Clinton cruises in Nevada, Obama second

January 19, 2008

In retrospect, perhaps the Clinton campaign shouldn’t have worried quite so much about those at-large precincts in Las Vegas — Hillary appears to have won fairly easily, and with about 85% of the results tallied, most of the networks have called the race.

1. Clinton — 50.8%
2. Obama — 45.1%
3. Edwards — 3.7%
4. Kucinich — 0.04%
5. Gravel — 0%

Those nine casino precincts Clinton allies sought to shut down? Hillary won six of them.

Greg Sargent noted the exit-polling data, which points to a divided Democratic electorate in the state.

Among Latinos, Hillary is beating Obama, 64%-24%.

But among blacks, Obama dramatically increased his lead over Hillary from earlier in the contest, beating her 79%-16%

Meanwhile, Hillary beat back what appeared to be a stiff challenge from Obama for the female vote, beating him 52%-35%

And the vote broke down sharply along generational lines, too. Hillary beat Obama handily among both the 45-59 and the 60 and older set, while Obama won by sizable margins among voters aged 18-44.

Once again, let’s consider the various spins we’re likely to hear.

Hillary Clinton — What Clinton fans are saying: A key victory that should generate some momentum. What Clinton critics are saying: She may have won, but she won ugly, with dishonest ads, misleading attacks, and an 11th-hour robocall campaign urging voters not “take a chance on Barack Hussein Obama.”

Who’s right? Well, it’s probably too soon to tell. Like New Hampshire, Clinton fought hard for Nevada, and it paid off. Whether it’s a sign of things to come remains to be seen, but it should give her campaign at least a modest boost.

Barack Obama — What Obama fans are saying: We’re still going to take South Carolina. What Obama critics are saying: You couldn’t close the deal.

Who’s right? Probably both.

John Edwards — What Edwards fans are saying: Nevada was always a long-shot. What Edwards critics are saying: A distant third place showing suggests things aren’t going to get better for the former senator.

Who’s right? Probably the critics. It’s one thing to finish third. It’s another to finish with less than 4% of the vote. To be fair, threshold rules in the caucus probably didn’t help, but the end result remains the same.

Dennis Kucinich — What Kucinich fans are saying: We don’t care about election results; we’re going to keep fighting. What Kucinich critics are saying: Don’t you have a primary fight in your Ohio House district to worry about?

Who’s right? Probably both.

Mike Gravel — What Gravel fans are saying: (crickets chirping) What Gravel critics are saying: Gravel’s still running?

Who’s right? Critics are. Gravel made a splash in the early debates, but now that he’s not getting invitations to the events anymore, it’s hard to see what Gravel really hopes to accomplish. Drop out, don’t drop out, whatever.

Update: I neglected to mention that turnout, as with the first two Democratic contests, broke records and exceeded expectations: “With 84 percent of the precincts reporting across the state, state party officials said more than 107,000 Nevada voters attended the caucuses. It is the third state in the row to achieve record-setting turnout in the Democratic presidential nominating fight, which party strategists believe is a referendum on the Bush administration and a strong call for a new direction in Washington.”

Politics sure ain’t bean bag.

  • I will vote for Ron Paul in the general election rather than Hillary. The sleaze is just ovewhelming.
    (from a 60 year old Democrat in Georgia who has ONLY voted for Democratic candidates for over 40 years)

  • wow, John in #2 actually believes that Ron Paul will be the Republican candidate for the general… Must be dehydrated, living in Georgia, must not be thinking clearly.

  • “Necessity” is the mother of involvement. Something has to be done to change the direction the obstructionist republicans have put our country in. Since you won’t impeach them Pelosi, we will make sure these people never hold public office again. We must do something to not only stop them but also to restore our democracy and save our economy from this disaster. Not only to regulate the greedy profiteering but to eliminate those plundering our nation for purely their own self interests. We the people fully recognize that it is absolutely necessary to do something now to save our democracy. We must…and we will.

  • Ed Stephan’s right. The Dem nomination fight pretty much IS the presidential election this year. And it’s being decided right now. There won’t be any pulled punches till we have a nominee.

    Ron Paulites: Buy a clue, please.

  • I hear ya John. I too am a Georgia Democratic voter, and I’m disgusted with the lies/misrepresentations. Unlike you, I’ll definitely vote for the Dem in the general (there’s too much at stake). But if its Hillary, I’m not likely to feel good about it.

  • I think this is a pretty unimportant win for HRC in that the bigger focus is SC, coming up quickly, and Obama should win it by at least as much as HRC’s margin in Nevada. The most important thing it does for Hillary I would guess is defensive: it preemptively takes some of the sting out of SC, and leave the race 2-2 after SC. It may suggest that HRC is a stronger candidate in the SW and West which bodes well for her on Super-Duper Tuesday.

    Dems broke turnout records – anyone know how the Repub turnout compares to past cycles?

  • The one way this could boost her zeitgest, is this:

    Whatever the demographic breadowns in the nation overall, in SC at least, Edwards appears to severely bite into her base. Should he become an also-ran b/c of this poor showing, and his largely white backing in SC flock to Hillary, she could pull near-even with Obama in SC on voting based purely on racial lines.

    Which could get real ugly

  • It will be interesting to see how things are looking after South Carolina. If Barack Obama wins SC, then we have a serious horse race. If, however, Clinton Wins SC, then you could rightly say that momentum seems to be shifting her way. We shall see.

    Personally, I hope Obama wins in SC.

  • I would LOVE to vote for Hillary in the general! We are long overdue for a female president, and she’s not just a woman, but a feminist, liberal woman! I never thought I’d see the day when a feminist woman would have a real chance at becoming president! She would make a wonderful president.

  • ***John#2*** then kiss your SS goodbye. To call Hillary a sleaze means you’re a bigot or you don’t know what the word means. Shame on you.

  • Michael @ 8, good point. I also think the race-gender dynamic looks a little interesting. Not a lot of data, but it looks a little like the more Obama pulls ahead of HRC among black voters, the more women come back to HRC (and perhaps turn out more). Their own core constituencies may now embracing the identity aspect and fighting hard for their own history-in-the-making. That probably hurts HRC in the south, but helps over all: there are a few, but not many, states where blacks make up half of the voting Democrats; women make up around half pretty well everywhere. As for Edwards voters if they lose faith, as I mentioned in a prior thread it may depend on whether they see themselves as closer to Obama on the change issue or closer to Hillary on the issue of whether partisanship or post-partisanship is preferred.

  • obama loves reagun and the bushes. says reagan was great and did so much for the economy that nixon and clinton could not. What kind of alternate universe is he living on. Don’t you just love the national debt and the shrinking middle class under reagan and the bushes? He needs to join the republican party. I was on the fence and will gladly vote for hillary or edwards any day first. He’s been fawning over the republicans even more than lieberman and lieberman left the party! No wonder he gets pretty good press on the corporate media. I think he’s campaigning Karl Rove style.

  • No disrespect, bjobotts, but I don’t think that John called Hillary a sleaze. He wrote “The sleaze is just overwhelming…”

    I won’t hold the robocalls against her until their origin is uncovered but, the recurrent mentions of Obama’s teen-aged drug use by members of her staff or her surrogates, along with the mis-statements of Obama’s words by Bill is starting to define a pattern.

  • I’m with Chris at 5:45. If Hilllary starts to become inevitable, all Democrats better hope that McCain doesn’t get the Republican nomination. Because authenticity beats inauthenticity every time. I pray Obama wins SC and retakes the momentum. Even if he does, at this point, it’s a long shot.

  • let’s see…can you say “republican”……I knew you could!
    Check out the 6-28-07 USA today or Washington post. Just Google Obama Impeachment Unacceptable.
    Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.
    “I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president’s authority,” he said.

    I’m sure Faux News will go easy on him for now……

  • Wow, lance harley, buying itno that Clinton rhetoric pretty strongly, aren’t we. Why don’t you click back to the main page and scroll down to the article Steve wrote on just how much claptrap claims like yours are. Maybe that will help enlighten people when they wonder how john (@#2) could refer to the Clinton sleaze.

  • Edwards is becoming the “ghouliani” of the Democratic Party; he’s pulling a lowerpercentage of the overall vote than either Paul of UnAware Fred. If he gets his a$$ waxed in SC, then someone needs to carve “R.I.P.” in his forehead, just so he can read it every day when he poofs that expensive ‘do he’s wearing. As for the other two, jimBOB’s right on the money—whoever wins the Dem nomination is the next President.

    As for the Dick-n-Dubya Scary Thing Show, the clock is running down. 366 days, 18 hours, and 23 minutes.

    And counting….

  • May be off topic and for what it is worth, South Carolina media interviews show anecdotal evidence that undecideds are breaking for Thompson. Turnout somewhat low.

  • It’s way too soon to call, but I imagine I hear the dry whisper of Republican strategists’ palms rubbing together with glee. The only way they stand the slightest chance of putting another Republican in the White House (and admittedly, it’s still not much of a chance) will be if Clinton is the nominee. Hillary Clinton is by far the most polarizing candidate – those who want her to be president are starry-eyed with adoration, and those who do not want her to be president loathe her. There just doesn’t seem to be much of a midfield, suggesting those who are not Hillary fans might just stay home rather than shift their vote to her out of party loyalty.

    Anybody who thinks Hillary Clinton would make a great president because she is a feminist woman would be making the same mistake as somebody who suggested Barack Obama would make a great president just because he’s an activist black. Ask the British if Thatcher made a great Prime Minister just because she was a woman. Other nations admired her steely foreign policy, but she was hated at home for her penurious domestic policies.

    Elevation of either Clinton or Obama to the nation’s highest office is not going to bring about an immediate presidential focus on either special-interest group at the expense of a nation in crisis. The next election is going to bring about an historic change either way – I hope you make the right choice.

  • Clinton has the 45-60+ vote because these are the people who remember what the Clinton administration was like and how much the average person’s lives improved during that time period. They were adults, tuned into politics during that time period. They remember what competent government was like. People who are supporting Clinton for those reasons are basing their judgment on actions, not words or “hope”.

  • Hmmm…let’s not lose sight of the fact that the deligate count out of Nevada is probably 13 for Clinton and 12 for Obama, not exactly and landslide. And putting aside super deligates for a moment, Obama and Clinton are TIED.

    And even with super deligates we are a LONG way from the magic number of 2,025.

    Like I said earllier…it will be interesting to see how things look after South Carolina. But even then, if we have another close contest, we may still be wondering which way this thing will go on Super Tuesday.

  • What would it profit us to win the presidency and lose the Congress? Bill managed to lose it and I don’t see any evidence that Hillary’s coattails are any longer than his.

    There will be 35 seats up for election in the 2008 Senate contest, 23 held by Republicans and 12 held by the Dems. In the House, all 435 seats are being contest in 2008. In the House, there are currently 232 Democrats, 198 Republicans, and 5 vacancies. In view of the thin majorities we now hold (That in the Senate being particularly nettlesome) what our nominee’s effect will be on those down ticket races is a serious consideration and one that’s been largely un-addressed.

  • Mary at 6:47,

    Just as many voters made the mistake in 2000 of believing they were re-electing George Bush the elder when the pulled the lever for George Bush the son, you’re making the same mistake by believing that you’re re-electing Bill Clinton when you vote for Hillary Clinton. The husband supports the wife (just as the father supported the son). That’s nice. But Bill’s record as president gives us zero information about the kind of president that Hillary would be.

  • Democrats better hope that McCain doesn’t get the Republican nomination. Because authenticity beats inauthenticity every time

    Harold @ 15, I wont bother with the Clinton side of this equation, but if you are suggesting McCain is “authentic” you haven’t been paying much attention. McCain has flip-flopped on as many issues as Romney – so much that Carpetbagger has a recurring feature listing them all. McCain is an intemperate say-anything whacko who may be as senile as Reagan ever was. The only thing McCain has going for him is that, for some inexplicable reason, the media refuses to point out that Emperor McCain has no clothes.

  • Those nine casino precincts Clinton allies sought to shut down? Hillary won six of them. — CB

    After the commenters here “proved” to us that all those casino workers would be far too intimidated to vote against their union’s pick, in the open caucus? Because, that union, geez, it’s like the mafia and really scary? Those casino workers must be truly brave, eh?

    “Hmmm…let’s not lose sight of the fact that the deligate count out of Nevada is probably 13 for Clinton and 12 for Obama, not exactly and landslide” — independent thinker, @22

    Not exactly a landslide win, no. But, as to how the chips seem to have fallen… It’s the exact opposite of what you’d thought:

    http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=272881

    It sounds like *both* campaigns are planning to do a victory dance in Nevada. I wish Obama wouldn’t; not only is one delegate well short of a landslide, but that’s only the elected delegates. I expect the superdelegates — much more Establishment — to pull for Clinton in the long run. I also wish we would move away from this delegates, superdelegates and electors “business”, but that’s a different story.

    Oh, and BTW… Duncan Who? Hunter has, finally, quit. Maybe Mike Who? Gravel will take a hint too?

  • McCain’s deferential treatment by the press, mentioned above by zietgeist, may be enough to get him the nomination. The press single-handedly revived his campaign after Iowa. If McCain loses to Huckabee in SC the headline won’t be “Huckabee Takes South Carolina,” it will be “Huckabee Slides to Narrow Victory over McCAin in Heavily Religious State.”

    I’m beginning to think that the press covertly believes that McCain was cheated of the nomination in 2000 and is working to redress the wrong done to him.

  • Dennis – SGMM

    Hillary has plenty of support among current congressional Democrats (though Obama has pulled some high-profile endorsements). If they were petrified of having her at the top of the ticket you wouldn’t see that.

    Jeez people, let’s show a little nerve. Dems are in the strongest position for capturing the Presidency in decades. Don’t get wobbly when we have the best chance we’re ever likely to have to put a woman or a black man into the Oval Office. Breaking that glass ceiling puts the Grand Old white guys’ Party into a box for years to come – the best they can do for offering a minority ethnic candidate is Alan Keyes.

  • Interesting. I just checked back out of curiousity and sure enough, when John Edwards edged Hillary Clinton out for second place by quarter of one percent (29.75% to 29.47%) in the Iowa caucuses round numbers, were cool for reporting the percentage shares. In New Hampshire and Nevada when Clinton wins, we break out the decimal points.

    I’m not saying this represents a conscious attempt on CB’s part to spin election results. It just caught my eye because we used to play the same game with how prices are written, back when I worked in advertising. The basic rule is, if you’re talking cost you always leave off the cents. If you’re talking about a savings, always use dollars and cents to fatten up the number.

    Like this:

    Buy Now! Only $100

    Buy Now and Save $100.00!

    It’s just one of those dirty little secrets of marketing.

  • jimBOB, you’re right. However, if that President doesn’t have a Congress behind him or her to get the neceesary legislation passed then it will all be for naught. Instead, we’ll here a steady drumbeat of how the Dems are unable to govern.

  • Interesting. I just checked back out of curiousity and sure enough, when John Edwards edged Hillary Clinton out for second place by quarter of one percent (29.75% to 29.47%) in the Iowa caucuses round numbers, were cool for reporting the percentage shares. In New Hampshire and Nevada when Clinton wins, we break out the decimal points. I’m not saying this represents a conscious attempt on CB’s part to spin election results.

    It’s really not. After Iowa, I realized the more precise results were more helpful, especially in determining margins of victory. So, I’ve added more detailed results ever since, in both parties, regardless of the winner. FYI.

  • I think the Nevada vote shows the result of the media’s emphasis on this as a 2-person race. The Edwards black-out is not imaginary – we’ve seen the numbers comparing the amount of his coverage compared to the coverage of Clinton and Obama. Night after night, and day after day, the networks continue to relegate Edwards to afterthought territory, and the same thing is evident in the print media as well.

    It boggles the mind that the same media that can shut off Edwards microphone can continue to talk about Giuliani as if he were a real contender.

    Those of you who seem gleeful to describe Edwards as a loser do not realize that it is Edwards who has forced both Clinton and Obama to deliver plans for health care, the economy and the war that are much more in line with what the American people say they want – are much more to the left of center and in line with Democratic and progressive principles than anything you would be seeing if he had not been in this race. He suffers by being the cliche white man, and not the breaking-new-ground woman or the making-history black man. And the media seem to be so much more concerned with the surface than they are with the substance – choosing to make this about a Clinton-Obama faceoff on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and ignoring the man who really has little baggage, and is not accompanied, surrounded or advised by special interests.

    Far from pitying him for staying in it, I admire him for hanging in there.

  • Dennis @ 30 “we’ll hear a steady drumbeat of how the Dems are unable to govern.”

    Right – as opposed to now, when the steady drumbeat is how the Democratic-controlled-congress is useless. I think we have gotten used to that by now. Anybody who thinks the MSM is liberal thinks McCain is a straight shooter, Romney covers the spectrum and that’s a good thing, and Huckabee is humble because he realizes Jesus would be too smart to run for President.

  • Gravel made a splash in the early debates,

    Nothing to add, but this made me giggle.

    Hopefully I’m not the only one who saw the ad…

  • Anne wrote, “…it is Edwards who has forced both Clinton and Obama to deliver plans for health care, the economy and the war that are much more in line with what the American people say they want – are much more to the left of center and in line with Democratic and progressive principles than anything you would be seeing if he had not been in this race.”

    Excellent point (although I’d give Obama credit on the war issue). If I recall correctly, Edwards also led on the Democratic campaign blackout of Fox News (Hillary excepted).

    I’m very disappointed to see Democrats voting because of a candidate’s race or gender. If we happen to nominate a woman or an African-American, then we should celebrate that result — but unless all else is equal (it’s not), race/gender shouldn’t be part of the decision-making process. Instead, I believe that we need to be voting on who is most likely to get into the White House, and once there, who would be most effective at implementing policies that reflect the values of progressives (and mitigating the damage of the Bush years).

  • I’m very disappointed to see Democrats voting because of a candidate’s race or gender.

    I certainly wouldn’t vote for that reason by itself, but by the same token I wouldn’t let it it frighten me off voting for one or the other just because of all the yahoos out there who can’t conceive of a nonwhite/nonmale President.

    Those of you who seem gleeful to describe Edwards as a loser

    That certainly doesn’t describe me – I like his scrappy attitude toward the organs of the plutocracy. But I think realistically he has simply not shown strong support anywhere, and so the point is rapidly approaching when he needs to either win somewhere or get out.

  • The Edwards black-out is not imaginary – we’ve seen the numbers comparing the amount of his coverage compared to the coverage of Clinton and Obama.

    Right. And the Kucinich and Gravel people probably complain about a blackout too…
    Looky: The people who point the cameras realize where the horse race is.
    Edwards is a distant third… and fading faster than you can say “Seabiscuit is a long dead horse.”
    He’s got a pretty mane though…
    I’ll give him that.

    Bottom line:
    Edwards=Kucinich=Gravel.
    Losers all.

    It is a two person race.

  • I won’t hold the robocalls against her until their origin is uncovered

    If it does turn out that Hillary’s campaign ran those calls, she should be thoroughly raked over the coals. That would be beyond the pale. Will we ever find out who ran them, though? Her people are surely not going to volunteer that information. Have they been asked? Have they denied it?

  • Why is everybody ignoring MI because it was probably the best opinion poll in a “normal” primary state we have. Who in MI didn’t know an uncommitted was an anti Clinton vote. No one. And she got 56% of vote. In NV she got 51% on a huge turnout. In NH she got was it 39% and Edwards was still a player. Guys there’s a pattern here however much blog world and the MSM want to ignore it. Obama has to be favorite for SC as essentially favorite son on black vote but that has essentially discounted this result. Clinton’s got this stitched up. Get real.

  • Newsweek: “Prominent Democrats are upset with the aggressive role that Bill Clinton is playing in the 2008 campaign, a role they believe is inappropriate for a former president and the titular head of the Democratic Party.

    …in 2000, former president George Bush declined to attack his son’s GOP primary opponent, John McCain.”

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/96385

  • Pretty soon Americans are going to be licking the asses of pyschedelic frogs again all the time. The ’60s have returned!

  • It’s a two-person race because that’s what the media wants – they love pitting the woman against the black man because it’s sexy and interesting and divisive – and that gives them a chance to show that the Democrats are not nearly as united as people thought they would be. I can’t help but think that the media is already looking to the general election and salivating over the endless possibilities a Clinton or Obama candidacy will provide (she’s a woman! Bill Clinton back in the WH! Barack Hussein Obama! Muslim or not?! Rezko: the new Whitewater?!).

    You can put Edwards down at the level of Kucinich and Gravel, and you can make fun of his hair, for crying out loud, but so far, all I’ve read from you is schoolyard taunts that belittle what’s really at stake.

    The media doesn’t have to pick anyone – that’s not their job. We’ve been down this road before, asking what would have happened had the media reported on Bush with real scrutiny. Hell, we’ve been asking that of the stenographic corps for the last 7 years. Now, here we are again, and nothing has changed – nothing. For the media, it’s like an extended sweeps month, so excitement and controversy sell – unfortunately, they prefer to create their own excitement and controversy instead of going after those that already exist. Hence, McCain is still the maverick and the straight-shooter, even though there is tons of evidence that he is just a pandering opportunist. And since they couldn’t shut out either the woman or the black man because that would be discriminatory, they just elbowed everyone else on the Democratic side out of the picture.

    All of these candidates – including Biden and Dodd and Richardson and Edwards – had – and have – something to offer the voters. The longer they could all have stayed in it, the greater the chances that those rising to the top would be encouraged and even pressured to absorb some of the ideas and solutions the lower-tier candidates stood for. As far as I can tell, this should be about the making and molding of a candidate who truly can embody much of what the Democratic party stands for, and much of what is important to voters, and that doesn’t happen if the race is over six weeks after it started.

    As it is, feeling like the eventual nomination of Clinton or Obama beats a sharp stick in the eye is not what I thought I would be feeling.

  • RonChusid @ #32 said:

    Clinton won more votes, but it now looks like Obama will pick up more delegates than Clinton due to winning in more Congressional districts.

    Make that delegate (singular), as in one. CNN actually puts them even at 14 each for NV; Clinton with 12 pledged and two super, Obama with 13 pledged and 1 super. Four NV super delegates are apparently unaccounted for at this juncture.

  • This is one of the first primaries I’ve really paid attention to, due to the stakes being so high. I can barely express in words my profound disappointment in the mainstream media. The leading candidates (according to the press) are given a free ride with hundreds of mentions and panel discussions a week, and the lesser knowns are kept that way with a total number of appearances you could count on your fingers. Aren’t there supposed to be equal time laws for candidates? Otherwise, we are basically letting the big networks (and the companies that own them) contribute tens of millions of dollars of airtime to their chosen candidates with no regulation.

    We need to eliminate private campaign finance, and allow everyone on the ballot equal airtime. The government can set and pay a fixed and generous rate for that airtime. It would make elections fair, and it would keep our politicians focused on doing their jobs.

  • It is also wrong to expect the candidates to drop out after only a few states have voted. What makes those states so special? Why shouldn’t my state get a vote?

    I don’t think some pretentious farmers and snobs should get to narrow my choices. Especially when all of those choices are basically the same corporate toadies.

  • Super Delegates

    Okay, I feel like a real dummy because although I’ve heard and read the term “Super Delegate” I never bothered to find out what one is until just now – and it may just stink on ice this time around.

    Quote from an LA Times article:

    In 1982, party leaders allocated for themselves a heaping portion of the delegates, creating positions called super delegates. Every Democratic member of Congress, every Democratic governor and all of the elected members of the Democratic National Committee (the majority of the super delegates) were each granted a vote at the convention.

    These super delegates, 796 in all, comprise about 20% of the entire convention. In past elections they haven’t had much of an effect because there was a clear leader in delegate count by the time of the nomination. This year, if Hillary and Obama are still roughly even with each other then the super delegates could be the ones who choose our nominee.

    Shades of the People’s Republic of China.

  • Well said, Anne @ 47; it often passes without remark that candidates’ plans or initiatives become irrelevant as soon as they are no longer competitive. There is much the front-runners on both sides could learn from Edwards if they could stop mocking his hair.

    It’s a pity that, while you’re at the process of throwing out the government and replacing it with something that will hopefully be an improvement, you couldn’t effect the same transformation of the establishment media.

  • National convention delegates were not awarded in Nevada tonight and will not be awarded until April 2008. Clinton won 6% of the vote and the Nevada caucuses. You go girl! Keep up to date on how delegates are awarded at: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/ and the primaries at: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/primarie. Obama’s pandering for the Review Journal’s endorsement hurt him. He thought he had the CWU vote in his pocket and tried to pick up a few more votes by positioning himself with independents and Republicans. He was mistaken. Didn’t anyone warn him that invoking Reagan’s name is anathema to any self respecting union member? Anyway, most of the independent vote he hoped for went to the Republicans. Union members want to vote for a Democrat and for that, Hillary won their hearts.

  • Just thought I’d share my Nevada Caucus experience. Once we figured out where to go, we were greeted at the door with very aggressive Clinton campaigners. When we told them who we there for (Edwards), they basically looked at us like we were crazy and let us know that we were the “only Edwards supporters” there. We not only learned we were not alone in our support for Edwards, but that were not the only Edwards supporters who’d been told this.

    We essentially had to take matters into our own hands and began calling Edwards supporters to come and stand with us. No one even had an Edwards sign so my wife wrote ‘EDWARDS’ on a piece of yellow paper and began holding it up.

    We wound up with 6 total Edwards supporters but who knows how many came and left because the Clinton people made them feel naive for even being there.

    There was one couple there for Kucinich and we decided to work on them and see if we could get them into the Edwards camp. They agreed that Edwards would be their next best choice.

    We were then informed that we were far short of having the number of delegates necessary for viability so people from the Obama and Clinton camps started working on us.

    At this point, the head count was “44 to 44” (a dead heat). It didn’t take the 8 of us long to agree that Obama would be our 2nd choice.

    … and the winner was: Clinton. Huh?!?

    It seems (despite what appeared to a breach of the rules) that several Clinton supporters had cast their ballots and left. I would have expected a count of ballots left by caucus goers no longer physically present (whether that was even allowed was disputed pretty hotly) to favor one of the underdogs since the Clinton supporters were so intimidating at the door.

    Moreover, those counting the “ballots” and declaring the winner were *all* Hillary Clinton supporters. I put quotes around the word ‘ballots’ because we’d run completely out of them. Those of us who missed out would have to write our choice on whatever piece of paper we could find.

    It was indeed a learning experience for my wife and I. We were able to make somewhat of a difference although it would have been nice if our effort in persuading the 8 over to Obama would have produced the easy tie-breaker we had all assumed it would.

    Smelled a little fishy, really. ;o/

  • Ballots? I caucused for Hillary in Iowa. There are no ballots. We count people. I thought that is how they were going to do it in Nevada. The Republican caucuses in Iowa do a straw poll where they write names on a piece of paper. In the Democratic caucuses there is an initial total count of everyone who got in the door. This number remains constant when applied to subsequent formulas. People go to their preference groups. If they do not have a viable group they can join another, leave, or remain undecided. The groups realign, and report the final count to the precinct chair who applies a formula based on the initial total count. The formula determines the number of delegates for each viable candidate.

  • I agree with your analysis, but I’m not quite sure a 51% victory for Clinton can be called a “cruise”… more like a mild win but not at all a shutout. Also, if Obama does walk away with more delegates that would make the point even clearer.

  • Nope. Obama first, Clinton second in the only part of the election that counts: delegates.

    Obama: 13

    Billary: 12

  • John Edwards, drop out please, and vie for Attorney General in the Obama administration.

  • Re Obama losing the caucus delegate count but winning the national delegate count in NV:

    it was virtually never mentioned in the reporting, but something similar happened in Iowa where Edwards allegedly beat Clinton for 2d place. Clinton projected to more national delegates than Edwards. The congressional district-level apportionment can create that anomoly in a close race.

  • lowdowndog: Ballots? I caucused for Hillary in Iowa. There are no ballots. We count people. I thought that is how they were going to do it in Nevada.

    They did call them “ballots”, just as they did the pieces of paper the rest of us managed to scrounge up. This is my first caucus so I didn’t know that writing names on scrap pieces of paper was the norm. I feel a bit better about my improvosed “ballot”.

    This still doesn’t change the fact that the whole proceeding seemed to be run by Clinton supporters. It doesn’t change the fact that the initial head count was 44 to 44. And it doesn’t change the fact that, despite the fact that *every* one of us in the Edwards camp (6) and the 2 for Kucinich, realigned with Obama (nobody realigned with Clinton), it was called for Clinton… by Clinton supporters.

  • Really Interesting…!
    We have also considered the variation between them. The percentages are not so different. It may change easily to the favor of Obama. It’s all happening in the politics….

    Thanks,
    ====================
    AleX

    Addiction Recovery Nevada

    • Comments are closed.