There’s no place for this.

Dan Manning, a Democratic military veteran running for Kansas’ 91st State House seat (based in Wichita), has reported receiving a death threat on his front door.

Manning was discharged from the military under the infamous Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, and while his sexuality has not been a focus of his campaign, the motivations of the coward who left the threatening letter were plain:

Dan’s opponent is long-time incumbent Brenda Landwehr. Landwehr, a notorious far-right conservative, has been a vocal opponent of equal rights for gay, lesbian and transgendered Kansans. Since February, she has used Dan’s sexual orientation to stir up her constituent. She has gone so far as to use language that Dan was told was “too offensive” to repeat.

This weekend, the homophobia and name-calling took a dangerous and criminal turn.

Dan arrived home from work on Saturday to find a death threat attached to his front door. Crudely cut from newspaper headlines was a crass note that read:

“DISTRICT 91 Democrat Dan N. Manning, 29, production supervisor, manningforkansas.com”
“2010 State House Election”
“Will DIE”
“FaGIT”
“Kill”
“HOMO”
“MURDER”
“Head OFF”

[hat-tip Kansas Equality Coalition]

Manning has focused much of his campaign on job creation, education, and renewable energy. And as he explained to Think Progress (which has posted a copy of the letter), Manning does not believe his opponent or her campaign is behind the threat. He spoke out about the incident in an interview with KAKE News in Wichita:

["]Running as a gay man in Kansas and a Democrat, as well, I expected there would be some intimidation, some threats, but nothing I don't think ever really prepares you for that," he said. "It was still quite shocking."

The threats were concocted using newspaper or magazine copy of letters cut out and glued in formation to spell out certain words.

"I think it's important for people to know that there is still hate and bigotry alive and well in this country," Manning explained. "When something like this happens, I think it's important to call it for what it is."

Wichita police are investigating.

In politics, any time you can get your opponent to repeat your own talking points, you’ve got the upper hand.

That’s what if felt like the other day when the Republican State Leadership Committee publicized a new Siena College poll showing only 27% of New Yorkers want the closely-divided State Senate to return to GOP control. Another 33% wanted Democrats to expand their 32-30 majority, and 34% said they were happy with the narrowly-divided status quo. We had highlighted the same poll earlier in the day.

The RSLC was thrilled because in their minds, that meant a “Majority of New Yorkers Oppose Democrat Gains in State Senate.” But they neglected to mention one important detail: the narrowly divided status quo is one in which Democrats nevertheless have a majority. Which means two-thirds of New Yorkers want either a small Democratic majority or an expanded one.

Only a quarter of New Yorkers actually believe that a Republican-controlled State Senate would be good for the people of New York.

Maybe that’s why the RSLC linked to the Siena College media release - which doesn’t even mention the question about State Senate control – and not to the poll results themselves.

And unless there’s any confusion about who those “keep it closely divided” voters are really planning to vote for, that 27% support for a Republican Senate looks pretty close to a high-water mark for the GOP statewide. In every single statewide head-to-head Siena tested, no Republican candidate earns more than 29% of the vote.

This is the clearest evidence yet that New York voters are not prepared to hand their government back to the party whose total disregard for middle class Americans caused the economic crisis we find ourselves in, and whose leaders have spent the last two years obstructing Democratic efforts to fix their mess.

Chas Sisk at The Tennessean recently profiled one Democratic State House candidate’s efforts and described how his campaign fits into the larger Democratic effort to regain a majority in the Tennessee State House:

Wanda Clew doesn't agree with Democrats on much, but when David LaRoche, a 30-year-old candidate for the state House of Representatives knocked on her door last week, she was ready to talk.

Standing on her front porch in southern Rutherford County on a late summer afternoon, Clew said the recession had cost her a factory job. Now retraining as a nurse, Clew has relied on unemployment payments to help make ends meet, and she resents Republican resistance to their extension.

"I'm a die-hard Republican, but they didn't back me up on that," Clew said. "I'm not happy with the president, and I'm not happy with the speaker of the House. But we'll see."

The Tennessee State House is one of a handful of states where Democrats are in position to go on offense this cycle. If they are successful, the field effort – candidates themselves and local volunteers going door-to-door speaking to voters – will play a major role in their success. Another major key to victory will be candidates’ knowledge of their communities and focus on local issues where state legislators can have a unique impact.

LaRoche, running in House District 48, gets it:

LaRoche has also set a goal of knocking on 10,000 doors before Election Day, a plan that will put him before countless swing voters like Clew. His pitch — that they should ignore the social and political issues that favor Republicans, at least in this one race.

"For me, it's all about Rutherford County," he said. "I'm not going to waste time on cable-news topics that maybe get people riled up on either side of the issue."

LaRoche isn’t the only one. Caucus Chairman Mike Turner – the newest member of the DLCC Board of Directors – will be carrying that same message to his House colleagues and Democratic challengers throughout the campaign season.

But the stakes for LaRoche, Turner, and Democrats everywhere go far beyond Rutherford County. As Tennessee GOP Chairman Chris Devaney revealed, picking up just two State House seats would shatter the Republican dream of gerrymandering three new congressional seats for the Republicans:

”we can pick up three seats (in Congress)," said Devaney. "The national Democrats know that, and they are going to be pouring money into the state. … That's why the Republican Party of Tennessee is going to do everything in its power to help our candidates."

Thanks to the closeness of the chamber and a wide disparity in potential pickup opportunities, the Democratic House Caucus has reason to be bullish about its ability to regain the majority they lost in 2008. Republicans are defending six open seats to the Democrats two, and they’re also defending eight first-term lawmakers compared to the Democrats’ four.

That puts the Republicans at something of a high water mark right now, forcing them to nearly run the table in order to cling to their 50-48-1 advantage.

New York Democrats have had to face a rocky economy and recession-induced budget shortfalls in their first few years as the majority party in the State Senate. But New York voters remember the previous 40 years of GOP control, and according to a new Siena College poll, only 27% of New York voters want to go back:

• 33%: Want to see Democrats expand their State Senate majority

• 34%: Prefer the status quo, in which Democrats hold a narrow edge
• 27%: Want to see Republicans re-take a majority

This has to be unwelcome news for State Senate Republicans. Between the GOP infighting occurring up and down the ballot and the collapse of the Senate Republicans’ statewide campaign apparatus, Republican Senate candidates were depending on a hostile electorate to carry them over the top in key districts.

But that electorate, while clearly hostile to incumbents (only 31% plan to re-elect their incumbent Senator in a generic question), is not scapegoating Democrats for the state’s troubles. And with Republicans showing extreme weakness in every statewide contest tested in the Sienna poll, there are no coattails for GOP legislative candidates to ride.

The New York Senate is a top redistricting priority for the Democratic Party this cycle, because Democratic control of the chamber would give Democrats complete control of the redistricting process for both congressional and state legislative districts.

Democrats have not held a majority in both legislative chambers in New York during a redistricting year since 1910 - exactly 100 years ago. The only other time this has occurred (since the advent of the Republican Party as a competitor) was in 1870.

It isn’t always about majorities.

Even with Florida Republicans defending 25 open State House seats this fall (compared to the Democrats’ 3 open seats), strategists on both sides will admit that overtaking the GOP’s 74-44 House advantage or 26-13 Senate advantage would be a tall order even in a Democratic-leaning year.

But as the South Florida Sun-Sentinel’s Josh Hafenbrack explains, Florida Democrats are in an excellent position to achieve two other crucial goals this year. On the one hand, gaining just five of those open seats would deny the Republicans the ability to pass state constitutional amendments at will (a power they’ve enjoyed since 1998).

On the other hand, simply holding their current number of seats would deny Republicans the 2/3 majority they’ll need to override a (hopefully) Democratic gubernatorial veto. Hafenbrack describes what that unchecked GOP power would mean for Floridians:

The result, for Floridians, is likely to be statehouse politics that the Tea Party can love. Expect renewed legislative efforts to dismantle teacher tenure and mandate ultrasounds for women seeking abortions, proposals vetoed by newly independent Gov. Charlie Crist this year.

And, of course, a 2/3 Republican majority in the legislature would leave a Democratic governor with no leverage whatsoever to influence the congressional redistricting process in one of the most gerrymandered states in the country. George Bush won twice as many of Florida’s congressional districts as either Al Gore or John Kerry (winning 17-8 in 2000 and 18-7 in 2004), and even John McCain, who lost Florida by nearly 3% statewide, still won more congressional districts than President Obama (a 15-10 advantage).

Even if Democrats win back the governorship this year, unpacking that gerrymander depends on holding our ground in the state legislature or advancing by just a few seats.

A little over a week ago, Tracy Warner of the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette got a little taste of why Indiana Democrats are optimistic they can hold the narrowly-divided State House this year (one of the Democratic Party’s top redistricting priorities this election cycle):

More Indiana legislative districts should be like House District 31, which includes all of Blackford County and much of Grant County.

The district is split between Republicans and Democrats, and winning for either party is far from a sure thing.

Last weekend, visiting my hometown of Hartford City, I saw incumbent Democratic state Rep. Joe Pearson going door-to-door in the 90-degree-plus heat, seeking to win votes and, perhaps more importantly, encourage his supporters to make sure they cast ballots Nov. 2.

And that, in a nutshell, is the most basic way to win a campaign: by going out, meeting people in their communities, and asking them in person what issues are important and what they think should be done.

Last cycle, Rep. Pearson defeated an incumbent Republican by 468 votes out of more than 20,000 cast, but both parties are expecting much lower turnout this year because it’s a mid-term election cycle.

That means if Rep. Pearson goes out knocking every other day when the legislature’s out of session – in 90 degree heat or otherwise – he can personally speak to a huge portion of the people who will cast votes on Election Day. And with accurate data and targeting, he can talk to an even larger portion of the Democrats and persuadable Republicans and Independents he needs to win this fall.

Add in Rep. Pearson’s friends, family members, and local Democratic volunteers helping him reach out to potential voters, and it becomes clear how a well-run field program and a hard-working candidate can make the difference, even against a big-money smear campaign funded by the Republicans.

Progressives are definitely starting to ratchet up the talk about the importance of redistricting to the long-term wellbeing of the Democratic Party.

But conservatives get it, too. As David Bass asserts in yesterday’s American Spectator,

The most far-reaching effect of the 2010 midterm elections could be felt at the state level. By casting their ballots in … hundreds of legislative races, voters will decide whether Democrats or Republicans dominate the redrawing of state and federal political borders for the new decade -- a process known as redistricting. And the results could be even more far-reaching for Democrats than the outcome of the midterm elections.

That's not hyperbole. Given the country's closely divided electorate, the political fortunes of each party chiefly hinge on how redistricting pans out. That, in turn, hinges on how well Democrats and Republicans fare at the state level. The reason: in most states, legislators are responsible for creating … redistricting plans that reflect population shifts documented in the census.
…
The hands that redraw district borders are some of the most powerful in politics. Aside from a handful of state and federal requirements, lawmakers can finagle district lines however they choose. Legislative and congressional districts must be contiguous -- meaning all parts touch and none are detached -- and each must have an equal number of residents. The federal Voting Rights Act also ties legislators' hands by requiring them to draw some districts to grant minorities greater electoral power.

Beyond that, the majority party has a wide degree of latitude and the capacity to shut out the minority from the process.

Bass nailed it. The hands that redraw district borders are some of the most powerful in politics. And the majority of the people with those “hands” are in-cycle and face state legislative elections this fall.

Bass goes on to pay Democrats a little compliment, though, echoing a point made by Politico’s Ken Vogel several weeks ago:

Democrats appear to have a better redistricting apparatus on the ground to prime for inevitable legal challenges… Liberals don't want a repeat of the last round of redistricting, which led the GOP to historic gains in the 2002 midterms.

He’s right—we don’t. The 2001 Republican redistricting helped the GOP buck the trend of the sitting President’s party losing seats in Congress in the 2002 midterm elections.

But we remembered. And we learned. And we’re girding for the fight of our political lives. Redistricting is too important to the future of the Democratic Party and progressive policies to do any less.

For nearly 70 years, New York Senate Republicans were riding high. Flush with cash and protected by a typically unassailable majority (save for the 1964 Democratic wave), GOP Senate candidates could always count on a high-powered, high-spending campaign apparatus to save their seats. Until now.

The Capitol recently got an inside look at that once-proud GOP operation and the difference from as recently as one cycle ago. The collapse is nothing short of breathtaking:

The special-interest money that once flowed has dried to a trickle. As of January, the Senate GOP had about one-fifth of the cash on hand as they did at the same point in 2008. (…)

When they were in the majority, the SRCC operated out of a luxury 20-story building with 9,000 square feet of floor space. In the minority, with the threat of Republican-eviscerating redistricting oblivion looming, a shoe-string operation to retake the majority is being run from the second floor of a modest three-story building a few minutes’ walk from the Capitol, about a third of the size of the old one.

With less than $1 million on hand as of January, [State Sen. Tom] Libous has cut SRCC spending to the bone, from $158,000 a month to $48,000. In 2008, Libous did not even know the name of everyone on the SRCC payroll. Now, because they can afford much fewer, Libous can run down the entire list of staff in 10 seconds (…)

Senate Republicans will also have to do without their secret, taxpayer-funded communications and research shops that employed dozens of people and cost millions of dollars before Democrats discovered it last February. And fundraising has also dried up with most of the traditionally progressive sources that previously had to play ball with the GOP Senate majority in order to have any hope of legislative success.

And without their usual hoards of cash, the statewide GOP Senate committee is finding it has far less control over individual campaigns. But the committee is still inserting itself into local primaries - going so far as to publicly trash one likely GOP nominee - which is causing even more headaches for the party:

After [Republican Sen. Vincent] Leibell retired, meanwhile, the SRCC stepped in to endorse Somers Town Supervisor Mary Beth Murphy. She has also won the Conservative line. But these maneuvers have infuriated Assembly Member Greg Ball, who on paper would seem like a perfect candidate for Senate Republicans this year. He is a young Air Force veteran who has strong Tea Party support (…)

There is only one problem: Greg Ball.

“We think Greg Ball’s voting record is too erratic. We think his behavior is too erratic,” Libous said.

Ball said that he still holds out hope that the SRCC will see the writing on the wall and work to get Murphy off the Conservative line between now and November. But if Ball emerges from the primary without the Conservative line, Republicans could very well lose the seat, according to both Democratic and Republican strategists.

Of course, with 2010 shaping up to be a challenging climate for Democrats, no one is taking victory for granted. But in New York at least, Democrats have enough organizational advantages to feel confident.

Whenever there are big-ticket contests in a state, some extremely interesting down-ballot happenings can go under the radar. Such was the case three weeks ago when millionaire Republican State Sen. Charles Bishop of Alabama lost the GOP primary to take on State House Majority Leader Ken Guin, a member of the DLCC Board of Directors.

Bishop, who’s compiled a lengthy history of violent altercations with fellow legislators, earned infamy for this 2007 incident in which he punched Democratic State Sen. Lowell Barron on the Senate Floor:

One of the legislators in the video restraining Bishop from landing any further punches is none other than then-Democratic Sen. Parker Griffith. Griffith, of course, was later elected to Congress, switched parties, and was then humiliated in the GOP primary three weeks ago (losing the same night as Bishop).

Good riddance to them both.

Bishop had initially announced his retirement this cycle before making a surprise, last-minute entry as a candidate against State Rep. Guin (whom Bishop was apparently also not fond of). Based on the primary result - in which Bishop was dispatched by an underfunded political newcomer - Bishop obviously should have stuck with his retirement plans.

Big-ticket primary races dominated the media coverage this week, but there were several under-the-radar results we at the DLCC found interesting.

• Dennis Nolan Defeated: Wouldn’t have happened to a nicer guy. Which is to say, if Republican State Senator Dennis Nolan of Nevada hadn’t been caught on tape telling a witness in a sexual assault case that it would be “very financially beneficial” to change her story, and if he hadn’t then posted intimate details about the victim’s sexual history on his campaign website, he might still be the Republican nominee for Nevada SD-09. We still think he should resign.
  
  

• Board Member Karen Bass Nominated for Congress: DLCC Board Member and California Assembly Speaker Emeritus Karen Bass was nominated to succeed Diane Watson in the 33rd Congressional District last night. We wish her the best of luck this November.
  
  

• Veto-Proof Majority Possible in Nevada?: With only 21 members in the Nevada Senate, the 12-member Democratic caucus is in a unique position. They’re only two seats away from losing control of the chamber, but they’re also just two seats away from a veto-proof 2/3 majority. Earlier in the cycle, the former seemed possble, but now (especially with Nolan’s loss above) prognosticators are growing more bullish about the latter. And with Democrats already commanding a 2/3 majority in the State Assembly, the Las Vegas Sun is suggesting that the targeted State Senate races are even more important than this year’s gubernatorial election.
  
  

• Parties Split California Special Elections: A traditionally-Democratic Assembly seat (AD-43) and a traditionally-Republican Senate seat (SD-37) were both filled in special elections last night. Each party’s winning candidate pulled a comfortable 58% of the vote. Congratulations to Assemblyperson-Elect Mike Gatto, who won Assembly District 43 for the Democrats.