Dinner party for four: Is Nevada a political game-changer or a primary wannabe?

As Democratic presidential hopefuls prepare for a group dinner in Nevada, a state whose early primary elections and growing Latino population could make it an important early battleground.

Jacquelyn Martin/AP
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nev., center, accompanied by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 17, 2015.

All three Democratic presidential hopefuls are set to join Senate minority leader Harry Reid at a party dinner in Nevada on Jan. 6, six weeks before the state’s presidential caucus.

The West Caucus Countdown Dinner will be the second time former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley are featured together at an event in Nevada, following the Democratic debate on Oct. 13.  

All three Democratic candidates, and several Republican candidates, have already focused on the western state individually and this dinner suggests Nevada’s growing importance in the 2016 presidential election. 

“You’re part of the big four in February. It’s hugely important,” GOP candidate Jeb Bush told reporters in Reno Wednesday after a campaign rally. 

So why are presidential candidates from both parties courting Nevada’s favor? Political pundits need to look no further than its new early-voting status and growing Hispanic population.

“Nevada is a more complicated state than Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, with an expanding active Latino population, as well as a growing melting pot of other cultures,” argues Elaine Hurd, the author of the "Let’s Talk Nevada" blog.

According to the 2014 US Census, 27.8 percent of Nevada’s population identifies as Hispanic or Latino, well above the 17.4 percent national average.

And while the Hispanic population of nearly 8000,000 is far less than the state's non-Hispanic population of 2 million, it's no secret that this demographic could be a massive opportunity for either party. Between 2000 and 2012, the Hispanic population grew by almost 49 percent, and the Pew Hispanic Center projects another 40 percent growth in the Hispanic electorate before 2030.

And as of 2008, Nevada is the third state after Iowa and New Hampshire to vote in a presidential primary. The past two election cycles have been somewhat of an experiment, with candidates describing the process as "confusing" and "complicated."

But even with a building focus, presidential candidates have yet to put Nevada on the same playing field as Iowa, New Hampshire, or even South Carolina.

“Candidates insist Nevada is important, though the numbers suggest otherwise,” argued McClatchy DC’s David Lightman in October.

Sen. Sanders, for example, has 60 paid staffers in Iowa, 40 in New Hampshire and only seven in Nevada. And according to the National Journal’s Travel Tracker, GOP candidates Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump have visited South Carolina a combined total of 48 times since May, compared to 18 total trips to Nevada during the same time period.

Jeb Bush symbolized the simultaneous political apathy for Nevada during his speech in Reno Wednesday, when he pronounced "Nevada" incorrectly and was quickly corrected by a shouting audience.  

But even though Nevada asserts its own importance in many ways, some experts say political candidates should be more focused on the Silver State. 

Nevada has carried the overall winning candidate in every presidential election since 1980, electing Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama to their two terms as president. David Damore, an associate professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, says Nevada hasn’t become a swing state – “it’s the original swing state.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Dinner party for four: Is Nevada a political game-changer or a primary wannabe?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today