Catching our breaths

By this time next week, the Nevada caucuses will be over and the state, for better or worse, will have left its impression on the presidential nomination process.  In the mean time, the state is abuzz with unprecedented campaign activity and media attention.  In what follows are some observations about what has occurred to date and what is likely to occur between now and the 19th.

Nevada as the Saucer:

The post-reform presidential nomination process has been characterized by the Iowa caucus followed a few weeks later by the New Hampshire primary.  The gap between these two contests provided time for the media and voters to put the results of Iowa in perspective and gave candidates the opportunity to reevaluate their messages and strategies before testing their mettle again.  Not so in 2008.  Because of the desire of more states to have an earlier say in the process, New Hampshire moved its primary up five days after Iowa; providing little chance for meaningful reflection between the contests with the end result being a media narrative run amok. 

Thus, in 2008 the role, at least on the Democratic side, of the saucer that cools the passions of the early contests falls to the Silver State.  While this is exciting for Nevada, it has led to a good deal of consternation on a number of fronts. 

From a campaign strategy perspective, Nevada is an unknown.  The state’s diverse and transient population coupled with the untested caucus process on the Democratic side makes the identification of likely caucus voters difficult.  Ultimately, no one knows how many Nevadans will caucus on the 19th.  Certainly it will be more than the 10,000 who came out in 2004, but exactly how many more and what interests they will represent makes prediction in Nevada next to impossible.  

As a consequence and as reported by the Las Vegas Sun, national polling operations will be skipping Nevada (although given the polling to date in the nomination process, this might not be a bad thing).  While for reasons I have discussed in this space before, polling of caucus voters is fraught with all kinds of problems, the fact that there is no reliable polling in the state is significant in its own right.  It removes one of the staples central to the media’s campaign narrative and it further feeds impressions that Nevada might not be ready for primetime. 

Wildcards:

As the last week of campaigning heats up, there are at least three wildcards on the Democratic side to keep an eye on. 

First, the Democratic Party is allowing for same day voter registration on the 19th.  This means that caucus participants can show up at their caucus site, register as Democrats, and then immediately participate in the caucus (the GOP requires caucus participants to be registered a month prior to the caucuses).  This is likely to provide a boost to the Obama campaign.  In both Iowa and New Hampshire, Obama has demonstrated the ability to bring new voters into the process.  This has largely been out of necessity given Hillary Clinton’s ability to wrap up the support and resources of state party establishments (as she had done here).  To compete, Obama has been forced to expand the pool of voters and same day registration makes this easier to accomplish.

Second, the Democratic Party, as was the case in Iowa, is allowing those who will be eligible to vote in November to caucus in January.  This means that caucus sites could be overrun by a bunch of seventeen year olds.  Again, this is likely to work to the advantage of Obama given that his campaign has been putting a lot of effort to get young voters engaged in the process (my wife teaches high school and she has said that the Obama campaign has been relentless on this front).

Third, the state of the at large caucus sites is up in the air now that a suit has been filed on the grounds that these sites offer preferential treatment to Strip workers.  Putting aside the issue that no one has ever accused the caucus process of being fair or equitable, it is unlikely that the suit will be successful given that courts generally defer to political parties to run their business as they see fit.  Thus, assuming no judicial interference, the real question is how much discipline the Culinary Union will be able to instill over its rank-and-file members at these sites.  In particular, are Hispanics who are more likely to support Hillary Clinton going to break ranks with their union bosses and if so, what will be the consequences?  How this dynamic plays out will go a long way to explaining how Nevada was won.

Media Circus:

This week I and colleagues at UNLV and elsewhere have been inundated with media requests from national and international news outlets.  What quickly comes apparent from these conversations is that even the major, elite news outlets know next to nothing about Nevada and its politics.  Indeed, last week I met with a representative from the Japanese Embassy in Washington D.C. who came to Las Vegas to find out for himself what was happening here because he could not glean any useful information from the east coast. 

The net result of these media inquires is a seemingly endless regurgitation of what could be best described as Nevada Politics 101.  Of particular interest to the national and international media is the role that Hispanics and unions are likely to play in the process, as well as general questions regarding the issues that are salient in the state, which candidates have the leg up here, and why the Republicans are ignoring Nevada.

Lastly, I wanted to send a shout-out to Patrick Coolican for his outstanding political reporting of late.  Patrick’s dispatches from Iowa and New Hampshire were some of the best election coverage that I have read to date.  Too bad other prominent news outlets in the state do not allocate the same resources to their political reporting as the Sun.