single-digit McCain lead. If it is, I think it would be entirely worthwhile to pour some campaign dollars in the less-expensive media market of Flagstaff, which is already favorable Democratic terrain, and also to set up a campaign stop there. It would be very embarrassing for the McCain campaign if Obama went to the university town of Flagstaff and filled the streets with tens of thousands of screaming fans in McCain’s backyard. Obviously this is not something we’re likely to see in the closing weeks of the campaign, but for headfake value alone, it’s something worth doing in September.

9. Aberdeen, South Dakota–I’ve seen only one poll coming out of South Dakota, and it showed McCain with a scant four-point lead. I don’t expect Obama to win there, but I’m puzzled why the prospect of a competitive South Dakota is not even being discussed even when the polls are similar to those of North Dakota, which is a battleground. Aberdeen is a worthwhile target for a September campaign stop and television ads for a number of reasons. This is the Democratic part of South Dakota. Tim Johnson and Stephanie Herseth pulled out statewide victories in 2002 and 2004 by running up the score in the counties in and around Aberdeen. Given that the Democrats have adopted a much more friendly platform to controversial-everywhere-but-the-Corn-Belt biofuels than Republicans in 2008, Obama could pick off alot of GOP-leaning farmers in eastern South Dakota who don’t trust McCain’s commitment to agriculture. Beyond that, Obama could do a rally with hometown boy Tom Daschle and really make some connections to voters who were out of reach for Gore and Kerry. I’m not certain about particulars of the Aberdeen media market, but I suspect it would be one of the cheapest in the country for advertising, and cuts into portions of North Dakota making it even more useful.

8. Wheeling, West Virginia–I have a good friend who lives deep into the hollers of Logan County, WV, and still insists from her interactions that she believes Obama will win West Virginia. I suspect that puts her in a minority small enough to count on one hand, but I still think some outreach effort into West Virginia would be valuable, particularly in the Wheeling area. Obama essentially ceded West Virginia to Hillary in the primary, making only one campaign stop in Charleston on the eve of the primary. Voters there don’t know him, but I suspect that if more do, the margin for McCain in the state could potentially be far less lopsided than if he doesn’t set foot there. More importantly though, I think Wheeling is important for the same reason it was important for Kerry four years ago. The market cuts into Ohio and Pennsylvania, specifically the very blue-collar regions of Ohio and Pennsylvania where Obama has the most work to do to win over skeptics. I suspect campaigning in this area is something of a defensive move, meaning his best hope is probably to cut losses rather than win over Bush voters, but in the context of controlling losses within statewide races in OH and PA, the old adage that the best offense is a good defense certainly seems to apply.

7. Council Bluffs, Iowa–Each new round of poll numbers indicate that Iowa appears less likely to ultimately be a battleground state, with Obama managing double-digit leads in the state. Again, I surmise that the untold story accounting for Obama’s strong performance throughout the Corn Belt (even Indiana!) is ethanol, specifically McCain’s previous hard-line opposition to it. The reason Council Bluffs is a secret weapon is twofold. It’s location in the heavily Republican southwest side of Iowa means the Obama campaign is on offense there, competing for traditionally Republican votes in western Iowa, but also competing for votes in Omaha, Nebraska, just across the Missouri River from Council Bluffs. We don’t hear much anymore about the prospect of Obama winning one (or even two) of the electoral votes in eastern Nebraska, and it remains a longshot. Nonetheless, raising Obama’s presence in western Iowa will have spillover effect in Omaha and the corn farmers surrounding it in Nebraska, leaving the prospect of robbing McCain of a Nebraska electoral vote on the table while simultaneously running up the score in Iowa.

6. Durango, Colorado–Chances are, the suburban doughnut surrounding Denver will decide who wins Colorado’s nine electoral votes, but if the race is as close there as most suspect it will end up being, smaller Colorado markets loom large. The fast-changing demography of Colorado was abundantly clear in the 2004 election, and perhaps no place was the change more obvious than Durango, formerly a Republican stronghold in Colorado’s southwest corner, where population growth is apparently fronted by left-leaning young people drawn to the area’s ski culture. I believe there were only five counties in America that Bill Clinton never won in 1992 or 1996, but where John Kerry won in 2004. La Plata County, Colorado, home of Durango, was one of them. If we assume that the trendlines that had clearly transformed Durango in 2004 have continued, Obama should be able to grow upon Kerry’s margin rather significantly in the area in 2008. The fact that neighboring battleground state New Mexico is a few miles south of Durango is an an additional bullet point for its utility.

5. South Bend, Indiana–Congressman Joe Donnelly showed us the potential northern Indiana holds for Democrats if we simply try there. The lesson appears to be learned as Indiana is deemed a battleground state in 2008. South Bend strikes me as the most consequential market in Indiana. Notre Dame University gives Obama a youthful base of operation while simultaneously providing Obama an outreach to Catholic voters, a demographic long cited as one of his most difficult to reach. The South Bend market also reaches into southwestern Michigan, and despite fairly encouraging polls of late, I think Obama will ultimately need all the help in can get in Michigan. Probably outside of the South Bend market but still worthy of mention is another Indiana town in Joe Donnelly’s Congressional district, Kokomo. This is a blue-collar factory town that Democrats should be winning, but rarely do. Voters in Kokomo may be some of the most likely to swing if the Obama campaign reaches out to them in a serious way.

4. Elko, Nevada–In 2004, it seemed like John Kerry was spending more time in Republican-leaning Reno than in Democratic-leaning Las Vegas. I didn’t really understand it at the time, until I saw the election returns and noticed Kerry had significantly cut into the GOP’s advantage in Reno and surrounding areas. The reason Kerry lost Nevada was that he got absolutely destroyed in rural Nevada. Obama, by contrast, beat Hillary in most rural Nevada counties, meaning there’s at least a basis for thinking he could overperform Kerry in places like Elko. Campaigning and advertising in Elko would really be taking Kerry’s 2004 effort to go on offense in Reno to the next level. Considering Kerry got less than 20% of the vote in Nevada’s fourth most populous county, worse than both Mondale and Dukakis did back in the day, there’s easily room for improvement in the area, and even a little improvement upstate Nevada could be the difference in the state.

3. Cincinnati, Ohio–Now considering Cincinnati is the third-largest media market in what is considered perhaps the most critical battleground state, calling for an Obama campaign presence there is on the surface a no-brainer, but most importantly, I see metropolitan Cincinnati as the region of Ohio where Obama is best-positioned to make gains over John Kerry. Kerry narrowly lost Hamilton County (home of the city of Cincinnati and the core of its suburbs), but with a high African-American turnout in 2008, I strongly expect the county to turn blue. Just as important are the three crimson red exurban counties surrounding Cincinnati, which accounted for Bush’s entire margin of victory in Ohio in 2004. In every election since 2004, the needle has moved dramatically against Republicans in all of these counties (Butler, Clermont, and Warren), with Jean Schmidt, Ken Blackwell, and Mike DeWine, all badly underperforming traditional GOP margins in the area. If Obama can keep this trendline going and trim his losses by a few percentage points in suburban Cincinnati, it will go a long way towards offsetting his likely underperformance in the rural portions of Ohio. And to whatever extent the Cincinnati market is an outreach into Indiana is also a feather in our cap.

2. Michigan’s Upper Peninsula–With the racial polarization of metropolitan Detroit, enflamed by the Kwame Kilpatrick scandal, and Obama’s call for tougher CAFE standards fiercely opposed by Detroit automakers, the McCain campaign has some serious ammunition against Obama to take into Michigan. I fully expect Obama will underperform Gore and Kerry in metropolitan Detroit. With that in mind, the thought process should become where we can pick up additional votes in Michigan to offset the possible hemorrhaging in the population centers. To that end, it seems like a no-brainer for Obama to take his campaign up north…way up north. The blue-collar Upper Peninsula of Michigan is sparsely populated, but its demographics seem to align with other Midwestern areas that are Obama-friendly. More to the point, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan looks like Wisconsin, thinks like Wisconsin, and votes like Wisconsin. When you look at Obama’s healthy standing in Wisconsin polls compared to Kerry four years ago or Gore’s eight years ago, my thinking is that every Obama campaign rally that begins in Green Bay should make the quick drive to Marquette, Michigan, from there.

1. Fargo-Moorhead (North Dakota/Minnesota)–I suspect there is no other media market in the country where the needle will move more significantly in Obama’s favor compared to 2000 and 2004 than Fargo-Moorhead. To the extent that North Dakota has already been identified as a battleground state, Obama’s campaign already has a presence in the area, but may nonetheless not appreciate just how many things are working to their candidate’s favor here. First of all, the cities of Fargo and Moorhead are islands of youth in a region otherwise dominated by gray hair. That cuts to Obama’s advantage demographically. Furthermore, in addition to Obama’s more farmer-friendly stand on biofuels, the Democrats have an additional ace-in-the-hole here because the region is one of the nation’s top sugar-growing areas. The sugar industry has enjoyed its relative “cartel” status and has become decidedly protectionist since the passage of CAFTA in 2005, a vote which helped every Democrat on the ticket in Minnesota in 2006 score landslide margins in the Red River Valley. Particularly on the Minnesota side, this area is historically Democratic, even though both Gore and Kerry were destroyed here. This advantage on both sides of the river extends further to the Grand Forks area, a region of North Dakota where every Democrat needs to win big in a competitive statewide race. It’s expected that Minnesota is leaning heavily Obama, but don’t underestimate the pseudo-maverick image of John McCain fooling alot of moderate suburbanites in Minneapolis-St. Paul. That raises the stakes for Obama’s need to win in places like the Red River Valley, which early indications suggest he is poised to do.