New Mexico House Republican leadership became aware of what was happening in committee meetings and took corrective actions regarding the confusion that had occurred on the part of some of their membership regarding the issue of Same-Day Voter Registration. 

After a 9-0 vote in committee on Senate Bill 672 Wednesday, which made it appear Republicans were endorsing Same-Day Voter Registration, Minority Floor Leader Rod Montoya (R-Farmington) got busy on some amendments which were designed to make a very bad bill at least somewhat more tolerable. After all, with a 24 to 46 disadvantage on the floor, Republicans cannot actually stop anything.

Montoya Amendments

Montoya introduced a total of five amendments. They were crafted to provide some important elements crucial to maintaining at least a semblance of integrity in the New Mexico elections systems. They included changes to the bill that:

1) called for photo voter ID for people doing same-day registration and voting simultaneously

2) ensure that ineligible voters are removed from the voter file.

3) provide that individuals trying to vote at places where officials don't have access to the statewide electronic voter file must vote on a provisional ballot only—this would keep fake voters from having their ballots tabulated immediately.

4) require walk-up registrants and instant voters to sign an affidavit under oath that he or she has not voted in the election in this state or elsewhere

5) prevent the outright gaming of primary elections by prohibiting walk-up same-day registrants/voters from changing their party affiliation on the spot.

Still a Bad Bill

Montoya succeeded in getting all five amendments passed. By that time he had also made it clear to all Republican representatives that the bill was still a bad bill, as it always had been, but merely somewhat less onerous than it was minutes before. The House then passed the bill 45-22, with all Republicans now voting NO.

The Senate had already approved the bill 24-16, also on a party-line vote. Because of the amendments however, the bill had to go back to the Senate for concurrence, which took place last night. 

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

The big news out today about the Republican Party of New Mexico being "vandalized" is almost certainly a phony story. 

Here is what KOAT has reported: 

"Traitors" — it's a bold word, spray-painted across the Republican Party of New Mexico's building.  The organization has been targeted before, but when members witnessed the latest vandalism this morning they felt it had a deeper meaning:  A personal attack against their newer members Stella Padilla and Dinah Vargas.

"There's a lot of reasons why I think they would be against us, simply because we're sticking up for New Mexicans rights," said Republican Stella Padilla.

In 2017, Padilla campaigned to become Albuquerque's Democratic mayor, but she was defeated by her opponent and her political views have since shifted.

"Stella, I feel you're a Democrat, you ran as a Democrat, your five past generations have been Democrats, well they're not the same Democrats," said Padilla.

Both Padilla and Vargas say because their Hispanic and South Valley natives' people don't like them because they support president Donald Trump. But they say it doesn't give people the right to attack them.

"We're not out there with Tiki torches trying to burn down the roundhouse, no. We're there exercising our fundamental rights," said The Republican Party of New Mexico employee, Dinah Vargas.

They two aren't sure who spray-painted the word traitor, but they feel bad for them.

"I feel sorry for them and they are cowards. They should be able to come to my face and dispute with me and after we disputed our differences I think they would flip," said Padilla.

The organization says the spray-painted word is the only damage to their building, but it will cost them a few hundred dollars to repair.  They've filed a police report with the Albuquerque Police Department and they are investigating to find out who vandalized the building and why they did it.

We are Calling HOAX. We Don't Believe a Word of This

No, we don't mean that the TV or radio stations have done anything wrong, nor do we mean the Party leadership has concocted the story. However, we do believe that the two women mentioned in the stories in the paper and on TV are almost certainly the perpetrators. If not, they would seem very likely to be in cahoots with whoever pressed the button on top the spray paint cans.

THREE REASONS WE BELIEVE THIS IS A HOAX

First of all, the women claiming to be the objects of the spray painting are simply too obscure to become the targets of some sort of high profile attack. They are not the equivalent of Justus Smollett.

Second, no one knows that they have been hired by the Republican Party of New Mexico. That's strictly inside ballgame stuff, known by maybe a couple of dozen people, at most.

Third, for the first two reasons no one cares who they are or what they are doing. Their names mean nothing to the average reader.

Finally, both women have a penchant for the theatrical:

• Stella Padilla heckled Pete Domenici during his last public appearance at the Albuquerque Museum, while Domenici was in a wheelchair, and Dinah Vargas was filming the scene. Padilla called Domenici a "traitor." Sound familiar? 
• Both demonstrated and heckled Donald Trump when he appeared in Albuquerque in 2016, and Dinah shouted "Fuck Trump." (It's on video.)
• Dinah went all the way to Ferguson, Missouri, with a man who is now in prison for murdering a homeless man. They particiapted in the "Hands up, don't shoot" fake news story. (See two photos of Dinah with Steve Kramer in this article)
• Dinah Vargas went on a crusade against Albuquerque Police Department, calling APD "Killer Cops," and making a fake coffin to demonstrate that the police were killers. 

The two women have a reputation for trying to sell themselves as activists and on-the-spot demonstrators for whoever will pay them. 

Until January of this year, just two months ago, they were Democrats. Not just Democrats, but radical, activists. 

Both were strongly anti-Susana, anti-fracking, in favor of raiding the permanent fund, pro-Black Lives Matter, Pro-Abortion. They demonstrated and heckled on all those issues.

Then they worked for the Jeff Apodaca campaign and lost. So they were on the outs with Michelle Grisham. 

Then they saw an opportunity, and knocked on Steve Pearce's door.

It appears that Steve Pearce foolishly fell for their sales pitch. Vetting anyone? 

Apparently, RPNM Chairman Steve Pearce perhaps (somewhat clumsily) saw these two women as potential identity politics tools—Hispanic women who could be used as props. But that is a mistaken approach: the Republican Party already has real, live, true, Republican women—verdaderas mujeres Republicanas— women who are educated professionals, sophisticated, women who are managing businesses and managing homes. The Republican Party does not need to recruit folks like this. 

These women foolishly filed a police report. Assuming the APD assigns competent detectives, the Albuquerque police should have this case solved in less time than it took Chicago Police to zero in on Smollett. 

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

What can they be thinking? Three Republican State Representatives, Greg Nibert (R-Roswell), Bill Rehm (R-Albuquerque), and Martin Zamora (R-Clovis) all went along with the majority six Democrats in the State Government, Elections & Indian Affairs Committee yesterday.

They all voted for Senate Bill 672 which not only institutes Same-Day Voter Registration, but also lays the groundwork for Automatic Voter Registration. Yes, the Democrats have an overwhelming majority in both houses, but one has to ask: Have Republicans simply given up?

The three Republican votes created a slam-dunk 9 to nothing vote FOR voters being able to drive into New Mexico and register to vote ON ELECTION DAY, and also during early voting. Not only that, with their support for a future structure for AUTOMATIC VOTER REGISTRATION they endorsed the concept of an automatic sign-up as a voter for everyone who visits a New Mexico state agency to get a driver's license, or to sign up for any kind of welfare.

One has to ask: Are they asleep at the wheel? 

Why are Republicans supporting legislation which will help turn what is already a majority-Democrat electorate into a landslide majority Democrat electorate? It simply makes no sense whatsoever.

IGNORING REPUBLICAN COUNTY CLERKS

The state representatives voted this way despite pleas from Republican county clerks that this is not only bad public policy, but also an unfunded mandate with no checks, no verification, and no assurances that anyone signing up is who they say they are.

An earlier version providing for this same bad policy at least had a provision requiring photo Voter ID for Same-Day registrants just showing up (possibly driving over from Texas) and expecting to vote. That requirement would have provided at least some safeguard—if the individual had no ID, he or she would have been required to vote on a provisional ballot. (A provisional ballot is set aside so the voter's eligibility can be verified prior to being tabulated.)

But that requirement was stripped from the bill, so now the Same-Day voter's ballot will simply go into the tabulator and be counted immediately. So there is no safeguard in the bill at all.

The bill will probably be on the floor of the House late this morning or perhaps in a late afternoon or evening session. 

In our view, Republicans are foolish to support this bill. 

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

The former soldier, “Chelsea” Manning—who first appeared in the news as Bradley Manning—is back in the headlines. You may remember that he was convicted of leaking 750,000 classified documents and was sentenced to 35 years in prison before Obama let him out. He is said to make his living through speaking engagements.

Our policy is to use accurate pronouns that refer to people in a way that recognizes the sex they actually were born with. We do not accept the nationwide, universal mandate that Americans MUST use pronouns or other references that are consistent with what someone “wants” or “demands” to be called.

We can do two things at NMPJ, while the dominant Left-wing media and the Trumpistas can only do one each. Example:

1) We can observe that Trump’s efforts with North Korea are to be praised and encouraged. The Left/media can only attack. The Democrats call us “Trumpers” for saying so. 

At the same time:

2) We can state that Trump’s remarks indicating that Kim Jong-un didn’t know anything about Otto Warmbier are either grotesquely ignorant or just plain brain-flatulence stupid. The Trumpistas call us “never Trumpers” for that.

But neither group is correct. The two major truths remain:

1) The Trump presidency is the most successful in modern history. 
2) Trump would be vastly even more successful if he could avoid saying dumb things that step on his successes.

These are both truths—and you know they are.

ANTI-SEMITISM at FACEBOOK as it CENSORS NMPJ

NOTE to READERS: ANTI-SEMITISM AT FACEBOOK

We have been contacted by Facebook and informed that they are blocking all our ads aimed at “Israelis” on Facebook. We have used this chosen demographic a number of times before.

NMPJ is pro-Israel and anti-terrorist. Though we seldom advertise, we have sometimes boosted a few of our articles, targeting a number of selected demographic subsets likely to support the state of Israel.

After being very, very weak regarding the Soviet Union/Russia/Cuba from the late 70s till very recently, it has become suddenly extremely fashionable for Democrat Party leaders to effect very serious concerns about Russia, "strong men," dictators, and the like. 

And we won't really take issue with that—we can all agree that despotism and tyranny are not only bad things, they are truly horrible. What is somewhat disconcerting is the Democrat Party's obvious insincerity, manifested by its selective "outrage."

Mark this down: if Barack Obama had opened a dialog and personal diplomacy with Kim Jong-un, regardless of the degree of success it achieved, the Democrats and their media allies would be out of their minds with the tingles going up and down their legs driving them to ecstasy. 

REALITY: WE HAVE INTERESTS, the PRINCIPAL ONE BEING SAFETY and SECURITY of the AMERICAN PEOPLE

During World War II, the United States policy was to become ardent allies of the person who, by most historians' accounts, was the very worst totalitarian monster in the history of the world. His cynical penchant for deception and merciless addiction to outright murder are legendary. His name was Josef Stalin. 

Why did we do this? Stalin was fighting perhaps the second-most brutal dictator in history—and, crucially, one who had declared war on the American people.

What did we get out of it?

Answer: The Soviet Union defeated Germany and Hitler on our behalf. And on behalf of the British Empire.

DISTORTIONS of HISTORY THAT AMERICANS PARTICIPATE IN—UNKNOWINGLY

Don't get us wrong, we are patriotic Americans, thankful for and appreciative of the sacrifices of our men and women who have served our nation and given their lives in our nation's wars and military conflicts.

But our own America-centric views of history, especially military history, aided and abetted by numerous, almost ceaseless television shows and documentary features, gives us a distorted view of a number of events in world history.

World War II is perhaps most distorted of all.

Each year on D-Day, we — rightfully — acknowledge the bravery and sacrifice of American soldiers. We will participate in that again and again. But we are concerned with the perhaps "improper" images, perceptions, and beliefs that the American people are left with regarding our role in World War II.

D-Day Compared with the Eastern Front

It is true that D-Day was a great achievement in planning, logistics, and combat operations. Some 156,000 allied forces landed on five beaches—and beyond in Airborne operations.

However, we would bet $1,000 that fewer than 1 in 10 Americans realizes that three of the five beaches were assigned to and assaulted by troops of the British Empire.

The Americans fought bravely on Omaha and Utah beaches, but the British assaulted two other beaches and the Canadians landed on the other. 73,000 Americans landed on D-Day along with 83,000 British Empire soldiers. 

Combat deaths were 2,500 American and 1,900 British Empire. Another 5,600 allied troops were wounded, making a total of 10,000 casualties. 

Contrast those numbers with the Battle of Stalingrad alone, where the Soviet Union lost 1,129,000 casualties, inflicting 870,000 losses—killed, wounded, or captured—on the Axis forces.

In Normandy, the D-Day allies faced a grand total of 50,000 Germans. 

We Conspired with the British to let a Monstrous Dictator and Murderer Win the War for Us

At a bare minimum, the Soviet Union killed 85 of every 100 of the more than 5 million German soldiers killed in the war. Most historians put the figure at 90. That's right, the combined efforts of the Americans and British killed the other 10. We again would bet that fewer than 10% of Americans have even vague notion of these facts.

Again, though, we are not criticizing this. We are happy that our leadership did this. The United States lost 407,000 military deaths in the war, along with another 12,000 classified as civilians, most of whom were in the Merchant Marine. The British lost 383,000 dead, and their Dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa) lost another 110,000, and their colonies another 87,000.

The US wounded totaled 672,000, for a total of 1,079,000 casualties. Adding in the wounded, the total casualties in the British Empire counting civilian deaths (mainly bombing in Great Britain) numbered 1,122,000.

The Soviet Union lost 27,000,000 soldiers and civilians KILLED during the war. 27 million. Total casualties, which includes the wounded and maimed were 41.7 million, compared with 2.2 million American and British casualties combined.

What Americans Need to Know is that if D-Day had Never Happened:

The Soviet Union would have defeated Germany all by itself, and marched all the way to Normandy, if need be, to do it.

D-Day was not even close to being necessary. The only reason it was undertaken was to ensure that the Soviet Union did not dominate ALL of Europe, instead of dominating only half of it.

We could have prevented nearly a half-century of Soviet domination of much of Eastern Europe by launching a "D-Day" invasion through Greece or landing elsewhere on the Balkan Peninsula, but again that would have meant many more casualties for us, while the Russians were doing just fine churning through their own forces.

Operation Overlord, the D-Day invasion, was finally insisted upon by General George C. Marshall because he badly wanted the US Army to play at least some role in the conquest of Germany. But it certainly was not needed to win the war.

Again, we don't complain. US planners, strategists, and political leaders did the right thing by letting Stalin do most of the work. 

The Soviet Union lost 41 times the number killed and wounded that we did. 

All because we made an alliance with the most ruthless, murderous, psychopathic killer the world has ever known. 

Nations don't have "friends" per se. They have interests. And the American people would do well to remember that.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

House Bill 93 allows voters who are registered as independents or who have declined to state a party affiliation (DTS), and those who are affiliated with minor political parties, to vote in the primary elections of the Democratic and Republican Parties. In other words, it is to open up the two major parties' candidate nomination process to voters who are not members of those parties.

Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans are prohibited from jumping over to participate in each other's primaries. This new privilege will extend only to the voters who don't appear to care for the Democrats or Republicans—either that, or they can't bring themselves to become members of those parties. 

This bill has already passed through two committees and heads to the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow. Thus far, Democrats in the two committees have unanimously supported the concept of "non-member" participation, and the Republicans have unanimously opposed the idea.

WHY ARE THE VOTES OF PEOPLE WITH NO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY MORE IMPORTANT?

What is not understood is why Representative Damon Ely, Natalie Figueroa, Joy Garratt, Melanie A. Stansbury, and Dayan Hochman-Vigil believe that the votes of some 297,000 DTS/independent voters are so much more important than the 970,000 Democrats and Republicans.

Do these five legislators believe that the lack of a particular worldview, philosophy, or ideology is a stand-alone virtue that places them in a superior moral position over that of Democrats? Over the Republicans?

Why must people who don't really care for either major party be given extraordinary influence in each party, while the voters who have chosen membership in those same parties are not afforded opportunities to tinker with each other?

These five representatives clearly believe that DTS/independent voters possess some higher degree of virtue than major party voters— a virtue so highly valued and favored that it merits allowing them to decide who the major party nominees will be.

PRACTICAL PROBLEMS PRESENTED

An obvious potential problem with this new legislation is the opportunity by non-member voters to "game" the primary election processes in each party. That is to say, the non-members are being presented the opportunity to be decisive in the selection of Democratic or Republican Party candidates by voting heavily in favor of candidates who would otherwise be rejected by the actual party membership.  

Democrats currently make up 46% of the electorate or about 582,000 voters. Republicans account for 30% or about 387,000. Under this bill, about 297,000 voters who are currently not permitted to vote in primaries will suddenly be able to do so. That's the 23% of the voters who are either DTS, independent, or belong to minor parties.

(The Libertarians currently enjoy major party status and will have their own primary. Like the Democrats and Republicans, they would not be allowed to jump into other party primaries.)

OPPORTUNITIES FOR REPUBLICANS IN SANTA FE COUNTY (and Democrats elsewhere)

The opportunities for mischief on the part of voters who don't belong to either major party could certainly extend to major party members in counties where their parties have become irrelevant at the local level—where their parties no longer even bother to nominate candidates for county offices.

For example, in Santa Fe County, the Democratic Party primary decides the outcome of all county races, while the Republican Party usually does not even field a candidate for the general election. (In 2018, there were 13 local primary contests for districts wholly within the boundaries of Santa Fe County. The Democrats fielded 21 candidates in their primary while no one—zero candidates—filed in the Republican primary.)

Under this bill, it would be advantageous for all 15,000 Republicans in Santa Fe County to re-register as DTS so they could ask for a Democratic Party ballot. It would actually be the only way in which Republican Party participation is meaningful: after all, they have nothing else to do on primary election day.

HOUSE DISTRICT 46 EXAMPLE

Republicans re-registering DTS 28 days before the primary could then vote in the Democratic primary and could be the deciding factor in close races.

As an example, the 2018 House District 46 primary between Carl Trujillo and Andrea Romero, with the candidates separated by only 313 votes out of over 5,800 cast, would almost certainly have had its outcome altered if a substantial percentage of the District’s 2,600 Republicans suddenly had had a role to play on primary day. And this is without yet considering the nearly 4,000 voters in the district who are registered as DTS and who under this bill would not even need to re-register.

Looking ahead to 2020 in this disrict, if this bill becomes law there could well be an organized, concerted effort to get rid of Andrea Romero by way of the Democratic Primary.

Given the mountains of new information that emerged after Romero was elected—information that makes it appear that she may be a complete fraud, both with regard to her financial misfeasance as well as what many consider to be fraudulent charges against Trujillo—both the 4,000 DTS as well as the 2,600 Republicans could be worked hard by a Democratic candidate.

A Democratic challenger who could motivate and mobilize a sizable percentage of those 6,600 voters could perhaps—relatively easily—begin to make Romero's 3,076 primary votes look fairly small. Assuming the 2,763 votes against her remained against her, she might get beat by a wide margin.

OTHER SANTA FE DISTRICTS

It isn't just House District 46 where this scenario could play out. House Districts 45, 47, and 48 are all solidly Democratic districts in which the only possible way an incumbent Representative can be defeated is in the Democratic Primary. And few Democrats participate. 

As an example, in HD 45, unopposed incumbent Jim Trujillo received 3,588 votes in the primary, while 3,700 DTS/other voters stood idly by, not to mention the 2,500 Republicans who were twiddling their thumbs. Under this bill, if Republicans decided they wanted to play a role,

Trujillo, or his opponents, could be looking at 6,200 voters to "mine" for their own cause—and none of these voters would have the Democratic Party's interests at heart, or give a hoot in hell about Democrat Party ideology, goals, or objectives.

In HD 47, House Speaker Brian Egolf, who got fewer than 5,500 votes in his primary, could see 8,700 new voters become easily eligible.

If you are a Democrat dissatisfied with the performance of the Democratic House, or with Egolf's role in imposing dictatorial powers from the speaker's chair, or in guiding the Democratic Party in a direction you disapprove of, you could offer independent voters a new, decisive role

Even more telling, you might be able to motivate huge numbers of Republicans to temporarily re-register just to be able to have the satisfaction of "getting rid" of someone they disapprove of—albeit in favor of someone they disapprove of less ardently. The degree of satisfaction they might feel is a motivation that shouldn't be overlooked.

The same dynamic could exist for Linda Trujillo in HD 48, where she got fewer than 4,000 votes in the primary, but could see some 6,300 newly eligible voters under this bill. 

REPUBLICAN COUNTIES COULD SEE THE SAME PHENOMENON

The same dynamic would be true in Republican-dominated counties like Lincoln or Otero—where it would be advantageous for all of the Democrats to re-register DTS and ask for a Republican primary election ballot. Democrats filed no candidates at all in Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Lea Counties, and only one or two in Curry, Sierra, Chaves, and Otero, all of whom were beaten in the general election, all but one very badly beaten.

LOCAL AND STATEWIDE

Depending on the ideology of the Democrats or the philosophy of Republican candidates who file in March to run in their primaries, one could foresee concerted efforts by 3rd parties, Political Action Committees, or other special interest groups, perhaps using “voter education” campaigns through Independent Expenditure entities, to get voters to reregister between March and the close of registration (first week of May).

They would be asking voters who are registered with a major party to change to DTS so they could influence the outcome of a primary. If the Democratic Party had two primary candidates—with one being more conservative than the other—then the Republicans could be encouraged to reregister as DTS in order to push the vote to the more conservative candidate, or Democrats could be encouraged to reregister in order to push a Republican primary outcome to the more moderate or more liberal choice. 

A BETTER SOLUTION: An Independent Primary

As a matter of public policy, it would be much more preferable for independent or minor party voters and those who desire to be candidates to hold a primary for Independent/DTS voters.

Given the vast improvements in elections technology, including the ease with which ballots can be printed on demand, a separate independent primary would add a relatively minor additional cost to our elections. 

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

TRUMP SHOULD BE PRAISED for EFFORTS with NORTH KOREA

Dr. Gavin Clarkson is an announced candidate for the Republican nomination to take on newly-elected Democrat Congresswoman Xochitl Torres Small in her 2020 re-election bid. Small defeated Republican Yvette Herrell of Alamogordo in 2018 to take the Republican-leaning district for only the second time in the last 40 years.

BACKGROUND

Joe Skeen held the CD 2 seat from 1980 until 2002. Steve Pearce won it that year, but stepped down in 2008 to run for the US Senate. As a consequence, that same year the relatively conservative Hobbs Democrat Harry Teague defeated Republican Ed Tinsley of Santa Fe.

But in 2010, Teague immediately lost the district back Pearce, who once again held the seat until last year, when he again ran unsuccessfully for statewide office.

In the wake of Pearce's retirement from CD 2, Herrell won the wide-open GOP nomination fight last year, defeating three other Republicans in the primary, one of whom was Clarkson, who finished third in the four-person race.

But Herrell, who is wealthy, did not pour a great deal of her own resources into the general election campaign and ended up getting beat.

Meanwhile, when the GOP nominee for Secretary of State up and quit the race after the primary, Clarkson asked to be the replacement and the State Central Committee complied. He did not put much resources into that general election campaign and ended up losing to incumbent Maggie Toulouse Oliver by a wide margin. 

CLARKSON

Gavin Clarkson is a well-qualified candidate. He is intelligent, very articulate, and does well in interviews when he explains the numerous distortions and, unfortunately, outright lies told by Democrats on a number of issues.

He is currently focused on border issues where he very accurately outlines the lies told, apparently without conscience or a second thought, by New Mexico Governor Michelle Grisham. 

Clarkson also produces very good videos to support the points he is making. Here is one of those: https://goo.gl/j4ZQVc

PROBLEM

The problem with Clarkson, in our opinion, is that he has elected to dress himself in what could be described as a "uniform." Some might call it an "outfit" or even a "get-up." Everywhere he goes he is in a black leather outfit complete with what could be described as a black "cowboy hat," a leather duster, and black shirt, trousers, and boots.

We put cowboy hat in quotation marks because actual New Mexico cowboys don't really wear hats like that. Clarkson's is more of a stylistic, perhaps Santa Fe-ish interpretation of a cowboy hat. 

This is our opinion, but over the past several months we have bounced it off a number of political consultants and students of electoral politics: It doesn't come off as a "credible look" to the voters at large. It detracts from Clarkson's solid articulation and intelligent discussion of issues. 

Don't get us wrong: It is not the "cowboy" aspect of the get-up per se. New Mexico has cowboys, though they are very few in number relative to the population. And there's nothing wrong with western attire.

The problem occurs when one uses it as a prop, as a uniform, and is dressed up in it 24/7 as part and parcel of a political campaign. It simply won't sell.

It has the effect of influencing voters in a subconscious way, overpowering the effect of the candidate's intellect and argumentation, and leaving them with an image of something more or less strange, something they may not be able to put their finger on, but which nonetheless causes them to miss the message, unable to concentrate on it.

We believe Clarkson, armed with his talents, articulateness, and ability to produce graphic and convincing visual aids to persuade voters, would be a highly credible, very effective candidate, provided that he dressed in a normal way. But if he continues to be the "get-up" candidate, he has no real chance.

OTHER CANDIDATES in CD 2

Yvette Herrell has already announced her candidacy, aiming to take another shot at Small in 2020. We don't see that as working out for her. And we don't believe she cleared that announcement with Steve Pearce. In fact, we have it on record from a number of Republicans that she did not. 

Pearce is now indicating that he may very well have another go at CD2, and if he does he would almost certainly defeat Small. After all, the district is designed to elect a Republican.

Another potential candidate we have heard is mulling the race is Claire Chase of Roswell. She would be formidable. She would be able to do what the "most desired" candidates—from both major parties' points of view—are able to do: put a great deal of financial resources into a race.

Like Small, Chase is also attractive and articulate. If she were able to get the nomination (and she almost certainly could secure it—provided Pearce does not run) she would defeat Small in 2020.

And 2020 may very well be the Republicans' last chance in CD 2.

Here's why: If in 2020, Small is able to face a GOP candidate she can once again defeat, the national Democrat establishment is going to bring incredible pressure on the Democrat-controlled legislature to take favorable precincts or even counties from either Ben Ray Lujan or Deb Haaland, or from both, and put them into CD 2.

They would also take unfavorable precincts and counties out of CD 2 and put them in either Haaland's district or Lujan's.

They will have a chance of designing three solid Democrat congressional seats, and they won't pass up the opportunity.

On the other hand, if a Republican takes CD 2 back in 2020, it would affect the dynamics of the lobbying and maneuvering during the redistricting session which is likely to occur in September of 2021.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.