The state of Nevada gave third-party/independent presidential candidates 13% of its vote in 1996 and a whopping 26% of its vote to Perot in 92.  It belongs on any list of target states for those working on the development of a centrist reform third party.  This despite the fact that the percentage of the state's electorate registered as Democrats or Republicans actually exceeds the national percentage; these are Republicrats who appear ripe for shaking.

    The senior senator, Democrat Harry Reid, in general is sympathetic to our positions on the issues.  He favors taking Social Security off-budget, walling it off from the general fund and not counting it as part of any surplus.  He supported the Chafee-Breaux centrist balanced budget proposal, with its politically risky downward adjustment on the Consumer Price Index.  He also favors tightening regulations on legal immigration.  In addition, he has worked hard to change the center of political gravity with respect to mining and grazing fees.  He has supported raising fees somewhat in both instances, and is definitely not counted as an automatic friend of the big ranchers in the area, a rarity among Southwestern politicians.  In addition, he enjoys a 1998 TCS rating not only 14 points higher than the GOP Senate average but 5 points higher than the average in his own party.

    However, from ARP's point of view, he does have a notable weakness:  he has consistently voted against any meaningful entitlement reform.  He opposed both of the noteworthy Kerrey-Moynihan proposals in 97 on this issue, both their attempt to move toward affluence testing and their attempt to start slowly moving up Medicare's eligibility age.

    On balance, however, I feel he is one of those who has the potential to be ARP-sympathetic.  Moreover, he had a near-death experience politically this past year, winning his race for re-election to the Senate by a negligible 459 votes!  If the political balance continues to be this close through 2004, when Reid is up again, then this former congressman will almost certainly be grateful for any help he can get.  I therefore recommend that ARP endorse him and do whatever it can to effect his re-election in six years.

    In an announcement that shocked the political world, the junior Senator from the gambling state, Democrat Richard Bryan, announced in February of this year that he would not seek re-election in the year 2000.  It was a punch in the stomach to the Democratic party, for Democrats and Republicans are very closely matched in this state, and Bryan's decision put a Democratic seat in jeopardy in a year when the partisans of the donkey were entertaining hopes of recapturing the upper house.

    There are no publicly notable figures in this state who appear to be ready to answer the concerns of the large third-party/independent presidential constituency here other than the incumbent senior Senator, Democrat Harry Reid.  For now, we will probably have to limit ourselves to a flag-planting campaign with a respectable unknown.  Our goal should be to win a percentage of the vote sufficient to deprive either Republicrat of a majority of the vote.  Based on past results, I suggest that can be accomplished by winning 5% of the vote.
 

    This seat is a very tempting target for ARP.  Its current incumbent, Democrat Shelley Berkley, is a freshman, elected in 1998 with only 49% of the vote.  She appears to be a typical party hack, with some sharp dealings with the gaming industry in her past which raised eyebrows during the campaign.  Moreover, 5% of the total vote in this race went to third party candidates in the race, split between the Libertarian and the Independent American candidates.  There appears to be growing sentiment here for such candidacies.  Unfortunately, as I have mentioned before, so far there is a dearth of figures in the state who are potential ARP or ARP-sympathetic candidates, other than the unusual senior Senator Reid.  Here too we should run at least a flag-planting campaign.  Our goal should be to establish the preeminent third party position here;  I suggest therefore that we should shoot for 10% of the vote, easily enough to deprive any Republicrat of a majority as well as a number sufficient to coalesce third-party sentiment here around our party.
 

    The incumbent, Republican Jim Gibbons, is a typical conservative Republican in which ARP has little in common.  Moreover this district is the most strongly pro-third-party/independent presidential area in the state.  We definitely need to make our presence felt here, particularly in light of the fact that it is rumored that Gibbons may choose to go for the Senate, leaving this District without an incumbent.  There is more than than usually fertile soil here since the Democrats did not even choose to mount a challenge here in 98.  As a result, a significantly large 19% of the vote went to third-party opponents of Gibbons.  As in the First District, our goal should be to establish a position of pre-eminence among third parties here.  There were three parties who split honors among third parties here last year, American Independent, Natural Law, and Libertarian.  It seems to me a third-party summit is in order here, with ARP leading and taking the initiative in bringing the parties together.  I suggest our goal should be either to double last year's total, winning 38% of the vote, or, should Gibbons shoot for the Senate instead, to go for an absolute victory.  This could be the first district since Vermont's At Large District to send a third-party candidate to the House.