Late polling out of Nevada shows an Edwards collapse that is benefiting Clinton. This is obviously the worst possible news for both Obama and Edwards. It looks like the Clintons are using Obama’s anti-gambling history against him, which is just one more reason for me to want to puke.
You can learn some about how the caucuses are going to work and lay of the land here. I am not going to predict the outcome of tommorow’s contest but I will say that Obama cannot afford to lose and Edwards cannot afford a collapse below the 15% mark. Both of those outcomes are now indicated in the polls. So, my fingers are crossed and I am not at all happy.
Any one have any good news?
“The split on gambling between the Democratic rivals is a little-noticed but meaningful development that could affect the caucus vote Saturday and the broader election … “
If it is little noticed how can it have a significant affect? Just sayin’
I heard an interesting radio interview with some professor type who had studied the impact casinos have on the poor.
He made an interesting observation that the truly poor are not likely to be able to afford a car needed to get to most casinos. He said the gambling poor tend to instead play state run lotteries.
And if they can get to the casino, they are much more likely to be their to work than play.
Makes sense.
But I’m much more bothered that the gaming industry and its impact on society is always tainted by the fact that the states need the tax revenue.
When Corzine shut down NJ a few years back the outcry was about all the tax revenue being lost because it shuttered the AC casinos, not because basic services were not being provided
One result of Republican anti-tax absolutism is that it has become too painful to tax anything other than vice. And, so, vice is encouraged or not combated because the coffers depend on it.
Where would the budgets be without smokers?
Better to have low expectations imo. But everyone says it’s hard to poll Nevada anyway because it has never had caucuses before.
How did Nevada pick it’s delegates before this year?
We had caucuses but no one went because it was so late in the game that we didn’t matter. Though I think it’s new for the Republicans. I don’t know what they did before.
Thanks. I don’t know how I got the idea that this is the first year – I must have mis-read something, somewhere. In between wondering why South Carolina split it’s primary elections into two separate elections on two different days – which seems incredibly inefficient and expensive to me.
btw – is Hillary running any ads that are meant to appeal specifically to men? To counteract the AFCSME ad?
Personally, I found that AFCSME ad very appealing – but it’s meant for women. I’ve noticed men all over the blogosphere can’t stand it. What else is being run for her?
She is running her own campaign ads that you can see at her website. The “I found my voice” and “I hear your voice” and “I see dead people” – sorry, that’s “invisible people.” None are appealing to me but if I were female or really really poor, they might be.
I like a couple of Obama’s ads. One where he’s giving a speech and one that’s narrated by the Nova/Frontline announcer. I don’t like the one where he talks about his mother dying of cancer, but I’ll bet it’s popular among regular people.
.
PRIMARY RESULTS: Nevada – February 14, 2004
In 2004, Nevada had just 17 caucus locations. This year they will have 1,754. The state Democratic party is hoping for about 10 percent participation – that’s considered pretty good in caucuses, where turnout is lower than it is in primaries. That would mean about 40,000 Democrats will caucus, though some estimate that 60,000 or more could come out. Reid has suggested 100,000 Democrats might show up.
Democrats select their presidential candidate preference through a closed “caucus” system.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."ah, I see. It’s not that caucuses are new, it’s that its a whole new caucus system. Thanks!
And turnout anywhere from 40,000 and 100,000 … no wonder no one has a clue about the polls.
I haven’t heard about anyone’s positions on gambling in general until you pointed me to that TPM / LA Times article. And for that matter, average voters in Nevada probably don’t care what a presidential candidate says about gambling, so long as they don’t have any plans to harm our cash cow. The gambling profits taxes that the casinos pay to various levels of government pay for an awful lot of stuff, which keeps our property taxes and sales taxes low. We have no income tax.
And honestly, the locals don’t gamble much either. It’s an exciting thing for a tourist to do when they’re here but when you live around it, you see it for what it is – a way to lose a whole lotta money real fast. We go to casinos for nice meals and free or low-cost entertainment and the casinos compete to get us to come out and fill up their venue because tourists gamble more where the crowds are biggest.
Now Booman- explain to me why you think Obama “needs” to win Nevada. He may well win, but I don’t think he “needs” this state.
Just don’t try and predict it because NO ONE has ANY idea of who’s gonna show up and caucus. There has been alot of planning and mock-caucus training etc by the Dem party to try and get people interested. It’s all very organized. But who knows. I know my caucus location is an elementary school 1 block from my home. But is this really what people want to do on a Saturday morning? I don’t know.
There is interest on the Dem side for the campaigns but we’re sick of the damn TV ads. Obama’s events are usually at bigger venues and draw more people than Hillary’s, if that helps.
Don’t read too much into anything. Let’s just see how it goes. None of the national media understands anything about the way of life here so don’t listen to them. Think of Reno people as Northern Californians and think of Las Vegas people as Southern Californians, for the most part.
I think he needs to win both Nevada and South Carolina to reestablish himself as the frontrunner before the Feb 5th contests. Essentially, people need to think there is something wrong with the Clinton campaign, that it’s damaged or off the rails or something. Otherwise she will win California and most of the other Feb. 5th states.
Also, it’s probably not enough for Obama to win, he needs Edwards to stay viable and keep pulling in a healthy chunk of the white vote. If Edwards collapses, so does Obama.
I think he’ll win South Carolina. And if he’s got the kind of organization he ran in Iowa to get people out to caucus, he could win here too. I wonder how effective Hillary’s campaign is. Her supporters are mostly women from what I can gather and those sappy ads aimed at females of all ages may be effective. If you haven’t seen the AFSCME ad, you must. I can’t stand it and have to mute the TV.
Hey RandyH – don’t forget that those “Sappy” ads are directed at 52% of the public!WOMEN!!!!!!! You may not like them and I got to tell ya that they do mush it a bit but targeting women ain’t gonna hurt if ya get my drift!
A hell of a lot better than rudis bullshit fear ads, don’t you think? Or, the mittsters lies or mcains’ “Truth” ads!
Or are you afraid of women?
remember- we are in a growing MINORITY!
True. They’re better than the Republican ads. I hadn’t really thought of that because the R-s aren’t taking Nevada seriously and not advertising as much, except Ron Paul. I agree also that targeting women is a smart move. Maybe it’s just that I don’t like the product they’re trying to sell me. I’d love to have a woman president. It would be great. Just not that one.
I’m very interested to see this handled, as I don’t know of any place in the US that has it. Meaning, that if it does exist elsewhere in the US, it’s been below my radar. I know that liberals and progressives have been cage-rattling for it, particularly in poor areas, where they figure poor people are working during the week so they can’t vote, despite extended voting hours. Personally, I’m of the (extremely limited) mind that if the unemployment rate is high in an area and voting attendance is constantly low, weekend voting isn’t going to change that.
Honestly, I expect/hope the caucus sites to be SO PACKED full of people that they will have trouble conducting them, since everyone has to move around the room. I suspect that turnout will exceed all expectations, even though so much planning has gone into it. But I don’t want to get anyone’s hopes up by “predicting” it. I’m very excited about the whole thing but, as you all know, I am not normal.
The Saturday thing is new and I think it’s the best idea in voting of any kind ever. And most people are off on Saturday mornings. Around town, traffic is busy then because people are out running all of their errands. The caucus could just be another one of those errands.
also, isnt it true that anyone who works in casinos knows one singular fact: ultimately, the House ALWAYS WINS.
wnyc ny – Brian Lehrer this am played a MLK tape in which MLK and Pres Johnson are heard discussing Pres suggestion that He felt strongly that if he(MLK) were to keep the public pressure on via speeches and pulpit positions as well as encouraging others to keep repeating the mantra, he was sure that there would be a major change in US attitudes re civil rights issues!
Maybe its not “Good News” but it certainly seems to give support for Hills comments as well as showing that the presidency was engaged in the push for civil rights movement!
Can’t hurts the dems, can it?
I miss Dodd
Seems to me to be a trade off. W/Bush’s stimulus plan killing the stock market today, Hillary will either be perceived as the Pied Piper to lead back to Bill’s healthy economy era or a bitter participant of the last 7 yrs of establishment catastrophe. Today everything feels imminent.
Obama still has change stamped on his forehead, he just needs to make it translate into the stimulus package story cause folks are starting to show a pretty deep fear of the economy this afternoon.
Edwards, well I’m just praying the polls are the ’08 version of the exit polls which would mean he’s gonna win.
Edwards is collapsing and trying to take Obama down with him….His comments about Reagan are now being taken out of context by Hillary. She is actually repeating verbatim what the SO CALLED Progressive blogs have been spinning. So we should thank many of the progressive blogs for giving Hillary her talking points albeit false ones. Joer Trippi who has many FRIENDS on popular progressive blogs has been no=doubt spinning to the 2004 Deaniacs that Edwards has a real chance so go after Obama and they have faithfully obeyed……..Well it is now a backfire, The only hope is that Obama has a GREAT ground game, and that bigdog shot himself in the foot with his angry tirades.
Otherwise get ready for Hillary as the nominee. I find the whole episode and behavior of many of the so called progressive blogs (not Booman)incredibly pathetic. I am really angry right now by what has been going on, and of course IF Hillary is the nominee Howard Dean will be pushed out of the DNC, it was the Clintons who were against him and NEVER wanted him there in the first place. Let’s see how all those 2004 Deaniacs feel then, because they will bear part of the responsibility for his downfall, and I think Dean has been simply great!
yes, the stupidity of some of my comrades is stupifying.
Careful!!!!–“Comrades!”- this is 07 boo.
Hey- heres a piece of good news. Bob Grant was going to get a “life schievment award and then the award was pulled. The crazies are going nuts!
Completely agree. I’ve stopped visiting many sites over the past several months (actually was asked to leave a couple for not towing the anti-Obama line), because I was sickened by the self-destructive dialogue during the primaries. It went negative early and hard, and the focus drifted away from the common enemy on the other side.
isnt it true that in the Iowa caucus, all polls had Hillary in the lead? I do recall that Iowa was an upset because no one could have believed that Obamas ground campaign was so superior.
As for Edwards, I was supporting him until I saw that he doesnt change his tune. Hi is one dimensional and wants this even more than Hillary: desperately so, not for the country, but for themselves. They know only one tun and have no ability to be authentically flexible.
I personally think Obama knows what he is doing. He keeps his hand close. (pun intended)
Actually, I think it’s a good thing to focus on an actual issue (gambling) for a change.
Supporting the growth of gambling is a sh***y policy position to take, but at least it’s a real issue.