CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

50%↑

15%

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 23, 2016 07:13 PM UTC

Nevada GOP Caucus Results Open Thread

  • 44 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols
His Hairness is the favorite to finish in first place in Nevada tonight.
His Hairness is the favorite to finish in first place in Nevada tonight.

WEDNESDAY UPDATE: Trump wins again, and with nearly 46% of the vote, His Hairness received a greater percentage of the vote than Marco Rubio (23.9%) and Ted Cruz (21.4%) combined.

—–

Nevada Republicans are caucusing tonight. Will Donald Trump pull out another victory, as expected?

Can Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz effectively spin a loss into a sort-of-win?

Click here to see results as they come in; numbers probably won’t start trickling in until well after 8:00 pm (MST).

In the meantime, talk it out, Polsters…

 

Comments

44 thoughts on “Nevada GOP Caucus Results Open Thread

  1. Yeah – this sounds like it's going great…

    People reporting caucus volunteers in Trump T-shirts (they're apparently not supposed to show preference). People not checking IDs or even checking people in – with the resulting double-Trump vote already reported. One precinct with no volunteers and a whole bunch of Republicans wanting to vote.

    One Rubio person quoted saying: "it's a shit show"

    1. And MSNBC reported that the Donald himself came in to the caucus site to schmooze the voters and get his picture taken. I mean, I know he thinks that he's above the rules, but are there no rules?

      I thought that politicking within the caucus site itself was prohibited. Or am I being dangerously naive, again?

      If I’m right, I’m surprised that those crusty old ladies didn’t scold him and tell him to get his butt outta there. BlueCat, where are your GOP counterparts when we need them?

      1. I don't know about Nevada, but I think a Colorado caucus would be thrilled to have an actual candidate show up rather than a local representative.

        There aren't supposed to be signs of support (e.g. T-shirts) among the volunteers in Nevada, but I am led to believe that Carson, Trump, and Glen Beck were all at the same caucus site at one point. It was "chaotic".

        1. Caucus, after all, is a party function, not a state election. It's the opposite of secret ballot. Here in Colorado the point is to openly support your candidate, try to convince others why they should, too. The party officers and volunteers who run the caucus are also participants in their own precincts who openly support the candidates of their choice just as everyone else does. Speeches are given for candidates and there would be nothing wrong with a candidate appearing to give a speech for him or herself.

          Whatever rules apply are up to the party. I think those going nuts over organizers who are Trump supporters wearing Trump gear at a caucus don't understand what a caucus is. In any case, considering the landslide by which Trump is winning it's unlikely due to some organizers wearing Trump hats.

      2. It's fine for a candidate to come to caucus, mama. My objection was to the HRC supporters who demanded to come in and distribute their lit and set up check-in tables of their own, calling themselves precinct captains (which they were only for the HRC campaign, not for the Dem party) before we, the Dem party functionaries organizing the caucus, had set up and opened it. Of course only we would be checking people in and we certainly weren't going to allow any confusing parallel pseudo official check in process. As if, with the overwhelming turn out of first time participants in 2008 (some precincts that normally had 12 to 18 people showing up had more like 70 or 80 ) people weren't confused enough. 

        But once the caucus is open and you start letting people in the whole point is that the supporters of the different candidates get to publicly support them and argue for them, try to get people to change their minds and try to influence undecideds to come over to their side. Even the obnoxious HRC campaign "precinct captains" of 2008. It’s pretty much the opposite of going to a polling place to vote in an election where none of that is allowed.

    1. All the way from the Presidential race, down to the school boards and library districts and local P&Z Commissions.

      The senate races, ones like our's especially, the House, 

      state legislators, etc.  No real energy anywhere.

      i know we're all too busy working, and being ill, and stuff, but we really can be betting the whole thing because another generation of the richer getting even richer and the rest getting further and further behind, and those with assets and ability will care more about their returns than the rights and duties of  their citizenship, and those with just ability will realize their most appealing  opportunities are not here.

       

      1. agreed. 

        The "enthusementum" is all on their side and we could all list about 50 reasons for that. 

        Establishment Dems not showing me much smarts: DWS, locals, etc…….like you said.

        We laugh that they're going to "take back" the country? Well, we're "giving it" back.

    2. Here's an idea.  Let's spit on the women who have been our parrty's core for a half century, slam the most qualified non-incumbent since Roosefelt, and nominate a 74 year old guy who didn't even join ourr party untill last year and can't generate enthusiasm among minorities or LGBT voters who we need desperately.  Boy, that is a roadmap for victory…in Vermont.  So, we lose the other 49 states.  But at least we kept the women in their place.

      1. I don't disagree with all you say but I still don't get how HRC is the most experienced presidential candidate ever or even since Roosevelt. Her entire career in elected politics consists of one term and change as a Senator and there's also her experience as SOS.  Certainly strong enough qualifications  and certainly more than some other would be presidential candiates can boast but not uniquely extraordinary.

        Other than that she was the wife of a Governor and the wife of a President. Her political career in her own right goes back only to her election to the Senate in 2000. I can think of lots of candidates aspiring to the nomination to run for their party as the presidential candidate with more extensive resumes than that. 

        This is not to argue that she isn't qualified. I think she is. But the claim put forward by her supporters that she is the most experienced presidential candidate ever (or even with your caveat) doesn't hold water. It seems more of an emotional claim than an objective one. 

        1. BC I think your analysis is correct. Besides lets all remember that Richard Nixon had served in the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate and eight years as vice president under President Eisenhower before he was elected President. He certainly had more experience than HRC but things didn't work out too well. Experience is important but it isn't everything.

        2. BC, the claim is most experienced non-incumbent since FDR, not candidate.  And I stand by it.   As for Nixon, he was never Secretary of state, a job that worked well when Jefferson had it.   But her work with children's defense fund, all the stuff she did in Arkansas with education, those count as public life albeit non-elected.  And s first lady she was sort of Bills Eleanor.   Compare her to Trump and the seven dwarfs or to Bernie and, yes, her experience is far more varied and extensive.  Of course, she was never mayor of Wasilla or Burlington .  But she did go to a Burlington Coat Factory oncesmiley

          1. You can refine your personal defiition all you want. Others don't have to accept it or that SOS trumps (sorry) all other experience. I would say that by an objective definition Joe Biden had more experience than HRC has now having spent almost his entire adult life as an elected legislator including  the leadership of very important committees.  If you are is insisting  on cabinet  membership here's an example of another cabinet member with legislative experience

            The first Republican was former U.S. Treasury Secretary John Connally. He sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1980. Connally was the first major party presidential candidate to refuse to accept federal matching funds. Connally proved a prolific fundraiser, raising $11 million. However, the money raised did not translate into votes, and Connally could not defeat the juggernaut for frontrunner Ronald Reagan. Ada Mills of Clarksville, Arkansas was the only delegate Connally accrued.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rich-rubino/can-hillary-clinton-break_b_3857885.html

            Not SOS but where in”most experiences” is there the stipulation that experience as SOS for a few years counts more than any other length of time in any other capacity?

            1. A little sloppy editing and of course I mean when Joe Biden was a candidate for the nomination in 2008. These are just a couple of examples.

              In short, you can only make the claim that HRC is the most experienced by making your own subjective adjustments to the term and narrowing your definition with caveats.  She certainly has spent no extraordinary amount of time in either elected or combined elected and appointed office for a seeker of a presidential nomination.

              I'll vote for her but not because of the phony sales pitch that she has some amazing historic level of experience and qualification. I believe she has an adequate level of each by objective standards.

          2. More experienced than Gore, Mondale, or LBJ?  None of them were incumbents, all of them did much more time in the legislature, and all served as Vice President. I get that folks think Hillary is qualified.  I even understand the "more qualified than Bernie" argument, although I disagree.  But that's just not a viable position to my mind.

            Turnout so far isn't looking great compared to 2008, and Hillary, and her supporters, are full of reasons why she's the most qualified to be president, but very few why anyone should want to vote her in there (except for the not going to Hell thing).  She needs to start inspiring folks, or people will not turn out for her and we'll all be watching history unfold in the still-Republican Senate as they send up their bills to President TRUMP™ (or, at least, you all will, as I'll be up in Canada, eh).  Hillary's pitch so far consists of how much better off we'll all be if she becomes president.  Tell us why that's important to us rather than telling us how ridiculous we're all being by not seeing its self-evident nature.

          3. Here's another: Bill Richardson who sought the presidential nomination with a resume including congressman, Secretary of Energy, Ambassador to UN, Governor. Not an incumbent. I think you'll find few who share your opinion that one stint as SOS  justifies calling HRC more experienced than Bill Richardson. And experienced as what? The nation’s top diplomat, a position that for numerous decades neither party has considered to be an important qualification for President as evidenced by the fact they haven't come close to selecting one to be their standard bearer. You're making up your own rules about what the meaning of "most experienced" is. 

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Richardson

            1. By candidate I mean nominee, which Biden , Connally et al. Never were.  Of course Hillary isn't the nominee either but it is just silly to compare her to everyone who ever walked the earth.  And Socialisticat, LBJ wasn't the nominee either.  No doubt the most qualified candidate ever was former Secretary of State Henry Clay.  He lost three times.  But I am comparing Hillary to actual nominees since FDR and she eclipses the field.  Nixon had no actual executive experience unless you count all those funerals.  Neither Gore or Mondale ever ran an executive department,  though they too attended a lot of funerals.  Five Secretaries of state became presidents and as much as you hate history, BC, that office is still America's face to the world, second only to POTUS.  Speaking of Richardson, a superb leader, I always thought his Anglo surname held him back when talk turned to outstanding Latinos.  Over to you for another round of Hillary bashing, sigh.

                1. Why don't you ask the she sold out to Wall Street crowd?  But that was aimed at BC, Soshi, who discounts everything she did while married to bill __ which I regard as among her highest achievements -education reform,  Children's defense fund, etc.  As to no SOS being president since Buchanan, I can't think of a modern one who tried, except for Al "I'm in charge here" Haig.  It is still regarded as the most prestigious post in the cabinet.

              1. Really V? I thought we were talking about candidates for the nomination which is what HRC is. She isn't a candidate either if we're supposed to be talking only about Presidential candidates for the general, not that it would be true there either. You're going to run out of room real soon at the rate you keep moving the goal posts to avoid admitting the obvious truth that she is not the most experienced candidate ever or in the last century or who isn't an incumbent or whatever you'll come up with next.

                And I don't have to discount what she or any other First Lady of a state or the of the country has done to refrain from including that as having equal weight in a resume for the job as the country’s highest elected office holder with experience in elected office which HRC does not have to any extraordinary degree any more than many past and present aspirants to the presidency.

                I'm not discounting anything nor am I saying she isn't qualified. You, on the other hand, are having a hissy fit over the prospect of admitting the whole most experienced in the last century (or whatever) sales pitch is objectively incorrect. Otherwise you wouldn't have to keep redefining what it means and refining the context in which it applies.

                How long before we get to…. it depends on what the meaning of "is" is?

                 

                1. That, BC, depends on what the meaning of "depends" is.  ( Not always a safe subject for a man of my advanced years.)

                  I don't think it is moving the goal posts to compare Hillary with previous nominees or other current candidates., since I think that is what that comparison is generally meant to mean.   Unfortunately, being a history nut has its drawbacks.   I overlooked Adlai Stevenson.  He, not Hillary was probably the most qualified non-incumbent since FDR.  Unfortunately he ran against Ike.  With Adlai I consider both his experience and his intellect.

                  With FDR it is worth remembering that, besides being gov of New York, he had been a state legislator and Mama's boy to one of the most formidable dragon ladies ever.   Also, critically, under secretary of the Navy under Wilson and spouse of Eleanor.   Did I mention he had a zipper problem?  Back then, the press kept silent about such things.

                     OK, revised straw man for you to assail: If nominated Hillary would be the best qualified non-incumbent nominee for President since Adlai Stevenson.   If you don't count the fact that she is a Yankees fan.  And may have been a Cubs fan.   Oh, Screw it:

                  "Hillary is a head taller than Bernie Sanders and ten thousand times more qualified than Donald Trump!"

                  1. OK. If that's your final refinement. It's not your comparing her to previous or current nominees that I see as moving the goal posts but the conditions you seem to keep adding as requirements for meeting your criteria.  

                    Your particular definition aside, we keep hearing from her supporters who aren't as specific in these matters as you are that she is the most experienced person ever to run for the office. Not the most who is not an incumbent. Not the most who has actually been the final choice and candidate in the general (those running for the nomination are also called candidates and so far that kind of candidate is what HRC still is). Just the most experienced, most qualified, period. 

                    That is objectively inaccurate. 

                    BTW I wasn't around at the time but everyone I'm related to by blood who was around and old enough to vote at the time did vote for Adlai.  

                  2. V, "Hillary is a head taller than Bernie Sanders…" may be the best argument yet, trivial as it is. How tall is Trump? When was the last time the shorter candidate won in the General? Of course, I'm not sure that rule will hold if the taller candidate is a woman but it just might. 

  2. His Hairness didn't just win last night as expected. It was another two to one blow-out with the two Cubans fighting over second place. He ended up with 45% which in a three – or to be charitable, five – person race is not bad.

    If the GOP hasn't already passed the point of no return, that will probably happen next Tuesday. If Cruz cannot win Texas and all his Bible-thumping southern states, he's out. But a lot of his anti-immigrant supporters will flock to the Donald rather than Rubio.

    Moddy, have you learned to stop worrying and learned to love the Donald?

      1. Hmmmmm …

        … now that you mention it, the way that things work in MuddleLand (Romney, Gessler, Beauprez, …) that sneaky fluffy bastard may have been intentionally hired to tank Rubio — with his support …

        … Anyone recall anyone saying they'd ever seen Moderatus and Donald's personal "hair" dresser in the same picture???

    1. Well, he said he'd stay in until March 15 (which is when the Florida primary is held). By unfortunate coincidence for him, Kaisich will also be in the race until March 15th, because Ohio's primary is also held that day.

      1. And Trump is running a respectable second to Cruz in Texas.  All Hail His Hairness — the next Republican nominee!  

        It will be glorious to see the GOP shatter into a million pieces in November (if not sooner)

    2. A few weeks ago Rubio was polling at 11% in Florida and JEB! was at 10%. Looks like 40% of JEB!'s 10% has migrated (dicey word to use in describing Repubs) toward Rubio.

      It just occurred to me. We've never had a First Lady named Melania. Yet.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

33 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!