Surging Sanders Could Surprise Nevada Caucus

[GreatGazoo]

Thoughtful analysis details 4 Mistakes by Team Clinton:

First, Nevada was one of the hardest-hit states during the financial crash caused by the corruptions of the rigged financial system Mr. Sanders is challenging and battling to dramatically reform. With Nevada recovering from the crash more slowly than many states, and with continuing concern about the state of the national economy, the Sanders message of populism and change is more powerful in Nevada than the political and financial insiders of the establishment understand.
...
Second, the establishment pundits have always assumed Ms. Clinton would ultimately receive the near-unanimous support of black and Hispanic voters. While the Clintons have earned much goodwill from minority communities, many minority voters are too young to remember most of the good works of the Clintons, and as voters have come to learn more about the progressive populist history and platform of Mr. Sanders, and his good works over many years, his support across all communities has risen.
...
Third, while Mr. Sanders has campaigned throughout Nevada for his positive agenda to create a political revolution that will make the American economy less rigged and more fair, Ms. Clinton has become a largely negative candidate with nonstop 24/7 attacks against Mr. Sanders that harden the low favorability and high distrust ratings plaguing her candidacy.
...
Fourth, as the Clinton campaign has become alarmed about the Nevada surge of Mr. Sanders, its campaign spinners have begun to disparage the Nevada caucus itself—a major blunder that is beginning to cause a substantial backlash from Nevada voters and even from prominent members of the Nevada establishment.

http://observer.com/2016/02/surging-sanders-could-surprise-nevada-caucus/

[stopbush]

1. Not very compelling.

A lot of maybe this and could be that.

NV in large part comes down to Vegas when you're talking the Democratic vote. The rest of the state leans red.

Vegas is a huge union town. Hillary has the endorsements of all but one union, and that union is staying neutral. Hillary has the endorsement of the liberal newspaper in town, and that paper means a lot to liberal voters, especially union voters (The LV Sun won the Pulitzer Prize a few years ago on their investigation exposing the high death rate among construction workers on The Strip, due mainly to lax enforcement of existing regulations).

I lived in Vegas for 3 years...got to shake John Kerry's hand at a big rally that was held at UNLV. Hillary has a much better ground game in NV than does Sanders. She has endorsements from unions that actually matter in a union town like Vegas.

Sanders' campaign has been tone deaf in NV, first by masquerading as union workers to infiltrate union lunchrooms to hand out campaign materials (a ploy that makes life difficult for union leaders who need to work with LV properties to get union lunchrooms into those properties in the first place. Sanders' little impersonation stunt puts at risk the owners even allowing union space in the building if the owners feel it's being abused), and when they went tone deaf and booked their campaign into a non-union hotel in Vegas.

Also misleading is 538's claim that the race is 50-50 in NV, as their claims were based on a push poll conducted by a RW organization for another RW organization.

NV could go Sanders way if he somehow pulls out all the stops and if all of those union workers suddenly have a change of heart, but it is a very heavy lift.

[GreatGazoo]

2. Why would Team Clinton disparage the NV caucuses if they didn't think they were sliding?

Their damage control mode says something about what they are seeing there.

[stopbush]

3. They have been disparaging caucuses all along. NV just got in the crosshairs.

They are doing what campaigns always do: downplay expectations so a win seems bigger and a loss seems smaller.

Getting Ds out to vote is always difficult. It's worse if your voters think the election is in the bag and their vote isn't needed. All candidates from all parties benefit in voter turnout if the race looks close.