Important wins for Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton in Nevada this morning.
For Romney because it's a decisive win in the state that has the largest number of pre-Florida delegates, thanks to machinations of other states being penalized by the RNC for calendar hopping. Plus, it provides a counter to a victory in South Carolina by John McCain or Mike Huckabee. For Clinton, she overcame a very high profile endorsement for Barack Obama from the large and powerful Culinary Workers Union and now sets herself up to cope with a potential loss in South Carolina in much better fashion.
Romney benefits from the crushing margin of victory, crossing well-over 50% as of this typing. The 40% gap is huge in a multi-candidate field, even with the lack of attention to the state from other major candidates. Romney won every demographic group except "independents" and those with "no religion," both of which went for Ron Paul. Nonetheless, the significant showing among Mormons will inevitably be a source of hype among detractors.
Other notables from the entrance poll, Romney beat Huckabee 38% - 22% among Born Again/Evangelicals, who comprised 24% of caucus-goers. And again, McCain's showing is based on strength among non-conservatives. He won support from 26% of moderates but only 8% of conservatives.
On the Democratic side, Clinton won decisively among several key demographics, including a wide 61% - 28% advantage over Obama among voters aged 60 and over. She likewise won women 52% - 35%, compared to a much more narrow margin of 43% - 42% with men.
Also of note, Clinton beat Obama 51% - 36% among "Democrats" attending the caucuses, while Obama won "Independents" 46% - 35%. The problem for Obama was the former group comprised 82% of attendees versus 14% for the latter.
Lastly, the split among Democrats based on race is now a topic to watch for a couple reasons. The traditional coalition of "beer drinkers" that tends to win Democratic primaries is comprised of women, minorities, older voters, and those of lower-income. In the wake of kerfuffle over recent comments by Bill and Hillary Clinton that aggravated some African-Americans, it's a safe bet to expect a rift in the standard beer drinker coalition in South Carolina, thus possibly handing a big win to Obama.
If that's the case, the well-funded Democratic brawl is likely to remain exceptionally tight heading into a virtual national primary on February 5th (with the Democratic primary in Florida on January 29th earning about as much attention as its Michigan counterpart thanks to the lack of delegates in play). Within the context of February 5th, particularly with delegate rich California, note that Clinton thrashed Obama 64% - 24% among Latino voters in Nevada. That's a very troubling number for the Obama campaign.
Now, let's see what South Carolina brings us for the Republicans later today.
UPDATE: note that thanks to the delegate weighting system in the caucuses, Obama actually received one more delegate than Clinton, even as she gets all the attention for winning the actual vote. [Correction: Obama has one more projected state delegate to the national convention than Clinton, excluding the "super delegates" which are a whole different complicated issue in the Democratic nomination race. And note, the "vote" total in Nevada on the Democratic side is expressed in terms of county delegates won at each caucus, not raw votes.]
Posted by Eric Earling at January 19, 2008 02:06 PM | Email ThisRomney corporate Dejure monopoly Hack
http://www.dutkoworldwide.com/professionals/ron_kaufman/
vs.
Clinton corporate dejure monoploy hack
http://www.dutkoworldwide.com/professionals/advanced_search/
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1860
Dutko can't lose.
If you wan't to ensure no competition and a corporate Gouge vote for Romney or Clinton.
They make my stomach sick.
It's a crazy mixed up country if the end result has Obama taking 85% of the black vote because he is black, Clinton taking the women vote because she is a woman, Romney taking the Mormon vote because he is a Mormon, Rudy taking the cross-dressing - well, you get the picture. At some point, we have to get away from discrimination - voting based on race, sex, or creed, but the Nevada exit polling numbers sure show otherwise. I guess we have to give props to the NH voters from their exit polling.
Posted by: Doug on January 19, 2008 02:27 PM2,495,529 People in Nevada,and 40,000 showed up to vote for Republicans,11,000 showed up to vote for the Democrats.Anybody want to do the percentage of voter turnout in Nevada.
At first glance it appears to be awful.
I'm not boosting any one candidate here but I think Republicans have done plenty of "good". It's when Democrats take over with their big government, big welfare, big nanny state schemes that we get into trouble. I suspect that Hillary in particular worships big government as the ultimate god.
Handing the 2008 election over to the Democrats by voting for a third party candidate is like kicking a wall when you're mad. It damages the wall, hurts your foot, and only makes things worse.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 19, 2008 03:15 PMThe word "libertarian" designates a moderately "tight" constellation of political philosophies. The Libertarian Party is a partisan organization composed primarily of libertarians. But not all small "l" libertarians consider themselves partisan Libertarians, with a capital "L."
The Republican Party is a much bigger tent than the LP. There is much greater diversity of opinion, and much conflict. Barry Goldwater was libertarian, and Ronald Reagan was very libertarian, especially in his rhetoric and his great speaches. Huckabee, Romney and McCain are not very libertarian. Giuliani is a little libertarian, perhaps, but not on gun control.
But Ron Paul is no longer a big "L" Libertarian. He ran as a partisan "L" in '88, but he had to shed membership in the LP to run as a partisan Republican.
So, Ron Paul is a Republican, and a philosophical, small "l" libertarian, but he is not a partisan, capital "L" Libertarian, as I am.
By the way, he is doing really well in Nevada! Romney is the only other candidate with money in the bank, ready to spend it in the super duper February primary. Unlike Thompson, Ron Paul will be in the race all the way up to the caucus.
Go, Ron Paul! Bring back the rule of law and respect for the Constitution!
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 19, 2008 03:17 PMIt'll be fun watching my fellow conservative friends choke and then support Willard.
Posted by: Willard for Preznit on January 19, 2008 03:30 PMBe honest Eric, just because you support him personally doesnt mean we need to read your thoughtless drivel about how great his "decisive" victories are. The Dems will have a field day with Flip Flop Mitt, just like we did with Kerry
Posted by: JL on January 19, 2008 03:31 PMPaul also opposes aid to Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East. I'm left to assume a President Paul would stand by idly if Israel were attacked and simply give them a one-fingered salute.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 19, 2008 03:52 PMI think that those of us who support Israel (as I do) should write them checks, and not use our government tax system to foist our personal preferences on our neighbors, who may not agree. Foreign aid, like most other things the federal government meddles in, should be privatized. If we set this as the standard, then the liberals will be less likely to be able to argue that we should pay for their pet projects...
And by the way, Ron Paul DOES blame the terrorists for attacking us. But the US stands for friendly trade with all nations, and entangling alliances with none. We do NOT stand for dictatorship. Yet we installed the hated Shah of Iran, and prop up the unpopular Saudis, Musharref, etc.. If we had stuck to our own principles, then the terrorists would not be as able to recruit suicide bombers to attack us.
Suicide bombing is the only strategy that works against an open society with an overwhealming military advantage. The 9/11 attacks were not planned by our government, and the blame for attacking inocent people should rest with the terrorists, but our policy of meddling in middle-east politics set up the conditions in which terrorist attacks were the strategically optimal response. I consider 9/11 "blowback" in response to US policy since the 70's in the region. When you step in a pit of angry snakes, do you blame the snakes for bighting you? Yes, but you need to re-think your own strategy as well. That is all we are saying.
You can smear that position as saying that it is "our fault," but what Ron Paul says is true.
The Iraqis have had their chance to build a democracy and have blown it. They no longer deserve any more blood and treasure from the US. I say it is time to get the Iraqis off US welfare, and let them stand on their own two feet. We need to just come home, and let the US troops defend Americans within US borders.
The Iraq war is bankrupting the US. It is the cause of the current dollar weakness, and the coming recession. The only way to reduce the severity of the downturn is with tax and spending cuts. But this is impossible with our current foreign policy. You can not both be a fiscal conservative and an Iraq war hawk.
If I had to choose between tax and spending cuts on the one hand, and occupation of the middle east and a US military presence in 130 of the world's 190 nations, I would choose the fiscally conservative goal, and leave empire to the British, Mongolians and the Romans.
America is not an empire. We are a Republic; a shining city on a hill. If we only return to the principles that made America strong in the first place, we would have security as well.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 19, 2008 04:22 PMI know I'm breathing easier with Obama fading. No matter who wins our primary, we'll be in the White House in 2009.
Democrats: Ensuring Republicans don't have to worry about "electability" since 1980.
Posted by: ShillBull on January 19, 2008 04:35 PMat 4:20 PM, with 98% reporting:
% votes delegates
Romney 51% 22,313 17
Ron Paul 13% 5,742 4
McCain 13% 5,558 4
Huck 8% 3,500 2
Fred T 8% 3,475 2
Giuliani 4% 1,884 1
Hunter 2% 879 1
43,000 R's voted, 11% of NV registered R's.
120,000 D's voted, 1/3 of NV registered D's.
Two million population in NV.
Kinda hard to say that Ron Paul should not be included in the debates now, isn't it? :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 19, 2008 04:41 PMYou mean US policies like removing the Shah in Iran and allowing the Ayatollah to take power?
And #15 do I sense a bit of anti-semitism in your comment? Reckon so.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 19, 2008 04:42 PM"I think that Israel would be better off with no US aid to the region. And by the way, the Israeli's have demonstrated time and again that they can kick butt. They also have nukes, and the best airforce in the world.
I think that those of us who support Israel (as I do) should write them checks..."
How you can get an anti-semitic thought out of that I have absolutely no idea.
By the way, I attended about five bar Mitzvahs of my friends while in high school in the 70's. My first wife was of Jewish descent, though not practicing, and my current school internship is at a private high school with a lot of Jewish students. They have their assemblies in an actual temple. Calling me anti-semitic is absolutely absurd, and quite insulting.
Care to say what you see in my remarks that you found anti-semitic? I think you owe me substantiation to your claim, or an apology.
Bruce, I didn't accuse you of anti-semitism. I was referring to the poster at #15.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 19, 2008 05:01 PMwhich states
Democrats 25 pledged delegates, 8 unpledged
Candidate Vote % Delegates
Hillary Rodham Clinton 5,350 50.7%
Barack Obama 4,769 45.2
John Edwards 394 3.7
Uncommitted 31 0.3
98% reporting | Updated 8:32 PM ET
The vote totals for the Nevada Democratic Party reflect the number of county delegates won by the candidates.
I respect your broader point on identity politics, but a few points on the Mormon factor in Nevada.
1) Jim Geraghty breaks down that if not a Mormon showed up at the caucuses today, Romney still would have won 2-1 over his nearest competitor.
2) Bush evidently won 95% of the Mormon vote there, which I presume refers back to the 2000 primary contest. Evidently, this isn't the first time Mormon Republicans in Nevada turned out to vote for the leading conservative candidate in the state by a huge margin.
3) Mormons being excited about Romney is like Catholics being enthusiastic about Kennedy in 1960; it's not exactly a surprise. Moreover, imagine if you were a member of the a religious minority that had some ugly things said about it in the months leading up to your state's primary contest. Imagine if one of your own was running and appealed to the political values you hold. And imagine that candidate had to deal with a competitor (Huckabee) playing at times an almost overt religion card against your faith. You might just be motivated to turn out for your guy come caucus time under those circumstances.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 19, 2008 05:55 PMMy problem, Eric, is with the phrase 'your guy'. Just because he's a Mormon, he is 'my guy'? That reaks of latent bigotry. Let me re-phrase that: If you vote for someone specifically because of Race, Sex, or Creed then it is discriminatory in a way that belies BIGOTRY.
Did I make myself clear? It is legal, fine and dandy and people can do that, but in my humble opinion, voting for someone based on race, sex, or creed, rather than their positions, even varying positions in the case of Romney, or electability, or leadership qualities, bugs me.
Posted by: Doug on January 19, 2008 11:10 PMI was using the phrase "your guy" in the hypothetical as a slang reference for the candidate the hypothetical person supports. I wasn't trying to use it in an identity politics sort of way.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 20, 2008 09:28 AMBill C @ 20: Oops. My mistake.
Bill C @ 18 wrote this regarding blowback: "You mean US policies like removing the Shah in Iran and allowing the Ayatollah to take power?"
Yes, that is exactly what I mean. It doesn't matter whether we install a dictator or take him out. Either way we are meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign power. We are acting like an empire instead of a Republic. We can not win hearts and minds of the people as long as we do this. Our troops in Iraq have realized that winning hearts and minds is the key to success there.
We put the Shah in power. He does our bidding, and is massively unpopular. We take him out, but our next puppet is no more popular. So the people rise up and install something even worse: the Ayatollah. I call that blowback, or perhaps shooting yourself in the foot.
Then we install Musharref in Pakistan. He's a dictator, and does our bidding, and we prop him up with $10 billion, but he can't (or won't) catch bin Laden. His people hate him, and hate the US for keeping him in power in spite of their wishes. Then we encourage Bhutto to go back, where she gets killed. Now we REALLY look bad.
We prop up the Saudis... It goes on and on. We give money to dictators all over the globe and this violates our very principles! We have troops stationed in 130 of the world's 190 nations. We have 700 permanent and temporary bases around the world. And the US taxpayer can't take it anymore. The US economy can't take it anymore. You can't both be a fiscal conservative and an Iraq war hawk. We can't afford it.
The founders were very wise. Free and friendly trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none. If we step in a pit of vipers and get bitten, we can blame the vipers, but do we really want to step in to the pit again? Isn't that stupid?
Ron Paul blames the terrorists for their attack, but he also says that if you find yourself in a pit of vipers, it is time to stop digging...
We need to change policy. We need to return to the foreign policy that the Republican Party used to stand for, and that GW Bush campaigned on so successfully in 2000: humble foreign policy and not being the policeman of the world. This view is popular, and is the key to getting a Republican in the White House in 2008.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 20, 2008 11:10 AMPublicBulldog@4: This is another reason that people should support paul even if they think he can not win. Both Rs and Ds are adopting his stances little by little hoping to get his supporters and their money. If even if part of that bleeds into real support for pauls support for these policies we are better off.
Bill@8:
Voting for a third party is only like kicking a wall if you are short sighted enough to ignore the long term.
JL@ 11:
I am not sure if your post is worth a response so I will see how you respond to this before spending any more time... why are the mormons in utah damned?
Bill @ 13: Paul does not imply that we are prtially at fault, he clearly says it and is right. That does not mean the savages are not fully resposnible for their actions, but it does mean that we should change our behavior or expect the same type attacks for ever.
Where specifically do you find fault with Pauls arguements? Do you think that bases on their holy land do not upset them? Do you think funding dictators to opress their people does not upset them? Do you think funding radical sects and arming and training them to kill is not upsetting some of them? You get the idea... Tell me where you disagree.
And also do not forget, Paul not only opposes aid to isreal but also all other governments in the region that fight isreal.
Posted by: Lysander on January 20, 2008 01:48 PM