Open Left - Nevada

Progress in Nevada? Yes, But We Still Have Work to Do!

Andrew Davey — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:10:40 GMT

(Cross-posted at C4O Democrats and My Silver State)

It finally happened. In case you missed last night's big news, the Nevada Legislature overrode Idiot-in-Chief Jim Gibbons' veto to make comprehensive domestic partnerships into law. Nevada is the first Mountain West state to offer legal recognition for same-sex couples, and is the first non-coastal state to do so by way of the Legislature. Believe me, I'm quite proud of "my other home state" today.

But hey, our work isn't over yet.

It's quite true that SB 283, the domestic partnership (DP) bill, will go a long way to help LGBT families. Gay and lesbian couples previously had little legal protection under state law. But starting in October, both same-sex and opposite-sex couples can register for a DP and receive largely the same legal rights as married spouses.

Again, this is a major step forward for equality in Nevada. However, it's not enough. We're still dealing with "separate but equal", and we still have far more work to do. Nevada now prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, but not gender identity. The LGBT working poor are still coping with brutal budget cuts to essential social services. And of course, gay & lesbian couples still aren't allowed the dignity and respect of full civil marriage.

I know it's easy for us to look at what happened over the weekend, pat ourselves on the back, and conclude that "gays have rights in Nevada". Perhaps so, but LGBT people still don't have full civil rights and we must keep working to eventually achieve equality for all.

Separate is never equal. LGBT people have the same hopes and dreams as everyone else. Our families deserve to enjoy the same commitment, dignity, and responsibilities of marriage. Our workers, whether they be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender, deserve to be safe at work and judged for what they do, not who they are. No one deserves to be discriminated against simply because of one's sexual orientation or gender identity. All people are created equal, and the law should fully recognize that.

So let's celebrate the progress we're making today, then get back to work tomorrow. HRC Nevada did some great work with the SB 283 this year, and hopefully they'll keep it up. The Southern Nevada LGBT Center has never given up, and continues to deserve our support as they support all of our community. Nevada Women's Lobby, Progress Now Nevada, and Progressive Leadership Alliance Nevada are also committed to continue working for LGBT equality.

We're not even halfway through 2009 yet, but we've already seen so many leaps forward and falls backward. I'm heartened and joyful that Nevada's now one of those leaps forward. But hey, we're still just halfway up the stairs. Let's keep going until we achieve full equality.

Separate and Unequal

The Opportunity Agenda — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:54:46 GMT

The theme of equality was central to our nation’s founding, with the declaration that “all men are created equal.” Our country’s history has witnessed the gradual evolution of that core principle from a ruling class that countenanced slavery and subordination toward an egalitarian vision that embraces the inherent equality of all people. We fought a civil war in part to give life to this proposition. It is embodied in our Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under law, and in the other Civil War amendments. And epic social movements of the past two centuries have moved our country, in fits and starts, further still toward the reality of truly equal opportunity. As Abraham Lincoln said of the Founders’ vision:

“They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.”

It's because of this rich history that recent happenings in Nevada and California are so discouraging. First, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, this week Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons vetoed a law that would give domestic partners similar rights and benefits to those enjoyed by Nevada married couples.

In a statement (PDF) released by the Governor, he writes: "My disapproval of this bill should not be taken to suggest that domestic partners are in any way undeserving of rights and protections." But this is a canard. As Justice Carlos Moreno, the sole dissenter in this week's California Supreme Court ruling, said:

"Granting same-sex couples all of the rights enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, except the right to call their officially recognized and protected family relationship a marriage, still denies them equal treatment."

He continued to say the ruling "places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities."

Granting gay couples anything but the ability to marriage is fundamentally separate and unequal. These actions in California and Nevada are a troubling trend and particularly discouraging in light of the recent advances in gay rights in so many other states.

For more, visit The Opportunity Agenda's website.

Nevada: Opening the Mountain West to Equality

Andrew Davey — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:06:11 GMT

(Proudly cross-posted at C4O Democrats and My Silver State)

Something amazing happened yesterday. Maybe it isn't revolutionary, but hopefully it will be evolutionary. The Commerce & Labor Committee of the Nevada Senate agreed to domestic partnerships (or "DP's"). Unfortunately it's not marriage, but let me explain to you why this is a major step forward for equality in the Mountain West.

First off, no Western state without a Pacific coastline has either marriage equality or civil unions/domestic partnerships. Currently California and Oregon have "marriage lite" domestic partnerships available for same-sex couples, while Washington (state) and Hawaii offer some domestic partner (DP) rights (though Washington may soon agree to expanded DP rights). While New Mexico is unique in being the only Western state without a marriage ban (for now, until CA's Prop H8 is overturned in court this year or by voters next year), their DP bill failed in the Legislature and gay & lesbian couples still have no official legal rights. Considering the recent setbacks in California and New Mexico, Nevada's DP bill gives us a chance to turn the tide in LGBT civil rights out west.

Secondly, Nevada's proposed DP law is quite special in guaranteeing equal rights. While DP isn't marriage, this DP will move us much closer to full equality. Why? In the proposed law, all rights, responsibilities and benefits of marriage will be afforded to same-sex AND opposite-sex couples who choose to form a DP. Hopefully, this will help Nevadans become comfortable with the practice of treating gay & lesbian couples the same as straight couples. And hopefully as they become more comfortable with the idea of equality, they'll one day put the idea fully into practice by repealing their marriage ban.

And finally, this bill now gives gay & lesbian couples the ability to be together without worrying about extra legal paperwork for hospital visits, child custody, property inheritance, state and local tax filings, and much more. For far too long, Nevada LGBT families have been suffering under arcane laws that added hardship to their lives. At least if the DP bill becomes law, these families will have it a little easier.

So what can we do? If you're in Nevada, please contact your state legislators and ask them to support SB 283, the domestic partnership bill. If you're out of state, please contact everyone you know in Nevada and ask them to contact their legislators in support of it. And wherever you are, please support organizations like The Las Vegas Center, ACLU of Nevada, and PLAN Nevada.

We can do it. I know we can. We're winning our civil rights in states across the nation, so let's get working in Nevada to add yet another victory to the rolls!

Voter ID still a Looming Threat for 2009

project vote — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:32:32 GMT

Cross-Posted at Project Vote's Voting Matter's Blog

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

by Erin Ferns

After the U.S. Supreme Court upheld one of the country's strictest voter ID laws in April, several states rushed to pass similar bills before the year's end. By December, more than 25 states introduced legislation to require voter ID at the polls. Though none of these bills were successful this year, lawmakers in several states are hoping to revive such restrictive requirements in 2009.

Since July of this year, at least seven states have pre-filed or carried over voter ID legislation for the 2009-2010 sessions, including Nevada, Maryland, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.
Oklahoma Senator and author of Senate Bill 4, John Ford (R-Bartlesville) is confident the voter ID bill will pass in 2009, despite resistance from the legislature to pass a similar bill earlier this year. However, opponents maintain that such a measure would "suppress the vote among the elderly and among minorities," according to the Tulsa World earlier this month. Furthermore, "there's no documentation of any fraud anywhere in the voting system," said Sen. Jim Wilson (D-Tahlequah).

Last week, Maryland Senator Andrew P. Harris (R-Baltimore County) pre-filed S 43, a bill requiring all voters to provide government issued photo ID when voting at their polling place. Two days later, the Baltimore Examiner reported an effort to require the voters in Anne Arundel County to provide photo ID at the polls. It would be the only jurisdiction in the state to require photo ID.

"My goal is to improve voter confidence in the election system," said Republican Anne Arundel County delegate and voter ID supporter, Nic Kipke. "There is skepticism over the validity of elections."

Despite this assertion, Kipke also admits that there were no instances of voter fraud in the county or the state to inspire the legislation, according to the Examiner.

Voting rights advocates are opposed to such measures in Maryland because such requirements "suppress turnout by intimidating people [away from the polls]," said state ACLU legislative director, Cindy Boersma."They'll feel as if their vote is being tracked. You shouldn't be able to prevent people from voting if they are constitutionally eligible to vote."

In May of this year, voting rights advocates, including Project Vote, helped defeat a voter ID/Proof-of-Citizenship bill (HJR 48) in Missouri. Last week, however, the state appeared to be re-igniting this battle by pre-filing another constitutional amendment to require photo ID (HJR 9).

Other states, including Mississippi, have recently made headlines for similar legislative plans for the new year. Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann is reportedly proposing to "expand the powers of the secretary of state," by way of multiple election reform measures, including voter ID. In 2008, voter ID was a top election issue in the state with the introduction and failure of several voter ID bills in both the regular and special sessions. In 2009, Elections Committee Chairman Sen. Terry Burton, R-Newton, "said he would produce [voter ID measures] and other legislative measures on a piece-by-piece basis rather than inserting all Hosemann's voter legislation in a Senate omnibus bill this year," according to the Jackson Free Press.

Currently, eight states either require or request government issued photo ID. Eighteen more states exceed Help America Vote Act requirements and request both photo and non-photo ID in order for voters to cast their ballots.

Beginning next week, states will begin convening for the 2009-2010 legislative sessions. To monitor voter ID or other election reform bills in 20 states, visit www.ElectionLegislation.org (registration required). To receive a weekly update on election legislation in 50 states and related news, please email eferns@projectvote.org.

Quick Links:
www.ElectionLegislation.org
"Voter ID Requirements." Project Vote (Web page).
"Voter ID Requirements by State." Project Vote

In Other News:

N.C. voter participation swelled in 2008 - Raleigh News & Observer [N.C.]
Democracy North Carolina says 2008 was the Year of the Voter.

Voting changes proposed: Measure would allow early voting, more absentees - Associated Press
RICHMOND (AP) - Virginia voters would find it easier to avoid long lines on Election Day if legislation submitted for the 2009 General Assembly becomes law.

Exit Poll Analysis Suggests Obama Victory Due to Surge in Youth and Minority Voting

project vote — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 21:43:42 GMT

The United States saw dramatic increases in voting from traditionally underrepresented groups, including minorities and young voters, according to a new analysis released this week by Project Vote. If borne out by systematic analysis of the voter rolls, this change in the electorate is evidence of the power of successful voter registration drives and an indication of the strong inclination of voters to participate in the process when candidates address their issues.
Countering the conventional wisdom that the voting population on November 4 did not change as dramatically as predicted, the analysis, The Demographics of Voters in America's 2008 General Election: A Preliminary Assessment, demonstrates that African-Americans, Latinos, and young voters cast millions more ballots in 2008 than in 2004.

"The analysis estimated that about 5.8 million more minorities voted in this year's presidential election than in 2004, while nearly 1.2 million fewer whites went to the polls," wrote Greg Gordon of McClatchy Newspapers. "The figures appear to reflect the success of Project Vote and other liberal voter registration groups in registering millions of young, poor, elderly and minority Americans to vote in recent election cycles."

According to the analysis, African-Americans cast nearly three million more ballots nationwide in 2008 than in 2004-an increase of 21 percent. The total votes cast by Latinos went up by 16 percent-more than 1.5 million-and young Americans aged 18-29 cast 1.8 million more votes, a nine percent increase. That the overall totals did not increase significantly compared to 2004 was in part due to a decrease in voting by white voters.

In addition to presenting an analysis of ballots cast from the United States as a whole, the memo by Project Vote consultant and Ph.D. candidate Jody Herman and Barnard College political science professor Lorraine Minnite examines several key states in detail, including Colorado, Florida, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

The Project Vote data is preliminary, and does not speak to "turnout," which is traditionally a measure of the percentage of the voting-eligible population that shows up to vote. Project Vote expects to release a full report on turnout in the 2008 election in 2009 when government survey data on the voting-eligible population comes available. Yet, this preliminary analysis indicates that a significant shift occurred this year.

"There is no doubt that this surge in voting by Americans of color and young people had a powerful impact on the outcome of the election," said Michael Slater, executive director of Project Vote, in a press release issued today.

"Separate opinion polls and election results themselves indicate that an overwhelming majority of African-Americans and Latinos backed Obama," according to Gordon.

"Thus, the appearance of an African-American presidential candidate with a sympathetic message may have prompted the nation's minorities to vote at levels approaching white voters -- if final state vote counts do not upend Project Vote's figures," wrote AlterNet's Steve Rosenfeld last week. "Its findings also suggest the U.S. electorate is not an inflexible assembly of voting constituencies, but has segments that are mobilized -- or demobilized -- depending on the year, candidate and message,"

In an email exchange with Rosenfeld, Frank Sharry, executive director of pro-immigration reform group, America's Voice, said "neither the turnout increase among Latinos -- nor the swing in support to Democrats -- were surprising."

"Telling people you don't like them and don't want them is not a winning electoral strategy," wrote Sharry. "But that is what the Republican Party has been saying to immigrants, Latino immigrants in particular, for the past four years. No surprise, then, that record numbers of Latinos turned out in 2008 and that the swing away from Republicans to Democrats among Latino immigrants in particular was dramatic."

Clark County, NV: 160,000 early votes cast during week 1

hekebolos — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 11:29:37 GMT

Friday marked the end of the first week of early voting in Nevada. In Clark County, which represented 65% of Nevada's votes in 2004, there have already been exactly 160,000 early votes cast in person, with a striking Democratic advantage. This number shatters 2004's one-week early turnout record of around 102,000.

Of those 160,000 votes, a hair short of 56%--89,554 votes total--were from registered Democrats, while a little less than 28 were cast by registered Republicans--44,607 total votes. That means that during the first week, Democrats outnumbered Republicans with regard to total in-person early voting by a factor of over 2 to 1. We have had 25,839 non-partisan or minor party ballots cast as well.

More below.
While this is indeed cause for optimism, it is worth noting that the number of Democratic votes is decreasing day by day, while the number of Republican votes is increasing. In general, we're seeing the same thing in Washoe County, which holds another 20% or so of NV voters. This is a symbol of the strength of the Democratic early vote machine, but what it also means is that we can't expect this 2-1 margin of D-R registration in Clark County to last.

Interestingly, we also have totals for all the absentee ballots that have been voted and returned. One would expect these numbers to favor Republicans, as absentees usually do. But the Republican advantage is not very large: out of 28,022 total voted absentee ballots, Republicans only account for a little over 46% (12,926), while Dems account for 41.6% (11,667), with 12.2% (3,429) other.

All in all, what that means is that of the total 188,022 ballots cast in Clark County so far, here are the partisan breakdowns:

53.83% Democrat (101,221)
30.6% Republican (57,533)
15.57% Other (29,268)

In 2004, absentee + early vote was 60% of the total vote cast in 2004--which means that to have a chance in Clark County, and therefore Nevada, McCain would either need to be winning a disproportionate number of Democrats or how that all the Republicans are coming out on election day instead.

So--what happens when you factor in the data from Washoe County? At the time of this posting, they're a day behind, and don't have Friday's results. But Washoe County is turning out in droves for Democrats too: 35,563 early votes so far, with 18,567 D, 11,406 R, and 5,590 Other.

Remember that Washoe County and Clark County combined for 85% of Nevada's total electorate in 2004. So what happens when we add these numbers together?

223,585 votes cast:

53.58% Democratic (119,788 total)
30.83% Republican (68,939 total)
15.59% Other (34,858 total)

Now, keep something else in mind: according to some previous calculations I did, if one assumes the same Republican performance in all counties outside of Washoe and Clark, and if one assumes that the percentage of the electorate each county provides stays the same (which is actually conservative, because the cities will have increased in population at a higher rate than the outlying counties), then Obama would only need 53% of the total Clark County + Washoe County vote to win Nevada.

Based on these numbers, it looks like he's well on his way there.

Are Voters Registered? Check Here to Ensure Every Vote Counts on Nov. 4

project vote — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:50:23 GMT

Cross posted at Project Vote's Voting Matters Blog

As history has shown, there is a difference between submitting a voter registration application and finding your name on the rolls when you go to vote. With registration coming to a close, Project Vote is conducting emergency efforts to ensure that no one who wants to vote is left out on Election Day.

Project Vote's Registration Repair Program is an intensive and urgent effort to collect and rectify large numbers of registrations that have been rejected by boards of election. We have been working all over the country to obtain disqualified applications and to contact would-be voters to repair applications with missing or erroneous information.

Check www.ProjectVote2008.org to see if your county has disqualified applications
Project Vote offers a Web site to help voters to check if they, their friends or neighbors were rejected by election authorities because of alleged or actual deficiencies in their application. Unless these people have already fixed the problem or filed another, corrected application, they will not be able to vote in November. The lists are available at www.ProjectVote2008.org. Currently featured states include Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Check back often as lists will be updated with more information in coming days.

Given that many of these counties have registration deadlines this Monday, we encourage voters to ensure they are not excluded from the voter rolls. Voters who discover they are not registered may fix the problem immediately by calling or visiting the local elections office to file a new, correct registration. This must be done before the Oct. 6 deadline to ensure all citizens who thought they registered to vote may cast a ballot on Election Day.

For more information on how to file a new, correct application, call these voter hotlines, provided by the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: 866 OUR VOTE (866 687-8683) or 888 VE Y VOTA (888 839-8682).

No other organization is conducting such an effort to save registrations that have fallen through the bureaucratic cracks. Several boards of election have been cooperative, recognizing the importance of ensuring that every American who wants to vote is able to vote. In other cases, however, Project Vote is being met with reluctance, resistance, or outright refusal from election boards who seem content to allow thousands of would-be voters to turn up on Election Day and find that they've been left off the rolls.

Note: It is a violation of law in many states to use any of the information on any of these lists for commercial purposes.

Nevada: Up Close & Personal

Andrew Davey — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:40:16 GMT

(Proudly cross-posted at C4O)

Last weekend, I was lucky enough to see the state of the race for myself. I traveled to the heart of Battleground Country. Because Nevada's 5 electoral votes are up for grabs and two Nevada Republicans may lose their House seats this fall, I wanted to do something to help. That's why I packed my bags, took some spare change for my favorite slot machines (NOT!), and made sure my family in Henderson had an extra bed for me to crash on.

I went to Vegas, baby, and I'm giving you the full report on what's happening there!

Luckily for me, my cousin's house is in the eye of the electoral storm. She lives in the 3rd Congressional District, the part of Nevada where Obama needs to win to carry the state... And the district where a Dina Titus win will give Democrats the majority in Nevada's Congressional Delegation. So when I left my house on Friday, I was thrilled to go to a place where I can double the impact with the same amount of time!

When I arrived in town on Friday night, the Presidential Debate was just ending. I had listened on the radio while my friend Harriet and I were driving up the 15, and I was personally impressed by Obama's performance. Still, I was anxious to find out what my moderate-conservative Republican cousin in Henderson thought about it. And to my surprise, she was also impressed!

Believe it or not, my Republican cousin will be voting for Democrat Barack Obama this fall. Why? Believe it or not, she may be upper middle-class... But she and her husband are still only a couple paychecks away from losing their home. Their house has now lost about $80,000 of its value while they still have to pay an "interest only mortgage" that's now after the "interest only" period. They consider themselves blessed that they have a beautiful house in a great neighborhood just down the hill from the most exclusive estates in the Las Vegas Valley, but they still fear what would happen to them and their two kids if one of them were to have a health scare or lose a job. That's why both my Republican cousin and her Democratic husband are voting for Obama.

And you know what? This isn't an isolated case. In fact, I would find more of this the following two days when I strapped on my tennies and hit the pavement.

On Saturday morning, I regrouped with Harriet and joined with all the other California Obama volunteers who drove to Nevada for the weekend. Before we were sent off to knock doors, we were given the lay of the land. In just four years, Nevada has turned from a Republican plurality state into a state with 80,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans! In the 3rd District alone, Democrats now have a 29,000 voter registration edge! And now in previously GOP friendly Vegas suburbs like Henderson, voters are afraid of losing their jobs, losing their health care, losing their houses, and losing the middle-class American Dream they thought they had achieved. That's why it was critical to get volunteers like us on the ground here to explain to voters what Democrats like
Barack Obama and Dina Titus will do to help working people.

So that's what we did over the next two days. We knocked doors. We talked to voters who still had doubts about Obama. We urged Obama voters to vote early. We reminded everyone not to forget Dina Titus and the state legislature candidates.

Oh yes, and we also listened. We listened as retirees told us about their health care worries. We listened as young people were telling us about their plans to finish college and get a real career. We listened to parents telling us about how they want to leave to their kids a better nation and a healthier planet. We listened to Democrats thrilled about a chance for us to make history (in a good way!). We also listened to Indpendents and Republicans, who have never voted for a Democrat before in their lifetimes, tell us that Barack Obama is the only candidate who they can trust with our nation's future.

And believe it or not, I could count the number of McCain supporters we encountered on our walks with one hand. Even though we were mainly walking middle-class and upper middle-class neighborhoods in leafy (for the desert) suburban Henderson, hardly anyone on our lists turned out to be McCain supporters. This just goes to show how Southern Nevada's changing and how much the people who live here are yearning for real change.

Now I know my experience in Las Vegas last weekend was only a snapshot of what's really happening in Nevada right now. However, I must admit came back on Sunday feeling more confident of the Democratic operation in Nevada. We have a real chance of winning and winning BIG here... But only if we support our Democrats!

There's plenty we can all do to help Democrats win this year. We can drive. We can walk. We can call. And yes, we can give. So please join us in helping in any way you can. The stakes are too high, and we can't afford to lose this time. Let's win, and let's take our country back!

Why hasn't EMILY's List gotten behind Becky Greenwald in IA-04?

desmoinesdem — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:00:00 GMT

Maybe someone out there who knows the inner workings of EMILY's List can explain to me why this group has not put money behind Becky Greenwald, the Democrat challenging loyal Republican foot-soldier Tom Latham in Iowa's fourth Congressional district.

I have been going over the list of Democratic women running for Congress whom EMILY's List is supporting, with a particular focus on the six challengers most recently added to this group in early August. I do not mean to knock any of those candidates, and I recognize that every race has its own dynamic.

However, after comparing Greenwald's race to those of other candidates, I remain puzzled that EMILY's list is not more involved in IA-04.

Follow me after the jump for more.
First things first: IA-04 has a Cook Partisan Voting Index of D+0.5. Since 2004, every Congressional district in Iowa has seen big gains in Democratic voter registration, which surged in connection with this year's presidential caucuses. For the first time since Iowa's districts were last redrawn, IA-04 now has more registered Democrats than Republicans.

Democrats have an advantage in the generic Congressional ballot nationwide, but what may be more relevant for this district is Barack Obama's big lead over John McCain in Iowa (double-digits according to the two most recent polls). The Obama campaign's enormous ground game in Iowa will be working in Greenwald's favor too. Her staffers and volunteers seem pleased with the level of coordination between the campaigns' turnout efforts.

Turning to Greenwald as a candidate, you can see from her bio that she has strong roots in the district as well as experience in the business world and a history of volunteering for causes including the Iowa Democratic Party. She dominated the four-way Demomcratic primary on June 3, winning over 50 percent of the vote. As of June 30, she had raised about $143,000 for her campaign but had only about $82,000 cash on hand because of her competitive primary.

Several Iowa political analysts observed this summer that Greenwald can beat Tom Latham if she can raise enough money to compete. Latham serves on the House Appropriations Committee and was sitting on more than $800,000 cash on hand as of June 30. Then again, plenty of well-funded incumbents have lost seats in Congress when facing a big wave toward the other party. Cook has this race as likely R, but I would consider it lean R. There have been no public polls on the race yet.

The current reporting period ends September 30. I don't have inside information about Greenwald's cash on hand now, but I know she has been aggressively fundraising all summer long. I assume things have gone fairly well on that front, because the DCCC just put IA-04 on its "Emerging Races" list. One thing working in Greenwald's favor is that the Des Moines and Mason City markets, which cover most of the 28 counties in the district, are not too expensive for advertising. So, she can be up on the air for several weeks, even though she clearly won't be able to match Latham dollar for dollar.

Side note: Shortly after the Democratic primary in IA-04, the sore loser who finished third vowed to run for Congress as an independent. However, he quickly turned his attention to the fight against Iowa's new smoking ban. He then failed to submit petitions to qualify for the ballot, took down his Congressional campaign website and reportedly moved to Florida. In other words, he won't be a factor in November.

Why should EMILY's list get involved in this race? Not only is Greenwald a good fit for the district, she is pro-choice whereas Latham has a perfect zero rating on votes related to abortion rights.

As a bonus, Greenwald has the potential to end Iowa's disgrace as one of only two states that have never sent a woman to Congress or elected a woman governor.

Now, I will briefly examine the six candidates for U.S. House whom EMILY's list most recently endorsed. As I said earlier, I don't mean to knock any of these candidates, but I do question why these districts would be considered more winnable than IA-04.

1. Anne Barth. She is running against incumbent Shelley Moore Capito in West Virginia's second district (R+5, somewhat more Republican than IA-04). Cook has this race as lean R, Swing State Project sees it as likely R. As of June 30, Barth had about $353,000 cash on hand, compared to more than $1.2 million for Capito. My understanding is that this district is quite expensive for advertising because of its proximity to Washington, DC.

2. Sam Bennett. She is running against incumbent Charlie Dent in Pennsylvania's 15th Congressional District (D+2, slightly more Democratic than IA-04). Cook and Swing State Project both rate this race as likely R, although Chris Bowers is optimistic given the partisan lean of the district. As of June 30, Bennett had just under $354,000 cash on hand, compared to about $687,000 for Dent.

3. Jill Derby. She is running against incumbent Dean Heller, who beat her in the 2006 election to represent Nevada's second district (R+8, markedly more Republican than IA-04). It's not too uncommon for Congressional candidates to win on their second attempt, but Cook and Swing State Project both view this district as likely R. As of June 30, Derby had about $314,000 cash on hand, while Heller had just over $1 million in the bank.

4. Judy Feder. This is another rematch campaign, as incumbent Frank Wolf beat Feder by a comfortable margin in 2006 in Virginia's 10th Congressional District (R+5). Again, Cook and Swing State Project agree that this is a likely R district. As of June 30, Feder was doing quite well in the money race with about $812,000 cash on hand, not too far behind Wolf's $849,000.

5. Annette Taddeo. She is running against incumbent Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in Florida's 18th Congressional District (R+4). Cook and Swing State Project both rank this district as likely R. Taddeo made a great impression on people at Netroots Nation and had just under $444,000 in the bank on June 30, while the incumbent reported nearly $1.9 million.

6. Victoria Wulsin. In 2006, she fell just short against incumbent "Mean Jean" Schmidt in Ohio's second district (R+13). Granted, Schmidt is ineffective as an incumbent, which is probably why Swing State Project has this in the lean R category (it's likely R according to Cook). Wulsin also had about $378,000 in the bank on June 30, compared to about $390,000 for Schmidt. Still, this is a markedly more Republican district than IA-04.

I understand that EMILY's List does not have unlimited resources, but I still find it surprising that they have not jumped in to support Greenwald. A little money goes a long way in the Mason City and Des Moines media markets.

If you want to help send her to Congress, go here and give what you can. September 15 is her birthday, by the way.

I look forward to reading your comments about EMILY's list or any of these Congressional races.

ObamaHeads: Fire One Up!

Zeke Says So — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 00:05:35 GMT

Much like Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul, Campaign Activists can be, uh, "interesting". Ok, some are flat out weirdos. But Obama's are a special breed and are certainly smarter and less wacky, they still have their own Culture and Language. Here are some terms you may never hear spoken in the light of Day. But an Obama staffer will testify to their existence. Well Maybe. Like AFTER the Election that is.

10. Barackoderm
A converted Republican who now stands for Obama.

9. Obamatron
A term that describes some O Supporters who want to talk about nothing but Obama. They also have no sense of Humor. Ahem.

8. Breaking Baracks in the Hot Sun
When a new person is brought in to help the Campaign, they sometimes get their mettle tested by being sent to walk a, Uh, NOT nice neighborhood. Like where Zeke lives. Scary scary. If they come back, the rookie gets promoted.

7. StreetBaracker
Term to describe some people who come from "Out of State" to help. Usually on the Greyhound. Some are doing it, Zeke thinks, just to get some free food and a place to sleep. They never bring a suitcase.

6. Obamabud
Comes from Hawaii. Maui, in fact. Very fresh, brah.

5. BarackStar™, Energy Drink
Instead of Coffee or even Latte's, Obama Activists drink a strange fluid made up of Kool Aide, crushed Berries and "Something else". I don't wanna know...

4. Wrong Side of the Railroad Baracks
Some times Party Activists who are "Not as enthusiastic as they should be", don't get called anymore. To return to "Barackstar" Status they may have to go "Break Baracks in the Hot Sun".

3. Obamazombies
After being hung up on and yelled at on hundreds of "ID calls", some Obama Supporters become desensitized and actually try and eat the brains of the living. Scary stuff. Beware.

2. Barackitis
Sometimes people who had once been an avid supporters suddenly "find a reason" that they can't help anymore. This rare disease, is similar to Hillarytosis and Paulobia.

1. Obamormon
Yep. Believe it or not, many conservative Evangelicals and Mormons have started working for Obama. These mainly young volunteers often "leave out" their religios leanings as they feel they are "weird" for opposing their hardcore parents leanings.

Would Clinton Have Won Without Edwards?

Chris Bowers — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:47:42 GMT

Howard Wolfson thinks so:

If reporters had nabbed former presidential candidate John Edwards lying about his extramarital affair, Hillary Clinton would have captured the Democratic presidential nomination, her former communications director said.

"I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," Howard Wolfson told ABCNews.com in an interview released Monday, because internal campaign polling showed "our voters and Edwards voters were the same people. They were older, pro-union. Not all, but maybe two-thirds of them would have been for us and we would have barely beaten Obama."

I used to argue that Obama benefited from having Edwards in the campaign. However, the evidence, as I discuss in the extended entry, not only goes against Howard Wolfson here, but also proved me wrong.

More in the extended entry.
Obama caught Clinton nationally after a January swing of African-Americans, netroots activists (see also here) and, apparently, Edwards supporters.

Even looking just at Iowa, Nate Silver shows that Edwards probably hurt Obama more:

As such, Iowa pollsters did a lot of work in trying to determine voters' second choices. And in virtually every survey, Clinton did rather poorly as a second choice: an average of several surveys in December showed that she was the second choice of about 20 percent of voters, as compared with 25 percent for Obama and Edwards (an even later version I have sitting on my hard drive showed the second-choice breakdown as Edwards 30, Obama 28.5, Clinton 23.5)

So the odds are that, if John Edwards had dropped out on the morning before the Iowa caucus, Obama would have won by more points rather than fewer.

Looking at contests that took place after Iowa, it is also difficult to see how Edwards leaving would have made any difference. Clinton won New Hampshire, so it is hard to argue that Edwards hurt her there. In Nevada, Clinton had a 10% lead in the entrance poll (48%-38%), but only a 6% in the final state delegate total. Also, Edwards lost about 4-5% from the entrance poll to the final result. Thus, it would seem that Obama gained most of the Edwards voters who were forced to make a second choice. Had Edwards not been in the race, then Obama would probably have come even closer in the state delegate count in Nevada, and also might have won the national delegate count by even more.

In South Carolina, Obama won a majority of the vote even with Edwards in the campaign, so that is a moot point. Looking at the exit polls, Obama performed equal to Clinton among white men, where Edwards dominated. Also, Clinton outperformed Obama about 2-1 among white women. Without Edwards in South Carolina, Obama would have won by something like 62%-37%, instead of 55%-27%. They both look pretty bad on paper.

After that, Edwards dropped out, and most of his supporters seemed to flow to Obama, at least temporarily. The probable explanation is that Clinton did not have the same stranglehold on older, working-class white voters in late January that she managed to acquire later in the campaign. Also, there were clearly a lot of Edwards supporters in the netroots, and so the demographics of his voters may not have been as seemingly favorable to Clinton as they appear to be on the surface.

The bigger question, I think, is how the course of the campaign would have changed without Edwards in the campaign. For one thing, it would have been a lot more difficult to push Obama or Clinton to the left on a variety of topics. Edwards kept staking out a rhetorically left-wing position to which Obama and Clinton were often forced to capitulate (for example, voting against funding for Iraq back in May of 2007). Second, Obama probably would have received the endorsement of netroots organizations like MoveOn.org and Daily Kos earlier in the campaign. This would have helped him in some ways, but in other ways it would have painted a giant DFH sign on his back for The Village, who might have simply seen him as the Howard Dean of 2008. Third, it would have been one less voice attacking Clinton on her ties to the establishment, which undoubtedly hurt her.

On net, it is difficult to say who would have gained more if Edwards had not been in the campaign. In fact, without Edwards, it is even possible that a candidate from the second tier might have risen upward. What I will say is that I am glad Edwards was in the campaign, because on the whole, I think his presence was a net rhetorical benefit for progressivism.

Stopping Voter Suppression: The Press Gets It Right in Virginia

project vote — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:39:24 GMT

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

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns and Nathan Henderson-James

We spend a lot of time in these news updates showing how charges of voter fraud are used to discredit voter participation efforts and prime the pump for voter suppression efforts, such as the passage of voter ID bills, pushing for proof of citizenship, engaging in draconian voter purge efforts, and imposing sever restrictions on voter registration drives. We have also spent a lot of time carefully delineating the politics behind these efforts, starting with our March 2007 report The Politics Of Voter Fraud and continuing on in these diaries to name but two venues.
What is striking about how the process of disenfranchisement and voter suppression works is how much it relies upon the media to repeat and amplify the breathless and hyperbolic accusations of so-called voter fraud against voter registration drives. If journalists were to spend any time at all investigating the sensational claims - often made by people with a direct partisan interest in the outcome of an election - they would find that the accusations are mostly taken out of context, are limited to a few instances, and have never, ever, been proven to have resulted in any fraudulent vote being cast.

Sadly, the history of this issue shows that it has been bereft of this kind of basic journalism, even through the 2006 mid-term elections. This is important because haphazard reporting of partisan claims of voter fraud without checking the facts is how the media helps these voter suppression efforts. These stories not only deter potential voters from getting on the rolls, but, as noted above, inspire bad election reforms aimed at disenfranchising voters, particularly those that are currently underrepresented in the electorate.

A prime example of this kind of lazy journalism in recent weeks comes from Las Vegas where local reporters simply repeated accusations of fraud made by the Clark County clerk against ACORN without even bothering to contact ACORN to see how their drive was being managed.

The group's registration drive has reached one million voters nationwide [Full disclosure - it is run under a Joint Effort Agreement with Project Vote. ~~ed.] and, according to one article, election officials see "rampant fraud" in the 2,000~~ 3,000 cards submitted by the group each week in Las Vegas. This week, the Associated Press reported that the state set up a "voter fraud task force" to look for "election irregularities and instances of questionable voter registration and intimidation," directly citing issues with voter registration drives. Neither of these Nevada reports provided the facts of voter fraud, what it is and how it relates to the voter registration process. Most importantly, neither reports cite real examples of the intentional casting of an illegal ballot - the real definition of voter fraud - in the state.

However, it may be that the hard work Project Vote and others - including the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, DEMOS, and the Advancement Project - have engaged in over the past few years debunking the voter fraud myth is beginning to change the way journalists approach these stories.

This week, several publications broke this trend by debunking recent Virginia GOP allegations of widespread voter fraud as a result of massive voter registration drives that primarily target youth, low income and minority communities - constituencies that have a long history of being underrepresented on the voting rolls and in the voting booth.

Since the beginning of the year, an unprecedented 147,000 people - "almost half under the age of 25" - registered to vote in Virginia, according to Monday's Washington Post lead editorial. Pointing to a recent incident where three members of the Community Voters Project were arrested for falsifying voter registration cards, Republican Party chairman, Del. Jeffrey Frederick of Prince William County claims widespread voter fraud is a hidden agenda in voter registration drives. [CORRECTION: The original Washington Post editorial identified the wrong organization. The Community Voting Project is a project of the Center for Community Change. It is not affiliated with the Community Voters Project and was not involved in this incident].

Remarkably, however, this time the press decided to investigate this inflammatory accusation. This charge is "utterly baseless" and is "unsupported by election officials, police or prosecutors," the Post notes in the editorial. In fact, the Post described the accusation as an exercise in "fear mongering" by Frederick, amplified by his allegations that citizens who register with these drives are also vulnerable to identity theft, a claim that amounts to nothing more than "a classic attempt to suppress votes," the Post editorialized.

Bob Bauer, at his Web site, www.MoreSoftMoneyHardLaw.com, takes the critique one step further, looking at both the accusations and the Post's coverage. "And the Post omits mention of another feature of Fredericks' suppression gambit," wrote the election law attorney. "He also called for an 'investigation,' well understanding that his words would creep into the press on his remarks and filter out into the electorate."

In a prime example of the kind of journalism that should happen as a matter of course when these kinds of serious allegations are made, a Virginia reporter for the Danville Register & Bee reached out to local registrars to get a real idea of the voter registration process and how unlikely it is to lead to voter fraud.

"'It's not easy to falsely register somebody,' said Pittsylvania County Registrar Jenny Saunders, who explained that in addition to the registrar going over the application for obvious errors (like missed questions), there's a statewide database all applications are checked against."

Partisans out for political gain perpetuate fear about the integrity of the election system, something that the media often picks up unfiltered. "In fact," the Post wrote, "it is groundless accusations and cynical fear-mongering such as Mr. Frederick's that are injecting the real venom, and the true threat, into the elections.

Below are some important facts to consider when writing (or reading) reports on voter registration fraud:

Voter Registration Drives Rev up in Presidential Election Years
The fact that young people and minorities are expanding the voting rolls this year does not indicate that something is awry with voter registration drives. Indeed, most large-scale drives target those populations least represented in the electorate. Further, in high interest election years, especially presidential, more people are motivated to help register voters or get registered themselves. Stories about so-called voter fraud should be evaluated in terms of the number of cards thought to be fraudulent versus the total number of cards the registration drive is gathering.
Voter Registration Fraud Does Not Lead to Voter Fraud
"We have the checks and balances...to makes sure the wrong person doesn't get registered and the right person does," said Va. election official, Saunders in the Register & Bee.
Further, professionally-run drives expect almost a third of all applications to be duplicates or incomplete, no matter how well-trained the canvasser or volunteers are. This does not mean they are all illegal. However, the registrar is required to ensure all applications contain accurate information "including whether the applicant is a citizen, their Social Security number, date of birth, full name, valid residence, whether they've been convicted of a felony, or whether they have been determined mentally incapable...If any of that is left off...the application is denied," according to the Register & Bee. Note: Not all states require Social Security number information to be filled out on a voter registration card. For more information on your state's requirements on registering to vote, visit ProjectVote.org.
Allegations of Voter Fraud are Often Motivated By Partisan Gain
"If you're not winning at the ballot box, try your chances in the registrar's office, or in court," the Virginia Pilot editorialized. "[That's] [h]ardly democratic."
Following the success of voter registration drives that have increased registration among low income, minority and young people, almost all claims of rampant voter fraud have come from Republican leaders, despite lack of substantiation of a real problem. The most vicious and corrupt efforts made were part of what has become the US AttorneyGate scandal that subsequently exposed the widespread politicization of the Department of Justice and led to the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. All of that unraveled because former US Attorney David Iglesias refused to make false accusations of voter fraud against ACORN's 2004 voter registration drive in New Mexico.
The fact is between 2002 and 2005 - when the Department of Justice carried out the most intensive investigation of voter fraud in US history - only 24 people were convicted of illegal voting nationwide. However, partisans still made public allegations and the press, in many instances, ran these claims with out real evidence. Armed with these published anecdotes and buoyed by manufactured public outcry about the possibility of their votes being canceled out by illegal voters, legislators fought to pass laws that disenfranchise certain classes of voters. As a result, states like Indiana and Georgia have implemented some of the most draconian voter ID laws despite the lack of any evidence of actual voter fraud.

Reporters practicing ethical and rigorous journalism should recognize that merely using the "rhetorical hand grenade" of voter fraud - without an explanation of how voter registration and elections are administered or an investigation into the evidence of voter fraud - is the real threat to democracy.

Quick Links:
Minnite, Lorraine. "The Politics of Voter Fraud. "Project Vote. March 2007.
Voter Registration Guides and Surveys [By State]. Project Vote

In Other News:

A voting penalty after the penalty - Birmingham Press-RegisterAnnette McWashington Pruitt watched her 18-year-old son graduate from high school this May. She proudly tells people that he is going into the Navy, following in the footsteps of his older brother (who is serving in Iraq) and his grandfather (who was in the Air Force).

Voting Rules Create Land of Disenchantment: Advocacy groups are battling New Mexico's strict voter registration laws as election looms - Miller-McCune
Jo Ann Gutierrez-Bejar remembers volunteering for the annual voter registration drive in Albuquerque, N.M. She remembers the camaraderie as the group of usually 30 to 40 volunteers headed out in the morning, clipboards in hand, to knock on doors and register new voters.

Denogean: 97-year-old voter can't prove she's a citizen: On deathbed, father told her to vote Democratic - The Tucson Press
Shirley Freeda Preiss of Surprise is one ticked-off little old lady. And who can blame her? The 97-year-old retired schoolteacher and onetime traveling showgirl has voted in every presidential election since 1932 when she cast a ballot for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But thanks to the state's voter identification requirements, it's looking unlikely that she'll be able to vote in the upcoming presidential election.

Watch your (official) language - Stateline.org
Missouri, a key presidential swing state and home to one of the most hotly contested gubernatorial races, will test what some see as voters' attitudes toward immigrants this November with a ballot measure to make English the only language of state government.

Stop the Republicans from beating the Dem Senate Leader - Now!

Sven — Sat, 17 May 2008 17:24:20 GMT

Cross posted from My Silver State.

Remember 2004? When the incumbent Senate Democratic Leader was beaten when he was running for reelection in South Dakota? The first time the Republican Senate Leader Bill Frist broke one of those so called DC "gentlemen's agreeements" of not actively campaigning against the leader of the other party?

You want that to happen again in 2010?

No? Then follow me below the fold to see what you can do NOW to stop the Republicans from beating Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in 2010!
Why help Harry Reid now:

The Republican party in Nevada is as much in dire straits as the national party. However, that doesn't mean they won't put up a fight to defeat Harry Reid in 2010. Harry Reid once survived a very close race after against now Sen. John Ensign only after a recount (1998). In 2004 he won by a more than comfortable margin. However, that was before he was elected the leader of Senate Democrats. Because of his new leadership role his approval ratings in Nevada have suffered and Nevada Republicans have no greater goal but to topple Harry Reid in 2010.

Now, this is not about whether you like Harry Reid and his actions as the Senate Majority Leader. I've personally been very critical of him on several occasions. No, this is about whether you want the Republicans to once again take out the Democratic Leader in the Senate. And Republicans, in Nevada and nationally, will be itching for a fight in 2010 if they lose the White House and more seats in the Senate and the House. And who will be the most prominent target in 2010? Harry Reid.

Potential opponents:

Republicans already suffered pretty badly in 2006 when they lost four out of the six statewide constitutional offices. The only statewide incumbents right now are Gov. Jim Gibbons who is scandal plagued and currently divorcing his wife who has barrickaded herself in the Governor's mansion. He's lucky if he won't either have to resign before 2010 or be primaried.

The other is Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki who seems to be more likely to succeed Gibbons than Reid.

The other top Republicans in the state are Sen. John Ensign who obviously can't run against Reid and Congressmen Dean Heller (CD2) and Jon Porter (CD3). In 2006 Dean Heller barely managed to get above 50% in this open seat against Democrat Jill Derby. Porter barely won his reelection campaign in 2006 against Democrat Tessa Hafen. Hafen was a Reid staffer who received major financial backing from Reid. A sign that Reid thought Porter to be his strongest and most likely opponent in a future Senate race.

Once you're done with the most obvious opponents, you have to search in the State Legislature or the local level to find a possible opponent for Reid. You might find one, whether it would be a strong and credible one is highly questionable as the Democrats are only one seat away from a 2/3 majority in the Assembly and just one seat away from getting the majority in the State Senate.

So, the two most likely opponents for Harry Reid are Congressmen Jon Porter and Dean Heller (in that order).

What you can do now:

In one sentence: help defeat Porter and Heller this fall.

Both are vulnerable. Currently, CQ rates CD 2 as Republican Favored and CD 3 as Leans Republican. However, that's mostly on the basis of the Republicans current financial advantage. After serving as Nevada Democratic State Party Chair for the past year and preparing the state for the caucus in January, Jill Derby announced another run against Heller in late February. By the end of the first quarter filing deadline she had raised $144,000.

In CD 3 a lot of Democrats were mentioned as possible challengers last year. In the end Clark County prosecutor Robert Daskas was the candidate backed by most in the Democratic Party. He was added to the DCCC'd red to blue list in March. However, everyone was shocked when Daskas dropped out this month just two weeks before the filing deadline. Local Democrats, the DCCC and Daskas' primary opponent Andrew Martin soon rallied around Senate Minority Leader and 2006 gubernatorial nominee Dina Titus. However, six months before the election Titus is at a serious fundraising disatvantage.

Why Jill Derby and Dina Titus can win:

So, both of our candidates are way behind in fundraising. Why, then, can they still win?

Jill Derby ran a hotly contested race in 2006 for a seat that Democrats have not seriously contested since Gov. Jim Gibbons first ran in 1996. While everyone pronounced this seat unwinable for any Democrat, Jill Derby ran a strong campaign and won 45% of the vote and kept Heller at 50%. One reason, Gibbons was even a serious contender for Governor and eventually won in 2006 is that Democrats never seriously contested his seat after his first election in 1996.

Two years later, the situation for Jill Derby is much better. She has new DC and national connections due to her time as State party chair during the caucus (which will help with fundraising), the caucus led to an increase in registered Democratic voters and Heller now has to run on his two year Bush rubber stamp record. The race has gained attention from national Democrats as Derby was endorsed by the Blue Dogs in Congress. Yes, I know, none of us are two fond of the Blue Dogs. That said, I'm happy about any help Jill Derby will get and this is after all still a pretty conservative district. When Derby talks about joining the Blue Dogs in Congress, she's mostly talking about fiscal conservatism. Yet, she's progressive on other issues, announcing her campaign at a green architecture form, has made health care and supporting SCHIP one of her main campaign themes (Heller voted against SCHIP). Also, her campaign will be managed by the former head of Americans Against the Escalation in Iraq in Nevada. Subsequently, she also endorsed the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq.

As for Dina Titus, she has actually already won in CD 3. In 2006 she won here by two points against Jim Gibbons in her run for Governor. Additionally, the district is trending Democratic as the registration advantage now is at 43% Dem, 37% Rep. Plus, Porter only won by 4,000 votes in 2006.

All Jill Derby and Dina Titus need now is the money to be competitive.

You can do three good deeds today:

You can help two great Democratic women get elected to Congress.

And you can help beat two possible opponents of Harry Reid.

All you need to do is give as much or little as you can and contribute through the My Silver State ActBlue page.

Links:

Jill Derby for Congress

Dina Titus for Congress

Helluva Heller - local blog with more information.

Mcjoan on Jill Derby in 2006.

It's Time: Honor RNs' Call for an End to Raiding, Renewed Focus on Unity

4SEIU — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:54:28 GMT

How are you commemorating National Nurses Week—this week set aside annually to honor the everyday heroes in the nursing profession?

During National Nurses Week and throughout the year, SEIU nurses want to be united, not divided—with other nurses, with other healthcare workers, with patient care advocates—to work for a quality care environment.

But sadly, SEIU nurses in Nevada and around the country are spending the week renewing their call for an end to the divisive actions of the California Nurses Association (CNA), which is busy declaring “real war” on nurses. The outcome of an election over union representation remains in balance for 1,000 nurses at three Las Vegas hospitals, after months of CNA's lies and false promises failed to capture enough votes to lure nurses away from SEIU.

CNA is devoting massive resources to divide nurses at a critical time when workers need each other and patients need them most. In addition to the Vegas raid attempt, the CNA is actively trying to decertify SEIU nurses throughout California and elsewhere in the country. In March, the CNA waged an aggressive "vote no" campaign in Ohio, forcing the cancellation of union elections for 8,300 nurses and hospital workers in nine hospitals. In recent years the CNA also has raided other unions or intervened in other unions' organizing drives in Hawaii, Illinois, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas, and other states. For more information on any of these, go to www.shameoncna.com/.

So back to the question of how best to commemorate National Nurses Week. How about by signing a mutual no-raid agreement? SEIU is offering to sign one with the CNA and its allied organizations anytime and anywhere.

Please, rather than dividing the too-few nurses who already have a union voice, let's unite the 85% who don't—for patients and for the profession.

~posted by Nadia, SEIU

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.

A Guided Tour of the Las Vegas Caucus at the Wynn Casino

Matt Stoller — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:30:54 GMT

I have now lost two posts about the Las Vegas caucus to my evil browser, so this one is going to be a picture tour. I'll just say, for all the whining about caucuses - and they are problematic in many ways - the ones in Las Vegas were just awesome. Cocktail waitresses, cooks, maids, nightclub PR flacks, pipe fitters, random Las Vegans all came together in the Wynn casino on the strip in a gaudy ballroom to pick a President, and it was... exactly like Iowa. It was raucous, cheerful, and exciting, as that video above shows. People are all the same, and when they are empowered it's just wonderful to observe.

These two guys are holding signs that say 'I support the union I support Hillary', the union being the Culinary Workers whose leadership endorsed Obama. The signs were paid for by the Clinton campaign, which outworked and out-organized Obama.

My full picture set is here, or you can follow me on the flip for a guided tour.

Nevada is a Western state.

One sign of a city full of degenerates who know how to have a good time is cupholders at the urinals.

And here's the entrance to the caucus, an opulent hallway that had a sort of 1970s porn feel mixed with a bar mitzvah.

Let's stuff a bunch of modern art-ish stuff together and put it on a table. Time to fuck!

And here are the nightclub PR flacks, beautiful people paid to look good and entice tourists into their clubs.

They apparently were up all night and came to the caucus, mostly to go for Obama. Or rather, I hear they went for Obama, because they wouldn't really talk to me, as I was uncool. They probably had their own VIP after-caucus, not that I'm insecure.

The rest of the caucus was full of different Culinary workers, and it was just really fun to watch.

I'm a journalist. Which issues were most important for you in making your political choice, ma'am?

People were having good fun.

And the caucus was over, and it was back to feeding, cleaning, working for, building buildings for, and enticing degenerate gamblers.

Now a quick detour from the caucus site to the Hillary victory party. This was the secret to the Hillary campaign, older ladies who were precinct captains. The one of the left was named Faith, and she loved Hillary. After seeing a sign a few weeks ago a local library, she went to some trainings and became a precinct captain.

Go Las Vegas, fount of democracy.

Yes, Obama Won Nevada

Chris Bowers — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 07:25:23 GMT

Imagine if, the day after the 2000 election, the national media simply didn't care about what happened in Florida, and instead acted as though Al Gore had won the election because he won the popular vote. Imagine if all cries from the Bush campaign about something called "The Electoral College" fell on deaf ears, and everyone just acted like Gore won and the popular vote was the only thing that mattered. States? Who cares about the results of individual states? Only the popular vote matters, dummies!

While that would have been perfectly fine with me, since I think the Electoral College is an anti-democratic institution that favors the will of geographic areas over the will of American citizens, it isn't what happened. The reason it isn't what happened is that everyone knows Presidency in America is determined by electoral votes, not popular votes. As such, electoral votes, not popular votes, are the main focus during any Presidential general election.

However, today the media decided that the Electoral College doesn't matter, and because Al Gore won the popular vote he won the election. Or, more accurately, the media decided that because more delegates to the Nevada state Democratic Party convention in April indicated they would support Clinton than Obama, it doesn't matter that the way the state delegates are arranged by geography actually projects to Barack Obama sending more pledged delegates from Nevada to the Democratic National Convention. Just as the Constitution indicates that the Electoral College, not the popular vote, determines the winner of the Presidency, Democratic Party by-laws make it quite clear that delegates to the national convention, not the popular vote and not delegates to the state convention, determine the winner of the presidential nomination campaign. Strangely, however, even though Obama is projected to win the most delegates to the national convention, Clinton is projected as the winner.
I've learned two things today. First, the Democratic presidential nomination system is not particularly democratic, since the system of delegate selection is different than the concept of one person one vote. Second, I have learned that the national media is not actually covering the Democratic presidential nomination campaign. If the media was covering the Democratic presidential nomination campaign, then they would have projected Barack Obama as the winner of the Nevada caucuses, projected New Hampshire as a tie between Clinton and Obama, and declared that Clinton finished second in Iowa. That is, after all, what actually happened in the Democratic presidential nomination campaign, which is based on delegates, not popular votes from states. Instead of covering the Democratic presidential nomination campaign, the media is instead covering who wins the popular vote of individual states. While what the media is covering is interesting and closer to the concept of one person, one vote, it isn't the Democratic presidential nomination campaign.

Until the national media declares that Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election because he won the popular vote, I will continue to assert that Barack Obama won the Democratic caucuses in Nevada. To agree with one statement without agreeing to both statements is to be caught in a logical contradiction. If delegates to the national convention don't determine who won a state in a nomination campaign, then the Electoral College doesn't determine who wins the Presidency in a general election. We all know, of course, that both of those propositions are false.

If there is a Nevada that Obama lost today, it is a Nevada that exists in a reality outside the presidential nomination rules of the Democratic Party.

Organizing matters: the lesson from Hillary's NV win

Zack Exley — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 06:36:00 GMT

Before the mainstream media descended on Nevada, I spent several days with the Clinton campaign there in early December. The field campaign, led by State Director Robby Mook and field director Marlon Marshall turned out to be an incredible example of passionate, yet cool-headed management and results-focused organizing.

Every single night, for almost one year up until today, in the modest Las Vegas offices of the Clinton campaign, young, exhausted organizers have reliably reported the results of their hard days' work to a regional field director in incredible detail. Every night, without fail.

For the mainstream news media, a few seconds of "tears" or a last minute robo call will always trump the story of a year of meticulous organizing by disciplined armies of young campaign staff and volunteers. Though it's difficult to report comprehensively on scattered and closed-mouthed presidential field operations, there are reasons to believe that high-quality field organizing has been decisive in the first contests of 2008. This week in Nevada, Obama had a surge in the polls and an endorsement from the powerful Culinary Workers union on his side. Meticulous organizing and good management by the local Clinton Nevada staff have made the difference.
But the big field story of 2008 is not about the horse race. In the 2008 and 2004 presidential primary cycles, the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire--joined by Nevada and South Carolina this year--have functioned as training grounds for a new generation of field organizers and incubators of new field techniques and technologies. The dramatic surge in early resources available to campaigns has put large staffs on the ground up to one year before voting day. These organizing hothouses--especially on the Democratic side--are producing a new generation of activists who are as disciplined and skilled as they are passionate.

It remains to be seen, however if this new generation of talented and battle-tested organizers and field leaders will be given the reigns during the General Election.

A little after 9:00 PM, in one nightly reporting meeting I witnessed, regional field director Ryan Donohue started with three questions for all his organizers: "Did you have a Caucus 101 meeting today?" "How many people were you expecting to show up?" "How many people did you actually have?" In the case of a discrepancy, organizers were asked to explain what happened. There was the feeling that it was better to have a small number of volunteers and to have predicted turn out correctly, than to have a big unexpected turnout. In other words, as an organizer, this campaign expected you to be in control.

The walls of Donahue's team office were covered with overlapping charts and lists of staff, their precinct captains, and other measures of their progress. But no numbers were put on the wall without a discussion of how they were achieved--and the lessons to be learned from the experience. In these nightly reporting sessions, regional directors went beyond mere numbers to debrief every conversation the organizers held that day with potential campaign workers as well as detailed plans for future recruitment, voter ID, persuasion and organization building. Each reporting session included good-natured self-critique and group-critique of team members' day-to-day efforts, both successful and unsuccessful. All meetings closed with a "role play" in which one organizer was called upon to lead a mock volunteer house meeting (the mainstay organizing tool of the campaign). The role plays too were followed by self- and group-critique.

After organizers had given their reports, they went to work inputing data from the day's work into "The Donkey," a new online volunteer management system. Regional directors then gathered in another room to report their teams' results to the statewide field director, Marlon Marshall, followed by the same process of self- and group-critique and evaluation.

In one of these upper-level meetings I visited, word was handed down by Marshall of new internal polls showing Obama surging in Nevada. And rumor had it that all bets were off, even in Iowa. No more inevitability. And intelligence about the Obama campaign pointed to massive turnout on their part.

Marshall explained to his bleary-eyed regional directors that the vote goals for all precincts therefore had to be revised. In other words, the goal post for all organizers had suddenly moved much father away. The regional field directors looked to be in various states of anxiety. But there was no sense of depression or despair. They were part of a well functioning organization. They knew the next step. They knew exactly what they had to do the next day, because they had just detailed their plan to their field director in the meeting.

Finally, getting close to 11:00 PM, Marshall would then report the progress of the past 24 hours in detail to state director Mook.

Through that repetition of work, accountability, reflection and change, an organization was being built to accomplish a goal: victory in the Nevada Caucus on January 19. That repetition was taking place within a grand strategy that, though changing along with the conditions of the race, was understood by all staff and even all volunteers.

Mook sees that kind of big-picture strategic understanding as essential for everyone from regional field organizers down to precinct captains: "If I train someone, and hold them accountable for delivering overall goals in a precinct, they're going to work a lot harder than if I just say, 'Go find 3 supporters and then come back to me.' If I say, 'You're accountable for winning," then they're going to do whatever it takes. And also, as the definition of what it's going to take to win changes over the course of the campaign, they're going to be able to adapt to that."

Even as the clock struck midnight, staff were still buzzing around the office in a mixture of calm efficiency and adrenalin rush as the news of the new tough reality spread among the staff.

Mook and Marshall are naturally good managers. And they work at being good managers. They see it as a major ingredient to winning--something that makes campaigns work.

"I've worked for Robby before and he sets a tone of being accountable--not just in terms of numbers, but also your work ethic and how your treat people, and how you run an organization. It comes out of asking a lot of people, but respecting people too," caucus director Mara Lee told me.

"Here, people are asked to do what they can do, and a little bit more. The nice thing is that organizers know they can go to their regionals. Regionals know they can go to Robby, or myself or Marlon. So it's not just a matter of reporting up--there's actually a two way conversation. Sure, it's hierarchical because it's an organization. But everyone is helping each other to succeed."

I asked Ryan Donohue if the level of detail expected in daily reporting seemed excessive. "At first yes," he said. "But now I realize it might actually be a little under."

That echoed what Mook told me about his method of breaking organizers in to this insane level of regimentation:

"It's never hard to get people to work hard on this kind of campaign. If someone came all the way out here to Nevada just work for Senator Clinton, they're already ready to do what ever it takes. And they really want to win. But the discipline piece is the hard part. And a lot of times, that means giving them time to prove to themselves that things need to be done a certain way. We'll say, 'Here's the way to have a successful house meeting--if you do this you will have done everything you can to have been successful.' Things like: sit down with the host and get them to give you 50 names to invite. Little disciplined steps like that. A new organizer will say that's overkill. But then their first meeting will not be successful and so then they get it."

My first organizing job after college, with a union, demanded a similar level of daily accountability as on Mook's campaign. But my mentor's primary means of enforcing it was the traditional Old Left staple: terror. He'd often yell at us or viscerally insult us when we failed to carry out our tasks exactly as ordered. Actually, it worked quite well for me. But this new generation of left leaders favors trust and respect.

Lee, the caucus director, told me that respect was part of the DNA of the organization Robby built in Nevada: "We respect our leaders--and so yelling just wouldn't be tolerated. What we're doing here is different from so many other organizations because we really are investing in our staff and in precinct captains. We're building permanent organizers and a permanent organization."

For Democrats in 2004, all these ingredients were lacking in most places during the general election: repetition of disciplined work, sound strategy, respect for precinct volunteers and staff organizers, and the most basic elements of decent management. Most of that was missing in Iowa for front runner Howard Dean too, where meticulous and consistent organizers working for John Kerry and John Edwards pulled victories out of Joe Trippi's "perfect storm" of passionate, numerous and unorganized, volunteers.

Dean's long-haul New Hampshire campaign was another story, however. Robby Mook developed as an organizer there through it's house-by-house, meeting-by-meeting process of organization building. Dean's fiercely independent New Hampshire operation produced a roster of young organizers who are now playing key roles in 2008 campaigns. Jeremy Bird, who is good friends with Mook, is in charge of organizing in South Carolina for Barack Obama. Karen Hicks has been a senior field advisor to Hillary Clinton's operation. And Harvard Professor Marshall Ganz, a veteran of the Farm Workers Union who helped shape and inspire Dean's New Hampshire strategy, is an advisor and trainer for the Obama campaign. Many others have been trained since 2004 by organizers from the New Hampshire Dean operation--for example, Buffy Wicks, who directs Obama's innovative California field operations.

"The NH experience was kind of a 'crucible' in which some talented young organizers had to work their way through some big challenges, taking an approach to electoral organizing that had been marginalized for years. So it wasn't neat, it wasn't smooth, and, at times, it wasn't professional," says Ganz.

"The US presidential selection system uniquely combines cosmic significance with utter contingency in a way that is truly remarkable. It takes a strong heart, a clear head, and skillful hands to provide the leadership to make it work. Jeremy and Robby came from very different places, but both showed their strength of heart, kept their heads clear--most of the time--and grew skills with their hands to make a difference in the world. That's what they're doing."

All the discipline and repetition of Mook's Nevada organization wouldn't have meant anything if it didn't satisfy that "utter contingency." The purpose of the organization Mook was building was to accomplish a very specific string of results: (1) Recruit a competent and dedicated leader for every precinct; (2) Test those leaders to make sure they are capable of recruiting and leading other caucus goers; (3) ID and turn out as many Clinton supporters to caucus as possible; and (4) Train precinct leaders to make sure they know how to lead their caucus attendees on the big day.

Precinct leaders were recruited and tested though the mechanism of the house meeting. These house meetings are not to be confused with the "self-organized" house parties popular with the national Dean campaign in 2003-2004. These house meetings were imported to the insular Dean New Hampshire operation across the decades from Caesar Chavez's Farm Worker movement, Saul Alinsky's neighborhood organizing and older movements by Marshal Ganz and other veteran Farm Worker organizers who visited New Hampshire in 2003.

Unlike most of the Internet-organized house parties of the national Dean campaign, the house meetings of Dean New Hampshire 2003-2004 and Clinton Nevada 2007-2008 had definite goals that would be tracked and reported immediately after the gatherings. In the case of the house meetings I visited in Nevada, the goal was commitment cards--promises to caucus for Clinton. Organizers also had to report how many new potential leaders had offered to hold their own house meetings.

Hundreds upon hundreds of house meetings over many months slowly built out Clinton's organization in Nevada. And then, as December finally arrived, it was time to bring leaders together to a series of training events to give the organization concrete knowledge and skills about caucusing as well as a sense of collective identity and excitement.

On Saturday, December 15, I attended one of these mass trainings at the William Orr Elementary School just outside of downtown Las Vegas. An incredible number of volunteer precinct captains showed up for this all-day commitment. Of course, showing up was a test in itself. Precinct captains who committed and didn't show up would be replaced.

Introductory speakers included Rory Reid and Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. And then caucus director Mara Lee and Robby Mook got to work preparing precinct captains with the detailed knowledge they would need to have to compete in the caucuses successfully. Following that, the mass broke up into smaller groups according to the staff organizers who were in charge of their precincts. I sat in a meeting run by a young organizer named Megan Rodman who repeated the same set of instructions over and over until her group of precinct captains could produce no more questions.

At the very end of the training day, a gaggle of reporters and television cameras showed up for a pre-planned photo op of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa going "canvassing." With at least five people from his staff and another five from the Clinton campaign following behind, he walked down the street from the Elementary School and began knocking on the doors of unsuspecting Latino voters who were shocked and confused to find themselves talking to someone who said he was the Mayor of Los Angeles and had the TV cameras to prove it.

That was the scene that made the evening news that day, not the meticulous organizing that had gone into the event.

The Nevada Clinton campaign is not the only well-run campaign among the early-state primary operations. There are at least 12 such operations on the Democratic side: four (the number of early states) times three (the number of major candidates running robust operations in all four states). There are several more on the Republican side this cycle. In each of these pressure cookers, a new generation of organizers is maturing.

Through this process, circumstance may be handing Democrats a long-term advantage in field organizing over Republicans. In 2007-2008, Democrats have far more organizer incubators than the GOP, and theirs are far better funded too. The overall amount of money raised by Republicans is far less than that raised by Democrats. And on the Republican side only Romney has had anything close to a robust field operation in all four early states. Furthermore, the 2003-2004 cycle also had a number of such incubators in the primaries for Democrats. That cycle, the GOP had no primary.

In other words, Democrats have enjoyed bumper crops of field organizers for two presidential cycles. The next big question is this: Will the nominee succeed in harvesting these crops and making the very best use of these organizers. Or will she or he put blockages and bureaucracy in the way of these young organizers, as happened in the 2004 General Election?

Click here for more pictures.

Cross posted from the HuffingtonPost.

Did Obama Lose Nevada Because of his Reagan Remarks?

Matt Stoller — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 06:24:03 GMT

I've discussed the 'swing liberal' block before, noting that this group moved from Obama to Clinton between Iowa and New Hampshire. Unfortunately, we can't really fully understand this trend in Nevada because the entrance polls aren't great. Still, while the not great, it is the only data set we have to go on.

In Iowa, Obama beat Clinton by 16 points among those who consider themselves as 'very liberal'. In New Hampshire, they were even. And now in Nevada, Clinton simply destroyed Obama within that block by 16 points. In other words, while it's not entirely clear who 'won' Nevada, whatever that means, had Obama run even with Clinton among those who describe themselves as 'very liberal', he would have soundly defeated her at the caucuses outright instead of having to play delegate games.

Both Edwards and Clinton dog whistled hard on Obama's Reagan remarks. Many readers and friends simply don't believe me that the stuff he said about Reagan was bad. Here's what it sounds like to people who lived through that period, which is still a majority of the voting universe. Digby helpfully wrote this in a frame of reference many will understand. Imagine George W. Bush in 2000 saying this.

We're still having the same arguments. It's all around regulations and smaller government and it's all ... even when you discuss traditional values the frame of reference is all around abortion. Well, that's not my frame of reference. My frame of reference is "what works." When I first came out against abortion, my first line was I don't oppose all abortions, specifically, to make clear that this is not a theocratic, you know, snake-handling prayer vigil kind of approach."
I think Lyndon Johnson changed the trajectory of the country in a way that JFK did not and Nixon did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of racism and anti-communism and government refusing to raise taxes to care for the poor and the elderly, I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was, we want a return to that sense of community and compassion that had been missing."

Bush would have lost the nomination right then and there. Conservatives simply do not run away from their past, they create narratives that reinforce it as a tradition worth belonging to. What Obama did when lauding Reagan as an answer to the 'excesses of the 1960s' (which you can very well see is a conservative meme by doing a quick Google book search) was attack and insult the liberal traditions of feminism, civil rights, environmentalism, consumer rights, and peace movement work from that time.

And he got torched by the older liberals who lived through Saint Ronnie's time and don't remember it as such an optimistic time when a dynamic man reigned in government and brought back entrepreneurship (which is not in fact true).

The right creates and protects their icons and history jealously, just as they tear down our traditions and heroes or appropriate them for their own usage by claiming that our best people were in fact conservative (hence JFK becomes a strong national security Democrat who cut taxes). The past matters. It just does. And if you want to know why, just remember that Bush has rung up a huge credit card debt that we will have to pay off. And if we can't explain that Bush rang up the bill by referencing the past, the country is going to blame Democrats for what Bush did. It's happened before. Just ask Bill Clinton and the 1994 Congressional class of Democrats, who paid the price for Ronald Reagan's binge spending.

We have been fighting Ronald Reagan's psychologically diseased followers and predecessors since, well, since they called themselves the Confederacy and fought for slavery. And we will keep fighting them if we are to retain a republic. That's why the self-identified very liberal Democrats swung away from Obama and took Nevada from him. Because he very self-consciously explained that he is not part of that fight, and they want a leader who is.

Gerald McEntee, Voter Suppression, Nevada Caucuses

Matt Stoller — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 05:16:39 GMT

This is a picture I took yesterday of Gerald McEntee, the head of the powerful AFSCME labor union, at the closing Clinton rally. The sign he's holding says 'Culinary Workers for Clinton', and it's a dig at the leaders of the Culinary Workers, who endorsed Obama and from what I hear from good sources used incredibly heavy handed tactics to encourage their members to caucus for Obama.

At the caucus I was at, two AFSCME organizers were actually out-organizing the Culinary Workers among their own members, a sign of just how badly the Obama labor camp played their hand. Not only did the union not deliver their members, but it's probable that the aggressive tactics, which included things like explaining to members they should caucus for Obama or not show up at all, backfired and drove up support for Clinton. Remember, Clinton tried to get the strip caucuses canceled in a lawsuit, but ended up winning the strip casinos anyway, including New York New York.

While at first the Obama supporters were loud and seemed coherent, at a certain moment the number of Clinton supporters holding signs that said 'I support the union, I support Hillary', signs paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign, were suddenly the majority. One guy was saying 'the union is lying, it's not sixty thousand for Obama', and while most of the workers I tried to speak with couldn't speak English, they were clearly excited to be at the caucus and happy to back Clinton.

If I had known what McEntee was trying to say last night, I would have blogged it a bit differently. The story here is huge turnout, good organizing, and a new caucus system that was simply overwhelmed by the number of people who wanted to participate. The Nevada Democratic Party needed around 1700 new precinct chairs for the caucuses, since there's no culture of caucusing in the state on such a scale. The party recruited them, and didn't force campaign neutrality on the chairs. It's possible this is because the party is in bed with Clinton, or it's possible that party leaders just didn't think they could get enough chairs to staff the caucuses and didn't want to turn away qualified chairs. Much of the fighting over rules and claims of voter irregularities can be chalked up to mistakes and a complicated system with over a hundred thousand participants and thousands of managers new to the process.

The central claim of the Clinton camp is that the Obama labor people were intimidating members. The central claim of the Obama camp is that Clinton-affiliated chairs were telling their people to show up at 11:30 and then shutting doors to caucus-goers at 11:30 instead of 12. Aside from the fact that party rules conflict with each other on this point, many of the caucus goers really wanted the event to start and end quickly, because they were working. In the middle of the caucus I attended, about a third of the room emptied out because of a shift change (their votes had been counted). In other words, there were good reasons to shut the doors at 11:30.

Anyway, I don't buy the claims of the Obama campaign that there was voter suppression going on, and I do think that the Culinary workers were pressuring their members to vote for Obama. Unfortunately for them, AFSCME just flat out beat them at their own game.

UPDATE: My earlier supposition about John Edwards seems to be what happened, at least in Nevada.

I believe John Edwards's situation is similar to that of a third party candidate working for viability. Voters considering their choices usually do not use their votes to 'send a message' but to pick a winner, so unless a third party candidate can prove they could possibly win an election, usually support for that candidate will collapse.