Republican Triage Hits Nevada

Two weeks ago we took a quick peak at how the NRCC had begun the triage process. I completely forgot serial loser Danny Tarkanian. Tarkanaian started running for office in 2004, when he ran for state Senate. He lost. Two years later he ran for Secretary of State. He lost. Then it was U.S. Senate in 2010, He lost. He ran for Congress in 2012 (and again in 2016). He lost both times. He ran for the state Education System in 2014. He lost. This year he decided to challenge Republican incumbent Dean Heller for the GOP Senate nomination. But, when polling showed him losing-- and when Trump told him not to run against Heller-- he pulled out and decided to run for the open congressional seat in NV-03. The last time he ran in the 3rd, this is what happened:

• Jacky Rosen- 146,869 (47.23%)
• Danny Tarkanian- 142,926 (45.96%)

On that same day Trump beat Hillary in that district by a full point.



His opponent in the R+2 district is New Dem and socialite Susie Lee, a really heinous, dreadful candidate, though perhaps not as heinous and dreadful as Tarkanian. As of June 30 she had raised $2,129,227 to his $1,186,612. They both won their June 12 primaries convincingly, Lee with 25,475 votes (66.9%) and Tarkanian with 15,257 votes (44.1%). 38,073 Democrats voted in the primary-- primarily because Trump had endorsed him-- but just 34,572 Republicans showed up. And that brings us to Jon Ralston's report that the NRCC had decided, despite Trump's backing to Tarkanian-- to toss him overboard. Aware they're going to lose their House majority, the NRCC wants to preserve their resources for candidates who can win. In their view, that doesn't include Tarkanian. They're putting their Nevada resources behind Cresent Hardy in his NV-04 race instead. In that re-run of the 2012 election, former Congressman Steve Horsford has raised $682,449 and former Congressman Cresent Hardy has raised $415,967. Unions have already spent $695,078 supporting Horsford and the NRCC is well aware they're going to have to drop millions of dollars into the district and feel they can't spend it in both the 3rd and the 4th.

Ralston found the decision to drop Tarkanian and stick with Hardy odd, "considering the difference in district demographics: In CD-04, where Hardy is trying to reclaim his old seat from the man he defeated four years ago, Steven Horsford, Democrats have a 9 percentage-point lead. In CD-03, where Tarkanian is taking on Democrat Susie Lee, Democrats have only a 2 percentage-point edge."

What this decision means practically is that whatever ad reservations and money already has been laid down in the market by the NRCC will not be split between the two districts but funnelled into the CD-04 race-- and all future investment will be to help Hardy.

Of course, if polling warrants, this decision is not irrevocable. But this withdrawal of support is a devastating blow to Tarkanian, who already is in a huge financial hole to Lee and needs outside help to be competitive monetarily and on the airwaves.

I’m told the NRCC has polling that shows both races close and thus could have made sound arguments for investing solely in either one. But this decision is a clear sign that the NRCC believes in Hardy and also has data that indicates:

1. Tarkanian, who has never won a race, is…Tarkanian; and 2. Horsford has identifiable vulnerabilities, some of which were exploited when Hardy beat him in 2014 in one of the biggest upsets in Nevada annals.

This will become evident in mid-September when the airwave ad glut takes hold here and elsewhere. House GOP strategists are optimistic that control could come down to a handful of seats, and Nevada is one of the few places they can play offense instead of defense (two open Democratic seats) so naturally they want to focus all of their energies and resources on one race so as to not dilute their efforts.

Clearly the NRCC wasn't just looking at the odds. 2 in 7 (27.4%) is pretty piss poor odds to gamble on:

But 1 in 7 (15.2%  is far worse:

In the other big Nevada races, a new Suffolk poll shows Democrat Steve Sisolak with a 2 point lead over Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt in the governor's race, and conservative Democrat Jacky Rosen leading incumbent Dean Heller (R) by less than a percentage point in the Senate race. Trump's statewide approval/disapproval rating is 46/50%.

Nevada Electoral Action Is High In Las Vegas This Year-- Churn, Churn, Churn

Right-wing lunatic Cresent Hardy (left) is sporting a hipster look for his 2018 congressional run

The population of Nevada is 2,940,058. The population of Clark County (the Las Vegas Metro) is 2,155,664. That's where the state's people live. (The only other county with a significant number of people is Washoe--Reno and Sparks-- with 446,903 people.) Clark County elects 3 of Nevada's 4 members of Congress and last year there was turnover as voters ousted a GOP incumbent, Cresent Hardy, in NV-04, with Democrat Ruben Kihuen, and replaced Republican JoeHeck, who left his NV-03 House seat to run, unsuccessfully for the Senate, with Jacky Rosen. Kihuen ran as an unabashed progressive but joined the New Dems, ran up a miserable voting record (ProgressivePunch rates him a "D") and was forced to retire after being caught molesting women. Jacky Rosen is worse. She ran as a nothing and ran up one of the worst voting records in Congress-- ProgressivePunch rates her an "F"-- which, of course attracted Chuck Schumer's attention, who offered to back her in the Senate race against Republican Dean Heller.

That means the same two Clark County seats that flipped red to blue in 2016 are up for grabs again this year. Obama won both districts both rimes he ran. In 2016 Hillary and Trump had close elections. Trump won NV-03 47.5% to 46.5% and Hillary won NV-04 with a more comfortable 49.5% to 44.6%. The 3rd flipped from an even PVI to an R+2 and the 4th went from a PVI of D+4 to a D+3. This cycle's DCCC candidates includes extremely wealthy Mob-connected socialite Susie Lee among their shitty candidate in the list of disastrous Red to Blue program. She's beyond horrible and when she ran in 2016 (in the 4th district primary) she spent the most money ($1,492,274, of which $674,805 came out of her own bank account) and came in a distant 3rd behind Kihuen and Berniecrat Lucy Flores. So far there are 7 candidates running as Democrats in NV-03-- Lee (who was endorsed by EMILY's List and has no issues on her website, Jack Love, Hermon Farahi, Richard Hart, Guy Pinjuv, Steve Schiffman (who seems to be running for mayor of Jerusalem, not for the U.S. Congress) and Michael Weiss (who sounds like a Berniecrat)-- and 6 candidates running as Republicans-- Victoria Seaman, Scott Hammond, David McKeon, Eddie Hamilton Stephanie Jones, and Michelle Mortensen. Some of them may have dropped out by now. By the end of the 3rd quarter only 5 had raised any money:

• Susie Lee (D)- $315,178
• Victoria Seaman (R)- $114,008
• Scott Hammond (R)- $51,700
• David McKeon (R)- $39,695
• Jack Love (D)- $10,950

Now let's look at the 4th district, the bluer one, to replace the disgraced Kihuen. Democrats in the race so far include state Senator Patricia Spearman, Berniecrat Amy Vilela and high school principal John Anzalone. There has been constant chatter that both Steven Horsford, the district’s first representative (who was defeated by Cresent Hardy in 2014) and North Las Vegas Mayor John Lee, are also about to jump into the race. On the Republican side, GOP frontrunner Las Vegas City Councilman Stavros Anthony just announced he's getting out of the race, presumably to make way for Hardy, the ex-Congressman Kihuen had defeated in 2016. Anthony had already raised $141,145 by the end of the third quarter and probably as much by the end of the 4th (which hasn't been reported yet).

Republicans Are On Another Planet And Can't Be Shamed For Their Sexual Transgressions

Thursday night I was at Norman Lear's 95th birthday party. Almost everyone I talked with beyond "hi, how are you?" asked about Al Franken. I had a post in the can-- since then, published here-- that I was able to refer to when people asked me for my thoughts. Most people I spoke with, like me, were torn, not wanting to lose a stalwart progressive senator but supportive of the fight against thousands of years of patriarchal injustice. Marge Baker, executive vice president at People For the American Way, which was throwing the shindig, brought up an important point-- namely that the #MeToo movement has had and will continue to have a great deal of success shaming Democrats but that Republicans can't really be shamed on this topic. They basically just don't care what women think.

And that made me recall a short essay for the Daily Beast that Franken pal Michael Tomasky wrote a couple days ago, Here’s Why Democrats Forced Al Franken to Do the Right Thing—And Why They May Come to Regret It, filed under "Irony Alerts." Tomasky makes it clear that he thinks Franken had to go-- though the freak in the Oval Office has to go much more urgently. But what he wrote was that "There’s a great historical score to be settled here, in the name not only of the women Al did wrong, but the thousands of women down the years who’ve been treated disrespectfully by men using their power-- who didn’t get that promotion, were passed over for that writing gig at Saturday Night Live, never made it to the United States Senate.

A part of me does wonder, though, what exactly would have been wrong in this case with letting the ethics process play out, seeing what the committee found, and determining his fate then? Liberals are supposed to love and respect process, which they sometimes do to a fault. So why short-circuit it here?

This is where I see some opportunism at work, in two ways. First, let’s cut to the chase: Do you think we’d have heard all these calls for his resignation from his Democratic colleagues if Minnesota had a Republican governor? No way. Maybe a couple senators would, but as a group they wouldn’t be nearly so cavalier about dumping him if they knew a Republican was going to replace him. And that’s fine; that’s politics. Newsflash: Politics is political. But it does make me take these high-moral-ground statements of his colleagues with a few grains of salt.

Now Gov. Mark Dayton is throwing a wrench in the works by evidently appointing a caretaker on the condition she not seek to keep the seat, which opens the seat up to the real possibility of Republican capture in 2018 (maybe by Norm Coleman, the Republican Franken defeated in 2008). I wonder how many Senate Democrats calling for Franken’s head would have thought twice if they’d known Dayton was going to pull that boneheaded move, instead of appointing a younger star like state Attorney General Lori Swanson who could build a real Senate career.

Second, obviously, the Democrats are hoping to present to America a contrast between them and the Republicans. And that contrast is real. But it, too, is not really about morality. It’s because rank-and-file Democrats take sexually inappropriate behavior a lot more seriously than rank-and-file Republicans do. This week, Quinnipiac polled about 1,700 people and asked them whether an elected official accused (and only accused) of sexual harassment or assault “by multiple people” should resign. Among Democrats it was 77 percent yes to 14 percent no. Among Republicans it was 51-37.

Good for rank-and-file Democrats. They’re in the right place on this question, and Republicans are in the wrong one. I’m just positing that if the polls weren’t coming out like this, maybe many of these moral high horses we’ve seen mounted in the last 48 hours would have been kept in the barn.

The Democrats want to be able to say: See, when Al Franken and John Conyers are discovered to have done wrong, we don’t equivocate. We take care of it. Meanwhile, look at those Republicans. They’re all-in behind Roy Moore, whose alleged attacks on women make Franken’s look awfully tame. They have a congressman, Blake Farenthold of Texas, who reached a $84,000 settlement of his sexual harassment charge-- paying it with taxpayer money-- and still holds his seat with no one batting an eye. And of course, they have Donald Trump. When’s he going to be filing those lawsuits against those 16 women, by the way?

It’s a contrast, and maybe it will impress some female swing voters in Alabama. But it seems more likely that the Republican way of handling these things is going to win. Deny, deny, deny. Lie, lie, lie. Pushback, pushback, pushback. Be so outrageous-- the Republican National Committee officially supporting an accused child molester!-- that people can barely wrap their heads around it. Sad to say, it wins.

I’m not saying the Democrats should reduce themselves to that level. As I said, Franken should go. But I’m not sure what the Democrats are getting out of it. They’re losing one of their best and smartest senators, somebody who would have been a quite plausible presidential contender in 2020; and failing that would have been a great and important lifetime senator.

But there’s more. They’ve circumvented process and the principle of hearing from both sides. They’ve completely ignored the possibility that a person can reform himself. (Maybe Franken used to be a sexist jerk but has genuinely changed; aren’t liberals supposed to welcome that?) And they’ve blurred the line, which I think should exist, between different categories of sexual crimes, some of which are obviously worse than others. The day will almost surely come when they’ll regret having established these precedents.

And back to one of the least trustworthy Democrats in the Senate: Kirsten Gillibrand. Before she found it politically opportune to lead a lynch mob against Franken, she had co-written a bill on gender equality with him, but it wasn't introduced once the revelations about his behavior started coming out. Then, just before Franken took to the floor of the Senate to make his announcement Thursday, Gillibrand, always the opportunist, squeezed herself in in front of him and introduced the bill as though it were written entirely by her. I wonder when the buzz about her running for national office will finally die the death it so richly deserves.

UPDATE: Someone Else Who Can't Be Shamed

When he was running for Congress, then state Rep. Ruben Kihuen, conned. He persuaded me he was a unswerving progressive and that he would be an unswerving progressive in Congress. He had been in the Nevada legislative leadership and I was hoping for another young, progressive leader. My one hesistation was that he was part of the corrupt, opportunistic and consistently dishonest Harry Reid Machine. I told myself that virtually all successful Democrats in Nevada are and that there was no way around it. So we did a duel endorsement for Kihuen and someone who actually had found a way around it: Lucy Flores.

Kihuen won the primary and Blue America went all in for Kihuen, even after another member of Congress who I trust warned me that Kihuen is a snake. And sure enough, almost as soon as Kihuen got to Congress he threw his lot in with the New Dems-- the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. His ProgressivePunch crucial vote score rapidly sunk and now stands at 76.92. They rate him a "D," better than an "F" but far from the promise he held out when he sat here in my office in Los Feliz.

And now he's facing serious sexual harassment charges and putting a seat he won against GOP crackpot incumbent Cresent Hardy 128,985 (48.5%) to 118,328 (44.5%)-- underperforming Hillary but a point-- into serious jeopardy. Pelosi and DCCC chair Ben Ray Luján have both called for him to resign, which he refuses to do, denying he did anything wrong. Does he have any allies willing to back him up? Not that I'm noticing. Kihuen notes that Pelosi and Luján knew about the charges last year when they first surfaced but campaigned for him. The DCCC spent $3,150,877 on his race and Pelosi's House Majority PAC picked in $967,635. Nancy and Ben Ray claim they didn't know-- a lie-- and sat he can't prove they did. The DCCC just kicked him out of their Frontline incumbent protection program.

David Cohen, who ran former Obama’s Nevada campaign: "It’s only a matter of time for Kihuen. If he stays and runs again, there’s no way he makes it through a primary-- let alone a general election."