The Big Strategy
Best in the West, Again
Survey USA confirms what we said earlier. Barack Obama is the still the best in the West.
In a match up with John McCain, he carries California, Colorado, Hawaii, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington in the West and 280 electoral votes overall. This after he had the kitchen sink thrown at him.
Hillary, by contrast, would only carry California, Hawaii, and New Mexico in the West and 276 electoral votes overall.
Polls can change, but the pattern is still strong. Look West, Democrats.
Leo Brown | March 6, 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) |
Sirota Dispels the Common Stereotypes of the West
David Sirota hits it right on the head in his latest syndicated column. Go give it a read.
The fairy tales are endless. Congressional debates imply that the West's most precious resources are oil and gas. But to many locals, the area's most valuable commodity is water.
Commentators have claimed Bill Clinton's 1992 victory in four Western states is not only proof of his political genius, but also of the region's devotion to Clintonism--an ideology that sold out the middle class with initiatives like NAFTA. Somehow, everyone forgets that Ross Perot used a populist indictment of both parties' corporate sycophancy to take 1.4 million Western votes from George H. W. Bush.
But perhaps the biggest misconception is the belief that the West is a strange, Siberia-like realm--square-state "flyover" country separate from the rest of America.
As David says, the candidate who show the best understanding of the West, its culture and its issues, will be the one who does the best on February 5.
kencamp | February 1, 2008 | Comment on This Post (0 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) |
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) |
Seeing the World Series through Western Democratic eyes
There are some parallels between the Rockies/Red Sox series
Of course, the first is team from the West vs. team from the upper Northeast. Outside of the actual Yankees, there is no more of a yankee team that the Red Sox. And, there is no more team from the interior West than the Rockies. Its just geography.
The Rockies aren't as religious as you think they are. Just as the western conservatism is more libertarian than the southern sort, the Rockies aren't as religious as people would like to think. The Independent of the UK wrote up a piece called "Batting for Jesus," profiling these supposed religious centered team, but the Denver Post knocked it down a bit:
Character, not religion, is the critical factor in the Rockies' chemistry, according to the players. That explains why so many players reacted negatively to the portrayal of their clubhouse in a USA Today cover story in Wednesday's editions that stressed the importance of Christianity."It was just bad. I am not happy at all. Some of the best teammates I have ever had are the furthest thing from Christian," pitcher Jason Jennings said. "You don't have to be a Christian to have good character. They can be separate. It was misleading."
Todd Helton and Jennings were quoted supporting the article's premise regarding religion's role in the clubhouse. But both said they never were asked about religion, and were questioned only in general terms about the clubhouse environment.
"I wouldn't say it was accurate. (The writer) asked me about the guys in here and I said it's a good group. We work hard and get along well," Helton said.
For the Rockies, its all about the farm team. For the Red Sox, by and large, its about big name free agents. This may not be totally true, but its a nice story. This is how the Democrats have been winning in the west, starting small and the allowing the local victories translate into larger ones. For example, lost in the story of Brian Schweitzer being elected in Montana was the story that Democrats control the state Senate and are within one vote of the house.
Emmett O'Connell | October 25, 2007 | Comment on This Post (0 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 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) |
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) |
Is the GOP losing the West?
The GOP is losing its hold on the rural vote according to a poll reported by NPR.
A new national poll indicates rural Americans are no longer reliably Republican, and the Bush administration's conduct of the war in Iraq seems mainly to blame."I think there are two big headlines out of this poll," says Anna Greenberg of the Democratic polling firm of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. "The first is 'Republican Collapse in Rural Areas.' And the second is 'Rural is the Battleground in 2008."
But Iraq is not the GOP’s only problem.
Nick Kristoff of the New York Times zeros in on the Southwest and how the nativist wing of the GOP is alienating both Hispanics and moderates on immigration.
…the closer you get to the border, the more voters back politicians who are looking for middle ground — and punish those who follow the rant-for-ratings route.
He sees Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico and their combined 29 electoral votes (more than Florida’s 27 or Ohio’s 20) as potentially the biggest battleground in next year’s presidential race. And he notes that Hispanics are the fastest growing part of the electorate and make up 28% of the population in Arizona, 24% in Nevada, 20% in Colorado, and 43% in New Mexico.
Kristoff cites Democratic congressional gains in Colorado and Arizona in 2004 and 2006 as evidence that Democrats can assemble a new Western majority and quotes David Waid, Chairman of Arizona’s Democratic Party:
“Arizona is in play like never before…and the Republicans are literally handing it to us.”
Republican strategist Clint Bolick sees the same trends.
Hispanic support for Republican candidates plummeted by 10 points, to 30 percent from 40 percent, between the 2004 presidential election to the 2006 congressional election debacle, costing the GOP as many as four congressional seats. In next year's presidential election, Hispanic votes could make the difference in four Western states, including Arizona. If Republicans continue chasing Hispanic voters away, they can kiss their national electoral prospects goodbye.Here at Western Democrat, we have always believed that the future of the Democratic Party lies in the West. The GOP is doing their part to hasten that future.
Leo Brown | June 22, 2007 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
What elected Tester? (how to win in the West)
Jay over at 4&20 blackbirds points to a Hill article that gets into the ongoing debate (which we all for sure wish would stop) of who can really take credit for the Democratic win in the Senate, especially for Tester winning in Montana.
Of course, Sen. Schumer of New York is saying that it was the great database they helped build, but Jay has other thoughts:
Here’s what I know. I wouldn’t have joined the Missoula Democrats, volunteered for Tester, or started blogging without Dean’s infrastructure.The voter lists were nice… but about a gazillion organizations had similar lists. How many of you Democratic-leaning Montana voters received phone calls this election, raise your hands! And how many of you received like a gajillion phone calls?
...
Jon won that race. Montanans won that race. Thanks for all the money, though.
There's something to be said for DC based power types taking too much credit for wins in the West. Conrad Burns would still be a Senator had not Tester decided to run (at least I'm convinced of that). Tester was the right guy at the right time, and no amount of really great data would have put a bad candidate over the top.
If anyone is going to take credit, the organization that put the race in the well trained hands of Montanan Democrats deserves some credit. But, Montanans deserve the most.
Emmett O'Connell | May 12, 2007 | Comment on This Post (4 so far) |
The West can find its own solutions, Democrats can lead
The Idaho Statesman had an interesting oped earlier last week about a piece of environmental legislation written by easterners that has a big impact on Idaho:
As Westerners, we can fuss and foam and fret about an out-of-the-region vision of Big Wilderness; the bill's lead sponsors are Reps. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Christopher Shays, R-Conn. But it isn't enough just to say no. It's more important, and more persuasive, to unite and say yes to workable, consensus-based wilderness bills developed close to home....
These lands are the region's backyard; that's why a 23-million-acre "solution" makes many Westerners suspicious and angry. But these lands belong to all Americans; that's why these kind of big-score bills resurface every congressional session. Westerners should view the latest version of this bills not as a threat, but instead as a call to local action.
Its obvious to see why Western Republicans can easily paint Democrats as the big evil. They're the ones who are legislating a way of life from back east, with little or no input from the people who actually live out west. But, the paper also points out a positive solution to the problem, a Western answer to intrusive eastern legislating.
Great idea, but the problem is that Idaho's uninfluential and close-minded congressional delegation is unlikely to come up with solution for the West, rather than just saying "No."
Emmett O'Connell | April 29, 2007 | Comment on This Post (0 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) |
California spreading the Blue into the West
This is an interesting video from Peter Leyden of the New Politics Institute. While I cringed every time he said "becoming more like California," at least in migration numbers he has a point.
This hasn't been something we've talked about, but the more migration into urban areas of the West, the better chances Democrats have there, to put it frankly. Between 2000 and 2004, a period when Democrats won more than a few elections in the West, California lost nearly half a million people, most of those going to other places in th West.
Emmett O'Connell | March 15, 2007 | Comment on This Post (6 so far) |
Post party politics and the West
Gary Trauner, who gave the Rep. Barbra Cuban a run for her money in Wyoming, has a great piece up at New West. It answers the question of why the interior West is running purple all of a sudden, why Democrats are doing so well in a Republican region.
Well, it was never a Republican region to begin with. Not a Democratic one either, its a region without partisan attachments:
I happened to knock on the door of a leader of her local Republican Party – let’s call her Mrs. Lincoln (not her real name, but appropriate). She invited me in to her home, and over the next twenty minutes we had one of the more interesting discussions of my entire campaign. We agreed that partisanship is not inherently bad – it can allow people of like-mind, with similar philosophies, to band together for support and to promote their views. However, much to my amazement, Mrs. Lincoln decried the blind and bitter partisanship she saw nationally, and even locally, in her own party. To illustrate her point, she asked if I thought Republicans were inherently stronger on national security. As you might imagine, I did not. She then asked (rhetorically, I hope) if I changed parties tomorrow, would I be any stronger on national security as a Republican than as a Democrat. The absurdity of it all was immediately clear....
This has real consequences for those of us in the West who are looking to government to act as a true partner in dealing with difficult, emotional and seemingly intractable issues: health care, energy development, or balancing growth with our natural wonders. Regionally, we are moving to pragmatic leaders who value substance over slogan, people over party. Leaders like Dave Freudenthal in Wyoming, Brian Schweitzer in Montana and, yes, even Arnold Schwarzenegger in California (okay, at least in his second term). These leaders are not about personal attacks or cheap slogans like “Cut and run,” “stay the course,” or “socialized medicine.” They are more interested in looking for serious solutions to complex issues.
While its worth pointing out that polling numbers don't point to higher numbers of self identified independents in Western States, that doesn't necessarily make Trauner wrong. If a Democratic governor of Wyoming can poll higher with Republicans (78 percent) than he does across the board (77 percent) than there is something to be said about party labels mattering a lot less than performance.
Emmett O'Connell | March 12, 2007 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Re: Whistling Past Dixie May Be Whistling Past the Graveyard
Alan Abramowitz wrote in the Emerging Democratic Majority over the weekend that the premise in Whistling Past Dixie, is essentially off base. Abramowitz points out that since 1984, the better a Democratic candidate does in the South, the better they do in battle ground states:
The better the Democratic (or Republican) candidate does in the South in 2008, the better that candidate will do in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Colorado that are critical to winning the presidency. That is because southern voters respond in the same way to the candidates and issues as voters in the rest of the country.
This seems contrary to the congressional results last fall, where the South reelected an almost full slate of Republicans, and the West, Midwest and Northeast dumped practically every Republican in a swing district they could find.
But Abramowitz uses statistics to prove his point, and not being a statistician but rather a statistician's son, I'm not excited about trying to refute him on his numbers. But, I'll give it a try.
He uses two states, North Carolina and Georgia as representative of the entire South. I would have also included either Alabama or Mississippi as a core deep South state.
He also only included three other states, Colorado, Pennsylvania and Ohio as the swing states.
And, the opposite would also seem to be true from Abromowitz's argument, that the better a presidential candidate does in these swing states, the better chance their going to have winning the South.
Or, even better, the better a candidate does in a swing Western state like Colorado, the better chance they have at winning pretty much everywhere, except Georgia. Take a look at his chart, the closer the number is to 1, the better the Democratic candidate who did well in the first state did in the other states.
So for a candidate who does well in Georgia, the numbers are North Carolina .93, Ohio .85, Pennsylvania .92, Colorado .733.
And for Colorado: North Carolina .93 (the same), Ohio .89 (higher), Pennsylvania .90 (just a bit lower) and of course Colorado .733 (the same obviously and pretty low).
What he actually ends up proving is that again, the West is not the South. A candidate doing well in Southern states does just as well as a candidate who does well in a Western one. And, that politics in Georgia are somewhat antithetical to the politics in Colorado.
His example wouldn't work very well for our basic thesis on this site, that a Democrat coming from the West, actually running from the West, would have a better chance than the typical Democrats we've seen since 1984. Since then, no one has centered a campaign on winning the West. They've been mostly bi-coastal with trying to win as much of the South and Midwest to get over the top.
I think Abromowitz's stats actually prove Schaller's point, that coming from the West and winning as much as the midwest and the two coasts as possible would be a winning strategy. What works in the West works in Ohio.
Emmett O'Connell | February 12, 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.
Emmett O'Connell | January 31, 2007 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Colorado thinking of joining the Western Primary
California and Illinois (and Barack Obama for that matter) be damned, Colorado is thinking of joining the Western Primary. Dan Slater of the Colorado party is in DC for the winter DNC meeting and gives us this update:
With the exception of four states (IA, NV, NH, and SC), the DNC’s rules do not allow any states to hold their primaries or caucuses before February 5. However, there is a concentrated effort to hold the contest in several Western states on that day — meaning a lot more attention by the candidates to those states. The State Party officers have been in discussions for a while about whether to work with the Legislature to move our caucus up to Feb. 5, joining the other Western states that are doing so. We met with academics, we talked with legislators and other political leaders, and we asked for the input of the county chairs that are the linchpin to the caucus process.The response was overwhelming. As reported in the Rocky this morning, the Party is now working with the Legislature to make the change from a March caucus to a February 5 caucus. In response to some concerns heard in our process, we’re asking that the move from March to February only take place in Presidential years.
Emmett O'Connell | January 31, 2007 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Joe Klein visits the West
One of the weird things about the Western Democrat... uh... thing... is that there isn't a "platform" per se. You don't have Sen. Jon Tester, former Gov. John Kitzhaber, and Gov. Bill Ritter all agreeing on one set of ideas. But, yet in some way, they represent their constituents well and they're all Western Dems.
Joe Klein covers this particular phenomena early in his piece on Western Dems in Time:
I asked Barbara O'Brien, the candidate for Lieutenant Governor, about the rampant individuality in the room, and she said, "I doubt you'd find a Democratic ticket like us anywhere else in the country. Bill [Ritter] is pro-life, and I'm not even a politician. I ran a children's advocacy group and took positions that upset Democrats in the past--like, I testified in favor of a limited, targeted school-voucher program. But that's the way it is out here in the West. People like their politicians independent."
Even later in the article, where he tries to back into a "a distinct Rocky Mountain Democratic agenda," that covers energy issues, pragmatism, and fiscal responsibility, he quickly follows up with "given the traditional Western aversion to lockstep conformity, none of the above are hard-and-fast rules."
Yes, the West isn't all one place or all one political region that has a 15 point plan for Democratic dominance. Its a bit deeper than that.
Other than the notes on style, there was one thing that struck me about Kleins article that we don't write enough about here. The meritocracy that the West is. Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper noting that "no one cares who your grandparents are" (unless you're a Udall of course) points to a crisper political culture here than back there. That if you're good, Democrats will support you. And, no matter who you are, who you're married to, if you suck, well you suck.
Emmett O'Connell | January 25, 2007 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Obama and Illinois screwing the Western Primary?
With Montana and Wyoming thinking about moving their primaries up to February 5, 2008 (joining Arizona, New Mexico and Utah) there is a real chance of an Western Primary. We need enough Western States to vote on February 5 to make the day meaningful, in the same way that the Super Tuesday Southern primary made the South a force in the late 80s and early 90s.
But, Illinois is thinking of bringing its 133 delegates to the February 5 party, all because of one candidate:
It looks as if Barack Obama is likely to run for president. Given the choice between backing their junior senator and Hillary Clinton, who grew up in suburban Chicago, Illinois Democratic pols are clearly lining up behind Mr. Obama -- and are even trying to change the date of the state's primary to help him.State House Speaker Michael Madigan unveiled a plan to move up the primary next year from March 18 to February 5. "If Barack is a candidate... the selection process may be finished before it reaches the Illinois primary," he warned fellow legislators. Other legislative leaders and the state's Democratic governor are on-board with the proposed change.
Even if all of the Western States (not including the Pacific coast and Nevada) were to vote on February 5, the delegates up for grabs would only be 178. Spread those out over a region nearly half the size of the United States, with dozens of small media markets. Where do you think Presidential candidates are going to spend their time?
Then again, if no one else wants to compete in Illinois because its assumed Obama has it wrapped up, then that might make the West all that more attractive. I'd still rather not have them crash the party.
Emmett O'Connell | January 19, 2007 | Comment on This Post (8 so far) |
Gary Hart's memo to Howard Dean
Howard Dean is crediting Gary Hart with pushing him to choose Denver for the 2008 Convention. From the Denver Post:
For nearly 25 years, Gary Hart has pushed Democrats to switch their political focus from regaining the South to winning the West. Perhaps, then, it's fitting that the former senator received some of the credit for the Democratic National Convention's landing in Denver.Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said Hart's paper on how the Democrats might go about capturing the West - and therefore the White House - made a difference in choosing Denver over New York. "I have long believed that the essence of a Democratic victory goes through the West," Dean said. "If we are going to have a national party, we are going to have to have Westerners to vote Democratic again on a reliable basis."
Cue Gary Hart:
"This is structural change. It could influence the presidential pick," Hart said Thursday. "Every candidate in both parties will have to address Western issues, which aren't race and cultural. They are resource issues, like energy development and property rights." ...Hart's 10-point political strategy begins with advising Democrats to condemn a recent Supreme Court decision that makes it easier for governments to take private property for public purposes and ends with suggesting candidates talk about principles - "integrity, honor, courage, accountability" - instead of values, which tend to be associated with the religious right.
Here's a copy of Gary Hart's memo to Howard Dean (pdf). Great stuff.
Thank you, Senator Hart.
Kari Chisholm | January 15, 2007 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
What is the difference between Kerry and Tester
Jonathan Singer, writing at MyDD, does a pretty good job taking down Terry Snyder's argument that Sen. John Kerry lost in the West two years ago because he was too liberal.
Terry's quote:
"There was nothing wrong with that strategy [of focusing on Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico]," said Denver-based Democratic consultant Terry Snyder. "The votes could be there, for the right candidate. But a liberal senator from Massachusetts turned out to be the wrong guy to make the sale in the West."
The meat of Jonathan's take down:
In short, Democratic candidates who have been true to their beliefs, be they progressive or liberal, have performed extraordinarily well in recent cycles -- not losing as a result of their departure from third way centrism.I understand that what plays in Foxboro might not always play in the Phoenix. Yet liberalism (or progressivism) is not the type of drag on Democratic candidates in the Mountain West, or indeed other regions of the country presumed to be more conservative, that conventional wisdom might indicate. And Democratic consultants in the region would be well served by trying to build on the party's successes rather than sniping at the ideological underpinnings of the party platform.
Jonathan though doesn't quite get to the heart of the argument, what was the difference between Tester, Gov. Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming and the Salazar brothers of Colorado? The second part of Terry's quote (the part about Kerry being the wrong guy) was actually spot on. And, Jonathan is right in saying it wasn't because he was too liberal that he was the wrong guy.
The Democrats that have seen success in the West don't apologize for their stands, or even try to over explain them.
Compare John Tester's response to a statement by his opponent that he'd want to weaken the Patriot Act (I don't want to weaken it, I want to repeal it!) to John Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it."
Sen. Kerry was the wrong guy to carry a Democratic message in the West because either he portrayed that he couldn't be trusted or Republicans were able to portray him as someone that couldn't be trusted.
Emmett O'Connell | January 13, 2007 | Comment on This Post (6 so far) |
The West is not Bush Country
The great Montana blog, 4 and 20 Blackbirds points to this great moment in DC punditry:
Another thing that happened just a short while ago. A Democrat from a red state, from the state of Montana, Senator Max Baucus, comes from a state where the president is still very, very popular….Of course by "very very popular," they're of course talking about 45 percent approval.
Even in Utah, which along with Idaho, has been the last hold out of pro-Bushism in the West has turned on him. From the Salt Lake Tribune:
President Bush has lost majority support on Iraq from residents of the reddest state in the nation. A Salt Lake Tribune poll conducted last week shows Utah's support for Bush's handling of the war in Iraq has taken a substantial plunge in the past few months. Just 41 percent of Utahns say they support Bush on Iraq - marking the first time a Tribune poll has found fewer than half of Utahns in the president's war camp. Meanwhile, the poll shows Utahns about evenly split on whether to send more troops to Iraq. About 44 percent of Utahns back a "surge" - an option Bush reportedly is considering, and which has much lower nationwide support.
At least he still has the South.
Emmett O'Connell | January 11, 2007 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Denver DNC, its all about the geography
Al Eisele writes in the Huffington Post:
With Republicans trying to gain a foothold in the Democratic stronghold of Minnesota, Democrats are crazy if they don't try to break out of their East Coast-Midwest-Southern mindset by making inroads in the West. After all, Colorado just elected a Democratic governor, and there are eight other Democratic governors from Kansas to Oregon, including a likely presidential candidate, New Mexico's Bill Richardson. And the new Speaker of the House is from California and the new Senate majority leader is from Nevada.Sure, Democrats held their 1984 convention in San Francisco and their 2000 convention in Los Angeles, but look where it got them -- Fritz Mondale, who lost every state but his own, and Al Gore, who couldn't even carry his own home state. In fact, Democrats haven't won with a candidate who was nominated in a city west of the Mississippi since they picked John F. Kennedy in Los Angeles in 1960.
As the brothers Salazar of Colorado, Sen. Ken and Rep. John, argue, energy sources are key to many of America's most pressing problems, including freeing us from the stranglehold of Middle Eastern oil imports. Colorado, with its vast oil shale deposits, and the West with its limitless coal deposits and other alternative energy sources, is a good place to position the party for the future.
So let's hear it for Denver. It may be a cow town, but if Democrats want to make the west a battleground in 2008, they better be ready to ride in the rodeo.
This is the nut of the issue, geography matters. Are we the party from New York or the party from the West? That's what people who are fighting for a Denver convention are saying, that we've been too long a party of the Northeast.
Emmett O'Connell | January 9, 2007 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Hillary may save us from a New York convention
2008 Democratic Convention Watch points to an interesting tale told by Novak, in which he lays bare a badly kept secret about a convention in New York and Hillary Clinton:
Denver lacks sufficient hotel facilities, a suitable arena and labor union support, not to mention adequate financing. But when New York was leaked as the site, the reaction was so negative that Dean delayed a decision. Party members complained that it would be the fourth out of the last nine Democratic conventions scheduled for New York. Backers of Hillary Clinton don't want her nominated in her place of residence. George H.W. Bush and John Kerry lost elections when nominated in their respective hometowns of Houston and Boston.
2008 Democratic Convention watch points out that Hillary is publicly backing New York, but that going back to the 1950s, Presidential candidates who are nominated too close to home have a hard go at it.
Wouldn't it be ironic that Clinton's pre-primary inside the party power -- before she fizzles out in front of voters and caucus goers -- could put the convention out West?
Emmett O'Connell | December 24, 2006 | Comment on This Post (3 so far) |
Arizona, Nevada and the West are the fastest growing
Arizona grew by 3.6 percent last year and Nevada grew by 3.5 percent. And the West outstripped every other region in growth, including the South which had half of the top ten largest gainers, but also the largest loser, Louisiana.
The Baltimore Sun also notes the topsy-turvy nature of Arizona politics that is beginning to favor Democrats:
Long a Republican stronghold, Arizona now has a moderate Democrat as its governor. Democrats picked up two congressional seats in last month's midterm election, and voters rejected a ballot initiative banning gay marriage.Arizonans are used to a certain amount of political turmoil caused by the constant influx of new residents, said Marshall Vest, an economist at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
"Whenever you have a vote on any particular issue, you never know what it's going to be," because a large chunk of the electorate has just arrived, he said.
Emmett O'Connell | December 22, 2006 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Bursting the "Clinton needed the South" bubble
More on why the South is not where we need to go. Rather, lets keep on heading West.
Corey Crowley-Hall points out in fine fashion why we need to continue forgetting about the South when we talk about how we stop being an opposition party, and focus on the West. Even more so, turns out that the last Southern governor we elected President didn't really even need the South for his wins:
...he would have won the election whether he won in the South or not. Arkansas, Louisianna, Kentucky, and Tennessee (and Georgia in 1992 but not in 1996) were bonus States for Clinton, they had no effect on the election. Clinton won 370 and 379 electoral votes, in 1992 Clinton won 47 electoral votes from the South. Subtract 47 from 370 and Clinton still would have won 323 and won the White House with a solid margin. Same holds true for 1996 when Clinton won 34 electoral votes from the South in a 379 EV win, subtract the south and Clinton would have won with 345 electoral votes. The South made no difference to Clinton. He won not because he could win in the South but because he had appeal elsewhere. In both elections Clinton won a couple of southern States on the back of Ross Perot swiping votes away from Bush and Dole respectively. So its clear that a) Clinton wasn't as effective in the South as his reputation and b) that Clinton didnt need the South in order to win.Its a great run down of all the reasons why the West is better, so read it all here.
Emmett O'Connell | December 18, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
New West (of DC) project
Some, not so hot on the New West Project. From Left in the West:
...The New West Project is a new organization dedicated to consolidating Western gains for the Democrats. Strangely, its President is the D.C.-based Doug Sosnik. Apparently creating this group was Sosnik's idea, but it strikes me as a bad idea for a couple reasons:1. Westerners don't really like D.C.
2. In order to understand an area, you need to be on the ground.I mean, kudos to Sosnik for getting this going, but it would probably make sense to pass the reins or buck up and move to Denver.
In the org's defense, its HQ will be in Denver. And there are some excellent folks in Colorado who can provide a template for making major gains and consolidating them (the Colorado progressive movement is damn impressive). But the initial media has a weird note, getting written up by the Washington bureau and with a guy who should never be a public face.
I think Matt has some good points and if there was any DC based hack I'd want to work with it would be Mr. Applebees America Doug Sosnick. That said, I'm glad we still have the homegrown Democrats for the West.
Emmett O'Connell | December 6, 2006 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
"Is the West the New South?"
Is the West the new South?In the same way that Republicans rode to dominance in Southern politics four decades ago, Democrats are now carving out their own expanse of territory – in the nation's cactus-and-cowboy belt.
Oh geese, here we go. Just about every week since the election, and probably regularly from now on, a regional or national publication features an enterprise piece with the following elements:
1. Who are these Western Democrats?
2. They sure do seem to talk different.
3. Well, can the national party use them to fool the rest of the country into thinking they're good ol'down to earth types?
It isn't like each publication has learned something new, that Democrats are being elected in the West, and not just in pockets here and there, but in more and more numbers everywhere. This particular piece doesn't seem to answer the question its sets itself up with (is the West the new South?), but rather answers another question, "is the West the new West?"
The West is not the South, and never will be the South. Not culturally, politically or even demographically.
Until the West grows a lot larger, is probably won't be large enough to be compared to the electoral power of the South. Yes, an important swing region, but not the Solid South in any stretch of the imagination.
Politically speaking the West and the South had generally been able to fall under the same definition of conservative that was under the umbrella of the Republican Party. But, as the South has pushed for a more socially conservative party, the West has bucked:
Bonnie Ward, who lives in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, also in the 7th District, was a registered Republican until a few years ago. Now she's a Democrat.She believes the GOP has lost touch with independent-minded Westerners by, in part, “cozying up with the religious right.”
Emmett O'Connell | December 6, 2006 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
The New West Project
This is wonderful:
The New West Project, headquartered in Denver, will conduct research and develop strategies to secure and exploit recent Democratic gains in the Western states, party sources said.At least four Western governors - Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Brian Schweitzer of Montana and Bill Ritter, Colorado's governor-elect - are expected to lead the group's advisory council, the sources said. Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado and other members of Congress will provide "strategic guidance."
Reid confirmed the creation of the new organization, which he said would "build upon the leadership of people such as governors Napolitano, Richardson and Schweitzer" and "work to focus attention on the West."
This is a high level group. Consider the Western Strategy in play, my friends. It is wonderful to see this sort of institutional arrangement that will only benefit our local, state and national candidates long term. It looks like part think tank, part strategy firm, part communications development - all aspects that will be welcome by the plethora of candidates that will be running these next few cycles to take advantage of our our new promise out here in the west.
The best part of the article? The quote from an unnamed "Western Democrat":
As an example of what the new organization may do, the Western Democrat said that political professionals would analyze such questions as "the difference between first- and second-generation Hispanic voters, ... what motivates them and how we communicate with them," as well as "why a recent transplant from California, who has voted Republican all her life, is now voting for Democrats."
Good question, "Western Democrat" - it just leaves me amazed to see our namesake invoked so strikingly in an article. Methinks the author of the article, John Aloysius Farrell , might just be an reader of our humble site. If so, thanks for the article John - we'll be watching for you in the future.
It's great to have a new project designed for this express purpose and examining the multitude of new questions that are arising from the new political climate in the West. Now, if any of those people involved in the project are paying attention it would behoove them greatly to include netroots and blog outreach as an element of the project. You see, since major political focus has been absent from the West for awhile the netroots and blogosphere have been proliferating and recruiting top candidates all over the place. It would be an essential element of any plan that you should put together.
I'm excited.
Here's the The New West Project!
Landon Mascareñaz | December 6, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Meaningless Historical Nonsense
How is about this for a useless argument for why New York has an advantage over Denver for the convention:
New York, they say, has advantages in fund-raising, experience in running national conventions and a track record of success for the Democrats. The last two Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992, both strode onto the big stage in New York. Denver last held a convention in 1908, and the nominee, William Jennings Bryan, a Democrat, was trounced by William Howard Taft.
Yeah, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton won the White House because of the convention's location in New York. I can just imagine a voter now: "Well, I like that Gerald Ford fellow, but that was a damn fine New York Convention..." Or perhaps in 1908: "I like everything about WJB, I've voted for him the last two times he ran but now with that Denver convention I'm not too sure..."
But this is where the article gets good:
But party members across the country say that there is no doubt that Denver has hit on a potent combination of economic development goals and political ambition. A convention with 30,000 eating, drinking, hotel-room-using Democratic partiers and journalists would inject perhaps $160 million into the local economy, organizers say, and at the same time crown the city as an unquestioned capital of the interior West — and the two goals are in sync.“A convention can provide a stage to introduce the nominee in a way that gets the country’s attention and tells a story,” said Debbie Willhite, a longtime Democratic strategist who came here earlier this year to run Denver’s bid as executive director. “And the networks can’t come in here without showing the broad plains and Rocky Mountains — that’s a very big stage.”
Sing it true, Debbie. I'm just even excited for the possibility. Denver is a city on the rise and is already the capital of the interior west and the front-line on the blue trending occurring all around our region.
Howard Dean, since you're making the call I have faith and I believe you understand the stakes: Either you take us back to where we've been before and the old stereotypes about Democrats or we forge a bright, western and mile-high path to our future as a party.
Landon Mascareñaz | December 2, 2006 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Denver Convention petition
Progress Now has set up a petition that you can sign to support the Democratic Nation Convention in Denver (hat tip Coyote Gulch).
Boo NYC, Go Denver!
Emmett O'Connell | November 29, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Another Western Democrat Elected to a Leadership Position
The Democratic Party is clearly looking west for leadership in the 110th Congress and not hesitating to name women to leadership posts either.
In addition to Harry Reid and Patty Murray, important Senate leadership positions are held by two other Western Democrats. Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico is Committee Outreach Chairman, and Senator Barbara Boxer is Chief Deputy Whip.
Senators Murray and Boxer join Speaker of the House-elect Nancy Pelosi as leading women in the Congress from the West Coast. Such ascendancy has a long tradition in the West. Before 1917, the only states in the Union that granted the vote to women were in the West. The first woman elected to Congress was Jeannette Rankin of Montana.
Hat tip to Ridenbaugh Press, a very fine blog covering the Northwest.
Here is a link to all the leaders in the 110th Congress.
Leo Brown | November 25, 2006 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |