POLITICAL MEMO:

This time, rural Nevada isn’t looking so red on its face

Democrats’ playbook narrowing traditional gap

Sun, Aug 24, 2008 (2 a.m.)

More Stories About Politics

A year ago Cindy Trigg called a meeting in White Pine County to organize rural Democrats. Two people showed up.

Her next meeting netted six. And the one after that drew enough to fill a room. A small room.

Slowly but surely, driving 21,000 miles across rural Nevada, Trigg saw the scenario play out time and again: Democrats emerging from the shadows in the state’s reddest counties.

“They do want to be paid attention to,” she said. “They got energized once they knew they had some help. They knew they weren’t going to have to do it on their own.”

It’s exactly what Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean envisioned when, after the 2004 election, he promised to stop the party’s slide toward geographic isolation. He created what he called a “50-state strategy,” sending field operatives such as Trigg into deeply red states and rural counties across the country in hopes of helping Democrats compete everywhere.

Today all of Nevada’s 15 rural counties have functioning Democratic central committees. A big reason was the state’s early presidential caucus, masterminded by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

“It was really the beginning of the demise of the Republican Party we’ve known in Nevada for 25 years,” Reid told reporters last week. “I’ve never seen organizing like this. We’re in as good a shape as I’ve ever seen in a presidential election. (Barack) Obama has a campaign organization that is unparalleled.”

State Democrats credit Dean, who has funded three rural organizers in Nevada over the past two years, for laying the groundwork in the rural areas, and the competitive campaigns of Sens. Hillary Clinton and Obama for expanding the ranks.

To be sure, Democrats aren’t predicting wins in such places as Elko, Esmeralda and Eureka counties, which voted overwhelmingly for President Bush in 2004. The goal is to cut into the Republican margin enough — combined with wins in Las Vegas and Reno — to make a statewide difference for Obama in November.

The strategy is playing out across the Intermountain West, where Democrats hope to capitalize on the damaged Republican brand and economic uncertainty.

“Rural America all over this country has been really hurt by the Bush-McCain policies,” Dean said last week, stopping at UNLV for a voter registration rally. “If you think it’s tough to live in Las Vegas and pay $4 a gallon for gas, think what it’s like when you have to commute 50 miles. Folks are quitting their jobs in rural America because they can’t afford to commute anymore.”

Large rural margins were central to Bush’s campaigns. He won rural counties nationally by 16 points in 2000 and 19 points in 2004. A poll conducted for the Center for Rural Strategies in May found McCain leading Obama among rural voters in battleground states, including Nevada, but by only a single-digit margin (9 points). Voters favored Obama on the economy, their No. 1 issue.

Democrats, who will open their national convention in Denver this week, see opportunity in the West. “Everyone has put the focus on Ohio,” said Rebecca Kirszner, spokeswoman for The Western Majority Project. “But if John Kerry had won Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico, this convention would be about him.”

The region is trending Democratic. In 2004, Republicans held a 124,000-voter advantage in overall party registration in Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada. Today the latest reports in the four states show Democrats with a 73,000-voter edge.

The Democrats’ gains in rural Nevada may boost Jill Derby’s chances of unseating Republican Rep. Dean Heller in the state’s sprawling 2nd Congressional District. She lost to him by five points in 2006 in the race to replace Republican Jim Gibbons, who was running for governor.

Last week, according to a Reno Gazette-Journal/KTVN Channel 2 poll, Derby was trailing Heller by five points — a surprisingly strong showing given that Heller is the incumbent and campaigning hasn’t begun in earnest.

“It’s a totally different landscape than what we had in 2006,” Derby said.

Discussion: 5 comments so far…

By neiman1

8/24/08 at 3:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Rural Nevadans will be all thats left soon. With energy costs so high, the cities will be getting much smaller. Less visitors, no jobs, and tax revenue drying up. Nevada's books are starting to look like Freddie Mac's

Harry, can we drill for oil?

email link
http://reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm...

Las Vegas
Lloyd D. George Building
333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 8016
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Phone: 702-388-5020 / Fax: 702-388-5030
By texexnv

8/24/08 at 9:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Question for neiman: Why would the Dems help the Psycho-in-Chief when they have been locked out of energy policy since this admin took over the White Haus? Remember Cheney's famous secret meeting with Big Oil?

Dems can take care of the energy probs when they are sworn in this January. Which means more than just drilling a deeper hole.
By jfnance32

8/24/08 at 9:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Texexnv is absolutely correct.

The Dems are against drilling for the trillions in dollars of oil and natural gas that we have.

Instead, they would rather have us send trillions in cash to other countries.
By benighse

8/24/08 at 12:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

I prefer to be FOR something.....

Diplomacy and Peace First with War as a last resort --vs-- War based on lack of intelligence and regime change.

Be an international partner with our allies --vs-- Take it or leave it comments to our friends.

Engage in healthcare plans that will make it available at a reasonable cost --vs-- Just don't get sick.

Have an economic plan that includes paying for our domestic and international bills by putting Americans to work --vs-- Leave all the bills for the next three generations from continuing the Bush largesse to multi-millionaires.

Find housing, mortgage and college cost solutions --vs-- Put on a patch and turn a blind eye to the middle class workers and their kids.

Bring our heros home from Iraq --vs-- Leaving them in harm's way for political purposes.

No Yucca Nuclear Waste --vs-- A wink and a nod.

Work for solar, wind, hydrogen cell and conservation alternatives --vs-- Rhetoric about drill, drill, drill since the US can't drill its way out of the current mess.

Invest in education with the funding to match our goals --vs-- Tell States and local communities their education system will be punished if they don't reach a test standard.

Put a Veteran's Education and Health Protection Plan in effect to prove we value all their service --vs-- Deteriorating hospitals with lack of doctors and delayed services for the Veteran's and families who sacrificed the most.

I'm for electing Barack Obama President because he is on the right side of these issues.

....But this is just a wrinkly old white-haired guy talking about why I want the generational change to take place this election so the future will be better for our children and grandchildren.

So let's all get to work for OBAMA / BIDEN '08.
By azsk8fan

8/25/08 at 9:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Why not read some of Obama's own words (his books) between now and Election Day - and see if you still think he's the right man for the job. I understand Americans are just so fed up and are craving change and putting a Dem in the White House after 8 yrs of Repugnantcan tyranny is awfully tempting to say the least - HOWEVER - we still need to be concerned about a man (black or white or bi-racial) who distanced himself (by his own admission) from his white mother for fear of being associated with the white race - by a man who for 20 yrs. attended at church that did nothing but preach hatred towards 'whitey' and then worse yet claims he didn't know (another dumbass president is certainly something we can do without) the list goes on all you need do is read his books and see for yourself. So while I'm certainly no fan of the Repugnacant Party I am also not willing to jump on the Obama bandwagon - we lost our only hope for a viable Democratic candidate when the country couldn't bring itself to see a WOMAN occupy the White House as anything more than a First Lady - and yes that is my true belief that it was more about her gender than anything else. I know there are still male chauvinists in the world because my own husband admitted he would not vote for Hillary simply because of her gender as opposed to her politics. So be very aware of the candidate you support because I'm not so sure he will be supportive of you later on. I have a genuine fear that he is using his political prowess to gain access to the White House for less than noble reasons.