Record Nevada Turnout for Both Parties

LAS VEGAS — Voters showed up in record numbers for Saturday's presidential caucuses in Nevada, surprising Democratic and Republican organizers who anticipated lower turnouts instead of overflow crowds.

About 116,000 Democrats, 28 percent of all Nevada's registered Democrats, showed up at 520 precincts around the state. The previous record for a Democratic caucus was nearly 9,000 who turned out for the 2004 presidential race.

More than 44,000 Republicans, 11 percent of registered GOP voters, were on hand at 113 precincts. The most the Nevada GOP had drawn to a presidential caucus before was 2,000 to 3,000 voters, according to party officials.

"It's off the charts," said Jill Derby, the state Democratic Party chairwoman. "There were some bumps in the road. We ran out of forms, the lines were too long and the rooms were too small. But, hey, that's good news."

Democratic Party organizers had figured 40,000 to just over 70,000 people would attend the caucuses. On Friday, they cautiously upped their low turnout estimate to about 50,000.

Zack Moyle, executive director of the state Republican Party, said GOP organizers figured on 25,000 to 40,000 caucus-goers at most.

"I'm not going to lie to you. There were days we were praying to get to that 25,000 number," Moyle said. "We dwarfed any of our previous numbers, that's for sure. Overwhelming might be a good word."

Comments

[Orikinla]

sawdustinhershoes,
Please, copy and fax your rational commentary on the Nevada Caucuses to Senator Barack Obama, because he whining that the Clintons cheated him.

Obama's bait to praise Ronald Reagan to win more white voters failed and made him to lose the support of many liberals.

"I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10 to 15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom," Obama told the Reno Gazette-Journal editorial board, last Monday.

The above misleading statement has cost Obama the support of millions of Democrats as John Edwards said:
"Ronald Reagan, the man who busted unions, the man who did everything in his power to destroy the organized labor movement, the man who created a tax structure that favored the richest Americans against middle class and working families, ... we know that Ronald Reagan is not an example of change for a presidential candidate running in the Democratic Party."

~ http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/2325872

Only a naive and ignorant Democrat will call the GOP, the party of ideas!
Obama is showing his true colours.

[ConcernAmerican]

The winner in Nevada yesterday was the PEOPLE.

[gevan]

As of 11 AM on Sunday under eleven thousand votes have been tabulated. WTF is up with that?

[sawdustinhershoes]

This is the real news.

Not who won which state, it's the huge numbers of voters who showed up.

The article refers to huge numbers for both parties, however, 116,000 democrats versus 44,000 republicans is a bit lopsided. The article should instead be headlined that turnout for the Nevada vote had democrats turning out in numbers almost three times that of the republicans.

Nevada is not a deomocratic bastion. The republicans have won there a lot.

What this vote shows is that voters are riled-up by the direction of the country, and democrats in particular are determined to see a change.

It doesn't matter which democrat wins the primaries. The democrats (and independents) will beat the republicans almost three to one.

I mean, hasn't that been about the ratio who have supported Bush all along anyway? About 30-33%?

What I'm saying is that the democrats would do well to get along to ensure they regain the presidency, and then sort out their differences later.

It's the democrats election to lose.