Ron Paul places 2nd in Nevada

tombinghamthegreat · #1 (**permalink**) 01-19-2008, 04:28 PM

ABC News | Facebook
For Romney and Paul, Nevada Efforts Pay Off
Economy, Illegal Immigration Vy for Top Issue Among Voters
ANALYSIS By GARY LANGERJan. 19, 2008 — Share
In Nevada, Mitt Romney won the Republican caucuses perhaps chiefly because he tried.

The only candidate to work the state seriously, he prevailed across groups at Saturday's caucuses, with particular strength among his fellow Mormons, who turned out in large numbers; mainstream Republicans; conservatives; and on the personal qualities of values and experience.

The insurgent candidate Ron Paul, the only other Republican to run seriously in the state (and the only one to run TV ads), attracted significant support from independents and voters looking for a straight-talking candidate – good groups for John McCain elsewhere, where he campaigned. (In Nevada, per a Washington Post count, Romney held 15 campaign events, Paul 11, McCain and Rudy Giuliani 3 each, Mike Huckabee 1 and Fred Thompson none.)

Independents accounted for just 12 percent of caucus goers - but the entrance poll indicated that Paul won 51 percent of them.

Notable in Nevada was that Mormons make up just 9 percent of the state's population, but, in the entrance poll, accounted for 26 percent of Republican caucus-goers. Ninety-five percent of them supported Romney.

Romney, however, also prevailed in non-Mormon groups, and even led Mike Huckabee among evangelicals, 39-22 percent. (That's not unheard of; Romney won evangelicals in Michigan, 34-29 percent, after getting hammered in this group by Huckabee in Iowa.)

Caucus-goers said by a wide margin they were looking for a candidate who "shares my values," 45 percent picked it as the top attribute, and they went for Romney by a vast margin, 59-11 percent over Paul, with 9 percent for Huckabee. So did those looking for a candidate who has the right experience, 59 percent for Romney, 26 percent for John McCain. Among voters looking mainly for a candidate who "says what he believes," 25 percent of all caucus-goers, Romney won 34 percent support, but Paul came very close, with 30 percent.

On issues, the economy and illegal immigration vied for top spot; they were equally strong groups for Romney.

McCain, from neighboring Arizona, did best with Hispanics (about a tenth of caucus-goers), finishing a distant second in this group to Romney, 41-24 percent; among moderates, again second to Romney, 37-27 percent; and among late deciders, but again a distant second to Romney.

Divides Between Nevada Dems
The entrance poll in the Nevada Democratic caucuses found a sharp division among racial groups: African-American caucus-goers overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, 83-14 percent. But Hispanics favored Clinton by more than a 2-1 margin, and she won whites by a somewhat narrower 18 points, producing her overall victory.

Clinton ran about evenly with Obama among men, but prevailed among women; and while she lost the youngest caucus-goers to Obama, she won by an equally wide margin among those 60 and over, who made up a greater share of the electorate.

Despite losing the endorsement of the Culinary Workers Union to Obama, Clinton was competitive nonetheless among voters from union households, splitting them with Obama, 45-44 percent. And among non union-household voters she won by a 9-point margin in entrance poll results.

The final pre-caucus debate last week looks to have helped Clinton: More than two-thirds of Democratic caucus-goers described it as important to their vote, and she won them by 12 points. Among those who found it less important, by contrast, Obama had a 7-point edge.

Obama prevailed as the candidate who can bring about needed change – the No. 1. attribute by far – but Clinton came back on other attributes, notably having the right experience. And she had a wide advantage among the roughly 50 percent of voters who made up their minds more than a month ago.

Also helping Clinton was the heavy turnout by Democratic regulars - they accounted for eight in 10 caucus-goers, and Clinton won them by 12 points in the entrance poll. Obama won independents by about the same margin, but there were far fewer of them.

The entrance poll excluded the at-large caucuses held in nine Las Vegas casinos, making the results not fully representative of all caucus-goers. However, turnout at these nine caucuses amounted to only about 2 percent of total turnout statewide, so the non-coverage had minimal impact on the entrance poll results.

This is a great start in the West. In my socialist state of California, there is alot of support even in my home town. The local paper had a great article on Ron Paul since he has signs, cards and banners all over the place. Only problem, CA is a closed primary so only Republicans can vote for RP. The Republican party is out numbered by Democrat anywhere from 2-1 to 10-1 depending on the location in CA. The county I live in is majority Republicans so that is good. Hope some of my efforts have pay off.

**Brother of Yeshua** · 01-19-2008, 05:44 PM

They're really going to officially call it? The reports I saw were 96% reporting and he only had McCain by about 400 votes.

I'm all for it I think it's the best thing ever.

tombinghamthegreat · 01-19-2008, 05:51 PM

RP opponents are pissed he beat McCain/Guiliani/Huckabee. They are trying to say that it doesn't count. Mitt won by a land slide, relying on a strong Mormon base of supports. RP won the most independents.

AndtheDaysGoBy · 01-19-2008, 10:10 PM

wasn't there a thread somehwere that asked if a candidates religion really mattered? apparently to most mormons it does.. thats lame

**Brother of Yeshua** · 01-20-2008, 07:33 AM

This caucus is a big deal here's a clip from MSNBC with Chris Wallace and Tim Russert.

YouTube - Ron Paul MSNBC Discussion of 2nd Place Finish in NV

There are two points here. First, Olbermann is right, because that's what I said. There are still 4% of vote reports missing on the AP results page and 10% for the democrats. Right now there is a gap of 100 votes between the two, something 4% could easily change.

My question is why is the media suddenly being so nice to Ron Paul in this clip? Perhaps we have some rogue closeted Paul supporters in the media?

Point 2, Russert brings up some hard facts for Paul, such as beating Giuliani in "most" (I thought it was all) states so far and his amazing fundraising campaign.

Well let's show the world that Ron Paul is no "long shot," but the people's candidate by donating money TOMORROW on MLK Jr. Day.

Even 10 bucks is a help, and I think we all can come up with at least 10 bucks for the importance this man being elected has to (some of) us.

I know of at least a dozen people who are donating money, and are only doing so because I told them about it. They had no idea there even was a fundraiser.

Get out there and spread the word. Let's show what the vision shared by Dr. King and Dr. Paul means to us.

WillyBubba · 01-20-2008, 10:57 AM

I was most annoyed that, as I was watching results come in as Paul and McCain went back and forth for second, Thompson and Huckabee were getting more press than Paul. They talked about Romney and then McCain and skipped right down to the fourth and fifth places.

**Brother of Yeshua** · 01-20-2008, 01:50 PM

Check out this screenshot.

Also look at this

NY TIMES IGNORES PAUL

Chase_the_Bass · 01-20-2008, 01:52 PM

Seriously! I was watching it last night and they did that all night long. Barely reported on Ron Paul at all. I was pissed.

Ol' Patty · 01-20-2008, 02:11 PM

Interesting. Guess that article about Fox removing Ron Paul from the election was no joke. Fuck Fox. I can't even consider them a news station. Stop watching their bullshit when they are not even giving all the information when it's not just completely fucking wrong.

**Ristaron** · 01-20-2008, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndtheDaysGoBy

wasn't there a thread somehwere that asked if a candidates religion really mattered? apparently to most mormons it does.. thats lame

Unlike the "casual Christian", as I have come to refer to them as, Mormons tend to be more devoted to their faith, and it's not surprising that most of them would vote based on religion.
If you had a Scientologist candidate, you could assume Scientologists would vote for them.

It's arbitrary bullshit, like most politics these days. People annoy me so much. I remember back when it was "discovered" that Barack Obama's middle name was "Hussein", and everyone was like "oh my God, what do we do? There's a candidate whose parents named him a name that turned out to be shared by one of the worst war-criminals in the 20th century! What does this mean for America?"
What the fucking FUCK? It's not like he chose to be named after someone the Bush administration labeled an enemy forty/fifty years after he was born. It's not like he has a shrine of Saddam erected in his closet which he prays to every night so that he can have the strength to topple democracy. This meaningless bullshit just pisses me off! Vote on your candidates according to their policies, which you should research yourself rather than trusting Faux News to inform you about. Pay attention to their histories: do they flip/flop, or say one thing and do something else? Do they represent what's best for the country, or just what you would rather see in spite of the overwhelming need for the other option?
Honestly, you're not mature enough to vote if you can't make the decision for yourself.