Nevada: Why Hillary Won

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 09:25:22 AM EST
Tags: Nevada 08 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Las Vegas Sun examines Hillary Clinton's win in the Nevada caucuses yesterday and provides these reasons she won:

Foresaw a huge wave of new voters unlike in her failed Iowa campaign.

Worked relentlessly to appeal to Hispanics from the ground up rather than the top down.

Sewed up the support of many Culinary workers long before the union endorsed Obama.

Dominated among women and then persuaded them show up to caucus.

Won the final week of publicity with tough political gamesmanship.

Most of the remainder of the article focuses on internal campaign strategies. It mentions Clinton's strength among Hispanics and women, but interestingly, concludes with this: [More...]

And though it’s easy to slice and dice and analyze strategy, there’s this: Nevadan Democrats put their faith in Clinton and her experience.

At dozens of precinct locations voters interviewed by the Sun cited Clinton’s experience as the overriding factor in their decision.

Change and experience again. I continue to believe that when it comes time to vote, those adversely affected by our tumbling economy are going to be less concerned with aspirational change and more apt to ask which candidate has both a concrete economic program and a track record showing the ability to push it through.

It just may not be the year for (as Bob Seger once sang) "take a chance on me."

< How The Media Covers The Nomination Process; Or Did Romney Win The Day Yesterday? | Obama Supporters' Sour Grapes >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Nevada: Why Hillary Won | 30 comments (30 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Hillary is the better candidate (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by talkingpoint on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 10:15:04 AM EST

and she won, because voters believe she is the most qualified, and the better candidate overall. America is beginning to realize through Obama that being a smooth talker and having a nice smile isn't enough to make someone president. Hillary is downright more qualified without a doubt. Have anyone ever realized that Obama cannot get specific on any issue? He always gives a broad and open ended answer to every question. Signs of a amateur.

I don't think he's an amateur (4.50 / 2) (#3)
by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 10:17:48 AM EST

I think it's the professor and academic in him.


: yes, I call him "lectern material". (4.00 / 1) (#25)
by MarkL on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 03:04:52 PM EST

More qualified? (3.00 / 1) (#6)
by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:13:56 AM EST

The dunce in the White House now had no qualifications other than being planted in the Texas governorship and he got elected President twice (give or take a Diebold machine).

Not saying that it's the same voter groups here, but rather that Clinton's appeal for whatever reasons (qualifications, her womanhood, her actual political positions or her voting record) was less important than her organization that got people to the polls to vote for her.

Ultimately, you win by getting more votes. You get them by having people want to vote for you, having people afraid of the other candidate, or whatever else you can do, and then putting those people in line to vote for you.

While it may feel good to say that Clinton is "more qualified," and that lots of people in Nevada agree with you, that's just you justifying your support for Clinton. I'm sure that there were Republicans who said that being a Bush and having a grandfather a U.S. Senator and father as both Vice-President President conferred experience and wisdom to Dubya. It didn't.


Hillary (none / 0) (#24)
by sigung on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 02:10:54 PM EST

She won because of her willingness to abandon any sense of ethics, morality or decency. John Kerry is right. There are some things that make even a victory hollow. I am through with Hillary Clinton and will vote Republican if she if the Party nominee.


: Voting Republican would be an absurd (none / 0) (#26)
by DA in LA on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 03:49:34 PM EST

response. Don't vote for president, or vote Green or some other party, as I will do. But to vote for the Republican candidate completely undermines whatever point you are trying to make.
Actually makes it hard to take you seriously.

: You should vote Republican (none / 0) (#27)
by mexboy on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:16:38 PM EST

Go ahead, throw a temper tantrum and cut your nose off to spite your face!
I support Hilary, but if Obama wins the nomination I will be happily voting for him.

Irony (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by magster on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 10:15:32 AM EST

A diarist at DKos stated that Hillary would have lost if she had not had the at-large precincts that the lawsuit Bill vigorously defended succeeded.

Lesson: Believe in your message and campaign and maximize turnout.

No (none / 0) (#28)
by DaveOinSF on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:17:01 PM EST

So far, Hillary has won 5355 delegates to Obama's 4773. The nine at-large sites on the LV Strip contributed 268 delegates to Hillary and 224 to Obama. They did not provide the margin of victory.

The real lesson in this is that labor union leaders need to actually LISTEN to their membership before making an endorsement, or else come accross looking entirely foolish and weak. That is where the Nevada Culinary Workers Union is today.


No, it's not. (none / 0) (#30)
by DA in LA on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:47:42 PM EST

They are far from weak for simply choosing the wrong candidate. Turns out unions fight corporations, so their members may live a better life.


They look weak (none / 0) (#31)
by DaveOinSF on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:57:05 PM EST

At least as far as their political influence is concerned. They completely failed to deliver votes from their membership. Why would future candidates seek their endorsement again?


: Because they are politicians. (none / 0) (#32)
by DA in LA on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 07:49:28 PM EST

The Dems WON (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by PlayInPeoria on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:28:30 AM EST

All this excitement about the Dem Party makes us a winner no matter which pol you support.

The excitement of the "tension" between the Dem Pol has fired up the citizens. They are participating in historic numbers.

Having said that... it is these "tensions" that bring the best solutions and discussions to the table.

That is why I do NOT buy the "Unity" message.

Per CNN, as of Jan. 19: (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by oculus on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:34:10 AM EST

Cumulate delegate totals:
Clinton: 210 delegates (includes MI)
Obama: 163 delegates

Economic concerns (none / 0) (#4)
by PlayInPeoria on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 10:52:13 AM EST

about the housing, jobs and energy have been concerns of the media for several months.

The 'sky is falling" predictions are starting to emerge. Wall Street does not have the confidence in the stimulus plan presented by President Bush. Stocks remained down after the announcement. Even Wall Street is changing from Reps support to the Dems. They believe the next President will be a Dem. Some for Sen Clinton others for Sen Obama. But they believe it will be a Dem.

The next 2 week we may just find ourselves in the "Bay of Pigs" for the economy. Watch the markets. That will indicate where we are headed.

With the changes coming up, who may be more "electable" will be taken over by who has the "experience" to deal with the hard times ahead.

NPR's Marketplace: stocks were going up (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 10:57:01 AM EST

when W hit the airwaves w/his plan, then a sudden descent.


Yep (none / 0) (#8)
by PlayInPeoria on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:17:01 AM EST

I watched the Markets Friday. They went going up on the prospect of a good stimulus plan. Once W announced the plan... stocks went down. Not much confidence in the plan.

It will be interesting to see what happens Monday. According to some, the fall out from the sub prime is only beginning and will start bleeding into other areas.


You'll have to wait until Tuesday (none / 0) (#11)
by CB on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:25:45 AM EST

As Monday is a holiday. :)

The subprime crisis hasn't hit the fan yet, still plenty of fallout coming from that this coming year. $150B is chump change.

What's HRC's stump message going to be when going up against McCain. She'll get laughed off the stage if she tries going with "experience" against him. Not that there aren't plenty of other avenues of attack against "St." McCain.

Cheers.


: Forgot - Tues then (none / 0) (#16)
by PlayInPeoria on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:34:12 AM EST

Assumptions
1. McCain will win the primary.
2, The present situation will remain stagnant.
I really believe that no matter who gets the nomination... a Dem will win. It may not be a cake walk.. but they will win. Even Wall streat his heading that way.

Hillary Won What? (none / 0) (#7)
by converse on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:16:06 AM EST

This is a primary race.

The winner is the one with the most delegates.

Even playing by the rules that the Hillary-owned Nevada Dems set, Obama won the most delegates.

What did Hillary win? The contest to dupe you and the MSM?

Sour grapes isn't (none / 0) (#9)
by athyrio on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:19:52 AM EST

very attractive, converse.....

Sour Grapes? (none / 0) (#10)
by converse on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:23:33 AM EST

We won. No sour grapes. Just trying to get the facts out to those who haven't been able to figure it out yet.

Neither Obama, nor Clinton (none / 0) (#13)
by Maggie Mae on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:31:10 AM EST

have won the delegates, yet. They won't be official, until April AND we still don't know where the eight Super Delegates Nevada has will go.

Back to you in the studio.


please don't spread (none / 0) (#14)
by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:31:24 AM EST

misinformation here. And, you are putting the same thing on multiple threads which also is not allowed. Don't chatter to shill for your candidate here. If you keep it up, you will be limited or banned, see the comment rules.


And if you'll stop writing the same anti-Obama (none / 0) (#22)
by converse on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:24:13 PM EST

stories, I'll stop writing the same truthful comments.


: You are now limited to (none / 0) (#23)
by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:55:40 PM EST

four comments a day. You are chattering, repeating the same point over and over with the intent of dominating the discussion.
You are over the limit now. Please come back tomorrow if you wish, but future comments today will be deleted.
Our commenting policy is clear on this.

Reno Gazette (none / 0) (#17)
by Stellaaa on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:49:41 AM EST

I don't know how many people watched the complete Obama and Hillary interviews for the Reno Gazette. I think the Reagan bit got overblown and put out of context. It was the whole context that I found compelling. Basically, both candidates were themselves. It was like a real job interview. I really wonder if people see those interviews if they would still hold the same opinions about the candidates. Absolutely the best format.
The Videos

First time posting here. Looking forward to finding a great place for discussing the issues and the campaigs.

: Link issue (none / 0) (#18)
by Stellaaa on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:51:52 AM EST

Videos
You have to look for an hour with Hillary.

: This is a great place for what you seek, if (none / 0) (#19)
by oculus on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:06:55 PM EST

you are able to tolerate some bickering.

Obama's Spin (none / 0) (#29)
by norris morris on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:30:13 PM EST

The latest scam coming from Obama camp about Obama's 13 delegate vote comes to this:

Delegate votes aren't counted until "soft" pledges and others are evaluated and selected by the Nevada Democrat State Convention. This happens April, 2008.

Hillary already has over 35 more delegate votes with or without Nevada's decision.

See the innuendos, & deceptions emanating from Obama about a cover up re: Obama's dealings with neighbor and slum lord owner Tony Rezko's property in Obama's state senate district.

Rezko did major fundraising as well,and owned hundreds slums.Obama represented these buildings in Rezko's company.. Rezmar Corp.

Just go to The Chicago Sun Times on line, www.suntimes.com re 4/23/07 article on Obama and
indicted Tony Rezko; their sweetheart property deal as reported by Tim Novak.

Obama fudged and claimed he didn't recall.......but Obama represented [Remzar, Tony Rezko's company] re: low-income housing deals with Remzar.

The unmistakably dicey connections about money,kickbacks, and slum lording are all over this. Rezko was a major fund raiser for Obama[see Chicago Sun Times].

Federal indictment of Obama's patron, Tony Rezko comes to trial within a few months. Federal indictment regards $6million, etc. in kickbacks.

Obama's also noted in Fitzgerald's indictment as "presidential candidate". This is a story that totally contradicts Obama's claims to Community housing. Many of these slums were foreclosed because of neglect. There is more,more, and more. It's quite a story and one of many re: Obama and Rezko.