But the delegate count under the intricate rules of the caucuses appeared to favor Mr. Obama because of his support from a wide swath of the state, giving him 13 delegates compared with 12 for Mrs. Clinton....
“We came from over 25 points behind to win more national convention delegates than Hillary Clinton,” Mr. Obama said, “because we performed well all across the state, including rural areas where Democrats have traditionally struggled.”
Vote of Women Propels Clinton in Nevada Caucus
By JEFF ZELENY and JENNIFER STEINHAUER
LAS VEGAS — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton won the vote in the Nevada Democratic caucuses on Saturday, giving her a second consecutive victory in what is shaping up as a protracted battle with Senator Barack Obama.
Mrs. Clinton scored a clear victory measured in the number of people attending the caucuses on her behalf. But Mr. Obama’s campaign was successful by another measure — in the allocation of delegates to the national nominating convention, a result of a complex formula that gave more weight to votes in some parts of the state.
Another Democratic candidate, John Edwards, placed a distant third in Nevada, a state that he once viewed as crucial to his prospects. Mr. Edwards has a chance to rebound next Saturday in the primary election in South Carolina, where he was born. But the Democratic contest already appears to be turning into a long-term fight for delegates between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama.
The results in Nevada had encouraging signs for Mrs. Clinton. She did well among women and Hispanics, two constituencies she is counting on as the campaign heads toward a coast-to-coast showdown in 22 states on Feb. 5.
The battle was most fiercely fought in Las Vegas, particularly at the casinos that hosted some of the caucuses. This provided an odd tableau for a nominating contest: women in black-sequined cocktail dresses and neatly pressed maid uniforms, and men coming off their shifts in the bar and wearing sunglasses indoors as they voted.
The contest in Nevada drew record turnout among Democratic caucusgoers, a reflection of the intensity of the race. In hundreds of precinct caucuses, including nine casinos on the Las Vegas Strip, about 116,000 voters took part in the first Western contest in the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination, 10 times the amount in the 2004 caucuses here.With 98 percent of the precincts reporting on Saturday night, Mrs. Clinton, of New York, had 51 percent of the vote and Mr. Obama, of Illinois, had 45 percent. Mr. Edwards, of North Carolina, came in with 4 percent, a surprisingly poor showing given the attention he had devoted to Nevada.
But the delegate count under the intricate rules of the caucuses appeared to favor Mr. Obama because of his support from a wide swath of the state, giving him 13 delegates compared with 12 for Mrs. Clinton.
In a statement, Mr. Obama noted that he had received one more delegate in Nevada than Mrs. Clinton because of a strong performance in precincts outside Las Vegas.
“We came from over 25 points behind to win more national convention delegates than Hillary Clinton,” Mr. Obama said, “because we performed well all across the state, including rural areas where Democrats have traditionally struggled.”
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Reality Check --
No matter how they spin it the domcratic front runners appear to be appealing to broadly different constituencies and at the moment Mrs. Clinton's overall support seems to be broader. The only fact to come of the Nevada caucuses is that she won the popular vote -- by more then a reasonable margin of error in spite of Senator Obama's organization and appeal to the culinary workers. How this translates into actual convention delegates will have to wait for another day -- they are not selected until the state convention.
You know what? You're
You know what?
You're right.
No matter how they spin it
No matter how they spin it the domcratic front runners appear to be appealing to broadly different constituencies and at the moment Mrs. Clinton's overall support seems to be broader.
This is not true. Edwards, Clinton and Obama are all making appeals to these constituencies. The results in New Hampshire and Nevada indicate that Clinton, for example, was more successful in appealing to more of these constituents.
Maybe "broadly different
Maybe "broadly different constituencies are responding to each" would be more accurate.
The term "broadly different"
The term "broadly different" would explain the support that Clinton is receiving from women voters but how can we explain, for example, the support she received from Latino voters who participated in the Nevada caucuses? Many of these voters are members of the culinary union that endorsed Obama but they voted for Clinton anyway.
I am not arguing that these voters should have voted for Obama because their union endorsed him. I would, however, be extremely interested in looking at how they voted in the recent past for candidates in primary and general elections that were endorsed by their union.
If Latinos are different
If Latinos are different enough to be seperated out, I don't see why "gbroadly different" wouldn't apply.
Yes, but they are different
Yes, but they are different from each other too even those who hail from different regions of the same countries. So given their heterogeneous makeup, why would two-thirds of them not vote for a candidate endorsed by their union. What factor or factors has caused two-thirds of them to act in concert together and vote for Hillary Clinton?
they are different from each
Sound like Black folks.
Yep. They have the drums in
Yep. They have the drums in their blood, too.