Why a Bernie Sanders Victory in Nevada Would Be Bigger Than His New Hampshire Landslide

[Uncle Joe]

A new reality: Following his virtual tie with Clinton in the Iowa caucuses and his 22-point landslide in the New Hampshire primary, the latest polling in Nevada suggests that Sanders enters the caucuses with the wind at his back — and may barrel right through Clinton's much-ballyhooed "firewall." A survey from the Republican-aligned firm TargetPoint found the two candidates deadlocked at 45% each, and a CNN/ORC poll released Wednesday also showed a dead heat, with Clinton garnering 48% support and Sanders at 47%.

For Sanders, even a narrow Nevada win would represent a more significant milestone than his New Hampshire rout. Should he beat Clinton on Saturday, Sanders will have demonstrated that his appeal extends well beyond the overwhelmingly white states where he's enjoyed early success.

(snip)

But even if the polls come with major asterisks, Dickens told Mic that Sanders has key factors that could play in his favor this weekend. Nevada, he noted, was especially hard hit by the housing crash and the subsequent Great Recession. Many workers "haven't seen a change in their wages in nearly a decade," he added.

"Income inequality could be a real motivator," Dickens said. Sanders has made combatting inequality the centerpiece of his progressive populist campaign.

The Vermont senator may also benefit from a surge in turnout among young voters, a Sanders stronghold. Dickens told Mic that the Sanders campaign had been "very active" in recruiting support on his university's campus.

With just 35 of 4,051 total pledged delegates at stake, Nevada will account for only a small proportion of the delegates allocated in the Democratic primary battle. But Saturday's outcome will provide a clearer idea of just how long — and how fierce — that battle is likely to be.


http://mic.com/articles/135581/why-a-bernie-sanders-victory-in-nevada-would-be-bigger-than-his-new-hampshire-landslide#.Gm4Qb1FPi

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. Just so we're clear, early in the process ...

define: "Victory".

Thanks

[Uncle Joe]

2. That depends on how the vote turns out, Nevada being a difficult state to poll.

I know that Nevada was originally touted as a Hillary "firewall" state being more diverse than New Hampshire.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. So the definition is flexible? Not the conventional meaning ... "Got more votes"? ...

I see.

[Uncle Joe]

4. I don't know, you might check with the head of the Iowa Democratic Party, to

my knowledge they never released the actual vote totals.

[Gregorian]

5. I heard the Sane Progressive mention the absence of a vote total record in Iowa.

That's when I realized how absurdly antiquated our system is.

[Uncle Joe]

6. From the major newspaper in Iowa that endorsed Hillary.

Editorial: Something smells in the Democratic Party

Once again the world is laughing at Iowa. Late-night comedians and social media mavens are having a field day with jokes about missing caucusgoers and coin flips.

That’s fine. We can take ribbing over our quirky process. But what we can’t stomach is even the whiff of impropriety or error.

What happened Monday night at the Democratic caucuses was a debacle, period. Democracy, particularly at the local party level, can be slow, messy and obscure. But the refusal to undergo scrutiny or allow for an appeal reeks of autocracy.

The Iowa Democratic Party must act quickly to assure the accuracy of the caucus results, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

First of all, the results were too close not to do a complete audit of results. Two-tenths of 1 percent separated Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. A caucus should not be confused with an election, but it’s worth noting that much larger margins trigger automatic recounts in other states.

(snip)

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/caucus/2016/02/03/editorial-something-smells-democratic-party/79777580/