Latinos, Women, Democrats Win Nevada For Clinton

While Chris Bowers reaches for a union based explanation of Hillary's win in Nevada, the entrance polls clearly tell a different story -- it was Democrats, women and Latinos who gave Hillary the win.

Democrats went 51-39 for Clinton over Obama. Obama won independents by 47-33.

Women went for Clinton by 51-39 over Obama. Men split 47-45 for Obama.

Latinos went 64-26 for Clinton. Whites went 52-34 for Clinton. African Americans went 84-16 for Obama.

Obama is likely to score a big win in South Carolina based on his dominance of the African American vote. But he has significant troubles down the road if he can not do better with Democrats, women and Latinos.

< Hillary Wins Nevada ; Takes the Las Vegas Strip | On Partisanship: Obama Will Do What The Founders Could Not? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Do you have any insight/information as to why (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:01:22 PM EST
    more Latinos voted for Hillary Clinton in NV than voted for Barack Obama?

    Track record of support (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:07:07 PM EST
    Thanks. (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:09:22 PM EST
    Although the Sacramento Bee recently endorsed Obama, seems likely Clinton will win in CA.

    That's my read also that (none / 0) (#11)
    by RalphB on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:12:43 PM EST
    the track record of support won them the Latino community.  That's great news for Clinton in the Feb 5th states of CA, AZ, CO, and NM.  Obama can win SC with the large Black turnout, but that doesn't help Feb 5th.

    Just read (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by athyrio on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:08:27 PM EST
    that the Democrats broke in huge numbers for Clinton in Nevada also....Apparently Dems dont see Obama as a viable candidate and I wonder if it has anything to do with his Reagan remark...

    I don't know how many of them (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:10:21 PM EST
    even saw that. I'd say it's people putting their concern over the economy over tired promises of change.

    Or, if they did see it, they did react as (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:11:54 PM EST
    strongly as bloggers did.

    According to NYT profile, Obama's (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:10:28 PM EST
    head speech writer is 26 years old!  What does he know about Reagan era?

    26 Year Olds (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:15:36 PM EST
    Are people too! They can learn written and verbal history as well as anyone else. No excuses for not having been there. Besides being there doesn't necessarily give an advantage, because no one has the ultimate vantage point.

    OF course. But you can see how well (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:17:12 PM EST
    Obama's saying nice things about Reagan is going over with older voters and Democrats.  

    Of Course (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:23:01 PM EST
    It was stupid, but not because the writer is 26.

    Maybe. I was surprised the speech writer (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:28:11 PM EST
    even talked to NYT at this point.  He views his job as to channel Obama's past utterings into credible stirring words for Obama to say now.  

    Yes But Obama Is Not 26 (none / 0) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:39:37 PM EST
    This is not the first time Obama has brought up Reagan as a transformational president. He did so in 2006 on MTP. (My google skills are primitive at best and I'm too lazy to struggle trying to find a link.)

    If Obama is not aware of what Reagan was really like, maybe we would be better off with someone else as president.


    Been off line for awhile (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:18:01 PM EST
    Checked in here first.  I'm afraid to go check  out Orange.

    Some sour grapes, as expected (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:19:22 PM EST
    but this will be over sooner rather than later.

    Obama likely wins SC, Hillary wins Super Tuesday.


    Kos posted the results and sd. apparently (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:19:35 PM EST
    the polls are right sometimes.  Bob Johnson takes on Taylor Marsh.  I don't see support for Hillary Clinton swelling!

    Gospel according to Kos: (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:47:47 PM EST
    This thing isn't over Hotlist
    by kos
    Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 02:34:43 PM PST

    Dear Clinton partisans celebrating the nomination after today,

    Didn't you learn a lesson from New Hampshire?

    Hugs and kisses,


    Sore loser, IMO.


    It is not over (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:54:29 PM EST
    True. And already accusations (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:56:44 PM EST
    Clinton "operatives" tried to keep Obama supporters from getting into the caucuses in LV.  

    Accusations are on both sides (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:20:21 PM EST
    On Hillary's website now:

    Our campaign also received numerous reports of strong arm tactics designed to discourage our voters from caucusing and found itself on the receiving end of one of the most scurrilous smear efforts in recent memory.

    Additionally, Senator Obama's allies spent tens of thousands of dollars on a radio ad to attack Senator Clinton's commitment to the Latino community. "Hillary Clinton does not respect our people," the ad said in Spanish. "Hillary Clinton is shameless."

    HaHa. Weak (none / 0) (#34)
    by RalphB on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:21:05 PM EST
    Although now Kos is stating (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:28:15 PM EST
    Obama won't necessarily get all the Edwards supporters, as not everyone who votes for someone other than Clinton is a "Hillary Hater."  

    speech (none / 0) (#1)
    by athyrio on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 03:57:38 PM EST
    Just heard that Obama left Nevada without making a concession speech...Isnt that a bit tacky? Hope he makes one when he gets to where ever he is...

    Eh (none / 0) (#4)
    by BDB on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:02:32 PM EST
    I can't get upset about that.  Given the schedule of upcoming votes, I can understand wanting to move on - either to future states or to get a few minutes rest.  

    Obama gave a good NH concession speech.  I'm sure when the time comes he'll do or say the right thing here.


    Obama's wrong strategy (none / 0) (#2)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:00:35 PM EST
    Obama has constantly refused to run as a Democrat in a Democratic primary. All the numbers have been showing that for months but he never changed the strategy.

    He seemed to relish in the approval of Andrew Sullivan, Peggy Noonan, and other pseudo-intellectuals. Strangely enough it is the same crew that gave us George Bush and HATE our agenda.
    These are people who say Obama is great for us because the likes of Paul Krugman are mad at him.

    If he doesn't start to speak forcefully as a Democrat, he will not win the nomination.

    Independents (none / 0) (#12)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:13:40 PM EST
    I'm generally against open primaries because each party should be able to choose its own candidate without outside interference. On the other hand, I wouldn't want the Dems to exclude people who truly lean towards Democratic, so I am mixed about these votes.

    I can understand Clinton's strength with Dems. She's the heir-apparent, has a lot of support within the Party structure and has been the front runner since the middle of last year.

    But I am curious as to how come Obama does so well with independents. I would be interested to know how these people would break between, say, Clinton versus McCain or Romney.

    Post-Partisan, Unity Schtick (none / 0) (#18)
    by BDB on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:21:58 PM EST
    I think Obama's unity pitch plays well with independents, these are people who have - for whatever reason - opted out of identifying themselves in a partisan way.

    I think Clinton wins Dems because she's perceived as more partisan.  I'm not sure there's a huge call from Democrats to work with Republicans in Congress.  I think a lot of us only want to cooperate with Republicans in the sense that we're willing to consider a plea bargain if they confess and give up their co-conspirators.  That doesn't seem to be true for the youngest Dems, but these are also the ones least likely to have strong partisan feelings because they are the least likely to have strong memories of the political battles of the last 30 years.


    Apparently the main issue for younger voters (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:29:56 PM EST
    is not the war in Iraq.  Obviously "working with" Republicans in Congress has had no impact on getting U.S. out of Iraq.  

    Excellent point (none / 0) (#23)
    by athyrio on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:30:15 PM EST
    BDB. I agree. My political scars run deep for work done for the democratic party. Have done many many hours of demonstrating, been gassed, been beaten, etc etc. Dont kid yourself people, we older Americans have good memories of past political fights and to admire Reagan and deliberately not to include Clinton's presidency rubbed me very wrong. If I remember correctly the economy was terrific during most of Clintons years...

    TINS is now selling a story (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:28:25 PM EST
    about voter suppression. I don't buy it; the entrance polling is solid, if a bit biased against Hillary.

    How about the impact of Bill Clinton hanging (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:30:49 PM EST
    the casinos as caucus goers are arriving?  

    Oh well (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:32:39 PM EST
    it's called campaigning (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:08:33 PM EST
    And Obama did the same thing at the Mirage.

    I know; just surprised caucus rules (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:35:46 PM EST
    permit it.

    The vote is so polarized among... (none / 0) (#29)
    by magster on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:57:45 PM EST
    ...the voting demographics that the winner needs to make the other a VP candidate to unite the ticket.

    either Clinton or Obama at the head of the ticket (none / 0) (#40)
    by tnthorpe on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 03:42:48 PM EST
    is stronger with Richardson, for example, in the vp slot. It's not as if Illinois or NY are going red becuase their favorite daughter or son doesn't get the nod.

    with Friends like these... (none / 0) (#30)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:10:39 PM EST
    Just to come back to Obama's problems with (partisan) Democrats in a Democratic primary, just check who approves of his idolatry of Ronald Reagan: None of that Bill-there will be no crimes if all Black babies were aborted-Bennett.

    (Via Digby)
    On CNN, Donna Brazile says she pulled it out because she talked about economics and criticized Obama for saying nice things about Ronald Reagan, because there's no nostalgia for Reagan in the Democratic party

    Bill Bennett replied, "a serious black candidate is saying to people, including his own party members 'embrace part of the Reagan memory and the Reagan legacy.' I think this is actually Martin Luther King's dream about color blindness. That he's being punished for it tells you that there are still a lot of people in the Democrat Party who have to grow up."

    I don't need to say more.

    Bill Bennett? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:14:28 PM EST
    I can't see using him as a source for anything about the Democrats.

    WOW (none / 0) (#32)
    by athyrio on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:15:47 PM EST
    talk about putting spins on things.....That is crazy....

    BTD is correct... (none / 0) (#35)
    by oldpro on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:27:34 PM EST
    It was women, Dems and Latinos who won it for Clinton...and that is the winning future for the Dems as well with a growing Latino population in the country.

    The problem will come if the divisions...younger/older....blacks/all others...are so polarized by this primary campaign that the tears can't be mended by fall.

    It's not over.  How Obama adjusts now will tell the tale.  Can he speak to Democrats with as much conviction as Hillary or Edwards?  Can he turn on a dime?  Can he mean it when he talks about change and change his own strategy now?

    Anybody else remembering the movie "The Candidate?"