Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Who Will Win Nevada's Democratic Caucuses? There's No Sure Bet

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted January 19, 2008.


Forget the polls. Whoever has the best organization will likely win.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Steven Rosenfeld

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

After several days of attending rallies by the leading Democratic candidates in Nevada, interviewing numerous likely voters, campaign staffers, union members, party officials and others, I finally heard a rational voice on Friday night give an assessment of what will make the difference in the Silver State's historic caucuses on Saturday, Jan. 19.

"More than 80 percent of the elections in the U.S. are won by less than 5 percent of the vote. And a well-run field operation (turning out voters) can swing the election by 3 to 8 percent," said Dino Martino, the political director of the Service Employees International Union Local 1 in Chicago, as he began a training session for precinct captains at his union's Las Vegas office. "We are the factor they do not have in the polls."

Indeed, as Martino and Morgan Levi, the political director of the city's SEIU Local 1107, told a full classroom of union members who will work on behalf of nominating Barack Obama, the most anyone can definitively say on the eve of the nation's third nominating contest for Democrats is that voter turnout will be unprecedented -- and that means the best organized campaign is the one most likely to win.

"The reality of this election is we will have historic turnout," he said. "There are all kinds of predictions that are way above the 10,000 people who caucused in 2004. That throws those polls out the windows. Out job is to get those new voters out and into our group."

Nevada's Democratic nominating contest is a blank political slate in a presidential year that has so far defied predictions. This libertarian-spirited Western state is determined to have its say, in its own way, as much as ponderous Iowa and finicky New Hampshire. Indeed, for every prediction made by pundits about momentum, mistakes and trends, there seemed to be exceptions everywhere.

The state's largest and arguably most powerful union, the Culinary Workers Local 226, with 60,000 members, was backing Obama. The Democratic Party beat a legal effort to prevent new, at-large caucuses from being held in nine casinos, an effort to bring minority voters into the nominating process. But at least half of the casino employees I interviewed were not even sure they were going to caucus. One waiter said he would wait until November to vote. A card dealer said Saturday was going to be a big day for tips, because of the NFL's AFC championship game between the Patriots and Chargers.

In other words, because the caucus process takes time and more commitment than marking a ballot, and because it will be a new experience for many participants, it is not a sure bet that the special casino precincts will be as decisive as the Clinton campaign fears and as the Obama campaign hopes.

There were other examples that ran counter to the high-profile assumptions. One of the most telling is that not all union members will be following their leaders' endorsement of specific candidates. On Friday morning, John Edwards spoke at a parking lot rally at his Las Vegas headquarters and urged union members to disregard endorsements and back him, saying he would be the strongest defender of organized labor.

"Regardless of who your political leadership chose to endorse, no one will fight for you in the trenches like I will," Edwards said at the 9 a.m. rally, where perhaps 200 mostly white people attended, and where the warm-up music included classic rock with lines such as "That's what I like about you" and "You ain't seen nothing yet."

Edwards' remarks underscore that Obama is backed by two of the state's most powerful unions, the Culinary Workers and the Service Employees Industrial Union, which has 17,500 Nevada members. But as Edwards supporters waited for him to speak, I went looking for people wearing "precinct captain" buttons and found two women who were top SEIU officials.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: barack obama, hillary clinton, john edwards, election 2008, nevada

Steven Rosenfeld is a senior fellow at Alternet.org and co-author of What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election, with Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (The New Press, 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Neighbor
Posted by: Neighbor on Jan 19, 2008 3:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for yet again another balanced article, and one that does not write off John Edwards. As we know, there are 33 Democratic delegates at stake in Nevada today, and how I hope most of them go to Edwards. I wish I could be in the state to help achieve that, but I cannot. But, I also know that there is no more knowledgeable and dedicated group of Democrats on the ground there than those for Edwards! I am pulling for you. America is pulling for you!! Much has been made of the culinary workers support for Obama. But, we must remember that in that segment of voters Edwards has earned the support of the Steeelworkers, the mine workers, the carpenters & joiners, and the councils in 10 states of the Service Employees International Union. They will be out for him. They know who traversed this country to help get the minimum wage increased and to raise awareness of the plight of veterans, not to mention women in the workplace. Thanks to everyone for helping John Edwards in Nevade today (and I have not met the man, by the way--have just heard everything and read everything I could about him).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
many people, regardless of ethnicity, will tend to choose to see the biggest celebrity
Posted by: Suzon on Jan 19, 2008 3:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wouldn't many people want to say to their grandchildren that they had seen a real president speaking than that they had listened to a good speech by someone who never made it? And Clinton was not just president but a very charismatic one.

So, attendance levels aren't necessarily predictive of caucus results.

At least this article includes Edwards. And, by the way, 9 am is not the best time to speak to catering workers. The night shift is crashing and the early shift is working. Wonder what the turnout would have been in the mid-afternoon?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama late because of highly likely emergency strategy session with Karl Rove
Posted by: xbj on Jan 19, 2008 4:46 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Figuring out what their options are and the tact they'll take if someone from the mainstream media actually does ask themselves why a George Bush appointed judge would insure a preferential advantage that could well hand Nevada to Obama via the Culinary Union Casino Caucuses and starts digging in Obama's campaign finance reports to find all the GOP front organizations and Big GOP contributors behind many of the contributions, and if, horror of horrors for them, actually traces Rove to the campaign. Also, a "brush-up" session as to Democrats' real attitudes toward Reagan, Bush, Republicans and the Republican Party, and the Iraq War, and not how GOP apologists, strategists, and propagandists see those people and issues, also not the lies the rank and file GOP believe about thoses issues, lies that Obama has been spouting without thinking, exposing himself.

Just like the planning of 9-11, they never dreamed anyone would figure it out, but Obama is Obama, and has already made far too many GOP slips while pretending to be a Democrat.

I know this angers many Obama voters who want to believe in the man (I did so myself, thinking he'd be a fantastic President from 2016-2024 when America would be ready for him after enough old racist voters had finally died), but dig for yourself; his truth is out there.

And it's not Democrat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks Steve
Posted by: xbj on Jan 19, 2008 5:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for coming to Nevada, and working so hard to bring alternet such a great and thorough report. And for letting us know that you're not from here, and have to get your perspective on the situation by talking to a couple of casino workers who say they won't be participating or voting for Edwards (until the "won't be participating" ones get grabbed by their coworkers on the free break and dragged to the caucus and until the Edwards voter gets in the caucus and sees they are the only one in that group by themselves).

I happen to LIVE in Las Vegas, I've WORKED in the casinos and hotels for the past TWENTY years, and my particular job has insured I have worked in more hotels and casinos than any other possible worker, and I have come into contact and seen first hand union, peer, and certainly management pressure. I can tell you about the massive American flag that went up in Sheldon Addelson's Venetian Hotel inside the loading dock entry after 9-11; I can tell you what a hotel ballroom looks like with over 500 culinary lined up to serve it before an event, and I can tell you if those caucuses don't hand the election to Obama, it WILL be a God-given miracle to the good guys.

That's MY perspective, and if you'd like to interview me, you know where to e-mail me to set something up before you leave town.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Low Turnout & the Electoral System
Posted by: Liberty G on Jan 19, 2008 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The statistic in this story, "More than 80 percent of the elections in the U.S. are won by less than 5 percent of the vote" blew me away, because it connects with some of my concerns head-on.

It is already a disgrace that presidents and other candidates "win" with less than a majority of the votes cast. For example, Hillary Clinton's "victory" in New Hampshire represented around 40 per cent of those voting. That means that 60 per cent of Democrats participating in the primary did NOT want her! Both Bill Clinton and George W. were elected with quite a bit less than half the votes (never mind the legitimacy of some of those - another issue). Worse, a large number of eligible voters never show up at the polls (or caucuses).

Well, why is that? Maybe because the system is set up in a way that makes it virtually impossible to back an independent candidate, one not swarming with corporate money. Maybe because you can't vote your heart without risking election of the very person you most dislike. (The "Nader effect"). Maybe because you never get to hear anything meaningful about what these characters actually will do - and what you do hear is the same old rhetoric.

Two changes could transform everything - although both are unlikely to happen.
1. Instant Run-Off Voting. This is often portrayed as "too complicated". Really? All it means is that you put down your first, second, maybe third choice on a ballot. Are voters so dumb that they can't count to three? This allows you to vote for, say, Kucinich, if that's your real desire. If no candidate gets 50%, those with the least votes are eliminated. If your first pick is dumped, you automatically get a vote for number two. The final outcome - a winner with support by a true majority of voters! And, I believe it would be surprising to see how many would vote for "minor" candidates if they didn't fear that would waste their vote.

2. Free, Meaningful Public Air Time. The reason elections are now totally in the hands of the money crowd is the need to buy stupid, 30 or 60 second TV ads - that's where most of the millions of dollars go. By the way, nobody has yet explained to me why/how we gave away those airwaves that were public property, to be used for private gain, and retaining virtually no public usage. Anyway, the minimum that should be required is significant, meaningful time during election season on all major TV stations. That does not mean "debates" with one-minute canned sound bite answers to trite questions, but real discussion of issues. ALL candidates should be included, and challenging questions should be posed by independent media and individual citizens. And there should be back and forth - the best example is the "Great Debate" recently that actually gave several hours to real talk among both the Republican and Democratic bunches.

Personally, I have wavered between Obama and Edwards - like Obama for not calling for forced payment for health insurance I can't afford, Edwards for no nuclear energy and no corporate money. The latter will probably win the day with me - but by the time I get to vote, it probably won't count for anything. (Another reason for Instant Run Off - media and corporate picked candidates couldn't close down the race before it ran its course).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Neighbor
Posted by: Neighbor on Jan 19, 2008 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was great to come back to Alternet and see all the comments already. The two about celebrity really took me back to my parents taking me to see Ike when he campaigned in our town from the back of a train. I KNOW they didn't vote for him, so that perhaps correlates a tad with the numbers of people turning out for Bill Clinton or Oprah. I have enjoyed seeing the "stars" out for Edwards because they are diverse and hung in there with him at many appearances. I'm grateful that they chose to use their celebrity to help draw a crowd for him. Right now I can only remember Kevin Bacon, Jackson Browne, James Denton of "Desperate Housewives," Danny Glover, John Mellencamp, Bonnie Raitt, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon. The strong statement this week was great from former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes that Edwards "is the best positioned to win all across the country, not just part of it." It is so important for our country that a Democrat WIN come November, and the negatives are just too high for the other two major candidates. I wish Kucinich was running stronger, but I don't believe it can happen. How I wish he would endorse Edwards. It was great that the Daytona Beach, Fla., paper did endorse Edwards this week. Please, Nevada, go caucus for Edwards today. I KNOW you won't regret it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kwitcherbelliakin, Hill-Billy
Posted by: Philip Newton on Jan 19, 2008 9:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary complains that unions in Nevada aren't playing fair and are "strong-arming" people? Hmmm. She never complained when AFSCME, et al, endorsed her and worked on her behalf.

Hill-Billy Clinton is playing the oldest anti-union yellow card in the deck.

When unions support her, she doesn't complain. I wonder if we want someone who will weep and whine her way into the White House.

I'm an SEIU member, not from Nevada, and I support Edwards. But Clinton's nastiness towards Obama is repulsive -- and speaks volumes.

Go home, Hill-Billy. New York misses you.

I hope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Kwitcherbelliakin, Hill-Billy Posted by: YellowdogD
FINAL REPORT, POST CAUCUS: Only 2 of 10 of the Casino Caucuses showed Pressure
Posted by: xbj on Jan 20, 2008 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BUT IT WAS ENOUGH TO GARNER OBAMA ONE MORE DELEGATE THAN CLINTON, DESPITE HER STATEWIDE 6% POINT LEAD

Throughout Las Vegas and in eight of the ten casino caucus locations, Hillary ruled with a consistent 6 percentage points.

However, in two of the ten casino locations, peer and union pressure DID tilt their particular caucuses to Obama. And that won ONE MORE DELEGATE FOR OBAMA THAN CLINTON, even though she won with 6% points.

And these caucuses were obviously abberant, and proved my fears were not unwarranted.

Only in a handful of black neighborhoods did Obama even TIE Hillary.

No one in our precinct picked Edwards. Not a single Edwards voter.

In our precinct, 12 people came completely out of the woodwork to be hard corps Hillary supporters; they'd never turned in a card to the Hillary campaign, so they weren't on the rolls.

Anyway, despite the ruling by George Bush's Judge Mahan, despite trying to infect the entire campaign with one of the worst flu bugs I have ever experienced in my life, Hillary won Nevada, fair and square, no voting machines used here at all folks.

I do have to say, for all my mistrust and suspicion of Obama himself, his local supporters (mostly female and various union) from my own neighborhood were stellar good people. The hired college males from the Obama campaign; another story entirely, never met a more nasty bunch. They could have given the young Republicans (aka the Hitler Youth) a run for their money.

Because of them, and the various GOP gaffes Obama himself has made, I'd still rather see anyone as Hillary's veep, especially Ron Paul, than Obama. But my heart would go out to Obama's good supporters. If Obama truly is GOP, he can't be trusted even for any cabinet position.

So that's my final report; on to Super Tuesday.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]