Clinton and Obama Win Nevada

So the Clintons like Nevada after all.

Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama by about six points in the state's caucus on Saturday, netting 12 of the 25 delegates at stake. But Barack Obama won the number that could matter most, earning 13 of Nevada's national convention delegates, which ultimately determine the Democratic nominee. That made for a "split decision," according to Congressman James Clyburn, an influential member of the House Democratic leadership who is unaffiliated with any candidate. Obama sounded even more confident on Saturday, saying "we came from over twenty-five points behind to win more national convention delegates than Hillary Clinton because we performed well all across the state, including rural areas where Democrats have traditionally struggled." But it's not that simple.

Rural areas did secure Obama's delegate edge. His five-point lead in the rural section of Nevada's Second Congressional District, which stretches across most of the state north of Las Vegas, won him the single delegate at stake there. With one delegate in play, caucus math is winner-take-all. So while Clinton won about 43 percent of the area, she had no delegates to show for it. And the delegates are weighed by past voter registration -- not the actual turnout on Saturday -- which can also widen a gap with the true popular vote. But the popular vote is not actually available.

The Nevada Democratic Party only released a statewide tally of local delegates. There are over 10,000 of them; Clinton has about half (5,335). But local delegates do not reflect a pure popular vote. Just like national delegates, if a local precinct only has one delegate, then it's winner-take-all. Precinct totals can exaggerate the support for the candidate in the lead, and minimize the totals for a trailing candidate. (That's why John Edwards' Nevada turnout appears unusually low.) If you think reading about this system is hard, just imagine caucusing.

Or just try explaining it. The AP and cable networks initially misreported Obama's delegate count. (The Nation first reported Obama's delegate lead.) The AP quickly caught the error, but its new article still incorrectly refers to the precinct totals as a "popular vote." And on caucus night, the pundits were already talking about John Edwards' collapse, as if the statewide tally was a popular vote.

The arcane caucus rules are not only important because they determine -- and potentially distort -- the voters' will. The caucus itself was a controversial issue all week, as the Clinton Campaign said parts of the system were unfair and potentially illegitimate. President Clinton ratcheted up the rhetoric on Friday, saying he personally witnessed voter suppression by members of a union backing Obama, an explosive charge that senior Clinton aides could not substantiate. (NBC's Chuck Todd pressed the issue on a Saturday conference call for reporters.) But in another curveball for this primary season, Hillary Clinton actually benefited from the caucus arrangements her campaign assailed, especially on the Las Vegas Strip. She dominated turnout at the 9 major casinos, which made an arrangement with the state party so that employees could caucus away from home. She won the most "at-large delegates," which President Clinton slammed as patently unfair because they counted "five times as much as everybody else." And her statewide numbers may be slightly higher than the true popular vote. Obama benefited too, of course, nabbing a national delegate in a region where Clinton's support was perfectly strong.

It all comes back to national delegates, since they pick the nominee. After Nevada, the Obama Campaign began circulating delegate-obsessed quotes from Clinton aides. ("You've got to remember this [is] about getting delegates." Terry McAuliffe! "This is a race for delegates…It is not a battle for individual states." Howard Wolfson!) But Nevada, like many states, does not bind national delegates by the actual turnout. Delegate preferences can technically change at the Nevada state party convention, held in April. (Many state parties operate on the premise that the nominee will be decided by the time of their conventions, anyway.) The Clinton Campaign invoked the convention in a three-sentence rebuttal to Obama on Saturday night: "Hillary Clinton won the Nevada Caucuses today by winning a majority of the delegates at stake. The Obama campaign is wrong. Delegates for the national convention will not be determined until April 19." Jill Derby, Chair of the Nevada State Party, also spoke out on delegates as the results came in. She emphasized that national delegate counts are "based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same," when in fact they could change at the convention. Derby added a disconcerting line to hammer the point home: "We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support."

Translation: If this thing is close, "we" party insiders will "choose" for the rest of the state.

At least the sparring over delegates has forced out a rare political confession, helping expose the distortions of these party rules. And the reforms present themselves: Require binding votes, absentee voting rights, proportional measurement and a true popular vote.

Updates: OpenLeft's Chris Bowers compares media coverage of indirect democracy in Nevada and in the electoral college, while CNN breaks down the numbers.

At Daily Kos, kid oakland tees off this column to question Bill Clinton's role in voter suppression. At TalkLeft, a post slams Obama for Trying To Play Bush To Hillary's Gore.

And The Nation's Chris Hayes goes rural...

Comments (15)

1. I'm trying my best to maintain some hope in the midst of the madness that continues to hold this nation by the balls.

   If Hillary is the Dem nominee, well........I don't know if I'll be able to effectively convey the kind of malaise that I'll feel.

   But let's hang on for a bit longer.

   On a lighter note, check out this cool vid, kids! You may have heard about this little gem lately. But it must be seen to be fully appreciated ;-)

   So you thought he was "a little nuts", think again!

   Enjoy. No really, enjoy this one. And then say a prayer of thanks to _______(insert favorite diety) that he's not our Prez.

   Hey, it's something to be grateful for :D

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/19/2008 @ 9:07pm

2. "It all comes back to national delegates, since they pick the nominee."

   And the SUPER-delegates, Mr. Melber.

   And....who....owns.......them?

   Posted by Mask at 01/19/2008 @ 9:10pm

3. I thought the Culinary Union was supposed to go for Obama, but half went with Clinton according to ABC news. I wonder if the Reagan comments hut Obama? What a mess!

   Posted by P. J. Casey at 01/19/2008 @ 10:25pm

4. Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/19/2008 @ 9:07pm

   Why? BK, why?!

   That guy is a manic Ted Bundy.

   Posted by ACook at 01/19/2008 @ 11:32pm

5. THE AMERICAN ELECTION PROCESS IS DISGUSTING AND APPALLING!!!

   Posted by MADLIB 01/19/2008 @ 10:12pm

   well, i must say it is archaic in a perplexing kind of way................................

   you should replace it with NATIONAL COIN TOSS DAY!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/20/2008 @ 12:07am

6. A modest proposal: Solve the caucus v. primary voting confusion nationwide in one go ... and save the taxpayers & parties $$$. Privatize the process. The parties each electoral cycle auction off the nomination process rights to corporate bidders. The winner or 2, say Disney & Philip Morris next time, then call a thousand or so scientifically selected voters who, in the comfort of their homes, register their candidate preferences, after a corporate & popularly financed billion $$$ TV ad & debate format campaign has informed the nation of the possible choices. Vox populi, why not, it's been done before. Call it "American Candidate" & lease the franchise to countries the US invades in its patriotic spread of freedom & democracy globally.

   Posted by Lit at 01/20/2008 @ 01:20am

7. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/19/2008 @ 10:54pm

   FRANKGRITS,

   Other than give upper-class Hispanics government jobs and contracts, what exactly have the Clintons done for the vast majority of Latinos at the bottom?

   Hillary continues to try to fool people of color by helping out wealthy and prominent minorities. This is a con game at the highest level in which a handful of people are helped at the expense of everyone else!

   Hillary lost the delegate count in Nevada because her appeal is TOO NARROW to win in November! It is this fact that the Democratic Party leadership needs to consider if we don't want another Republican in the White House.

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/20/2008 @ 2:43pm

8. B_KOOL_66: You are RIGHT on point. I don't know what I'll do if Hillary gets the nod. Quite frankly, that saps my energy just thinking about it. GO BARACK!!!

   Posted by thecmg at 01/20/2008 @ 6:17pm

9. As a European closely following American politics and once an admirer of Bill Clinton - he was a very good president - I am very disappointed by the development during the last month of the campaign. Surprising most people (even me) Barack Obama has surged and became a real contender. Until the middle of December we have seen a remarkable clean campaign, from all democratic candidates. But since then it has been awful - and it´s the Clinton campaign which is to blame...

   The candidate Hillary herself and her husband have baffled me with their negativity. Hillary has talked more and more about why Obama should not become president while Obama has tried to continue to talk about why he believes he is best candidate. Hillary has been delivering increasingly aggressive, and mostly untrue, accusations.

   Personally I believe Barack Obama would be a really transforming president, with an incomparable potential to change the view of USA in the world. I also think he would create more unity in USA than any other candidate could and (as a consecuence) deliver a lot of important reforms concerning, for example, health care and energy independence and improve the economy.

   David Brooks of The New York Times (who is not a Obama supporter) recently wrote one of the best political columns I ever read, about Barack Obama.

   http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/12673107.html

   In the column Brooks writes that presidents are "isolated and also exposed, puffed up on the outside and hollowed out within. With the presidency, character and self-knowledge matter more than even experience. There are reasons to think that, among Democrats, Obama is better prepared for this madness."

   Brooks continues: "Obama is an inner-directed man in a profession filled with insecure outer-directed ones. He was forged by the process of discovering his own identity from the scattered facts of his childhood, a process that is described in finely observed detail in "Dreams From My Father." Once he completed that process, he has been astonishingly constant."

   And he concludes : "Like most of the rival campaigns, I've been poring over press clippings from Obama's past, looking for inconsistencies and flip-flops. There are virtually none."

   The last two weeks have shown what USA would get too much of in a new Clinton presidency - political spinn and a lot of dishonesty. USA need a person with the right character for these difficult times. I believe Barack Obama is that person.

   Posted by nilsson at 01/20/2008 @ 6:26pm

10. Posted by NILSSON 01/20/2008 @ 6:26pm

    Seriously, NILSSON, Clinton wasn't a good president. Believe me when I tell you both are opportunistic vultures.

    Posted by ACook at 01/20/2008 @ 7:21pm

11. It's really interesting that on the eve of Martin Luther King day we are seeing voter suppression.

    Funny that that's coming from a man who is supporting the woman that tried to get rid of those sites all together to stop most of union voters from voting at all.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/20/2008 @ 9:51pm

12. The above quote is from Clinton 1 by the way.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/20/2008 @ 9:52pm

13. I would like to know this: did Barack Obama air a radio ad explaining to Republicans in the rural areas he did so well in that they should sign up as Democrats for a day and vote for him? I believe that's true. And I just got an e-mail from the Obama campaign, explaining how an Unaffilliated voter can vote for Obama.

    Once someone is registered as "Decline to State," here's how it works:

    Unaffiliated voters must specifically request a Democratic ballot. If they are voting in person, they can request the ballot at the polling place. If they are voting by mail, they must contact their County Elections Officer and request a Democratic ballot by January 29th:

    Legal? Sure. Does it fill me with confidence? No. Maybe the idea behind all this "bipartisanship" is simply the fact that, within the Democratic Party, Obama didn't see enough votes. So there went the radio ads, the squishy health policy, and the open encouragement for the right to veto the choice of Clinton. Too harsh? I don't think so. [my.barackobama.com]

    Posted by Swift2001 at 01/20/2008 @ 10:41pm

14. 肿瘤 [cnzhongliu.com] 癌症 [cnzhongliu.com] 癌 [cnzhongliu.com] 瘤 [cnzhongliu.com]

    Posted by xz116926 at 01/21/2008 @ 01:01am

15. 肿瘤 [cnzhongliu.com] 癌症 [cnzhongliu.com] 癌 [cnzhongliu.com] 瘤 [cnzhongliu.com]

    Posted by xz116926 at 01/21/2008 @ 01:02am