Flashpoint:

Could it be that Harry Reid…

Monday, Jan. 7, 2008 | 2 a.m.

Could it be that Harry Reid isn’t really insane? Bear with me. Remember how much grief Reid took and I was among the grief-givers for suggesting that 100,000 or a quarter of Nevada Democrats would turn out for the caucus here on Jan. 19. That’s 10 times the turnout of 2004. Yes, we are a player now, but that seems fanciful. But just look at what happened in Iowa, with turnout nearly doubling what projections were because of the enthusiasm Democrats are feeling for the race. If it happens in New Hampshire, too, could it happen in Nevada? Democrats here would be thrilled with 50,000 and believe 40,000 may be a more reasonable goal. But what if it’s double here, too? I sure would hate to take grief from Reid ...

Discussion: 7 comments so far…

By texex

1/11/08 at 8:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

No, Jon, it couldn't be....

But where is Hairless money-wise on contributing to the miscarriage he fathered? So far his Searchlight has given a measley $5,000!(per FEC records) Yet he raised some $3.8 million in '07 for 'ol Numero Uno so it's not like he's as broke as the Nevada Dems.
By cignetti

1/11/08 at 11:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

We are engaging in a process that started in the 19th century and is now obsolete, wastes money that could be better spent and further increases apathy of the voters. Start the process 6 months before election, use the media in the debates and advertising. In November let the people decide and get rid of the rest. Right now if you took all the canidates put them together they wouldn't make a pimple on a good presidents behind. There are no leaders in the present dismal bunch.
By texex

1/11/08 at 12:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Good points, Cig, but the caucus process goes back to Elizabethan merry 'ol England.

It certainly is not the American way of one person/one vote but the elitist way of picking their own candidates.

Sure we are in a dire leadership vacuum in this country - no doubt about that when the likes of Hairless Reid and Mitch McConnell are the best we can get to run the U.S. Senate.

We have to start thinking outside the box and voting outside the box. Right now in Nevada we have to get rid of this ridiculous caucusux sytem and get to a primary system where we can vote for who we want to and not have to go through a fight with the neighbors. This is absurd!
By ADR

1/11/08 at 10:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

First-compare Iowa to NH-then realize an impediment to slot-jokey voting is important. People who are not willing to inform themselves on the issues and back up their decision- shouldn't vote. The USA's in trouble and we need serious people voting with their heads. Maybe not a caucus-but how about a quiz on current events? My two cents are: Democrats have a chance to elect a candidate we like and who can win, and that's Obama. Please visit his web site, read his books, I'm telling you- he's the real deal!
By NVFactCheck

1/12/08 at 7:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Oh, texex, y'all appear to be incapable of change. The money given for the caucus does not get reported to the FEC, for the 99th time. It's non-federal money that has special status as it's used for selection of party delegates. Go take a class in this stuff before you embarrass yourself further.

I'm all for an open primary though, with mail-in and early voting to let everyone participate.
By Ginger

1/13/08 at 8:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Well, we won't have that many turn out if they disenfranchise the union workers at the casinos. But Harry is against letting the union workers vote at the casino, right? Say it ain't so, Harry.
By rem123

1/14/08 at 8:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lol...40,000-50,000 is wishful thinking on Harry Reid's part, but those number are not practical. In 2004 voter turn out was around 9,000.