Democratic Nevada Caucus results thread (entrance poll @2pm ET)

[Adam Griffin]

Just read the entire thread before tuning in: oh my God.

Are my Latino predictions coming true?

[Adam Griffin]

FIRST RESULTS:

Clinton 50.0%
Sanders 49.6%

[Adam Griffin]

Looks like 18-29 year-olds were 13% of the caucus in 2008; 19% today.

[Adam Griffin]

If this ends up like Iowa, I don't think Sanders is going to get away with calling a virtual tie "a win" again. That line was lame the first time and would be even more lame a second time.

No anything better than a double digit loss is a win for Sanders.  Clinton needs a big win here.

This is correct. It shows that he has taken yet another state he was supposed to lose by 20 points to a dead heat, and it also shows that he has assembled a much larger bloc of the Obama Coalition than Clinton has by likely winning a majority of whites, a majority of Latinos and a majority of Asians; all he's waiting on is 1 out of 3 black primary voters.

[Adam Griffin]

I don't see how Sanders wins this one. Clark is now 55-45 Clinton.

10% reporting in Clark.

[Adam Griffin]

So Sanders is going to lose narrowly while carrying the Latino vote? wtf

I've made posts about it recent days: he could win 50-55% of the white and Latino vote and still lose the overall vote by something like 54-46. However, I had projected a much larger black turnout (closer to 20%, instead of 12%) in those figures. This is probably what we're looking at, but with lower black turnout, it's a lot closer.

So Sanders is going to lose narrowly while carrying the Latino vote? wtf

Goes to show that the Adam Griffin method of extrapolating demographic results from one state to other states that are months away might not make the most sense. Whoddathunk?

What exactly did I get wrong outside of what's an acceptable estimate/MoE, other than black turnout FLOPPING?

Furthermore, she needs to win this caucus in NV by double-digits if she doesn't want the sinking narrative to continue. If Bernie loses in NV by 10 points, then that'll mean that he got a majority of whites, a majority of Latinos, an overwhelmingly majority of those under 30 (and a healthy majority of those under 45) and received 30% of the black vote. If Bernie is winning a massive majority of young people, males, whites and Latinos, then that says a lot about where the bulk of the Democratic blocs that we need to win in November are currently resting.

AAD:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh wow, my margin is off by a whole 3 points right now, and that's only because black voters FLOPPED.

[Adam Griffin]

Remember how Iowa went? Clinton was ahead by a decent bit when less than half ofprecincts were reporting then, too.

[Adam Griffin]

[Long post]

You've also been suggesting that what happens with the demographics in one state will make or break a candidate's chances of winning the nomination. Except we're seeing that the numbers are not set in stone, and that there's some fluidity: Hillary can do worse than expected with Latinos, but she can also do better than expected with whites. And there's nothing to say that the patterns will completely repeat themselves elsewhere.

OK...? That hasn't been disproved yet.

There are two sets of numbers that have to weigh on each other: the size of each segment of the electorate, and the size of support for each candidate among each segment of the electorate. Saying "if groups a, b & c are these portions of the electorates and votes by a margin of x, y & z for a candidate, then the results will be #" is not a prediction.

I've only dealt with what is likely: I've never said "Sanders will definitely win 46% of the vote" or that "Whites will definitely be 55% of the vote". At the end of the day, whites are about 5 points less of the electorate and blacks are about 5 points less of the electorate when compared to 2008. That difference right now is making a difference of 2 points. It was never a prediction, but a pretty damn accurate estimate in terms of the final vote.

As far as the narrative I said would happen goes: you've already proven me right. You've been moaning in this thread about how the media is treating a narrow Clinton win/tie as a loss for her.

[Adam Griffin]

CNN: "The tightness of this race breaks the narrative that Bernie Sanders cannot appeal to a diverse segment of the electorate".

@HagridOfTheDeep

[Adam Griffin]

Here is a map I've made that compares Clinton 2008/Clinton 2016 & Obama 2008/Sanders 2016 against one another. Some counties that are not fully reporting have been temporarily filled in - based either on the premise that the handful of precincts remaining won't actually change the overall result by a large amount, or based on the county's margin being so consistent that it's not likely to change much (Clark).

[Adam Griffin]

Off this topic - good analysis on Vox basically backing up the common sense idea that one does not win the most Latino-heavy parts of the state, by losing the Latino vote by 8. And therefore it's obvious Sanders won whites by a bigger margin than 2.

Haven't read it yet and am not sure of the extent of the areas in question, but it's absolutely possible if one candidate had a much better door-to-door canvassing operation in those neighborhoods when compared to the rest of the state/electorate. Clinton was on the ground for almost a year in Nevada and even from the beginning, she knew that Latinos would be one of the most likely bellwethers in that state.

[Adam Griffin]

yeah, he's in a spot where he shouldn't spend much time in SC, but spend it trying to turn 5 states on Super Tuesday. The problem is that 6 Super Tuesday primaries (VA/GA/AL/TN/AR/TX) are in states whose electorates have some big similarities to SC.

I don't think TN necessarily fits in with the rest. Sanders doesn't have a Southern problem: he has a black problem. That's pretty synonymous in a Democratic primary, sure, but TN is considerably less disadvantageous than GA and AL: only a little over half as black. AR is about the same as TN, but off the table for obvious reasons. I think he should try in TN, but it's probably too late now: they just opened an office in Chattanooga and it's the fourth largest city.

VA is comparably black, but I think his bigger obstacle is the mentality of a lot of whites who live there. If we believe some recent polling, then he's possibly in striking distance there. That ceiling with whites is probably just a little bit below where he needs it to be in order to win, though.

He absolutely needs to put something into TX; if he's doing relatively well with Latinos nationally (like he did in NV - whether he won a majority or a very large minority), then he can't afford to just forgo delegates in the largest contest of the night. The difference between trying and not trying there could be more in terms of delegates than he got in IA.

If he doesn't win several states in the first half of March and hold Hillary to single-digit victories in most other states where blacks are less than <15% of the population, then he doesn't have a pathway beyond that. Even that is still not enough long-term. His Bern Rate therefore needs to be high - he needs to worry about keeping delegates as even as possible and earning as much media momentum as possible upon which to build. If he does that, coffers will replenish later. I don't think money is a huge problem yet for them, anyway, but the money won't matter in a month if he bungles this.