Why so little talk of Nevada?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2008 5:15 PM GMT
    The major media keeps talking about South Carolina as the big primary state, but Nevada is tomorrow? How come the center of attention isnt currently Nevada and then S.C.? I am confuzzled about this whole election process.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2008 5:34 PM GMT
    This might take a while, but here it goes.

    Party rules state you cannot jump ahead in the primary calendar without changing from a primary to a caucus or loose some or all of your convention delegates (like Michigan and Florida). Nevada jumped ahead and switched to a caucus. This causes a headache for two reasons.

    1) It is a caucus in a state that has never had a caucus. This makes polling a real bitch. No one knows what is going to happen.

    2) Nevada has never been an especially important primary state. Since it was later in the primary season it would usually go with the leading candidate. So, polling is a real bitch.

    Headache aside, Nevada can also be an incredibly important state in seeing how new voting blocks will vote. Traditionally, the Latino vote has been pretty unimportant, but in the last ten years you see people actually vying for it. Clinton has been hitting Mexican restaurants to have chats with voters. John McCain has been appealing to them as fellow, straight-talkin' westerners. Nevada, in this sense, is a new bellwether state for a large but marginalized Latino voting block just as South Carolina is a bellwether state for black voters.

    Where as South Carolina has been for a while an important early state. Polling in South Carolina is easily conducted because it has been done for so long. People can reasonably analyze raw data and guess a reasonable outcome from that information. For example, South Carolina is around 45% black. Polling from previous polls and elections tell us how black people, as a voting block, vote. So their input can be weighted appropriately in a poll. So, the media has a bone to chew on with South Carolina that they don't with Nevada.

    If you are confuzzled about the whole election process you are in good company. Just look how the pros got it so wrong in New Hampshire.
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    Jan 18, 2008 9:12 PM GMT
    What he said.

    No one knows what the fuck is going to happen, and after the MSM got it so wrong in NH, no one is going to guess, 'cuz they don't want to look stupid again...
  • MSUBioNerd

    Posts: 1813

    Jan 18, 2008 9:19 PM GMT
    Also, South Carolina's primary for the Republicans is a winner-take-all vote. Nevada, operating as a caucus, will almost assuredly result in a splitting of delegates. Therefore, a victory in South Carolina is more important than a victory in Nevada, as coming in second or third in Nevada may still yield the candidate some delegates, while second or third place in South Carolina is essentially meaningless.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2008 10:24 PM GMT
    I didn't realize that the difference between a caucus and a primary was that in a caucus all candidates can come out with some delegates and in a primary winner takes all. Is it winner takes all or winner takes as much as they won over but nobody else gets any of the others?
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    Jan 18, 2008 10:27 PM GMT
    hippie,

    there are other differences also. Each state party decides whether their particular state is winner take all or not, regardless of whether its a primary or caucus.

    Primaries are done by secret ballot, caucuses are not. In a caucus, everyone publicly expresses their support, and actively tries to convince others present to swith to their side. That's why caucuses are so hard to poll - people are persuaded to change candidates on the spot once the doors are closed...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2008 10:28 PM GMT
    The big difference is how you vote.

    In a primary it is just like a regular election. Secret ballot, pull a leaver, go home.

    But in a caucus you and everyone in your district get together chat, someone speaks for a candidate, someone speaks for another, more chatter, more chatter.

    Somewhere you divide yourself up by who supports who, you try to convince people to come over to your side. More chatter, more chatter. And then, as if by magic, a public vote is made.

    Whether or not it is winner takes all or split is determined by the parties in the individual state.

    again, very confuzzeling.
  • MSUBioNerd

    Posts: 1813

    Jan 18, 2008 11:26 PM GMT
    Yeah, sorry, I wasn't terribly clear on that. Some states have primaries in which more than one candidate gets delegates--New Hampshire, for instance. (Note that despite the talks of Clinton winning the Democratic primary in New Hampshire, both she and Obama received the same number of delegates from the voting process, and more of the superdelegates--those not pledged to a specific candidate due to the voting--have pulbicly stated a preference for him over her). Others, like South Carolina, do a winner-take-all system. Caucuses, by their nature, tend to result in split delegates.

    As mentioned, the primary difference between a primary and a caucus is that primaries are secret ballot, while caucus voting is public. Also relevant is that in a caucus, at various points contenders with less than a certain percentage are deemed nonviable. When that happens, supporters of that candidate move to one of the other candidates. This can happen either more or less directly, where people pick their second choice candidate, or else can be caused by brokered deals, where people are offered deals for switching their support--maybe the candidate will offer a delegate, or a change on a policy platform, or whatnot.

    Inherently, many people feel caucuses are less democratic than primaries. The public nature of the voting, combined with the lengthier and stricter time requirement which keeps those who have to work during them from participating, make such processes less reflective of what the general population actually wants.
  • SkyMiles

    Posts: 963

    Jan 18, 2008 11:57 PM GMT
    Ah! Because in SC we go right into the gutter! This is the state that's the home of 'John McCain's Black Baby!' That's the one Bush said McCain had with a black prostitute back in 2000, only it was really the little girl he ADOPTED from Bangladesh.

    This year it's 'Romney' sending out mailers supporting polygamy AND how McCain turned traitor agaist his fellow POWs in Vietnam!

    Nevada doesn't have this sort of 'drama'. I wish we didn't either!

    For Democrats this state doesn't mean SH*T because SC will never go for any Democrat under ANY circumstances. Everyone's STILL pissed off at how Lyndon Johnson made SC integrate (awwwww, so SAD). So even if Bush nuked Charleston, this will always be a red state ;(.

    God help us. I hope they have more sense in Nevada.
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    Jan 19, 2008 12:04 AM GMT
    Colbert Nation,

    with you there man. I lived in Charleston about twelve years ago, and I shook in my boots anytime I had to venture across the Ashley River. Charleston is an oasis of reason and tolerance in the heart of darkness...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2008 2:06 AM GMT
    People just come here for the great sheep lovin' and cattle tipping. Not much else to do here unless you want to go to a big building with shiny lights, give them all your money and leave pissed off.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2008 2:13 AM GMT
    Because what happens in Nevada, stays in Nevada.
  • SkyMiles

    Posts: 963

    Jan 19, 2008 3:12 AM GMT
    I hate to throw in a side-thread, but I'm originally from MI. I'm disheartened at how bad the Great Lake State got screwed, by BOTH parties at at time when MI has serious economic problems that our country's political leadership ought to address (that is, if they really gave a f*ck about anybody in the first place).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2008 3:18 AM GMT
    Nevada has been in the talk as of late, esp, on the Democratic side with the law suit that the Hilary supporters field to stop the Caucasus taking place in Casinos since those Unions went the way of Obama camp. So it has been in the news.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2008 8:01 AM GMT
    The whole primary system in this country is messed up. Just look at what happened in Michigan as noted by Colbert_nation.

    Because MI moved its primary to before 2/5, the Democratic National Party penalized the 4+ Million democrats in this state by taking away our delegates at the national convention and then strong-armed the candidates to take their names off the ballot. In the end, Clinton was the only major candidate on the ballot here. So if we wanted to vote for Obama, Edwards, Richardson, or Biden, we had to vote "Uncommitted"

    The tally: Clinton 55%, Uncommitted 40%, Kucinich 5%. But they say our votes won't count.... UNLESS this thing goes down to the wire in June. Come then, if Clinton is neck & neck with Obama or Edwards guess what... the DNP will say "oh, hey... Michigan, we'll count your votes now" and Hillary will win.

    Same thing for Florida.

    At least the Republicans had the maturity to allow the votes in Michigan and Florida to count.

    We need either a national primary day - OR a tighter schedule where there is no bickering for who gets to go first and/or where going first doesn't matter as much.

    And regarding Nevada... CNN has done a pretty good job covering the Dems in Nevada. Maybe Fox is only covering SC because it's a Republican Primary Saturday.

    One thing I HAVE noticed... since New Hampshire, the media really isn't doing as much pre-election poling as they were before. hmm