The letter to Nevada Democratic Chairwoman Jill Derby from Obama lawyer Robert Bauer lists instances of early door closings, obstruction of voters, and improper handling of voter preference cards. Obama aides said the campaign has received more than 1,600 complaints, including 300 that came in to a hotline at the time of the caucuses.
Bauer said the campaign is not challenging the outcome of the caucuses at the precinct level, but he asked Derby to conduct an inquiry into the Clinton campaign tactics during the caucuses. The campaign offered to provide the names and contact information of the individuals making the complaints as well as unedited copies of their accounts.
The Clinton campaign has also complained about behavior at the caucuses. On Sunday, Clinton senior adviser Dave Barnhart said he witnessed an enormous “gantlet” of Obama supporters at the Mirage casino-hotel caucus site who tried to intimidate Clinton backers.
The controversial sites established on the Las Vegas strip and were considered Obama strong holds because of the culinary union endorsement turned out not to be the boon for the Illinois Senator people through they would be. Six of the nine sites went for Clinton.
There is very little to report from the Nevada entrance polls, Mitt Romney was the clear winner in the state. The only main thing that can be read is positive for Ron Paul.
In the entrance polls Ron Paul beat Mitt Romney with those who are non-religious and independents. Beyond that Mitt was the clear winner with all people.
[techtags: Mitt Romney, Nevada Republican Caucus, Las Vegas Caucus, Ron Paul, Nevada Entrance Poll]
Men went for Obama 45% to Clinton 43%
Women went for Clinton 51% to Obama 38%
Clinton appealed to people of all economic levels and to voters who were rural, suburban and urban. Obama won out by 3% with people who make between $75 - $100,000. Clinton overwhelmingly was the choice of people making less than $15,000 a year.
Clinton was the overwhelming choice of Democrats taking 51% of those surveyed to Obama at 39%. Obama won with independents 47% to Clinton at 33%.
Clinton appealed overwhelmingly to white voters taking 52% to Obama at 34%.
Clinton also won with Latino’s at 64% to Obama’s 26%.
Obama was the overwhelming choice for African American voters taking 83% to Clinton at 14%.
Senator Hillary Clinton: 50.74%
Senator Barack Obama: 45.15%
Senator John Edwards: 3.76%
Uncommitted: 0.3%
Congressman Dennis Kucinich: 0.05%
Senator Mike Gravel: 0%
Schedule for tomorrow’s Democratic and Republican caucuses in Nevada and the South Carolina Republican primary from ABC Sneak Peak found via Mark Halperin:
Nevada Republican caucuses:
Begin at 9 am PT (12 pm ET)
Straw vote begins at 9:15 - 9:45 am PT (12:15 - 12:45 pm ET)
Precints are asked to conclude at 10:00 am PT (1:00 pm ET)
First results posted 10-10:30 am PT (1-1:30 pm ET)
Results likely known by Nevada Republican Party by 12:30 PT (3:30 ET)
Nevada Democratic caucuses:
Begin at 11:30 am PT (2:30 pm ET).
Preference groups form at 12 pm PT (3:00 pm ET)
Second alignment begins at 12:15 pm PT (3:15 pm ET)
Results start coming into Nevada Democratic Party at 2 pm PT (5 pm ET).
South Carolina GOP primary: polls open statewide from 7 am to 7 pm ET.
In many ways we have no idea what will happen in Nevada. Like Iowa before it, the Caucuses can create any degree of strange brew that we don’t find in primaries. In a caucus voters declare their choice in the open and in front of their neighbors and friends. In a caucus voters don’t have all day to swing by a polling place, they get one chance to be there on time and then the doors close. In a caucus turnout is the most important factor but knowing who you have and who your opponents have is a tricky enterprise.
There are many factors that make Nevada different from Iowa. Firstly the population. Iowa has a small minority population that is predominantly rural, not so in Nevada. In Nevada the population is largely new and growing, much of it transported from across the country and importantly from across the southern border.
Perhaps the most important difference is the way the caucus is run. In Iowa, despite the new turnout seen this year, the people are used to the circus that descends on their state. They prepare every two years for it, running caucuses even when there is no presidential race. Four years ago Nevada almost did not matter in the race, the caucus was held much later in the calendar and the system itself is not used to having both an influence and what could be a rush of new people attending. “In 2004, Nevada had just 17 caucus locations. This year they will have 1,754.”
So in short, while there will be plenty of opinion polls to pour over today, I will post some later, while there will be many pundits declaring they know how and why things will turn out because of x, y or z, the reality is we probably won’t know until everything is said and done. Caucuses present a tricky set of problems and we all have enough problems prognosticating races in primaries that should be easier to foresee. So as I warned before Iowa, I will warn again. If anyone declares that they know with 100% certainty how this will all turn out, I wouldn’t believe them.
A federal judge on Thursday allowed Nevada’s Democratic Party to conduct voting to choose a U.S. presidential nominee in casino hotels on the Las Vegas Strip, a decision likely to boost Sen. Barack Obama.
For the first time, Nevada Democrats planned to set up nine locations for Saturday’s vote so casino shift workers — who are largely represented by a union that endorsed Obama — could express their preference for a Democratic Party candidate before the November presidential election.
A teachers’ group filed a lawsuit saying the exception for the casino workers’ vote was unfair, but Judge James Mahan of the U.S. District Court for Nevada disagreed and declined to issue a temporary injunction.
A large turnout of casino workers could boost Obama, of Illinois, in his tight race against New York Sen. Hillary Clinton because he has won the backing of the Culinary Union, whose 60,000 dishwashers, cooks, cleaners and other hotel service workers could swing the vote Obama’s way if they turn out in high numbers.
In what has been described as a “testy” exchange with a reporter, Bill Clinton said he supported a Nevada lawsuit that would close down recently established polling places along the Las Vegas strip. Clinton said his wives campaign was not involved directly in the suit but that the cause was right because the move would disproportionately award delegates to these polling sites
“Do you really believe that all the Democrats understood that they had agreed to give everybody who voted in a casino a vote worth five times as much as people who voted in their own precinct? Did you know that?” Mr. Clinton said in a testy exchange with a television reporter, Mark Matthews of KGO. “What happened is nobody understood what had happened. … Now, everybody’s saying, ‘Oh they don’t want us to vote.’ What they really tried to do was to set up a deal where their votes counted five times, maybe even more.”
Last Friday, several individuals and a teachers union sued to prevent caucuses from being held in nine casinos along the Las Vegas Strip. The special sites were set up to make it easier for casino employees to vote at midday Saturday.
The plaintiffs argue that the sites allocate a disproportionately high number of delegates to one group of voters. More than 700 out of roughly 10,000 delegates to Nevada’s presidential nominating convention could be selected at the casino caucuses.
After the Iowa Caucus Senator Clinton joined some calls that Caucusing was an undemocratic process that disenfranchises voters. Now ahead of the Nevada Caucus she is saying the same thing:
“You have a limited period of time on one day to have your voices heard,” Clinton, D-N.Y., said. “That is troubling to me. You know in a situation of a caucus, people who work during that time — they’re disenfranchised. People who can’t be in the state or who are in the military, like the son of the woman who was here who is serving in the Air Force, they cannot be present.”
It might not be the best move to trash a state’s voting system before the vote, even if she is trying to lower expectation. With that said, at least they cannot charge that she isn’t adopting a consistent message on this issue!
Meanwhile Clinton’s new strategy of being more human and reaching out directly to voters is continuin in Nevada where she is reportedly going door to door to talk to voters.
