Clinton Looking Desperate In Nevada

Nevada Caucus

After Clinton’s major defeat in New Hampshire the race moves on to Nevada, where various commentators are noting the smell of fear from the Clinton camp with their dishonest spin, and predicting that the race might “be tighter than predicted” and even that, “I feel the Clinton firewall cracking.”  The Clinton camp are claiming that Nevada is 80 percent white and much like Iowa and New Hampshire. A Nevada political observer sets the record straight:

Nevada’s Hispanic population is about 27 percent. African-Americans and Asian/Pacific Islanders make up; almost 10 percent. That is, nearly half of the state’s population is made up of minorities.

The Democratic caucus population was 35 percent minority in 2008, according to exit polls, and is expected to be as high as 40 percent in 2016, according to local Democratic sources. This is nothing like the 90 percent white caucus participation in Iowa, for instance.

One Clinton campaign source explained that some of the campaign’s modeling showed an 80 percent turnout in Nevada come Feb. 20. This would be the model constructed after 14 martinis, perhaps. Or, more likely, one that does not exist except in the fevered imaginations and panicked consciousnesses of a Clinton organization that just last year was touting its minority outreach in Nevada.

The inestimable Adam Nagourney of The New York Times ignored the nonsense in a piece Wednesday that pointed out that Nevada is “as racially diverse as Iowa and New Hampshire are not.”

There is no reliable polling in Nevada — at least not yet. But the conventional wisdom had been that Clinton had a huge advantage here, especially because Team Sanders did not arrive until October. Not anymore

Plus confirmation that the Justice Department is also investigating the Clinton Foundation cannot be good news for Hillary.


  1. 1
    Mike Hatcher says:

    Candidly, a conservative such as myself might say Hillary sounded pretty good in last night's debates. She sounded quite conservative. But of course, conservative statements or liberal statements, most have learned not to trust anything Hillary says. Just this morning I saw on the MSN homepage a "hit piece" on Bernie Sanders for pointing his finger in the air.  It made me think of another story claiming some journalist writers take direction from the Clinton camp on what to write. In Frank Underhill style, now I seem to have to not only doubt what she says, but also anything written that supports her falls under a cloud.  Ron, you can add or delete the following link depending on your opinion of it's validity.

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    Clinton had some quite dishonest statements last night. I will be posting later when I have time. (At lunch time if possible, otherwise this evening).

    I haven’t looked at your link from Reason yet but I recently posted a link on Facebook, I believe from Gawker, which was on the same topic. I bet they used the same source.

    I recently saw an amusing take on Sanders pointing his finger in the air. I believe it was on Samantha Bee’s new show in a segment on last week’s debate. She joked that Sanders was hailing a cab. (She made fun of all the candidates, which is fair game and expected on such a show.)

  3. 3
    Mike Hatcher says:

    You are right about that link being the same as Gawker.  However, with regards to the MSN/Washington Post-Sanders finger wagging story, it isn't funny at all, it is clearly a mean spirited attack essentially trying to make Sanders look like he is condescending, talking down, scolding Hillary.  The article is pretty worthless, but it makes me think it was probably "purchase-ordered" by the Clinton camp.

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    I could easily see such a story being mean spirited, as opposed to the comedy segment I was referring to.

Leave a comment