Open Left - Montana

Small States With Big Power

Mike Lux — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:02:27 GMT

There is a lot of discussion right now about how Senators from small states hold too much power compared to the percent of population they represent. There's a lot of truth to this. Alex MacGillis of The Washington Post wrote in an analysis column in their Sunday Outlook section, and David Sirota and Nathan Newman have done good pieces on the topic as well. The simple facts are that the key gang of six negotiating health care in the Senate Finance Committee represent less than 3% of the nation's population; that the 10 largest states are home to over half the country's population but represent only 20% of the Senate; the 21 smallest states together have less total population than California does.

It's good that people are raising these issues, and pointing out this unfairness. The plain fact of the matter, though, is that absent a constitutional convention suddenly being held, there is no changing this particular injustice. It would take 2/3 of the Senate, after all, to pass a constitutional amendment to restructure the Senate, and virtually all of the Senators from small states would vote against it. So we are stuck for now.

What we ought to be focused on instead are strategies that might work.

More in the extended entry.
Some folks I know are for ending the filibuster entirely, or at least cutting the vote needed for cloture from 60 to 55. This doesn't address the small state issue, but would at least bring us closer to majority rule. Being for more democracy rather than less, I would tend to favor such a thing despite the downside of all the damage Republicans would do when they had the majority. Senators themselves, though, like the additional power they get from only having to get 40 of their colleagues to agree with them instead of 50, and liberals tend to be scared of an unencumbered right wing in control of the government would tend to oppose such a thing, so I'm thinking that will be tough to win.

There is one thing that the progressive movement can start to do today, though, that can help change the dynamics in the Senate, and that is to invest in a small state/rural strategy.

I have felt for years that I am one of the few people in national Democratic politics who is both a strong progressive and a strong advocate for aggressively reaching out to people in rural and small state America. When I was on the 1992 Clinton campaign, and in the Clinton White House, I was liaison to both the broad progressive community and to farmer/rancher/small town groups. Ever since, I have strongly advocated both strong progressive positions and a vigorous small town/rural strategy even as (a) my mostly east and west coast and urban progressive friends were suspicious that outreach to rural folks would water down progressive politics, and (b) my friends from small states and rural areas were convinced big city liberals could never relate to them.

Having grown up in conservative Nebraska, with my in-laws family farmers in (very) rural and (very) Republican Missouri, I don't underestimate the challenges of a progressive small state strategy, but I would offer the following items from recent history as evidence:

In the 1950s, in one of the most Republican states in the country, George McGovern went county by county in South Dakota and built an organization that not only elected him Senator three times, but has been electing Democrats ever since. McGovern and his colleague James Abourezk were among the most progressive Senators in the country, while modern day South Dakota Democrats Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson have been loyal and mainstream Democratic leaders, in spite of South Dakota's strong Republican nature.
Iowa for most of its history had been one of the most Republican states in the country. When I first starting talking to people about taking a job there with a new statewide progressive coalition (the Iowa Citizen Action Network (ICAN)) in 1982, the state had a Republican Governor, two Republican Senators, a Republican majority Congressional delegation, and both Houses of the legislature controlled by the Republicans. But a group of progressive Democrats came together to rebuild the state Democratic Party as well as progressive organizations like Iowa Citizen Action Network. In 1982, Democrats took control of both legislative chambers, and in 1984 populist progressive Tom Harkin won a Senate seat. In 1988, Mike Dukakis won in Iowa, the first Democrat to win the state's electoral votes since the LBJ landslide in 1964, a victory which started a trend: in five of the six elections from 1988 to 2008, the Democrats won, losing narrowly only in 2004. Although Democrats lost control of the legislature for a while in the 1990s and early 2000s, a Democratic Governor, Tom Vilsack, finally won in 1998, and Democratic infrastructure kept getting stronger. Today, Democrats have the entire Congressional delegation except for one seat, and both houses of the legislature firmly in their control. They still have the Governor's mansion, and Tom Harkin is still there.
Montana is another state which has been strongly Republican over the years. Governor Brian Schweitzer has made a name for himself as a leader of western populist progressives, and Jon Tester came out of nowhere to surprise an establishment Democratic primary front runner, and then edge right wing Republican Senator Conrad Burns. Max Baucus is giving all of us progressives heartburn on health care, but I suspect if he was facing an election rather than just being elected to another six year term last year, he would be approaching the issue quite differently. A progressive group in the state, Forward Montana, has been doing an incredible job building an organization there.

As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, there is a fascinating combination of libertarianism and populism in the small states of the west and Midwest, and while this combination can produce a negative politics at times, it can also produce people like Schweitzer, Harkin, Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, and the beloved progressive icon Paul Wellstone.

For too many years, progressive organizations and leaders have paid far too little attention to the small states and small towns of the Midwest and west. It is not as easy to organize there, pick up new direct mail or online members. And there are big cultural barriers between big city coastal progressives and rural/small state folks. The pay off for a long term strategy of organization and party building in small states is immense, though. We need to be investing in both national organizations that work on rural organizing such as RuralVotes, and great statewide groups like Forward Montana and ICAN. There is simply no other path to passing progressive legislation through the Senate without going through the small states.

After 2008 Election, Some States Want to Make Voting Easier; Others Determined to Make it Harder

project vote — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:32:40 GMT

Cross-posted at Project Vote's blog, Voting Matters

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns

Following an historic turnout in the 2008 election comes a flurry of election reform agendas from both sides of the battle over voting rights. Since November 4, some state lawmakers have seized on the success of early voting and Election Day Registration (EDR) as models for facilitating voter registration, while others appear to have been threatened by the heightened turnout and inspired to introduce restrictive voter ID and proof-of-citizenship bills for the 2009 legislative session.

Following what appears to be significant progress this year in closing participation gaps among historically underrepresented young and minority voters, we review Election Day stories in states with voter ID and EDR laws, and preview next year's legislative battle for election reform.
Election Day Registration

In North Carolina, lawmakers report being "proud" of the implementation of the state's 2007 Same Day Registration law, which permits early voters to register and vote at established "One-Stop" voting sites, according to the Raleigh News and Observer. In the 2008 primary and presidential elections, the law seemed to boost voter registration while cutting the use of provisional ballots by more than half, compared to figures from the 2004 election. On average, EDR states tend to outperform non-EDR states in election outcome by a minimum of 10 percentage points, according to public policy group, Demos.

"State Rep. Paul Luebke said he expects other states to model North Carolina's early voting system," according to the report. "The only change he would suggest for the next elections would be to standardize the hours, encouraging local boards of elections to stay open longer in early voting."

Despite the smooth success of Same Day Registration at early voting sites in North Carolina and other states,Republican lawmakers in Ohio are pushing to end the state's new mandate to allow voters to register during the early voting period.

State Republicans recently announced that they would file legislation to move the voter registration deadline to 65 days before Election Day, according to an Associated Press report. They hope to pass the bill before the 2008 session ends "and a new, Democratic-controlled House takes over in January."

However, election law expert Dan Tokaji said the bill will likely run into opposition as "federal law clearly prohibits states from having registration deadlines earlier than 30 days before an election."

Before the Nov. 4 election, the "Republican Party sued Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to stop the same-day window...but state and federal courts upheld it."

Brunner has planned an election summit in December to review the elections process and will likely not adhere to any changes before the new legislature takes over, according to the AP report.

Meanwhile, states like West Virginia are considering implementing Election Day Registration, which currently exists in about eight other states in its traditional form whereby eligible citizens may show up at their polling place on Election Day, register to vote and cast a ballot. First implemented in Maine in 1973, EDR is also practiced in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, New Hampshire and Wyoming. Other states, like North Carolina, Ohio and Connecticut permit variations of the option to register and vote at the same time, either during an early voting period, or-in the case of Connecticut-on a special ballot that only allows them to vote for the president.

"I lost my card, and I didn't think I could do it too close to the time," said one West Virginia voter and supporter of an EDR law, according to Parksburg, W. Va. News station, WTAP. "So, if it was that way, I could have voted."

However, Woods County clerk, Jamie Six, who "studied the idea for the state clerk's association" is against the implementation of EDR.

"The poll workers have a long and very busy day already," Six said. "And to add this to their plate to take care of on election day, we don't feel it would be fair."

While EDR in the state is unlikely, Six says it is possible to allow voters to register during the early voting period. "A committee of the West Virginia Legislature is to hear from Six on Monday," according to WTAP.

In the 2008 session, about 19 states introduced EDR legislation. Bills are pending in four states: Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio. None of these bills have moved since this summer.

At least two states, Texas and Montana, which currently practices EDR, have pre-filed several bills relating to EDR for the 2009 session.

Voter ID

While some states were facilitating voter registration and voting this year, Indiana - home of the country's strictest voter ID law - reportedly turned some of its young voters away without casting a regular ballot, and even encouraged poll workers in other states to mandate voter ID when no such law existed in the first place.

Despite being properly registered and equipped with out-of-state and student ID, the young voters were only allowed to vote provisionally on Nov. 4, leaving some discouraged and others in tears, according to a letter to the Indianapolis Star by Leon Riley, an election official at Butler University's Hinkle Fieldhouse precinct.

"The Indiana voter ID law amounted to disenfranchisement for a number of young, well-informed voters, as well as some voters who have various limitations of resources, transportation and problem-solving ingenuity. Is this what we want for some of our brightest and best, or for some who need help along the way? In fairness, this unnecessary barrier must be abolished," wrote Riley.

The day before the election, an emergency motion was filed to stop enforcement of the voter ID law based on constitutional violations. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago denied the motion a week later without citing any reasons why, according to the Indiana Lawyer.

With the controversy over the U.S. Supreme Court's upholding of Indiana's voter ID law, and a flurry of voter registration fraud allegations in the weeks before the election, poll workers in some states appeared confused over their own states' laws. Voters in Mecklenburg County, Virgina, for example, complained that poll workers illegally asked them to provide proof of identification, including photo ID, according to the Smith Hill Enterprise. There were also reports of misleading signs outside of polling places that indicated photo ID was required.

The misinformation amounted to a misinterpretation of the Help America Vote Act, which required voters who registered by mail after 2003 to provide proof of ID.

"The voter being asked to present a photo ID is not the preferred language to use," said Jessica Lane of the State Board of Elections. The preferred language, she said, is to ask for "a form of ID."

Whatever the intention, voters were set back after waiting hours in long lines, leaving to get their IDs, or possibly, not return at all, according to the Enterprise.

"I am registered with neither party. I am a devout independent with libertarian leanings, but I believe in the constitution and the fact that everyone needs to get out and vote," wrote one concerned voter. "Was anyone denied the right to vote? If they did not have a photo ID and saw the sign, did they say 'Oops. I guess I can't vote' and leave?".

For voter ID advocates, preventing the extremely rare crime of individual voter fraud is worth the risk of compromising a voter's right to cast a ballot. However, preventing many eligible voters from casting a ballot just to prevent a rare crime hardly seems on par with democracy. A four year investigation by the federal government found only 24 instances of voter fraud out of more than 214 million votes cast. Several studies have found that a number of already under-represented Americans - primarily young, elderly, minority and poor - would have a difficult time meeting the requirements. These studies include a Brennan Center survey that found 21 million Americans were without the required identification; a University of Washington study that found about a quarter of Indiana's young, African-American and low income voting-age populations lack the necessary ID; and a University of Georgia study found the state's Latino and Black voters were twice as likely not to posses required ID compared to White voters.

Yet despite the lack of evidence of voter fraud, and a well known, recent history of young and elderly voters missing out on the democratic process in Indiana (including Indiana nuns and Notre Dame University students who were turned away in the 2008 primaries) lawmakers in states like Oklahoma and Texas are hoping to make voter ID a reality in 2009.

While acknowledging that Oklahoma Speaker of the House Chris Benge "and the others pushing for a voter ID system have a certain level of common sense on their side (one idea is to offer free ID with their plan), Wayne Greene of the Tulsa World dismisses the argument that if people are required to show photo ID to cash a check, they should be required to show ID when they vote. Greene points out that there is plenty of evidence of people attempting to cash fraudulent checks, but no evidence of people attempting to cast fraudulent votes in Oklahoma.

"Benge told me he didn't have any examples of fraudulent voting to justify what sounds like a pretty expensive free ID system," Greene says. The state, which introduced and failed seven voter ID bills this year, will convene for the 2009-2010 session next February.

Immediately after Election Day, lawmakers in Texas - where there was a serious voter ID battle during the 2007 session - pre-filed a few bills requiring voter ID as well as proof-of-citizenship at registration.
Supporters of voter ID hope to have it in effect by the next gubernatorial election, according to local publication, Athens Daily Review.

In total this year, 25 states introduced voter ID bills, and bills are still pending in four states: Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

Track these and other election-related bills by visiting www.ElectionLegislation.org.

After this presidential election's phenomenal turnout that showed the American electorate is finally closer to representing all of its citizens, lawmakers should recognize that voters take this fundamental right seriously. The passage of laws that help facilitate that right are far more conducive to a fair and healthy democracy than the passage of those that prevent some citizens from voting at all.

Quick Links:
www.ElectionLegislation.org

In Other News:

More minorities voted this year, but white turnout dropped - McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's 8.5 million-vote margin over John McCain was fueled by a more than 20 percent surge in minority voting, a new analysis of exit polling data suggests.

Minnesota group asks feds to investigate problems with state's voter rolls - Associated Press
ST. PAUL (AP) - A group opposed to Minnesota's same-day voter registration law has asked the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate problems it suspects with the state's voter rolls.

Woman seeks limits on mentally disabled voters - Associated Press
GRINNELL - A Deep River woman wants to change a[n Iowa] state law to require that mentally disabled voters be supervised when they cast a ballot.

Erin Ferns is a Research and Policy Analyst with Project Vote's Strategic Writing and Research Department (SWORD

Third Presidential Results Thread

Chris Bowers — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:58:08 GMT

National Popular Vote (122M votes in): Obama 52%-47% McCain

Electoral College
Obama 364, McCain 162, Too Close to Call 12

Swing State Returns
All times eastern. First poll closing time listed.

State	Reporting	Obama%	McCain%	EVs
Missouri	99%	49%	50%	11
NE-02	100%	49%	50%	1

Update 4: McCain narrowly leads in NE-02 with 100% reporting, but it finishes close enough for a recount. Will the Obama campaign seek one? I'll keep in undecided until we hear final word.

Update 3: I'm calling Montana for McCain, based on exit polls showing him ahead and the counties with 0% reporting. This is the final presidential update for the night. Your total: Obama 364, McCain 163, recount 11 (Missouri).

Update 2: Missouri will be listed as too close to call for the rest of the night. We shall see where it is in the morning.

Update: Obama wins Indiana. The source on the projection is me, myself and I. The remaining precincts in Indiana are not enough for McCain to pull it off. This will cost me a Mac Book over at Daily Kos (I was perfect up till now, because last night when I entered I still had NC for Obama), but that's OK. A Mac Book is nothing compared to the work of the Indiana volunteers.

State Report: Montana - Big Sky Big Win

21st Century Democrats — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:05:50 GMT

This is the first in a series of Grassroots Reports we'll be releasing over the final weeks of the election cycle to let the blogosphere know what 21st Century Democrats is doing to help elect Democrats in several of the country's battleground states. This report focuses on Montana, where Barack Obama is making a strong push to be the first Democrat to take the state since Bill Clinton in 1992.

Our Montana program is called "Big Sky! Big Win! " and Wendy Davis, our National Field & Training Director, and I both traveled to the state recently to help coordinate our ground game. We have four senior organizers working in Missoula, Helena, Butte, Bozeman and Billings - where about half of Montana's votes will be cast. In mid-October, we dispatched five additional organizers to get out the vote on the state's Native American reservations.

Big Sky! Big Win! is all about identifying supporters early and making sure we get them out to polls on election day. We added 10,000 voters to our "Yes List" in September and are working toward another 10,000 voters in the first three weeks of October. We will use this list of supporters to run our get-out-the-vote program and maximize the Democratic turnout on Election Day. Our organizers and volunteers have already made thousands of phone calls and knocked on hundreds of doors.

I just returned from Montana a few days ago and I can honestly tell you that people are excited about the Democratic ticket - but we need to make sure we harness their energy and win this election! 21st Century Democrats is thrilled to be working with our partners in Montana to elect Democrats up and down the ticket, including three of our endorsed candidates:

Steve Bullock - Attorney General
Linda McCulloch - Secretary of State
Denise Juneau - State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Thank you for your support and please consider helping us turn other red states blue.

Sincerely,
Dan Lucas
President

Montana GOP-ED Resigns Post-Voter Suppression

SarahBurris — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:47:28 GMT

Just a few short weeks before the election Montana's Republican Party Director has resigned. No, not to spend more time with his family, but instead to take another opportunity in the private sector.

This comes after a controversy I reported on earlier this month in gest, but the long and short is that 6,000 voters on the rolls in Missoula were challenged by the GOP, but when asked for the list of people "challenged" so that those folks could be checked out or would know that their registration was being challenged, the GOP said they wouldn't hand over the list. This just SCREAMS of dirty tactics.

Matt Segal, of the Student Association for Voter Empowerment (SAVE), and Forward Montana questioned the criminality of the MT GOP. In an op-ed by Segal, where he proposed criminal charges for those using these tactics:

"First, to be safe, there should be a tougher standard to challenge a voter's registration. In Washington state, for example, a challenge must be entered based on personal knowledge by the challenger that the voter is no longer a resident of the address listed. This standard alone would have prevented the improper challenges filed in this case.
Second, the law should provide clear criminal penalties for malicious attempts to suppress the vote or for reckless challenges to voting rights that are filed without adequate verification by the challenging party. Penalties should be heightened in cases where overseas military or civilian voters are impacted, as voters abroad are unable to remedy their case through Montana's Election Day registration process. Valid challenges have a place in Montana law to protect the integrity of our elections. Unresearched challenges and challenges made specifically to intimidate voters need to be clearly prohibited."

This is after Forward Montana and SAVE learned that some voters were challenged for insane inconsistancies in their registration

"But with these challenges moving behind us, it would be prudent for both the public and policymakers to turn their eyes to preventing these types of challenges in the future through simple, common-sense changes to Montana's election laws. In particular, we need to do everything we can to prevent wasteful, entirely baseless challenges. In one particularly egregious example, one voter in Missoula County was challenged because one address showed her living in Apt. 7, while another address listed her at Unit 7.
Some of these challenges were filed on the basis of nothing more than slightly different spellings of addresses in two databases. But others were more pernicious. Lt. Kevin Furey for example, was properly registered but chose to forward his mail while deployed. Although his voting address hadn't changed, his mailing address had moved across the state."

Today, the Executive Director of the GOP in Montana was forced to resign for his efforts, reports the Missoulan

"In an unusual move three weeks before the election and after a failed attempt to challenge voter registrations in some Democratic strongholds, the Montana Republican Party said Tuesday night it was changing executive directors.
Former state Rep. Larry Grinde of Lewistown was named the party's executive director after Jake Eaton resigned "to pursue other interests," the news release said."

The report further says

"Last week, rumors were running rampant in political circles that Eaton would be pushed out because of the much-criticized effort to challenge voter registrations in seven heavily Democratic counties.
Reached by telephone Tuesday night, Eaton said, "It's all going to be all right. I'm going to work for an outfit, DNS Equity Consulting, a consulting and private equity firm in Madison, Wis. It's just one of those deals. The opportunity came up and I took it."
Asked if he was forced out as executive director because of the vote challenges, Eaton said, "No, I'm not going to talk about any of that stuff on the record."

These tactics are finally being seen for what they are, illegal, unethical, and clear attempts at voter suppression and voter disenfranchisement. When we fight back, we win. Don't allow your votes to be suppressed the election.

Crossposted to Kos please recommend

Victory for Voting Rights: Mont. GOP Backs Off Plans to Challenge Mont. Voters

project vote — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 19:08:27 GMT

Yesterday the Republican Party of Montana announced that it was abandoning its plans to challenge the voting eligibility of at least 6,000 residents of that state-mostly in democratic strongholds-who had filed change-of-address cards with the U.S. Postal Service. In a letter sent to election officials in seven counties, state GOP executive director Jacob Eaton withdrew the party's challenges and said they would be issuing no more. Several hundred letters requesting that individuals confirm their correct addresses had already gone out from overworked election offices before the GOP withdrew its challenge.
Voting rights groups, including Project Vote, had previously condemned the plan to challenge the voters as an illegal voter caging operation intended to intimidate and suppress thousands of eligible Montana voters. In a statement released October 3, Project Vote attorney Teresa James, author of the 2007 report Caging Democracy: A 50-Year History of Partisan Challenges to Minority Voters, pointed out that Montana law and the National Voter Registration Act allowed voters who had moved to cast their ballots in their old precincts and change their address at the polls. "In light of these state and federal protections," James said, "challenging voters who have filed a change of address with the U.S. Post Office would serve no purpose other than to interfere with the orderly conduct of the election and intimidate voters. Democracy works best when all eligible citizens participate in the process."

"My intent was to ensure that voters are properly registered and that Montanans would have the utmost faith in the integrity of our elections process," Eaton wrote in the letter to election officials. "Nevertheless, because of the unintended consequences that have been reported, I will not file any other elector challenges."

Following a story about the challenges that appeared in The Missoulian on October 2, the "unintended consequences" of the GOP challenge included chaos at election boards, condemnation from voting rights groups, protests within Montana, and a lawsuit filed by the Montana Democratic Party on behalf of two challenged voters. In the Montana Standard, Lieutenant Governor John Bohlinger, a Republican, called the challenge "an utter disgrace," and said he was "appalled by the leadership of [his] political party."

The developments in Montana came just a few weeks after reports of the Michigan GOP's plans to challenge the eligibility of voters whose names appeared on foreclosure lists. Met with similar public outrage and accusations of voter caging, the Michigan GOP recanted those plans as well, according to the Michigan Messenger.

"We are pleased to hear that the Montana GOP has decided to withdraw the challenges," James said today. "And we are encouraged that these kinds of partisan caging operations-which have been used in previous years to disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters-are being met this election cycle with the media scrutiny and public outrage they deserve."

"The plans to challenge thousands of eligible Montana voters were made, like most such suppression efforts, under the guise of protecting against a mythical threat of 'voter fraud,'" James continued. "But their quick withdrawal in the face of public scrutiny supports our position that partisan challenges are not motivated by genuine concern over alleged 'voter fraud', but by a cynical desire to keep some people from voting at all."

Mapchanging Fact and Fiction

Chris Bowers — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:35:34 GMT

There is a new poll out today that shows Obama ahead by 5% in Alaska, 45%-40%. It is from a Democratic firm, and outlies a bit from other recent polls in the state. Despite those negatives against the poll, it does at least confirm that Alaska is indeed a swing state in this election. The most recent poll from the four polling organizations to survey Alaska in the past month now show an average of McCain 46.5%--43.0% Obama.

This got me to thinking--what about the other red states that Bush won by about 20% in 2004, but that seem competitive in 2008? These states include Georgia, Indiana, Montana, and North Dakota. The Obama campaign is targeting all of these states with paid media and staff, so they feel it might be competitive, too.

To answer this question, follow me to the extended entry for a quick round of mapchanging fact and fiction, deep red state edition.
Question: Like Alaska, Are These Deep Red State Actually Competitive?

Georgia: FICTION: Outside of Insider Advantage, a polling firm with a questionable track record, no polling firm has shown Georgia to be truly competitive. The talk of 600,000 unregistered African-Americans in the state also doesn't mean much, because you simply are not going to manage 100% turnout among that group. Fact is, the Obama campaign would be lucky to get 30% of that group to vote, given the wave of voter registration campaigns that already took place from 2004-2008, but somehow missed these voters. Obama won't win Georgia unless he wins nationally by more than 8%. As such, it is not a swing state.
Indiana: UNCLEAR: While I lean toward fiction, the truth is that there simply isn't enough recent evidence to know what is happening in Indiana. The polling is really strange--and old. Survey USA, which I trust, confirms Zogby in a close campaign, but both of those polls were taken in June. The trendline also favors Obama in the Downs Center polling, but their last effort was in late April. Other than that, two of the other three firms in the state, all with old polls, show McCain ahead by 8%. However, one shows Obama ahead by 8%, further muddling the picture. While I simply have a very, very hard time believing that Indiana will be competitive this year, there isn't enough evidence to preclude the possibility.
Montana: FACT: The simple truth is that there is no way to argue that McCain is ahead in this state. The last poll to show McCain ahead here was Rasmussen in April. However, since then, Rasmussen has released two Montana polls, one with Obama winning, and one with a dead heat. It makes sense, too. Democrats have been on a real roll in Montana for the past four years, and Obama is campaigning here (as recently as the 4th of July) entirely unopposed. Montana even voted for Clinton back in 1992, one of the few non-southern states that Clinton won but both Kerry and Gore lost.
North Dakota: FACT: McCain is now purchasing paid media in the state, which is all the confirmation of the close polls you will ever need.

Three key threads uniting the clear mapchanges in Alaska, Montana, and North Dakota, is that all three states have relatively small populations, inexpensive media markets, and were also key nomination contests for Obama that he basically contested unchallenged. With Obama being the only national candidate to campaign in these states for a couple of decades, and since you only need to flip about 50,000 voters in each state to win there, it isn't hard to see how Obama can be competitive in those states in a Democratic year. While it is possible that over the long term, Georgia and Indiana can become the new Virginia and North Carolina, I don't see it happening this cycle. In fact, I would actually put more money on Texas flipping long term than Montana and Indiana, given the huge and growing Latino population in the state. If that ever happened, Republicans would have a generational minority.

Dude, What about Brian Schweitzer for VP?

kauffmanr — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 05:19:31 GMT

The same names keep popping up for Obama's VP choice: Dodd, Sebelius, Bayh, Biden, and Kaine seem to be the consensus favorites. But if we want to think strategically here, can't we throw out the Senators? We will need long standing Senators to shepherd legislation through Congress next year especially now that a 60 vote majority is looking unlikely.
That leaves Kaine and Sebelius. I don't really like Kaine. He just doesn't seem like he has what it takes to stand up to the Republicans without looking vindictive. I love Sebelius, but thanks to the efforts of the PUMAs (and the public image problems they are creating for women everywhere) its becoming less and less likely Obama will choose her or any other woman.

Which brings me around to my pick. Brian Schweitzer is the Governor of Montana. He helped turn that state from Ruby red to progressive blue. Blue dog you ask? No. Definitely not. He made sure there was funding for renewable energy like wind and ethanol research, development, and infrastructure development. He upped the tax on cigarettes by $1 a pack (I smoke) and used the money to help pay for a partial healthcare system. Then he ensured that all school children would learn about the original residents of Montana. yes. The ones that have been there for 12,000 years.

Not only does the guy do the right things. He does them in the right way. $0 from PACs in the last campaign. Sound familiar?

Schweitzer also knows how to communicate progressive ideals in a way that ranch owners, farmers, and small town folks can get behind. So Obama connects with everyone whos not white (check the polls, its true), urbans, and the youth and Schweitzer gets the rural folk.

Watch him discuss how to connect with rural America as Democrats:

At the very least Schweitzer would force McCain to work his ass off in states like Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Idaho, and Nebraska instead of being able to attack into Obama's blue territory. Thinking more optimistically he could tip the scale for states like Texas, Arizona, and Nevada.

If things went totally awesome Schweitzer is the kind of balance Obama and the Democrats need to grab that 60 vote Senate majority and make 2008 a Republican's nightmarish flashback of Reagan's Revolution. The two of them pairing has the potential to sweep the electoral board and redraw the political landscape.

Obama/Schweitzer'08.

Links:
On Brian Schweitzer As VP Sean, 538
Obama's VP Pick: Schweitzer
Back Where the Uprising Started David Sirota, Open Left

Baucus Up To His Old Tricks

Mike Lux — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:30:44 GMT

The single man most responsible for the fiscal wreckage that is our budget, other than Bush himself, is up to his old tricks. I'm talking about Max Baucus.

A little bit about the 2001 tax fight before I get to the main point. In the heat of the fight over the massively irresponsible Bush tax cut, Tom Daschle in a much under-reported and under-appreciated speech to the Senate Democratic caucus told his colleagues that the only way to have power with Bush in the White House and Republicans controlling the House and Senate was to hang together and have each others backs. If we stay together, Daschle said, Bush will be forced to come to the table on this and every other bill.

Baucus, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, promptly went out and cut a deal with the Bush White House, giving them virtually everything they wanted. It ended any chance the Democrats had to stop Bush on his most important single policy, and set a pattern for a lack of Democratic solidarity against Bush that continues to this day.

Now Baucus is screwing his fellow Democrats again. The Hill has a new article by Alexander Bolton describing how Baucus is helping Gordon Smith, using Smith's language and giving Smith lots of credit on an Iranian sanctions bill. Smith is one of the most vulnerable Republicans in the Senate, and Baucus is delightedly helping him out on a highly questionable bill. That is just pathetic.

Baucus has never been a progressive, spending way too much time sucking up to big corporate interests, as David Sirota has documented many times. But, jeez, Max, at least don't screw over your fellow Democrats politically - again.

Obama Wins The National Popular Vote (I Think)

Chris Bowers — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:19:58 GMT

Entering tonight's voting, according to my tabulations, Barack Obama held a 357 vote lead in the national popular vote, with a 24,000 vote margin of error.

With ~~97%~~ 99% reporting in South Dakota, Clinton holds a ~~10,204~~ 10,516 vote lead.

With ~~30%~~ 56% reporting in Montana, Obama holds a ~~15,840~~ 20,827 vote lead.

Add it altogether, and Obama is headed for a victory in the national popular vote. While it remains to be seen if he will move beyond the "margin of error" in my tabulations, I also freely admit that there are numerous other possible tabulations other than my own. For example, Poblano has a popular vote counter with at least 972 possible totals. So, there probably won't ever be a final, consensus total on this matter. Overall, most of the totals favor Obama.

No matter what you think of the popular vote totals, and no matter which popular vote total you subscribe to, I think we can all agree that the nomination process requires significant reform. If you had absolute power over the nomination process, what changes would you make?

June 3rd Election Results Thread

Chris Bowers — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:25:07 GMT

Barack Obama clinches Democratic nomination with 2,161.0 delegates, 44.0 over the magic number.

Montana, 16 delegates, 5% reporting
Obama: 56% (9 delegates)
Clinton: 41% (6 delegates)
Obama +6,433 votes

South Dakota, 15 delegates, 87% reporting
Clinton: 56% (8 delegates)
Obama: 44% (7 delegates)
Clinton +9,681 votes

Iowa 3rd, 90% reporting
Boswell: 60%
Fallon: 40%
Boswell +6,151 votes

New Jersey Senate, 89% reporting
Lautenberg: 62%
Andrews: 32%
Cresitello: 6%

Update 13--Boswell wins IA-03: Leonard Boswell is finally declared the winner in the IA-03 Democratic primary. Looks like he will win by about 20%. While that isn't a total disaster, it also isn't the single-digit loss I was hoping for. He felt pressure, but will it be enough? Either way, progressives need to keep challenging.

Update 12--Wave of Superdelegates Endorses Obama: 26.5 superdelegates just endorsed Obama. He has now passed the magic number, even with Michigan and Florida given full voting rights, and even with her four delegates given back in Michigan. Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.

Update 11 [from Matt]: Boswell is up by 12 points, it looks like he'll take it. That's an extremely tight margin for a primary.

Update 10--Obama wins Montana and national popular vote: In one positive development tonight, Barack Obama wins Montana big. The exit poll indicates it will be a huge victory, too: 55.7%--38.2%, according to the gender crosstabs. So, Obama will win the popular vote. Will he reach the 24,000 threshold that moves him outside the margin of error? Hopefully.

Update 9--Clinton doesn't conceede: Well, Clinton clearly didn't conceede in her speech. Hell, before her speech, McAuliffe introduced her as "the next President of hte United States of America." Then, in case the point hadn't been driven home, she said "I'm not deciding anything tonight." A lot of denail happening, but no concession or suspension. Perhaps one would have come if Obama had tried harder in South Dakota, and actually won the state. Then again, considering the way the Clinton campaign has acted for the last three months, probably not.

Update 8--Hey Obama, a 50-state strategy means campaign in all 50 states: I'm actually kind of angry at Obama for not campaigning harder in Montana and South Dakota. He could have won South if he made a bigger play for it. Also, even if he still lost, these are both important states for Democrats. If Obama had made a bigger push in Montana, he could have put the state in play in the general, and helped the local party solidfy its many recent gains downticket. If he campaigned harder in South Dakota, he could have helped build the party for 2010, when we can take down Thune. Pretty friggin' lame that he didn't campaign harder in those two states. Even though he won the nomination tonight, I'm not very happy with him right now. We need to campaign everywhere in order to build the party everywhere. Obama didn't do that in Montana and South Dakota.

Update 7--Clinton wins South Dakota: Hillary Clinton has won South Dakota. It is really, really important for Obama to win Montana now. Winning the nomination on a night of a double loss would be terrible, especially since he has only won Guam, Oregon, and North Carolina since March. If Obama doesn't win Montana by more than Clinton won South Dakota, Clinton can still win the popular vote, too. It would really suck to have a nominee who didn't win the popular vote.

Update 6--McCain at only 65% in South Dakota: Wow--McCain is only at 65% in South Dakota. That is pretty friggin' heinous. He hasn't had an opponent for three months.

Update 5--Exit poll indicates Clinton South Dakota victory: The South Dakota exit poll shows Clinton ahead 53.8%--46.2%, according to the gender crosstabs. Hopefully, Obama will win Montana by more than Clinton wins South Dakota. Not exactly the sort of result I would have hoped for the night Obama clinches.

Updte 4--Lautenberg crushes Andrews in New Jersey Senate primary: Frank Lautenberg comfortably defeats corproate challenger Rob Andrews in the New Jersey Seenate primary. With 17% reporting, Lautenberg leads by a 2-1 margin. Good. This result will now be moved to the bottom, and updates will be infrequent.

Update 3--Explaining my delegate math: Obama now has 360.5 superdelegates according to their last email on Bob Brady (the campaign just hasn't updated its results website yet). Democratic Convention Watch shows Obama at 1749.5 pledged delegates. Exit polls indicate ~~at least~~ exactly 7 delegates for Obama in South Dakota. With a magic number of 2,117 (not 2,118), Obama is now 0.0 delegates from the nomination. Or, at least he will be, when South Dakota polls close.

Update 2--Obama to win Democratic nomination at 9 p.m.: Rep. Bob Brady endroses Barack Obama, putting Obama over the top in my count. Preliminary exit polls from South Dakota indicate Clinton will receive less than 60% of the vote, meaning that Obama will win at least 7 delegates in the state. As such, Barack Obama will become the Democratic nominee when South Dakota polls close at 9 p.m..

Update--Obama's Victory Speech? Drudge has supposedly obtained a copy of Obama's victory speech. You can read it here.

Countdown To The Nomination Thread

Chris Bowers — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:26:08 GMT

Update: Obama receives ten Edwards pledged delegates, and is now only 15 delegates from the nomination. Obama will win the nomination when polls close in Montana tonight at 10 p.m.

Pledged: 1,749.5
Super: 358.5
Total: 2,108.0
Magic Number: 2,117
To Go: 9.0

The AP reported earlier today that Obama has clinched the nomination. However, a closer look at the piece reveals that the AP was simply reporting what many of us have known for months: Obama has not yet, but will eventually reach the magic number of delegates. This is because the AP is counting private endorsements of Obama, along with a minimum of 14 delegates from tonight's primaries, in their totals.

Since I am something of a minor media figure when it comes to delegate counting, what the AP story revealed to me is that there will be a race among all media outlets to be the first to declare that Obama has reached the magic number of delegates. So, I'll join in the fray myself, using this post as a countdown thread. By my reckoning, Obama has ~~26.5~~ ~~25.0~~ ~~15.0~~ ~~8.5~~ 9.0 delegates to go.

For this count, I am using the Green Papers pledged delegate count, which has been the most up to date and accurate pledged delegate count during the entire campaign. For the superdelegates, I am using the Obama campaign count. My reasoning is that no one probably has a more up to date count of the superdelegates than the two campaigns themselves, but only the Obama campaign has a publicly available number. For the magic number, I am using Democratic Convention Watch which has been the authoritative source for overall delegate counting this entire campaign season.

Obama reach the magic number tonight at ether 10.01 p.m. when polls close in Montana, or at 9:01 p.m. when polls close in South Dakota. I'll update this thread as more superdelegate endorsements come in, and start live-blogging returns tonight at 8 p.m., eastern.

IA-03, NJ-Sen, Montana and South Dakota: What's At Stake Tonight

Chris Bowers — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:27:22 GMT

Several elections tonight. In the Iowa 3rd, we have Bush Dog incumbent Boswell vs. progressive challenger Ed Fallon. In New Jersey, we have Incumbent, machine-bakced, but generally progressive Frank Lautenberg vs. corporate challenger Andrews. And, of course, we have the final presidential primaries in Montana and South Dakota. I will begin live-blogging returns here at Open Left at 8 p.m., when the first polls close in South Dakota and all polls close in New Jersey. All polls close in Montana and South Dakota at 9 p.m. eastern. Polls close in the Iowa 3rd at 10 p.m., eastern.

What Is At Stake Tonight

Momentum. Currently, Barack Obama is precisely tied with John McCain in national polls, and effectively tied with McCain at the state, electoral college level. The ideal scenario for Obama to pick up momentum this week is to win both primaries tonight, reach the magic number tomorrow, and for Clinton to give her "acknowledging reality" speech on Thursday. That would give Obama three consecutive positive days of press coverage, and allow the nomination campaign to end on a positive note for the nominee.
The nightmare scenario for Obama is if he actually loses one of the two primaries tonight. As unlikely as it seems, this is actually possible. Poblano predicts Obama to win South Dakota by only 5%, and ARG predicts Obama to only win Montana by 4%. (Granted, Poblano predicts a Montana blowout while ARG predicts a South Dakota blowout.) Given that the Clinton's have been campaigning in the two states much harder than the Obama's, it is not out of the realm of the possible for Clinton to sneak out a victory tonight. This would be terrible for Obama, since wrapping up the nomination after a loss is exactly the sort of "stumbling across the line" scenario that has hurt Democrats, such as Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter, in the past. So, a double victory for Obama tonight, while not important in terms of winning the nomination, is important in terms of positioning for the general election.

More of what is at stake, along with my personal predictions, tonight in the extended entry.

Delegates: Montana's 16 delegates are split into two five-delegate districts, four at-large delegates, and two PELO delegates. The winner of each of the two five-delegate districts takes a 3-2 split, but 70.0% is required to earn a 4-1 split. The latter is highly unlikely, just as it is highly unlikely that Obama will reach the 62.5% needed at the statewide level to win the at-large delegates 3-1. Overall, the most likely scenario is for Obama to win both districts 3-2, for the at large delegates to split 2-2, and for the PLEO delegates to split 1-1. Look for a 9-7 Obama delegate victory.
South Dakota's 15 delegates include a single, statewide nine delegate district, four at-large delegates determined separately, and two PLEO delegates. Even though all of these delegates are apportioned based on the statewide vote, they are calculated separately. The winner of South Dakota earns an automatic 8-7 delegate split. If the winner reaches 61.112% of the two-candidate vote, the split is 9-6. If the winner reaches 62.501%, the split is 10-5. My money is on Obama winning 8-7, thus picking up 17 for the night. As I type this, those 17 delegates would put Obama within 15.5 delegates of the nomination.
Popular Vote: My latest calculation currently gives Obama a comically narrow lead of 357 votes in the "popular vote." If he ends up ahead by 24,000 or more, then he moves outside the margin of error according to this count. Reaching that number will probably require Obama to win the two states by an average of around 9-10%.
Bush Dog vs. Grassroots Test Case. Yesterday, Matt had a great summary of what is at stake in the Iowa 3rd tonight. Here is an excerpt:
So now, this is the rawest test of an internet fueled grassroots campaign with none of the bells and whistles of a Donna Edwards or Ned Lamont, up against everything the establishment can throw at a candidate. It's an interesting test case of paid media - this primary will demonstrate what percentage of primary voters have moved their information and political habits away from low information broadcast channels, and towards internet and a more social form of politics.

Big time stuff. As much as I would love for Fallon to win, I predict Boswell by 9%.
Corporate Dem vs. Progressive, Machine Incumbent: On the other side of the coin, tonight in New Jersey I hope that an older, machine-backed incumbent holds off a primary challenge. Senator Frank Lautenberg is facing a primary challenge from the hard to stomach Rob Andrews. While Lautenberg is expected to win easily, hopefully he will deliver the sort of crushing victory that will make it much harder for Andrews to run for this seat in 2014 when it will likely become open. I say Lautenberg by 18%.

What say you? Give your expectations and predictions for tonight in the comments.

Barack Black Eagle's Speech to Crow Nation (Full Video)

icebergslim — Tue, 20 May 2008 15:26:12 GMT

cross-posted @ This Week With Barack Obama

Barack was adopted into Crow Nation. Below, Barack is arriving with his "adoptive parents" Hartford and Mary Black Eagle. Obama was given the name of "Awe Kooda bilaxpak Kuuxshish" which means "One who helps people throughout the land."

more photos:

h/t to the infamous al rodgers for the slideshow, below

oh, and here is his speech at Crow Agency, MT:

p.s. another video clip from the NYT of Barack acknowledging his new adoptive parents and his new name

No Drama Left In Remaining Nomination Contests

Chris Bowers — Tue, 13 May 2008 16:02:29 GMT

As Matt noted below, Obama is going to get crushed in West Virginia tonight. In fact, crushing victories look par for the course the rest of the way out:

Democratic Nomination Primary Schedule

State	Date	O %	C %	P. Del	Obama Del	Clinton Del
West Virginia	May 13	24.3%	61.3%	28	9	19
Kentucky	May 20	30.7%	58.7%	51	18	33
Oregon	May 20	53.3%	39.0%	52	30	22
Puerto Rico	Jun 01	37.0%	50.0%	55	24	31
Montana	Jun 03	--	--	16	8	8
South Dakota	Jun 03	46.0%	34.0%	15	8	7
Sub-Total	June 03	--	--	217	97	120
Pelosi Club	Jun 04	NA	NA	6	7	-1
Total	June 21	--	--	223	104	119

Which leads us once again to the competing campaign delegate counts:

Projected Obama Campaign Delegate Count

Type	Obama	Clinton	Edwards	Remaining	50% + 1
Pledged	1,594	1,423	19	217	1,627
Super	284	276.5	0	233.5	--
MI + FL	184	184	0	0	NA
Projected	104	119	0	-223	NA
Total	2,166	2,002.5	19	227.5	2,208.5

Current polling projects that Obama only needs 42.5 superdelegate endorsements between now and June 3rd in order to clinch the nomination on June 4th, at least according to his campaign's count.

Projected Clinton Campaign Delegate Count

Type	Obama	Clinton	Edwards	Remaining	50% + 1
Pledged	1,591.5	1,425.5	19	217	1,627
Super	289	285.5	0	275.5	--
Florida	67	105	13	0	NA
Michigan	31	47	5	45	NA
Projected	104	119	0	-223	NA
Total	2,082.5	1,982.5	37	314.5	2,208.5

'
The Clinton campaign count doesn't help her that much, as Obama only needs 35.8% of the remaining superdelegates, Edwards delegates, and Michigan delegates in order to secure the nomination. It buys her time, but really only until June 15th, and does not change the outcome. Don't expect superdelegates to accept what will be a clearly bogus argument on the popular vote, either. And, as a final problem, one of her pledged delegates switched to Obama today.

Ah, I'll miss the nomination at a glance series. What are your predictions for tonight?

Rocky Mountain Realities on Feb. 5

David Sirota — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:18:40 GMT

Note: My new nationally syndicated newspaper column out today features OpenLeft's very own Paul Rosenberg. Check it out here and check out the original OpenLeft post that I specifically reference. - D

When I took a leave of absence from my job in Washington in 2000 to work in the Montana Senate race, I didn't have much clue what I was in for. Growing up on the East Coast, I thought of the Intermountain West as a huge, far-off, mysterious place of square states and cattle herds - and like many people on the coasts, I didn't know much else.

In the years since that first campaign, I have been working in and reporting on the West, telling people what I say in my new nationally syndicated newspaper column today: That this region is the most politically misunderstood place in America.
Many people scoffed at my writing, saying the West was a backwater - one that would remain a Republican stronghold forever. That is, until the last few years when many Democratic strategists in Washington realized that the West has become a political swing region - one that could decide the direction of national politics for the next generation.

Sadly, when you read the typical national reporter's occasional article about the West or watch national politicians drop in for a visit, you sense either condescension, stereotyping - or both. The West is still portrayed as a weird hinterland whose politics supposedly adhere to Washington, D.C.'s inaccurate notions of lockstep "red state" behavior.

But as I say in the column, the West defies the professional pundits' portrayals. On issues from national security to energy to the role of government, the Rocky Mountain region's nuances are far more complex than "red state" stereotypes - just like most places in America. And as this region prepares to vote on February 5th and then take center stage in the general election, the candidates who ignore the fictions and appreciates these nuances are the candidates who will likely win here.

As the only nationally syndicated newspaper columnist living in and reporting regularly on this region, I felt it was particularly important to write this piece before Tuesday's voting because the West is only going to become more prominent in American politics as this election year progresses. That prominence, I believe, will either allow inaccurate stereotypes to flourish, or let the more complex realities shine through. I hope it is the latter.

Go read the whole column here. If you'd like to see my column regularly in your local paper, use this directory to find the contact info for your local editorial page editors. Get get in touch with them and point them to my Creators Syndicate site.

One additional note: You may have noticed that I am trying to use my column to promote solid progressive voices whenever I can. Today's, as I pointed out up top, includes the use of material from a diarist at OpenLeft.com - a terrific progressive site. I want to continue doing that kind of thing - the Right promotes its voices very effectively like this. And I want to do the same with my column.