Saturday, February 20, 2016

Clinton Wins Narrow Victory In Low Voter Turnout Nevada Caucus

Hillary Clinton has narrowly won today's Nevada Caucuses with by a 52-48% margin. What struck me is how few people actually participate in this state's process for electing a party's candidate for president. Nevada has a population of more than 2.8 million people. With over 80% of the vote counted, there were fewer than 10,000 votes tabulated, although it looks like the total participants will exceed the turnout in 2008 when Clinton and Obama were in a close contest. CNN isn't even bothering to show the raw vote total since the numbers are so embarrassingly low. At one point, Clinton was expected to win this vote easily. A win is still a win, and Clinton is owed her due.

Nevada sends 43 delegates to the National Democratic Convention, eight of which are super delegates held by party leaders. Current projections show Clinton winning 18 delegates to Sanders' 14-vote count, although she will likely wind up capturing all of those eight super delegates. In 2008, she beat Obama by about 5 percentage points, but he wound up having more of the state's delegates by the time the convention rolled around. I really think caucus elections are no way to conduct presidential elections. They're poorly-attended and the results are so easily manipulated to thwart the will of even the majority of the partisan voters who bother to show up at them.

The Republicans conduct their caucus election in Nevada on Tuesday where 30 delegates are at stake. Trump is expected to win there where the delegates are allocated on a proportional basis. The South Carolina Republican primary conducted today will pick 50 delegates. It's a winner-take-all state with Trump favored to win based on the latest polling data.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

People in Nevada understand how the world works, Gary. They don't pick the candidate. The DNC picks the candidate. What's the point of wasting a perfectly good Saturday on something that absolutely does not matter in the end?

Flogger said...

Ahh, lets see Hillary needs to turn on the great Triangulation Machine, and determine what she needs to say to convince the Voters I, Hillary am the Candidate of Hope and Change.

Hillary can be an Equilateral Triangle when she wants to be the Moderate or Pragmatic Candidate.
Hillary can be the Isosceles Triangle a narrow base with sharp point at the top, to identify a certain focus group she wants to appeal to, could be Billionaires or Minimum Wage types, African-Americans or Hispanics.

Hillary can be the Obtuse Triangle, leaning Left or Right depending on the Audience.

The Great Hillary Triangulation Machine (Patent Pending) can also insert Establishment Corporate Democrats as points of reference.

The DNC is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Clinton Money Machine, which then has the power through it's money to round up and reign in the Democratic Establishment. This is why all the state Democrats here in Indiana are not allowed to blame the loss of Carrier Jobs to Mexico on the Legal Conduit provided by NAFTA to send the jobs to Mexico. It was Bill Clinton who signed on to NAFTA.

Anonymous said...

As it was in Iowa, the method of counting precinct caucus votes in the Nevada Democratic primary was by a formula that reflected the popular vote but was not an individual vote count. While tabulated primary votes approached 10,000, participation at the 1,700 sites was estimated at 80,000.

Anonymous said...

"This is why all the state Democrats here in Indiana are not allowed to blame the loss of Carrier Jobs to Mexico on the Legal Conduit provided by NAFTA to send the jobs to Mexico. It was Bill Clinton who signed on to NAFTA. "

BUSH'S FAULT!!!