Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Nevada, finally

Nevada, finally

Sometime late last night or early this morning Eastern time, the final results in Nevada were released.

Romney came in with a 1% lower percentage of the vote than in 2008, but more significantly, both Romney’s actual number of votes and Republican participation in the caucuses was way down from 2008.

Over 44,000 votes were cast in 2008 to just under 33,000 in 2012.  Romney received 22,646 votes in 2008 versus 16,486 in 2012.

Spin away.

Update:  In addition to the ominous signs of flat or lower turnout in every state except South Carolina, comes this ABC/WaPo poll released this morning, finding Romney strengthening his position in the GOP race but falling further behind Obama:

Notably, 52 percent in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, say the more they hear about Romney the less they like him – double the number who like him more.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Newt: ‘I’m trying to draw people into politics, not carpet bomb them out of it’
Speaker Gingrich Gingrich NBC’s Meet The Press Sunday

Sounds like we’re looking at a Bob Dole 2.0.

Why Mitt is Desperate to Force Newt Out

http://wp.me/p1HGwx-2mX

    Say_What in reply to NewtCerto. | February 6, 2012 at 9:49 am

    Good read, thanks for posting it.

    CalMark in reply to NewtCerto. | February 6, 2012 at 1:33 pm

    My gut instinct exactly.

    Romney is winning where he’s supposed to but not by nearly as much as he should, and it usually costs him a fortune to do so.

    Romney is not behaving like a confident man. In fact, he looks like he’s running scared. The dirty trick with the alleged press conference is just another example.

    Chickens eventually do come home to roost. I hope it’s soon enough to beat Romney.

And another example of a TOTALLY FLUCKED-UP GOP process in Nevada, to go with the one in Iowa.

Wassup…!?!?!

McCain got 12% in 2008 compared to Gingrich’s 21% in 2012. Clearly, Gingrich must get out of the race, if not for the sake of the Romboids and effemiates branch of the GOP, then for Mom and apple pie and all we hold dear.

Some disturbing comments on http://hillbuzz.org/ Ron Paul Won Nevada Caucus – And Nevada Voters Lost

Wonder if you have seen anything like this anywhere else and if this could be verified somehow?

    Say_What in reply to Jaydee. | February 6, 2012 at 10:18 am

    I don’t see Paul (or his Paulbots) making a big stink about it … oh, that’s right, he’s probably too busy helping Romney try to take out Newt.

    listingstarboard in reply to Jaydee. | February 6, 2012 at 11:16 am

    Wow, irregularities in Iowa and now Nevada. The GOP establishment is beginning to resemble the DNC. What a disaster.

    Canusee in reply to Jaydee. | February 6, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    There is starting to be a rumble about this. One site has a time line or order of sequence that is supposed to show the need to question if shenanigans went down. http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-national/paul-camp-cries-fraud-over-nevada-caucus-results Here is an article that touches indirectly on the “rumour” but has a whole bunch more perspective on the NV GOP Caucus; some phrase gems, too. http://www.muthstruths.com/2012/02/05/the-chaos-caucus-nevada-gops-national-embarrassment/ If proven true and Mitt behind it, well, bye-bye Mitt (maybe, didn’t happen with Obama stealing votes from Hil). Even if Paul front runner, with Mitt gone Newt benefits. Paul or Newt? Newt or Paul? See how Newt would benefit if put effort and mouthpiece into exposing if something to expose, even if put Paul ahead temorarily? He would get credit for integrity to process; maybe even enough that wannabe Paul voters would in the end comfortably pick Newt. If Newt won, Pauls may be less likely to write-in because, well, it is Newt, the guy who stood up for Paul. Find a way to nail this, if true on Mitt, instead of overlooking because it happened to the crazy guy.

      Say_What in reply to Canusee. | February 6, 2012 at 2:48 pm

      The real criminal act in the NV caucus IMO is that Jewish and Seventh Day Adventists voters were asked to sign affadavits before voting and were told they would not be allowed to vote unless they did.

      I grew up among Holocaust survivors, I have heard their horror stories and my father fought in WWII and helped liberate a concentration camp – he told me what he saw. Even though I am not Jewish, I can imagine how they must have felt when asked to sign an affadavit, in the United States, of all places. SHAME on the NV GOP and the ROMBOTS who controlled the process.

        Canusee in reply to Say_What. | February 6, 2012 at 2:59 pm

        Could not agree with you more! Just. Pathetic. What was the point trying to made or what disaster averted by having them sign these affidavits? You say Romney supporters behind it (“Rombots”)?

    Canusee in reply to Jaydee. | February 6, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    Oh, and interestingly, there are no comments at the story on Hillbuzz; sort of like everyone just bypassed it.

Windy City Commentary | February 6, 2012 at 9:57 am

Just keep remembering those conservative media outlets and pundits whose mission it is to destroy Newt. Never Forget; or they’ll destroy another candidate you like in the future.

StephenMonteith | February 6, 2012 at 10:03 am

I’d say the “spin” has already begun. Romney broke fifty percent, which is exactly what people were saying he couldn’t do, so you move on to a new narrative? Try this one:

In 2008, Nevada’s caucuses took place on the same day as the South Carolina primary. Romney was practically the only focused on the caucus, which is why he was able to get such a large victory that year. This year, more people gave it notice, which made it more competitive. Getting a slightly lower percentage this year is hardly indicative of a poorer position.

As for lower turnout, doesn’t that point more towards a general dissatisfaction with the field than with any one candidate? Or maybe, this is the effect inevitability has on the field; not just Romney’s win, but the others’ loss. Gingrich can’t excite enough people to vote for him because no one thinks he’ll win; the same with Santorum and Paul.

Whatever the case, Romney won; and not just in vote total, but among every single demographic, including conservatives and Tea Partiers. That’s even harder to do in a caucus than a primary, which makes this an absolute victory. Reverse that spin, if you can.

    I’m not sure why the Professor persists in this apples-to-oranges comparison. I’m also not sure what his point is … Gingrich clearly doesn’t excite the base either.

    His reliance on the ABC poll–which is being widely panned on the right because it’s of “adults”–is also bizarre.

      William A. Jacobson in reply to Ryan. | February 6, 2012 at 10:52 am

      It’s not a question of apples to oranges. It’s a question of whether the person allegedly most electable versus Obama actually is electable. That is particularly important when polls consistently show that electability is one of if not the prime reasons people are voting for Mitt.

        If that’s really the question, I’d be pleased to see some Florida and Nevada analysis from you that explains why these results show Gingrich would be more electable against Obama. So far you’ve focused almost entirely on tearing down Romney, and it seems your entire turnout argument is based only on South Carolina. If Gingrich is going to beat Obama, he’s going to have to turn out conservatives in Nevada and Florida too, no?

        Meanwhile, Gingrich continues to publicly complain about Romney advantages and tactics that will unquestionably be tenfold used by Obama.

          Uncle Samuel in reply to Ryan. | February 6, 2012 at 2:24 pm

          The truth will gradually dawn on the voters as they see/hear/read about Romney’s lies and tactics.

          People aren’t stupid. The stench of evil will make them wake up.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to StephenMonteith. | February 6, 2012 at 2:29 pm

    The 50% breakthrough was evidently fraudulent a number of sources believe. (see my link below) We may see some recounts and lawsuits out of this primary also.

    FL is under legal contest because of the GOP rule against ‘winner take all’.

I see that scorched earth policy is really working out for landslide Mitt – It took two days for the NV GOP to find him 50.1% – that’s an interesting number they came up with -Hang in there Newt – Mitt is a paper tiger.

Numbers may be down due to a decrease in overall Republican registrations. According to the linked report (page 2), Nevada has had a 3.9% decrease in Republican voter registration from 2008-2011 and a 107% increase in Independent registration. (Democratic registration is also down 4.3%.) Were these open caucuses? If so, perhaps many Independents didn’t want to bother with voting. If not, Republican registration is down which would help explain the falling numbers.

http://content.thirdway.org/publications/470/Third_Way_Report_-_Independents_Day_2012_.pdf

Beware ABC/WaPo polls. They’ve historically slanted samples in favor of Dems and now, having fielded so many complaints on their sampling, they no longer provide sampling info at all. The poll cited above is sample-blinded, polls only ‘adults’ instead of likely voters. It is not unusual for ABC/WaPo polls to sample 45% Dems and 25% Reps – or worse. We don’t need to know who they polled, you see. We just need to take their word for it on accuracy issues.

78 votes. That’s the margin of Romney’s majority. Out of almost 33000 votes cast.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 6, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    Ron Paul needs to worry about the revelation that he’s been double dipping on travel costs. He may charge his campaign accounts or charge congress for travels, but he’s been charging both. I’m sure it’s just a typo… or some other mistake… that’s somehow been repeated… for over ten years now.

    Maybe the ghost who writes his newsletters also does his books?

    Ah, well, it ultimately comes from voters either way, so it’s like free money.

[…] Suicide Party Posted on February 6, 2012 11:30 am by Bill Quick » Nevada, finally – Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion Update:  In addition to the ominous signs of flat or lower turnout in every state except South […]

    Whoa! Reading the comments was a real mind-stretch exercise; a major tit-for-tat session! Here was a comment thrown in the mix and stood out because there wasn’t any investment of emotion.

    “Lawrence O’Donnell of MSNBC did a piece on Ron Paul’s airfare ticket issue (first class vs. coach) a few weeks ago. You can find it on YouTube, titled “Lawrence O’Donnell Defends Ron Paul Against Associated Press Hit Piece.” Significant that O’Donnell did this because he openly dislikes Ron Paul (and says so in the video).

    About the double reimbursement, I do not know enough to make a judgment.”

    Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/06/ron-paul-took-double-reimbursements-on-air-travel-report/#ixzz1ldPh8caA

    (canusee says not checking and/or verifying any of this; just no interest to do such.)

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend