Party platforms matter. They really do. Party platforms basically tell the story of what a party believes in and why. It's not something to be ignored...
But apparently, it's something to be twisted? Jon Ralston must have been hoping to stir up sh*t by tweeting passages from #WashoeDemPlatform (which can be found here)... Which encouraged a certain Reno based Republican operative to feign "OUTRAGE!!!" over it.
So that inspired me to take a closer look at #WashoeGOPPlatform. Oh yes, I read through it... All of it! And there were some real turdblossoms blooming "diamonds in the rough" that I encountered.
"We encourage entitlement reforms that will effectively address the issues..." aka #KillMedicare #WashoeGOPPlatform #nvp2
But wait, there's more!
"We support the United States Treasury distribution of gold and silver legal tender monetary coins." HUH? #WashoeGOPPlatform
Ah, but the fun is only beginning!
"The Bush tax cuts should be made permanent." aka #BillionaireBailouts #WashoeGOPPlatform #nvp2
It's bad enough that Washoe County Republicans don't seem to like proven science any more...
"We do not agree with the concept that global warming is a man-made disaster" So #WashoeGOPPlatform doesn't agree w/ #science? #nvp2
But are they ready to condemn that "HERETIC!!!" who will be their Presidential Nominee?
"We view any kind of cap and trade legislation as a punitive tax" except when @MittRomney supported it? #WashoeGOPPlatform #green
So of course, that leads me to...
"We support the immediate defunding and repeal of the 2010 health care package" Based on @MittRomney's #hcr plan? #WashoeGOPPlatform #nvp2
"We oppose any further defunding of Medicare." Except when @SenDeanHeller & @RepJoeHeck vote 4 @RepPaulRyan's budget? #WashoeGOPPlatform
And there was even more denial of not-so-distant history to be found in that platform.
"We oppose amnesty" that #GOP'ers GW Bush & John McCain supported? #WashoeGOPPlatform #latism #nvp2
"We request Congress to immediately repeal the U. S. A. Patriot Act" pushed by GW Bush. Remember him? #WashoeGOPPlatform #nvp2
"We believe govt must operate w/in limits of Constitution & not exceed specifically enumerated powers." What abt GW Bush? #WashoeGOPPlatform
It's like the committee that designed the Washoe County Republican Party's Platform didn't even want to acknowledge the existence of either George W. Bush or the "Massachusetts Moderate" version of Mitt Romney!
Oh, and of course, they had to spice it up with some pure H8 and homophobia!
"We support Nevada’s Marriage Amdt that defines marriage as the union between 1 man and 1 woman." Remember #nveq #WashoeGOPPlatform #nvp2
And in case anyone really thought that the "War on Women" is over, there's this.
"The unborn child has a fundamental right to life" But women don't? #WarOnWomen #WashoeGOPPlatform #feminist #nvp2
Yesterday, we took a fresh look at what's going on in a handful of critical Senate races this fall while also calling out a ridiculous election prediction from the local "newspaper". Today, our attention turns to the Assembly as we notice what's been happening since October. And yes, we'll again be noting why the "newspaper" got #NVLeg totally wrong.
So far all of the safe seats identified in October remain safe, so we'll save some time and only look at seats in play and/or likely to change hands. Here we go!
This will be the last time AD 2 is featured on this list, as Democrats failed to recruit anyone to run against John Hambrick. He gets a free ride back to Carson City, and Nevada Democrats blow a potential pick-up opportunity.
Originally, it looked like Republicans would have a significant advantage in retaining this seat. However, plenty has changed since we last checked in October. For one, local "tea party" icon Michelle Fiore is the assured Republican nominee here.
Thankfully for Nevada Democrats, they actually have a candidate running here. We'll have to see how serious Ken Evans' campaign is. But really, can any campaign involving Michelle Fiore be all that serious? If it weren't for the more conservative nature and slight GOP registration edge in this district, this would be an easy flip for Democrats. But even as is, Democrats have a better shot than ever before here.
Incumbent Democratic Assembly Member Marilyn Dondero Loop remains one of the most endangered incumbents of this cycle simply because of the huge changes made to her district in redistricting. What had been a pretty safe Democratic West Side seat is now a thorny, swingy suburban district that Dondero Loop will most certainly have to work for to win again.
Now, it's just a question of how hard Bill Harrington and Nevada Republicans are willing to work to take this seat away from her.
AD 9
Summerlin South/Enterprise- Summerlin, Rhodes Ranch
Democrat Andrew Martin ran as an outsider for Assembly in 2008 in a more GOP leaning AD 13. However, he managed to shock most pundits by coming out of nowhere to get 49% against then incumbent Assembly Member Chad Christensen (R-Las Vegas). This time, he has the Assembly Democratic Caucus endorsement in a new Democratic leaning AD 9 comprising the once fast growing and now fast changing Southwest Vegas suburbs. And this time, the odds are much better for Martin to win.
Still, Andrew Martin must first clear the Democratic Primary. (Actually that shouldn't be too hard, since his primary opponent doesn't even have a web site.) Then, he'll be facing either Clayton Hurst or Victoria DeLaGuerra-Seaman in the general election. But again, considering the leftward shift of this district's politics in recent cycles, this shouldn't be too tough of a seat for Democrats to hold this year.
AD 12
Sunrise Manor/East Las Vegas/Henderson- Lake Las Vegas
Early on, it looked like James Ohrenschall might get a tough fight on his hands in the reconfigured AD 12. And while I still think it's a possibility, it's increasingly looking like a dwindling one. And with even the Assembly Republican Caucus ready to concede this race, this race may soon fall off the radar. Still, we'll keep a close eye on this one for now.
The bad news for Nevada Democrats: This district shifted a bit to the right in redistricting.
The good news for Nevada Democrats: This district is still within reach.
However, Democrats aren't without their own primary drama here. 2010 nominee Lou DeSalvio is running again, but this time he's being challenged in the primary by local activist and small business owner Leisa Moseley. So far it doesn't look to be as acrimonious as the primary situation on the other side, but we'll still have to see how bad their primary gets before determining if this becomes a top Democratic pick-up opportunity.
AD 19
Mesquite/Sunrise Manor/Henderson- Old Henderson
In 2010, Crescent Hardy was fortunate enough to run in a super safe AD 20 that Republicans never had to think about defending. However in 2012, that's all about to change. The new AD 19 may still contain Hardy's hometown of Mesquite along with Republican friendly turf in Old Henderson, but it also picks up more Democratic friendly precincts around Nellis Air Force Base, resulting in a district with only about a 3% Republican registration edge, as well as a district that both President Obama and Senator Harry Reid won. Incumbent Steven Brooks (D-East Las Vegas) was also originally placed in this district, but he jumped to AD 17 to run in a safer district.
So we'll have to keep an eye on Felipe Rodriguez to see if he can do what no Democrat has done before.
AD 20
Paradise/Henderson: Sunset Park, Green Valley, Whitney Ranch
So whatever happened to AD 20? It got moved in redistricting from rural Clark County to the urban core of Paradise (aka "The East Side") and the older Green Valley North neighborhoods of Henderson. Without a doubt, this is the Assembly seat most likely to change hands this year. And without a doubt, the most action we'll see here will be in the Democratic Primary.
Nevada State Board of Education member Gloria Bonaventura, Former Assembly Member Ellen Spiegel, and local attorney and community activist Kent Ivey are all running in the Democratic Primary here. And again, whoever wins that primary is virtually assured of winning in the general.
AD 21
Paradise/Henderson- Silverado Ranch, Green Valley
With current Assembly Member Mark Sherwood (R-Henderson) stepping down and redistricting radically reshaping this district, AD 21 is also poised to deliver big changes this year. For one, it's dropped Green Valley Ranch to pick up Silverado Ranch. And in doing that, it's shifted from a typically Republican friendly district to a more Democratic leaning district and prime Democratic pick-up opportunity.
Perhaps that's why three Democrats are all vying for this seat: retired Carpenters Union official Rick Wilkening, Touro University dean Dr. Andy Eisen, and attorney, community activist, & "soccer dad" Steve Parke (disclaimer: he's also my neighbor). In addition, we'll likely see a battle royale in the Republican Primary here as Mark Sherwood endorsed attorney & "PTA mom" Becky Harris goes against Clark County Republican Party e-board representative and early "tea party" favorite Swadeep Nigam.
The general election should also be pretty competitive, but the recent political trends in Green Valley South and Silverado Ranch give Democrats the early advantage and the chance for another valuable pick-up. Becky Harris may not make it easy, but the resumes of both Andy Eisen and Steve Parke suggest they're up for the challenge.
AD 22
Henderson- Green Valley Ranch, MacDonald Ranch
Current Assembly Member Lynn Stewart (R-Henderson) is getting a radically downsized district in redistricting, but that so far doesn't seem to hurt his reelection prospects. Stewart now has a Democratic opponent in local entrepreneur Randy Spoor, but we'll have to see if the Nevada Democratic Party ever gets serious about playing in this Henderson district before upgrading this race any time soon.
Now this should be fun. Local "Gun Store" and "tea party" celebrity Bob Irwin is back (he ran against John Oceguera in the old AD 16 in 2010), but this time he's moving to Henderson to challenge incumbent Assembly Member April Mastroluca (D-Henderson). Irwin has definitely gained plenty of media attention with his "Gun Store", but Mastroluca also earned her own reputation over the years as an involved parent and education activist. This may very well be a "battle of the heavyweights" that keeps us at the edge of our seats all year.
Certainly, AD 29 tipped to the right in redistricting as it shed some Democratic turf to the new AD 20 while picking up some Republican leaning neighborhoods from the old AD 21. Still, April Mastroluca has earned respect as a good campaigner. And considering her past victories over the more moderate Sean Fellows (2008) and Dan Hill (2010), it won't be easy for known "tea party" flame thrower Bob Irwin to unseat April Mastroluca in a Green Valley based district that both President Obama and Senator Harry Reid still carried.
AD 35
Enterprise- Mountain's Edge, Southern Highlands
Here's another prime pick-up opportunity for Nevada Democrats. Assembly Minority Pete Goicoechea (R-Eureka) has been representing this district, but he's moving onto the Senate... While his old Assembly District moves from rural Northern Nevada to Clark County and settles in some Southwest Vegas neighborhoods that may ultimately be more interested in sending a Democrat to Carson City.
Still, this isn't stopping Republican Adam Cegavske (yes, Barbara Cegavske's son!) from running here. However, his campaign isn't stopping real estate agent and "tea party" hopeful Tom Blanchard from running here as well. Meanwhile on the Democratic side, local attorney & community activist Nathan Sosa and MGM manager (he runs housekeeping at New York New York) & HRC Las Vegas Steering Committee Co-chair James Healey are running here.
Yet again, we have a wide open seat in "The Wild (South)West" attracting plenty of candidates. But ultimately, I suspect Democrats have the early edge here.
This may yet prove to be the most painful Legislature race for Nevada Democrats. Marcus Conklin (D-Las Vegas) had expected to become the next Nevada Assembly Speaker. Now, he'll be lucky if he just makes it back to Carson City next year.
Wesley Duncan is an Iraq War veteran and JAG reservist, and already THE top Republican recruit. And now that AD 37 has shifted from a safe Democratic seat to a tossup seat with a slight GOP registration edge that takes in some "Blood Red" territory in Sun City Summerlin, this may well be Nevada Republicans' top pick-up opportunity. And without a doubt, knocking out the Assembly's top Democrat would be an additional badge of honor for Duncan and top Republicans.
Still, Marcus Conklin won't make this easy for Wesley Duncan. While his ties to mining lobbyists and gaming insiders may provide Duncan with prime "dirt" to use against Conklin on the campaign trail, they nonetheless provide Conklin with plenty of needed cash to pummel Duncan and respond to those attacks. Don't be surprised if this ends up as one of the ugliest #NVLeg races on record.
AD 41
Enterprise/Paradise/Henderson- Silverado Ranch, Seven Hills
Paul Aizley (D-Paradise) is yet another Democratic incumbent faced with the misfortune of a more competitive Assembly District to run in. But unlike most of the other races, the dynamics of AD 41 and the likely Republican nominee give Aizley some hope. Phil Regeski doesn't have any primary competition, but that isn't stopping him from running hard to the "tea party" right and wholly embracing Chuck Muth & his "no tax" pledge.
While the addition of tony, GOP dominant Seven Hills will likely cause Aizley some heartburn while giving Regeski some hope, there may still be enough Democratic votes in Silverado Ranch to offset that. And if Regeski keeps toeing the Muth "tea party" line, nonpartisans may ultimately give long-time district resident and UNLV professor Aizley another look.
At least Democrats managed to field a candidate here, "some dude" named Rodney Petzak. Now, we just have to ask if that's enough to really scare Randy Kirner. Since Petzak doesn't even have a web site yet, I have serious doubts. Maybe this is the last time you'll see this district on this list?
This is likely the other Assembly race that Nevada Democrats are worrying about the most. Incumbent Richard "Skip" Daly (D-Sparks) had been used to running in a safe district. But now, he has to run in a seat where Republicans have a slight registration edge! And even worse, Nevada Republicans landed a top notch recruit in David Espinosa. Not only does he have a snazzy web site, thanks to his own background in IT, but he's also bringing forward policy proposals (like having e-readers replace traditional textbooks, and "incentive awards" for new technology) that one typically doesn't find on a campaign web site.
But then again, Skip Daly isn't your typical incumbent. He has a long history in Sparks, and he's known as a relentless campaigner. He'll really need those relentless campaign skills now, since the new AD 31 has a slight GOP registration advantage (just over 4%). However if both President Obama and Senator Harry Reid could win this district, perhaps Skip Daly can as well?
This may be another race that goes down to the wire.
---
All in all, it looks like we'll be seeing a whole lot of change in the Assembly next year. For all we know, the Assembly may even get an unexpected new Speaker next year, along with a whole lot of surprising seat flips in both directions. Like yesterday's Senate forecast, I'll rate the ten hottest Assembly races on the basis of most likely to change parties.
1. AD 20 (R to D)
2. AD 21 (R to D)
3. AD 35 (R to D)
4. AD 19 (D to R)
5. AD 37 (D to R)
6. AD 31 (D to R)
7. AD 4 (R to D)
8. AD 29 (D to R)
9. AD 5 (D to R)
10. AD 13 (R to D)
If the election were today, I'd stop the flipping at #6. This would mean Espinosa unseats Daly, Duncan unseats Conklin, and Hardy wins reelection, giving Republicans three pick-ups. However, this would also mean the Democrats win the trio of open seats previously held by Republicans, giving Democrats three pick-ups. So funny enough, in the end we get the same 26-16 split we had last session... Just in an odd way that includes interesting pick-ups and painful losses for both parties.
So far, we've been hearing plenty of hyperventilating in the media over today's Supreme Court oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act and the legality of the individual mandate. However, most pundits didn't even bother to step back and look at what really happened today. Fortunately, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick did.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer was the most vigorous defender of Congress’s power to select the mandate as the key piece in the new health care law’s regulation of the insurance industry, but almost equally in its favor were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. But those four, of course, cannot control the outcome on their own. But, in the end, if Kennedy were to wind up accepting the mandate’s validity — however reluctantly — those four could then be in the majority. Such a majority, it appeared, would probably form only behind the theory that the mandate was within Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, not under its taxing authority in the General Welfare Clause. The tax argument seemed to lack force, and, anyway, Verrilli used it primarily as just a backup.
If that coalition were to form, it would be likely that Justice Kennedy, the senior among those five, almost certainly would assign the opinion to himself — unless, of course, the Chief Justice ultimately were persuaded to go along so that this historic case did not turn out to be decided by a possibly embarrassing 5-4 vote. Roberts was among the more combative adversaries of the mandate, during Verrilli’s argument, but he made considerable efforts to remind the challengers’ lawyers of the government’s key points, perhaps to test how solid their answers to those points would be. His vote in favor of the mandate did seem like a long shot, unless he found institutional imperatives for going along if a majority were to uphold it.
Despite their tough questions, both Kennedy and Roberts indicated sympathy with the view that health insurance is a unique market that may require a unique approach to regulate — and that’s central to the constitutional question at hand.
“I think it is true that if most questions in life are matters of degree,” Kennedy said, “in the insurance and health care world, both markets — stipulate two markets — the young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries.”
Despite his initial skepticism, Roberts later seemed persuaded of the uniqueness of health care market.
“Everybody is in this market,” Roberts told the lawyer for the Republican opponents. “So that makes it very different than the market for cars or the other hypotheticals that you came up with, and all they’re regulating is how you pay for it.”
So is it smooth sailing from here? Hardly. We have one more session of oral arguments coming tomorrow on the issue of "severability", or whether the entire Affordable Care Act must be thrown out if the individual mandate is found unconstitutional. The mandate is really the "glue" that holds the Affordable Care Act together and makes the "Affordable" part of it a real possibility, although some legal scholars think the rest of the bill can somehow be reworked without a mandate. It would just be a matter of what on earth can be passed in this Congress.
And of course, it really comes back to that. How much power does Congress have to mandate health insurance and regulate the health insurance market? In looking at what Kennedy and Roberts said today, it seems like they're open to discuss this some more.
As we discussed yesterday, this whole fight that's supposedly about the law has been clouded immensely by partisan politics. We'll just have to see what happens later this week. And we'll have to keep hoping that at least five Supreme Court Justices care more about the letter of the law than raw campaign politics. And yes, I do believe that hope is still quite alive today. Just don't expect the typical media pundits to report on that.
Yesterday, a certain "newspaper" posted this article on the race for the Legislature this year... And the Carson City reporter at the "newspaper" actually managed to repost an entire Senate Republican Caucus press release predict a 12-9 Republican majority in the State Senate next year, as well as expanded Republican numbers in the Assembly. And how, one might ask, did Ed Vogel reach this conclusion? Basically, he gave every marginal seat to the Republicans!
Not even Ralston was buying that "newspaper analysis" last night.
So what does the real picture look like? Let me help. Since the last time we did race ratings was in October, we were probably overdue for an update anyway. But considering the crazy @ss spin we saw in a certain "newspaper" yesterday, it's definitely time to update the state of the race. And unlike that certain "newspaper", we're not just copying a press release.
Today, we're covering the Senate. (And I'm just listing the competitive races below because the safe seats are all the same as October's initial analysis.) Tomorrow, we'll be looking at competitive Assembly races.
I still live in this district, so I at least like to think that I know more about what's actually happening in this district than what most media pundits think they know. Basically, SD 5 was reworked in redistricting to become mostly a Green Valley/Silverado Ranch district with just some of Old Henderson remaining. Overall, it transforms the district from what had been considered Republican leaning turf into a more Democratic friendly district.
Still, Nevada Democrats can't take anything for granted here. Former Henderson City Council Member Steve Kirk has been endorsed by the Senate Republican Caucus, and he still has a base of support here. However, he can't take anything for granted here either, as local doctor Annette Teijero is also running in the Republican primary and seems to be emerging as the "tea party" favorite here. While Kirk seems to be leading in the "money race", Teijero and Democratic candidate (and former State Senator) Joyce Woodhouse are getting a head start in the always important field game.
This seat may again come down to the wire, and this seat may again be "bombed" with intense campaign spending, but this time strong Democratic performance at the "top of the ticket" is almost certain to be the key that sends Joyce Woodhouse back to Carson City. While Kirk's early fundraising advantage has me placing this seat in "Tossup" territory for now, I honestly don't think this will be as easy of a Republican pickup as Michael Roberson and most media pundits had originally expected this district to be. (In fact, I won't be surprised if they don't pick up this seat at all.)
If any seat is the ideal example of the high stakes of this year's Legislature elections, it's probably this one. Democrats were already starting to get nervous about this seat when incumbent Senator Allison Copening (D-Las Vegas) faced heat over HOA related legislation she introduced last session. But when Copening announced her retirement in January, the race really opened up. Republicans had already recruited Mark Hutchison, the lawyer who accepted Jim Gibbons' offer to represent Nevada in the anti-health care reform law suit now being argued in the US Supreme Court. However, Democrats had the good fortune of finding 2010 SD 9 candidate Benny Yerushalmi (who only lost to Elizabeth Halseth by about 5%) willing to run in the new SD 6. Thomas Welsh is also running in the Democratic Primary, but so far Yerushalmi looks favored to win that primary.
Most likely, the general election will be the big fight here. And already, Yerushalmi vs. Hutchison vies to be the among the key marquee fights for #NVLeg this year. While the new SD 6 is more Democratic than its previous incarnation, it's still a close enough district to leave Benny Yerushlami and Nevada Democrats hardly any room for error. And considering the big money likely heading Hutchison's way, Yerushalmi will definitely need a stronger field presence this time than he did in 2010 to actually seal the deal this year.
Of all the critical Senate seats up this year, this one looks to deliver the biggest change. For one, it wasn't even supposed to be up this year... But a surprise resignation by Elizabeth Halseth (R-Enterprise) changed that assumption, and that really changed the whole dynamic of the race for the Legislature. What had been a tough hill for Democrats to climb to hold onto the Senate is now becoming a tough hill for Republicans to climb (yes, really, Ed Vogel & R-J pundits) to flip it.
What really made Halseth's resignation a huge blow for Michael Roberson's hopes of becoming Majority Leader was that SD 9 changed radically in redistricting. What had been a more GOP friendly exurban Western Clark County district is now an ethnically diverse and increasingly Democratic leaning Southwest Vegas Valley district. And like SD 5, all it takes is strong Democratic turnout and good "top of the ticket" Democratic performance to flip this seat.
And by landing a top notch candidate in Justin Jones, Nevada Democrats are serious about picking up this seat this time. "Angry Professor" Fred Conquest is also running on the Democratic side, but it (again) doesn't look like he's running a serious campaign (seriously, his web site still features his failed 2010 Gubernatorial run). I honestly don't think Justin Jones should have a problem getting through the Democratic Primary. And with former Joe Heck & Dean Heller spokesperson Mari St. Martin and "tea party" favorite Brent Jones running on the Republican side, I'm liking Justin Jones' chances in the general election. While Democrats still can't take this seat for granted, I am thinking this is the Senate seat most likely to change hands this year.
SD 18 (Open)
Las Vegas- Northwest/Centennial Hills
Early on, it looked like the most competition we'd see here would be in the Republican Primary... But that all changed when Kelli Ross announced her candidacy here. Not only does she look like a formidable candidate in her own right, but her husband (Las Vegas City Council Member Steve Ross) will probably help her connect with folks in ways that many Democrats typically can't in this Northwest Las Vegas district.
However, Democrats shouldn't get too giddy about picking up this new seat (created mostly from remains of the old SD 9 and SD 12, and moved here from rural Nevada) just yet. Assembly Member Scott Hammond (R-Las Vegas) doesn't quite have the same "fire breathing" reputation as the guy he replaced, so running against him may not be a cake walk. However Hammond isn't getting a cake walk in the Republican Primary, since fellow Assembly Member Richard MacArthur (R-Las Vegas) is also running, and MacArthur DOES have a "fire breathing" reputation that's endearing to the local "tea party" set here. Meanwhile in the Democratic Primary, Kelli Ross is being challenged from the left by former PTA President Donna Schlemmer.
This may very well be one of those races that's competitive from beginning to end. And perhaps more so than any of the other marginal Senate seats, this one may really hinge on what happens in the primary. Hammond seems to be the less doctrinaire conservative Republican, while Ross looks to be the more moderate Democrat. So of course, their general election asset may turn out to be the key primary liability.
This most definitely promises to be the big #NVLeg marquee race of the north. And the stakes here are incredibly high. Two seasoned legislators are running against each other, and the winner of this race may very well be "the majority maker". This explains why the competition is already turning fierce up north.
As we can see in the above video, Senator Greg Brower (R-Reno) is trying to flip-flop his way to the middle of the road after pivoting quite far to the "tea party" right in last year's NV-02 special election. Meanwhile, Sheila Leslie (D-Reno) had to make a big move of her own, albeit a physical one to a smaller house after her kids moved out of the old house, to run in the new SD 15. And unlike the old Washoe Senate 3 district where Bill Raggio served for nearly four decades, the new SD 15 has only a tiny (about 2%) GOP registration advantage... Yet recent election results show the district to be trending Democratic, which is why Greg Brower and Michael Roberson haven't been resting easily ever since Sheila Leslie's big move.
This may very well be the most expensive #NVLeg race in history once all is said and done. Republicans must win this seat again to have a chance at getting any kind of Senate majority. But if Sheila Leslie wins SD 15 for Democrats, then Democrats are virtually assured of keeping the Senate as well as keeping alive hopes of a possible 2/3 veto-proof supermajority.
---
So this is what's at stake with Senate elections this year. If Republicans win at least four out of the five marginal seats listed above, Roberson becomes Majority Leader. On the other hand, all Democrats have to do is win at least two out of these five races to keep the majority (and I think Dems already have a head start here with SD 9 now on the table). Yet if 2012 turns out to be a great year for Nevada Democrats, President Obama manages to win the state handily again, and Democrats manage to pull a spectacular feat of winning all five competitive Senate races, then Democrats finally achieve that 2/3 veto-proof supermajority that's been enticing them for quite some time.
So what's really possible? Let me conclude by ranking the seats in order of likelihood of changing parties:
1. SD 9 (R to D)
2. SD 15 (R to D)
3. SD 6 (D to R)
4. SD 5 (D to R)
5. SD 18 (R to D)
Right now, I'd stop the flipping somewhere between #2 and #3. Yes, I know, I should be more decisive here! OK, so let's be generous and keep the flipping going all the way to #3. This means Hutchison turns SD 6 from Blue to Red while Leslie turns SD 15 from Red to Blue and (Justin) Jones turns SD 9 from Red to Blue. And this means Woodhouse keeps SD 5 Blue while Hammond or MacArthur keeps SD 18 Red. So in the end, I guess the "newspaper" actually did get the final Senate numbers correct... They just got the parties mixed up. (They say Republicans get a 12-9 majority. I say the current state of play suggests a 12-9 Democratic majority.)
Last week, we celebrated the second anniversary of passage of the Affordable Care Act. We've seen how "Obamacare" benefits the entire country, as well as how the ACA benefits Nevada. But now, health care is on trial. The US Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments this week on the legal merits of ACA.
So far, the most challenged provision of ACA has been the individual mandate. But funny enough, Republicans don't like to talk about how it became a key provision of health care reform in the first place.
Once upon a time, Republicans liked the individual mandate because they thought it promoted "individual responsibility". It was not until President Obama agreed to include an individual mandate in his health care reform package that they all of a sudden embraced the legal argument against federal regulatory authority that had previously only been pushed by fringe libertarian legal thinkers.
And that's what makes this week so odd. Over the weekend, both New York Times Supreme Court expert Linda Greenhouse and Slate Supreme Court watcher Dahlia Lithwick stated the obvious, which is that the legal case for health care reform really is more of a slam dunk than most of the media pundits want us to believe. Despite all the political controversy over "LIBERTY!!!", the "tea party" really has no legitimate legal leg to stand upon when it comes to challenging basic federal regulatory authority.
Here's Greenhouse:
So I want to unpack the challengers’ Commerce Clause argument for what it is: just words.
Basically just one word, in fact: “unprecedented.” ...
The government argues that, to the contrary, the “uncompensated consumption of health care” by those who are willfully or helplessly uninsured is itself an enormous economic activity. The uninsured don’t exist apart from commerce. To the contrary, their medical care results in some $43 billion of uncovered health care costs annually and, through cost-shifting, adds $1,000 a year to the average cost of a family insurance policy. People who don’t want to buy broccoli or a new car can eat brussels sprouts or take the bus, but those without health insurance are in commerce whether they like it or not.
Again, this is why the case against "Obamacare" has always been more about the politics than about the law. The legal case really is open-shut, so all the G-O-TEA can do is spew more venom and hope against hope that "The Supremes" put campaign politics above The Constitution. And while this court has been playing with fire lately in reaching some controversial decisions, there's a good probability that even this court suspects overturning the ACA because of partisan politics is simply crossing a bridge too far.
Yesterday, The R-J posted a ridiculously whiny editorial bashing Shelley Berkley for merely pointing out Dean Heller's voting record and asking him to join her in saying no to secretive Super PAC campaigns here in Nevada. According to The R-J, the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision only affirmed "free speech", and those big, bad "LIB'RUL!!!" women should stop attacking poor lil' Rush Limbaugh and his "free speech" rights to have advertisers pay for time on his radio show so he can continue attacking America's women.
Sorry, R-J editoral board (and all the shortsighted white male pundits who think they have a good point), but give me a f**king break!
This obviously is NOT about free speech. Rather, Americans from across the political spectrum are increasingly fearful of a tiny group of super-wealthy donors using their Super PACs to exert massive influence over elections and gain control of government. After all, why is "free speech" no longer free? So now we're all required to raise massive amounts of money just to have the same "free speech" rights as David Koch and Sheldon Adelson?
And then, there's Rush-bo. When did the First Amendment guarantee the right to a multi-million dollar national talk radio contract and a full slate of advertisers? News flash to The R-J: It does NOT.
I thought the "free market libertarians" at The R-J believed in the sanctity of "the free market". So how can they legitimately complain about "the free market" determining that Rush Limbaugh's radio show is no longer a valuable commodity? At least 52 advertisers have pulled out of sponsoring Limbaugh's radio show as of last Friday. And last I checked, there's no "First Amendment mandate" for those corporate advertisers to sponsor Rush Limbaugh. Are they just as guilty as Shelley Berkley of "actively working to silence someone" who's been making a living off spewing hateful bile about women?
Yes, Rush Limbaugh has the same First Amendment rights as all the rest of us. And that's all. None of us has a guaranteed right to a multi-million dollar radio contract, and neither does Limbaugh. So if citizens like Shelley Berkley put up petitions to cancel Limbaugh's show and corporate advertisers respond by pulling their ads, that's just the American "free market" at work.
It just sounds to me like the radical "tea party" right (that The R-J loved before it became the new brand of "GOP cool") is pulling its own "desperate stunt" to change the subject because it's now starting to fear a painful loss in its War on Women. Even John McCain is now joining Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and other prominent Republicans in begging G-O-TEA leadership to drop the anti-contraception nonsense.
The polling is lookingincreasingly ugly for Republicans, so now some of them want to drop the birth control fight in an effort to save face. Others, however, seem to think that the bad poll numbers will just go away if they spin harder and try to turn this into an "attack on religious liberty"... And apparently now, an "attack on free speech".
What a crock of crap.
It's not Shelley Berkley's fault that Dean Heller faces consequences for supporting Rush Limbaugh over Nevada women. Her move to point out Heller's vote to restrict women's access to needed health care is not a "stunt". And her denunciation of Rush Limbaugh is not some nefarious effort to "silence free speech". If G-O-TEA politicians like Heller and "tea party" cheerleaders like The R-J editorial board really cared about free speech, they could have said something when House Republicans denied Sandra Fluke the chance to testify on her own health care.
After reading Karoun Demirjian's Sun article on the impact Rush Limbaugh may be having on Nevada's US Senate race, one gets the sense that Shelley Berkley is just "desperate to manufacture controversy". We've heard plenty from reporters and pundits on the political games supposedly being played in "Limbaugh-gate". However, we're still not hearing enough about the actual policies being debated in Congress.
Thankfully, Nevada's own Desert Beacon has been able to cut through the spin and deliver the real story here.
When the Obama Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services proposed that basic health care insurance policy coverage would include contraceptive prescriptions the issue was drawn into focus. The compromise position was adopted saying that no religious institution which did not tolerate views accepting of contraception would be required to offer such coverage — but, health insurance corporations would be required to offer the coverage to those wishing such provisions.
Unfortunately for the improvement of our national political dialogue, the level of mis-information soon out shouted the level of accurate commentary. Opponents of comprehensive health care reform (health insurance corporations) have treated us to a barrage of fact-free statements like, “This is taxpayer funded contraception…,” which, of course, it isn’t. Twisting the logic to say that a coverage requirement for basic policies is tantamount to a taxpayer subsidization of contraceptives necessitates mental gymnastics comparable to the contortions of Cirque du Soliel.
A Gordian Knot of similar proportions is also required to frame this issue in terms of religious freedom. The concept of religious freedom as contemplated in an American context requires the accommodation of varying religious precepts, NOT the acquiescence to the precepts of any single institution. If the views of the Catholic Bishops had prevailed, then what we would have experienced was the antithesis of religious freedom, i.e. one group imposing its views on all the rest. The American public seems to sense this.
This is why I was irritated when I saw Jon Ralston give credence to the radical right's meme of "ObamaCare attacks religious liberty!!!!!!!" Just because Erick Erickson's and Rush Limbaugh's lies about women's health care are being repeated by Dean Heller doesn't make them true. And just because Shelley Berkley is making this into a campaign issue doesn't negate the fact that Republicans keep proposing legislation to restrict women's access to needed health care.
The “financial” logic is sound. A study from 2000 estimated that it costs employers 15 to 17 percent more to not provide contraceptive coverage to employees than it would if the insurance coverage included the benefit. This higher spending accounts for the direct medical costs of a pregnancy and indirect expenses like employee absence and reduced productivity.
So is this "the new normal" that we're supposed to embrace and the media are supposed to provide with "fair and balanced" coverage? So the G-O-TEA wants to reduce women to baby-making machines that are "malfunctioning" if they're doing anything other than serving their men while barefoot and pregnant at home?
I know that not everyone gets excited about discussing the details of contraception and reproductive health care policy, and I suspect that's why many in the media have been more than happy to reduce this discussion to "just another partisan mud fight"... But it's not. Ralston may not like the Berkley campaign comparing Dean Heller to Rush Limbaugh, but the fact of the matter is that Dean Heller voted exactly how Rush Limbaugh wanted him to vote in supporting the Blunt Amendment to restrict women's health care access. And if Heller doesn't like the political repercussions of this, he only has himself to blame.
I understand Jon Ralston likes to be an "equal opportunity offender" when it comes to attacking politicians and political parties. And typically, I'm OK with that. However, I can't stay silent on his Sun column today.
Basically, he has a "pox on both their houses" attitude and he's arguing that progressives are just as guilty of character assassination as Rush Limbaugh may be because a few people on Twitter said some not-so-nice things about Andrew Breitbart just after he died. Really? Honestly, I didn't want to say anything about Breitbart. And I suspect I'm not the only one who felt that way. There was no "coordinated left wing assault on Breitbart's family", despite progressives' overall disgust with what he did to other people. I still don't really want to touch that, but I do think it's a bit of a stretch to compare Matt Taibbi's Rolling Stone essay and a few comments on Twitter to the coordinated radical right attack on Sandra Fluke and all other American women who just happen to have used birth control at some point in their lives.
When did these women ever start web sites to attack politicians they didn't like? And when did these women ever work for Matt Drudge and Arianna Huffington before building their own media empire? It's not as if they were ever "fair game"... Unless being invited to a Congressional hearing is now "fair game" to engage in full politics of personal destruction.
And then, there's this. Ralston compared right wing "insensitivity" to women's reproductive rights and women's health needs to "liberals look[ing] down on sincere people of faith who value their religion above almost everything". Really? I have many friends and family who are very much in tune with their faith, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for that. This is NOT about people of faith, or about churches being forced to do something against their beliefs. This is about ensuring women have the same access to contraception that men have to whatever sexual health care they desire... At least until Limbaugh opened his mouth and called Sandra Fluke a "slut" for ever using birth control.
Thank you, Jon Stewart, for explaining what this whole argument should really be about. It's just too bad that Jon Ralston seems to be missing the point.
Seriously, when did so many in the media decide that contraception is supposed to be "controversial"? When did it become just another "partisan poop fight" when women are being called "sluts" and "prostitutes" for simply expecting their health insurance to cover birth control? Are the media really becoming this ridiculous?
I suspect Ralston thought it would be in good taste to knock Shelley Berkley for some fundraising email and compare some comments on Twitter regarding Breitbart's death to the whole radical right effort to support Rush Limbaugh's attacks on American women while mildly criticizing Limbaugh and misstating what's actually at stake with the new rule proposed by President Obama to require health insurance coverage of contraception. It's not. And it's saddening to see media pundits yet again choose a false sense of "fair and balanced" over explaining why something is really in the news.
OK, time for a new thread! Let's get started (all over again).
And now, we're finally starting to get real results. Right now, it's neck and neck between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich... But that's just Eureka County. Apparently, it may also be close in Carson City. But of course, we already have a good idea of what to expect in the rest of the state...
Apparently, CNN figured out that all the rest of us were already seeing the caucus results live on Twitter. Heh. They're now estimating Romney's win at about 54% of the vote, with Ron Paul edging out Newt Gingrich for second place. They're now claiming these numbers are "exclusively CNN's!!!"... And ignoring that we already saw all of this on Twitter this morning.
Sorry, CNN... But you FAIL!
5:35 PM-
And now, we're getting more rural numbers. Newt Gingrich narrowly won Mineral County while Ron Paul snatched a big win in Nye County. However while we're still waiting for Clark County, Romney just has to wait and sit pretty.
Voss' tone shifted seamlessly between playful and angry. He is not an ideologue. He's worried about the deficit and the housing market, particularly in his home state. He acknowledges that Romney's desire to see the foreclosure crisis play itself out isn't exactly his cup of tea. He wants the banks to feel more pressure to restructure loans and he thinks Obama hasn't done enough on that front.
"Smaller banks are being pushed out of business," he said. "You can't favor big banks."
Voss believes that the country faces a potentially cataclysmic budget crisis, but there are some cuts he thinks go too far. A 22-year veteran, he doesn't want military spending levels tweaked. He also wants his pension protected. Pressed a bit more about his animus toward the president, he concedes that what Obama inherited from President George W. Bush wasn't all that pretty.
"I don't think [John] McCain could have done that much better," he said. But that's hardly an excuse for staying the course. "We need someone to blow things up."
Nicole McGreary, another Henderson resident, wants Romney to essentially blow things up as well. And unlike a large portion of the Republican Party, she is deeply enthused about his candidacy, considering him both virtuous -- "What personal agenda would he personally have other than to see the country prosper?" -- and ideal for the times. Asked what it would take her to switch her allegiance over to Obama, she can only summon one scenario.
"He would have to move to some other country for me to consider voting for him," she said.
Like Voss, McGreary is tough to pigeonhole. She doesn't like being called a "conservative," because of the implication that she might be a member of the religious right. She believes in gay marriage and said she thinks it's fine for states, not the federal government, to legalize abortion. Her disdain for the president is tied to his health care law and his energy policy -- from his administration's support for Solyndra, the failed solar energy company that received federal loans, to its opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline.
Mostly, however, it's about Obama's personality.
"I believe he is a liar," she said. "He contradicts himself time after time."
They really are motivated by hatred. How else can one explain how these folks, who don't consider themselves radical right, are supporting the radical right G-O-TEA? This is the one ugly tool the G-O-TEA has left to distract voters from what's really happening and try to siphon otherwise moderate voters away from Democrats. However, I'm still hopeful that this can only take them so far. Not everyone is that motivated by blind hatred.
Hey, this is just a reminder of what kind of crap the G-O-TEA will be throwing at us in the general election. And hey, they have to resort to crap. After all, their "enthusiasm gap" problem continues to worsen. Washoe GOP turnout was indeed below 7,000 today, so they'll have to stoop to new lows to try to revive their sagging fortunes.
Hey, #NV #TeaParty, if Sharon Angle couldn't beat Harry Reid, what makes you think @MittRomney can beat #Obama? #NVCaucus #tcot #tpn
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.
Here's what I'm talking about. Thank you, Kevin Drum.
Alas, poor Mitt. Now he knows what it feels like to be Barack Obama. For the past two years Obama has basically been forced to say that, sure, the economy is bad, but it would have been even worse without his policies in place. That might be true or it might not, but it's sure not a vote getter.
Now Romney's on the other end of that argument. Sure, the economy is getting better, but it would be even better still without Obama's policies. Again, maybe that's true and maybe it's not, but no one cares. If the economy is getting better, then people are happy and they're going to vote for the guy in the White House. Romney had better figure out something better than that if he wants to have any chance of victory in November.
Mitt Romney's whole strategy has been to bet on a bad economy. He sincerely thought he could get away with all his ideological flip-flops and pretzel twists by blaming the horrible economy on President Obama. But now that he's on record veering so far to the radical right, and now that the economy is not horrible and is improving, he has nothing left to run on. Seriously, what's the point of Romney's campaign? That's why tonight's "win" is so hollow.
7:50 PM-
Mittens is now speaking. And as usual, he's rehashing the usual "Obama is EVIL!!!" bullshit. Again, that's all he has left. He's trashing and bashing Obama because that's all he has to rev up his new radical right BFFs, and he's trashing and bashing Obama in hopes of distracting the rest of us from what's really happening.
Wow. Just wow. MSNBC is abandoning Nevada GOP Caucus coverage... For "Lockup"! How pathetic. Sure, there's a problem with MSNBC trying to maintain journalistic standards while continuing to dip into the "reality freak show" pond. However, there's also a clear problem in the Nevada GOP Caucus becoming such a ridiculous farce that hardly anyone cares any more.
Again, congratulations are in order for the Nevada G-O-TEA for producing such a bombastically irrelevant event.
Oh, and speaking of bombastically irrelevant... Check out Molly Ball's tweets of the hilarious Adelson School Night Caucus! Apparently, the Ron Paul fans are really turning up the crazy with all sorts of wild conspiracy theories. Heh. And everyone thought this was supposed to stuff the ballot box for Newt Gingrich?
Oh, jeez. I may have to stay up longer to follow this some more! :-D
One reporter asked Gingrich about his absence from reporters for a few days, while he was reportedly meeting with donors.
"Did you miss me?" Gingrich answered with a clear note of sarcasm. "Okay, I was worried that you may not have noticed."
He then explained why he was working on strategy. "Well we got together for a very practical reason. I was surprised by the degree to which the establishment has closed ranks, and made quite clear that they're desperate over the prospect of a Gingrich presidency. I was amazed by George Soros saying in Davos that he was happy with either Obama or Romney, because it was not a difference of policy, it was just a change in personality."
He then explained that he and his campaign concluded that the establishment would go all out to defeat him, with Wall Street money and other resources — but that the people would not go along.
"Do they want two George Soros-approved candidates in the general election, or do they want a conservative, and one George Soros-approved candidate?"
Whoa. Newton is going there. Is he now auditioning for a reality show?
Newt Gingrich took questions from reporters in Las Vegas, following Mitt Romney's big victory in the Nevada caucuses. One reporter asked, can he successfully go forward if Mitt Romney is as much in his head as he has been tonight and for the last few days? Newt then shot back at the reporter's ability to read his thoughts.
"Well first of all, I'm not sure that Mitt Romney's in my head," said Gingrich. "I mean, I think that's an interesting analysis on your part. And I'm sure that with a psychiatric degree, that will get a tremendous opportunity to have new clients.
I think there's a clear contrast. I think that the clear contrast is really important. And I think that over time we're going to drive that clear contrast in a way that is to his disadvantage."
Crazy!
8:55 PM-
And now, Nevada Caucus Season is finally coming to an end. The campaign is leaving us as we speak... For now. But of course, the fun and games will be back in full force for the general election.
But if the president is presiding over an economy that voters believe is improving, the magic vanishes. Which explains the awkwardness the Romney campaign faced this morning, when the most encouraging jobs report of Obama’s presidency was released. With a net increase of 243,000 jobs in January, the unemployment rate is now down to 8.3 percent, marking the fifth straight month it fell and bringing it to its lowest level since Obama’s first full month in office.
Faced with such obviously good economic news, the Romney team took its time responding, first churning out a press release on an unrelated topic (“President Obama’s attack on religious liberty”) then finally putting out a statement that read in part: “We welcome the fact that jobs were created and unemployment declined. Unfortunately, these numbers cannot hide the fact that President Obama’s policies have prevented a true economic recovery. We can do better.” A series of negative economic statistics then followed.
Besides the acknowledgement that “jobs were created,” the statement was no different than anything Romney has been saying for the entire campaign. But juxtaposed against the big news of the morning, it read as petty, and almost absurdly comical. If — and, to be clear, it’s a very big if — the good economic news continues in the months ahead, Romney’s rhetoric will only fall flatter.
Again, this takes us back to why Mittens and the Nevada G-O-TEA leaders are trying so desperately to spin what happened today. They have to try to make it all some morbid Obama hate-fest. Otherwise, we'd all focus on this EPIC FAIL of caucus organization.
9:30 PM-
And on this note, I'm ending the liveblogging for tonight. Keep checking here for live updates throughout the night. I suspect it will go even longer. I'll be back tomorrow morning to wrap it all up.
As more holidays draw closer, I wanted to spread some good cheer. But alas, Coolican is playing Grinch again. This time, he's laughing at poor Reno's despair.
In the new Muppet movie, Reno appears as a sad sack dump for Fozzie Bear's failed solo career. The TV show “Reno 911” has long mocked the city’s police department, and to add insult to injury, the show isn’t even filmed in Reno — where this week two bins of “Toys for Tots” were stolen from a Walmart only to be returned.
And then on “Saturday Night Live” last week, “Weekend Update” host Seth Meyers had this to say: “According to a new list, the least happiest city in America is St. Petersburg, Fla. But that’s only because Reno, Nevada, finally killed itself.” (Las Vegas is actually the suicide capital of America, but moving on ...)
Well, Reno is fighting back!
Some genius in an editors’ meeting of the Reno Gazette-Journal decided he’d had enough. (Somehow I know it was a he.) The paper asked its readers to contribute to an “open letter to Seth Meyers” that will be published Sunday from the people of Reno, a city known for the purity of its methamphetamine.
The problem here is that these aren’t funny. In fact, the whole flaw in this plan, as I noted on Twitter on Tuesday (@jpcoolican), is that Seth Meyers is funny. Whereas the people of Reno — where the dirt flooring of the homes serves for both sleeping and eating — and the editors of the Reno Gazette Journal are not funny.
If they were funny, they wouldn’t be living in Reno, where we all hope girls will be permitted to go to school someday. They’d be in New York City getting paid to be funny. (Same goes with me, s’pose.)
Yes, Coolican, we have our own moments of embarrassing overreactions to otherwise inoccuous comments. For heaven's sake, we were even criticizing the President of the United States for criticizing banks misuing taxpayer supported TARP bailout funds on Las Vegas pleasure junkets! So maybe, just maybe, we should lay off Reno as they're engaging in their own moment of overreaction to silly throwaway comments by far away celebrities.
Sure, I understand that perhaps a few tourists really do base their travel decisions on shit Seth Meyers or Mindy Kaling says. And maybe some big multinational banks really were pressured out of wasting Americans' tax dollars on another "conference" on The Strip after President Obama chided them for misusing TARP funds. But seriously, Las Vegas, Reno, and really all of Nevada have bigger problems than shit celebrities say. I mean, come on, we all deserve to be the punchline of jokes when we don't take investing in our own people and our own success all that seriously. Maybe we should actually reform our 19th century tax code to start giving our kids the 21st century education they deserve so we no longer invite the rest of the country to declare us "The Armpit of America"?
Oh, but who am I to point out Nevada's unique talent of sparking "OUTRAGE!" over others pointing out our own shortcomings? And who is anyone in The South to mock The North for taking a well worn page out of our playbook? Sometimes, a joke is just a joke. Lighten up.
