Presidential Politics
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 (0 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 (0 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) |
The Eyes and Hats of Texas
A photo and comment in the Texas Observer caught my eye:
that man looks damn good in a cowboy hat!
While a good photo alone isn’t enough to get the nomination or the presidency, a bad photo can really hurt, as Michael Dukakis well knows. That goes for TV images as well. Walter Mondale put it this way after his defeat.
I think you know I have never really warmed up to television and television has never warmed up to me.Barack Obama, the man who looked good with the hat in the Texas Observer photo, drew a crowd of ten to twenty thousand in a light drizzle in Austin. Video here.
A recent poll shows Obama winning against Giuliani, McCain, and Romney. The same polls show Clinton and Edwards losing to Giuliani or McCain, though both would beat Romney. A lot can happen between now and when the primaries start, but Obama is looking good in more ways than one. Imagine Obama carrying Texas. It would be really hard for the GOP to put together 270 electoral votes without Texas. Obama-Richardson just might be able to carry Texas.
Leo Brown | February 28, 2007 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
FOX would reach more in Nevada?
Dullard Marsh points to a pretty good explanation on the entire FOX v. Nevada v. Democrats thing. From the Washoe County Democratic chair:
By broadcasting on FOX, we hope to reach an audience that might not be exposed to our candidates and their points of view. I have a great deal of confidence in the quality of our candidates and I think they will come across intelligent, full of ideas and as people looking out for the best for this country and the people, not the political monsters portrayed by the right wing media. It will not convince the 30% die-hards that still support Bush. There are plenty of people that watch FOX and may not even realize how biased it is. It is worth a try to reach out to these people. It is not the only campaign event, but it is significant.Instead of worrying about an opportunity for FOX, we can look at it as an opportunity for Democrats. The decision has been made and there are legitimate positions on both sides. The worst result would be if we canceled the deal, I don't think I need to elaborate on the coverage that would have.
Given that Nevada just elected an incredibly damaged Republican for governor over a very competent Democratic candidate, I think there is some outreach to be done there.
Emmett O'Connell | February 28, 2007 | Comment on This Post (10 so far) |
Just Nuts
The Nevada Democratic Party has partnered with Fox News to host the August 2007 Democratic Debate in Reno.
If you follow Fox News, you don’t need me to tell you this is just crazy. For links detailing why this is outrageous click here or here.
To take action, go here or here.
Leo Brown | February 22, 2007 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Barack Obama and the West
Barack Obama made his official announcement for the presidency today in Abraham Lincoln’s Springfield, Illinois. (Text here). Many in the crowd must have thought of Lincoln, but also of Martin Luther King and the youthful John F. Kennedy. I remember seeing JFK in a motorcade in Illinois in the campaign of 1960. That was a year before Barack was born.
Another Chicagoan’s words come to mind when thinking about the meteoric rise of Barack Obama, the words of Daniel Burnham, the famous architect:
Make no small plans. They have no magic to stir humanity’s blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical plan once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistency. Remember that our sons and daughters are going to do things that will stagger us. Let your watchword be order and your beacon, beauty. Think big.
Barack is not making small plans, and he has the magic.
And how will Barack play out in the West? Barack Obama does not fit the stereotype of an Easterner, an elitist, or a member of the establishment; whatever you may conceive those things to be. He doesn’t fit any stereotypes at all. But if I had to describe his style, the words that come to mind are from the poet Genevieve Taggard: natural, American, sweet and easy.
Above all, Barack is a candidate who can transcend boundaries. He can transcend race and party and region. He is not running as a man of color, or as a liberal Democrat, or as a blue-state Senator from the Midwest. He is running as a candidate for Americans of all races, parties, and regions. And that will appeal to a lot of Western Democrats.
Leo Brown | February 10, 2007 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Gravel & Richardson: On the move
Over at MyDD, Jerome Armstrong is blogging the DNC winter meeting. Here's what he has to say about the two Western Democrats in the presidential race:
Bill Richardson: "Stay lose, we gotta year to go", says Richardson regarding his stand in the polls. Richardson's intro is "lean on me" by Bill Withers [the hip hop remix], and closes with some cha-cha music. He looks great-- Richardson might be getting tips from Huckabee. He is one of two that I believe can break out of the second tier. Richardson has a big opening in Nevada, if he is able to mobilize Latino voters to show up. If he does, in a week when it's the only contest and there's not a competing Republican contest for media attention, he's gonna pop onto the radar in a very big way. Then, maybe Florida? Don't count out union support for Richardson either, as he's got a record in New Mexico that's very union-friendly. Teachers too, Richardson came with NM at 47th in pay and is now in the 20's-- AFT. NM's enacted equality legislation, enacted the Kyoto standards, it's impressive. I really like Governor's as Presidential candidates, they have accomplishments they can point to, and Richardson has foreign experience as well. He was very well recieved by this audience, with multiple standing ovations, and Richardson probably moved up a few nothes in their views. Richardson believes in a "reconciliation" effort in Iraq, and calls for a deadline by the end of this year for the US to be out of Iraq.Mike Gravel: Gravel will be the voice of the pissed-off Democrats, saying about the Oct 2002 vote, "political calculations trumped morality" and "anyone who voted for the war... is not qualified to hold the office of the Presidency." In short, Gravel will not give Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Clinton any breathing room. As a Senator, he says, "I spoke truth to power... and as a result Nixon sued me." Gravel is coming back from being on the Senate floor during the Vietnam war, and as he stood up then to end the war,he now will be the thorn in the side of those "that did nothing" when they were in office, as a Democratic majority in the Senate, and allowed it to happen. "And we all know, 'vital interest' is a code word for oil." With Gravel in the race, there's really no need for the vanity candidacy of Kucinich. Gravel is an anti-war candidate that speaks well and carries a stick. "Power to the People" is the song and "Let the People Decide" the slogan of Gravel.
Kari Chisholm | February 4, 2007 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
The Electoral Votes of the West
From 1952 to 1988 the GOP could count on the electoral votes of the West, with the exception of the Goldwater debacle. Not counting LBJ’s landslide, the best the Democratic Party did in the West was 21 electoral votes for over three decades. Return with us now to those dismal days of yesteryear for Democratic presidential candidates looking for votes in the West.
1952 and 1956: Eisenhower sweeps, zero electoral votes for Democrats in the West
1960: JFK comes close in California, but takes only Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico (10 electoral votes) in the West, though he still wins nationally.
1964: Johnson takes all but Goldwater’s Arizona
1968: Humphrey takes only Hawaii and Washington (13 electoral votes) in the West
1972: Nixon takes the entire West.
1976: Ford wins all but Hawaii (4 electoral votes), which votes for Carter, who in turn wins by winning almost all the South
1980: Reagan sweeps all but Hawaii (4 electoral votes), which votes for Carter
1984: Reagan takes it all in the West
1988: Bush wins all but Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington (21 electoral votes), which vote for Dukakis
For all those years zero was the most common electoral vote outcome in the West for Democrats, with four the next most common.
Since then the majority of the electoral vote in the West has gone into the Democratic column
1992: 96 Electoral votes (Clinton beats Bush)
1996: 93 Electoral votes (Clinton beats Dole)
2000: 81 Electoral votes (Bush beats Gore)
2004: 77 Electoral votes (Bush beats Kerry)
What has changed is that the coastal states of California, Oregon, and Washington have joined Hawaii in the Democratic column on a consistent basis, with California being the big prize. Nevada and New Mexico and to a lesser extent, Colorado, Arizona, and Montana have become swing states. Only Alaska, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming have remained firmly in the GOP column.
No party has a lock on the West. A bad candidate can still lose all the West, and a great candidate can win all or almost all the West for one party or the other. But based on the last four election cycles, the electoral votes in the West break down as 77 Democratic, 15 Republican, and 32 Swing. Seventy-seven electoral votes may not be enough without the once Democratic South or the swing states of the Midwest, as John Kerry proved, but if a Democratic candidate can win 109 electoral votes by winning the Pacific Coast states and Intermountain swing states, that is 40% of the 270 needed to win right there.
Leo Brown | February 3, 2007 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Why Nevada SHOULD matter
Chris Bowers over at MyDD may be right that given the schedule and geography, Nevada may end up being another 1996 Delaware; an early state in the primary system that actually matters very little.
But, Nevada should matter.
First, its a Western State. Over the past six years or so, Western States have shown to be very interesting in how they choose Democrats they like. Think Jon Tester and the Salazar brothers.
Second, Nevada is the perennial "fastest growing state." That isn't so important,but in the same time, organized workers have grown in importance. In the same era of booming population and economy, the percentage of unionized workers in Nevada has also grown.
Actually, out Nevada, New Hampshire and Iowa, Nevada has the largest percentage of union workers (14.8 percent) it is also the only one that is growing union members. Las Vegas (where most of the Democrats in Nevada live), despite being dominated by the service industry, is also one of the most heavily union towns in the country.
Unions in Nevada work and they work in a region dominated by the service industry.
From the BBC:
In a country where 8% of private sector workers are in a union, around 70% of restaurant and hotel workers in Las Vegas work on a union contract, and the share is more than 90% on the all-important Strip....
"There's this myth that manufacturing jobs were always great jobs," said D Taylor, Secretary-Treasurer of the local 226.
"But before they were unionized, they were just like a lot of service sector jobs today: crummy jobs with high turnover and bad morale.
"We have to do the same thing here that we did in manufacturing. These service sector jobs have to become the new middle class jobs here in America - because they can't move out casinos to Malaysia."
And Prospect.org:
Something is right with this picture, so right that in an America where Wal-Mart and a thousand other unnatural shocks drive working-class living standards downward, we can scarcely account for it. The picture is incomprehensible unless you understand the role that a union -- Culinary Workers Local 226, the Las Vegas local of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union (HERE) -- has played in the lives of its 48,000 members, their families and the city as a whole.Local 226 is probably the largest -- and surely the most remarkable -- local union in the United States. While most unions have been shrinking or struggling to hold their own over the past several decades, and while hotel union membership has declined from 16 percent of the hotel workforce in 1983 to 12 percent in 2000, Local 226 has grown by 30,000 members since its low point in 1988. It has done that by organizing virtually every hotel on the Vegas Strip, so that roughly 90 percent of the jobs in the city's major hotels are unionized. Considering that Nevada is a right-to-work state where employees can work in unionized workplaces without joining the union, this is a breathtaking achievement.
It won't be the lost suburbanite cruising cable that candidates will have to reach in Nevada but rather tens of thousands of unionized service industry workers, who are the pioneers of the new union economy in America.
These new unions, most notably (and as mentioned above) the Culinary Workers Union Local 226, will have major power in how these caucuses actually happen. Caucuses are different from primaries in that people actually have to meet for a few hours to participate. This means that organizes groups, like unions, can show extra power in the caucus process.