You should be totally ashamed of yourself.

How absurd you are.

Where do I start.

Lets start here, you raise the spector of "party jack boots".  You cast doubt on Nevada's "integrity."  You seem to suggest that Rory Reid is doing something improper, and by association, his father as well.  Yet you offer no reason for such slander.  You offer no examples, outside of Clinton's rousing support at the J&J dinner.

I find it completely unacceptable, irresponsible, and just plain scuzzy that you would do such things and not back of your keyboard hit job on Nevada, its leaders, and its caucus goers.

Maybe Nevada is not New Hampshire or Iowa yet.  But Nevada doesn't have the tradition yet.  That is part of why we are there.  To build that tradition.

What it really sounds like is more sour grapes.  Obama crapped out in Nevada.  It is not the Reids' fault.  It is not the caucus goers fault.  It is Obama's fault.

CLinton is popular in NV.  Have you looked at the polls?  What do you say about those?  Are they rigged?   Perhaps Clinton got such appplause at the debate and the J&J dinner because she is popular, not because the Democratic leadership in Nevada, as you seem to suggest, has done something it shouldn't.

Tell me about party jack boots.  Tell me who they and what they have done.  Tell me what they are doing.  Bring substance instead of slander.  Back up your assertions or pull your disgusting diary.

Thanks for this. A few comments to add to your very thoughtful and detailed diary.

1. Don't blame the crudeness of the Clinton supporters at the debate on Titus's supporters. Dina is indeed an enthusiastic backer of Clinton and there are plenty of Democratic party leaders in the state and county who are pushing no-holds-barred for Clinton.

But the two are not the same. Although it was widely reported at the time of Titus's endorsement that she would carry her strong volunteer network from the 06 campaign over to Hillary -- Rory Reid, who wouldn't know a grassroots movement if he sat on it -- even said so. But most of the most active volunteers from her 06 campaign are working for Obama or Edwards. Not even her entire 06 staff followed her to Hillary, as some of her key people went to Richardson. Unlike a lot of electeds who consulted their constituents and constituencies openly before endorsing (Assemblyman David Bobzien, for instance, led a lengthy discussion on his blog), Titus got out front early.

2. The Clinton machine's overplaying of its hand last week -- and really for several weeks -- has really ticked off a lot of Democratic grassroots volunteers, even some who are backing Hillary. At the state party's training of temporary precinct caucus chairs over the weekend, all the hallway talk was about that. Even among Hillary supporters, there was concern that volunteers not approved by the Clinton campaign might be shunted aside as temporary precinct chairs. Richardson volunteers, who have generally been very critical of Edwards and Obama, were openly talking of the need for all the other campaigns to cooperate on caucus day to ensure it is a fair process.

IF, as many suspect, Iowa and NH narrow the field to 2 or 3 candidates, the prospect of an ABC (Anyone But Clinton) coalition is quite likely.

3. The most interesting question is one you allude to in your article -- where is the Obama campaign? Many reporters have credited Obama with the best grassroots organization; some of the most established progressive leaders, such as Leslie and Horsford, are working for Obama; on paper, they have the most offices and staff in the state. Yet the Obama campaign is largely invisible. At most party events, the Obama campaign has no tables, no signs and no visible staff presence. Among those volunteers I've spoken with, there seems to be a much higher percentage of out of state workers than those calling or canvassing on behalf of Clinton or Edwards -- Obama is comparable only to Richardson in that respect.

I'm not saying they don't have it, but I wonder if they are deliberately keeping their organization below the radar. Or is it restricted to the predominantly African-American "westside" and Norht Las Vegas?

Thats what the Democratic volunteers I talk to are thinking about.

In general, though, I agree with your presentation -- a lot of guessing about turnout, a very very high % of those who intend to caucus are not following the campaign closely, and the prospect of a "grassroots" revolt against the state party machine -- such as we saw in the 06 primary -- seems to me highly likely.

If party rules, or state or federal elections laws have been violated then file a formal complaint.  

Your post seems to suggest that you think that a rule or law has been broken.   Your talk of jack boots suggests intimidation or threats.  You need not just to go public here but put your name on the record and go to party leaders and public authorities.  This is serious business - our democracy is at stake.

You have that duty.

Or you could just save the drama and stop the gripping about your candidate peeing the bed in Nevada.

Have a happy Thanksgiving!

An excellent diary that essentially tells the story of the Nevada caucuses fairly accurately.  When less than 1% of the registered voters actually vote, any and all state polls are irrelevant. That is the history of the Nevada caucuses.  In 2008?  Don't bet that it will change.  

As a general rule, the Nevada caucuses are decided by party regulars (central committee members, and the possees from local electeds) and union members.  When both of these groups are united behind a candidate, the caucuses are officially over before they begin.  

I can tell you that the average Nevada voter has no idea that caucuses are taking place when they happen in Nevada. There is absolutely no tradition of participating in the caucuses.  The local media sort of tries to mention them (in between the sports and the weather), but less than 1% of the people pay any attention. Caucuses? Huh?

Indications are that at this point in the game, the party regulars and the union members are NOT united behind a candidate.  If that condition continues to hold true, then Nevada is up for grabs DESPITE what the statewide polls (which are irrelevant).

On the other hand, Rory (on the Clinton payroll, thank you very much) and the elected possees in Clark County do present a formidable advantage for Hillary.  She has almost half her puzzle in place.  If she then gets the union support, put your bets on Hillary to win the exciting Nevada caucuses.

The diarist is generally correct in his assessments of grass roots being at odds with the historical party insider machine.  A grass roots explosion (4% turnout rather than 1% turnout) would destroy the power of the party regulars and the unions to determine who wins Nevada. If you think they favor that "explosion", and are right now actively trying to boost turnout, then, respectfully, you do not know much about how people enjoy their power.    

The only way for Obama (or Edwards) to get a win in Nevada is if:

a) They get the union endorsements.

and/or

b) They do massive voter ID right now (despite perhaps the nation's worst case of voter apathy) and manage to turn out thousands of their ID'd supporters on caucus day. Good luck with that guys...it's never been done before. (Put me on the payroll, and I will help you to attempt it.)

and/or

c) They soundly beat Hillary in both Iowa and NH such that party regulars and union members feel emboldened to vote their consciences, and are allowed by their leadership, to vote as they please. Not likely.

Did I mention that the state polls are irrelevant?  

Enjoy.  

or that anyone can register as a Democrat at the caucus itself.

argh!!! crossover voting mischief. i hate it when states do this, why do they allow it? it's such a vulnerable spot for exploitation. any state permissive about this suggests corruption or a rigged game. including iowa. i don't care what party holds the legislature.

I love how you can spend five days in my state and be able to tell me all about it.

First of all, let's get one thing clear. The way the Nevada Dems are running their caucuses are virtually identical to how Iowa is doing it, down to the percentages used to determine viability.

Iowa

Nevada

"Richardson volunteers, who have generally been very critical of Edwards and Obama, were openly talking of the need for all the other campaigns to cooperate on caucus day to ensure it is a fair process."

It will be an open, transparent process. Whoever the temporary chair/permanent chair of the caucus is matters NOT. The rules are the rules are the rules, and candidates' reps have to sign off on the results of each precinct caucus.

Second, trying to compare 2004 to 2008 is really comparing apples to oranges. In 2004 not a single Democratic candidate showed up in the state until John Kerry showed up in Vegas on caucus day. No paid staff for any campaign existed in Nevada for the primary in 2004.  This cycle we've seen each candidate multiple times, all across the state. In 2004 there was no media coverage of the caucus.  We've seen coverage in all local media (TV and print) about candidate visits, education on the caucus, etc. The state and local parties are conducting local events to teach potential caucus goers about the process.

However, we did have close to 9,000 in turnout. 5,000 showed up in Clark County, nearly 2,000 in Reno, and every other county reported higher than normal turnout. Do you mean to imply with all the candidate visits, the media attention, etc, we won't vastly improve on that?

As far as turnout goes, even Iowa turnout is notoriously low. 2004 was a record year for Democratic turnout in Iowa, however, the low turnout in the Republican caucus made statewide turnout less than 6%. In 2000, where both parties had contested races (and hence a much closer analogy to this election cycle), statewide turnout was a mere 8.3%,(3.5% for Dems, 4.8% for Reps). And this is after Iowa had been on the map for THIRTY years as some sort of presidential bellweather!

Finally, if you really think that Harry Reid pulls all the strings of Nevada Democrats, it is patently obvious to me that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. It's more the opposite.

One thing I remember clearly, from the Wooster High Gym gathering, is that there were over 1500 votes cast in Washoe County.  A check of the Voter Activation Network database basicly confirms that.  (Voters who participated have an activist code for attending that caucus.)

I suspect the total, in numbers, is for the number of delegates elected to the county conventions throughout the state.  There's only one category of numbers identified, despite two columns for floor vote and delegate vote.

HEY!  Great analysis.  Pretty much on the mark, imo.

And, interesting little question raised in this comments thread, regarding temp. caucus chairs.
I'll be watching to see how all that turns out.

PS from your own www.thegreenpapers.com link:

Media reports indicate about 8,000 Democrats participated in the 14 February 2004 Precinct Caucus. The straw poll taken at the 14 February caucuses gave Kerry 63% of the vote and Dean 17% of vote- that breaks down to an estimated 19 National Delegates for Kerry and 5 for Dean. However, when the official vote was taken at the 17 April 2004 Nevada State Democratic Convention, only Kerry delegates were elected. Final count: 24 pledged National Convention delegates for Kerry.