Hillary Wins Nevada ; Takes the Las Vegas Strip

CNN calls Nevada for Hillary Clinton. And, she won the majority of the at-large caucuses on the Las Vegas strip, despite the culinary workers endorsement.

Clinton has carried at sites in the Flamingo, the Rio, Paris Las Vegas, the Bellagio, and Wynn Las Vegas. Only the site at Caesars has gone for Obama so far. First vote at the Mirage was 178 for Clinton and 153 for Obama and 3 for Edwards and three uncommitted. So on second round, that site, too, apparently will go for Clinton. The Luxor site is closely divided and voting again. No word from New York New York.

Update: Harry Reid was right. Caucus turnout exceeded 100,000. Final at-large strip caucus tally: Hillary wins 7, Obama 2. With 91% of vote in, it's Hillary 51%, Obama 45%, Edwards 4%. In Clark County, it's Hillary 55%, Obama 44%.

Update: Hillary has won 7 of 9 of the strip caucuses.

Update: 81% of vote in, Hillary has 51%, Obama 45%, Edwards 4%. CNN says African American voters went overwhelmingly for Obama, Latino voters went huge for Hillary. Obama won younger vote, Hillary won older voters and women voters. John King needs to wake up. He just called Hillary's win "close." It's not close, it's just not as big a margin as the polls gave her a few months ago. [More...]

Update: As for John Edwards:

[Advisor John]Bonier would not say how the thumping in Nevada would effect the longevity of Edwards’ run for the presidency. He said Edwards had 1,000 people at events in Oklahoma City and St. Louis Friday, and is hoping to do well in South Carolina, where he was born. Edwards had still not hit 5 percent of the vote with 63 percent of precincts reporting.
< Democratic Caucuses Open in Nevada: Live Results Thread | Latinos, Women, Democrats Win Nevada For Clinton >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hillary LOST! (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by BDB on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 03:24:23 PM EST
    I know this because Bill Bennett just said so.  If Clinton doesn't win by at least 10%, then she loses.   I guess it's the inverse of the McCain rule - he wins even when he loses.  Clinton loses even when she wins.

    At-large sites (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Grey on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 03:28:08 PM EST
    Clinton has now won 6 of the 9 at-large caucus sites.  That's huge!

    Maybe the Culinary Union should have polled its members before endorsing anyone.

    final strip caucus tally (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 03:52:28 PM EST
    Hillary wons 7 of 9. She crushed him on the Strip.

    Does any union do that? (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 03:54:38 PM EST
    Culinary (none / 0) (#29)
    by koshembos on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:38:49 PM EST
    The CWU was fully aware that its rank and file, mainly Hispanics, tends Clinton. The larger picture is that the leaders, probably, believed that Obama is going to win and endorsing him gives them a political advantage. As we all see, the rank and file voted the way they intended to all along. I don't see a conflict here; these are two different votes and different voters.

    4% (none / 0) (#1)
    by andreww on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 03:16:02 PM EST
    Is anyone else surprised by this low of a number for Edwards.

    Yes, although he didn't seem relevant during (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 03:18:02 PM EST
    the recent LV debate.

    I've heard that JRE (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by RalphB on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 03:19:37 PM EST
    threw his union support to Obama.  Maybe not a good idea after all.

    Congrats! (none / 0) (#5)
    by athyrio on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 03:23:15 PM EST
    Yea Hillary!!! You go girl!!!

    Edwards did? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Harry Davis on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 03:41:37 PM EST
    Link? (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:14:02 PM EST
    Viability (none / 0) (#4)
    by BDB on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 03:22:53 PM EST
    I think he wasn't viable in a lot of precincts and so got zeroed out there.

    In Hillary We Trust (none / 0) (#8)
    by talkingpoint on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 03:36:55 PM EST
     First, I must say that I am a male., and I am happy to see that the backwards way of thinking that a woman belongs to serve the men of this country is eroding. Hillary can lead this country out of the dark and into the light. Hillary is a champion for women and for America. Hillary was ready to lead this country for over a decade ago. GO HILLARY. WE LOVE YOU. Lets not worry that 80% of the rightwing of this country dislikes her, which is bringing down her likeability, because if they hate her, that means that she is doing something correct. HILLARY 08.

    That's some awesome reasoning. (none / 0) (#24)
    by DA in LA on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:30:02 PM EST
    I'm a little disturbed by what appears to be racism within the Hispanic community.  It does not bode well for the future...

    Is it racisim also if black voters vote for Obama? (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:44:35 PM EST
    Not in my book (none / 0) (#31)
    by DA in LA on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:50:21 PM EST
    Just as it isn't gender bias when women vote for a woman.  I did not bring that up at all.

    But we have been told that Hispanics would not vote for a black candidate.  I hoped it would not be true.  But this appears to be the case in Nevada and it makes me sad.


    "We have been told, . . ." (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:01:25 PM EST
    By whom?  

    What I've heard/read long before this primary started, is that some blacks resent the fact some Latinos seem to be able to get there feet on the ground economically in the U.S., despite being recent arrivals, compared to poverty and unemployment in the black population so many years after the Civil War and Civil Rights Act.  Have no idea if this is accurate, plus, there is no Latino Dem. Presidential primary candidate, so who knows how that would play out.  Haven't read the NYT article yet though.  


    I don't want to go searching for it (none / 0) (#34)
    by DA in LA on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:11:47 PM EST
    But it has been stated by a couple of Hispanic leaders.

    Maybe Race/Maybe Not (none / 0) (#35)
    by BDB on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:39:35 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton has a lot of ties to hispanic leaders like Delores Huerta, one of the founders of the United Farmworkers of America.  And her ties to the hispanic community go back a long way - she baby sat the children of migrant farm workers as a teenager and registered hispanic voters in Texas for McGovern.  Her campaign, which is managed by Patty Solis Doyle, who is hispanic, has worked very hard out here in Western States, including Nevada, to organize hispanic voters.

    Race may very well be a factor as well, but I think Obama could probably compete for hispanic voters - like he has in Illinois - if he didn't have someone else with strong ties to the community.  In other words, to the extent race is an issue, I think Obama could overcome it or have a shot at overcoming it if not for Clinton's already strong ties to the latino community.   Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe one of the reasons Richardson dropped out was that he realized he wasn't going to be able to rally hispanics around him to make a showing out west.  I suspect the reason was their support for Hillary Clinton.


    I Should've Also Pointed Out (none / 0) (#36)
    by BDB on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:44:23 AM EST
    that Obama is not without support in the hispanic community, having gotten the endorsement of several community leaders himself.  And not hispanic might feel strongly positive for Clinton.

    But I think her history of working closely with hispanics has given her important organizing allies, like Huerta, which make it difficult for Obama to win over the average hispanic voter who otherwise might be open to him.

    In LA, for example, she's been endorsed by Mayor Villaraigosa.  He's had his problems since becoming Mayor, but he had a pretty good machine to turn out the hispanic vote.  If he puts it behind her, that will be a tremendous help.


    Las Vegas Strip (none / 0) (#10)
    by DaveOinSF on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 03:42:39 PM EST
    Final Score:
    Hillary 7
    Obama 2

    Paris and Rio went almost 2:1 for Hillary
    Wynn, Mirage, Bellagio, NYNY and Flamingo also go to Hillary
    Caesar's (barely) and Luxor go to Obama.

    Reassuring... (none / 0) (#11)
    by oldpro on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 03:51:18 PM EST
    The Clinton campaign, for all the awkward stumbles this month, got it together both on the ground and on the air.  Candidate gets a lot of credit from me for traversing a very bumpy road in Nevada.  This experience will be valuable in dealing with the Rs next fall...

    Record turnout! (none / 0) (#14)
    by Grey on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 03:55:27 PM EST
    Final Score (none / 0) (#15)
    by SFHawkguy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:01:36 PM EST
    So sad that liberals missed an historic chance to fight for liberal ideas.  Liberalism is now set back decades.  It is truly a sad day for liberals.  

    The United States will continue it's aggressive foreign policy.

    The Unites States will continue to imprison the highest percentage of its citizens in the world.  And black men will continue to be incarcerated at horrifying rates.  The criminal justice system will continue to skew towards fascism.

    Our civil liberties will not recover.

    And worse of all, those of us who care about the above will be further banished from the conversation because HIllary will make sure the media and Republicans think of us as crazy lefties.  Hillary's right-of-center corporatism will be the new "left".

    Those of you who claim to support liberalism are responsible for choosing to sabotage liberal ideas--all so a single person can get elected.  

    Hillary wins while liberalism dies.

    Overreacting A Bit? (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:05:07 PM EST
    There is almost no difference between the three. Just different flavors that basically taste the same.

    Unless you are talking about Feingold... hate to break it to you but he was not running.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#18)
    by SFHawkguy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:12:05 PM EST
    That's why I didn't like any of the three leading Democrats.  But Hillary is the worst.

    I have no idea why liberals are putting so much energy into the minor differences between these candidates.  


    OK (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:21:25 PM EST
    But hardly different enough on policy to deserve to be singled out by your diatribe. It sounds emotional and unfair given the context of her win.  

    Clinton Derangement syndrome?


    Good One (none / 0) (#25)
    by SFHawkguy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:31:12 PM EST
    Republican humor, i.e. "Clinton derangement syndrome" is so . . . . what's the word I'm looking for . . . not funny.

    This type of game is exactly what too many people I used to respect have gotten caught up in during the nomination process.  And you Clinton supporters are the ones that appear to be the worst offenders.  

    Let me spell this out for you.  I have NOTHING PERSONAL against Hillary.  I spent the 90s defending her and Bill.  In fact, the only positives I take from a Hillary nomination is that it will be good to have a female president and I think she will be a good manager.

    But those two positives pale in comparison to the damage she will do to liberalism.

    And I care about liberal ideas far more than I care about one candidate--even Hillary.


    I couldn't agree more (none / 0) (#32)
    by DA in LA on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:52:43 PM EST
    I spend years defending these people as well, but have turned on her based mostly on her foreign policy, but also her corporate connections.

    Now if I criticize her, I have fallen for the Republican attacks.  This site is the other side of the coin of Kos.


    Hillary defines Liberalism (none / 0) (#17)
    by talkingpoint on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:10:55 PM EST
    Hillary is a liberal, who will end the war and promote peace. Hillary have been fighting for human rights for decades. Hillary will introduce universal healthcare. Hillary will take on the oil companies. Hillary will fight against corporate greed. Hillary will fight for the working class. If you don't believe Hillary is a true liberal, then I don't know where you been getting your news from. Look at her track record.

    Ha Ha Ha (boo hoo hoo) (none / 0) (#19)
    by SFHawkguy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:13:12 PM EST
    I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that one!

    It is completely deluded. (none / 0) (#26)
    by DA in LA on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:32:32 PM EST
    Someone should tell talkingpoint that Hillary doesn't even have a plan for Universal Healthcare.

    One more point (none / 0) (#21)
    by SFHawkguy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:17:42 PM EST
    Unfortunately, you are the proverbial blind pig that just found a nut.  Yes, Hillary "defines" liberalism because the media and the right-wingers have been so effective as painting Hillary's right-of-center policies as liberal.  

    And guess what.  You took Rush's bait.  As did the Democratic party.


    Will BTD now devote his time to (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:25:49 PM EST
    critquing Clinton campaign from the vantage point of Talk Left? Looks like Obama campaign may be on a downhill slope.  

    But if he wins the next one, he's on an uphill (none / 0) (#27)
    by DA in LA on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:33:36 PM EST
    slope.  Up and down, up and down...

    Good point. (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:36:40 PM EST
    [Ever stop to think BTD's critique of Obama campaign may be the reason Obama lost NV and NH?  BTD could determine who is the eventual Dem. nominee!]