First and foremost, the stories of chaotic, disfunctional precincts continue to circulate. I wrote that my precinct caucus ran smoothly but 3 days later, I've heard from enough people to conclude that at least in Clark County, this was not the norm. One of the problems is that in many cases, temporary precinct chairs did not know what they were doing or in some cases did not show up at all. I've heard of cases where precincts did not follow the rules concerning allignment and reallignment, where precincts meeting at the same site spontaneously combined their voters and delegates, and most alarmingly, a case of two precincts in the predominantly African-American westside where no precinct chairs showed up, no state party staff arrived to pick up the slack, and apparently, no caucus took place.

This situation was easily anticipated. Because of the wide disparity of population density in different parts of Nevada, we have a larger number of precincts than Iowa, yet many fewer political activists that the state party could recruit. I had been impressed when the state party announced it had captains for all 1754 precincts, but it now appears that this was not the case. Moreover, because of the lack of density among activists, almost every temporary precinct chair was also a precinct captain or active supporter of one or another campaign -- and in my experience, mostly of the Clinton campaign.

Therein lies the crucial debate that has been taking place among activists since Saturday. Did the Clinton campaign, by instructing its precinct captains to arrive at sites several hours before the temporary chairs were scheduled to be there, and by instructing precinct captains to put up a wall of signs (both of which were explicit violations of state party rules that campaigns had been reminded of the week prior to the caucus) intentionally plan to create a hostile environment for voters? Did the Clinton campaign (which very effectively mobilized its supporters to arrive early), by instructing its  precinct captains to demand that the doors be closed at 11:30 (again, contrary to state party instructions given to precinct captains and to each campaign the week before the caucus) intend to exclude voters more likely to support another candidate? And if so, does this amount to a manipulation of the process?

My view is that the Clinton campaign can't be faulted for performing well. They took advantage of their longer and more established relationship with their supporters, and of their extensive resources, to expand their universe from an estimated 30,000 to an estiamted 60,000 supporters in the month prior to the election (as reported by the LV Sun on Sunday) and then made a massive number of voter ID and turnout calls in the week prior to the election to get those supporters to the polls, early and ready. They also took advantage of what is clearly the most (and perhaps only) democratic part of the caucus rules -- same day registration -- to urge a large number of voters not registered Ds to the polls. (By contrast, Edwards never looked beyond the universe of those with a record of voting in Democratic primaries. )

I believe that the fault for the confusion on Saturday lies with the state party that did not reinforce very well what it asked of temporary precinct chairs at the training -- that they not wear or place campaign materials at the sign-in tables; that they  not allow voters into the caucus room until 11 am; that they allow only one sign per campaign; and that they prepare carefully to run the meetings. AT the same time, there had to be a lot of people in the state party, and in the Clinton campaign, who knew that the Clinton precinct captains were receiving instructions that diverged from, even contradicted, the instructions to temporary precinct chairs. Those that looked the other way, I believe, failed the party, and the consequence was the confusion on Saturday. I hope that the frustration they generated among precinct-level activists fades quickly and won't result in resentment against the state party. Or more precisely, I hope that the frustration encourages them to engage with the state party and push for a more transparent, responsive party -- rather than to disengage and turn off from political activism.

To her credit, state Senator Dina Titus, one of Clinton's co-chairs and one of Nevada's DNC members, yesterday announced that in response to the frustration of so many Democrats with the process Saturday, the caucuses could not be considered a success and announced she would introduce legislation for the state to hold a presidential primary in four years.

As is well known, the Obama campaign claimed on Saturday that this amounted to voter intimidation, and after the caucus, the Obama campaign sent out an email to every address it had asking for people to send in stories of bad caucus experiences. I have to confess to bewilderment and vexation at Obama's campaign and at his supporters for this claim. The Obama campaign simply did not prepare its people very well (at least in my experience) for not caucus day. I knew going in that Edwards would have trouble because we would not have resources for visibility at most precincts, for staffers to be observers at precincts, for driving supporters to the caucus sites when they needed rides, or for multiple contacts of voters to ensure our people turned out. (Our long-standing precinct captains were, in reports I've heard, the best trained of any campaign, but in many precincts we, like Obama and Clinton, had late recruits who did not know the process.)

I expected that Obama's campaign, with its vast resources, would have all of the above. But they simply did not. Despite repeatedly assuring the media all year that their precinct captains had "climbed the ladder" as volunteers to prove their commitment, in fact almost all the Obama precinct captains I know were late fill-ins who never became that familiar with either the caucus process or tactics. When I heard some of my friends and colleagues who supported Obama complaining today of unfairness, I felt even more the frustration I felt watching the debate last night -- if only our side had the money, media, and union muscle they had enjoyed, we would have known what to do with it. At least I hope so.

The fall-out from the caucus will begin to be felt in 2 weeks, when the state central committee meets on Feb 9, and then certainly at the county conventions on Feb 23. I suspect that any lasting rancor will fade quickly, and I continue to hope that the large number of new activists recruited by the party, and each of the campaigns, will greatly help the Democratic cause in NV in the fall and beyond.

I'm sure some of what I wrote above will generate a response, so to be clear, I am only stating what I've heard personally not a systematic or researched assessment of the caucuses. And my personal view is that the flaws were the results of a state party that had a great deal of ground to cover in a short time, and as a result, could not develop a cadre of party leaders at the precinct level independent of campaign activists. And finally, I cannot offer any assessment of claims of fraud, intimidation or manipulation but I do feel that the story of the day has to be that the Clinton campaign achieved a level of organization that none of the others, whatever their resources, came close to.