Nevada Democratic Caucus

Here’s my perspective as a first-time Nevada caucuser, having lived in Maryland for 57 years before moving here three years ago. (This post will have little or no political commentary, just an account of the caucus experience, which may be of interest to some outside the Silver State.)

Having only voted in primaries before this, I was not favorably disposed to the idea of a caucus. Although turnout for primaries and mid-terms is always lower than for general elections, the whole concept of a caucus strikes me as about as undemocratic as a democratic process can get, at least the way the Democrats do it in Nevada. (More about the Republican process below.)

Caucusing (for Dems) requires a time commitment of 2-3 hours on a Saturday. The duration alone must discourage large numbers of people who, even if they wanted to participate, may have other commitments or might not be able to get out of work. It certainly isn’t an attractive proposition for any but the most dedicated members of the party, or those who, like my wife and I, feel it is an important civic duty. It is much more difficult than simply voting in a primary, which, because of the low turnout, is usually quite quick.

Yesterday’s caucus drew less than 12,000 Democrats, out of 471,000 active registered Democrats. (Cite for the number of Dems statewide.) Check my math if you like, but that’s 2.5%. A quick Google search suggests that primary turnout is typically much higher.

So my wife and I get to the caucus location, an elementary school about ten minutes’ walk from our house, and find many long lines of people waiting to register. However, since I had pre-registered, I was looking for the number to which I was supposed to text my pre-registration code to let me check in automatically. I asked several volunteer workers what the number was or how to get it. No one knew. Eventually, I checked in with a woman who had and iPad linked (I think) to the NV Dems website. And she wasn’t well informed enough to simply enter my code, but asked me for name, zip code, etc. So a certain lack of organization and training. (Needless to say, that was to be expected. As Will Rogers said, “I belong to no organized political party. I’m a Democrat.”)

We were given a ballot card and told our precinct number and directed to a small classroom. We had to wait until everyone who was in line to check in at noon, the cut-off time, had gotten to the proper room. But well before that, our small room was getting very crowded and warm. There were a fair number of older people, so our temporary precinct captain went looking for a larger room for us. Fortunately, he found one, and we all moved, bringing our kid-sized chairs with us.

Once we had word that everyone was in the correct room, they read us letters from Senator Harry Reid, the woman who is running to replace him when he retires this year, the head of the Nevada Democratic committee, and from Bernie and Hillary.

We counted off to discover that there were 117 of us in the room, and then separated into our “first alignment” groups: Bernie, Hillary, and undecided. That count worked out to be 48, 114, and 5 respectively.

(In case you hadn’t realized it, please note that this is not a secret ballot: everyone in the room knows what side --literally – you’re on. Not only that, but the party keeps your ballot, with your name and vote, in its possession. This is yet another count against the caucus process as conducted by the Democrats in Nevada.)

We were given 15 minutes for people on each side to speak in favor of their candidates, after which the undecided folks were asked to decide; the “second alignment.” Three went to Hillary, two to Bernie. Our precinct’s final tally: Hillary 67, Bernie 50. They asked anyone who wanted to be a delegate to the county convention to stay, and the rest of us went home. My wife and I had arrived a little before 11:30 and were heading home by 1:30.

My final impression was slightly more favorable than how I felt beforehand. The speeches people gave in the 15 minutes were largely heartfelt and respectful of the other candidate. People were generally respectful of one another, cooperative, and friendly. I was able to have the last word, and reminded everyone that regardless of whether the nominee was Hillary or Bernie, it was vital that all Democrats vote for that nominee and for the Democrats running for all other offices, come November. That got a big round of applause.

On the walk home I felt good about seeing people involved in the process, and participating myself, but in the end, I would still rather see a primary election that involved even more people.

The Nevada Republicans do it differently, and there are aspects of their process I would prefer. Their caucus is on a Tuesday evening, from 5 to 7:30, which would seem to be less conducive to good turnout than Saturday. But once you check in, you’re given a ballot (which I don’t think has your name on it) which you can fill out, drop in the box, and leave. They conduct various party business, which you can stay for if you want, but you don’t have to. So it is a secret ballot, and the commitment of time is substantially less and little more than a primary would be.

So there you go, the Nevada caucus process, as seen by a first-timer.

Right, he lost by 5.5%, so Nate Silver isn’t saying what you’re saying he is–Silver’s projections said that in an even race (national polling) Bernie needs to lose by no more than 3% in Nevada, he lost by more than that.

He also is still down by 25% or more in South Carolina, so it’s highly unlikely he will be able to get within the 11% margin that Silver indicates he’d need to be in. That chart also assumes a tied national race–like all candidates in primaries the more you lose the worse your standing gets, lots of voters just follow the trends. If Bernie loses South Carolina by the 25% he’s expected to, and then only wins Vermont / Massachusetts / Minnesota (and only wins the two M states by close votes) on Super Tuesday and loses all the others by the large margins he’s projected to, it’s gravely unlikely his national polling will hit 50/50 with Hillary after that point because all the talking heads will be talking about afterward is Hillary’s “insurmountable delegate lead.” Which will depress voter interest in future contests on the Bernie side.

I appreciate the description of the caucusing process commasense, having never participated in one it’s interesting to get a first hand account. Like you I don’t really like the concept, while it sounds nice in a “small town kind of way” to have this process where individual voters get to have time to speak and etc, I still think it’s just too undemocratic. In a state where so many work in the hospitality industry (which runs 24/7/365, so there is no “off day”) getting 3 hours off to go vote isn’t easy. And a lot of voters will be intimidated and uncomfortable having to publicly show who they are supporting, I think a lot of people are a lot more comfortable with the secret ballot.

Not sure even from that article alone I read that. He needs to beat those 50/50 metrics, not tie them, not lose them by only a little. Consistently beat them. So far he has not. That does not bode well.

Nate’s more recent take, stating that Sanders at least made some progress …

Now factor a few things in … an insurgent campaign lives or dies on momentum. Sanders will go into the big races with this loss and highly probably a resounding loss in SC next Saturday. He did as well as he did in Nevada (a modest loss in a moderately diverse voting population state) by spending lots on television ads, much more than Hillary did. The spin given is the advantage Team Hillary had with organization on the ground that Sanders did not have the time or resources to build; he’s had so much more to build it in all of the March 1 states? Then there is the superdelegates issue … no question that if there was a major popular vote and regular delegate win for Sanders you’d see superdelegates flipping, as they did for Obama. But they do minimally create a tie breaker goes Hillary circumstance.

Realistic chance? Depends on your value for realistic. Not impossible. But he had been the underdog already and winning there would have created the buzz needed get over the next loss and enter March 1 with some optimism. He did not get what he needed. Pure simple.

Keep in mind–not many superdelegates “flipped” for Obama. A lot of them had never endorsed anyone yet, and did so to finish up the primary season in 2008 once it was clear Obama was going to finish with more pledged delegates than Hillary. Clinton made the decision to concede when 60 previously uncommitted superdelegates came out for Obama near the very end of the campaign, on the same day. Clinton did lose some to Obama that had committed to her, but that majority of Obama’s superdelegate margin was made up of people who committed only once in the campaign–to him.

The 400+ Clinton says have committed to her this campaign is somewhat unprecedented, I think in 2008 she had like 140 or something at this point, with the lest undecided.

Thanks to commasense for that detailed first-hand account. Very interesting.

No doubt he is still the underdog, and not performing at the pace he would need to win the nomination thus far…but he doesn’t need to pick up the pace by a LOT in order to win. Nevada was a missed opportunity for him, and there will only be a finite number of such opportunities, but it certainly wasn’t the knockout blow Clinton would have hoped for.

I’m wondering why everyone seems so focused on South Carolina, when several other states vote the same day. Barring a miracle, Clinton will win SC and Bernie will win VT and probably MN. Colorado, Oklahoma and Massachusetts will be the really interesting cases; wins for Sanders there, especially by decent margins, would bode for a long race.

Your schedule is off by about a week–the South Carolina Democratic primary doesn’t happen on the same day as any of those states, those states are on Super Tuesday.

Edit: More specifically South Carolina is this coming Saturday, Super Tuesday is Tuesday of the following week (so only 3 days later.)

South Carolina is traditionally one of the earlier states to run, and typically isn’t part of Super Tuesday–you’d be correct it’d be odd to focus on it if it was one of many Super Tuesday states, but it’s actually not.

Ah. I was misreading the chart I linked to. Thank you.

Bernie’s best hope rests on the presumption that Nevada is a poor reflection of the rest of the country despite its not too unrepresentative demographics. That it is a special case.

And that is not a completely unreasonable argument to make. It is a traditionally low turn out caucus and the machinations on each side may have had outsized impacts that might not be reflective of what will happen in other states.

Maybe Team Hillary’s in-place organization won’t work as well to get out their vote in other states and his more recently put together and less well funded one will, in states where turn out is higher to begin with … but again, the going gets tougher for him from here, not easier. He could afford to swamp the Nevada market (including Hispanic channels) with tv ads and cover ground; it still had a lot of White voters. Now he fights on Hillary’s turf, where her larger war chest and established long time in place organization and local connections, as well the less often lily White demographics, all work for her.

Unfortunately the special case aspects of Nevada would better have explained him doing better than he needed to do there than worse.

Preview … I actually would be most interested in Texas as his big spot to make a race of it. Lots of delegates, sparsely polled so far, I can see social networks getting a mess of young Whites moved into Austin from other areas coming out for him. MA he might win, close enough to his home turf and NH that his past inputs will have some results, but not enough to do more than basically split the delegates there … and the possible “win” part will be lost at that point by the fact that he will lose most everything else and be way behind in delegate count end of that day, losing big in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, and likely Virgina. Probably losing handily in Texas too. Even if he somehow managed to pull off the Colorado and Minn, caucuses (and HRCs organization should win the day there again) the math becomes the only story to tell.

And I will say media reaction this election has been goofy as hell, and at least for the Bernie v Hillary contest I think it’s almost designed just to elicit attention and controversy.

Take New Hampshire–we’ve known for a long time Hillary was going to lose there. Her best case scenario was losing by 15 pts, but 20 pts was kinda what the best aggregate guess of the polls was. After the last two elections, when aggregate polling (not just done by Nate Silver, but he’s the most prominent one doing it) was shown to be so accurate it’s weird that the media went crazy when Hillary actually lost by 20 points.

It was weird to me that New Hampshire’s media reaction was “zomg Hillary is losing??? is this a repeat of 2008? ZOMG!!!” because it was essentially the expected result. Further, in context–we had seen that polling throughout the Super Tuesday states hadn’t shifted that dramatically in the weeks leading up to New Hampshire. Now admittedly, winning New Hampshire gives you national notice and was likely to help Bernie, but I think cooler heads had known for over a month he was going to win big there and for reasons that wouldn’t carry over to most other states.

Now go forward to Nevada and Hillary wins by 5.5%, and the weight of major news outlets are describing it as an immense victory for Hillary. Now, I think it bodes well for her (as I’ve said at length), but by itself it’s not this huge event, but because the media perception is so different from reality, it is a huge event.

The media especially in the proportional races make way too much out of “winning.” Iowa was proportional, Hillary and Sanders basically tied, but Hillary was given the win. In that case the media focused more on how close Sanders got (I suspect because that was the more interesting story) to winning the popular vote. But in the Republican Iowa Caucuses, where I believe Cruz got 1 more delegate than the next 2 candidates based off of coming in 1st, he was crowned in the media as the “heir apparent” and likely guy to take down Trump. He won by a few points, got 8 delegates to Trump and Rubio’s 7 a piece, and it was like he had won the super bowl.

But then after New Hampshire it’s a different narrative, Trump buries Cruz (true), Kasich resurgent (now forgotten since he was a non-factor in South Carolina), Bush beat expectations (now a non-factor) etc. The media reporting on the outcomes to me is very, very stupid this year. They need to put things in more proper context in my opinion, and they especially need IMO to do a better job explaining that many of these early primaries (for the Republicans–and all of them til the end of the season for the Democrats) are proportional, so coming in a narrow first is only a small advantage over coming in second. But for some reason they’d rather report on these primaries like they are all first past the post elections.

When you haven’t lost a race yet by more than a slim margin, you don’t have to “hope” for anything. You just move on to the next race and the next one and hope you win more delegates than the other guy.

If Sanders can lose by only 5 in a state as diverse as Nevada, then he can win in an awful lot of places. Not SC, obviously, but states like Michigan, New York, and Missouri he can definitely win, as well as clean house in all the small white states like Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, etc.

I actually think Hillary loses both Minnesota and Massachusetts, possibly by 5-8% or so, in terms of delegates it won’t be a “huge margin” difference, he wins Vermont immensely, which will be a decent margin difference, and then he is probably going to lose by 15 pts or more in all the Southern states that hold elections on Super Tuesday. I think after the way Hillary’s lack of involvement in lots of smaller states and caucuses hurt her so much in 2008, she won’t lose huge margins in very many states. Vermont/New Hampshire were unavoidable for that, but if she can keep it within 5 in places like Washington, Wisconsin, Minnesota etc, places with lots of whites and young liberals, and wins by 15% or more in all the Southern conservative states the delegate math gets pretty bad for Bernie. In some of the big more diverse states like California, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York I think Hillary will win smallish margin victories, those huge states with diverse populations and lots of money and effort required to run a campaign in don’t bode well for Bernie.

And then on the other side, they report on Republican South Carolina race as if it WASN’T first past the post even though it basically is, because it’s a lot more exciting that way.

100% agree with the above (ETA: meaning Martin’s post 101). The first sentence of the Chicago Tribune’s report on Nevada was “Hillary Clinton’s victory…puts her back in command to win the Democratic Presidential nomination.”

Putting aside the mangled grammar, there was never a time at which she wasn’t “in command”, in the sense of being the heavy favorite, and Nevada didn’t substantially improve her position. People always seem to complain that the media focuses too much on the "horse race"rather than on issues, but I really don’t remember it being quite so bad in previous years.

The big delegate count states are more “diverse”, so no he can’t plod along. He’s getting creamed in New York, what are you talking about?

He’s down by a huge amount in Michigan–I’ve long said that’s one of the reasons I feel Sanders won’t win, Michigan is the kind of state he needs to be scary competitive in, and he’s down by 15-20%.

He’s down now, before he starts focusing on the state. So far, any state Bernie spends money in, he either wins, or comes very close.

Well, he’s actually campaigning in South Carolina, so I expect this trend that includes all of 3 states (one in which he was favored in for months) will come to an end.

Nitpicky, and you may have already acknowledged this point–this is only his best hope presuming his actual goal is to secure the nomination, not to move the conversation. If he’s trying to move the conversation, his best hope is that Clinton commits herself to some progressive positions she wouldn’t otherwise have committed to, and that she defends those positions energetically during the post-nomination campaign.