Clinton Wins Nevada
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) won the Nevada Democratic caucuses today, a convincing win over Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) heading into next week's South Carolina primary.
Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe insisted that it was Clinton's focus on the economy that secured the victory for her. Preliminary entrance polls seemed to back up that contention, as the economy was the most important issue to Nevada Democratic caucus-goers and Clinton won that group 49 percent to 38 percent.
Obama's endorsement from the Culinary Workers Union Local 226 turned out to be far less influential than initially thought. Turnout on the Strip -- where 9 casinos served as mobile precincts -- was down and Clinton appeared to have won the majority of the casinos, including Bellagio and Paris.
After an initial setback in Iowa, Clinton has beaten Obama in the last two Democratic contests. The Democratic primary in South Carolina is set for next Saturday. Because of the state's large African America vote, Obama is regarded as the favorite, although it is not immediately clear whether today's result in Nevada will change things at all.
We'll be back later today with results from the South Carolina's Republican primary, as well as overall thoughts from another day of wall-to-wall politics.
By Chris Cillizza |
January 19, 2008; 5:05 PM ET
| Category:
Eye on 2008
Previous: Romney Wins Nevada, Democratic Caucus Begins |
Next: Delegate Math: Who Won Nevada?

Get This Widget >>

Posted by: coatesmoe | January 21, 2008 4:17 AM
To those who did not see the O'bama rally on TV a few days before the Nevada Caucus, O'bama said he would take the Tax Cuts from Wall Street and give them to the 226 Union if they voted for him. I still habe not figured out if that could classify as intimidation or just trying to buy Votes.
To those of you who do not see that the Media has been giving O'bama a free pass on many issues. The Media is not criticizing all of O'bama's mischaracterizations of Hillary! When you read O'bama supporters blogging they sound like Pit Bulls. How do you Unite People when you attack them. People ought to look at Bush's 2000 Campaign it looks like O'bama's 2008 Campaign. Bush said he was going to be a "UNITER NOT A DIVIDER" remember!!!!!!!!!
Bill is doing what the Media has been neglecting to do, check the actual facts of what O'bama is saying!!!!!
Posted by: Longlegs36 | January 20, 2008 11:07 PM
right, you are not.
Posted by: tesla2 | January 20, 2008 3:53 PM
Bill Clinton, in an interview backing the lawsuit, said that the lawsuit was necessary becuase the rules made casino workers votes worth 5 - 6 times what other caucusers votes counted as. That was a lie. He later staring complaining that an Obama radio ad told Repulicans to witch to Democrat so they could vote against Hillary. No such ad existed. And he said he saw voter intimidation where Union leaders told workers that is they voted for Obama they would have to work worse hours. Union leaders do not set hours. He is a liar and a dirty campaigner.
Posted by: dyork | January 19, 2008 7:42 PM
Seytom1, Mark, bsimon -
From JRE's web site:
"The race to the nomination is a marathon and not a sprint, and we're committed to making sure the voices of all the voters in the remaining 47 states are heard. The nomination won't be decided by win-loss records, but by delegates, and we're ready to fight for every delegate. Saving the middle class is going to be an epic battle, and that's a fight John Edwards is ready for."
Sounds like he intends to keep going, even if hardly anyone is paying attention. (I think it's admirable, even if Don Quixote-ish.) I would think such a terrible showing would impact his SC numbers, but apparently that's not a consideration for him.
Posted by: -pamela | January 19, 2008 7:21 PM
BB wrote:
"So, please tell me EXACTLY what was the lie Bill Clinton made"
I was kinda wondering that too. I view it as media hype for selling skin lotion. It is a shame that people must go negative because their wishes were not met.
The total delegate count shows that Hillary has a nearly 2 to 1 advantage at this point. I'm not sure this good or bad. Time will tell.....
Posted by: RetCombatVet | January 19, 2008 7:15 PM
Here's a chart showing the difference between the white and Latino votes:
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007409.html
Despite the mixed results, expect supporters of illegal activity like the WaPo to try to spin it their way.
Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | January 19, 2008 7:00 PM
Hillary's victory doesn't seem surprising, but I am surprised John Edwards had such a dismal showing. I had heard he'd pretty much pulled out of Nevada, but his poll numbers in SC are also dismal. Given the distant third place showing in today's caucus and in the SC polls, wonder if he drops out even before next week? However, from what I've read about him, this is just not a guy who easily gives up, esp. when he believes fighting for a cause.
On another note, I don't think Bill is helping Hillary - and worse, I think he's hurting his own reputation. One can say that Gore running away from Clinton in 2000 wasn't smart - but it's 8 years later and Bill has built a pretty good reputation as an ex-president. I would think someone in the campaign would be telling him that getting into the fray simply doesn't look presidential - but would Bill listen?
I expect Obama to win in SC next week, keeping the race close and probably making it uglier until 2/5, when hopefully, there will be a front runner and time for tempers to cool before the convention.
Posted by: -pamela | January 19, 2008 6:43 PM
Answering my own question, the caucus selected 25 of NV's 33 delegates and those are split 13-12 in favor of HRC.
Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 19, 2008 6:40 PM
Jallenaba -- there is an article out today on the lack of support Obama has among white southerners. So, it is not clear how well he will do in the South. I think SC's blacks are probably among the highest numbers in the contests in those states. Furthermore, the southern states are overwhelmed in terms of delegate totals by Calif, NY, and NJ. I am not sure how this will play out.
Posted by: darrren12000 | January 19, 2008 6:39 PM
Obama took 80% of the black vote according to exit polls. Granted exit polls have their flaws, but this was also confirmed by polls in Michigan. If the margin is banywhere near that it doesn't bode well for Clinton in South Carolina or, looking forward, any of the other states with a significant black vote. Silver lining in the Nevada cloud.
Posted by: jallenba | January 19, 2008 6:28 PM
At yhe LV Sun, I read that BHO won 11 counties and HRC won 6. I do not know how that compares to the congressional district delegates. Thus it is not assured that HRC won more delegates than BHO,although it would seem 33 should split 17-16 or 18-15 for HRC.
NevadaAndy or Rufus, do you know?
Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 19, 2008 6:25 PM
Perdon, dyork, but it was a union that supports the Clinton that filed the lawsuit, not the Clinton campaign. The lack of condemnation from the Clinton campaign is right up there with Obama's failure to condemn the ads on Spanish language radio and TV condemning the Clinton campaign.
So, please tell me EXACTLY what was the lie Bill Clinton made. And how is an ex-Prez able to intimidate someone? Nevada was a tight contest and a decent result for Obama, given where the campaign was several months ago. This is an interesting and even contest. Bill's comments, if anything, hurt the Clinton campaign. Time for him to go to the woodshed.
BB
Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 19, 2008 6:23 PM
I am totally a Hillary supporter -- BUT I must defend Obama against these pathetic statements that he has "no accomplishments." The man has a very distinguished educational background, professional life, bestselling books, and is a US Senator. When people just lie like this, you come across as stupid. Doesnt help Hillary at all. Go Hillary -- but let's keep it real guys.
Posted by: darrren12000 | January 19, 2008 6:20 PM
So Bill Clinton's claim that the lawsuit was valid and that Culinary Workers votes count for 5 times what other votes counted was true? He lied and intimidated!! And more to the point the Clintons approved of the processes now in plave and had no issue with them until they actually had competition. Once they had to fight for votes they turned to dirty politics and whining about the process and caucuses. America does not need more of the Clintons.
Posted by: dyork | January 19, 2008 6:09 PM
bsimon, please take a look at the last several posts from dave, JimD, Pamela, and me on the Friday line thread and tell what you think about them on that thread, if you have 20 min or so to idle away.
Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 19, 2008 6:08 PM
Me three on JRE. I wonder whether his NV performance will impact his SC numbers? Question two: did JRE supporters move to Clinton?
Posted by: bsimon | January 19, 2008 6:05 PM
While the top two Ds and the margin were not a surprise at all, I agree that JRE's showing was stunning in its absence.
Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 19, 2008 6:04 PM
dyork: The comments by Bubba was absolutely accurate, in that the way the caucus sites ere set up at the workplace for that particular union would favor Obama. We should KNOW in about an hour or so, if the turnout at these sites were much lower than expected, then again we will KNOW the rank and file members disagreed with their leaders endorsement. That is where this story will give the main reason for the win by Hillary.
Posted by: lylepink | January 19, 2008 5:59 PM
What a washout for Edwards! How could the polls be so wrong AGAIN? Wasn't the latest poll reporting the race as basically a 3-way toss-up?
Posted by: Seytom1 | January 19, 2008 5:57 PM
Obama does lack major accomplishments, but Clinton's are a negative number.
And the guy who mentioned Hispanics in Obama's coalition should look at the polls, they went overwhelmingly for Clinton.
Posted by: light_bearer | January 19, 2008 5:45 PM
Please tell someone to fix the NV county-by-county results map. The Washoe County label is in the wrong place (Washoe is in the northwest, not the northeast).
Posted by: pbooth | January 19, 2008 5:44 PM
First O-Bambi thinks he is a Kennedy, then he thinks he is Martin Luther King, Jr., and now O-Bambi thinks he is Ronald Reagan. How arrogant and self-delusional for a man of NO MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS. NOT ONE! Get Real, People!!!
Posted by: Bootenany | January 19, 2008 5:33 PM
It is not being whiny to ask that Bill Clinton be held to a degree of accountability that anyone else would. His lies border on vote tampering. And I am not an Obama supporter.
Posted by: dyork | January 19, 2008 5:26 PM
Why are Obama supporters such a WHINY bunch?!?!?
Posted by: druid73 | January 19, 2008 5:22 PM
I was a precint captain for Obama. The final count was 44 for Clinton and 42 for Obama. Clinton received 7 delegates and Obama received 6 delegated to the next level in our state's process - the County Democratic Convention. I know of another precint where the delegate count was evenly split. I wouldn't call this a big win for Clinton. I still think the race is still a toss up.
I agree that Hillary's suport comes from elderly women. Obama's supporters at my precint were a diverse representation of our population (White, Asian, Black, and Hispanic), whereas Clinton had whites and some Hispanics.
Posted by: Nevadaandy | January 19, 2008 5:22 PM
And was a 2% win in NH, where she was clearly expected to win until the last couple of days really a win?
Posted by: dyork | January 19, 2008 5:13 PM
Please let someone in the MSM do a story on the lying that Bill Clinton has engaged in. Why is he able to lie so blatantly and get a pass on it?
Posted by: dyork | January 19, 2008 5:11 PM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
![[Veepstakes]](http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/images/vpwatch_45x35.gif)
![[Battlegrounds]](http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/images/battleground_45x35.gif)









I ask myself if the American public is in the position to vote for a president who can represent 300 million people. Looking at a nation that has declined starting with the Clintons and now Bush I would think that it is time that one look at what the party machine is doing to get Hillary and company back into the day to day milking of the American tax payer to the results affecting the future generations when they have to start paying the bills. Bill Clinton I have the feeling that he is fine as long as he finds someone to listen to his tales of glory. He is also fine if he can find some young intern that will tickle his morbid desires. Hillary has an ego goal. What the result will be, America will pay and I am certain they will be just as disappointed as they were with Bush. When you read the thought processes behind the voting then you really have to question the direction of the USA. Women for Hillary without understanding what Hillary will do with Bill back in the white house. I think that the country will decline further. Obama with intelligent ideas and hope brought a bit of hope into the room and the feeling that one was part of a movement to clean out the corruption and inactivity. Each time that Bill Clinton opens his mouth a bit goes down the drain. Disappointing is the so called Black Leadership selling America down the drain along with their chance of equality. Obama would have shown the world a new light for America. America blew it with Bush and this time they will top Bush with Hillary and Bill. In the worst dreams one could not think that Americans would start to act like a banana republic and vote families or select old concepts which are not strong enough to take the country into the future.