On Feb. 6, Nevada held both its Democrat and Republican primaries, and on Feb. 8, it held its Republican caucus. Nevada state law requires a primary election, but the Republican party decided to hold its own caucuses, which are meetings run by the party that only Republicans can attend. This decision makes the state-run presidential primary symbolic, as only the caucus winner will receive delegates from Nevada. One candidate cannot run in both the primary and caucus.
As we learned in class, caucuses require that a candidate have strong grassroots support in the state, as participating in a caucus takes more effort and time for voters. Many believe a caucus gives Trump an advantage over other candidates, due to his grassroots appeal and the loyalty of his supporters.
Nikki Haley chose to participate in the primary, refusing to pay $55,000 to participate in the Nevada caucus, while Donald Trump chose the caucus. Thus, Haley had no opportunity to win delegates from Nevada. Republicans in Nevada felt disrespected by Haley’s choice, as it implies she does not care about winning their delegates. Haley barely campaigned in Nevada, saying she would “focus on the states that are fair.”
According to NBC News, the primaries confused many voters, who prepared to vote in the Nevada primaries and did not see Trump’s name on the ballot. Additionally, Republican Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo publicly endorsed Trump and said he would vote for the option “none of the candidates,” which likely inspired other Trump supporters to vote for this option to show their support for Trump.
The “none of these candidates” option was added to the ballot by Nevada lawmakers in 1976 for all statewide races to encourage participation. Post-Watergate, voters were frustrated by their options, and this allowed them to continue voting while expressing that dissatisfaction. In these primaries, this option similarly allowed Trump supporters to participate in the primaries while expressing their discontent with the way the primaries were set up.
In the primaries, the “none of these candidates” option won with more than a 2-to-1 margin over Haley. Many view this loss as a significant blow to Haley’s campaign. In the caucus, Trump won all 26 Nevada delegates.
In my opinion, what went down in Nevada speaks to the current political climate. It reveals the loyalty and dedication of Trump’s base to turn up for the primaries to symbolically vote with the “none of these candidates” option. This in turn exemplifies how people are able to express their discontent in a democratic system through voting in elections.
Due to the way this system was set up, there was no competition for the Nevada delegates; Trump was set to win as he was the only major candidate on the ballot for the caucus. Competition is vital for democracy, so this set-up without competition seems undemocratic.
Furthermore, it accentuates the issue of organization for primary elections. Both the state and parties independently decide how they wish to organize the primary election, which can make the final process complex and incoherent. It was troublesome to see voters' confusion between primary and caucus and the candidate's choice. We discussed in class how complicated voting processes for the local, state, and federal government made voting less accessible. I believe this is dangerous for democracy, as confusing election processes deter political participation.
What do you think about these Nevada elections? Did each candidate make the best choice given their circumstances? What could be the impact of this turnout on future elections?
Sources:
6 comments:
Honestly, I think Nikki Haley chose the best decision possible. At the end of the day, she knew she wouldn't have won the caucus with Trump in it, just because of his insane fanbase. I think her supporters in Nevada who were disappointed and angry to see she hadn't signed up to be in the caucus don't see the entire picture. Being the winner of the primaries (even if it doesn't count towards earning the states' delegates) is arguably a bigger political campaign move than losing drastically to Trump in something that does count. So I understand where Haley is coming from.
I agree with the previous commenter that Haley didn't stand a chance to Trump, but I'd point out that, as Carole mentions in the blog post, while she was technically declared winner in the primary because she was the only one on the ballot, she was heavily outvoted by the option "None of These Candidates," which, in some ways, might be even worse than losing to Trump because she somehow lost in a race where she was the only one running. I suppose she can make the excuse of not campaigning in Nevada, but I guess we'll see how she does in South Carolina's primary, because especially considering its her home state, it might be the final blow to her campaign to lose.
Also, I completely agree with Carole's point about the confusing election process being an obstacle for voter turn out. To be honest, I still don't fully understand why the Republican party is able to (and chooses to) hold a caucus and allocate delegates that way, basically ignoring the state-mandated primary, and why candidates can't participate in both. Either way, it's unnecessarily complicated, and I recall reading that many voters showed up to the primary to vote and were confused why Trump wasn't on the ballot.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/08/us/politics/trump-wins-nevada-caucuses.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
I am also somewhat confused why the Nevada Republican Party would choose to have the delegates determined by a caucus rather than a primary. Both are closed, so it wasn't about tactical cross-party voting. The New York Times speculates that it might be because Trump has close ties with the Nevada Republican Party, and having a caucus would benefit him, because, as Carole stated, he has "grassroots" appeal. Nevada allocates its Republican delegates proportionally, so the difference might've mattered. Either way, it looks incredibly suspicious.
https://www.nytimes.com/article/nevada-caucus-primary-explainer.html
https://ballotpedia.org/Republican_delegate_rules,_2020
I agree with Maya, I think its important to remember how intense the campaign / campaign workers are for any political. Nikki haley was, I would assume, told by people who work for her that according to their data / prior polls she doesn't have a chance to have a "fair shot" at Nevada. So she probably felt that it would be a lot safer to take that money which she would have spent in Nevada and put it to a flip state / state where she nor Trump had a strong base in. I agree 110% on what you said on how it reveals the loyalty of Trumps fan base, from my interactions with trump supporters its very hard to sway them a different way / show them a different POV that sits against trumps beliefs. Ultimately I think she felt again that like you said trumps presence was too big for her to overcome.
Although Haley opted out of the caucus, I think being in the symbolic primary really damaged her momentum going into this race, since the "None of the Above" primary option ended up beating her by a big margin.
Thank you all for your interaction on my post!
I agree with Aurin that Haley likely gave up on Nevada and decided to focus on campaigning in states where she may have a chance to win delegates. In my opinion, these processes with the primaries/caucuses to win delegates is undemocratic because, if Haley won the nomination for the Republican party, then she would have done so completely without the input of Nevada citizens, which isn't fair for them. That's why I can understand they felt disrespected by her choice to participate in the symbolic primary.
I agree with Rachel that the election process in Nevada was unnecessarily complicated. The dissonance between the state organization and the party organization should not be something that's allowed, but I think that's the problem with a decentralized primary/caucus system to choose nominations.
I agree with Maya that winning the primaries would be better for Haley than losing to Trump in the caucus, but I can also see Chris' perspective wherein she lost so much to the "None of these candidates" option in the primary that it actually harmed her momentum.
Post a Comment