Presidential Politics
If you don’t want to see it in print
The Aspen Times has on its masthead:
If you don’t want to see it in print, don’t let it happen.The sad stories of Republican Senator Stevens of Alaska and Democratic presidential aspirant and former Senator John Edwards are recent reminders the wisdom of that warning.
These two scandals are neither identical nor equivalent. Each is bad in its own way. Senator Stevens maintains his innocence. Senator Edwards no longer does. Senator Stevens is under indictment. Senator Edwards is not. But what they have in common are highly embarrassing reports of activities that would normally be considered mortal wounds to a political career. Senator Stevens will certainly have a tough challenge to retain his Senate seat. Senator Edwards will not be the Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee. The tree of trust and credibility, once felled, can only be re-grown slowly, if at all.
The scandals also have in common a warning about the temptations of high office. By historical standards, these scandals are not the most shocking cases. Given human frailties, they will not be the last. Against scandalous behavior there is the power of self control, the power of the law (when it applies), and the power of the press. When the first two fail, the third is there to remind us that “If you don’t want to see it in print, don’t let it happen.”
Leo Brown | August 15, 2008 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
The Case for Brian Schweitzer
Here at Western Democrat, we have previously made the case for Bill Richardson for President or Vice President. But consider another prominent Western Democrat for the currently open position of Democratic nominee for the Vice Presidency, namely Brian Schweitzer, Governor of Montana.
The vice presidential nominee has four roles: to help the ticket win in November, to serve as a loyal part of the new administration, to assume the presidency should disaster strike, and, under happy circumstances, to lead the party eight years hence. Governor Schweitzer is an attractive candidate for all four tasks.
Governor Schweitzer would be a great candidate. He is the popular Democratic governor of a red to purple state who knows how to appeal to Republicans and Independents. He would reinforce the Obama message of turning the page on the red/blue divide of the last decade. He has a natural, folksy charm that would play well on the national stage. He is from way outside Washington in a year when voters are hungry for change in Washington. He does not play into the GOP stereotype of an out of touch Eastern liberal, yet he effectively champions Democratic issues such as education and healthcare. He does not have a trail of potentially controversial votes on wedge issues in the Senate. He is old enough to be successful and experienced both in the private and public sectors, including international experience, while young enough to be a vigorous campaigner. He understands national issues that are particularly important to the West such as energy and water, the West being rich in energy, but chronically short of water. He could help swing crucial states in the West. Montana has only three electoral votes, but he would automatically put his state in play. Neighboring North Dakota is potentially swingable and has three electoral votes. In the rest of the West, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico, with a combined nineteen electoral votes, will be critical battlegrounds, and having a Westerner on the ticket would help. The sum total is the equivalent of swinging one big state, which is about the best that a vice presidential nominee can hope to do. Moreover, Governor Schweitzer would be a reassuring choice for a number of wavering constituencies all across the country that the party needs in November.
Governor Schweitzer could serve in an Obama administration without carrying any baggage from the long contest for the nomination. He would bring executive experience to the new administration. He could represent Western and rural constituencies inside a White House with an urban and Midwestern President. And though his easy and down-to-earth demeanor tends to hide it, his successes in life and politics are the natural product of a first-rate mind. Of course, only Senator Obama can tell us if their two personalities are a good working fit.
Given all these assets, I would feel very comfortable with a President Schweitzer should he ascend to the nation’s highest office, ideally eight and a half years hence, after having served President Obama loyally and well.
Leo Brown | June 5, 2008 | Comment on This Post (5 so far) |
It ends with Montana
The networks have called Montana for Obama, and enough superdelegates have declared to make Senator Obama the nominee.
Barack did well in the Intermountain West all this primary season. The Rockies are not Appalachia.
It is an historic night but important tasks lie ahead this summer: uniting the party and selecting a vice president.
Leo Brown | June 3, 2008 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
The Battle for the West Commences
As we recently posted, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada are shaping up as key battleground states for the 2008 election. Not surprisingly, and as Kari just noted, both Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain are already campaigning in these three states.
From the LA Times:
The top Democratic and Republican presidential contenders, Barack Obama and John McCain, brought their campaigns to the deserts of the American West on Monday, kicking off what is shaping up to be a fierce contest for the region in November.The majestic vistas and suburban subdivisions of Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico were among the most contested territories of 2000 and 2004, although they were often overshadowed by the struggle for electoral votes in Florida and Ohio.
"There are a limited number of possibilities to change the electoral map for Democrats," said Mark Mellman, a longtime Democratic strategist. "These three states figure prominently."
"This game is on," said Joe Monahan, an independent political analyst in New Mexico who said Monday's visits would probably be the first of many by the presidential candidates in the months to come.
From the AP:
[Senator] Obama is signaling, even before the Democratic primary formally wraps up, that he intends to fight this fall for Western states that narrowly went Republican four years ago.New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado aren't definitely Democratic blue or Republican red. Instead, they're known as "purple states" by political junkies.
"We're going to fight as hard as we can in these states. We want to send the message now that we're going to go after them and I expect to win them," the Illinois senator said Monday.
"I'm absolutely confident that we're going to do very well west out here because people out west are independent-minded and are going to look at whether or not over the last eight years the country is better off under Republican rule. I think they're going to conclude they're not and they want fundamental change, something that I'm offering and John McCain is not," [Senator Obama] said.
[New Mexico Governor Bill] Richardson, the nation's only Hispanic governor, called the three states "fertile ground" for Obama, particularly if he courts Hispanic voters with Spanish-language ads, personal appearances and attention to their concerns, such as immigration reform.
Leo Brown | May 28, 2008 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Obama targets the West
The Associated Press reports that Barack Obama will target the West in the upcoming presidential campaign:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama set his sights on the West on Tuesday, saying he will fight for states there that narrowly voted Republican in the last presidential election four years ago.Obama, the Democratic front-runner, and presumptive Republican nominee John McCain were trading barbs as they began crisscrossing three western states that are likely to be pivotal battlegrounds in the November general election: New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado.
Here we go, folks.
Kari Chisholm | May 27, 2008 | Comment on This Post (3 so far) |
The lay of the land out West
As far as the general election goes, I am assuming at this point that the contest will be between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. The outlines of the electoral map start with the 2000 and 2004 maps. The Pacific Coast states of California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii look safely blue at this point both by recent polls and by recent history. The Rocky Mountain core of the GOP, Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho looks decidedly red, as does Senator McCain’s home state of Arizona. Alaska is a long shot for Senator Obama, as is Montana, unless Governor Schweitzer is on the ticket. The swing states are Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. Polls go back and forth, but currently Colorado and New Mexico lean to the Democrats. Strong Democratic Senatorial candidates in those two states should help as well.
How important are those Western swing states? If the election were held today, the outcome would be very close, and Colorado and New Mexico would be crucial. Senator Kerry fell nineteen votes short of an electoral majority in 2004. Colorado and New Mexico have a combined fourteen electoral votes. Iowa, which borders Senator Obama’s Illinois and where Senator Obama is leading, has seven electoral votes. Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa plus the rest of the Kerry states yield a Democratic majority. Take away the swing state of New Hampshire, and you get an Electoral College tie, which would throw the vote into the House. A detailed analysis of the House races suggests that would lead to a Democratic victory in 2008. Add the swing state of Nevada (five electoral votes), and there is a bit more breathing room.
There remains much uncertainty. There are dozens of imponderable factors and unpredictable events that lie between now and November. One campaign or the other could end up sweeping the election. Given a sagging economy, an unpopular war, high gas prices, an unpopular Republican incumbent, and time for the Democratic Party to heal after a long and sometimes bitter nominating process, the wind should be at the Democrats’ back. Senator Obama is planning a fifty state campaign, as he should, both for the sake of the downballot races and the future of the party. With luck the election could be a Democratic blowout, in which case Alaska and Montana and neighboring North Dakota might be in play, but then again luck is not a plan, and the election could be very close.
So how can Senator Obama cement his narrow lead in the West? First, he has to clinch the nomination. By the only metric that officially counts, convention delegates, he is very close. Oregon recently gave Senator Obama a big boost. The Montana primary is June 3rd. With help from the superdelegates, Montana could put him over the top. Second, he has to reassure important constituencies. The Latino vote is very important in the Southwest, the region we have previously argued is where future elections will be decided and a region where Senator Clinton did well, partly on the strength of the Hispanic vote. Senator McCain, to his credit, is not anti-immigrant, so Democrats will need to pay careful attention to the Hispanic community. Recently, key Hispanic leaders in California have joined the Obama camp. Having Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico on the ticket would help in the Southwest, as would, of course, Senator Clinton. The Jewish community also needs reassuring. The Jewish vote is small, but significant in the Southwest, including California, Nevada, and Arizona. Having Mayor Bloomberg of New York on the ticket would help in that regard. Mayor Bloomberg would also reassure the business community and add economic expertise to the ticket. Those “hard working white voters” we have heard so much about lately need reassuring. Governor Schweitzer of Montana would be a good cultural fit, as would be John Edwards of North Carolina or Jim Webb of Virginia. If the party needs a woman on the ticket, in addition to Senator Clinton, Governor Napolitano, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Boxer, the last three from Southwestern states, come to mind. No one vice presidential nominee can satisfy all those diverse constituencies, but the campaign as a whole has to address all their concerns. The West, particularly the Southwest, will be a key battleground in 2008. Senator Obama and the Democratic Party need to look west.
Leo Brown | May 25, 2008 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Jeff Bingaman Endorses Barack Obama
New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman has endorsed Senator Barack Obama. In his endorsement, Senator Bingaman said:
To make progress, we must rise above the partisanship and the issues that divide us to find common ground. We must move the country in a dramatically new direction.
I strongly believe Barack Obama is best positioned to lead the nation in that new direction.
With this endorsement, Senator Obama is now a more popular choice among his Democratic Senate colleagues than Senator Clinton by the narrow margin of 14 to 13.
Leo Brown | April 28, 2008 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Dave Freudenthal Endorses Barack Obama
Wyoming’s popular Governor Dave Freudenthal is the second Western governor to endorse Senator Obama in recent weeks. While not saying anything negative about Senator Clinton, he views Senator Obama as "incredibly smart" and someone who gives honest answers instead of scripted responses.
Senator Obama is the Democratic candidate with the openness, honesty and skill to end this vicious cycle of business as usual.
Openness and honesty, skill and intelligence, and a no nonsense approach to government are some of the values we like to see at here at Western Democrat.
Leo Brown | April 5, 2008 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Bill Richardson Endorses Barack Obama
Barack Obama has been going through a rough patch of late. How fast and how well he can recover may well determine the 2008 presidential election.
So the endorsement by Bill Richardson comes at a critical time. Governor Richardson is a important leader in the West and in the Democratic Party, and he has been one of our favorites here at Western Democrat. His resume is very impressive. His appeal in the Southwest is obvious.
Governor Richardson joins Senator Dodd among 2008 candidates in endorsing Senator Obama. His speech suggests four reasons. First, the delegate math is such that it is now time for the party to come together around the clear leader. Second, Senator Obamaâs speech on race touched a chord with Governor Richardson and with Hispanic voters generally. Senator Obamaâs poll numbers have been going up (!) in California. Third Governor Richardson's biography has paralleled Senator Obama's. Fourth, and very interestingly, we learned that Senator Obama quietly tossed a lifeline to Governor Richardson during a presidential debate.
In a tough campaign, such endorsements arenât easy, but they may break the logjam before the convention.
Governor Richardson is clearly on the short list to be Vice President or Secretary of State. Regardless of what the future holds, Senator Obama knows that a friend in need is a friend indeed.
Leo Brown | March 22, 2008 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Race and the American West
Race is part of America’s story. But the West is neither the South nor the East. The racial picture is different and more varied, with large American Indian, Asian, and Hispanic communities. With its vast distances, the American West could never be a monolithic entity on racial matters. Moreover, Out West is where many people went to escape what was going on Back East or Down South. As Bill Gwaltney put it “The West has always been seen as a place of opportunity. And this was certainly as true for people of African descent as for anybody else.”
That the West, like the rest of America, sometimes grappled badly with issues of race is a matter of historical record. That matters are better today than in much of the past, is also part of that record.
So Barack Obama’s speech on race in America, “A More Perfect Union” will be read with interest in the West, and also read differently than in other parts of the country. It will be read differently in the barrio and on the Rez, in the cities and urban campuses and on the ranches and farms. How it is received may well determine who will be the next president of the United States. It is a thoughtful and personal speech. Some will find it overwhelmingly positive and powerful. Some will dismiss it out of hand. Some will compare it to Mitt Romney’s speech on religion. Both speeches deserve to be read, and will be part of the legacy of the 2008 campaign, regardless of who becomes president.
A campaign is more than speeches, but the best speeches give us a unique window into the soul of the speaker. The reaction to some speeches can also give us a window into the soul of America. This is such a speech. I hope you will all read it.
Leo Brown | March 18, 2008 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Three Elections
Wyoming was part of Barack’s Rocky Mountain firewall. And now Mississippi voted for Barack as well. Very different states, same result. And it is really hard to think of these two states as latte-sipping boutique states.
However, I would like to call your attention to a third recent election, this one in Illinois.
I live in California, in the land of earthquakes, but I was born in Illinois and lived in the Chicago suburbs for about 25 years. So when Denny Hastert’s old congressional seat flipped from R to D, I took notice. This is 6.0 on the Richter Scale. A strong one. This is also a validation of Barack’s strategy and message.
Sen. Barack Obama could bring out a huge turnout if he's the Democratic presidential nominee. Others have noted this as well.
Obama's effect on the Foster race is emblematic of why Democratic Super Delegates are beginning to break for Obama. Not only is Obama the most electable Democratic candidate for President this fall, he's also the candidate that will help elect more Democrats to the House and Senate. And the effect the presidential candidate has on House and Senate races - as well as races for State Legislature - will be a big factor in determining who Super Delegates support. If you don't believe me, pull aside virtually any Member of Congress who represents a tough swing district, and ask privately who he or she wants to head the ticket. The verdict is virtually unanimous: they all believe that Obama's nomination will be far more helpful to their own candidacies than Hillary Clinton's. The same goes for candidates trying to take Republican seats. You hear four reasons for this assessment: 1). They believe that Obama will turn out large numbers of new Democratic voters that simply won't show up if Hillary is the candidate. This is doubly true when districts have sizeable minority populations. But it is true of young people across the board. 2). They believe that Obama will appeal to independents and some Republicans -- and create an environment more favorable to their own candidacies among those voters. 3). They think Obama will be much more helpful at raising money for their own races than Clinton. 4). Most importantly, many think Clinton's presence on the ticket will galvanize the right wing base. They simply don't want to run on a ticket headed by Hillary Clinton, and many say they would not campaign with her in their districts.We’ve noted previously that Clinton would be a drag on Western Democrats.
One key advisor to a prominent Democratic congressional candidate, who asked not be to identified discussing tensions within the party, went even further. "It's a disaster for Western Democrats," he said. "It keeps me up at night."
Leo Brown | March 11, 2008 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Best in the West
From the beginning of Western Democrat, it was recognized that the West offered the Democratic Party a way out of a recurring pattern of electoral defeat.
The primary season reaches another critical junction this Tuesday. Democrats looking to win in November would do well to visit 270toWin.com and look at the state polls. Poll numbers can be fickle things, but the overall impression is clear: Barack Obama would run much better in the West than Hillary Clinton. The margin is, in fact, the difference between victory and defeat in November.
Consider six states in the West. The first three were won by Kerry, and are must wins in 2008. The second three were lost my Kerry, but would have put him in the White House had he won all three.
The first three are California, Oregon, and Washington. According to recent state polls, Obama would win California by 27%, Oregon by 1% and Washington by 17%. Hillary would win California by 19%, lose Oregon by 3%, and tie in Washington.
The second three are Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. Obama would will all three by 7%, tie to 15% (two polls), and 12%, respectively. Hillary would lose Colorado by 14% and lose in Nevada by 9% (no recent poll from this source for New Mexico).
Leo Brown | March 2, 2008 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Mitt Romney & a Democratic Outreach Opportunity
I met Mitt Romney once, years ago. I liked the old moderate Mitt Romney. The new hard-core Mitt Romney, not so much. As the campaign went on, his positions and rhetoric reminded me of why I left the Republican Party. Nothing personal, mind you. I can still like Mitt as a person, just not as a candidate. Whether the moderate Mitt or the conservative Mitt was the real Mitt Romney, who can say? Maybe both were in turn.
Imagine if Mitt Romney had instead, like Michael Bloomberg, left the Republican Party and charted an independent course. Such a move would have freed Mitt from the seemingly insurmountable hurdle of a Latter-day Saint getting past the powerful Southern Evangelical wing of the GOP, an obstacle that would likely have derailed a Bloomberg candidacy as well. Could a moderate, independent, and well-financed Bloomberg-Romney ticket have emerged to capture the imagination of the country and some Western electoral votes? It would have been interesting.
To return to the campaign that was, whispering attacks against Romney in the Bible Belt may have sobered Mormon Republicans and caused some of them to question if the GOP should be their permanent home. Harry Reid and Mitt Romney share the same religious faith, but not the same party and political outlook. The Democratic Party hasn’t had a problem with Harry Reid’s faith, and that contrast may resonate with some Latter-day Saints. A message of principled moderation, inclusion, and real compassion could go a long way in the Mormon West. The Udall family is a prominent name in the Democratic Party in the West and an old Mormon family name. Maybe years from now the first Latter-day Saint in the White House will be a Democrat.
Check out some interesting links on related topics:
LDS leaders urge compassion on the immigration issue.
Obama would reach out to Latter-day Saints
Michelle Obama visits the headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Mormons make the case for Obama here, here, and here.
Leo Brown | February 8, 2008 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Super Tuesday Crystal Ball
This year Super Tuesday will be the closest thing America has yet seen to a national primary, with 24 states holding primaries or caucuses on this date. 52% of all pledged Democratic Party delegates and 41% of the total Republican Party delegates will be at stake. The GOP contests are often “winner take all,” whereas the Democratic delegate results are awarded by proportional representation, with a minimum 15% threshold required to receive delegates.
The leading candidates (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the Democrats and John McCain and Mitt Romney for the Republicans) have been campaigning all over the country including the West. Their respective websites proudly list their appearances and endorsements. Here in California, my phone has been busy with calls from both the Republican and Democratic campaigns.
The conventional wisdom, polls, and fund raising by state suggest Hillary Clinton will do well in the East and Southwest and Barack Obama will do well in the Midwest and other parts of the West. The Clinton polling lead nationally has been eroding, and Obama has momentum. At least one poll has them tied, but the polls have missed some surprises this year. Given proportional representation, expect both Clinton and Obama to split the delegate totals fairly evenly. If Obama breaks through in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Missouri, New Jersey, or Connecticut and meets expectations elsewhere, then the momentum will have definitely swung his way. On the Republican side, the conventional wisdom and the polls have McCain leading, but Romney has pockets of strength in the West.
As noted previously, Western Democrats are rightly concerned about Clinton’s high negatives in the West. I’m voting for Obama.
Leo Brown | February 3, 2008 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Obama Richardson
Over a year ago, we speculated on a Richardson Obama or an Obama Richardson ticket. What I wrote then still looks good to me. Of course, it has been clear for some time that Richardson would not be at the top of the ticket. The Richardson campaign never caught fire, and Governor Richardson wisely ended his campaign. Obama-Richardson could still be a viable ticket in the West and Midwest, but will it happen?
What concerns me and what should concern a lot of Western Democrats is that the GOP may be poised to nominate a Western candidate who can reach across party lines (McCain), while the Democratic Party may be poised to nominate (again) an uncharismatic Easterner who would have difficulty reaching across party lines and who has little appeal in much of the purple West (Clinton). Hillary is a known quantity, and her negative numbers in the West will be very hard to change.
Montana 61% said they would not consider voting for her.
Recent polls in Colorado, Nevada and Arizona have found similar distaste for Clinton.
She's carrying huge negatives out here," said Floyd Ciruli, an independent Colorado pollster who said Democratic congressional candidates would have to highlight their differences with the national party to be successful next year. "It's that liberal East Coast image that is so hard to sell in the West."
One key advisor to a prominent Democratic congressional candidate, who asked not be to identified discussing tensions within the party, went even further. "It's a disaster for Western Democrats," he said. "It keeps me up at night."
Leo Brown | January 20, 2008 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Nevada Caucuses
Nevada Presidential Caucus will take place this Saturday.
For while it seemed that the country had forgotten the Nevada Caucuses. Some in the media in the fall assumed the nomination of Hillary was a foregone conclusion, ignoring the fact that no ballots had been cast. Then Iowa broke the race wide open, and New Hampshire kept it open. Suddenly Nevada matters.
This is a new role for Nevada, and predictions will be risky. Labor is important in Nevada, and a year ago John Edwards might have expected a big boost from labor, but Obama got the big union endorsement, and the race nationally looks increasingly like a two-person contest between Barack and Hillary. Hispanic voters might have been expected to give Bill Richardson a boost, but he pulled the plug on his candidacy after New Hampshire. At least one poll gives Obama a slight edge, but this has been a tough season for pollsters lately, and the margins are slim anyway.
One tempest has been an attempt by the teachers union to stop the convenience of caucus sites set up on the Las Vegas strip for the benefit of workers there. The lawsuit is seen as being promoted by the Clinton camp. Here at Western Democrat, we favor encouraging rather than suppressing the votes of workers, regardless of which candidate it benefits.
Leo Brown | January 16, 2008 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
The Republican Party's Worst Nightmare
That’s what ABC News sees in the West. Excerpts:
If Democrats' hopes are realized in 2008 and they win Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico, they pick off a total of 24 electoral votes -- more than Ohio, more than Pennsylvania.There are more interesting thoughts from ABC News on this topic, including the suggestion that Hillary Clinton might not be the right person to fulfill Democratic hopes in the Intermountain West.
That may have seemed a pipe dream a few years ago. But Democratic gains in the Inner Mountain states have party strategists drooling. In 2000, these eight states had not one Democratic governor among them. Today there are five.
If a Democratic presidential candidate can tap into what Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano have tapped into, the race would clearly not just come down to Ohio or Florida as it did in 2004 and 2000.
Leo Brown | November 6, 2007 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Chris Dodd takes a stand
Chris Dodd hails from the other end of the country (Connecticut), but he has taken a stand on telecom immunity and the constitution that shows real leadership. You may or may not agree with him (and I agree with him), but here at Western Democrat, we admire political courage and the willingness to take a stand on principle, especially a principle like defending the constitution and the rule of law.
Leo Brown | October 27, 2007 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
First-ever Spanish Language Presidential Debate
The original idea at Western Democrat was that the Democratic Party needs to look to the West for a winning national strategy. Since those dark days for Democrats in November 2004, the national picture has brightened considerably for the party. In 2006 Democrats captured the House of Representatives and the Senate (barely) and numerous state offices. 2008 could likewise see a surge of Democratic victories at all levels, though no election over a year away can be called a sure thing.
At the presidential level, the candidates of both parties may well nail down their respective nominations by the first week of February, less than half a year from now. So at Western Democrat, we hope to keep up with the on rush of political events, and there was a historic one tonight.
Tonight was the first-ever Spanish language presidential debate. This debate will not decide the 2008 election, but it is a historical marker on the highway to the future. Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, one of the debate moderators put is just that way.
If you do not pay attention to the Hispanic community, you're running the risk of losing the future.
This is particularly true in the Southwest, including, but not limited to, the swing states of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico.
The GOP field, with the exception of Senator McCain, snubbed the offer of a similar debate for Republicans. As noted here, here and here, the GOP is in danger of losing the West for a generation. That would truly be a national political realignment.
Leo Brown | September 9, 2007 | Comment on This Post (5 so far) |
The Number One Issue
Assuming there isn’t a recession next year (UBS rates the chances at 20%), and assuming we aren’t at war with Iran (recent articles in The Australian and Time suggest the chances are better than 20%), the number one issue in 2008 will be the War in Iraq.
Despite the thumping given the GOP in 2006, the margins in the Senate and the margins in the polls watched by our representatives are not yet sufficient for Congress to end the war. This may in part explain the low public approval of Congress. That could change, of course, but so far the numbers aren’t there. Maybe some blockbuster hearings in Congress will change things. Hardly anyone believes the war will be over by 2008.
All the Democratic presidential candidates want to wind down the war and reduce our troop levels, though they differ on how fast and how thoroughly they would do so. All the GOP candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, are lining up behind President Bush and his surge. Given recent polls and trend lines, this will be a huge negative for the GOP.
So I ask three questions. How will this play out in the West? Which candidate would best lead the ticket in the West? Which candidate, if elected, would best lead the country out of Iraq?
Leo Brown | August 26, 2007 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
The ultimate Western Democrat ticket
Awhile ago, this was mentioned here. (I'm extending off the good idea..thanks Leo!) Summary?
That presidential tickets are often either one of two combinations - balance or reinforcement. Kerry picked Edwards to balance him out, both regionally and personally. Clinton chose Gore to reinforce him, both regionally and issue-wise.
There is only one serious Western Democrat in the race for president and that is Bill Richardson. Now, I'm going to admit I'm a big fan of his but that isn't my point. It is that in 2008 we could have potential to deliver a knock-out blow to the entire Western GOP and paint the way truly for progressive western dominance allied with the traditional Democratic bloc (coasts and upper midwest).
The key is reinforcement. Instead of picking a easterner to balance him (if he was the nominee for that matter, IF) Bill Richardson should take Leo's advice and pick Janet Napolitano, the governor of Arizona.
You may say never! But look at this great poll that Kos pointed out today:
A new statewide survey shows that if the Senate election were held today, the Republican incumbent would be defeated by Gov. Janet Napolitano – that is, if Napolitano would choose to run for the seat. The Democrat governor cannot seek a third term.
Not surprisingly, the poll by the Behavior Research Center shows Napolitano the favorite of 78 percent of Democrats, versus 11 percent for McCain. But the governor also would pick up 20 percent of Republicans and 47 percent of independents who make up nearly 28 percent of Arizona’s registered voters.
If they went head to head, Napolitano would get 47 percent of the vote, compared to 36 percent for McCain, according to the poll.
Now, that head to head match up result is pretty damn astounding.
Think about it again. A Richardson/Napolitano ticket (even against McCain possibly) would take both New Mexico AND Arizona. That's not where it ends, either.
Napolitano is considered to be a very successful Governor, in fact she enjoy sky high approval ratings. So does Richardson here in New Mexico. That combination of two extremely popular red state (!) Democratic governors could have crossover appeal like nothing else.
Also - the Hispanic/Woman factor would provide an immense amount of change additive to the ticket itself. Contrast that against the possible GOP combinations shows a pretty clear sense of America.
Western electorate - that's putting all the Western swing states on the map (including possibly Montana and Wyoming) and maybe making Texas competitive.
If we really try and imagine a new electoral future for the Democratic Party we could do it with one swift blow.
Now, there is the ultimate Western Democratic ticket.
Landon Mascareñaz | August 22, 2007 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
New York, New York
The recent announcement by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg that he is leaving the GOP to become an independent raises the possibility that the 2008 Presidential ballot could be Clinton (D-NY) vs. Giuliani (R-NY) vs. Bloomberg (I-NY), the ultimate subway series and not exactly the choice that the readers of Western Democrat would prefer.
Recent polling shows that Mayor Bloomberg could flip a number of states without carrying any. Obama would be hurt since he and Bloomberg would split the independent vote. Romney would be hurt he and Bloomberg would split the business vote.
But what if Mayor Bloomberg, at one time a life-long Democrat, is angling for a vice-presidential spot on the Democratic ticket? The Vice Presidency is a better stepping stone to the Presidency than a third-party candidacy.
There are constitutional problems (though not technically a prohibition) with a Clinton-Bloomberg ticket. Electors cannot vote for both a President and a Vice President from the same state. Richardson-Bloomberg would be an interesting pairing: Southwest and Northeast, Catholic and Jewish, governor and mayor, a candidate struggling to raise first-tier cash and a candidate with no such worries. Edwards-Bloomberg would highlight the three Americas: the poor, the rich, and the super-rich. But it is Obama-Bloomberg that could be the most interesting because it would reinforce Obama’s appeal to independents. Obama is a Westerner if you count his birth in Hawaii, but more to the point, there is a definite spirit of independence in the West that should not be underestimated.
At this point, this is all speculation, but it is speculation that reminds us that a lot can happen between now and Election Day 2008 to upset the best laid plans of any candidate.
Leo Brown | July 11, 2007 | Comment on This Post (3 so far) |
The Continued Rise of the Southwest
America’s population is making a diagonal shift from the Northeast to the Southwest. Five of the nation’s largest cities are in the Southwest: Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, and San Jose. Phoenix is now that nation’s fifth largest city, displacing Philadelphia, now at number six. Mesa and Fresno are now bigger than Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Buffalo. Seven of the ten largest American cities lie within 500 miles of the Mexican border. In 1910, in contrast, the ten largest American cities were all within 500 miles of the Canadian border.
What this means to the Democratic Party is that the Northeast and Midwest aren’t a sufficient base by themselves for the future of the party. With the GOP dominating the once solidly Democratic South, Democrats must look Southwest for growth and electoral majorities. Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico have a combined 29 votes in the Electoral College and a corresponding number of seats in the Senate and House of Representatives. Moreover, the 2010 Census will undoubtedly raise that number beyond the current 29. Meanwhile, neighboring blue California’s population will continue to grow, reaching perhaps 60 million by 2050 with a Hispanic majority possible by 2042.
Newsweek is already predicting that the 2008 Presidential race will be decided in the Southwest. Their analysis:
The rise of the Swing-State Southwest (and the power of the Latino voters in it) is a function of timing, geography, demographics—and the Electoral College....The Southwest's ascendancy is linked to one key demographic: its vast, rapidly growing—but still politically unsettled—Hispanic vote….Generally speaking, [Hispanics are] culturally traditional, religiously devout and open to conservative appeals from the GOP. Economic populists, all too familiar with the trials of race-based discrimination, they feel an emotional bond with Democrats, too….In 2006 the Hispanic vote that went to the GOP dropped precipitously, to 30 percent. The war in Iraq was one reason, analysts say, but the main one was the war over immigration.
Given the mean-spiritedness of the recent immigration debate, the trend away from the GOP is likely to continue and even accelerate, strengthening the future Democratic base in the Southwest.
Leo Brown | July 11, 2007 | Comment on This Post (3 so far) |
Well, I think a Dem could win Montana (and maybe the rest of the West) in 2008
Matt points to some interesting poll data that shows strong showings for a couple of Democratic candidates in Montana (Obama and Richardson). But, he points out that he doesn't think a Democrat could win Montana's electoral votes, or that if one does it won't matter:
I don't believe that the Democratic nominee will win Montana's electoral votes in 2008. Here's a caveat for that disclaimer: If the Democratic nominee does win Montana's electoral votes in 2008, it will be part of an electoral rout reminiscent of Johnson v. Goldwater and the electoral votes will be of little consequence.
Later, he sort of points to the last time a Democratic candidate won in Montana:
If Bloomberg jumps in and drops $1 billion on his own campaign for President, Montana might be in play and it might matter.
Clinton won Montana in 1992 in a 37/35/26 split with Bush Sr. and Ross Perot. A strong independent candidacy, plus choosing the wrong Republic candidate (let's say Newt or Mitt Romney?) would throw Montana into the Dem side of things.
Its worth noting that with Perot's help in 1992, Clinton also won New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado. He also came within two points of winning Arizona, five points of Wyoming, but finished third behind Perot in Utah.
Emmett O'Connell | July 4, 2007 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
New Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll
A new Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll is out. Conclusions parallel the Zogby results in the post below.
Obama, an Illinois senator, is clearly the strongest general-election candidate. He is the only Democrat who beats all three major Republican contenders: Giuliani, McCain and Romney. Clinton runs behind all three Republican contenders in head-to-head match-ups.Obama also does better than any other Democrat among independent voters who will vote in the Democratic primary, who often are central to electoral success. Moreover, he has more appeal with some Republican voters. For example, 15 percent of Republicans say they would choose Obama in a head-to-head match- up against Giuliani....Just 3 percent of Republican respondents say they would pick Clinton in a similar contest.
The poll shows other areas of strength for Obama. A majority of Democrats say they favor ``a candidate who can bridge partisan divides'' -- a central theme of his campaign -- over a candidate ``with long experience in government and policy making,'' a cornerstone of Clinton's self-presentation. Independents voting in the Democratic primary say they favor unity over experience by more than 2-to-1.
A thesis of this site has always been that carrying the West or what we can now call the “purple West” is key to an electoral realignment. Independent votes are key to that, and carrying a significant number of Republican votes wouldn’t hurt either.
Leo Brown | June 12, 2007 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Presidential Polling
It’s still early in the 2008 campaign, but the election is only a year and a half away and the nominations could be wrapped up in half that time…or maybe not.
We have on the Democratic side, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards in the top tier, with Richardson trying to move up and Gore still on the sidelines, but potentially formidable.
On the Republican side, Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and now Fred Thompson are in the top tier. Romney would be, I think, a formidable candidate in the West, though the numbers below show considerable weakness nationally. Ron Paul is interesting, but he hasn’t a snowball’s chance.
So far, no one in either party has closed the deal with the voters. Hillary is leading in the national polls among Democrats, but I don't see her doing well in the West in the general election.
A recent Zogby poll shows Barack beating all the leading GOP candidates:
48% Barack Obama (D) 42% Rudy Giuliani (R)
46% Barack Obama (D) 43% John McCain (R)
52% Barack Obama (D) 35% Mitt Romney (R)
52% Barack Obama (D) 35% Fred Thompson (R)
But Hillary loses to Giuliani and McCain.
48% Rudy Giuliani (R) 43% Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)
47% John McCain (R) 43% Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)
48% Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) 40% Mitt Romney (R)
48% Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) 41% Fred Thompson (R)
As does Edwards
47% Rudy Giuliani (R) 43% John Edwards (D)
46% John McCain (R) 41% John Edwards (D)
50% John Edwards (D) 36% Mitt Romney (R)
48% John Edwards (D) 40% Fred Thompson (R)
And Richardson only beats Romney.
50% Rudy Giuliani (R) 35% Bill Richardson (D)
52% John McCain (R) 31% Bill Richardson (D)
40% Bill Richardson (D) 37% Mitt Romney (R)
40% Fred Thompson (R) 39% Bill Richardson (D)
Zogby comments:
“What we are seeing here is a continued resurgence of the moderates and the independents, building on the momentum and the key role they played in last year’s congressional midterm elections...Our polling shows Obama is seen as the most charismatic candidate and is also one of the top choices to reach across the political divide in our country to bring Americans back together. This is a John Kennedy–like combination of characteristics, and moderates and independents appear to be recognizing that.”
Who do you think can win the West?
Leo Brown | June 9, 2007 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
GOP losing support in Utah (the Romney effect)
Jonathan Singer over at MyDD notes that in Utah, the Republican dominance (once over 50 percent in voter identification) is beginning to show some cracks. Maybe Utah Republicans are beginning to realize that all those questions about Mitt Romney's religion are coming from a very real place in Republican culture.
The most dominant religion in the South and the most dominant social movement in modern Republicanism can hardly bring itself to respect Mormons.
I'd be a little turned off too if I heard about the damaging effects my religion is having on a front running presidential candidate.
It should be noted that no one questioned whether anyone in the Democratic Party would accept a Mormon leader in the Senate.
Religion matters in the Republican Party because it matters what religion you belong to. In the Democratic Party, religion doesn't matter in the sense that your religion is between you, God, and your community of faith and shouldn't be a political matter.
Emmett O'Connell | April 12, 2007 | Comment on This Post (5 so far) |
Is there a way to save the West's influence?
How do you force Presidential candidates to talk about Western issues when there will be no Western Primary? Daniel Kemmis and Bob Brown chart a path in a recent column that admits things haven't been going so well for the West and Democratic Presidential politics.
The first big event out West, the Reno forum a week or so after the Winter DNC meeting saw no candidates addressing Western issues. With another candidate forum coming up in August, dumping Fox News might have been the smartest thing in order to force a regional focus on the campaigns:
Several Western state Democratic parties have invited the candidates to Reno in August, in a laudable effort to focus on Western issues. Now that the Nevada Democrats have dumped FOX News, with its national focus, as a co-sponsor of the August debate, there may be an even better opportunity to highlight regional issues.How could that work? Western Democrats were planning a “Western Roundup” in Reno in conjunction with the August debate. They should go ahead with those plans to bring Democrats together from all over the region, and encourage the Democratic presidential candidates to focus on Western issues. Western Republicans could do the same in one of the states where they have scheduled an early primary or caucus.
Big regional gatherings like this would be the equivalent of national labor or manufacturer conventions, which candidates do attend, and where they expect to address the issues of greatest concern to the audience.
Emmett O'Connell | April 10, 2007 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Was Nevada a big waste of time?
It seems like every other state in the union is pulling all of the oxygen out of the room with an all-go-at-it February 5 primary.
The old idea of a Western Primary is as dead as dead gets, but we still have Nevada, right? Well, the Las Vegas Sun is pointing out that still very little attention is being paid to Nevada.
Well seriously, why bother? The game will be over by February 6, why bother learning a whole new game to win a handful of delegates two weeks earlier? How to win New Hampshire and Iowa are well laid out, so why not focus there for early momentum?
Emmett O'Connell | April 9, 2007 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Field Poll
The latest Field Poll is out for the Democratic Presidential Primary in California.
The leaders are Clinton (41%), Obama (28%), and Edwards (13%), but adding Al Gore to the mix would put him in second place at 25% and drop Clinton to 31%. Bill Richardson is in fourth place in single digits. Clinton runs strongly among Latino voters, support that Richardson could erode if and when his campaign gains traction. Clinton has the highest reported unfavorables (19%), Edwards the lowest (6%). The California primary is still ten months off, so a lot can happen to change these numbers.
Leo Brown | April 3, 2007 | Comment on This Post (3 so far) |
Nevada and Fox Update
The Nevada Democratic Party has ended its strange partnership with Fox News to host a candidate’s debate. PTV declined a live feed for a webcast. John Edwards opted out. Then Bill Richardson, too. Recent jokes by Roger Ailes, President of Fox News, about Barack Obama sealed Fox’s well-deserved fate.
Leo Brown | March 10, 2007 | Comment on This Post (4 so far) |
Could Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman run for President?
The New York Times has an amusing story about Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman - and his love of a gin martini, as expressed in a recent class he taught at a community college:
For the record, the mayor of Las Vegas, Oscar B. Goodman, likes his martinis made with a big cup of gin, on the rocks and a couple of garlic-stuffed olives. Vermouth need not apply, and don’t even talk to him about vodka.That, in sum, was the lesson to be learned Tuesday night in a community college class, “How to make a martini with the mayor."
The article, which includes the exact specifications for his martini, also hints at a well-traveled Vegas rumor: Oscar Goodman may be considering running for President - as a favorite-son candidate:
Still, Mr. Goodman’s popularity and Nevada’s suddenly early presidential caucus (January 2008) has even led to some semi-serious talk in Las Vegas that the mayor might be a candidate for higher office, something he was quizzed about by his students on Tuesday.
That's a trick that hasn't been tried in decades. How would it work? Basically, he'd run for president, scoop up all the Nevada delegates, and then hold them out as a prize for any presidential candidate that earns his endorsement. Presumably, that would come with some strings attached.
In 1984, former Congressman Mo Udall ran as a favorite son in the Arizona primary. In 1988, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan considered running as a favorite son in the New York primary.
Kari Chisholm | March 5, 2007 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Regional Poll: In the West, Hillary Lags
Time Magazine has a new national presidential poll out that includes regional breakdowns. Now, I'm a huge skeptic when it comes to national polls conducted this early in a race, but there's some interesting tidbits here.
While Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama 36-24% nationally, she soars in the Northeast (42-20) and the South (42-19). But she lags in the Midwest (down 29-31) and the West (29-29). That Midwest result isn't a surprise - given the strength of Obama in Illinois - but in the West?
I wonder why Obama does well in the West. Of course, it may be very simple: If he's perceived as a straight-talking, truth-telling kinda guy... well, that's the Western style. We'll see if it holds up.
The poll includes Al Gore, who polls nationally at 13%. John Edwards comes in at 11%, but only 2% in the Northeast - and 15% in the Midwest, 12% in the South, and 11% in the West. Bill Richardson is fifth at 3%, with a slightly higher 4% in the West.
On the Republican side, it's Giuliani (38%), McCain (24%), Gingrich (12%), and Romney (7%). No surprise - McCain and Romney both perform slightly better in the West (McCain 27%, Romney 11%)
(Hat tip to Low on the Hog.)
Kari Chisholm | March 1, 2007 | Comment on This Post (4 so far) |