Occasionally, we hear about the ongoing woes of the Nevada Republican Party. Just weeks ago, the Clark County Republican Party elected a new Chair. And already, Dave McKeon is causing quite a stir (just not as top Nevada Republican operatives were hoping for).
And in case that's not enough drama, McKeon's father, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-California), is causing even more.
The audio is admittedly very tough to hear, but as Kaczynski noted, McKeon argued that "Arab persons" might leave the Middle East, move to Mexico, disguise themselves as Latinos, then enter the United States.
"There are people that can't tell the difference between a Hispanic person and an Arab person," the congressman argued, adding, "They can mingle in, and they can get in here, and then they can do damage."
So, let's consider the Republican message to Latinos in a nutshell: when the GOP isn't accusing you of being lazy and/or drug mules, the party's elected lawmakers are also questioning whether you might inadvertently help terrorists by looking like al Qaeda.
Yet again, the G-O-TEA id is bearing its ugly head. And it's doing so at the most inopportune time for Nevada Republicans.
Today, Rep. Joe Heck (R-??!!) held a(nother) pay-per-view "town hall". And when asked about immigration reform, he actually expressed support for a path to citizenship and some sort of reasonable overall approach. This is an interesting turnaround for Rep. Heck. While he also expressed support for comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) in February, his recent voting record has told a very different story.
Actually, this has been an ongoing problem for the Republican Party here and elsewhere. They say something, yet they do the opposite. They throw out one message, then embrace something completely different. They convey a desire for "outreach", then they do everything possible to fence in.
So how are we to make sense of all these Republican mixed messages on CIR? If Rep. Heck is sincere in his desire to pass CIR, he can show it by doing his part to allow a floor vote on it. Otherwise, we just have a bunch of mixed messages that add up to a whole lot of nothing.
Last I checked, we're now over halfway through 2013. I'm sure for some of us here, the 2012 Election has become a rather distant memory. Yet today, we were given a reminder of that fiercely fought cycle.
A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that voters in Nevada will continue to have the right to choose none-of-the-above on their ballot. A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected a Republican-backed lawsuit that claimed the "none of these candidates" ballot option was unconstitutional. "The district court's ruling is a triumph for the voters of Nevada," said Secretary of State Ross Miller. "Voters who want to express their dissatisfaction with the federal and statewide candidates on the ballot should have the option and freedom to do it."
The Nevada Republican Party actually filed this suit last year in hopes of striking down a nefarious villain of Mitt Romney. No really, that's what they believed. I wonder if they've yet noticed the ironic twist of fate Ralston caught yesterday.
The lawsuit was filed a year ago to erase None of the Above is that it was filed by delusional Republicans who believed Mitt Romney had a chance to win Nevada and they needed to prevent those not thrilled with him from having a place to discard their vote. Forget that there were plenty of third-party options happy to accept a protest ballot. Suddenly, longtime Republicans such as ex-Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury had epiphanies that somehow the option disenfranchised voters. It was complete nonsense with a pathetically obvious political motivation.
The irony, though, is that Republicans may have needed None of the Above to save Sen. Dean Heller, who won his race by only 12,000 votes over Rep. Shelley Berkley. In that contest, None of the Above took 45,000 votes. Maybe a third-party candidate, who received 49,000 votes (most of them surely protests against both contenders) would have taken all of those None of the Above ballots if it wasn’t available. But I doubt it. If the GOP had won the suit, Romney still would have lost decisively and Heller might be out of a job.
Do Nevada Republicans actually want to continue pursuing this law suit? Have they thought of the consequences of taking this choice away from Nevada voters? Oh, and how does "None of These Candidates" disenfranchise anyone?
Or are they still unable to process any of this... Because they still haven't accepted the results of the last election?
This year, I wanted to do something different. So today, I wanted to note the stories you couldn't get enough of. Here are the top 5 most viewed stories of 2012.
This was when Governor Sandoval hinted that he may not agree to the Medicaid expansion provision of the Affordable Care Act. Now, however, he's said he will allow it... But wants to institute a co-pay?! This story will probably have at least a few more up's & down's in 2013.
During the Democratic National Convention, civil rights icon and Rep. John Lewis (D-Georgia) warned the audience about the ongoing threat of voter suppression done in the name of "needing ID".
In July, AFP attempted to throw a "tea party" outside Shelley Berkley's Congressional office. Instead, progressive counter-protesters far outnumbered the AFP crowd. And in case that wasn't enough, police ordered AFP to move their bus because they had never obtained a permit to park there. This was the first in a series of high-profile embarrassments for AFP.
After 7 months of intense voter registration statewide, Nevada Democrats managed to turn a slight and diminishing voter registration advantage into a rather dominant 7+% and 90,000+ raw vote lead. And so far, it looks like the folks at Valley View are determined not to let this slip away.
As discussed earlier, this was the story that shook up the trajectory of the race for #NVLeg this year. With one resignation over a salacious affair, Republicans lost their chance of retaking the State Senate.
Yesterday, we discussed the amazing developments in #NVLeg this year. Today, it's time to jump up to the federal level and take a look at Congress.
Actually, the story of #nvhouse 2012 began in 2011 when redistricting was very much up in the air. And with a new "ungerrymandered" map being approved by the courts, the playing field was suddenly scrambled as politicians on both sides had to play a round of "Musical Chairs" to see where they'd land.
Meanwhile in the current session of Congress, all sorts of crazy emerged, particularly from the G-O-TEA run House. For one, the "War on Women" raged on as the radical right demanded more prodding into women's private lives. In addition, there were multiple attempts at repealing "Obamacare" and take health care away from millions of Americans. Oh, and while Nevada and other states were busy pursuing more renewable energy and green jobs, Congress was fighting over a recipe for economic and environmental disaster. And they never managed to address the "job creation" they promised to deliver (in 2010). And both Dean Heller & Joe Heck were at the center of all of this.
So this year, voters had a(nother) chance to have their say on all of this. In addition, some Nevada voters had the opportunity to chime in on the new NV-04 Congressional seat. And oh my, what a race that was. Danny Tarkanian tried yet again to land a steady paycheck with a solid pension a high elected office, and this time he attempted to do so by banking on his famous last name acting as a chameleon... And by smearing Steven Horsford. Yet despite Baby Tark's desperate attacks (aided by a last minute push by the likes of AFP), Horsford ultimately managed to win NV-04 and do so by a more comfortable margin than most everyone had expected.
Yet in the end, both Heller & Heck got lucky. With just enough "down-ballot drop-off", they managed to survive... Though Heller only did by the skin of his teeth and with less than 50%. But already, both of them are facing a major dilemma as the new Congress is about to begin. With President Obama reelected to a second term (with the help of Nevada) and the "Fiscal Cliff" fast approaching, will they let their party leaders cut a budget deal with Obama and Harry Reid? Or will they (again) cast their lot with "tea party" extremists by voting to push America "Off the Cliff" and into recession?
The story of the 2012 election cycle may be over, but the cast of characters here are destined to make waves again as the 113th Congress is about to begin.
Early in the year, we were wondering just how relevant the Legislature will be in the future. With ideological rigidity and polarization at an all-time high, can any kind of major tax reform get through Carson City? And will the rise of "ballot box budgeting" change Nevadans' relationship with their representatives in state government?
Oh, what a year we lived!
In the space of 72 hours in the third week of February, the entire "conventional wisdom" of Carson City was turned on its head. Early on, the biggest assumption was that Republicans had the inside track to retake the State Senate, especially considering the early retirements of Clark County Democrats Shirley Breeden (SD 5) and Alison Copening (SD 6). However in that third week of February, the entire calculus of the campaign for the upper house of the Nevada Legislature changed with the entry of Sheila Leslie into the SD 15 race in Washoe County and the sudden resignation of Elizabeth Halseth in SD 9 in Clark County. At first, the Halseth story seemed like such a tawdry case of "dirty laundry" being aired out in public...
Obviously, Elizabeth Halseth is leaving behind a messy personal life that Senate Republicans are trying to quietly sweep under the rug. And while I typically don't like probing into politicians' personal lives, I feel obligated to talk about something that hardly anyone else (with the notable exception of Chuck Muth) is willing to discuss.
In 2010, Elizabeth Halseth became a State Senator thanks to attacking others' personal lives. Her campaign attacked Dennis Nolan over being called to testify at someone else's criminal trial. And after the Republican primary, she then attacked Benny Yerushalmi in the general election over ridiculous material like his wife's outfits! So considering this context, I've come to accept that it's perfectly appropriate to note Halseth's total hypocrisy on making other's private lives public... Before she flees over her own private life.
And not only that, but Halseth is now using her private life as an excuse not to fulfill her public duties. Why won't she show up at interim committee hearings any more? Why won't she answer constituent emails? And why has her cell phone been shut off? Hello, Elizabeth Halseth is still listed as a Nevada State Senator for the 9th District! She has an obligation to her constituents to finish the job she was elected to do. And for Michael Roberson to try to shut down questions on her whereabouts just because of his own political ambition is downright reprehensible. He may be afraid of losing his shot at becoming Majority Leader, but fulfilling one's public duties should always come above fueling someone else's political ambition.
Is it really that hard for Roberson to ask Daniel Halseth and Tiger Helgelien if they know where Elizabeth Halseth, his fellow Senator, is? And is it really that hard for him to ask her to either fulfill her duties or prepare to resign?
Apparently, it was... But that didn't really matter, since she ultimately decided to resign. And since SD 9 was made much more Democratic in redistricting, that meant a GOP held seat was suddenly put into play. And that led to the ultimate "game change" moment.
This is why [Senate Republican Leader Michael] Roberson is so scared now. And this is why the "big bid'ness" establishment will be forking out big checks to the likes of Greg Brower and Steve Kirk (a GOP candidate in SD 5). Again, as we've been saying here for a while (and Jon Ralston has admitted on Twitter), Republican hopes of flipping the Senate have diminished greatly in the last 100 hours. However, they still intend to go all in for the #NVLeg campaign just for the sake of saving enough seats to obstruct any kind of progressive agenda in the 77th session.
So perhaps more so than ever before, the Legislature campaigns of 2012 will really matter. If one wants to fix the broken and outdated tax structure straight out of the 19th century, fully fund public education, improve our state's health care system, rebuild the rest of our state's public infrastructure, and properly invest in the kind of job creation that will benefit our economy for many generations to come, the choice will be crystal clear. And thanks to both redistricting last year and the major developments of the past week, we may actually have a unique and unprecedented opportunity to change the dynamics of Carson City for the better. So remember not to "stop at the top"... Keep going down that ballot and vote for progress.
While many challenges remain for Nevada progressives, new opportunities are emerging. As discussed earlier, issues like gun safety and LGBTQ equality are bound to make a huge splash in Carson City in 2013. In addition, there's renewed hope for humane immigrant rights proposals and other progressive policy priorities.
Of course, the biggest challenge for 2012 remains "The T Word". But even there, there's been some progress. There's been convergence around extending the 2009/11 "Sunset Tax" deal. It just remains to be seen what else happens on the taxation front.
Around this time last year, we reflected on "The Rise & Fall of the 'New' Nevada GOP". Early on in 2011, everything seemed to be going so well for Nevada Republicans. They had finally ridden themselves of "top of the ticket troublemakers", and they seemed to be turning a corner with fresh faces in leadership.
Well, that grand old elephant honeymoon didn't last long. And as 2012 began, that became crystal clear. What was supposed to be Nevada Republicans' special moment in the spotlight instead became a total train wreck. And what was supposed to be "Mitt Romney's big night" instead became #CaucusFracas2012.
Funny enough, he unintentionally pointed out the greatest weakness of Nevada Republicans. Ever since 2008, they've been obsessing over ideological purity instead of even attempting to show any real interest in governing. We saw it in 2010, when they embraced extremism and tried to shove the most radical US Senate candidate we've ever seen down our throats. And we saw it again last year, when they were more interested in playing political games than solving our state's problems. It's really all about their radical "tea party" ideology for them. And by making Mitt Romney embrace it, they're only sowing the seeds of their own defeat this fall.
Oh, and by the way, NBC News now officially projects Mitt Romney to win the G-O-TEA Caucus tonight. Wow. What a surprise! ;-)
But again, this "victory" is looking increasingly pyrrhic. As we talked about yesterday, President Obama is proving that his vision of economic recovery and rebuilding is one that really works. So what does Mitt Romney have to compete with this? Lies? Radical right extremism? Donald Trump?
My prediction actually did come true. For one, Rick Santorum managed to upstage Romney by turning a trio of supposedly "meaningless beauty contests" into a "game change" moment that forced Romney to actually compete for the Republican nomination. And while that ultimately wasn't enough to keep Romney from claiming the nomination, what happened in February forced Romney to run so far to the radical right that he made himself unelectable in the general election.
And if that didn't add enough insult to injury, this most certainly did.
The caucus process itself melted into pure chaos as voters were being turned away, counting turned into controversy, and out-of-state media looked in horror as the Nevada Republican Party began to unravel. But perhaps above all else, this was a major turning point for Nevada Republicans... As we saw the beginnings of "The Second Ron Paul Revolution.
So they succeeded in hijacking the Nevada Republican Party. They then failed at actually leading it somewhere (other than abject failure). We saw the writing on the wall back in May.
[... W]inning elections doesn't happen by just demanding "purity" and throwing a temper tantrum when that doesn't happen. Believe it or not, temper tantrums don't win elections.
This is something we often have to grapple with on the left, but now we're seeing this unfold on the right at a level that I've never seen before. As much as some grassroots folks on the left and the right love to see epic ideological battles unfold at party conventions and purge all "unsavory moderates" out of their respective parties, the fact of the matter is that doing that gets us no closer to winning elections. (If anything, that HURTS efforts to win elections.) While it's always important to promote the values we believe in and hold fast to them, we can't punish political parties for focus[ing] on party building while perhaps shirking "ideology enforcement" duties. After all, the first responsibility of a political party is to build the infrastructure necessary to win elections.
At times, we on the left have not seen eye to eye with Nevada State Democratic Party leaders. And yes, we sometimes get irritated when they seem to favor moderate candidates over "BOLD PROGRESSIVES!!!" However, most of us also realize that getting 70-90% of what we want is far better than getting nothing, so we leave Fantasy-land behind and return to the real world & return to working the field to win elections.
And this is why Orrin Johnson is panicking. Ron Paul's supporters care deeply for their libertarian beliefs, and they're set to accept nothing less than full fealty to those beliefs. But in pursuing complete ideological purity, they're also set to lose a whole lot of elections because they simply don't care about that stuff. This is why Nevada Republicans are in such dire straits. And it should serve as an important lesson to all the rest of us trying to balance ideological wishes with political reality.
Again, we could see what was coming. So while "The 'New New' Nevada GOP" focused on such important matters as worshipping at the altar of Ron Paul, the top money people, the "consultant class", and even the entire Washoe County Republican Party proceeded to obtain a "divorce" from "The Real Nevada Republican Party" in order for the RNC to "make it rain" on them. And while the Ron Paul Party succeeded in revering their "dear leader" in their own special way, Dean Heller and other top Nevada Republican politicians just ran away from the entire party.
That's why they could not stop this from happening. And that's ultimately why they could not stop this from happening. And that's why Nevada Republicans may be resigned to this for a while (longer).
Back in September, we noticed Nevada Republicans' glaring lack of field. The "power player" consultants ultimately opted to spend more on media advertising while "the real Nevada Republican Party" continued its increasingly time-honored tradition of extraordinary infighting. The few victories Republicans enjoyed on November 6 were more despite the party, not because of it.
So what will Nevada Republicans do to move forward? The above mentioned consultants are floating around the idea of some sort of "permanent Team Nevada" to circumvent the real state party. Others want to continue plotting a plan to finally wrest control from the Ron Paul acolytes who have been spinning the party out of control (perhaps because they're ideologically opposed to any kind of central control?). Meanwhile, the Ron Paul acolytes and their teabagger allies are already threatening primary challenges to Brian Sandoval and all other Republicans they deem "impure". So basically, get ready for another cycle full of G-O-TEA mayhem. [...]
But can Republicans ultimately remain relevant with this level of chaos continuing indefinitely? I have my doubts. It's just not sustainable to set up a "shadow party" to get out the vote, outsource other party functions (like sending mailers and producing yard signs) out of state, and allow "top of the ticket" candidates to continue running their own operations completely separated from the party while avoiding the actual party like the plague. Something's got to give. We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the coming months as the Nevada Republican Party nears its final implosion (and first chance of actual rebuilding).
And this, my dears, is the sad and sordid tale of the Nevada Republican Party in the 2012 Presidential Cycle. We can only sit back, grab some popcorn, and see what kind of spectacular drama unfolds in G-O-TEA Land in 2013.
So Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller has been in the news lately due to his election reform bill. However, that's not all he's been up to lately. He's also pursuing a potentially groundbreaking development in campaign finance.
Remember this story from July? "Tea Party" astroturf outfit AFP Nevada had campaigned in a Democratic (??!!) State Senate primary in North Las Vegas, and the Secretary of State's office noticed that AFP had done so without complying with state disclosure laws. (AFP is notorious for keeping its donor list a secret.) So AFP landed in the hot seat.
Yet despite this, AFP continued campaigning in several State Senate races, though this time AFP campaigned in races where Republicans needed to win to flip control of the State Senate. Perhaps because AFP's campaign was rather clumsy at times, Democrats managed to retain control of the State Senate. But nonetheless, AFP likely violated state law again by campaigning without disclosing any financial reports.
Miller’s court case against Americans for Prosperity, a gigantic national conservative group founded by the Koch Brothers, could pull back the curtain on the organization’s donors. AFP spent a reported $33 million during Campaign 2012, according to Open Secrets. But, by federal law, as a 501C entity AFP does not have to disclose its donors.
To the Federal Election Commission, that is. But Miller’s case against AFP, using its foolish meddling in a Democratic primary, is like a sheriff in the Old West: You come to my town, you play by my rules.
Miller, who acknowledges there is no national case law, basically argues in a lawsuit that AFP cannot expressly advocate for or against a candidate and get away with not disclosing its donors under Nevada law. The local AFP chapter never registered as either a nonprofit or PAC, [thus] exposing the national organization to Miller’s suit. It’s a case surely being monitored by DC experts and one with potentially wide ramifications for campaign disclosure, which Miller has long advocated.
And in case you were wondering, here's the provision in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) that AFP landed into trouble with.
NRS 294A.0025 “Advocates expressly” or “expressly advocates” defined. “Advocates expressly” or “expressly advocates” means that a communication, taken as a whole, is susceptible to no other reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified candidate or group or candidates or a question or group of questions on the ballot at a primary election, primary city election, general election, general city election or special election. A communication does not have to include the words “vote for,” “vote against,” “elect,” “support” or other similar language to be considered a communication that expressly advocates the passage or defeat of a candidate or a question.
The spin crew at AFP Nevada still claim they did no wrong. But in examining the doorhangers, mailers, and other material they were sending to voters, it becomes quite crystal clear that AFP literature "advocated expressly" against voting for Democratic Legislature candidates. And since AFP Nevada engaged in this very activity without registering a PAC and disclosing its campaign finances, it's unclear as to exactly how AFP will defend its actions.
If Ross Miller succeeds in this law suit, Ralston is correct that it will have wide ramifications. AFP and other shadowy "Tea Party, Inc." outfits will have to think twice before campaigning. And they may ultimately have to agree to disclose campaign finances and show us the voters their donor lists. And if this happens, it will be a huge win for "small d democracy" as it gives progressives a path forward in challenging secretive big corporate money in a post-Citizens United nation.
So the election has been over for nearly three weeks. And here in Nevada, all the races have been called. So why is there still so much drama brewing in the Nevada Republican Party?
Earlier in the month, Ralston called them out on their epic dysfunction this cycle.
The Republicans were left with presenting fantasy math that the Flat Earth Society would have rejected and claiming they had made billions of voter contacts (I think that was the number) that would counteract the vaunted Democratic machine, an amazing integration of OFA and Team Reid.
Gentlemen, you should be embarrassed.
The Republican Party is irrelevant: Perhaps irrelevant is too mild. They may as well put up a “vacancy” sign outside the party’s headquarters. His father’s illness notwithstanding, Chairman Michael McDonald was an absentee landlord – nearly every release from the party was from Vice-Chairman James Smack.
The Romney campaign and the RNC tried a workaround, but the Ron Paul folks nipping at their heels, a Clark County GOP run by loons and a Washoe party that seceded and became a subset of the National Republican Senatorial Committee were too much to bear. When mailers started appearing from the Idaho and Colorado Republican parties in mailboxes here, the comedy show had devolved to pure farce.
They either adopt a long-term plan or even Sandoval should be worried.
And he's correct. Back in September, we noticed Nevada Republicans' glaring lack of field. The "power player" consultants ultimately opted to spend more on media advertising while "the real Nevada Republican Party" continued its increasingly time-honored tradition of extraordinary infighting. The few victories Republicans enjoyed on November 6 were more despite the party, not because of it.
So what will Nevada Republicans do to move forward? The above mentioned consultants are floating around the idea of some sort of "permanent Team Nevada" to circumvent the real state party. Others want to continue plotting a plan to finally wrest control from the Ron Paul acolytes who have been spinning the party out of control (perhaps because they're ideologically opposed to any kind of central control?). Meanwhile, the Ron Paul acolytes and their teabagger allies are already threatening primary challenges to Brian Sandoval and all other Republicans they deem "impure". So basically, get ready for another cycle full of G-O-TEA mayhem.
Of course, this is no reason for Democrats to become complacent. After all, Dean Heller was able to eke out his legendary 46% win by mostly keeping his distance from the Nevada GOP FAIL-o-rama. But on the other hand, he only managed to net 46% despite smearing his opponent in mud on the airwaves. Still, this may be a model for other prominent Republican politicians looking to circumvent "Dysfunction Junction" and overcome "The Reid Machine" at Nevada Democrats' disposal.
But can Republicans ultimately remain relevant with this level of chaos continuing indefinitely? I have my doubts. It's just not sustainable to set up a "shadow party" to get out the vote, outsource other party functions (like sending mailers and producing yard signs) out of state, and allow "top of the ticket" candidates to continue running their own operations completely separated from the party while avoiding the actual party like the plague. Something's got to give. We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the coming months as the Nevada Republican Party nears its final implosion (and first chance of actual rebuilding).
This week, the Republican Governors' Association has been meeting in Las Vegas. Oddly enough, Nevada's own Governor has been schmoozing with the political major leaguers in Washington, DC MIA. Any guesses as to why Brian Sandoval isn't meeting with his fellow Republican Governors in his own state?
Most likely, he did not want to be caught in the middle of this.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) strongly condemned Mitt Romney Wednesday night for remarks the former Republican nominee made blaming President Obama’s re-election on “big gifts” for minorities and women.
“That is absolutely wrong,” Jindal told reporters in Las Vegas at the Republican Governors Association meeting. “Two points on that. One, we have got to stop dividing American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent — we need to go after every single vote. And second, we need to continue to show that our policies help every voter out there achieve the American dream, which is to be in the middle class, which is to be able to give their children the opportunity to get a great education, which is for their children to have even better-paying jobs than their parents.” [...]
“If we’re going to continue to be a competitive party and win elections on the national stage and continue to fight for our conservative principles, we need two messages to get out loudly and clearly: One, we are fighting for 100 percent of the votes, and secondly, our policies benefit every American who wants to pursue the American dream, period,” he said. “No exceptions.”
"The Obama campaign was following the old playbook of giving a lot of stuff to groups that they hoped they could get to vote for them and be motivated to go out to the polls, specifically the African American community, the Hispanic community and young people," [Mitt] Romney told hundreds of donors during a telephone town hall Wednesday. "In each case they were very generous in what they gave to those groups." [...]
"With regards to African American voters, 'Obamacare' was a huge plus — and was highly motivational to African American voters. You can imagine for somebody making $25—, or $30—, or $35,000 a year, being told you're now going to get free healthcare — particularly if you don't have it, getting free healthcare worth, what, $10,000 a family, in perpetuity, I mean this is huge. Likewise with Hispanic voters, free healthcare was a big plus."
Pivoting to immigration, Romney said the Obama campaign's efforts to paint him as "anti-immigrant" had been effective and that the administration's promise to offer what he called "amnesty" to the children of undocumented immigrants had helped turn out Latino voters in record numbers.
"With regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for the children of illegals — the so-called Dream Act kids — was a huge plus for that voting group," he said. "On the negative side, of course, they always characterized us as being anti-immigrant, being tough on illegal immigration, and so forth, so that was very effective with that group."
"The president's campaign," he said, "focused on giving targeted groups a big gift — so he made a big effort on small things. Those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dollars."
Once again, Mitt Romney and so many of his fellow Republicans refuse to acknowledge the new demographic reality of Nevada, and of the entire country. And way to piss off Latino voters, along with African-American and young voters, even after the election is over. Perhaps Mitt Romney is aiming for his picture to be entered into the dictionaries... Next to the definition of "sore loser".
And this is why Brian Sandoval is staying away from his fellow Republican Governors, even as they meet in Las Vegas. He would much rather hobnob with both Harry Reid and Dean Heller in DC. And most definitely, he would much rather receive prestigious awards (even if they are based on a myth) than sit around with grumpy Republicans complaining about what happened last week.
After all, Brian Sandoval is ambitious. And he may yet have a future. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is quickly on his way to becoming a relic of the past. And the Republican Party is still struggling to figure out whether to adapt for the future or keep wishing for an idealized version of the past.
After beating the odds as handily as he did, Sen. Harry Reid really had no reason to suspect he wouldn’t easily be reelected as majority leader.
In fact, nothing changed about the Democratic Senate leadership. On Wednesday morning, the new crop of Democratic senators who will serve in the 113th Congress voted Reid, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer and Patty Murray to another term at the top.
Reid is now set to serve as majority leader longer than powerhouse leaders Lyndon Johnson and Robert Byrd — but not quite as long as Mike Mansfield, the senator from Montana who ran the Senate for the 16 years after Johnson left for the White House.
Reid downplayed his own history-making moment, however, in favor of singing the praises of Patty Murray, the senator who steered the Democrats’ 2012 campaign efforts for the Senate.
“We ran a message, led by Senator Murray, from Montana to Massachusetts,” Reid said, adding that at the caucus elections, he had presented her with “40 red roses, representing her 20 years in the senate plus the 20 women that are now in the United States Senate.”
Murray pulled off something that a year ago not even Reid was predicting. Democrats were expected to lose seats in the 2012 election, potentially enough that they would lose the majority in the Senate. Instead, they gained seats. Democrats now have a 55-seat majority in the Senate.
And just this morning, Reid found out that he will indeed have 55 votes in the Senate. After days of speculation as to what he'd do upon arriving in Washington, Maine's incoming Independent Senator-elect will be caucusing with the Democrats.
[Angus] King said he spoke at length with the Senate's two current independents -- Sens. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and and Bernie Sanders of Vermont -- as well with former Maine Sen. George Mitchell and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
"I came away from these conversations reassured that my independence would be respected and that no party-line commitment would be required or expected," King told reporters at a Capitol news conference. "And so I have decided to affiliate myself with the Democratic caucus because doing so will allow me to take independent positions on issues as they arise and, at the same time, will allow me to be an effective representative of the people of Maine."
King said it became clear to him, after researching the Senate process and procedures, that he would have been largely excluded in the committee process if he chose to "go it alone."
Reid, who met with or spoke to King several times before Wednesday's announcement, welcomed the Democratic caucus's latest addition.
"Senator-elect King represents the best qualities of a United States senator," Reid said. "No. 1 he is independent. No. 2 he is a man of principle, always has been. I welcome him to the caucus where we have a strong tradition of independence."
We've said it many times before. And we'll probably have to keep reminding everyone else of this cardinal rule of politics. Never, ever, ever count Harry Reid out.
Against all odds, he was reelected here in Nevada in 2010. And against all odds, he increased his Senate Democratic majority in 2012. And while there will be many hurdles facing Reid in 2013 and 2014, it would be awfully foolish to write his political obituary now. Remember how foolish that was in 2010.
As "The Fiscal Cliff" quickly approaches, Congressional Republicans keep digging in their heels in protecting "billionaire bailouts". However, this may not last too long. Once and for all, some Republicans are breaking away from "Tea Party, Inc." in turning away Grocer Norquist and his "tax pledge". It's now a question as to how many of them will ultimately agree to sanity.
Last Tuesday, Dean Heller (barely) won election to a full term in the US Senate. Now remember this fact. It will actually help explain what he told The Reno Gazette-Journal over the weekend.
“I just think Obama relates better to the average person in the state of Nevada, as opposed to Romney,” Heller said.
“And I think at the end of the day, that candidates do matter and I think that was a reflection of (Election Day) and why Obama did so much better,” Heller said. “He is an excellent speaker. He understands what the average middle class family is thinking.”
Oh, and he also said this.
Many Nevada voters could relate to an “Obama-Heller ticket,” Heller said. When Heller first mentioned the need for Obama voters to also support him, the feedback was swift.
“In fact, after I made that comment, I had a number of people approach me and say they went for the Obama-Heller ticket,” Heller said.
Oh, really? Did he actually say that? This can't be the same Dean Heller who catered to every whim and fancy of the "tea party". So what happened?
Long story short: Heller became "Mr. 46%". And he now recognizes that Nevada is indeed a Blue State.
Jon Ralston could barely contain his disgust this morning. After all, Heller ran as Nevada's official "tea party" BFF for so long. Yet now, all of a sudden, he has so much respect for both President Obama and his new best friends in "The Obama-Heller Social Club"? Give Ralston a break.
He hates Obamacare, but he has Obamalove.
That's the latest incarnation of the ever-adaptable Dean Heller, the senator who just won election by 12,000 votes and now is marveling at the skills of the president who just won an electoral landlside.
Couldn't he have waited a decent interval to make it seem like a gradual evolution and not pure opportunism?
The maverick secretary of state who morphed into a far-rightie after Sharron Angle almost beat him six years ago and is now back to being Dean No Labels after another near-death experience is a clear case of nurture over nature.
What is his true nature? What does nurture him beyond the politics of the moment?
So at this point, who is Dean Heller? No really, who is he and what does he stand for? Does he stand by what he said last year and early this year, when he wanted to keep the radical right in his corner? Or is he genuinely interested in bipartisanship, cooperation, and (GASP!) moderation now?
Regardless of whether or not "The New & Improved Moderate, Post-partisan Dean Heller!" is for real, he again reveals the new political reality of Nevada. We are indeed a Blue State. And the only way Nevada Republicans can survive going forward is by adapting to this new reality. So will other Republicans follow Heller's example?
We'll have to wait and see... But in the mean time, don't be surprised if/when the "TEA" troops arise (again) to try to stop any kind of "moderation". Whatever happens in the Nevada GOP in the coming months, it won't go down without a fight.
So the election is over. And there is quite a bit of Blue on our map. So what is our state now? I think we all know the answer... But don't tell certain campaign consultants and media figures (afraid of losing all that big campaign cash).
Rest easy, Nevada. We’re still a battleground state.
At least so say political operatives on both sides of the aisle.
Admittedly, they may have a bit of a vested interest in saying so. Presidential battleground status opens the spigot to tens of millions of advertising dollars. [...]
President Barack Obama last week won Nevada convincingly for the second time. In fact, his margins in 2008 and 2012 far exceeded former President George W. Bush’s Nevada margins in 2000 and 2004.
Democrats have 90,000 more registered voters than Republicans. They have a well-financed party structure in place — an organization noticeably absent on the Republican side. And they have control of the state Legislature.
Some might say that doesn’t sound like the metrics of a true swing state.
Indeed, it’s starting to sound a lot like New Mexico — previously a battleground state before turning convincingly blue beginning about four years ago and disappearing from the presidential campaign radar screen.
Indeed, our similarity to New Mexico is quite striking. So are we there yet?
Perhaps not. But at the very least, Nevada is now at roughly the same place on the political spectrum as Michigan, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania: "swing states" that are increasingly out of reach for Republicans due to organizational weakness and ideological rigidity.
By contrast, a large number of electorally critical states – both traditional swing states like Iowa and Pennsylvania and newer ones like Colorado and Nevada – have been Democratic-leaning in the past two elections. If Democrats lose the election in a blowout, they would probably lose these states as well. But in a close election, they are favored in them.
The Republican Party will have four years to adapt to the new reality. Republican gains among Hispanic voters could push Colorado and Nevada back toward the tipping point, for example.
States like Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Iowa are overwhelmingly white – but also highly educated, with fairly progressive views on social policy. If Republicans moderated their tone on social issues, they might be more competitive in these states, while regaining ground in Northern Virginia and in the Philadelphia suburbs.
Finally, some of the Democrats’ apparent advantage in the swing states may reflect Mr. Obama’s voter targeting and turnout operations –which were superior, by most accounts, to John McCain’s in 2008 and Mr. Romney’s in 2012.
It is not my job to give advice, but the next Republican nominee might be well served to remember that the party won the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote in 2000, when George W. Bush and Karl Rove put more emphasis on the “ground game.” But the Republicans seemed to be at a disadvantage in the last two years when their candidates put less of an investment into it.
If the parties continue down the same paths, however, this won’t be the last election when most of the swing states turn blue.
Nate Silver makes a very good point here. Republicans can at least theoretically turn back this tide by moving closer to policy sanity and investing in a better ground game. But unless and until they do that, Nevada, along with these other peripheral and increasingly Blue tinted "swing states", will continue to be favorable territory for Democrats.
Now certainly, this does NOT mean that Nevada Democrats can now sit back and rest on their laurels. The NV-Sen and NV-03 races of this cycle certainly serve as cautionary tales. Against flawed candidates who struggle to define themselves and use a strong message, Republicans can still eke out wins here.
But again, Dean Heller is now "Mr. 46%". And Joe Heck barely crossed over 50%. And despite all the Republican Legislature Leaders' efforts to smear Vaseline on the camera, they still failed to retake the State Senate and grow their ranks in the Assembly. And perhaps most notably, Steven Horsford convincingly beat back a well funded right-wing effort to elect Danny Tarkanian in NV-04. Nevada most definitely has been changing.
And this leads us to the other reason why Republicans have been losing their grip over Nevada: Demographics. Clearly, Nevada Republicans paid a price for their support for "The War on Women", extreme anti-immigrant and anti-Latin@ policies, discrimination against LGBTQ families, and additional policies that alienate historically oppressed minorities. Now that these minority communities are becoming "majority makers", Republicans are in deep trouble.
So The Sun had a sit down with Pat Hickey yesterday to talk about his great achievement in becoming Assembly Minority Leader. And of course, Pat Hickey mentioned all his grandiose "ideas" for "coming together" and fostering "bipartisanship".
The Republicans are willing to take a look at the antiquated tax structure and there may be some compromise, Hickey said. But he said he hoped the Democrats might compromise on such issues as construction defects and the public employees' collective bargaining law.
"The people are sick of partisanship," he said after the Friday caucus meeting.
Hickey, who was unopposed in the election, was one of the leaders in the campaign to elect more Republicans to the lower house but that came up short.
OK. So people are "sick of partisanship"... And they're so sick of partisanship that they're demanding Pat Hickey rise up and demand that Democrats join him and his fellow Republicans in attacking workers' rights? And they're so sick of "partisanship" that they want Pat Hickey to bring everyone together in support of gutting consumers' right to seek proper compensation when they're caught in faulty houses? Does Pat Hickey really believe the words coming out of his own mouth?
Well, this is Pat Hickey who we're talking about. This is the same guy who lectured everyone else about "ethics" and "campaign finance reform" after he couldn't live up to his own standard. And what made Hickey's move even more appalling was that he opposed much of the very measures in 2011 that he suddenly claimed as his own "ideas" in 2012!
This is actually a big reason why I'm skeptical of Hickey when he claims he's open to tax reform. After all, both Governor Brian Sandoval and State Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson have all but openly admitted that their flip-flop "newfound affinity" for the 2009/2011 "sunset tax" deal was done as a way of shutting down talk of real tax reform. So now, all of a sudden, we're supposed to believe that Pat Hickey will somehow clear the way for some kind of progressive tax reform if Democrats can just be "bipartisan" and throw workers & consumers under the bus?
So the election is now over. We know at least 99% of who won and who lost. So does this mean we're all done with the political drama of 2012? Not quite. Let me explain.
First, we must flash back to August 2011. Remember the debt ceiling debacle? Because Republicans in Congress refused to a sensible solution, we got "The Supercommittee". And because "The Supercommittee" oh so predictably failed (see above), we got a "trigger" (of budget cuts and tax increases that no one wants to be implemented entirely) that is about to be set in January if an agreement is not reached in the next six weeks.
To keep the economy afloat, the White House cut the deals it felt it had to. Many, such as Obama’s agreement to extend all of the Bush tax cuts in 2010, were poorly received by Democrats. Now comes the payoff. The expiration of those cuts and the automatic reductions set to take effect at year’s end—the so-called fiscal cliff—mean that Obama and the Democrats can gain a huge source of new revenue by doing nothing at all. Republican priorities are the ones suddenly in peril. The combination of tax increases on the rich, higher capital-gains taxes, and sharp cuts in defense spending have congressional Republicans deeply worried. To mitigate these, they’ll have to bargain.
Despite their post-election tough talk, Republican leaders have dealt themselves a lousy hand. Obama can propose a “middle-class tax cut” for the 98 percent of American households earning less than $250,000 a year—while letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those earning more—and dare the Republicans to block it. If they do, everyone’s taxes will rise on Jan. 1. It’s true that going over the fiscal cliff, as some Democrats believe will happen, would set back the recovery and could eventually cause a recession. But Democratic leaders in Congress believe the public furor would be too intense for Republicans to withstand for long.
Going over the cliff would also weaken the Republicans’ greatest point of leverage: renewing their threat to default on the national debt. Right now, the Treasury expects to hit the debt ceiling in February. But if the cliff can’t be avoided, tax rates will rise and government coffers will swell, delaying the date of default—thus diminishing the Republicans’ advantage. Alice Rivlin, the founding director of the Office of Management and Budget and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, says that “as quickly as the IRS began changing the withholding schedule, the date would be pushed back.”
While everyone fears "The Fiscal Cliff", there's far more for Republicans to lose if it comes to pass in January. After all, it includes military spending cuts, tax increases that hit high-income brackets the hardest, and a whole lot of federal funding that would be stripped from their states. Basically, it's pure political poison. And Congressional Republicans are having deep regrets over this very "Fiscal Cliff" that they agreed to in August 2011.
So once again, President Obama and Harry Reid hold the upper hand. But this time, it's far more obvious. And this time, it's Republicans who fear what will happen if no deal is cut by the end of this year. And with Republicans now poised to lose some seats in both houses of Congress in January, do they really want to see what happens if our country is forced to jump "off the cliff"?
In Clark County, it was the first time in at least 25 years that a school construction question was shot down — and it wasn’t even close. Voters pummelled the property tax increase 66 percent to 34 percent. Another question, which would have raised money for Henderson libraries, also was rejected. [...]
The state’s funding for schools is among the lowest in the nation and has been a constant source of tension for Democrats, moderate business leaders and their traditional allies in policy battles in Carson City.
The Clark County school construction vote “broke my heart,” said Billy Vassiliadis, the prominent political consultant who ran the school campaign this year pro bono, as he had other school construction bond measures in the past.
He said the campaign got off to a late start and struggled to raise money.
Polls showed it was “an uphill battle from Day One,” he said.
And what made it even more uphill was CCSD administrators aligning with NPRI on attacking teachers and their union. Because they were caught lying about district finances, it was difficult for voters of various stripes to trust CCSD administrators when they said they needed more money for school repairs. And because they failed to realize NPRI's true agenda of "starving the beast" of government and drowning public services in a "TEA filled bathtub", they were oddly caught by surprise when NPRI turned on CCSD bosses to attack the bond initiative.
So perhaps #NVLeg watchers in Carson City shouldn't put too much stock into the failure of these initiatives on Tuesday, and especially the spectacular failure of the CCSD bond initiative. After all if given a chance to vote on the kind of fairer progressive tax reform that The Education Initiative represents, they seem quite willing to pass that. And despite AFP's attacks on Democrats as "tax & spend LIB'RULZZZ!!!", they defied Ralston's odds and kept both houses of the Legislature.
So should Democrats be cautious when approaching the subject of tax reform next spring? Perhaps they should study the mistakes made by the likes of CCSD to avoid falling into that kind of political calamity. But with Nevada schools still as underfunded as ever and public infrastructure woefully lacking overall, now is not the time to give up on tax reform that makes sense for Nevada.
Yes, I still have a hangover from yesterday. And I still have so much cleaning to do today. But now, it's all over. The votes have been counted.
And right now, Coolican is required reading on understanding what happened here in Nevada.
Democrats have won the national popular vote in six of the past seven presidential elections. In Nevada, this move to the Democratic column has been more recent but also swifter. President Barack Obama’s comfortable victory here —despite the terrible economy, joblessness and housing market — illustrates that Nevada isn’t much of a presidential swing state anymore. Hence, my suspicion that we won’t continue to be inundated with TV ads every four years.
The demographic trends working against Republicans nationally are even fiercer here. CNN exit polls show that Hispanics constitute 18 percent of the electorate, up from 15 percent in 2008 and 2010, and Obama won nearly 70 percent of those voters. And, every day, more and more Hispanics become citizens or turn 18, and nearly all of them recoil from the GOP’s strident positions on immigration, but also from its conservative economic policies.
As we've discusses before, demographics matter. And since the demographics of Nevada have changed so much in the last two decades, we're a different state. Yet Republicans still haven't adapted to that.
And what's made it even worse for them has been their lack of good field. Because Nevada Democrats have been so great at building a solid field operation in this state, they ran into so much success in GOTV. Certainly, "The Reid Machine" delivered yet again.
However, it wasn't fully complete. Dean Heller and Joe Heck somehow hanged on last night, though Heller "won" with only 46% of the vote. "Tea Party, Inc." outfits spent many millions of dollars on attacking Shelley Berkley and John Oceguera. And it looked like many of those attacks stuck. And it looked like they were able to deliver a few Legislature seats to Republicans as well.
However, Democrats will end up keeping both houses of the Nevada Legislature. And despite the "TEA" fueled attacks on Steven Horsford, he is still finalizing a decisive victory over Danny Tarkanian. And President Obama won Nevada by a bigger margin than most pundits had expected. All in all, not so bad for Nevada Democrats.
Looking forward, Democrats here have had to learn some lessons the hard way when it comes to responding to "TEA" fueled ad attacks. Yet despite that torrent of money thrown onto our TV screens and mailboxes, we still ended up seeing a whole lot of Blue here last night. As I said all along this cycle, Nevada remains a Blue State.
Now that early voting has come to an end, we can start analyzing the numbers. Clark County and Washoe County have posted new data, so let's take a look at the state's two population hubs.
In Washoe (Reno), the final in-person early vote count reached 111,190 people in total. 44,402 Republicans voted early in-person compared to 45,043 Democrats. But when the mail-in (or absentee) ballot count from yesterday is included, Republicans take a 451 raw vote lead. That makes for an almost final Republican turnout advantage... Of 0.004%, about on par with voter registration there.
In Clark (Vegas), the final in-person early vote count reached 436,631 people. 140,727 Republicans voted early in-person compared to 210,431 Democrats. Again, not all the mail-in ballots have been counted yet, so the full numbers are not here yet. But when yesterday's mail-in ballot count is included, here's where we are for now: Democrats have a 70,670 raw vote lead, or a 14.62% turnout advantage. This is just a tick below Democrats' 14.95% voter registration advantage in Clark County.
And here are some in-person early voting stats for the various swing districts in Clark County. (I've yet to find mail-in stats for districts within the county.) In NV-03, Democrats closed with a 5,018 raw vote lead, or a 2.79% turnout edge (slightly above 2.11% registration edge). In the Clark County part of NV-04, Democrats closed with a 27,112 raw vote lead, or a 19.03% turnout advantage (which is above the 17.61% voter registration advantage there). And in the key State Senate Districts which will determine control of the Nevada Legislature next year, Democrats closed in-person early voting with a 7.27% lead in the Henderson-Green Valley based SD 5 (almost 2% above registration), an 8.38% lead in the Las Vegas-Summerlin based SD 6 (just over 1% above registration), and an 8.65% lead in the Southwest Valley based SD 9 (about 0.5% above registration). Republicans' one bright spot (compared to all the rest in Clark) lies in SD 18, where their 0.01% turnout lead is at parity with voter registration there.
So we'll have to wait for the Secretary of State's next report for the updated mail-in ballot count. But so far, it looks like Nevada Democrats are making a strong close to early voting here. Yesterday's statewide lead was about 7% (on par with registration), and the new Clark & Washoe data suggest that statewide number won't be dropping today.
Today is the last day of early voting in Nevada. After today, the only day left for voting will be Tuesday. Yet while we have one more day of early voting to occur, we now have a much better sense of where things stand in this final stretch.
Democrats gained about 6,000 voters on the penultimate day of early voting in Clark County while Republicans won Thursday in Washoe County by about 200 votes.
It appears the Democrats, who now lead in Clark by 60,000 voters, will have somewhere in the neighborhood of about a 40,000-voter lead --perhaps slightly more -- in Nevada going into Election Day. If partsian voting patterns are predictable and if independents are, as credible polls show, relatively close, the GOP will need a huge turnout Tuesday for Mitt Romney to have any chance. And it also means that U.S. Senate race could be a nail-biter.
Turnout will be greater than what it was four years ago. In 2008, 392,427 people voted early; this year, with one day left, it's at 388,456.
Here are the totals for Clark, including mail ballots:
Democrats -- 205,878, or 47.6 percent
Republicans -- 144,745, or 33.5 percent
Others -- 81,345, or 18.9 percent
So how did this happen? Let me show you.
There has been a whole lot of canvassing. And we've especially been seeing plenty of canvassing in the Southwest part of the Las Vegas Valley. There are many Democratic voters here. But since there are so many new neighborhoods yet so few early voting sites, Nevada State Democratic Party organizers and volunteers have been working at a furious pace to turn out Democrats to vote early for President Obama, Shelley Berkley, John Oceguera, and the local candidates.
But of course, this hasn't been all. There's also been a large contingent of volunteers coming into the office to do GOTV ("get out the vote") phone calls to reach people who possibly couldn't be reached by the canvassers. There have even been a few very special guests dropping by this week to call with the local volunteers.
Yep, both Shelley Berkley and John Oceguera stopped by Nevada Democrats' NV-03 field office in Henderson to thank volunteers. Berkley brought pizza to make sure everyone was well fueled. And Oceguera hit the phones to personally call voters along with the volunteers.
And that's not all. Yesterday, another special guest came to Southern Nevada to pump up Democrats and encourage (even more of) them to vote. Oh, and it just so happened he met us at an athletic field right next to an early voting site.
And here's an excerpt of President Obama's speech at CSN Cheyenne.
So it's been quite an exciting week. And with early voting wrapping up tonight, there's even more work to do with the final round of GOTV for Tuesday. But so far, it looks like Nevada Democrats are prepared for the home stretch. They opened well, but they also have to close well. And that starts today.
After taking time off from the campaign trail to help with the start of recovery efforts after Hurricane Sandy ravaged several Northeastern states, President Obama returns to the campaign trail today. And yes, this means he's returning here.
The president is expected to address a campaign rally around 2 p.m. today at Cheyenne Sports Complex, 3500 East Cheyenne Ave. in North Las Vegas. Doors are scheduled to open at 11:30 a.m.
Actress Eva Longoria and percussionist Sheila E. will join Obama at the rally.
Obama spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said that while the president remains focused on the storm recovery, "there is a reality of a political election happening in five days and he will return to the trail to make the case to the American people on why they should send him back for four more years."
And what a strange reality it is. But alas, we only have 6 days left until the final polls close. And here in Nevada, we only have 2 more days until early voting ends. So this may really be President Obama's last chance to fire up the base and persuade a few more undecided voters.
Oh, and I'll be there today. Yes, a friend & I will go to North Las Vegas to see Mr. President. And I'll update the blog later with reports from the Cheyenne Sports Complex. I'm sure it will be plenty of fun. ;-)
Political pundits, campaign organizers and national magazines have declared 2012 the year of the Hispanic voter. Voter registration numbers and enthusiasm is up, and now all of those who invested in the wake-up call for this once-dormant demographic want to make sure it does not hit the snooze button on Election Day.
“I worked registering voters in 2008 and 2010, and I’ve seen a lot of enthusiasm this year,” [Izack] Tenorio [of Mi Familia Vota] said. “There are a lot of groups on the ground in Nevada encouraging Hispanics to get involved, and I’ve seen whole families come into our offices to all register together. I think people are starting to embrace their role and the choice they can participate in. Now, we just have to make sure they take that final step of getting to the polls.”
Mi Familia Vota came into this election cycle with the goal of registering 11,000 voters in Nevada. A few months in, the organization met that benchmark and set another one. That one was broken, too. More than 19,000 voters, the vast majority of them Hispanics, were registered, said Leo Murrieta, state director for Mi Familia Vota.
In a nationwide poll, Latino Decisions found that 8 percent of Hispanic voters had voted early as of Oct. 29 and 87 percent of Hispanic voters said they were “almost certain” to vote. Also, 45 percent of the demographic said they were more excited to vote this year than in 2008, when 84 percent of registered Hispanics voted. Notably, the percentage of Hispanics who said they were certain to vote and more enthusiastic than in 2008 have both increased in the weeks leading up to the election.
Many more Latino voters have been registered this year. But now, the real test comes. How many will vote?
Some already have. But as I hinted on Monday, we'll see a real "game change" moment today when more early voting sites open in Latin@ heavy East Las Vegas and North Las Vegas. For these final three days of early voting, the Clark County Election Department will be covering these neighborhoods much more thoroughly than we've seen for the previous 11 days.
So now, it truly is all about turnout. And since early voting is often the best (and sometimes the ONLY) way to get people to vote, these next 60 hours will be critical. And it may all come down to how crowded the Cardenas Market at Lamb & Bonanza becomes today (and tomorrow and Friday).
