LAist: Did Hillary Clinton Really Win Nevada?

nv1962

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:16:01 -0800

Actually, I do have a comment on the content of this post itself... Surely, if you look at a state as a sum of more or less equally divided geographic regions, it's certainly reasonable to argue that Senator Obama "deserves" a delegate more. If you look at it demographically, however, by the number of actual people ("votes") caucusing for candidates, it completely changes in Senator Clinton's favor. It's a bit like the situation with popular votes and electoral college votes in the 2000 elections, or even the 2006 congressional elections (follow the link to see a great graphical visualization). If you look at the electoral map purely in geographical terms, it would appear that the GOP thumped the Democrats; the demographic reality, however, was quite different. To be honest, I find the caucus system at best counterintuitive, inducing disenfranchisement: in spite of the whopping thirteen-fold increase in participation in the Nevada Democratic caucuses, it's still a lousy showing, looking at the number of registered Democrats. The strange staggered delegate apportioning and the super delegates are hardly an improvement. Let's be serious: had Nevada celebrated primaries, the outcome wouldn't have given rise to the somewhat amusing spectacle of the "loser" claiming "victory" prematurely, before actual national delegates have been selected, next April. Nothing wrong with some sound spinning, but let's keep things in perspective: Clinton edged Obama out.

nv1962

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:03:41 -0800

Just a point of clarification with regard to the caption of the photo I took, topping this post (thanks for the credit!) - that picture was NOT taken "outside a Nevada caucus site". It was taken at the office of the Hillary Clinton campaign office here in Reno, NV. In the accompanying caption on Flickr I wrote: "[...] estos enormes carteles exteriores, puestos en la entrada de la sede local de la campaña de Clinton" which, in English, reads: "[...] these huge outdoor signs, placed at the entrance of the local headquarters of the Clinton campaign". At the moment I took the snap, the campaign staffers were wrapping things up, as caucusing had ended at that moment - hence the signs outside, ready for shipment to the next electoral battleground. Otherwise, I have no strong feelings about this issue. ;-)

truthwillprevail

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:31:06 -0800

I have an article appeared today on the Las Vegas Sun ("Principal appalled by mess at caucus site"), and many similar others regarding the chaos and confusion during the Nevada's Democratic Presidential Caucus last Saturday. I, as many others, are upset and disgusted at the total lack of supervision, order and control in many, mostly in the Las Vegas Valley, caucus locations. But what I am really concerned about is the legitimacy of the results of the voting in these locations, as well as the amount of misinformation that appears to have been spread by, I assume, supporters other than Obama's. The more I talk to people I know, in particular Spanish speaking, the more evident is the prevalent notion of Obama is that he is "too pro-black" and "Muslim" (these are exact words that were repeated to me, not only by Spanish speaking residents, but also by at least two of my own neighbors, who received the false email spreading these rumors; I am not sure what they think now, even after I provided written evidence that he is not). That leads me to think what really happened to the minds of many misinformed voters, especially in the Latino communities, that have so strongly supported Clinton in our valley. Regardless of who won the popular vote in Nevada, I am concerned however that the Democratic Party of Nevada let me and many other voters down in allowing this chaotic situation to happen; would they be working for a company, the responsible management would be fired. But as I hear and read many more complaints similar to mine, party officials seem to brush them under the carpet and responding that they did not predict such a high turnout of voters. Where the hell have they been for the past year? Do they not read the papers or see the news?! (why this does sound familiar???!). What does it matter the amount of people that turned up to the caucus, if there were no independent supervisors to ensure that the rules and regulations were to be followed? How can we, as a Nation, question other countries voting process, when we can't even ensure fairness and equality in our own backyard?! I sent the attached letter to Jill Derby, Harry Reid, as well as Clinton, Edwards and Obama website email contacts as I believe that what my wife and I, as well as others, have witnessed in our Precinct's caucus location should be investigated and brought to light; this, not to blame or punish the supporters and campaign staff of one or another candidate, but to shame and make the management of the Nevada Democratic caucus take public responsibility for their failures and to ensure that something like this will never happen again as it has already caused irreparable damage to its voters faith in the system and the end results. Nothing will make me feel better about what happened to my wife and I last week. We feel let down by the Nevada Democratic caucus management in a cause and event we put so much time and effort to make it honest and fair to all our neighbors and friends, as well as strangers. I wish my thoughts and feelings to be made known to encourage others who may have witnessed what we did, as I believe that many voters did not have the opportunity to get to the caucus sites as expected, and many were unfairly treated and unethically influenced by one or another candidate supporter or staff member, more so Clinton's in our location. Here is the letter sent to Jill Derby and others: (my name, address and contact details are on the letterhead) Henderson, January 20, 2008 } Jill Derby – Chair Harry Reid – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Nevada Democratic Party 1210 S. Valley View Road, Suite 114 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Dear Ms Derby: I am writing to file a complaint detailing some of the problems and irregularities that occurred Saturday, January 19, 2008 during the Nevada’s Democratic Presidential Caucus at the Mahlon B Brown Middle School, one of the sites of the Democratic Party Caucus at 307 Cannes St., in Henderson. Last fall I was asked to volunteer for the Nevada’s Democratic Presidential Caucus and in November I attended to a training session for Temporary Chairs at the Cashman Field Convention Center. The opportunity to participate and serve as a volunteer for the 2008 election process was a new and exciting event for me as I legally immigrated to the United States from Italy in 1986 and I became U.S. Citizen in December 1998. I was also excited to actively promote and be part of the Democratic drive to elect a new President that will restore the trust of their citizens through a transparent Government that will more fairly represent the dreams, desires, needs and expectations of its People. For the past several months my wife and I have dedicated countless hours in constructive talking, meeting and knocking on doors of neighbors and strangers to encourage them to participate to the Caucus, regardless of their party affiliation or candidate preference, and to promote the candidate of our choice, by educating people we could talk to on the issues we feel are most important to transform the current disastrous economy and international reputation status of our Country. We even were successful to enlist 6 Republicans in our neighborhood to vote in the Democratic caucus that made up 25% of the total number of voters of our small Precinct. Out of respect for all candidates and to ensure that we would serve the Caucus attendees in the most fair and unbiased manner, we did not wear any clothes, pins, badges or any other item that would identify us as supporters of any candidate and we did not talk or made any effort to engage in conversation with anyone in support of the candidate of our choice, other than declaring our vote at the same time all other participants when called to order. Our excitement and enthusiasm were quickly shattered yesterday at 9:30am as we entered Mahlon B Brown Middle School in Henderson to prepare our Precinct 1501 site to receive Caucus attendees. The location of the Caucus for Precinct 1501 and at least two other Precincts was to be held in the School Gym and for that purpose, the Schools staff made available set up a number of tables and chairs. My wife and I, as Temporary Secretary and Temporary Chair for our Precinct, made our way inside the School and we quickly realized that all tables were already taken over by Hillary Clinton Supporter Captains and out of State Clinton campaign staff members that had attached Clinton and Hillary banners on each table front and were distributing campaign materials and tee shirts, as well as directing other supporters that had already plastered all the walls and rails of the gym with campaign posters. The Hillary Clinton campaign captain of our Precinct 1501 named Homa and a Hillary Campaign Iowa staff member named Matt, on our entering the gym, suggested that I set up the Caucus registration table in the hall and corridors of the School, I assume so they could receive the Caucus attendees without our presence. While I understand the enthusiasm is abundant in these types of campaigns, I was outraged by the unethical and unfair behavior of the Clinton campaign volunteers and staff. I quickly and politely explained what the purpose and rules of the Caucus location and set-up were and questioned them about their own training, as they did not seem to be aware, or as I am more inclined to think, that they were knowingly ignoring the process to take control of the Caucus process. I can’t believe that an Iowa Clinton campaign staff member, who was fresh out of his own State Caucus, did not know the rules and procedures. Later, a much smaller group of Obama and Edwards supporters showed up with posters and campaign materials in their hands with the probable intent to do the same, but I along with a Chair of another Precinct who had proper training and did not wear any candidate clothes unlike most others (I don’t think this is fair nor ethical for a volunteer Chair or Secretary to display or campaign for one or another during the course of manning the Caucus process), after having consulted with each other, spoke to the campaign representatives of the Clinton campaign to surrender the tables for the purpose they were made available to us and remove all campaign signs from the Gym and within the School inner and outer area as it is prescribed by the guidelines of the Caucus Day Guide. We were not entirely successful to bring the room to order as a whole however, as Temporary Chairs and Secretary of our Precincts we had to get on with the job of preparing to receive Caucus attendees. The scene in the corridors of the School leading to the Gym, were even more chaotic due to Clinton (by far the most) and Obama and Edwards supporters who moved their tables with campaign posters and materials to intercept Caucus attendees in the line to enter the Gym and Cafeteria Precincts. What we really could not understand why there was not even a single Democratic Party independent assistant on site to lend a hand in supervising procedures and help to ensure order, fair play and honesty by all supporters. In addition, the process suffered greatly because no one was there at the doors to help direct caucus attendees to their proper precinct, adding to a lot of confusion and disillusion by attendees, some voicing they were leaving in disgust. I understand from others that several Caucus attendees that were in line to register outside the School were so frustrated by the lack of information and organization that left in despair. We were also concerned about the way the Caucus attendees at the table next to our location, I believe was Precinct 6845, but I am not sure, were received. The table was manned by a couple nice ladies and the Clinton campaign staff member from Iowa. When questioned, both ladies at the table of this Precinct, declared that they did not attend any training and it was obvious that they did not know what to do; (note there was a table upstairs with the proper precinct list where someone else was registering them and sending them downstairs). These ladies appeared to work off a list provided by the Clinton staffers and re-directed Obama and supporters of other candidates to sit in the area of Precinct 7005 (the wrong precinct) while Matt, the Iowa Clinton campaign staff member, appeared to be helping them while sitting at their table. This is a clear violation of the rules and regulations as set out on the Caucus guide (page 6). Another source of confusion at the Caucus at the school was the use of the Presidential Preference cards. The procedures indicated to use the cards and attach the labels from the attendees, yet the caucus packets for many Precinct Chairs, were not sufficiently stocked to handle the expected attendees. When I tried to obtain more the day before the caucus, I was told that I didn’t need to use them. This should be much clearer, as either you use them (and supply enough of them) or you don’t. I know several precincts in the school ran out of these after some attendees had them. I am truly disappointed and upset by the way the Democratic Party has allowed this process to break down and be open to electorate fraud and bullying, most evident by the behavior and actions of the Clinton campaign staff and supporters worthy of a banana republic election process. Clearly, this is not the direction I was lead to believe the future of our Country would be taking: chaos, confusion and possibly fraud! How can the Democratic Party believe that it can be part of a new Government leadership when it cannot even properly and fairly manage a Democratic process for its voters? I expect that the management of the Democratic leadership will fully investigate and review the legality and legitimacy of any and all complaints and allegations of irregularities as the events and behavior of the campaign officials and supporters of the Clinton candidate as witnessed yesterday are not worthy of my loyalty to the Party. A very disappointed Citizen

ben bang

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:48:12 -0800

Don't forget the "Iron My Shirt" guys who, despite being a couple of dorks pulling a prank for a radio show, were planted by the Clinton campaign to yell that age old anti-feminist chant in front of the TV cameras and drum up plenty of female sympathy for Clinton. You can't get a sign like that in a Clinton event unnoticed. Those things are tighter than Bush's events.

Michelledelhernandez

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 08:02:35 -0800

I had been in the Hillary Clinton camp myself until about 10 days ago, so I can say without hesitation that Nevada represents a loss, a very big loss, for Hillary Clinton. I'm not a fan of Obama, but the reason that I and countless other former-Hillary supporters are leaving her camp in droves, is her team's tactics, worse even than the kinds of things that Karl Rove himself would do. The racial innuendos (Obama as a drug dealer, "Barack Hussein Obama" as a Muslim terrorist-sympathizing Manchurian candidate, shucking and jiving) were bad enough. Even worse was accusing Obama of using the race card when he himself scrupulously avoided mentioning race at all. But the deal-breaker for me and others came with the Clinton campaign's outright disenfranchisement efforts. Trying to stop college students from voting in Iowa? Interfering with Obama GOTV efforts in New Hampshire? Suing to disenfranchise union voters in Nevada? Giving false directions to Obama voters there? Then-- the most appalling act of all-- closing the caucus sites in Nevada prematurely, where Obama supporters were gathering? This last bit especially isn't just voter suppression, it's outright fraud. I won't support Hillary now, ever, even if she's nominated. I'll find a 3rd Party to support or write in a name. All up and down my street, the opinions among us, almost all Democrats, are almost uniform-- we will not support Hillary in any election. Bill Clinton did some good during his 8 years, but now the Clintons are undoing everything they've done and then some with their divisive, repulsive tactics!

Marshall

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 04:43:31 -0800

Yeah - I'm still surprised that they're calling Hillary's take in Nevada's primary as a victory. Looks a lot more like a stalemante to me. I think there's still a lot of "imaginary inevitability" about Hillary that needs to work its way out of the media's system.

Marshall

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 04:41:19 -0800

futureperfect

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:24:18 -0800

ben bang - you made an excellent point when you said, "In my mind a vote for Clinton today is a vote for the GOP in November." when it comes down to it, i think people will vote GOP over hillary any day, not because she's a woman, but because she isn't widely received.

ben bang

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:00:24 -0800

I am so disappointed in the Clintons. If Obama doesn't get the Dem nomination, he should run as an Independent. Otherwise if McCain gets the GOP nomination and Clinton gets the Dem, I may just "elect" to stay home on election day. And who are these people voting for Hillary (largely older females) kidding? There is so much Clinton hatred out there, it will be impossible for her to win the general election against McCain. No one is telling anyone not to rally around a female candidate. But Clinton isn't all that strong of a contender for the general, and that's what counts in the end. In my mind a vote for Clinton today is a vote for the GOP in November. But Obama crushes them all in the polls. And he happens to be right.

holywriter

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:40:11 -0800

This whole things reminds me of the "Santos" race in the last season of the West Wing.

Andy Sternberg

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:35:42 -0800

After the past two presidential elections, the media should know better than to call a winner based purely on popular vote, especially in the national -- electoral college scene and in states with weighted caucuses. According to the data at WaPo, Obama had 11 first place finished and 6 second place. The reverse for Clinton out of Nevada's 16 counties and one independent city. Will it matter in the end who gets 13 delegates and who gets 12? Most likely not, but apparently the delegates will not be officially tallied/ appropriated by the state democratic party until mid-April. Either way, it appears Obama will remain a media underdog despite remaining in a statistical dead heat w/ Clinton. Exciting.

XavierLA

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:40:23 -0800

My apologies for posting twice - I got a server error the first time. You might want to correct your post, as well, because the official word is that NO ONE won any delegates today! Statement by Nevada Democratic Party Chair Jill Derby Regarding the Nevada Caucus (Las Vegas, Nev.) “Today, two out of three Nevadans who caucused chose a Democrat instead of a Republican for president. That is an overwhelming majority vote for a new direction. Just like in Iowa, what was awarded today were delegates to the county convention. No national convention delegates were awarded. The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support.”

XavierLA

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:35:29 -0800

Hillary Clinton got 582 more state delegates not votes than Sen. Obama - over 114k people caucused in Nevada today. Interesting spin, but the jury is still out on who will receive 13 delegates and who will receive 12. Although Sen. Obama did win the black vote in NV - and he is expected to win it in SC - his campaign increasingly seems to be relying on the college vote (in New Hampshire the mantra was "The college towns haven't reported!) and now the black vote (which they won by playing the deceive-and-divide strategy of the Republicans by using the race card), while at the same time Sen. Clinton continues to build a rather broad coalition of supporters. * 59% of caucus-goers were women; 51% of them caucused for Hillary. (We saw a similar trend in New Hampshire, and women--especially younger women voting for the first time--will continue to be energized by Hillary's historic campaign). * Hillary practically ties with Obama among male voters. * Although Obama won the 18-29 and 30-44 age categories, a large chunk of those voters (33% & 38%) went against the grain and chose Hillary. (In recent weeks the campaign has stepped up its outreach to young people--HillBlazers, or Young Leaders for Hillary--and Hillary has a good lead among non-college younger voters, who are feeling the impact of an economy on the brink of recession and know we will need an experience leader with a command of the issues to make it right). * HRC's support among 60+ caucus-goers was 60%. (Old people vote!) * HRC lead among those who felt the debate was "very important" and "somewhat important," while Barack Obama lead among those who said it was "Not too important" and "Not important at all." (This really typifies the change vs. experience argument, and gets at the core of why people are voting -- those who value experience, intelligence, and proven leadership support Hillary, while generally those who feel its more important to "change" support Obama [although HRC took a good chunk of the "change" voters in Nevada]) * Hillary's support transcends class divisions: she wins in every income bracket, save $75,000-$100,000 which she trails by 3%) by 10+ points (ranging from 48-54% of the vote). * Hillary wins among Health Care voters and those worried about the economy, while Obama narrowly edges her out (O-45, HRC-43) among voters who listed Iraq as the #1 issue. The campaign will have to intensify its criticism of Obama's inconsistent inconsistent Iraq War record. * Hillary won the most support from those who identify themselves as Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives. * Religion: Hillary brought out the Jews, Catholics, and Protestants; Obama motivates "Other" and "None." (67-25 among Jewish voters). * Hillary leads Obama among same-day deciders 48-36%. * HRC wins Hispanics with 64% . (This is a great sign for Feb. 5th states, and a great indicator of the depth of the Hispanic community's support for Sen. Clinton, who was on the receiving end of "the most scurrilous smear efforts in recent memory" in which allies of Sen. Obama launched an attack on Sen. Clinton's commitment to the Hispanic community, saying in a Spanish-language radio ad, "Hillary Clinton does not respect our people... Hillary Clinton is shameless.")

XavierLA

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:35:17 -0800