This voter suppression thing sounds just like, "I did not have sex with that woman."  The fact that he is on MSNBC and Fox news sliming Obama with voter supression BS is really bothering me.  

Your link says 49% of precincts are reporting and there is a total of 4500 votes.  You also said results should be coming in at 4PM Central... It's 2:50 Central.  How does that work?  I think the website is wrong.  

...but the NV Democrats website is having major problems.  Also, results appear to be coming in earlier than 5 PM, obviously.

It doesn't take a genius to break it down .... Bill Clinton goes out makes accusations, spins the room and later kind of apologizes. It's pretty pathetic and underscores what those folks are all about (ME - Winning).

They never figured on having to run against an intelligent, articulate and very well grounded African American family man.  Drives them nuts and forces them use every trick in book.

A union doesn't edorse us .... let's get a Law suit going to confuse the rank and file .... Oh shit ... a Judge throws the suit out ...Let's bash the union for "voter supression". Believe me you all I personally witnessed it, Bill says.

Right Bill ... sure ... I believe anything you say .... NOT.

Clinton wins.

In Vegas, the Cullinary Union was not able to deliver on it's endorsement.  We're going to have to rethink they way we get Union support from now on.

Appropriately, the guy we've all been talking about recently -- Ronald Reagan -- is a part of the reason why organized labor is so weak in this country right now.  That's very unfortunate, as it gives corporations WAY too much unchecked power.

about how much Reagan changed things.  Well, one of the things he changed was weakening labor power, which really hurt Obama today.  

Obama plans on winning this thing and getting the democratic base behind him he really needs to stop talking about Ronald Reagan. We hate him as much as the rethugs hate Bill Clinton.

Not a good talking point for a Democrat.

Intellectually, he's right in what he said; and he never said one good word about Reagan's actions.

But the broader point is right on -- he needs to figure out how to connect with liberals, progressives, and the mainstream of the Democratic electorate before he can have these kinds of discussions without getting misinterpreted.

If you look at his overall record, his liberal cred is undeniable. He has been constrained in the US Senate by the peculiar way that institution works (as has Hillary, to be fair).

If he wants to win, he needs to explain how the 90s Third Way-ism led to much of the outsourcing of jobs, etc., that have occurred because of very unbalanced trade deals (although I believe he skipped the vote for the Peru trade deal, so he's not pure on this issue either).

HRC has done a great job of convincing lower income voters that she's on their side, just as her husband did in the early 90s. Their record says otherwise. The Obama campaign has to figure out a way to speak to people on this issue, or he won't win.

Hillary wins lower to middle class voters with less than a masters degree in education.  The demographics Obama did best with was young voters, upper-class voters and voters with PhDs.

Union leaders may like Obama and Edwards, but the actual union members who go to the polls tend to like Clinton.

Culinary union was split about the endorsement. The union bosses tried to MAKE union members go out and stump for Obama. Many of the members are mad as hell that their officers tried to make them caucus for someone they personally didn't want to vote for or knock on doors for. That's why i am glad CWA did NOT endorse for the primaries. They democratically let each member and/or each local decide themselves who to vote for-without some big mandate from Washington.
Union politics is rough and tumble and I'm sure there will be fallout after this.
But what is the big deal anyway? Both Clinton and Obama got almost the same amount of delegates.

Edwards is my man but he just doesn't have the money. He would be a great AG.

and force this election to Clinton if he doesn't leave immediately.

would go to Obama?  I doubt that will happen in a lot of states.  Plus, Edwards is getting such a lower percentage, does it really matter?  The bottom line with Edwards is that he NEEDED TO WIN IOWA.  He didn't and might as well have dropped out then, in terms of his actual chances of winning.  Nevada was another state where he had been considered to have a shot, and he got crushed.  It's over for Edwards.  O-V-E=R.

That's essentially what we have now.  So stop kidding ourselves.  The media has ordained Clinton the Democratic candidate and that's who will be the nominee.

There is a direct correlation between percent of media coverage and votes.  They cheated, and they have been cheating for years.  

Do you really think the corporate media will allow a candidate who wants to control corporate corruption win?  Edwards has been Clarked.

Do you really think a corporate media with a business model based around blonde hair and blue eyes girls be fair towards a minority candidate?  Obama will be marginalized soon enough.

Look at all those corporate donations going to Hillary Clinton.  Of course she will win.  Our mistake is believing that change is possible.  Change will never occur as long as the corporate media manipulates people through electioneering disguised as news.

And it's not just FOX news.

Their influence has been declining for years.  Also, I certainly don't believe that they're competent enough to orchestrate/coordinate a serious strategy to push one particular candidate.  They're just not that good.

There doesnn't need to be an orchestrated movement amongst a handful of corporations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Disney, "New" Viacom (and its former parent CBS Corporation, the former "Old" Viacom), TimeWarner, News Corp, Bertelsmann AG, and General Electric together own more than 90% of the media holdings in the United States.

Just look at the statistics.  No matter their motive, therr is clearly a massive bias in the media.

That he has been resoundingly ignored by the media does not necessitate him jumping out of the race at your convenience.  PS This is no way to encourage voters for Edwards to come to your corner.  A little respect, here.  That is to say, you don't say someone is politically "dead" until they are.  And that is not yours to say.  But if you wish you can join all those who have been making such prognostications about Edwards for weeks.  And you'll just prove me right.

My comment above was addressed to Bernie, Not Lowell  

Arguing is one thing, but I agree with Kathy that opponents do not determine when it is time for a candidate to withdraw.  We're all human.

It does seem to me that there is more of an affinity between Obama & Edwards than Clinton & Edwards.  Given how much Edwards has invested, it makes sense that if he does make a decision to withdraw, he'd make a difference with his endorsement.

We should all be demanding a fair election.  That means equal media coverage.

Clinton 50.3
Obama 45.24
Edwards 4.28

WOW - Edwards is no longer viable.

The delegate split will be something like..

13 Clinton
11 Obama

Practically a draw considering Clinton was up by 20% in NV 30 days ago.

n/t

That way, he can play Queen/King maker with the delegates he's accrued to that point.  

I don't think he will be able to do that. There will be too much pressure from his supporters as well as detractors.

He has said he doesn't want to be on the ticket as VP. OK, I could see him as a great Attorney General.  

Edwards would be an absolutely superb Attorney General to clean up the mess left by the Bush Administration and set this country on the right legal path again.

that could come out of all this!

If you really think he only has that low a percentage of support, then I have some land 2000 miles off the coast for ya.

You have second rounds sndeak.  You act as if this is a mandate on Edwards.  How silly!

Nobody in the Edwards camp was betting on Nevada.  Of course those in the Edwards camp would go towards another candidate in the caucas during the second round.

The only thing that surprised me is that they didn't go to Obama.

Look at the results. Edwards is only viable in 2 of 17 counties.

The second round is only necessary if you can't get to 15%.  I was watching CNN and they were in on caucus on the strip that ended up 80+ Obama. 76 Clinton and 2 Edwards after the first round.

That was on the strip and for service workers only.  That isn't representative of the entire state, much less the entire country.  

The strongest supporters of unions is Edwards - Obama is second in line.  I find it discusting that any union would endorse Senator Clinton.  She is still apologetic for NAFTA.  Her positions on trade alone are reason enough for a union to oppose her.

I suppose this is as good a time as any to jump in on this. After New Hampshire a female friend and I speculated on why working class women love Hillary so much. This may also help explain why female union members may vote for her. Its what you might call the "stand by your man" factor. Most of these women can identify with Hillary's decision to stand by a man she should have divorced long ago. The reason is working class women stand by their unworthy partners more often than women in the professions. The explanation is simple. Working class women usually can't make it on their own financially, especially if they have children. A Clinton win would give them the vicarious satisfaction of having a woman like them on top - FINALLY.

A Hillary victory for these women would serve the same purpose as end-times for certain evangelicals. Its the ultimate revenge.

By your classifications, which are you:  professional or working class?  

I'd expect this type of "class" talk from elitist Republicans but not from a Democrat.    

I have to say I really think this kind of stereotypical, judgmental talk is not just counterproductive, but wrong.  And I encourage you (Rebecca) to rethink airing such remarks.  

I'm praying Edwards drops out after SC (or before but I doubt it)..  I think it's Obama's only hope.  And not a hope of the false variety.

And it stinks.

South Carolina is kinda unique. Will Edwards take white male votes away from Hillary or Obama?

Maybe it's time for Edwards and Obama to have a sit down.

Obama showed his strength with African-Americans today.

in SC.  I'm not sure why you assume Edwards SC voters would go to Obama.

I think : )  It's so muddled. In the big metro areas and college towns the Edwards votes go to Obama but in the more rural areas they will go to Clinton.  Charleston is gonna be a real fight. I would think that Clemson and USC area will be leaning Obama right now.

No idea the effect in other places.  Edwards will have a decision to make after SC.

As an Edwards supporter I think they could go to Obama.  That's why, for example, I think it's wrong to release the NV caucus data so long before the polls close in SC.

There is about a week until the Dem primary in South Carolina.  

South Carolina is now do-or-die for Obama.

Period.  

As I noted about, Hillary actually does very well with lower-to-middle class voters, voters with high school or bachelors degrees, and women.  Obama wins among young voters, upper-class voters, and voters with PhDs.

There is a lot more overlap between Clinton's voters and Edward's than there is between Edward's and Obama's, from a demographic standpoint.  The folks who are saying that Edward's is spoiling the election in Hillary's favor are basing their opinion on the assumption that everyone hates Hillary as much as they do.  That might be a flawed assumption.

Excellent analysis.

From Obama. He will go back to talking more about the schools in SC, unempoyment/shipping jobs overseas and college opportunities.

Whenever I listen to talk radio or TV I hear supporters of Clinton say  'The Clintons' not Hillary Clinton.

Why?

Obama's Ragan comment was not an endorsement of the type of change Ragan brought. It was an acknowledgement of his ability to catch the pulse of the nation and capitalize on the backlash from the excesses 60s (as in the free love, sex, drugs, and rock and roll excesses and not a reference to the progress made in the era).  Obviously the change was negative but the desire for conservative change then was understood by Ragan and Obama was just pointing out that he understands and can bring progressive change today through unity the way Ragan did for conservatives then.

my posting in the #56 spot, I had to come back an comment on this.

Obama showed his in-experience when he even mentions Reagon's name. If he were one of those millions of people who lost their job, or 1 of the 14,000 flight attendants or ON and ON. Reagon was the bastard who started all this outsourcing of jobs. Reagon is the fall of our steel industry, when his drastic changes to bust unions sent all the steel industries in bankruptcy. Most people blame Clinton for NAFTA, but actually Reagon was the one who laid the ground work for NAFTA and some how Clinton became the goat.

The only GOOD thing Reagon did was to stop the 14% mortgage rates and bring them to a sensible level, but in doing that he sent alot of people who retired with those high interst rate incomes into bandruptcy.

Reagon is the one President who started us on this downfall that we are on and unless a Democrat gets and stays in power for 30 years or more, well then welcome to the Colony of China

I thought Obama was talking about "Reagan."  You know, the 40th president of the United States.  The one about whom we can find many positive statements made by . . . hold it . . .  the 42nd President and his wife.  Oh yeah, their names are Bill and Hillary, right?

In 1984, Ronnie won over 59% of the popular vote.  And 49 of the 50 states.   Regardless of what you might think of his policies (and in my case, it ain't much that's printable) you have to recognize what he accomplished.  That is what Obama was doing, and btw, is also what the Clintons did with their positive remarks.

Peace.

i see the clintons admiration of reagan was already pointed out. sorry bout that

was not a statement praising what Ragan did as president. It was a recognition of Ragan's ability to capitalize on the sentiment that at the time favored the conservative agenda and turn it in to changes in policy. this election is the progressive version of the 1980 election in the since that the desire for change can be felt everywhere and like Ragan did for the conservatives, Obama can bring about change for progressives. also, didn't Clinton say Ragan was one of her favorate presidents?

all that aside, no one has explained how Clinton beats McCain. She will have republicans falling all over them selves to vote against her. I's are going to flock to McCain, She does not inspire party growth, and if her and especially bill keep running their campaign the way they are us Obama people are going to find it harder and harder to justify going to the polls for her. They have to stop the attacks and accusations. This attack and destroy campaign they are running is the same stuff we have loathed the republicans for. Obama is the embodiment of the type of change this party has been working for since the 60s and now that the opportunity is here it is being brought down by the forces that helped create it  

R-E-A-G-A-N.

i picked up on that.  

1) Women. They continue to break heavily for Hillary and, more importantly, continue to dominate the turnout of Democratic voters -- 58% of the voters were women, according to exit/entrance polling.

Obama has to find a way to get more support from women. I think that senior women are behind Hillary and will not waver, but Obama needs to find a way to appeal more to younger women, if he can. I continue to believe he needs to get more support from female Governors like Kathleen Sebelius and Christine Gregoire to go with support from Janet Napolitano to try and stem this tide. He may need to think about naming a female Vice President, now, to do so.

2) Hispanics. Polls show that Hillary crushed him in the Hispanic vote, between 2:1 and 3:1. That's a big problem.

3) Lower income voters. It's unclear to me why Hillary would win this demographic, as discussed above, but that appears to be the case. Perhaps her wonkiness is giving hope to these voters that she'll pursue policies that will directly help their lot, while Obama's rhetoric just seems nebulous and not very helpful.

It's a mystery.  The best candidate, the women protecting the interests of most women might not be a woman at all.

However, I have heard women suggest that women should/must support Hillary.  I really resent this.  As an early feminist, I am taken aback at the statements by some women, and especially NOW, which readily endorsed Hillary because she is a woman.  Though I'd love to have a woman president, I am not happy with Hillary and will never support her in the Virginia primary.  That's why we have the vote, to select the best person to stand up and speak for us as our nation's leader, to best represent the ideals we hold dear, and do the greatest good for our country.  For NOW or anyone to suggest that women should vote for Hillary because she is a woman is pretty disgraceful.

I mean the best candidate, the one protecting the interests of most women  

My sister just had a kid and is not someone that is particularly politically active. She votes, and she votes Democratic, but that's about it.

Right before the New Hampshire primary, she forwarded me Gloria Steinem's op-ed from the NYT. Like Ms. Steinem, my lil' sis was LIVID about how Hillary was being treated by the establishment press. Somewhere deep inside her, just like many women I suspect, my sister was incensed by the sexism and double standards that women have to put up with in society.

My sister is no feminist, Kathy, but I think she's leaning Hillary because she wants to see a woman as President. I really can't rebut that argument -- it's an emotional thing, and I can't say she's wrong to feel that way. I would like to see many more women in Congress, especially in the Senate, and a woman President in the near future. While I agree with you, I think we realize how much 'identity' politics is part of this grand game we like to watch and comment on, so I'd say that Hillary will be very difficult to beat unless Barack can change this dynamic in a substantial way.

There might not even be a way to do so, even were he to name  female VP nominee. There may be so many female Democratic primary voters that see that the most qualified and deep candidate is HRC, and therefore are energized and determined to see that she gets a chance in November. We'll see.

But when you abstract the charisma out of the equation and look at the candidates on paper, Hillary's domestic/economic policies are more liberal that Obama's.  Obama's healthcare plan didn't cover everyone, while the plan Hillary proposed did.  Obama's proposal for fixing our current economic woes didn't reach as far as Hillary's or Edward's (although he did go leaps and bounds beyond what the Republican candidates proposed).

There are very sound reasons why Hillary does better with lower income voters.  Obama's appeal is contagious among educated voters who love soaring rhetoric, but he's not doing enough to appeal to lower-class meat-and-potatoes democrats who want to know what's in it for them.

(for reference, check out this post from Anonymous is a Woman: http://anonymousisawoman.blogs... )

You definitely fleshed out my oblique ramblings at the end of my post. But I tend to think that most voters aren't interested in the policy details or wonkery -- I sincerely doubt that many are reading these policy proposals, or that many in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada did so before they voted.

Could be I'm wrong, and that's exactly what's going on here. Maybe the HRC ground game is just better and is really communicating well with these voters and letting them know that there are policies on the way that will help them out. If  there's one thing we know the Clintons know how to do, it's communicating with Democrats on a very intimate level.

But I tend to think it's the overall 'global' message from the campaign that decides these things -- debate performances, media coverage, etc. Hillary is the better debater, there's no question about that. I think she's been better at just speaking to these populations, and doing so with passion and depth.  

This identity/Liberal politics is what stifled the Democratic Party.  Clinton is not a Progressive anyway, but she has a number of good policy ideas.

We should be looking at the candidates and what they offer:  record, consistency, ability, etc.

Why is it so necessary to pigeonhole people?

I'd really like to see a 3rd party if it would deal with the arteriosclerosis in our political system.

According to Project Vote Smart, Barack Obama's latest "liberal" rating from the National Journal was 86% in 2006.  Hillary Clinton's "liberal" rating was 70.2% in 2006.

Americans for Democratic Action gave Obama and Clinton identical 95% ratings.

The heaviest dem participation in the Virginia 2006 primary was in Northern Virginia, where the per-capita income is higher and the average education level is higher than a huge part of the rest of the country.  So I think your comment is unintentionally interesting, Lee, but only because it highlights how the composition of the electorate in the VA 2006 primary differed demographically from the electorates in New Hampshire and Nevada, where there was stronger participation by lower-class voters.

I'm guessing the point you wanted to make was about how the credential and appeal of a candidate is more important than the labels or demographics...but you're kind of wrong.  Candidates don't determine who wins an election, the voters do.  And as a roundabout way of answering your question, that's why it's so necessary to pigeonhole people.  If you want to understand elections, don't study the candidate, study whose voting and why.

I think this election will give an independent candidate an unprecedented opportunity to win over more voters than ever before.  I thought that the Democrats would offer a change in direction but I fear I was wrong.  It seems the establishment Democrats are more concerned with rewarding seniority and divisive politics than really changing things.  My vote is officially up for grabs regardless of what letter a candidate has besides their name on the ballot.  

I guess that "establishment Democrats" is not the term I am looking for.  Older Democratic voters are the ones who seem to be resistant to change.

Lyndon Johnson was 57 years old when he signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  CHANGE.

Abraham Lincoln was 54 years old when he signed the Emancipation Proclamation.  CHANGE.

Franklin Roosevelt took us out of the Great Depresesion while he was in his fifties, CHANGE.  And he led us through World War II to victory, while he was in his 60s.  CHANGE.

Eleanor Roosevelt helped draft the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights while in her sixties.  CHANGE.

Each of these people and so many other older people were heros of radical change!!!

On that note, I guess I'll now go take my Geritol.

It's Saturday night, UVA08...go have a good time, because youth passes really too quickly!

 

Young people talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.  For some reason, they can spend hours on blogs and at rallies, but they don't take the time to go vote or, apparantly, caucus.  I believe the numbers were something like only 13% of people under 25 voting in the Nevada caucuses today, while 57% of people over 45 voted.  I believe only 18% of people under 25 voted for Kerry, whereas over 50% of people over 45 voted for him.  Where are the young people?  Why could Obama get them in Iowa and not in Nevada or New Hampshire?  This election -- like all elections for president -- will get decided by the "old people."  And for older Democrats, the Clinton name has a mostly positive connotation.  For me, he's the only presidential candidate I ever voted for who actually won!  Twice!!        

I think I found the answer

David Damore, an associate political science professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said Edwards's primary message - helping the downtrodden and excoriating corporate America - "doesn't really resonate here."

"This is a libertarian state. To be blunt, we don't care about poor people, and we don't give anything to social services," Damore said.

Libertarians don't concern themselves with the poor.  Doesn't anyone find it strange that Ron Paul did so well in Vegas?  This state is definately not a bell-weather state, so I wouldn't pay too much attention to the results.

Clinton won big in Clark County, which contains the city of Las Vegas and all its culinary workers.  Also, I'd remind you that, since very early in the campaign, Edwards was expecting Nevada to be a strong state for him.  Sorry, but this is not good if you're an Edwards supporter...

AFSCME and the rest of the AFL-CIO simply had a better ground game than the other unions.

There are tons of unions besides the culinary workers -- maids and janitors, dealers and gaming workers, bartenders, bellhops, etc.

I think at the end of the day, it's hard to draw much from Nevada except that we're down to a two-person race. I agree that Obama needs a big win in SC to regain some momentum, and then we'll see what happens in FL.

BO is going to have to really step it up if he wants to win this. HRC is debating better and communicating better with Democrats. You can't get to the general without winning the nomination first. He has the money to compete, but he needs to drastically sharpen his message and explain his progressive and liberal bona fides, or HRC will be the nominee.

If Edwards doesn't win there, I'll back Obama here in Florida.  I think the media has really screwed Edwards and many candidates before him.

I waited till 56 comments were posted for a reason.

None of you know what the heck you are talking about.

First take Edwards with 4%. This is a caucus' On the first round if he does not get 15 percent his supporters have to vote for someone else or abstain. If all those first time voters were counted for Edwards he would probably be over 15%. So none of you understand a caucus.

Second, You Obama suporters are BAD, BAD losers and will bash the first person who comes along.

Third, All of you missed the big picture. Romney got more votes then the entire Democratic Platform. If the Democrats expect to win NV come General Election, everyone better look in the mirror and decide how the Heck we are going to win NV and forget this bickering.

Mostly because Hillary is going to win it all without the super delegates

There were around 110,000 Democratic caucus goers; the number of delegates awarded is not the number of voters.

It looks like there were about 45,000 Republican voters, maybe 50k, of which Romney got over half the votes.

And while Edwards certainly would have garnered more than 4% of the vote in a primary, it looks like his ceiling was somewhere along the lines of 10-12%, definitely less than the viability threshold.  

Getting these figures?

I just watched CNN and they have Romney with 98% of the vote count with 22,313 votes.

They have with 94% voting
Clinton 5317
Obama 4729
Edwards 393
Kuccinich 31
Others 5

If that is not,Romney having more votes then cast in the Democratic Caucus that someone cannot add and don't try to tell me those are delegates.

Those are delegates #s you've posted for the Dem's.

As far as Romney is concerned, he's got 51% of the vote with 1,750 of 1,789 precincts reporting.  Ron Paul's in second with 13%, slightly ahead of John McCain (13%).

Those are precinct delegates. Over 100k voters came out for the Democratic Caucus. Just like in Iowa, they don't give out the raw voter totals.

More like a straw poll or firehouse primary

The Democratic and Republican caucuses are different.

Sen Majority Leader Harry Reid has the following statement posted on The official caucus website:

Searchlight, Nev. --  Nevada Senator Harry Reid issued the following statement in response to today's caucuses in Nevada:

"Today's caucus was a tremendous success. Well over 100,000 Nevadans got out and made their voices heard, including 69 in my hometown of Searchlight. I congratulate the Nevada Democratic Party for doing such a great job and extend my sincere appreciation to all the staff and volunteers who made Nevada proud."

And the latest numbers from that site as I post:

With 88 percent of the precincts reporting we are seeing record turnout with more than 114,000 caucus attendees.

Peace.

Only 9,000 Democrats took part in Nevada's caucuses in 2004 but turnout was reported to be much heavier this time.

Are you really trying to convince me that 40,000 more Democrats turned out this time.

Shame on you for such spinning.

Nevada has never been a 'player' in the selection process before. This is huge. The whole reason for putting Nevada in the front end was to get Latino & Union participation and to build the party in a potential swing state.

Mission accomplished!

According to Jerome at MyDD:

A note about turnout, the estimate from the NV Democratic Party, with 88% reporting, is that Dem caucus-goers today numbered "above 114,000." This is yet another stellar showing by Democrats, as 80k was the highest estimate I'd heard with 100k deemed outrageous wishful thinking.

Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada - Turnout has been through the roof. We are setting records and crushing the Repubs in every state.

Nevada's turnout was superb...let's see what happens in SC now.

is wrong.

1. Of course we understand a caucus; if you don't reach the 15% threshold, you're not viable and your supporters go to other candidates.  Duh.

2. The comment about Obama supporters is simply insulting.

3. Your point about Romney is wildly, bizarrely wrong.  No idea what on earth you're talking about, as Romney received just 22,440 votes compared to something like 55,000 for Clinton and around 50,000 for Obama.  

4. Far, FAR more Democrats turned out in Nevada today than Republicans.  Nevada's looking like a strong Democratic possibility for November.

where the heck are you getting these figures?

Both CNN and MSNBC are showing the figures I posted.

This is getting tedious.  I've been providing links to the numbers; if you can't figure out how to click on them, then I can't help you.

http://www.nvdemscaucus.com/in...

Salient point:

How Are Delegates Elected?    PDF    Print    E-mail

Once preference groups are viable, the caucus chair will use the following formula to allocate the number of delegates for each preference group.

Delegate Apportionment:  Delegates to be elected at the Caucus shall be divided according to each group's size.  The following formula shall apply:

Number of eligible
attendees in a
preference group X   Number of Delegates to be
elected from that Precinct
Caucus

Divided by:  Total number of eligible caucus attendees

Equals:  Number of delegates to be elected by that group

*Round fractions UP at .5 and DOWN at less than .5 when apportioning delegates. ·  Once each preference group knows how many delegates they can elect, they do so within their preference group.
·  Groups electing more than one delegate must try, to the extent possible, to elect equal numbers of men and women delegates.
·  The number of alternate delegates that may be elected is not limited.  Alternate delegates are also elected within preference groups.

·  Once preference groups elect all the delegates, the caucus comes back together as one group and must ratify the slate of delegates and alternates.  

Republicans - Actual Individual Votes
Democrats - Allocated Precinct Delegates

Just heard on CNN that Obama may actually end up with more delegates out of NV because of the number of people that showed up in Rena effects the proportion rules. They won't know for sure until the state convention.

while Clinton won big in Clark County (home of Las Vegas).  I believe they weight the rural counties to compensate to some extent for their lack of population relative to Clark/urban areas.

n/t

Over the strip and 5 times the the impact.

has an analysis, and notes that "AP and NBC have now changed their delegate counts to 13 for Obama and 12 for Clinton."

While the process of delegate apportionment is extremely complicated, it boils down to this: in the places that Clinton won, there were an even number of delegates that were split between she and Obama. In the places Obama won, there were an odd number of delegates, meaning that he often took two delegates to one for Clinton.

What a system!

The Obama campaign is saying that we have more delegates, 13 - 12.

Ya gotta love the whole caucus process. Man, it makes my head hurt sometimes.

Get back to work, Deak!

That hurt

you love it when I boss you around! ;)

I would just LOVE seeing how CNN and the other networks will explain away their "error".

This article about the Nevada caucuses says it all about why HRC is going to be the Democratic nominee:

"Brenda Santiago, a housekeeper at nearby Harrah's hotel and casino, arrived shortly before Noon. Although she is a member of the Culinary Workers Union, which supported Mr. Obama, she said she had been determined to choose her favorite candidate on her own.

And that, she said, was Senator Clinton.

"I have my own opinions," said Ms. Santiago, 46. "Hillary has more experience - and she has Bill!"

The strength of Mr. Obama's endorsement by the Culinary Workers Union remained an open question. The Clinton campaign had denounced the at-large precincts in casinos as unfair, but inside the Sunset Ballroom of the Flamingo Hotel, Mrs. Clinton received support from 121 people and 25 delegates, compared to 120 for Mr. Obama and 24 delegates.

The Clinton corner, dominated largely by women, cheered when the results were announced.

You may think this is neat and helpful now but it will be a liability in the General Election.

Bill isn't the candidate this time..or is he?

The bimbo eruption can't be far off.  Spare us, please.

"...inside the Sunset Ballroom..., Mrs. Clinton received support from 121 people and 25 delegates, compared to 120 for Mr. Obama and 24 delegates". Given the fact that the entire state of Nevada gets only 25 pledged/voting delegates (not all delegates to the national convention are voting delegates) that would seem to imply that at this caucus location alone the combination of Clinton's and Obama's delegates would be nearly 200% of the total number of delegates for the entire state. Extrapolating to the national convention and saying 49/25=200% instead of 196%: It would then seem to follow (illogically, maybe) that the number of actual delegates required to win the nomination being 2,025 that 4,055 voting delegates would be required to win the nomination. That is close to 100% of the actual voting delegates who will be present at the convention. I think the total voting delegate number includes uncommitted (i.e., not just pledged) and super delegates.

Obviously, my calculations are faulty so I probably need more coffee before I re-read the Delegate Selection Plan.

Can someone tell us what I'm missing in my attempt at translating what appears to be a form of "fuzzy math" to the more traditional "old math" ? Lest anyone get a bit upset with my silly exercise please realize that my main objective is to inject a little humor. I do realize that the delegate allocation including such factors as "bonus" delegates is actually fairly logical, although it does seem to me that it's more complicated than necessary.

Looking forward to corrections to my calculations, as well as confirmation of (or disagreement with) my belief that for Pres. races the DNC should require all state parties to do away with caucuses in favor of primaries by the next Pres. election cycle.

Back to that next cup of coffee.

                       T.C.

Actual Delegate Count To Date (via CNN website)

Clinton has 210 delegates:  36 pledged and 174 super delegates.

Obama has 123 delegates:  38 pledged and 85 superdelegates.  

So . . . who's winning?

52
18 Pledged   34 Superdelegates

There are still a lot of SDs out there. Obama picked up a few last week. And don't forget SDs can change candidates whenever they want like one did in NC last week. He switched from Edwards to Obama.