Clinton Wins Nevada On Latino Vote, Superior Labor Organizing

by: Chris Bowers

Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 16:29


Clinton pulled out a narrow victory in Nevada of about 5%. Obama won everywhere outside of Clark county, and so he could have won the whole thing if the Strip precincts and union vote in Clark county had gone his way. However, the insider scoop is that AFSCME out organized the culinary workers on The Strip, and generally made the difference for Clinton across the county (UNITE-HERE apparently has little in the way of political staff). To put it one way, Obama might have had more unions, but Clinton's unions just did better. In some ways, that even reinforces one of Clinton's main campaign arguments: beyond grand speeches and huge rallies, she will work harder and get the job done both with and for what she calls "the invisible people."

Most of the last tens days in Nevada focused on unions, from the endorsements to the lawsuit over the Strip caucuses. This was definitely the Labor caucus, just as the DNC had designed it to be. In a very real way, the results are emblematic of the divide in the Democratic Party. The NEA tacitly supported Clinton, and AFSCME is now pretty much the flagship union of the AFL-CIO, at least in terms of political organizing. By contrast, SEIU and UNITE-HERE, both of which endorsed Obama in Nevada, are key unions in Change to Win. Old labor beat new labor, just as older Dems beat newer Dems.

On to South Carolina next Saturday. Clinton is now the clear frontunner, Obama needs a big win to stay in it, and Edwards appears to be done. Don't mess with AFSCME (warming: video not family friendly)



Update: Just to be clear, I don't trust the exit polls. They were way off on at least the results in Rural Nevada, as I discussed below. Further, expect them to rewieghted in a little bit. In other words, there is a lot of error, and re-weighting to be done.

And besides, even if Clinton did do worse among union households than non-union households, the point is that Obama was supposed to win union households by a decent amount. He didn't, and that contributed to his loss big time.

Another main factor, of course, was the Latino vote, where Clinton dominated. Nevada was chosen for this early date because of its high union and Latino populations. Clinton muted Obama's supposed advantage on Labor, and cleaned up among Latinos.

Chris Bowers :: Clinton Wins Nevada On Latino Vote, Superior Labor Organizing

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
That was fast (0.00 / 0)
Clinton Wins Nevada On Superior Labor Organizing

Am I supposed to believe this is the ONLY reason?


that's the word (0.00 / 0)
And since pretty much the entire campaign in Nevada focused on unions, it makes sense, too.

[ Parent ]
29% Union member in Household (0.00 / 0)
Obama did better in this group -1 vs -9 among the 71% with no union tie

[ Parent ]
Yeah, but (0.00 / 0)
He needed to win that group, not lose by less. Clinton was able to mute Obama's supposed labor advantage. Had he won labor households, he could have taken the state.

[ Parent ]
Obama cannot win losing the Latino vote by thirty points. (4.00 / 2)
I think that stat is WAY more important and pivitol than the unions.

How does Obama win the HUGE Feb 5th states losing the Hispanic vote like that?

THAT is the big question.  He's got the black vote sewed-up.  Time for him to expand his horizons.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.


[ Parent ]
Demographics played a part (0.00 / 0)
Look at the CNN Entrance polls

Women were 58% to 42% men

Only 13% were under 29, while 68% were 45 or over, and 36% were 65 or over.

Latinos went heavily for Hillary, as Sergio Bendixen had predicted.

Hillary won in pretty much every income group.

Edwards got 10% first choices and ended up with 4%.  Ouch for the highly influential blogoshpere.

Iowa now looks like a fluke, unfortunately, but we need to wee what happens Feb 5.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
I mean see what happens. (0.00 / 0)
Although it looks like I may be more than a little pissed off at the results.

What will be interesting is how the midwestern states vote, if they follow Iowa, as Claire McCaskill and others who endorsed Obama evidently think, or are more like NV/NH.  Will CA Latinos vite like NV's?

Time will tell just who has fell and who's been left behind . . . .

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
UNITE-HERE's capacity (4.00 / 1)
"UNITE-HERE apparently has little in the way of political staff."

UNITE-HERE certainly has political capacity - I know some of that staff. But what they are doing right now is trying to defeat four Indian gaming measures that will be on the California Feb. 5 ballot. This is bread and butter for their members; the gambling industry in CA is the union's wholesale organizing target in the state and if Arnold gets away with letting them grow non-union, a lot of restaurant and hospitality workers are going to be up shit creek. Hard to organize an employer that gets to play the game as a sovereign nation.

For the last year, UNITE-HERE flirted with going whole hog for Edwards. Going for Obama was not in the original plan and probably put them a little off their game.

And yes, AFSCME is damn good at this stuff. All of us Democrats should be grateful to the unions for their field capacity since we've been in thrall to media-oriented consultants for the last 20 years and that is no good in a close fight.

Can it happen here?


[ Parent ]
Actually, a very big win... (4.00 / 1)
Chris, it's her first win with more than 50% - that's huge.
Also, Edwards people seem to have broken for her - that's huge.
Finally, she OVERCAME superior union support on the other side.

Her position to the left of Obama on domestic policy is paying off, as we head into recession.


Doesnt it appear that Edwards broke to Obama? (0.00 / 0)
If Obama was far behind in entrance poll but got within 5% in the final results, doesn't that say Edwards people broke for Obama?

"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

[ Parent ]
True, but possibly misleading (0.00 / 0)
As in New Hampshire, Edwards dropped - collapsed actually - in the polls at the end and Clinton rose. I don't think that's a coincidence. It looks like Clinton picked up potential Edwards supporters as the race looked more like a two-way, while the hardcore Edwards voters who stuck with him to the caucus had a second-choice preference for Obama.

[ Parent ]
Not her first 50% win (0.00 / 0)
She won 56% in Michigan.

And the recession isn't really hitting the southwest as hard.

She did not face superior labor support. Obama endorsing unions may have outnumbered Clinton endorsing unions. However, the NEA was tacitly supporting Clinton, and UNITE-HERE has a minimal presence in the electoral realm. The whole point is that her union support was worth more than Obama's, even if it was official smaller in number.

[ Parent ]
In retrospect... (0.00 / 0)
...it does appear you're correct on the union support.  But going in, many folks though he had a clear advantage.

The recession is now big national news, and the housing market (even in Vegas) is in real trouble. Her (domestic, I have to realistically qualify because she is more hawkish than I'd prefer) liberalism is starting to prove a real difference.

And I think we should discount Michigan! Or qualify as "contested..." 51% is pretty darned good.


[ Parent ]
And you count ... (4.00 / 1)
Michigan as 50% .. even though no one campaigned there .. and no one else was on the ballot?

[ Parent ]
Actually, before Michigan (4.00 / 1)
I remember many members of the MSM explaining that if Clinton got below 50%, it would represent a repudiation of her by Michigan voters. So they set the frame for 56% to be regarded as a victory.

[ Parent ]
That Ad! (4.00 / 4)
The ad is fucking awesome!

Everyone said that the vote would come down to organization.  I always thought that the Obama campaign was quite impressive in terms of organization so I'm a bit surprised they didn't take it.  Hats off to fucking AFSCME: They make sure you're kids not drinking piss from the fucking water fountains.

Now more than ever Clinton needs to fire Mark Penn for not only  being a horrible strategist ("Microtrends!") but for being an anti-union asshole especially since Clinton owes the unions big time.


As a Hillary supporter.... (4.00 / 1)
I agree that at the least, Penn should take a back seat - they get no gain from him.

[ Parent ]
Mark Penn.... (0.00 / 0)

........hyperinflated ego and all is on board for the duration. You don't fire staff when you win and face the facts he's part of her team. Has been for a long while.

He's going to the WH if she keeps her foot out of her mouth.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
Organization (0.00 / 0)
money and establishment ties it seems.

Let's hope she moves left.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.


[ Parent ]
Whatever on thinks of her or her politics and policies (4.00 / 3)
it's clear that Hillary has the superior political organization and skills in terms of winning the nomination (and perhaps the general). I'm frankly not pleased with this result, but have to admire her political abilities for winning it despite having lost much momentum.

If she wins the nomination, I will support and vote for her. There is zero doubt in my mind about that. However, I will also be unable to forget and forgive her for some of the vicious below the belt tactics that she's engaged in during this campaign, and wish that she'd seen fit to employ them against the other side these past 7 years when they might have done some good instead of against her own side, where they have bruised many feelings and created unnecessary rifts. I can only hope that as a general election nominee and hopefully president, that she'll prove to be just as wily, skillful and tough--below the belt if need be against those who deserve it--because the battles up ahead will make the ones we've seen so far look like cafeteria food fights. We are likely about to relive the 90's over the next few years (which would have happened no matter who we nominated), hopefully on our terms this time, and with us emerging the winner. So perhaps it's just fitting, and even best, that Hillary be leading us in that fight. I can only hope that she WILL lead, and lead well.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


Except you've given me the reason not to lift a finger to help her. (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Fine then, (4.00 / 2)
Sit at home and let the Republicans retake the White House. I voted for Obama, but some of you anti-HRC folks - you wouldn't be satisfied if she crawled on broken glass.

[ Parent ]
The jury is out (4.00 / 2)
  DLC candidates (which is what Hillary is) campaign very hard and work their butts off to defeat other Democrats (especially progressive ones), but somehow lose all appreciation for these tactics when they make it to the general, becoming mushy milquetoasts against Republican opponents.

  I agree that Hillary's orgainzation is formidable. In the primaries. If she carries this over into the general, THEN I'll be impressed. The DLC's history suggests otherwise.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
Hmm.... what kind of glass? n/t (0.00 / 0)


"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
Yep sit at home is exactly what I would do... (0.00 / 0)
and you're right crawling on broken glass wouldn't get me to vote for her either.

[ Parent ]
I'VE given you this reason? (0.00 / 0)
Meaning that until I did, you would have been willing to support and vote for her? Wow, I didn't realize that I had such powers. Why did they not help Obama win this, though?

I also have no idea what you're specifically talking about, so I can't comment specifically. But I do know this. Anyone who calls themselves a Democrat who refuses to support and vote for the nominee, whoever it is, and whatever reservations they might have about them, is literally, by definition, not a Democrat. A progressive, maybe, but  not a Democrat (and a rather foolish progressive, I would add, since there is no path to advancing a meaningful progressive agenda except through the Democratic party for the foreseeable future--which 2000 and the past 7 years have amply proved beyond a shred of doubt).

But, whatever, do whatever you feel you have to do.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
Ground game is the decider (0.00 / 0)
First for Obama in Iowa, then for Clinton in New Hampshire,  and now for Clinton in Nevada -- the ground game is what's been winning it on the Democratic side.

So I guess the big question is: Who has the better ground game in South Carolina?

Leftmost Bit


Watching "Mitt" give his victory speech (0.00 / 0)
Sounds more like he is addressing a shareholder meeting than a group of supporters.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

Mitt (0.00 / 0)
well, he was a business guy b/f politics.... I find him creepy and robotic - kind of my reaction to the people I hear in business meetings!

[ Parent ]
No she didn't.... (4.00 / 1)
look at the cnn entrance polls - she won labor by 1% (it was 45/44) and Union turnout was really really super low at 29% vs. non-union at 71%.  Clinton won because of old people and women who turned out in droves and went for her overwhelmingly. 

This is right (0.00 / 0)
I don;t know what the demographics of nevada are, but 58% of the Dems were women and only 13% under 30.  There were 68% who were 45 or over.  And they went for Hillary.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
The big divides (0.00 / 0)
Were race and age, gender also but less so.

The under 30 and over 65 votes were mirror images of each other--60% youth for Obama, 60% elders for Hillary.  And Hillary did win Latinos by a huge percentage.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
Let me tell you yous somthin (0.00 / 0)
That is the funniest f_ckin thing I have seen in a while.

I don't get it. (0.00 / 0)
In New Hampshire, people had a huge backlash against the media's treatment of Clinton, and gave her a narrow win. Understandable.

Now in Nevada, Clinton allies file a fricking lawsuit to prevent people from voting, with their approval, and there is no backlash at all -- among the people whose votes she was trying to take away! I just don't get it.

It may be crude, but I think it's going to come down to the fact that half of every state is women, and half of most states is not African American. It's also supremely sad.


Well you see..... (2.67 / 3)

........nobody but the vile bloggers of Open Left led by the excretable Stoller heard anything about Obama's 'Hearting' St. Ronnie and....

It wouldn't have mattered anyway 'cause all the union workers are too dumb to pick up on what Obama was really telling them. They missed that 'double-secret dog-whistle' and just heard the 'fuck you....'. I would imagine the lawsuit didn't affect that many union workers and was anyway 'by others'. Obama's love for St. Ronnie came right from his mouth.

People tend to believe you when you give them the the bird in so many words....

Ya know?

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
Not That Simple (4.00 / 2)
For starters the Culinary Workers union reportedly did not poll its members before endorsing Obama and the leadership was having some major problems with its membership (dues increases, etc.) that had nothing to do with the presidential election.  So the union was apparently divided going in and it appears that the lawsuit did not unite them.  Indeed, I could see how Clinton supporters in the union wouldn't mind the lawsuit because they were already pissed at the union and may not have wanted to see the union rewarded with influence for a candidate they did not support.

Second, I can't help but wonder how pissed off non-casino workers were about the preferential treatment given casino workers.  The only people in the state given the ability to vote at their workplace were employees of the large casinos in Las Vegas.  Not Reno.  Not non-casino employees.  For those who didn't get at-large caucuses, I wonder if the issue wasn't voter suppression so much as them getting screwed to benefit the casino workers. 


[ Parent ]
Once again... (4.00 / 1)
Caucuses prove themselves to be problematic and undemocratic.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
Fuckin' A! (fscme) (0.00 / 0)
Where did that AFSCME video play?  TV?  Cable?  Internally?

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

RE: Ad (0.00 / 0)
I agree, it is quite funny.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox