MyDD :: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada

Clinton Looking Good In Nevada

by Todd Beeton, Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:36:53 AM EST

Nevada, of course, even moreso than Iowa, is really hard to poll. As John Zogby puts it:

Nevada Democrats have no real history for us to go on, so we will have to see how powerful the unions, civil rights, and other organizations are in bringing out their constituencies.

Bearing that in mind, Clinton should be heartened by the consistency of the numbers in the new Mason Dixon Poll (400 LVs, 1/14-16, MOE +/- 4.5%) and Zogby tracking poll (814 LVs, 1/15-17, MOE +/- 3.4%), which show her going into caucus day with slight leads, albeit technically within/on the cusp of the margins of error.

Candidate	Mason Dixon	Zogby	RCP 4-poll Ave.
Clinton	41	42	37
Obama	32	37	33.3
Edwards	14	12	19.5

The key to Clinton's lead lies in hispanic voters. From Mason Dixon:

Obama dominates among black voters, favored by 65 percent to Clinton's 18 percent, but they make up just 10 percent of likely caucus-goers. Hispanics make up 15 percent of likely caucus-goers and favor Clinton over Obama by 50 percent to 29 percent.

John Zogby concurs:

Noteworthy is the tale of Black America vs. White America. Obama leads among African Americans 81% to 16%, while Clinton leads among whites 46% to 31%. What this portends for other states we will have to wait and see.

Significantly, Clinton leads among Hispanics 51% to 27%.

I'm heading back to Vegas this morning to cover the caucus, will check back from the ground.

Tags: 2008 presidential election, nevada caucus, polls, hillary clinton, barack obama, john edwards (all tags)

Permalink :: 66 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

Please stop posting poll frontpages. Remember NH. Polls are extremely inaccurate.

by lonnette33 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:40:00 AM EST

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

You are no doubt correct, but what else can we talk about :-)

by kristoph on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:34:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I never thought I'd be pleased (none / 0)

to see my prefered candidate behind in the polls. I've spent alot of time in Nevada and I can safely say it is a VERY strange state. Somehow, as an Obama supporter, I'm not worried. I wouldn't be surprised if Kucininch won.

by nerdoff on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:48:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (2.00 / 1)

Anyway, I think the race is MUCH closer than these polls claim.

by lonnette33 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:40:37 AM EST

How many Dems are in Elko? (2.00 / 1)

Are exurbs like Henderson primarily Republican? Do Native Americans on reservations have caucuses of their own?

The idea that you could poll Nevada accurately is optimistic. What a strange and fantastic part of the world.

by nerdoff on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:52:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How many Dems are in Elko? (none / 0)

and very dry

by the mollusk on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:58:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

NV is hard to poll, but I bet Clinton wins NV, and Obama wins SC. I would peg nomination odds at 80% for Clinton, 20% for Obama.

by NC State Dem on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:48:32 AM EST

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

80/20 seems pretty high to me. Clinton has the edge, no doubt, but given how little we know about most of the February 5th states, 80% is a provocative estimate. I'd say 60/40 for Clinton at this point.

by HSTruman on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:54:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (2.00 / 2)

I would say let's split the difference at 70-30. :-)

A good portion of the Feb. 5 states should be Clinton's, and there are some huge ones in the mix. You also have the factor that more than half of those states don't allow Independents and Republicans to participate in the Democratic primaries, which should hurt Obama disproportionally and affect the results.

by georgep on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:59:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (2.00 / 2)

I obviously disagree with that sentiment. Clinton will probably be formidable against Huckabee. The biggest obstacle might be McCain, but to make these "she will lose for sure" statements makes little sense. Debates can change everything, and we know that overall Hillary is very good in debates. McCain is ok, but I feel that he'll end up more often as the loser of a debate with Hillary than the other way around. Too early to talk about all this stuff, but I am confident that Hillary can beat anyone the GOP puts up. In her own right and also because we currently have some institutional advantages over the GOP in general, which will become even more distinct and lopsided if the economy continues to turn sour and into a full-blown recession (as expected) with the GOP shouldering the blame.

by georgep on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:20:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

I think that 9 of the 22 states on Feb. 5 are true open primaries, while at least 4 more are are open to independent/unaffiliated voters (13 total). Chuck Todd said the other night that 15 of the 22 states are open to indies, but poblano's excellent diary from earlier this week only has 13. I'm not sure who has it exactly right, but just thought I note that there will still be significant participation by independents on Super Tuesday (or, at least, there could be).

by DPW on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:20:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

Why do you think Edwards' support would go to Hillary? Is this intuition or is there some data out there showing this? I have trouble gauging who Edwards' supporters see as their second choice.

by the mollusk on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:15:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

I can't say that I've encountered any hard facts on this... but my take would be:

While working for Edwards in New Hampshire, most Obama supporters would have listed Edwards as a second, and vice versa (at least from what I saw). I would attribute this to the "change" message that the two share, plus the tacit understanding that we seemed to see between then during the Iowa & NH elections + debates. I think that's why many Obama supporters want John out, because they expect that he would endorse Obama.

On the other hand, I could see Edwards support shift to Clinton in the later states. With all of the race tensions of the last week, and both Clinton's and Edwards' supporters tending to be white... if Edwards were to pull out, I could see his white supporters backing Clinton.

Personally, that would crush me, since I'd prefer Obama to Clinton by a long shot... but I dunno

by magnolia rising on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:59:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

yeah, that's how I see Edwards' supporters as well. (based on absolutely nothing of course). Except maybe not as touchy about race. I see a lot of overlap in the supporters of Obama and Edwards: wanting change, idealistic, perhaps younger.

Thanks for the response.

by the mollusk on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:12:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (2.00 / 1)

Well, we know quite a bit about those states, including that Hillary has substantial polling leads in most of them, including several of the largest ones. Obama will not be able to travel to every small town in all those states and win over voters as he successfully did in Iowa. With Hillary matching him in funds, he won't be able to win the battle of the ads either. He'll need positive media coverage, but if Clinton wins Nevada it will begin to look like his insurgency has lost steam. The impact of a possible win by him in South Carolina will be partially offset by a loss in Florida.

If Obama wins Nevada, I think he still has a good chance, but if he loses Nevada, I think he becomes a real longshot.

by markjay on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:00:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

What can I say, I'm not an optimist. On the night NH went down in flames, I was at 95/5 Clinton. I've walked back from the ledge at least a bit!

by NC State Dem on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:15:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (2.00 / 1)

I would agree. It's pretty hard to see a scenario in which Clinton wins Nevada and loses the nomination.

by markjay on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:55:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

Go Obama.. Wasn't Clinton up by 15% a few weeks ago??

John McCain: Drill, Drill, Surge!!!!!

by TennesseeGurl on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:59:20 AM EST

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

Yes, but clearly BO had a huge amount of momentum behind him after the IA caucus. He was the frontrunner at that point, many in the MSM said so.

by lonnette33 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:58:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no, it was 20% (none / 0)

We can be comforted that the more people who learn about Obama and the more they learn about him, the more the numbers move in his favor. 51-27 among Latinos is not very good but it represents a closing of the gap. Whether he can close/reduce these gaps quickly enough, remains to be seen.

Our Moment Is Now

by mboehm on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:58:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

Two things of note. One Edwards's support seems to have dropped like a rock from the last few Nevada polls. Essentially it's a two person race. And second, the differences in support among racial lines for Clinton and Obama are striking. If this is just a microcosm for what to expect around the country we are going to see deep regional differences between the two.

by Christopher Lib on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:01:40 AM EST

while we agree on the strongest candidate (2.00 / 0)

I do not agree that Obama or Hillary would definitely lose the general. Both would beat Romney. Huckabee would be tougher for Hillary, but she could still win. Obama might even be favored against Huckabee.

McCain would be the toughest for Obama and Hillary. I might give Hillary a slightly better chance of winning that one than Obama.

Edwards would be the strongest general-election candidate.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:05:56 AM EST

Re: while we agree on the strongest candidate (none / 0)

Actually, I think Hillary would make mincemeat out of Huckabee. She's tough enough to run ads featuring Wayne Dumond, the guy Huckabee let out of prison who later went on to kill two women in MO. She'd probably add at least MO, AR and FL to the Kerry states.

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:29:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (2.00 / 1)

I think Edwards is in huge trouble now. I know exact polling of a caucus is hard, but Edwards is far, far behind in every single poll that I have seen out of Nevada. He will probably come in with disappointing numbers, and there is a real chance that he might not even be viable at all in many precincts. Then we move on to South Carolina, which may be Obama's with Clinton perhaps capable to make this race into a nailbiter. Again, Edwards with no shot at making a difference there. I don't really care if Edwards hurts Clinton, as he takes voters away from her. It is what it is, all candidates have to make it through and find a way to win with the cards they are dealt, and that includes Hillary. Edwards might just decide to stay in this race until the end, even if he does not win a single Feb. 5 state, to have somewhat of a say at the convention with a block of delegates. But I simply don't see a path for Edwards to win the nomination, unless he can confound all expectations and pull a win in NV or in SC out of the hat, which is probably very unlikely in either state.

by georgep on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:09:01 AM EST

as long as Clinton and Obama (2.00 / 1)

are not talking about the substantive issues Edwards raises, I want him to stay in the race. There are benefits to keeping his message out there, even if he does not win any states.

But for the record, I do think he has a chance in some of the February 5 states.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:16:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as long as Clinton and Obama (none / 0)

If he doesn't win South Carolina, Edwards will take no state on February 5. And upon this I'll wager $100 to the campaign of the winner's choice.

by InigoMontoya on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:32:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

let me think about that (2.00 / 1)

I may take you up on that bet.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:01:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

Interesting article in the LATimes

Barack Obama has warned about the dangers of gambling -- that it carries a "moral and social cost" that could "devastate" poor communities. As a state senator in Illinois, he at times opposed plans to expand gambling, worrying that it could be especially harmful to low-income people.

Wonder how much attention this will get in Nevada. Would definitely IMO influence voters if they become aware of his position.

by MOBlue on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:15:07 AM EST

but shouldn't Nevada voters (none / 0)

be happy that Obama did not want to expand gambling in Illinois?

It seems that it would hurt Nevada's tourism industry when gambling is expanded in other states.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:16:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

it sucks to be right sometimes.

by the mollusk on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:00:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Coercive Unions (none / 0)

Make no mistake, Obama is favored to win NV especially given the coercive nature of the unions within the caucus system.

If Obama doesn't pull out a win in NV, it will be devastating

by BigBoyBlue on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:17:26 AM EST

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

If the caucuses are held in the workplace with a public vote in front of the Union officials, then you know the one that the union is supporting is going to win. The union official will accuse any Edwards or Clinton supporters as being anti-union. I am all for Unions, but I am also for private voting in elections.

by maxstar on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:20:20 AM EST

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (2.00 / 1)

Honestly Undies, I wish JRE had gone after Obama more. I really think this would have helped him. Of course it would have helped Hill, but I do think he would have been able to steal some supporters away from Obama.

by lonnette33 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:22:46 AM EST

I am trying to find out (none / 0)

why JRE did not go after Obama before Iowa. I have some hunches, but I would like to hear from more people who were involved with the campaign at a higher level.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:28:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am trying to find out (none / 0)

My hunch is that JRE and BO made a deal of some sort. But why? The deal in my opinion benefits BO more than JRE. JRE is getting the shorter end of the stick. I just don't understand.

What are you hunches desmoniesdem?

by lonnette33 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:53:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think there was any deal (none / 0)

between Edwards and Obama. Here's what I suspect happened.

The Edwards campaign did extensive canvassing in Iowa in June and July of last year. That was mostly before Obama was up on the air. Richardson started advertising in May and was rising in the polls. In fact, Richardson was closer to Obama in some Iowa polls than Obama was to Edwards and Clinton at that time.

What I heard from many sources, and what my own voter contacts found, was that Edwards and Clinton were way ahead of Obama among Democrats who had caucused before.

Obama went up on the air in Iowa in the second half of July, I think, but his numbers didn't start moving right away.

I think that the Edwards campaign 1) assumed that turnout would be only modestly higher than it was in 2004, and 2) assumed that Obama was well behind Clinton and Edwards outside the major cities.

I heard many times from people doing field work that Obama was behind Clinton and Edwards. I think he was behind among Democrats who had caucused before, but the Edwards and Clinton campaigns underestimated the number of new voters Obama would bring out.

A person who is very involved in the Clinton campaign told me the morning of January 3 that Obama was doing very poorly on Des Moines' south side, well behind Clinton and Edwards there. Actually, Obama held his own in that part of the city, although it wasn't his strongest area by any means.

I ran into two field organizers for Clinton working in my suburb on the afternoon of January 3. I told them I thought that the main battle in our older neighborhood would be between Clinton and Edwards, with Obama considerably behind. They agreed, based on the information they had. But Obama ended up getting as many delegates as Clinton and Edwards in our precincts, and he had a lot more supporters than Clinton in my precinct.

Basically, Obama turned out more new people than Edwards or Clinton were banking on.

I also think that with Obama being the media darling, there would have been a big backlash against Edwards if he had directly taken on Obama. I still wish the campaign had done more. I don't feel that the field organizers or precinct captains were given enough guidance on how to reduce support for Obama among undecided voters.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:29:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think there was any deal (none / 0)

Interesting desmoinesdem. I was thinking some deal was made, when it fact your theory makes sense. Good stuff to ponder, that's for sure!

by lonnette33 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:56:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am trying to find out (none / 0)

I have my own theory on this, and keep in mind, it's just my theory. I have no evidence whatever.

I think Edwards didn't go after Obama for two reason:

1. He got bad advice from Joe Trippi (who is just as foolish as Mark Penn and David Axelrod). They considered Hillary a bigger threat, and they underestimated Obama's appeal - as did the Clinton campaign.

2. I think Edwards and his advisers truly don't like Hillary Clinton, and that colored their judgement. Edwards assault on Hillary was almost nonstop for several months last year. I have a hard time believing that was entirely strategic. i think there is some personal animus.

It always seemed to me that Edwards was misdirecting his fire. If he wanted to be the anti-Hillary standard bearer, then Obama is the one in his way, not Hillary.

"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin

by Denny Crane on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:55:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think you are a bit off here (none / 0)

I don't think that Trippi was the key strategist. I think field reports from IA led Edwards to believe that Clinton was a far bigger threat than Obama.

Since Clinton was ahead in basically every other state, going after Obama made little sense.

Also, Obama is a media darling, and Edwards was already getting bashed for running his so-called "angry" campaign. Taking on Obama would have yielded a bigger media assault against him.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:19:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am trying to find out (none / 0)

I agree with what's been said above, but I'd also add another point.

If we look at the current field, Edwards and Clinton are splitting the white vote. Keeping that in mind, when we look to the "deal" between Obama and Edwards, I think the idea would have been something like:

Team up with Obama in Iowa and NH. Together with Obama, we can beat Hillary and go 1-2 in the caucus. We sell that outcome (as JRE and company DID after Iowa) as the death of Hillary's campaign. Use that storyline to win NH, and seal Clinton's fate.

THEN, with the later states, go after Obama, pick up Clinton's former, primarily white supporters AND the southern states... and coast to the nomination.

Had Clinton come in 3rd in New Hampshire, I'd have seen the race playing out like that...

by magnolia rising on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:10:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think there was any deal (none / 0)

But I do think the Edwards campaign was hoping to push Hillary into third in both IA and NH. Obviously his chances of winning a one-on-one race against Obama would be better than his chances in a one-on-one race against Clinton.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:17:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I love these Edwards and Obama fantasies. (none / 0)

As if the Edwards voters were soldiers in the Prussian army. Edwards speaks they obey. In fact the demographic of Edwards voters is much closer to Clinton than Obama.

by ottovbvs on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:04:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

"Edwards, whatever one might think about him, is a DEMOCRAT. No question at all about that. I think that he finds Obama's courtship of the people that have worked actively to set back progressive values reprehensible and I expect him to speak out much more about it."

Indeed. This is why I am puzzled and don't understand why JRE doesn't get much tougher on BO. Maybe he will be BO running mate, if he gets the nom. Maybe a deal has been struck.

by lonnette33 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:56:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excellent point Lonnette (none / 0)

The people who support Obama do not want change, they want glamour, what makes you think they'd support Edwards?

Support of Obama is not based on logic, or even real hope, it's based on brand, you are what you drive.

If Obama's supporters were really interested in changing the status quo, they'd support Edwards.

Instead they're behind a 4th rate candidate who cant even articulate a progressive position, instead choosing to back stab democrats in an effort to win the white vote.

That is very sad.

by Marsha1 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:05:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

I expect Clinton will win tomorrow, and these polls seem to confirm my fears. it's not a make or break state by any stretch of the imagination, but it will be helpful to whoever wins it, no doubt.

The good news for Obama in these polls is that they show Edwards below the point of viability. If Edwards' supporters break to Obama as their second choice then we've got a real race.

by Ryan Anderson on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:29:07 AM EST

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

Elections are not all alike; i.e., general elections, primary elections, caucuses. Poll efficacy declines as you go down the list. Primaries can be more fluid than general elections. Because of low turnout, caucus polls have the added burden of who turns out.

In NV, only 9000 voters attended the Den caucus - 1% of all NV registered voters. This year 10s of thousands are expected to turn out. Composition of that turnout is an unknown. The pollsters are trying to do their best in a difficult situation.

Why would anybody put such emphasis on poll's vfor NV when their is no good history of polling for these caucuses.

The question I would have is what is the turnout model for both Zogby and the MD poll?

I suspect we will get some additional poll's for this caucus today?

Zogby will be releasing a final poll tomorrow morning.

by BDM on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:33:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

I'm not basing my position on these polls, but on Clinton's long held institutional and demographic advantage in the state. I think Obama has run a very good campaign this last week, learning some of the hard lessons from NH, and clearly he got some important reinforcements at the last minute. I'm just not confident that will be enough. And in any case, I'm glad these polls came out and I hope people believe them. These high expectations for Obama are ludicrous and dangerous.

by Ryan Anderson on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:45:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ryan Ed voters as closet Obamists is fantasy (none / 0)

They are not. Their demo matches Clintons much more accurately .

by ottovbvs on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:23:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ryan Ed voters as closet Obamists is fantasy (none / 0)

You might be right, but I wouldn't put too much faith in those demo numbers. Edwards supporters clearly have some issue with Clinton, otherwise they'd be Clinton supporters. They tend to support change over experience, and I think that number is more relevant to last minute decision making than either race or income.

by Ryan Anderson on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:48:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

To me, the whole idea of a caucus is pretty stupid, frankly.

As to general election matchups, I think Clinton might match up better than Obama with McCain. In all other matchups, I prefer Obama's chances. Obama would be much better down-ballot.

by NC State Dem on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:30:46 AM EST

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

I would expect Edwards' supporters to break about evenly, so I don't think his viability matters to the result. I think the same is true nationally.

by NC State Dem on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:33:17 AM EST

Actually Ed voters match Clinton demographic bette (none / 0)

It's shown up several times already. I'd expect Edwards voters to break two thirds for Clinton.

by ottovbvs on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:18:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jewish Voters in Nevada Support Clinton (2.00 / 1)

One interesting constituency which strongly supports Clinton in Nevada, and is a growing constituency there: Jewish voters. But, will they caucus on Saturday? I don't know. Does anyone else have any ideas or thoughts on this?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/010 8/7933.html

"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman

by Tennessean on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:43:42 AM EST

Re: Jewish Voters in Nevada Support Clinton (none / 0)

I don't think so. That's their day of Sabbath. Maybe they will break tradition. I hope!

by lonnette33 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:59:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

only Orthodox Jews (none / 0)

would avoid a caucus because of the Sabbath. I know everyone from my Reform Jewish Temple would go if we had to on a Saturday.

I know nothing about the Jewish community in Las Vegas, but in many American cities the Orthodox account for only about 10-15 percent of Jews.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:35:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: only Orthodox Jews (none / 0)

There are those who would avoid a caucus out of principle on Saturday (only Orthodox), but there might also be others that would avoid a caucus simply because of a time conflict with a synagogue service (not a big number, but some). And my guess is that, among those who vote Democrat, the ones who cannot or will not caucus for these reasons (out of principle or because of a time conflict with a service) are the ones who would most likely support Hillary.

I don't think the total numbers would be big enough to effect the results, unless they are extremely tight, but this is just one more reason that I detest caucuses.

by markjay on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:21:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: only Orthodox Jews (none / 0)

I'm pretty confident Jewish voters are a Hillary demographic, but I'm really not sure how it breaks down. I can think of ideological reasons why the more observant Jews might tend to prefer Hillary, but also, to be totally honest, there's a lot more sexism towards the more Orthodox side of the equation. You're less likely to vote for a female President if you believe your wife should walk behind you.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:36:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Funds demonstrate lunacy of Obama invoking race (none / 0)

This was his biggest blunder so far even worse than the condescending Hillary remark. Once he let or more likely some clown on his campaign let this out of the bottle it meant he solidified tehe black vote behind him but destroyed his transendence of race.

by ottovbvs on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:21:28 PM EST

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

Yes I think she has a chance because of us old line democrats that were in the trenches years ago demonstrating for our beliefs. We will support her.

by athyrio on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:51:33 PM EST

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

The polls I have seen say that around 44% would never vote for Hillary. That's 40% republicans and 4% far left, independents etc... On the other side she has 30% sure-votes and 15-20% who are leaning towards hew. So about 10% in the middle are still undecided. Her policy initiatives are much closer to the center than any republicans, so I don't think she will have much trouble getting majority of the 10%.

The last several elections were decided by 1,2 points. This election is not going to be much different unless party-line polarization will all of a sudden disappear, so I think Hillary very strong chance of being the next president.

by comebackkid on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:54:42 PM EST

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

Obama starts off caucus day with 6% from the rigged Culinary Union at-large precints.

by hwc on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:11:36 PM EST

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

This is why i have been teelling people this race will be close. HRC starts down 6 automatically because of Culinary. I think her lead is right there. My worry is that if JRE is not viable and swings his votes to Obama, we could see another Iowa.

by StrongDem08 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:27:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

With all due respect to the Edwards supporters, I think Democratic primary voters understand that it is time to start concentrating their "anti-Clinton" and "anti-Obama" votes where they will have some impact.

by hwc on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:50:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

What I find absolutely astonishing is that noone and I mean NOONE has even questioned the vicious rumors and put downs of Clinton put forth by the republican party and the Hillary haters who cannot even explain why they hate her when questioned...This is all a huge game being played on our heads and Obama is part of it I believe....He has split our party wide open....So sad...

by athyrio on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:00:02 PM EST

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

The media has toned down their hatred of H a bit; I guess they realized it backfired in NH. Still, with the Culinary Workers' strong-arm tactics, who knows how this will turn out?

by demmonty on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:13:47 PM EST

Re: Clinton Looking Good In Nevada (none / 0)

listen to the candidates and watch what they are espousing. For example Obama's remarks about Reagan were very telling as no self respecting true democrat would ever say that...and his health plan is far from all inclusive....Edwards and Hillarys are far better....and his trade policies etc etc etc...the list goes on and on....I am an old style democrat that got out as a youth and demonstrated for equal rights and for human rights and against Vietnam....Obama's beliefs offend me....

by athyrio on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:36:54 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.