As predicted by the entrance polls, Hillary Clinton's secured a narrow-but-not-too-narrow victory in the Nevada caucuses by splitting the union vote pretty evenly with Obama.
« Down South | Main | The Mormon Factor »
Clinton Wins
19 Jan 2008 04:08 pm
Comments (49)
Crispy? But not too crispy?
Wholesome but not too wholesome.
Nevada is a launching pad for losers: Pat Robertson, Jerry Brown, Bob Dole, et al. So the Democrat Establishment won in a small state, struggling to keep afloat with a casino-based economy, with more mob ties than Southern Florida. An inspiring day for democracy. Forget Nevada, it's all about South Carolina.
And the GOP Establishment carried the day in heavily-Mormon Nevada, by outspending, again, all of the competition, combined. Yawn. California has seen this movie, and matinee idol, before. The name: Al Checchi, another handsome plutocrat who made his money by putting hard-working Americans out of work. Californians were smart enough to not allow Al to buy the state. We'll see if the GOP is smart enough to keep Mitt from buying the country.
Nevada is a launching pad for losers: Pat Robertson, Jerry Brown, Bob Dole, et al. So the Democrat Establishment won in a small state, struggling to keep afloat with a casino-based economy, with more mob ties than Southern Florida. An inspiring day for democracy. Forget Nevada, it's all about South Carolina.
And the GOP Establishment carried the day in heavily-Mormon Nevada, by outspending, again, all of the competition, combined. Yawn. California has seen this movie, and matinee idol, before. The name: Al Checchi, another handsome plutocrat who made his money by putting hard-working Americans out of work. Californians were smart enough to not allow Al to buy the state. We'll see if the GOP is smart enough to keep Mitt from buying the country.
Experienced-but-not-too-experienced, different-but-not-too-different.
The whole nevada race doesn't feel quite right. It feels artificial.
The results don't resonate as too important to me as a Clinton win was expected and is not quite a blowout. I am afraid it will feed on the black-brown storyline of the media though but we have a few weeks to work on that.
What stunned me though is Edwards at 4%. Considering a poll a few days ago predicted 32-30-27, that has GOT to hurt bad.
It looks screwy to me. Edwards only got 4 percent? Really? That's a huge collapse if so.
Yes, the Edwards result stunned me as well. The campaign had been trumpeting their polling numbers as evidence that it was still a 3-person race and they weren't being covered. While a Hillary win was expected, Edwards doing so poorly was not.
"It looks screwy to me. Edwards only got 4 percent? Really?"
Caucus math.
Viability rules at each caucus site. If Edwards gets 14% at a particular caucus site, he gets zero.
Edwards could've easily had 17% statewide support this morning and still ended up with 5% in the final results.
Caucus math is why Edwards went off the air in NV. The finish may be a surprise to you folks, but it's been pretty obvious for several days now.
Media coverage of Edwards disappeared after New Hampshire. Really, the media stopped covering him seriously after Iowa. There's only so much you can do when you're invisible to the press.
"I am afraid it will feed on the black-brown storyline of the media though but we have a few weeks to work on that."
I remember reading a patronizing Der Spiegel article after the Iowa primary. The article argued that America is not ready for a black president. At the time, I dismissed the article.
But lets face it. The article now rings true. As progressive as the Democratic party labels itself, a large percentage of the party's working class segment (including hispanics) would never vote for a black president.
I usually hate those "if x demographic had done y differently, z would have won." The union vote is interesting, though.
Another one: If Obama had kept up youth turnout at Iowa levels, he would have won solidly (by my rough extrapolation from exit poll results). Hopefully his youth ground game was just ill-prepared in NV, him expecting it to be a Clinton blowout anyway. Looking forward to seeing SC results, just as a bellwether.
It'll be interesting to see how this impacts the Edwards vote in SC. Such a weak NV finish could lead to a boon for Hillary.
The whole nevada race doesn't feel quite right.
Me neither. As for Edwards, I'd guess you've got a heavy case of the viability threshold essentially kicking in as people enter the caucus room. (Also, unlike Iowa, there's no switching away from candidates who are considered viable.)
Caucuses are bullshit, and this one was more bullshit than usual.
I hope Obama gets tougher on Hillary's egregious lies. I mean, the guy says Reagan was a transformative president -- indisputably true -- and it gets spun as Obama's a closet Reaganite. I say Norah O'Donnell throw a softball at Ann Lewis about this and then let her rant and rave about how bad Obama/Reagan is for minutes, without once calling her on the BS. If that's the way the rest of this campaign goes, I fear Obama will fade. Someone, somewhere needs to call the Clintons on all their crap.
"Caucuses are bullshit, and this one was more bullshit than usual."
Meh. Caucuses are just fine. They hurt my favorite candidate today, but that's doesn't mean there is something wrong with the process.
If Edwards had won Iowa, he'd have been able to use the caucus procedure in NV to his advantage.
Sounds like Edwards partisans didn't go to the caucuses (or jumped ship). If he had turnout close to what he polled at, no way he gets less than 10%. NBC (via Josh at TPM) said that he had about 10% in exit polls. Obviously, this is less than the viability threshhold a lot of places, but this is way under the pre-caucus polls.
Nevermind, those were entrance polls. CNN had Edwards at about 9%. I couldn't find the NBC numbers.
"Sounds like Edwards partisans didn't go to the caucuses (or jumped ship). If he had turnout close to what he polled at, no way he gets less than 10%"
Edwards has been off the air in NV all week, which obviously led to some deterioration.
The entrance poll number I heard says he got 13%.
But you're crazy if you think that a candidate polling under 20% for caucuses can't easily get far less than 10% in final results. Caucus math is brutal to a candidate running in the teens.
petey,
Here's the CNN numbers.
I guess I haven't been paying as much attention in the last couple of days though. The polls I saw had Edwards in the mid-20s. Later polls had him as low as 14% (Mason-Dixon) or 6% (Zogby). None of the polls had a high degree of certainty (because of the likelyhood for turnout of new caucus-goers), but it seems to me that all the air came out of his NV campaign in the last week or so.
But yeah, it wouldn't be hard to get 5% of delegates in a caucus with 10-15% support. It would be really tough with 20-25%.
Petey,
This seems like as good a thread as any to say that I've appreciated all your comments here on the primary race.
I'm glad to see you sticking to your procedural guns and supporting the caucus in NV, and I really hope your prediction of two weeks ago that this will be a twelve-week fight for the nomination will be correct.
Does anyone think that Obama will be chosen as VP?
"I really hope your prediction of two weeks ago that this will be a twelve-week fight for the nomination will be correct."
The more Edwards gets marginalized, the shorter the race becomes.
If Edwards dropped dead tomorrow, I assume Clinton will win 2/5 55% - 45% over Obama. The race would go on, but the chances of actually denying Clinton the nomination would fast begin to approach zero.
If Edwards somehow manages to gain some traction, things could get interesting past 2/5. Edwards obviously will need to outperform in SC for such a scenario to be possible.
Does anyone think that Obama will be chosen as VP?
Not on a Clinton ticket; they despise him viscerally.
The more Edwards gets marginalized, the shorter the race becomes.
Due to the screwiness of the caucus numbers, Edwards is actually going to have a nice narrative out of SC when he returns to his natural level of support. Instead of languishing, he'll be BACK FROM THE DEAD!
Is there any way Obama could refuse to be the VP for the Clintons?
That is, will the party bosses (and Clintons' friends, like Rangel) force Obama to be Clintons' VP?
Will it hurt Obama's future to say no to the Clintons and the party bosses?
Has any one thought of this?
Personally, I think Clintons will not want Obama as a VP because of the overshadow it might create. They would prefer someone like Richardson? He will not be a threat and will be a useful tool for any mishaps?
What do people think? Matt Y.?
"Due to the screwiness of the caucus numbers, Edwards is actually going to have a nice narrative out of SC when he returns to his natural level of support. Instead of languishing, he'll be BACK FROM THE DEAD!"
Quite possible.
I'm not ready to shovel dirt on Edwards body quite yet.
Does anyone think that Obama will be chosen as VP?
No, she tacks back hard to the center beginning 2 weeks from Wednesday. I've thought all along her veep nominee would be an ultimate loyalist, Wesley Clark.
Obama is in a lot of trouble: these results out of Nevada tend to indicate he can't win California, which means he can't win the nomination either. I hate to agree with Andrew Sullivan on anything, but I think he's right here: "racializing" Obama post-Iowa has been the key to Hillary's comeback.
If the Clintons manage to blow what on its face is an even more unblowable election than 2004, Bill's legacy is utterly destroyed. And the endorsements Obama has gotten since NH tell me that the party's red state wing fears what's coming.
Does anyone think that Obama will be chosen as VP?
He can't in good conscience accept the VP nod from the people calling him a know-nothing, no-experience, empty-suited, fairytale, drug addict, terrorist, right?
Besides, why would Obama want to lose two national elections in one year?
Thank you Ryan and Thank you ChuckE.
Clintons have killed my dreams. My hopes. They have used all baits (race, gender, and ethnicity).
I supported them through the 1990s. Now, I wish I had not. They used me. Their friends (Rangel, etc.) are actually bad users.
I want Obama to do nothing with the Clintons.
I still have hope Obama will come through. But, as the movie Casablanca's line - there are no miracles, I feel it is over.
The Clintons are skilled. Their baiters are also skilled.
Obama was not ready to play the Clintons' game. That oversight has made the difference.
Is there anyone out there in political landscape that has beated the Clintons? No. It cannot happen.
Obama is in a lot of trouble: these results out of Nevada tend to indicate he can't win California, which means he can't win the nomination either.
Probably true, unfortunately. Hopefully the Republicans will shoot themselves in the foot and nominate someone other than McCain; Clinton could still have a good chance of winning against Romney or Huckabee, I think.
Does anyone here understand why Clinton is a lock on the Hispanic vote and why Obama cannot get it? That seems to be the way the wind is blowing... per the exit polls. Check out Sullivan for that intense Lutz (Putz) poll with the one adamant Hispanic man who seems iron-certain that Obama can't get their vote, and the polling data seems to bear him out 2 to 1.
Stop the presses!
According to Ambinder, Obama won Nevada, 13 delegates to 12 for Clinton.
The Hispanic vote bodes well for the nomination, but not only will Hillary have her usual problems with independent voters in the general, she may add to that a big chunk of black, young and technocrat voters turned off by having to face the Clinton machine head-on for the first time in this primary.
For whom are they going to interesting past 2/5? For Edwards?
Does anyone here understand why Clinton is a lock on the Hispanic vote and why Obama cannot get it?
The history of Democratic politics is full of these ethnic rivalries. Recall the first time Villaraigosa ran for mayor of LA, and the way the city's black community voted heavily for the white incumbent.
I wonder if Richardson dropping out of the race when he did threw the race to Hillary.
So this black/Hispanic rivalry must be at least a Southwestern phenomenon?
I should point out though, that none of the bloggers highlighted this ethnic rivalry before today. I am surprised at this, if it was indeed so long standing. Not Ezra, Yglesias, Drum, Marshall, or Douthat, so far as I saw...
If they missed it, that's a big hole in their knowledge base.
Maybe they thought it would be lost in the noise, but still.
Good point, ChuckE.
Before jumping to the conclusion that it's primarily a racial issue, it would be good to know the difference in the income distribution between hispanic and white voters...could be that there are a lot more working-class hispanics, and that if you compared hispanic voters of a given income level with whites at the same level, the disparity wouldn't be so great.
good point. It's just that that one knucklehead on the Sullivan site seemed so damned adamant, and he was johny-on-the-spot with the reality of what happened, and it was clear that he couldn't say the truth because it would've been ugly to hear. But you're right. I want to believe your take, I am so damn sick of identity politics and people voting their race, their gender.
Well, it certainly wouldn't surprise me if there was still a significant white/hispanic disparity even if we controlled for income and other factors like age/education (though the disparity might at least be less dramatic)...I'm just saying that I'd like to see someone do this analysis so we could have an informed evaluation of the importance of race here.
Me neither. It's just that none of the bloggfathers brought up this supposed long-standing antagonism. I'm skulking around TPM and other places for just that analysis.
As for identity politics and racial division between Latinos and blacks, I can only tell you from what I saw in the Federal joint - yes, blacks and Latinos do NOT like each other.
A large part of that I think is simply that they compete for the same lower class resources: jobs, crime, you name it, they're the competitors. Whites are in a whole different league. Whites ARE the league.
Not quite that simple, of course, but it would seem that in Democratic politics, it is. You would think this wouldn't be the case after all the arguments that "people of color" should come together to get dealt with fairly by whites.
But the reality of chimpanzee behavior is that ANY difference between one group and another spells division and conflict.
Blacks don't like whites and Latinos and Asians, Latinos don't like blacks, whites and Asians, and Asians don't like blacks, Latinos and whites.
You may have plenty of crossovers and alliances in any given group, but basically, it is that simple.
Apparently in Democratic politics, the issue for Blacks and Latinos is which group will get the most influence with the white power structure. And apparently Latinos think Clinton will do that better than a black candidate.
And if you think about it, they're right - because Clinton IS part of the white power structure, and Obama really isn't to the same degree.
Of course, once Clinton is in, she won't do any more real benefit for Latinos than she will for blacks or anybody else, since her only goal is to get benefit for herself and her cronies, just like George Bush and just like her husband.
Which makes all the racial minorities who are for Democrats suckers. Of course, their other choice would be Republicans! So that means they get to join the rest of America in being screwed no matter who they vote for.
Have a nice day.
He can't in good conscience accept the VP nod from the people calling him a know-nothing, no-experience, empty-suited, fairytale, drug addict, terrorist, right? Posted by Ryan | January 19, 2008 6:12 PM
aaargh! I think you have a very naive view of politics, not to mention of someone who proudly proclaims Chicago style politics experience and has written things like this post at Daily Kos
I think many of you make the mistake of confusing avid/rabid moralizing blog commenting supporters of both candidates with the candidates themselves and are falling for the narratives made up for the campaigns.
This is all simply a boxing match, after it's over they all will all join hands. You may hate one or the other, but they don't hate each other, hate doesn't enter into what they are doing, they are simply temporary competitors in a game. You may hate the Democratic party as it is, but each and every Dem candidate is a proud member of that party and will unify. It's their job, the profession they've chosen. (Does a pro football player hate the guy who tackled him flat and hold a grudge about it, or does he blame himself for not being able to counteract it?)
Not only that but both Obama and the Clintons are in particular are the type of politician that is proud of being able to work with anyone anywhere no matter what happened in the past. So far, I see far more evidence in this campaign of them being able to be the best of friends in the future than of them being enemies of any kind.
artappraiser - don't you think that "it's just a job" is itself naive? I mean, yes, football players certainly do hate each other and have personal rivalries. But they're meatheads...
Bill has said some idiotic things about Obama. BILL seems to be getting personal about it, to me. Obama is acting like it isn't personal for him, at least.
Remember McCain's hug of Bush after Bush won it? I still shiver with disgust at the thought of it in my mind. I can't imagine Rove's smears were dismissed as business as usual.
I would disagree that it's all party unity once the nominee is decided, myself.
aaargh! I think you have a very naive view of politics
Well, I have to remember to guard my preconceived notions when you tough-nosed realists come around.
"Good conscience" was a turn of phrase. It would be bad for Obama's career ambitions to play second fiddle for Hillary, given the tone of the campaign. Not to mention, he would probably want to avoid the potential stigma of a failed campaign/unpopular presidency, when a whole new generation of Republicans will be lining up to make their name by fighting any proposal she might put forward.
Being Vice President is worth almost nothing these days.
I think this says it all about why HRC is going to be the Democratic nominee (taken from an article about the Nevada Caucuses):
"Brenda Santiago, a housekeeper at nearby Harrah’s hotel and casino, arrived shortly before Noon. Although she is a member of the Culinary Workers Union, which supported Mr. Obama, she said she had been determined to choose her favorite candidate on her own.
And that, she said, was Senator Clinton.
“I have my own opinions,” said Ms. Santiago, 46. “Hillary has more experience – and she has Bill!”
The strength of Mr. Obama’s endorsement by the Culinary Workers Union remained an open question. The Clinton campaign had denounced the at-large precincts in casinos as unfair, but inside the Sunset Ballroom of the Flamingo Hotel, Mrs. Clinton received support from 121 people and 25 delegates, compared to 120 for Mr. Obama and 24 delegates.
The Clinton corner, dominated largely by women, cheered when the results were announced."
"Is there any way Obama could refuse to be the VP for the Clintons?
That is, will the party bosses (and Clintons' friends, like Rangel) force Obama to be Clintons' VP?
Will it hurt Obama's future to say no to the Clintons and the party bosses?
Has any one thought of this?"
Buddy eorse , you do realize Obama is from Chicago?
Bless your pure heart, but if Clinton is the nominee, Obama will be thrilled to be the VP.
Or, what artappraiser |said.
I should point out though, that none of the bloggers highlighted this ethnic rivalry before today. I am surprised at this, if it was indeed so long standing. Not Ezra, Yglesias, Drum, Marshall, or Douthat, so far as I saw...
Shootmeup: I'm surprised Drum hasn't made mention of the possibility as he still lives in Southern California. I'm no political insider but I've heard this story about mutual antipathy for decades. As someone else said, the last two LA mayor's races were good examples, but most political pros tend to avoid talking about it publicly.
In Nevada, Clinton bested Obama among Latinos by 12 points more than whites. IIRC, thanks to them, she carried the urban areas, while Obama won in the suburbs by a whisker. The other interesting note was Clinton's huge 13 point margin among women (51-38%), and their high turnout (59% of voters).
Comments closed February 02, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
"narrow-but-not-too-narrow". I approve!
Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 19, 2008 4:12 PM